From rec.arts.sf.reviews Fri Oct 2 13:32:19 1998 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Joe Chamberlain" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews,rec.arts.startrek.reviews Subject: Retrospective: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc Date: 25 Sep 1998 02:28:35 GMT Organization: The Movie Guy Lines: 83 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <6uev4j$com$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer37.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 906690515 13078 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #14302 Keywords: author=chamberlain X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer37.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:13515 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2112 rec.arts.startrek.reviews:2391 Star Trek: The Motion Picture A Review by Joe Chamberlain Starring William Shatner; Leonard Nimoy; DeForest Kelley & James Doohan This is the film that Star Trek fans waited for ten years for. They were so thrilled that Paramount made the damn thing that fans went in droves to see it, and made it a hit. At least that's my theory, because nothing else about this movie could explain its success. I could be being a little hard on this film -- for its day the special effects were amazing -- possibly the best that had ever been in a film. The problem is that it's now 20 years later and the special effects don't stack up quite as well today, so this film needs a little more to hold an audience. Unfortunately, it doesn't have it. Now before I get thousands of angry letters from Star Trek fans, I have to point out that I am a big fan of the series. As a matter of fact, I still remember going to see Star Trek: The Motion Picture when it was released back in 1979. I, like everyone else in the theater was thrilled with the movie. That was then, and this in now. I usually like to judge films on their own merits, but it is extremely hard to do so when dealing with the Star Trek franchise. It seems as though you can turn on your TV any hour of the day and catch a rerun of the original series or one of its spin-offs. So Star Trek: The Motion Picture almost has to be judged by the quality of the writing that has come before and after it. Even in comparison to the sequel, Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, which is arguably the best of all of the Star Trek films, Star Trek: The Motion Picture pales in comparison. I was shocked as I screened this movie in order to review it. I hadn't seen it in several years and I was astounded as to how draggy it was. From the extended sequence of music before the opening credits, to the long flyby shots of the Enterprise as Kirk sees it for the first time this movie gives boring a new definition. To be fair, the Enterprise flyby shots were included to give millions of Trekkies the chance to see the restyled Enterprise and marvel at what ten years of special effects advancement and many millions of dollars can do in terms of a facelift. Unfortunately, after almost twenty years of these movies we all know what the Enterprise looks like, so it just amounts to extra minutes of pointless nothingness. I'm not even going to get into the Klingons, who ten years earlier had looked like humans who hadn't bathed in a few months and then go from that into having a spiny ridge down the center of their heads. I guess the make-up artists were so concerned with impressing the audience that they forgot to bother watching the original television series. OK, on to the plot. A huge cloud is heading towards Earth, wiping out every thing in its path and the only vessel that can reach it in time is the newly refitted U.S.S. Enterprise. Star Fleet gives command back to James Kirk (William Shatner) and he and the gang go off to save the galaxy. Another thing that I should point out is that the first half of this movie is just like one big reunion show with the typical "Hi, how are you? How long has it been?" Now that was fine and dandy when the movie first came out, but kinda monotonous now. One high note of this movie is that Willim Shatner gives one of the most understated performances of his career -- this isn't saying that he still doesn't give overacting a whole new meaning at certain points, just that he keeps it to a minimum. Of course many might argue that it is just that quality that made Bill Shatner the star he is today. The plot is weak, and the movie is slow to the point of tears at some points in order for director Robert Wise to get in as many special effects shots as he could. It is obvious that the producers figured that between the spectacular special effects and the reunion aspect of the movie, the audience wouldn't care if there was a plot. I'm not going to gripe anymore about this movie -- did a mention the uniforms? -- They all look like they are wearing pajamas. I'm not saying that this is a bad movie, although, it is far from being a good one. It's just that the years have not been kind to it. Combine that with the fact several of its sequels have been many times superior (Start Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home) and you get the feeling of being a little cheated by people who made a name for themselves because of the top notch writing so long associated with Star Trek. If you are a Star Trek fan who wants to get a little nostalgic, it's not a bad choice. If you aren't interested in nostalgia, or not a particularly big Star Trek fan, do yourself a big favor and watch Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan -- a better film (albeit darker) in every respect. No where near as good as some of its sequels 5/10 Visit The Movie Guy http://members.tripod.com/~MovieGuy/index.html