

STAR TREK:  INSURRECTION

A Film Review by Brian Takeshita

Rating:  **1/2 out of ****

Beginning on September 8, 1966, the original "Star Trek" TV series ran for
three years on NBC, and only survived that long due to a massive fan-based
letter writing campaign mounted after announcement of it's impending
cancellation by network executives in it's second year.  However, moved to a
time slot regarded as death by ratings standards, the show failed to be
profitable enough to be included in the 1969 fall lineup, and lived on only
in syndicated reruns.  In contrast, the TV series "Star Trek:  The Next
Generation" ran for seven seasons from 1987 through 1994 without any network
association (it was syndicated from the start), and showed no signs of any
waning popularity.  Whereas most television programs which last more than a
couple of years die agonizing deaths as viewers slowly tune out, "The Next
Generation" voluntarily took itself off the air in order to make the
transition to the big screen.  Passing the TV Trek torch on to two new
series, "The Next Generation" cast bowed out gracefully.  Whether or not
their transition to theaters has been entirely successful is another story.

The beginning of this film finds a malfunctioning android Lt. Commander Data
(Brent Spiner) exposing an operation conducted jointly by the Federation
Starfleet and a race of beings known as the Son'a.  The operation is to
study the Ba'ku inhabitants of a planet which seemingly possesses the
ability to grant immortality to those who live there, and exploit the
planet's unique resources for the good of billions.  The planet is in
Federation space, but the Son'a have the technology to make the exercise
work, resulting in a mutually beneficial alliance.  However, when the covert
nature of the operation is blown and captain of the Starship Enterprise
Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) arrives to take Data into custody, he
interacts with the peaceful Ba'ku and slowly begins to uncover the real
agenda of the Son'a, and their ties to a goal which goes against the very
foundation of Starfleet:  The Prime Directive of non-interference with
less-developed civilizations.  Captain Picard must then lead his crew
against the orders of Starfleet Command and the Federation Council in order
to save the Ba'ku from potential destruction.

STAR TREK:  INSURRECTION marks the third big-screen outing of the heirs to
the top tier of active "Trek."  The first film, GENERATIONS, was heavily
anticipated, but marginally received.  The second, FIRST CONTACT, was widely
regarded as the shot in the arm that the flagging franchise badly needed.
With very little originality and a retention of the TV series mentality,
INSURRECTION seems unfortunately content to ride on the popularity of its
predecessor.

The first question that occurred to me was, "Why is the film called
'INSURRECTION?'"  It sounds so ominous and negative.  If the heroes of the
film are the ones fighting against the corrupt authority, it's not really an
insurrection, but more like a rebellion or crusade or something that sounds
a little more noble.  "INSURRECTION" would have been more apt if the film
were about how the Enterprise were sent to put down a mutinous band of
Federation citizens or something like that (then, in typical Star Trek
fashion, it would be later revealed that there was reason for the uprising,
exposing tainted elements of authority).  One of the working titles for this
third Next Generation installment was STAR TREK:  PRIME DIRECTIVE.  Would've
been a heck of a lot better, if you ask me.

Jonathan Frakes, who also directed STAR TREK:  FIRST CONTACT, and who also
plays the role of the Enterprise's first officer, Commander William Riker,
shows a solid directorial talent once again, but the principal problem with
this film is that the story plays like something from one of the series
episodes, but has been dragged out for two hours.  A tighter screenplay
could have the whole film in a one-hour installment, but a great deal of
useless filler is added in order to stretch the story into feature length.
Watch for one of the Ba'ku women's ability to seemingly slow time, then be
prepared to be let down as neither this ability, nor its significance, is
explained.  Worse yet, some of the filler poses elements intriguing to fans,
but are left untended and unresolved by the end of the movie, almost as if
we'll be able to see a continuation next week.  However, there won't be a
next week; we'll probably have to wait another two years, and it'll be
interesting to see if they remember to even give lip service to some of
these things.

There's a lot of stuff in INSURRECTION that's being passed on to us as new,
but which has really already been covered during seven years of episodes.  I
suppose if you haven't watched much of "Star Trek:  The Next Generation", it
may not matter, but the movies are essentially made for the fans, and those
are exactly the ones who will be disappointed in this film's lack of
originality.  For example, one of the filler subplots involves Data
interacting with a child and discovering childhood for himself.  He must
have done it a half dozen times during the series.  Isn't his search for
humanity getting a little old?  What happened to the computer chip which
gave him emotions?  It was included in both the previous movies, but in this
one, the Enterprise's Chief Engineer Geordi LaForge (LeVar Burton) claims
Data "didn't take it with him" to the planet.  It would seem as though it
this was done just so screenwriters Rick Berman and Michael Piller (both of
whom had extensive involvement in producing "The Next Generation") could
recycle a theme which has already been explored repeatedly.  There's also a
trick that Picard pulls on the leader of the Son'a (F. Murray Abraham) that
seems so incredibly clever until you realize that Picard had the same trick
pulled on him years ago, then subsequently used it himself, and all done
years before this movie.  Did the filmmakers think we've got really short
memories, or that we'd nod knowingly at the "homage" to the series?

The current incarnation of the Starship Enterprise (NCC-1701E) still hasn't
grown on me.  Perhaps it's because the new ship was thrown to us in such a
nonchalant manner in the last film, greatly contrasted with the extensive
(although admittedly a bit excessive) showcasing of the Enterprise in STAR
TREK:  THE MOTION PICTURE, and I still feel that we haven't yet been
properly introduced.  The "Enterprise-E", as it's called, looks alien, and
although I realize there are probably a lot of aliens in Starfleet's design
bureau, the classic look of the Enterprise has been a reassurance that we,
the humans of the here and now, are the forefathers of those who would
explore space in the future.  As the very symbol of the whole "Star Trek"
franchise becomes further altered into something unrecognizable, we as the
fans become distanced from "Star Trek" and from the hope that was engendered
in those who so faithfully followed it.

Before you go wondering if there was anything I liked about STAR TREK:
INSURRECTION, I will say there were some very positive aspects to the movie.
The film's pacing is pretty good, with enough action interlaced with the
dramatic and lighter moments to keep things moving.  Special effects, while
widely downplayed as a contribution to the "greatness" of a film, are superb
and deserve note for their technical contribution.  As a side note, this is
only the second "Star Trek" film out of nine to not use Industrial Light and
Magic for any of its special effects.

The actors play their roles with the aplomb of old pros, once more slipping
into their familiar personae.  Additionally, they actually look as if
they're having fun, and that really goes a long way.  It was also nice to
see that Captain Picard has a love interest (Donna Murphy), since he so
rarely got one in the past.  How Patrick Stewart must envy William Shatner.
Unfortunately, the talents of F. Murray Abraham are woefully underused in a
role which requires little of the skilled actor.  The character itself is
not even very good as a villain, and no where near some of its deliciously
over-the-top predecessors.  And you know how they say the villain often
makes the picture.

There has been a rule of thumb used by both critics and fans of the Star
Trek movies:  The even numbered ones are good, the odd numbered ones not as
good.  STAR TREK:  INSURRECTION is number nine in the series.  The rule
lives on....

Review posted December 16, 1998