Subject: REVIEW: STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT (1996)

From: [email-masked] (Scott Derby)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 17:52:09 GMT

[Note that followups are directed to rec.arts.movies.current-films and
rec.arts.movies.startrek.current only, not to rec.arts.sf.movies.  -Moderator]

                         STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT
                                [Spoilers]
                       A film review by Scott Derby
                        Copyright 1996 Scott Derby

Sorry for any spelling errors.

One must always keep in mind that there are many ways to critique a
film.  You can stand back and judge it on its own merit and not refer
back to previous works of the same type or even of the same series.
You can judge it based upon what YOU wanted out of the film rather than
on many broad categories.  For example: I like romance and this film had
a lot of it, so I liked the film.  This is in contrast to: Well, I like
romance, but there was not a very strong plot or well developed characters,
so I didn't like it so much.

From the perspective of a general, run-of-the-mill science fiction film
for the general audience with general expectations, Star Trek: First
Contact is a very good film.  It combines good (but by no means ground
breaking) special effects, action, suspense, and snappy dialog; all
wrapped up in good performances by the characters who matter most.
For the movie goer with no expectations and is interested in science
fiction, Star Trek: First Contact will not disappoint.

>From the die-hard trekker/trekkie/trekophile/trekomaniac perspective,
this film will be a slight to huge letdown.  All the hype and all the film
trailers gave the impression of a titanic struggle filled with phasers
and photons against the dreaded nemesis of the Federation: The Borg.
In reality, those who go to see the action equated with a pro wrestling
match will end up seeing a chess game.  The action is limited and shows
absolutely no imagination whatsoever.  The sole scene worth note has
the newly minted Enterprise "E" zooming into a sector where Picard
sends out a subspace communication that he is "taking command of the
battle" due to the death of the admiral in charge.  Of course, everyone
complies within seconds and follows a strange order to fire together
at a seemingly useless section of the Borg ship/cube.  This leads to the
destruction of the Borg ship.  All this action take a scant few minutes
and involves no tactical analysis or real drama.  But that early in the
film, you are deluded enough to believe that this is the mere appetizer,
the good stuff is on the way.  The problem is... it never comes.
What we are treated to is a half-hearted effort at good action and drama.
The following are a few of my gripes in no particular order...

1) Bad concept from the start...

Someone once said (and I probably paraphrase), "The last bastion of the
scoundrel is prayer".  In the Trek universe, the last bastion of the
writer with no talent is the "Let's go back in time" script or the
"Let's do a holodeck episode" script.  We are treated to the former, and
given a taste of the latter (which is one of the better moments in the
film).  What drives me nuts about the incessant desire for the writers
to go back in time is the question: "Where does it ever end?"  Is
our future as humanity going to be the never-ending return to the "old,
savage days of the late 20th and early 21st century?"  So, now that
the Borg are stopped in this film (like they would win), will they not
just come back a week earlier next time and try again?  The problem
with time travel is that a conflict is never quite settled unless you
go back to the source (like Picard did when he saw the "slime" becoming
sentient or whatever deep philosophical dronings were offered by Q
in "All Good Things" [I think it was All Good Things... correct me if
I am wrong]).  This writing is the fallback of one with no imagination.

This all follows the same old, tired lines....

"Oh no!  If we don't save the whales, life as we know it will change
forever!"

"Oh no!  If we save Joan Collins' character on 20th century earth,
life as we know it will change forever!"

"Oh no!  If we don't let the Enterprise C get destroyed helping the Klingons,
life as we know it will change forever!"

"Oh no!  If we don't stop the Borg from gaining control of early 21st
century earth, life as we know it will change forever!"

Insert your favorite here. I'm reeeeeeeeeealy tired of this scenario.

2) Typical "Preachie Trek"

Why does every Trek episode for the last few years have to have some
deep meaning or message to humanity?  Granted, this one is not as bad
as some of the past episodes and/or films, yet I'm soooooo very tired
of being referred to as the "barbaric 20th century".  "Oh, thank the
powers that be that we have evolved to where we don't go after money
or personal gain!  No!  We are now a higher species."  I really, really
want to puke.  It is so easy to sit in a directors chair and in the
writers chair and hurl accusations without offering any REAL solace or
solution to the problems of mankind.  What we get in this episode is:
If you meet an alien (in this case, a Vulcan) you will become
enlightened.  Just like in Independence Day (which I felt was better,
but still had a crappy script/dialog), the discovery of alien life
seemed to "bring us together".  I do know that every film needs a
story and it is nice to have a positive message, but as a non-elected
representative of the 20th century, I am sick of being beaten up.

3) Too little action... too much talk.

As is typical of many Trek films/shows, there is way too much talk and
far too little action.  I think I would not have minded so much if I
didn't feel that Paramount had deliberately deceived the Trek fans
by putting all the action scenes into the trailers.  This film is
long on tongue and short on phasers.  If you feel that this is a
barbaric perspective, fine.  Just one man's perspective.  But I really
am not interested in a 24th century version of "My Dinner With Andre".
There is hand to hand combat and lots of personal phaser stuff, but
it is a drag.  I was not on the edge of my seat once.

