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.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Path to War (2002): More TV Than HBO

  My whole life since I was an elementary school aged kid I’ve always been fascinated by US political history, often much more than I am modern politics (particularly these days where everything political is just crushingly depressing and scary). I make it a regular habit to read books about 19 th and 20 th century political figures and events, and I am an absolute sucker for the subgenre of “HBO Political History Movie/Miniseries” that was so common in the 00s and early 10s on the network (shoutout to the amazing John Adams series maybe someday I’ll review here). So of course when I somehow only found out that Path to War existed for the first time yesterday while browsing through stuff on Max, I didn’t even think about it and just immediately pulled the trigger to watch it. First thing is first, I have heard many a bad attempt by British actors to do a convincing Southern accent like Jude Law a weird number of times, but Michael Gambon here trying to accomplish a convincing T...

M (1931) - Even Better than Peter Lorre's Haunting Eyes

  Anybody who knows me knows my biggest vice in life is true crime as guilty and gross as I feel about it quite frequently, and unfortunately as a true crime junkie you end up hearing about a lot of cases involving abused or dead children. So of course I joked to my main group chat of friends when I decided to watch M the other day that I needed to take a break from all the stories about dead kids I’d watched that day so I was going to put on a movie about a serial child murderer. To be honest this might be kind of a short review compared to some I’ve written, because I don’t have that much negative to say. Some of the performances seem a little “big”, but so soon after the silent era that is to be expected and that is just kinda of body language analysis since I do not speak German at all. Also it does something that a lot of films of its era does, which I’m guessing had something to do with cameras speeds at that time, where instead of showcasing people naturally running it inst...

World Without Sun (1964) - Do You Think We Should Be Smoking in this Pressurized Chamber?

  My entire knowledge of the filmography of Jacques Cousteau, outside of clips here and there, comes through pop cultural osmosis. When I was a young teenager I became an instant fan of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou by Wes Anderson which I watched together with my stepfather who was a lifelong fan of cult/alternative comedy and we laughed our asses off no matter how dry the material is presented. When a few years younger still, like countless children of the 90s I became a dedicated fan of Spongebob Squarepants and its zany, often surreal sense of humor which included a French-accented narrator in certain “2 Hours Later” or whatever cutaway gags that it is obvious tribute to the great aquatic documentarian. So I knew certain stylistic things or stereotypes, but that is about it before I decided to watch World Without Sun at midnight on a weekday. This is the first documentary I’ve ever reviewed on here, so figuring the best way to go about it as I go along. The most strikin...