Star Trek

Previously on Movies at Random:

I have a feeling that Star Trek: The New One will be a lot like [Wrath of Khan], albeit with better special effects and worse camerawork, given the trendiness of shaky cam. Not so much a matter of the story being similar, but the general approach, a little bit of character development and fleshing out of back story, but a lot of space adventure and little fanboy moments.

Having seen it, I nailed it.

So, with our new Star Trek, we've got Eric Bana as a tattooed Romulan from the future who wants revenge on Spock. He's gotten his hands on some something technology, which was meant for good but can destroy planets and conveniently create brand new continuity for the writers to mess around with. Lots of crap blows up and the main characters, Kirk and Spock especially, learn important lessons about themselves. It's almost a template plot, though the details are changed enough to make it somewhat interesting.

Let's start with the good then. Christopher Pine's Kirk captures all of the cocky essence of the Shatner original, Zachary Quinto does a damn good Spock and Karl Urban's McCoy is pretty much spot on. Better still, they've got that elusive chemistry that Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly had, no idea how lightning struck twice there, but it did. The writers had a fairly good handle on the essence of the characters and there was a clear connection between the younger versions and the older ones that everyone knows. For the peripheral characters, Uhura actually has a point for once - even if it's kinda weird - and Simon Pegg is Scotty, and if there's anything the world needs more of, it's Simon Pegg. The story isn't amazing, really, but it does the job and neatly sets up the new and improved universe.

Not that all the casting is perfect. Harold of Harold and Kumar is not a very good actor, and doesn't have more than one facial expression, so his Sulu never goes beyond "hey, it's that guy from Harold and Kumar, what's he doing here?" Chekov gets off much worse, unfortunately, turning into a wacky wussian Wesley Cwusher.

I could complain about Eric Bana's villain not really having much to do or an interesting motivation (or for that matter, a very good name. Nero? Are you kidding me?), but he's more a plot device designed to get Spock and Kirk fighting and doing interesting things, a job he does admirably. I will definitely complain about the stupid, pointless car chase scene, since it adds absolutely nothing to either the story or Kirk's character, introduces a step father who is never mentioned again, and which had the sole purpose of setting up a stupid running joke of Kirk constantly dangling on ledges. There is no reason why it should be in the final cut, apart from probably being expensive to shoot.

Still, I liked how the characters were handled, for the most part. Both Kirk and Spock were very complex and well portrayed, with Spock's attempts to repress his emotions leading to several fantastically written and acted scenes. While Spock often talks about logic, there's clear emotion behind what he does, and a bit of a petty rivalry going between him and Kirk that propels much of the film. It's great.

Note how I specifically mentioned that the scenes were fantastically written and acted. Normally, I would say that the scenes are good, full stop. Here's the problem though, this movie has the worst camerawork and editing I have ever seen, and I have seen Catwoman.

The opening scene is just visual vomit. Chunks of a decent action scene spewed into an indistinct mass where you can barely tell what everything was supposed to be. There's too much lens flare, the camera cuts when it should hold a shot, and swings wildly around when just cutting like a normal person would do. Scenes are shot handheld for no reason other than handheld being fashionable, the camera does crazy moves for no reason period. Shots are frequently badly composed - though at least it's always moving, so you get a wide variety of badly composed frames - and all of the polish and flare is used to try to hide that.

For an example, I'll use a scene where Spock is in front of a selection committee for the Vulcan Science Academy. I also dislike the set design here (why are they all on huge pedestals? That's illogical), but let's focus on the camera work. A competent director would set the scene with a couple of wide shots and film the majority of it with medium shots or close ups, as to not distract from the dialog. Also, they would limit lens flare.

What someone who knew what the hell they were doing would never do under any circumstances is start the scene sideways, swoop the camera up and past the selection board for no obvious reason, and then proceed to film it from weird angles and put massive amounts of lens flare all over the side of the main actor's face when an important moment in the development of his character is established.

I think you can tell what Abrams did.

This camera work is so bad that it took me completely out of the film. I wanted to enjoy the performances and the story, but the "LOOK AT MY STYLISH VISUAL STYLE!!!!" directing approach kept getting in the way. Worse still, since none of the shots are ever composed even remotely well, it looks like he's trying to cover up his visual ineptitude by slathering mediocre shots in effects and lens flare. Even Michael Bay, for all flaws, can compose a decent looking shot.

Since J.J. Abrams will likely return for the next movie, even though judging solely by this he has no clue how to direct an action scene (never watched Lost and never liked Alias, though most episodes of those are directed by other people anyway), I will give him some homework. Since Simon Pegg is on the cast, he can go talk to Edgar Wright, and watch Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead. Both of those movies are demonstrations of how to edit well, both for comic effect and to increase the tension and excitement of action. He should also watch Star Trek: First Contact - arguably the last of the good Treks - and make note of how that movie didn't have space battle scenes that were an incomprehensible mess, and learn from that. He should go and watch action movies by directors who knew what they were doing, and didn't rely on a shaky cam like a crutch. Then he should fire his cinematographer, who now that I look him up is the king of films that look like shiny crap.

