As you know, I'm a Star Wars guy. I like things blowing up rather than people talking about things blowing up (which is my simplistic Wars vs. Trek argument). I liked Wrath of Khan (action!) and Voyage Home (funny!). But for the most part, I'm far too ADD/liking of awesome stuff to really appreciate the po-faced continuity service and hardcore sciencey nerdery of most Star Trek. I mean, have you tried to watch any of the last few Trek movies? I tried watching Generations and was bored out of my mind.
So you can take my word for it when I tell you that you must see the new Star Trek movie immediately if not sooner.
But let's be honest, I was a mark for this movie before I even plunked my money down, right? I mean it's directed by J.J. Abrams, who in my mind, is like some sort of pop culture King Midas. It's produced by Damon Lindelof, who writes and produces Lost, which I am ga-ga for. And it's written by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who wrote for Alias and it's smarter, more sophisticated older sister Fringe. They know how to make you care about characters in the face of great high concepts like, say, a crazy magic island or a FBI division that investigates nutso cases or some gigantic sea monster who's wrecking NYC. They understand the importance of mystery, of characters, of mythology.
So yeah, these guys "get" me. Abrams has mentioned that he has no overpowering love for Trek, and, truthfully, thankfully, it shows. This is a Trek movie for people who liked Wrath of Khan and Empire Strikes Back, but can't handle the science geekery and heavy-handed social critique that has been the platform of Trek since its inception. It's a post-Star Wars Star Trek movie. (I mean, look at those scuffed up shuttles. Star Trek's a gleaming futuristic utopia, not a universe where things get dirty. What is going on?!)
So yeah, I'm sold completely. I will see whatever sequel as long as these guys are involved. Even if it's entirely in Klingon. They managed to set up a new franchise while maintaining the precious original canon for the hardcores. And yeah, it's a bit "Ultimate Star Trek," but it is F-U-N. Tons of fun. Fist-pumping fun. "Heck yeah!" fun. Like Iron Man did last summer, it's a popcorn flick that reminded me why I loved popcorn flicks growing up. It's smart, but not too smart. Cool, but not too cool. Loud, but not too loud. It makes you want to go out and buy a toy, if that makes sense. It's freaking awesome. I really can't say anything else about it. I loved it. Loved it. Loved it.
And, like I said over on Geoff Klock's blog, if nothing else, it's the best film I've ever seen that stars Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry.
Let me know once you've seen it. I'd love to compare notes.
4 comments:
Saw it Thursday and it was freaking awesome. In fact, you probed into my mind and wrote your blog entry from it.
Except you edited out the part where I make fun of Orci and Kurtzman for writing Transformers, and then explain how it's not their fault: it's Michael Bay's. And then I go off on how the director makes or brakes a movie, etc.
Yeah. I'm giving them a pass for Transformers but only because of the John Turturro character. And come on, for a movie about giant transforming robots from space directed by, basically, a 13 year-old boy with an unhealthy obsession with boobs, explosions and the army, I think it turned out about as well as could be expected.
Am I right?
No, you can't give them a pass. This is a movie about super smart robots that can fly through space and find Earth. They have technology far beyond our own, but they can't figure out how to make a fake eBay account to buy some glasses?
However, I spelled "breaks" like brakes on a car, so what do I know..
Star Trek was great. I was a huge trekkie in middle school and this movie lived up to expectations. It's crazy cause they pulled it off using time travel/warp which is a pretty good plot device to ruin a movie (save BTTF).
Post a Comment