Fun Film, May 5, 2010

This is a fun film, whether you're a Trekkie or not. I nitpicked minor distractions like Zachary Quinto's lisp, the new Enterprise bridge that looks like a cosmetics department (makeover anyone?), the bad guy's ship that resembles a big hairball, a few scenes that seem disjointed and a few inconsistencies with plot development, but it's just plain silly fun - one of those movies that could just as easily be a comic book. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy. Favorite satirical quote: Pike defining Starfleet as "A peacekeeping and humanitarian armada." The one big flaw that I found VERY annoying was the camera work: incessant vibration (FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, SOMEBODY GO PURCHASE A TRIPOD) and frequent glitchy glare from light sources that gives you a feeling of confinement. It's as if the entire movie was filmed through a small dirty window by someone whose hands were shaking. (GET A BOTTLE OF WINDEX, CLEAN THE CAMERA LENS AND TRY HOLDING IT STEADY.) I saw the movie for love of actors Leonard Nimoy and Bruce Greenwood and wasn't disappointed. Those two by themselves make it all worthwhile. The casting is wonderful. I only hope we get to see cameos from more of the original cast in sequels. Addendum: I learned recently that special cameras were used to generate the "flaring" effects, and the shaking was a specific goal. Oh well. I still like the movie regardless. Get it. It's fun.

      Offensive trash, May 4, 2010

I was absolutely horrified at how they destroyed Gene Roddenberry's characters, but especially Kirk. In the original series, Kirk was a hard worker, serious, and worked his way up through the ranks, earning the captain's chair. In this new universe, Kirk is an unserious playboy who just walks in and claims it. Utter nonsense, a slap in the face to Roddenberry, an insult to admirers of the original Trek. If Abrams wanted to completely rewrite the history and meaning of Trek, he should have created his own series. Of course, then he'd not be able to parasitically ride on Roddenberry's coattails.

       Prequel, in a good way, May 2, 2010

Star Trek is IMHO a well executed prequel to the entire story line, both the TV series and the subsequent movies. The movie chronicles the period from the birth of James Kirk to his assumption of command of the Enterprise. If you are a fan you've probably already seen the movie but if not, or have and are just contemplating purchasing, it's worth the price offered here on amazon. I have not seen the DVD version so I cannot speak on the quality or content of that version, however, as you would expect the Blu-ray version offers spectacular HD quality imaging (I generally do not buy movies any more but decided this was worth owning as a benchmark for image quality) as well as a fairly extensive amount of supplemental content, particularly the three disc edition being reviewed (I'm not sure if there is a "movie only" version available on Blu-ray; to date this three disc set is all I have seen at retail). I originally rented the movie via netflix before buying it so I will offer this foot note, the three disc set may not be available through rental sources. If you want access to all that extra content, you may need to buy this 3 disc edition.

      Pale reflection of the superb original series, May 1, 2010

The producers had a chance to capture some of the magic of the original series but--alas--they missed the boat. The appearance of Leonard Nimoy is one of the few bright spots. Spock French-kissing Uhura is undoubtedly the film's nadir; that, and the discombobulated script with its unbridled excesses and the constant cops-and-robbers-style shootouts make this movie suitable for puerile audiences and, perhaps, video game lovers.