This movie did its job, really. It generated interest in Trek again, and it introduced a new cast that promises to do interesting things with these old characters. I hope to see another movie by them, and since this is a huge success so far, I likely will. But I'll be even more excited if they get someone who has even the slightest idea what they're doing behind the camera.

Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan

Last time, I may have slightly dismissed Wrath of Khan a great piece of genre fiction, rather than the wonderful and important thing that was the first Star Trek movie. Today, since I'm not going to get my mail key in time, I feel as though I should clarify a little. There is nothing wrong with being a great piece of genre fiction.

After the first ST movie, people had decided they didn't want a 2 and a half hour long meditation on mankind's place in the universe and within trippy special effects made with a wave tank. Their loss, I maintain that movie is a wonderful film. They decided, for whatever reason, they wanted a space movie with spaceships fighting and obvious villains and Ricardo Montalban's frankly ridiculous chest. They also wanted costume designs where you couldn't make out the outline of a penis at any point, which I can agree with. So Nicholas Meyer, who also happened to direct one of the worst movies I have ever seen (Star Trek VI, seriously I can't watch it to the end, I get very angry about midway through) was brought in to direct the finest film about a ridiculous chest battling an overacting old man in space you have ever seen.

To be honest, I own this movie, and while at least part of the reason I bought it was its presence in a bargain bin at Superstore (oh so many stupid things bought in a bargain bin at Superstore) I generally don't take DVD purchases lightly (I say this, and yet it sits RIGHT BESIDE Thunderbirds, which I bought on ebay because I was curious and didn't feel like looking for it at the video store.) I picked it up because it's an enjoyable movie, and whether or not it feels like a big important event, I genuinely liked it.

So, the film is the sequel to a TOS episode I never watched called Space Seed. I have only actually seen the terrible TOS episode where they see Apollo for some reason, and the one with Abe Lincoln in space. These may have been the same episode, but for some reason if I randomly go and watch Star Trek, this is always, ALWAYS the episode playing. TNG has the stupid episode where Patrick Stewart's a little boy, and this has this stupid episode.

Anyway, previously on Star Trek, Ricardo Montalban was banished to a desolate planet because Kirk felt threatened by his manly chest. Since I haven't seen the episode I'll assume that's what happened. Anyway, many years later, there's a crazy plan to make a desolate planet into something lush and green that can bring a major character back to life if they promise to let the actor who plays him direct the next couple of films.

We begin with the Kobiyashi Maru (I bet I misspelled that, though I won't bother looking it up) scenario, a Starfleet test designed to set up the themes and foreshadow some of the events later on in the film. Kirstie Alley is taking the test, and this is ripe time for a Kirstie Alley joke but I won't do that. Anyway, due to the nature of the test, the ship blows up and everybody dies. Only not really since everyone was acting. With all of our relevant themes outlined, we're off to find the rest of the plot.

Luckily, Chekov is on the case, finding planet Deus Ex Machina and its devilishly handsome inhabitants. Turns out they're a race of supermen developed in 1996. I don't remember any supermen in 1996, but I was but a mere 11 years old, so I wasn't keeping up on current events. Turns out things went quite badly for him between that episode I've never seen and this movie, so now he wants revenge against Kirk.

Back to the Enterprise, it's being refitted again after TMP. I think this sequence was intended as a rib at the earlier film, since it borrows several shots while doing things much quicker. Now, the extended sequence works in the first film, and wouldn't work here. The quick pace sets the tone in both. The new quick pace is appropriate for the much quicker movie. And yet, I can't help but think having the enterprise starting in maintenance again is a bit ridiculous. This turns into almost a recurring joke in the series, with the Enterprise needing more updates than a Microsoft operating system.

Speaking of space seed, we also get to meet Kirk's son, who is a bit of an irrational jerk, though I suppose his dad decided he'd much rather run around the galaxy bangin' green chicks over playing catch and doing traditional dad things. Having an illegitimate child tells us a lot more about the character than driving a million ancient cars off of cliffs, giving a bit of an explanation of what he was like as a kid and threading that through to what he's like as an older man.

The sad thing about the movie is that it actually looks worse than the first film. The costumes are better, the set design mostly improved, but the special effects are a bit more obvious, and it suffers from the 80s film stock effect that all 80s movies suffer from. Why did filmmakers think that having stock that had slightly washed out color was a good idea? In a film with a lot of gray sets, it becomes much more obvious, with that slightly muddy color that the 80s suffered mightily from.

Crappy film stock or no, this is a tightly paced space action movie. It has nods to themes of aging, and revenge, but that serves mostly as a frame for a well made science fiction film, centered around a battle of wits between two extremely stubborn characters. It's entertainment, watchable well made entertainment, with the only problems being that it's made in the 80s and nobody knew how to make decent film stock back then. I know I mention it too much, I'll stop when it stops bothering me.

