When Daniel Craig debuted as James Bond in Casino Royale, it opened up the Bond property to a whole new audience. And why not, eh? Fans of the old-school Bond, which include myself, didn't really need any more Bond in the classic style. As much as the style of the movies, we love the extant films themselves - and we don't always want to see Dalton or Brosnan, whatever their acting capabilties, doing their damnedest to be Connery or Moore. By consciously changing the style, and to a large degree, the producers have ensured that a new audience can now appreciate the fella.
So yeah, this review is about Star Trek. There is a similarity to the above, in that we have here a property with legions of dedicated fans, possibly only matched by Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. To recreate the original series too closely would have been blasphemous, thankfully, the producers of this movie havne't done this. Whilst not veering from the original quite as much as Casino Royale's production team did, it is far enough away, and modern enough, to make a good, entertaining movie without too many people calling for J. J. Abrams to be stoned.
The key, I think, was in the casting. We have a new Jim Kirk who bears a canny resenblance to Shatner's protagonist, in looks as well as arrogance and leadership. Spock seems a little more weighed down by youthful exuberance and emotion, though one expects that a more youthful Spock would be so. Bones is also good, as is Uhura (I like the way they've kept the miniskirts and boots). Simon Pegg's much anticipated Scotty is worth seeing; it's a shame he's not in it as much as the rest.
It was never going to be classic Star Trek, thankfully, this has been realised and no great attempt has been made to make it so. It does make for a good movie, whether you're a Trekkie or not - though the time travel element is a little confusing.
Rating: and a half.
Philster
Re: Star Trek
Well I finally got around to seeing this and have to say it wasn't that bad but think some of the die hard fans will hate it. I'm always cagey with remakes or re-inventions are done like the Bond films for example. On this occasion, it was done quite well. I was actually expecting Alias in space with JJ Abrams being involved. However, I was glad he didn't write it or that's what it may have been but he did a good job with it never the less.
There were a few things like the continunity errors but this is now classed as being the result of the alternate reality. As for the time travel element, it isn't that confusing. The writing certainly could have been better though. I don't know what it is but JJ seems to incorporate a red sphere like object in most of his projects. Alias fans will know what I'm talking about.
Most of the crew are well cast but it's a shame Scotty isn't in it much. It takes about an hour before he appears. Spock and Kirk are certainly well cast. The only ones that aren't that similar in look are Chekov and Uhura but still well played.
Anyway, this is one of the better Star Trek movies. Certainly a one that is worth the cinema treatment but is certainly not the best. Hasn't got a patch on First Contact. My big concern is that they make a sequel. Let's hope not and leave the original generation as it is.
I give it 3 out of 5.
oddbodd
Re: Star Trek
...
TNC 2
tis is f**** blasfumy! how dar tha do it. luvd the orignal wen i was yungr. the techno is beter and it shudn be.
Sory but i f**** hated tis. sum tings shudn b remad.
