I went to see that new Star Trek film – the one that everyone is talking about. I liked it less than other people did – it is certainly a well-made and well-acted film, but the plot seemed a bit ridiculous, even by the standards of SF generally and Trek films in particular. The idea that the bad guys would go so bad just because someone failed to show up in time to save their planet seemed a bit outlandish. It also strained credibility in having the Federation respond to a planet threatening natural disaster by sending a zillion year old ambassador along to sort out the problem.
The characterisation was good fun, though. Kirk remained the eternally priapic alpha male prick he always was, but the real stars here were Uhura (somewhat reimagined from the original series) and Spock. The guy playing Spock was amazing, reinforcing again how central that character always was to olde Star Trek. The whole thing of [SPOILER] Spock getting a bit of saucy Uhura action[/SPOILER] was amusing – it seemed to go with the character's general oddness while not in any way undermining how heroically gay he looked. Maybe they could do a sequel where they just leave out Kirk and have Spock lead the Enterprise off into space for fantastic adventures.
3 comments:
I was irked by the let's-not-piss-off-the-fans-now time travel rationalisation. The bit where they practically turn to the camera and say "We're in a parallel universe, so nothing we do now actually matters!" beggared belief.
But yes, it was a very stupid film. Fun, though. The chap who plays Spock is Zachary Quinto, who until this was best known as Sylar, about the only good thing about Heroes.
I think there were many many other great things about Heroes, at least in the first series. In fact I don't think Sylar was one of the good things.
I enjoyed the Star Trek movie!
I have not seen this Heroes. I also enjoyed the Star Trek film, but I am wise to its limitations.
Post a Comment