I have a feeling that Star Trek: The New One will be a lot like this, albeit with better special effects and worse camerawork, given the trendiness of shaky cam.Not so much a matter of the story being similar, but the general approach, a little bit of character development and fleshing out of backstory, but a lot of space adventure and little fanboy moments. I am mostly opposed to the idea of a prequel - especially for a supposed reboot - because there's a point where you can't go further forward anymore. Watching this, what else can you possibly do with the characters? We've explored their aging, and through that, many references to their youth. What more is there to know about Kirk? I'll watch it anyway, and I'll probably like it anyway if reviews are to be believed. It would be nice if I could see it, but such is life in a city with a one screen theater.

Star Trek, the Motion Picture

The odd/even rule of Star Trek films is rubbish.

I say this because the worst Star Trek film, without question, is Star Trek VI. If you disagree, you are wrong. The problem with that one is that it's an ineptly handled allegory that can't help but constantly point out how allegorical it is. If there was a gigantic flashing screen that said "SEE, THE KLINGONS ARE JUST LIKE RUSSIA IN THE REAL WORLD, DO YOU GET IT???" it would have been more subtle. The shocking twists are less shocking than stupid, frequently undermining characters. It's bad partly because it uses the Trek world as a cheap backdrop, never really understanding the characters in it. It's also bad because the story just doesn't work, and the creative team is really trying too hard to be relevant.

Yeah, the fifth entry was technically worse, but really, at least there's some amusement to be had. That was just bad, full stop.

Otherwise, it doesn't hold up for the rest of the entries as well. There was nothing really wrong with Star Trek 3. Not as good as 2, perhaps, but still a decent movie. The fourth was fun, but it was more of a comedy, and Trek usually fails at comedy, though that one turned out decent at least. The TNG films, apart from First Contact, all suffered from the same problem, that being poor writing by people who were distracted by other things.

But the biggest problem with the odd/even rule is that my favorite Star Trek movie, in fact one of my top 10 movies of all time (for those counting at home, that list includes City of God and Z, perhaps one day I'll mention them all!). And that's the very first Star Trek, the Motion Picture

ST:TMP gets a bad rap. It's accused of being too slow, and of being a regular episode stretched to feature length. The first part is somewhat understandable, as it is a methodically paced movie. I will explain shortly why this is a good thing. The second part is sort of half right. It's a Star Trek film, it should be recognizable as Trek, and it is. But it's far from a regular episode.

The film is about a mysterious energy cloud called V'Ger that's going around destroying crap, and Captain Kirk must overact his way back as the captain of Enterprise in order to stop it from taking out Earth. On the way, he has to learn, with the crew, the purpose of the thing and why it's out to meet earth. The answers surprise him, and possibly you, though not me because I've seen the movie several times.

The movie starts with a star field and a bit of orchestral music. An odd choice, but it lays out the ambition of the project. This movie is going to be more than a film, it's going to be an event, and it's going to be important. Only movies that are events can get away with having an opening like that, something that lets people settle down and prepare to have their minds blown.

It also prepares you for the pacing, which is not fast, and that is good. It's not an action movie, but it's tense, and the pacing underscores that. The extended sequences of passing through the cloud, for example, ratchet up the tension significantly. You don't know what this is, and you're approaching it ever steady. If things went quickly, there wouldn't be any tension.

There's also the extended moments of exploring the outside of the Enterprise. These are there to underscore how important the ship is. At the first moment when the head-on view is seen and the score swells, it's difficult to avoid some emotion, even if this is a ship, it's the main character, and the slow build makes that scene have more of an impact.

People accuse it of being boring, but if that was the case, how is it that when it's playing I cannot look away, and get completely absorbed in the film and the ideas it's trying to present? It's astonishingly immersive, two hours that seem like one.

The other great thing about the movie is that it deals with big ideas, and major parts of all the characters, while just shying away from spelling out what they are. Kirk is a bit of an arrogant ass. That's what makes him a good captain, and what makes him Kirk, but it also causes near disasters and almost destroys the ship. Spock's pursuit of logic eventually leads to a realization about the emptiness of it.

The main thing I like about this movie is how big it seems. This is something that no Star Trek film since has achieved. It uses the screen, and the budget, in order to just seem bigger than any other movie. It tries, and mostly succeeds, to bring up big ideas and important discussions on the nature of humanity. It does what the best Trek episodes do, bringing an opportunity to have discussions about the nature of man, while being mostly positive about humanity.

Yes, there are problems. The costume design is, in a word, unfortunate. It is tight in all the wrong places, leading to the outlines of the male anatomy being quite noticeable. Shatner is on top overacting form. Count the different inflections he uses while saying "Mr. Spock!" in just one scene. Not that any of it matters.

See, this is why I like Trek. Not the action, not the big space explosions, but the attempt to portray big ideas in a space faring concept. Wrath of Khan, the one all the nerds pick, was a great piece of genre fiction. This, however, is more than that. It's an event, an important movie, one that takes itself and its universe seriously. Because of this, it's amazing and easily the best film in the series. If you disagree, I'm sorry.