Skip to main content

Star Trek The Motion Picture (1979) - Imperfect, Molasses Slow, Stunning.

 



While growing up, I was firmly on the Star Wars side of the Wars/Trek divide although we owned a couple of random Trek films (Wrath of Khan and First Contact) on VHS which I watched from time to time, but that was most of what my exposure was having never really seen the series and only bits of The Next Generation series. However, as an adult I have slowly become much more of a Trekkie than a Star Wars nerd, because it is so much closer to actual full sci-fi than space opera and I just love the rich worlds, cultures, and Utopian socialist future envisioned by the universe. The characters are deeper and better developed, the themes go so far beyond simply good and evil, and even the movies that aren’t as well regarded often have some very interesting things to offer. Which brings me to today’s film Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

I understand why this film is disliked by a lot of fans, a lot of the criticisms of it are valid. The plot is very thin, about as basic as you can get. Somebody I follow on Mastodon described it as a film of people looking at things, and they weren’t wrong, a great deal of the film is just people looking dumbfounded by things they aren’t even on on screen with containing very little dialog or commentary. Likewise, they dedicate so much time to visuals that almost no character outside of Kirk and Spock are given much to do to further develop their much older characters or get much to do other than react to situations with the exception of demoted Captain played by pedophile Stephen Collins who just acts petulant most of the time and is given like two lines of backstory. All this adds to making a fairly long film, over 2 hours, feel even longer. The Enterprise doesn’t even leave dock until like over a half hour into the film and the reveal shot of the ship takes so that it almost feels like parody after a while.

However, no Star Trek film has ever been this beautiful to this day. It is a masterful visual work, from matte paintings to light work to incredible miniature work and all the other SFX tricks of the day they all work together to create a dazzling, lovely psychedelic tapestry that keeps your eyes glued to the screen even as very little is actually happening in many scenes. It is obvious they used every cent (and more) of its budget which much larger than any of the other TOS films, and it isn’t surprising they would continue to reuse shots and effects from this film for multiple of the sequels. It is effectively an art film with blockbuster cash to play with for much of its runtime, at times it feels like it could have been directed by a young Lynch, deep into the philosophy of articial intelligence and evolution as the hypercharged version of one of the 60s series episodes that cared more about asking questions about the human (more or less) condition than pushing action. And while it takes a long journey to get there, when the plot really kicks towards the end of the film the central twist is very clever and the films resolution is satisfying.

William Shatner is the one actor given a chance to shine and show range, and within the realm of Shatner-esque acting, he gives a nuanced performance which showcases the flaws in Captain Kirk as a character driven often by ego and ambition who needs his friends around him to tell him when he’s taking the wrong path or motivated by more than simply rightfulness. The rest of the cast does the best with what they are given, DeForrest Kelly in particular makes the most out of his screentime as the angel on Kirk’s shoulder and Leonard Nimoy was always one the biggest pros of the core group even if the plot leads Spock to shedding some of the development of his human side he had in the series. Newcomer Persis Khambatta is a very striking figure and while inherently given a role that mostly is without much emotion, always attracts your attention and is memorable long after you leave.

This movie simply isn’t for everyone, I think you have to have a high tolerance for visuals over cohesive substance in film as well as a lot of patience for slow burn storytelling. However, if these things describe you, it is a genuinely stunning visual experience at times that leaves you in as much awe as the characters in the film often are with real philosophical quandries and exploration at its heart. Even as a big fan of it, I probably wouldn’t rank it above the mid-pack of TOS movies but it is certainly the best directed by somebody other than Nicholaus Meyers.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Green Mile (1999) - Syrupy Collection of Great Character Actors

  The Green Mile was a film that was in a regular rotation for my mom and stepdad when I was growing up, so I saw it many times in the late 90s and early 00s. My love of Stephen King mostly comes from my dad, who owned the first King book I ever read myself in late elementary school (Skeleton Crew) and numerous others I looked at on his shelf all the time and showed me miniseries like IT and The Stand. However, my mom contributed a little bit too with the likes of Creepshow and some of his other 80s adaptations and of course The Green Mile. So I figured why not revisit it since I own it? My biggest problem with The Green Mile is one I share with its spiritual sibling in The Shawshank Redemption which is that it is just very sentimental and sometimes even downright corny. Movies seemingly designed to make middle aged dads get in touch with their emotions by layering that syrup on thick. There’s a place for that and I understand why people really enjoy it, but it just simply isn’t ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Cabin in the Woods (2012) - Funny, Fun, and a Little Bit Insufferable

  The late 00s and early 10s were a pretty good time to be somebody who loved cult horror films with a sense of humor. You had the likes of Trick r Treat, Drag Me to Hell, and my favorite at the time which was The Cabin in the Woods. Whether it was on pay cable or early streaming, the film became a regular fixture in the years I mostly just spent my time frequently re-watching the same movies and drinking far too much beer. Because of that, I’ve gone some years without watching it very frequently cause I got kind of burnt out on it in my 20s but I had this former Blockbuster rental Bluray copy that cost less than 2 bucks so I figured why not see how well the film holds up? The thing that hasn’t held up so well is how smugly in love with its own dialog and cleverness the film is in a way that immediately signals that Joss Whedon was a writer on it. There’s a certain too cute quality to a lot of Whedon’s projects that have made me not like them as much as other people do, sorry to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Leprechaun 2 (1994) - In Multiple Ways, an Improvement on the First

  In my Leprechaun review, which admittedly was not among my more popular posts but here I am doing the sequel regardless preaching the gospel of...offensive Irish stereotypes?, I talked about how much I enjoyed the series growing up having the first two or three on VHS and frequently haunting the horror aisle when we’d make our regular trips to Hollywood Video where I picked up some others. Going in I remembered this sequel actually improving on the original and upon this rewatch I definitely think it does in parts. Going from a young Jennifer Aniston, who hadn’t quite found her acting comfort zone yet but was serviceable enough in the poorly written role she played, to the painfully bad Shevonne Durkin was a huge downgrade in the female lead role and I think they realized that as in the second half of the film she just disappears for huge chunks of it. The film doesn’t really do anything to explain how the Leprechaun found himself living on Houdini’s property in Los Angeles aft...
Post a Comment
Read more