Star Trek: a review

I will give nothing away in this review, in case you want to see this film.

I expected to hate it. Big Hollywood explosion movies do very little for me. Usually, you could blame this on old age. But even as a teenager, special effects extravaganzas have done nothing for me. Maybe I was born old.

The latest Star Trek movie has a lot of explosions, little plot, some character development, and not much else. I kept feeling like I was supposed to care, and I didn't. The special effects were supposed to thrill me, and I was bored. It all felt very much like a Pepsi commercial: well constructed, shiny, soulless, selling me something, immediately forgettable, and dull. Zero risk taking.

Ironically, young Kirk is a portrayed as a man who leaps before he looks, and this movie is so very safe, practical and bland. Even the big "shocking" events are safe and dull.

Roger Ebert's review is entirely accurate. He says the movie does little more than reload the franchise. The characters are rejigged, the universe is set up, and now we can begin a whole new franchise for a whole new generation. The end.

Wait, the end? Yes, the end. The movie finishes where it should begin -- with everything set up for something to happen.

The reason James Bond movies do nothing for me is because of all the touchstones and catch phrases. "Shaken, not stirred." We have a super villain. A fast car. Some sexy chick for Bond to fuck. Gadgets.

Those things MUST happen, otherwise it's not a Bond film. And that's why I stay away. I don't feel a small thrill when Bond says, "Shaken, not stirred." I feel irritation.

This Star Trek movie felt the same way. "We're changing everything! This ain't your daddy's Star Trek! By the way, Live Long and Prosper. Vulcan Logic, Mixed with Emotion. Romulans, but Different! Space, the Final Frontier!"

And so on.

Somewhere in Hollywood is a man sitting on a huge pile of money. He likes movies, but he wants to get a good Return On Investment. So he wants to play it safe. People come to him and beg for money, to make their movies.

"I want to make something totally new and exciting!" says one young director.

This scares the man sitting on the pile of money. He wants to know that he will make money if he spends money. New is risky. He tells the director to go away.

"I want to make Transformers 2!" says another director.

Hmm, the money man thinks. Transformers was very profitable. Explosions, robots, and a sexy chick? He gives the money.

"I want to make GI Joe!" says another director.

Hmm, the money man thinks. There are a lot of geeks out there who will buy into that. Explosions, robotic armour, and a sexy chick? He gives the money.

"I want to make Star Trek, for the next generation!" says another director. "Well, for the NEXT next generation. Think old Trek, only younger and sexier!"

CHA-CHING! thinks the man with the money.

And you get Star Trek: safe, bland, predictable, hitting all the spots it has to hit, slightly changing things without really changing anything, hipper, younger, and utterly lifeless.

The irony is that the original Star Trek series was risky, edgy, pushing the envelope. Sure, it was a corny space western soap opera. At the same time it was new and challenging. It fought against blandness. And it was low budget corn.

But when you're making a movie that costs millions, you can't risk offending anyone, or risk being too different. Toe the line, give the people what they want, play it safe. That way, you're guaranteed ROI.

And a dull piece of tinsel.

You probably shouldn't listen to me about this. The critics are all raving about this film. Apparently it's awesome.

I think the critics are morons. Except for Roger Ebert.