May 19, 2013

"Mr. Spock, not Spark." said the Trekker

How did you find the movie? said the Trekker.
I love it, Spark is my favorite character! I exclaimed
Mr. Spock, not Spark, retorted the Trekker 
I didn't plan on watching Star Trek, because I am not a fan. No, not a fan would be an understatement; I was absolutely clueless about its story, characters, etc. Hence, the above correction, and the following request to kindly inform me should you find any misinformed opinion on my part.

courtesy of

On cinematography 4.5/5

The very first thing I noticed about Star Trek was the vividly-produced graphics. The movie opened with such rich colors and effects, that I told myself, "Perfect, now I have something good to say about Star Trek (since I was not expecting to enjoy the movie)." This fascination of mine, however, did not sustain until the end of the film.

On story 3.5/5

I like the plot, because it didn't alienate me. Moreover, there were plenty of audio-visual content to guide non-fans in understanding the contexts of the film. After watching Star Trek Into Darkness, I got interested in watching its earlier versions. That's a good thing. 

Despite that, I felt that the themes presented in the movie are nothing new. 

On characters 4/5

I love Spock! HAHAHA even if I got his name wrong. His lines (though I don't remember) made me chuckle.

As for the others, they were not my cup of tea. Kirk reminds me of Thor, portrayed as a brash but caring leader. Khan is a typical villain with a reasonable backstory. Uhula was, well, a love interest for Spock - she didn't serve any purpose in the film but to force Spock to explain why he chooses not to feel. Scotty was conveniently around to help save the day, but his pep talk on Enterprise crews being explorers and not a military body delivered the point to me. Oh, Sulu! I like him a bit because he reminds me of power rangers and because Bones wouldn't want to piss him off, HAHAHA.

On being science-fiction 3/5

Is this really science fiction? Or was it based on science fiction? 

Sure, the events took place in some distant future, but there weren't any new possibilities (presented) due to science advancements. It didn't make me think about science at all. I hoped that the content writer deconstructed at least one science concept and then reconstructed it differently to hold the film together. But I guess, science doesn't sell that much to our crowd anymore. 

On certain scenes

1. Was Dr. Carol's half naked shot really necessary? I heard myself internally groaning at that part. 
2. The shots on the Enterprise reminds me of Vandread 2nd Stage :)
3. Seeing London in the future, with mostly skyscrapers, bothers me. I want a future with more trees and mountains than buildings. However, I agree that the future with less trees is more believable. 


Star Trek was a pleasant surprise. I'd recommend it to mostly everyone! -except to people who gets bored with action films. 

BTW why was it entitled Star Trek Into Darkness?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Ooops, watch out for the captcha!