It's not going to win an Oscar, most assuredly, but it was a pretty good action movie and perhaps the second or third best Star Trek movie. They used a nifty bit of writing to save the franchise from canon complaints, though it does seem odd that essentially every other bit of Star Trek media now didn't happen...other than "Enterprise" I suppose. They did a pretty good job at getting actors to replay old roles, though many of the bit players were mere caricatures.
There were, of course, scientific gaffs a mile wide. But it wouldn't be Star Trek without those.
The special effects were surprisingly poor, I thought. I guess I've gotten used to Battlestar Galactica because I found the battles confused and a lot of the other effects simply overblown. One of the things I've liked about BSG is that you always get a sense of who is where and always feel like there are rules being followed. Not so much here, where everything is too close up, to frenetic and too random. (Or, for that matter, "Serenity", for which the big battle scene was also less random flash.)
I also found the Enterprise itself badly done. There were too many wide-open fifty-foot ceilings, making it look like a sound stage full of stuff, not the interior of a space ship. That, combined with the dinky little bridge the size of my living room was just odd. Again, on BSG, the Galactica interior always looked like something built for function where space is at a premium.
But it certainly moved along at a nice clip, contained all the necessary action (if a bit of it was overblown), and all the right callbacks to the originals. Abrams does well with character, but I don't think he's really gotten special effects.
|< Half formed and mostly uninformed | A Day in the Life >|