This film is cynical American product right up there with that other "3", Jurrasic Park Troi.....when Spielberg won't do it, bring in the second-stringer.....
I saw this film in the DVD version, and it was because I got petrified at the thought of Abrams directing the new incarnation of Star Trek. Listening to the "Director's Commentary", my fears have been confirmed.
Mr. Abrams is a Hollywood Player of the highest order. He schmoozes with the best, and has the best kiss his bum. Listen to Tom Cruise and JJ perform verbal fellatio with each other on the Director's Commentary, and you get an idea of how little clothing this Emperor is wearing.
This is Mr. Abrams first directorial outing. And I'm not sure that he is really directing......Tom Cruise has as much, if not more, creative control over this "property" as JJ does. The Bad Robots have previsualized this film to such a degree that it is virtually (pun intended) made before any of the live action stand-ins for the pixels go before the camera.
Abrams is highly influenced by Japanese Manga. The "process" is much easier if the storyboards are framed in such a way that the live action crew just have to recreate what the storyboard artists have already "previsualized". Yet, JJ talks about this film as if he is making Citizen Kane! JJ, you've just made a remake of a tawdry '60's TV show, highlighting the clichés that made people tune in week-after-week, and then added an extra layer of Brian dePalma's chops! The character interaction is calculated, the story designed to tie the set pieces together- it's a popcorn movie. Slick to be sure (6.0 for slickness), but as tasty and empty as saccharine (and about as good for you).
Watch the palette of colours through this film. Pure manga, as are the camera moves, and the hyper-expressiveness of the characters. Eating a brownie would have the dramatic import of Hamlet's Solliloquey here.
I actually posted a "review" of the new Star Trek film on IMDb a few weeks ago, but IMDb chose not to post it, as that film hasn't been completed, and won't be released until 10 months from now. So, this review will have to serve as a cautionary tale.
Mr. Abrams is a very superficial film-maker. Nothing in MI-III has any real soul. The clichés of the original series are served up as nostalgia gags, with a little high tech thrown in to attract a younger audience. Star Trek seems to be following the same formula.
And the last thing Star Trek needs right now is more "formula".
JJ, if you are going to perform sycophantic fellatio on anyone, please find Ron Moore. He won't swing your way, but if he did, I'm sure you would "absorb" some integrity and respect for the art behind the appearance. It may not be there with the Mission Impossible franchise, as that always was confection.
But, once upon a time, Star Trek elevated itself into art, transcended its clichés, and delivered something of cultural import to the masses. Ask Robert Wise, and look at what he delivered. You're not Robert Wise; you're not even Joe Johnston! JJ, spend some time with European film-makers. Attend a few plays. Hang out with John Malkovich, or the Coen Brother. Have John Sayles' baby! Movies are about money, to be sure, but they can be art as well. This only happens when the Director has a sort of sclerosis, and can divorce himself entirely from the business-end of things whilst the art is being made.
To work with both side of the brain, you need a whole brain, not the half-brained sort of movie that MI-III is and this thing called "Star Trek" is destined to be. I, at least, know that you are prancing around Hollywood without any cinematic clothes.
Dear readers, spread the word!
I saw this film in the DVD version, and it was because I got petrified at the thought of Abrams directing the new incarnation of Star Trek. Listening to the "Director's Commentary", my fears have been confirmed.
Mr. Abrams is a Hollywood Player of the highest order. He schmoozes with the best, and has the best kiss his bum. Listen to Tom Cruise and JJ perform verbal fellatio with each other on the Director's Commentary, and you get an idea of how little clothing this Emperor is wearing.
This is Mr. Abrams first directorial outing. And I'm not sure that he is really directing......Tom Cruise has as much, if not more, creative control over this "property" as JJ does. The Bad Robots have previsualized this film to such a degree that it is virtually (pun intended) made before any of the live action stand-ins for the pixels go before the camera.
Abrams is highly influenced by Japanese Manga. The "process" is much easier if the storyboards are framed in such a way that the live action crew just have to recreate what the storyboard artists have already "previsualized". Yet, JJ talks about this film as if he is making Citizen Kane! JJ, you've just made a remake of a tawdry '60's TV show, highlighting the clichés that made people tune in week-after-week, and then added an extra layer of Brian dePalma's chops! The character interaction is calculated, the story designed to tie the set pieces together- it's a popcorn movie. Slick to be sure (6.0 for slickness), but as tasty and empty as saccharine (and about as good for you).
Watch the palette of colours through this film. Pure manga, as are the camera moves, and the hyper-expressiveness of the characters. Eating a brownie would have the dramatic import of Hamlet's Solliloquey here.
I actually posted a "review" of the new Star Trek film on IMDb a few weeks ago, but IMDb chose not to post it, as that film hasn't been completed, and won't be released until 10 months from now. So, this review will have to serve as a cautionary tale.
Mr. Abrams is a very superficial film-maker. Nothing in MI-III has any real soul. The clichés of the original series are served up as nostalgia gags, with a little high tech thrown in to attract a younger audience. Star Trek seems to be following the same formula.
And the last thing Star Trek needs right now is more "formula".
JJ, if you are going to perform sycophantic fellatio on anyone, please find Ron Moore. He won't swing your way, but if he did, I'm sure you would "absorb" some integrity and respect for the art behind the appearance. It may not be there with the Mission Impossible franchise, as that always was confection.
But, once upon a time, Star Trek elevated itself into art, transcended its clichés, and delivered something of cultural import to the masses. Ask Robert Wise, and look at what he delivered. You're not Robert Wise; you're not even Joe Johnston! JJ, spend some time with European film-makers. Attend a few plays. Hang out with John Malkovich, or the Coen Brother. Have John Sayles' baby! Movies are about money, to be sure, but they can be art as well. This only happens when the Director has a sort of sclerosis, and can divorce himself entirely from the business-end of things whilst the art is being made.
To work with both side of the brain, you need a whole brain, not the half-brained sort of movie that MI-III is and this thing called "Star Trek" is destined to be. I, at least, know that you are prancing around Hollywood without any cinematic clothes.
Dear readers, spread the word!