4) Sub-plot was a total waste of my time.

I really don't care a rat's butt about the inventor of Warp technology.
There was WAY too much time spent listening to a character that really
had NOTHING to do with the story in any real sense.  All the dialog
that was wasted could have been better spent going back to the 24th
century and seeing what was happening (is Sulu still around?).  Maybe
a starship conflict or two.  All this drinking and rock 'n roll and
such was a total distraction.  In my opinion they needed somewhere to
stick Riker, Troi and LeForge.  They could have accomplished their
goal of making us know of the importance of meeting the Vulcans without
wasting all that time (not that I think the idea was any good to start).

5) Great... Just what we need, a human Borg.

What is the deal with this Borg leader?  Are we trying to portray a
"kinder, gentler Borg?"  In the TV show we are introduced to a
savage, no compromise, no talk, no hope enemy in the Borg.  It was
one of the most wonderful times in Trek or even Sci-Fi history in
my opinion.  They evoked terror in the hearts of even the most
seasoned space explorer.  It is only through the most brilliant
cunning that the enemy can be overcome.  In this film, the Borg do
not have the same presence of terror.  Hey, if you can have sex with
a Borg, how bad can they be, eh Data?  I will say that the Borg looked
much nicer in the film.  They had a nasty, grittiness to them.
They sure made fast work of the Enterprise decks!  Maybe we need to
get some Borg workers on the job when we are building highways and
bridges.  This never ending prattling about Data's emotions and
need to be a human are starting to get tiresome too.  I likened this
thread to having Arnold Schwartzenegger sitting down with an alien
bent on destruction and talking about why they feel the need to
fight all the time.  And I REALLY doubt that the Borg would have
sent only one ship to attack Earth in the first place.  Ah well...
it must have cut down on the special effects costs.

6) The characters are going to have to accept their place in the films.

Most people (this is a generalization) want to see Picard and Data do
something.  You will need a good enemy (seems like we just ruined the
best enemy the Federation ever had) and a guest star good guy/gal.
Everyone else HAS to figure out that while they are VERY important in
the Trek universe and to the evolution of the story, we don't need to
see them or hear them so much.  That little scene with a drunk Troi
was a total waste of film.  We need her to say "I feel..." a few times
or even an "I sense..." and that is about it.  Beverly Crusher needs
to fix the sick and perhaps give a small amount of "conscience" to
Jean Luc: period.  Geordi, you need to keep the Big E up and running
and come up with some revolutionary means of increasing power and
reinitializing the warp chamber reactions: period.
Riker and Worf are the second tier.  They need to be there for more
action, versus the intellectual and diplomatic foil of Picard and
the robotic genius of Data.  In the original Trek, Kirk and Spock did
the stuff with McCoy and Scotty in the background but still important.
In the New Trek, Picard and Data run the show, Riker and Worf support
them.  Everyone else is decoration, albeit very important decoration.
You can't give everyone a great line or important role in a 2 hour movie.
If they want that, then they should have stayed on TV.  Everyone can
be explored when you have 26 episodes per year.  When you have 2 hours,
you have no time to waste.  To be fair, it could have been worse in
this film.

7)  What is the deal with all these jokes?

Don't get me wrong, I like a good joke as much as the next guy.  But
is it me or do the Star Trek writers think that they need to insert
75 jokes per film now?  I though I was in the wrong movie when I went
to see the moronic whale related Trek movie years ago.  Is seems to have
started a trend.  If the boys and girls on the Big E want to do stand
up, give them a mike.  A "few" well placed lines are great... but really!

Finally.... I'm really sorry.

I know this is a diatribe, but I guess I just needed to vent.  I am
your typical "I want phaser fire, action, suspense, phaser fire,
special effects, good vs. evil, phaser fire" kind of Star Trek fan.
I realize that the folks at Paramount need to broaden their audience
(read non-trekkers and especially women) to make more of a profit.
But I feel like Trek is not mine anymore.  If it were not for "The
Wrath of Khan", I don't know if there would have ever been a Trek
film I liked.  The world is changing and I guess I am a dinosaur
who is doomed to extinction.  Patrick Stewart is awesome.  He is
the finest actor and captain ever placed on the bridge of the
Enterprise.  Brent Spiner has created a character that rivals that
of Spock, which is tough to do.  But all the "life" of Trek is
being squeezed out.  The need for self-actualization in Trek
characters and the need for Trek writers to preach their gospel
of the month (the futility of the cold war, environmentalism,
save the whales, etc.) has sucked the life out of one of the most
significant media phenomena in history.  You combine this with
the moronic "if I can't direct it, I'm not gonna be in it" and
"I need more lines and more money or I'm not gonna be in it"
foolishness that happened to the last Trek regime, I think it
would be best just to kill it and save us all the grief of
watching our beloved die a slow, painful death at the hands of
idiots.  HIRE WRITERS WHO LOVE TREK, NOT MONEY!!!  Jonathan Frakes
did a pretty good job with what he had.  Hope he can do another.

With that lovely note, I end this purging.  Thanks for reading.

Scott Derby