Star Trek - Non Fan Review

Oh boy, "Star Trek" the movie arrived, dazzled viewers for solid hour and a half and then yodeled the biggest commentary avalanche on the Internet, since ...uh... Watchmen this year. [mhm] Since everybody can't stop mutilating their keyboards in order to share their opinions, it's natural that I throw in my two cents in the whole vault and see what happens. I am out of my league, when it comes to drawing comparisons between productions, the past and the present. Star Trek didn't inspire much interest as a whole and I more or less fall in the hapless eye-candy addicts that seek on screen action category. In light of this confession, here are my proverbial said two cents about this production as a non-fan.

Before actually going straight to the movie I will side track and contemplate on this green light to make yet another remake/revamp of a franchise. As far as I know Star Trek struggled in the big screen movie department, so why bother doing it again. I present you two theories. J.J Abrams makes a tribute towards a beloved creative heritage by adapting it for the modern audience [the same way Watchmen was adapted with a slightly different ending and Pride and Prejudice has zombies in it and Batman kicking ass with an even viler Joker] with lots more violence, eye-candy and action. Tapping into the youthful usually basic need to get a positive adrenaline rush, Abrams hopes to spark interest and make us the new generation dig in the archives and also accept the intellectual aspects of the original. Truth be told that happens and I can testify that I got around to loving Tolkien thanks to the movies [the advertising of fantasy titles and culture of that sort in my country is horrible] and the same can happen for the viewers of Star Trek, who think sci-fi isn't their thing.

Naturally the next reason is quite expected: making big bucks. Chris Pine is cast to please females, while Uhura is there to please males and Zachary Quinto is basically there so that people can watch the guy from Heroes that kills everybody. And as people already have stated the whole movie is major flashy eye-candy for the regular viewer, who is not color blind, so yeah typical Hollywood casting.

Does any of this rambling change the fact that I loved the movie? NO WAY. I have to say that this new "Star Trek" has the power to convert people into sci-fi addicts. I almost sat down and downloaded everything there was about Star Trek, before I stopped myself and changed my mind. I will do so, when I actually have time to indulge myself into such act of geekery. And I usually do these acts of geekery. My computer is filled with every X-Man issue ever released: all in all 10 GB.

It's true that plotwise we don't have a very complicated and intricate plot, but for the 90 minutes or so, what we work with as viewers is enough and makes time pass like a breeze. I think that it was engaging and the acting was solid throughout the most of the film, though I caught myself asking questions regarding the competence of certain moments. For instance why use swords and axes in a future, where you have laser guns, when even know most armed forces carry guns and only the army gets knives or machetes depending on the situation. Next there is the ice planet moment, which felt like an ex-machine moment, serving only to introduce a character, when chances for the actual happening of this are one in infinity and you can't argue with infinity.

But everything else was flawless and I expect that there will be a sequel and then a third part and then another one, until even flashy effects won't save this franchise from hitting the breaks. Seriously people, one good idea can be mined only for so long before people rethink their opinion on lynching. Thankfully this isn't the time for Star Trek to exit stage left. :)