Review: Star Trek

Chick 1 says:star trek

Star Trek, it’s not just for geeks anymore.  Well, actually, that’s a little difficult for me to say since I am a geek.  But, Oh My Gosh! 

What I Liked:  Pretty much everything!  I was initially drawn to this movie by the cast and they did not disappoint.  Every performance was strong with some pleasant surprises.  Chris Pine owns his pre-Shat Kirk.  He does not do a Shatner impersonation and who would want that?  But he does capture the mannerisms and attitude and he makes us believe that this Kirk can grow into Shatner Kirk.  Simon Pegg is hilarious.  His performance is almost too short but hopefully we have a new franchise on our hands with more Pegg-fueled Scotty’s to come.  And along those lines, I did not expect to laugh as much as I did.  I’ve seen my share of Star Treks but don’t really know all the history.  The script apparently reboots the entire Trek universe but also hits lots of familiar moments.  And it’s obvious the cast is having a blast delivering those moments.  The action and pace keep moving at a crazy speed.  I have to admit it was so fun seeing John Cho get to throw down with the big boys.  The CG is well done and the screen is often filled with a lot to look at.  This, my friends, is how you make a movie!

What I Didn’t Like:  I find it ironic that Chick 2 just posted a review of Transformers in which she complains about the lens flare because lens flare was a bit overdone in this movie.  I, too, like a good lens flare but there was a LOT of it in Star Trek, so much that I kept squinting my eyes instinctively trying to see what was going on.  And a lot of the flare was CG!  I’ve also stated before that I’m getting tired of the handheld look in action.  Between that and the flare it was sometimes hard to tell what was happening.  But I have to admit I was still totally caught up in the action.  And there were a couple of moments when I thought, “Is he supposed to be out of focus?”

Bottom Line:  Go immediately to the nearest theater and give J.J. Abrams your money.  Do it.  Do it now.

Chick 2 says:

This ain’t your daddy’s Star Trek.  J.J. Abrams has taken the Star Trek series and turned it into the first great movie of the summer season.  Not being a “trekkie” myself, I was worried that this film would be 2 hours of jokes and references I wouldn’t get.  But Abrams is up to his usual standards here, packing the film with action, comedy, and just the right amount of drama.  The film has been described as a prequel to all previous Star Trek productions, and we watch Kirk and Spock become Kirk and Spock from the beginning.  Wrapped in time travel the storyline touches on destiny and raises the question, are we still destined to be the same person regardless of changes in our surrounding circumstances?  The characters are committed to their mission and their destiny in life, and face their roles with true cinematic bravery.  The entire cast is stellar (wink, wink) and I could rave about several performances, but Karl Urban is most memorable as Dr. McCoy.  My only caveat would be the joining of the hand-held close-up action bandwagon.  At times it made it hard even to tell who was winning a fist fight.  But this was not enough to ruin a tightly put together summer action movie.

IF you want to get your money’s worth, THEN GO.

Posted on by admin in Reviews, The 2000s 10 Comments

10 Responses to Review: Star Trek

  1. Ken Grindall

    I walked into the theater expecting a very good tribute to the mature franchise as a sort of hail-and-farewell… I walked out more certain of a whole new StarTrek reality to come than I am of Will Smith’s long-term viability as a leading role.

    I’m also now somewhat convinced that Zachary Quinto was carefully groomed into his “Sylar” role on the NBC series “Heroes” for the sole (and genius) purpose of training him in the stiff, removed calm that makes his Spock so masterfully spot-on. And how eery the resemblance to young Nimoy…

    Overall, I was completely thrilled inside a movie theater for the first time in several years. Chick 1, you are right: Pine is very much his own Kirk, though one of my favorite moments in the entire film come at the end when, crisis averted and course charted for home, Kirk saunters onto the bridge and tosses out a line to Bones that nails the Shatner-to-come 100%.

    Where my last half-dozen (or more) movie outings left me deflated and regretful, this one left me planning a chance to return for a second viewing.

    Can’t wait to hang out with the Flick Chicks and catch another great one.

    Thanks for the word, Chicks!

    Ken Grindall

    Copywriter and Marketing Specialist,
    http://kenbgrindall.wordpress.com

  2. princessroney

    Yea, it’s been a bit dry at the theater lately. This was a great way to kick off the summer.

    Never watched Heros but always thought he looked like Spock, long before he was cast.

  3. wj11

    You know, there was a lot of flare, but I’ll say it again – I love lens flare. Michael Bay just thinks if you make it look perty you won’t notice there’s no story. In Star Trek’s case – flare pretty, story good. But I’m glad you’re paying attention…

  4. wj11

    That’s flare, not flair.

  5. princessroney

    How many pieces are you wearing?

  6. Dennis C

    I liked Star Trek….. a lot…..AND my only critical complaint is that Chris Pine over-acted just a bit. I don’t remember Shatner’s Kirk as being portrayed as a man-whore!

    But overall, two thumbs up. I’d even be open to seeing it again, which is a rarity for me.

  7. princessroney

    Wait, what part made you think Kirk was man-whore? I mean, Shatner Kirk did like the ladies, the greener, the better.

  8. beachgirl4ever

    Yeah, I totally think Shatner was, for the time period, what would today be considered a “man-whore.” It was always implied, and to some extent portrayed, that he got the lady in just about eveyr episode…..

    LOVED the movie! Of course time travel and altering the time-space continuum always messes with my brain, as does “two” Spocks. But that’s not to say, I didn’t leave wanting more, cause I did. Sign of a good movie.

    And, just for the record, I’ve always disliked the hand held camera for action scenes. It’s distracting and can make me a bit nauseous. As for flare – what is that? Obviously, Miss Observant, didn’t notice or have a problem with that!

  9. Pingback: Randomness: So What Is Lens Flare? And Why Should I Care? « The Flick Chicks

  10. Pingback: The Flick Chicks » Randomness: So What Is Lens Flare? And Why Should I Care?

Add a Comment