The first two "Kelvin Timeline" Star Trek films were, in my opinion, pretty great. Star Trek, on top of being an all around fun movie, is also an example of a film reboot done right. And even though many have reservations on it, I'm a firm defender of Star Trek Into Darkness. So...how does Star Trek Beyond hold up?
Beyond is, in a word, fun. Lots of fun. It's fast-paced, well-written, well-acted, and just a darn good time.
Splitting up the crew and seeing the escapades of each pairing definitely lent a lot to my enjoyment. Seeing characters you'd never instantly think to put together and have them interact is something I'm always game for, which is probably why I enjoy The Avengers and Legends of Tomorrow as much as I do. I'd probably never think to put Kirk and Chekov together, but they do it here and it works. The best one, by a long shot, is Spock and Bones. In the previous two films, they interacted, of course, but not in a way that made any sort of friendship between the two of them evident. In Beyond, their dynamic develops into something not too far from what DeForrest Kelley and Leonard Nimoy had in the originals, and it ended up being a major highlight.
The plot, thank goodness, isn't convoluted. It's a tightly-paced, straightforward story, and it never tries to incorporate subplots that don't lend to it or the character's arcs. We don't spend too much or too little time on one scene or in one place. Beyond chugs along at a reasonable speed, which is what I wish a lot of other movies these days would be able to do (Sorry Batman v. Superman. You're guilty). Also, luckily, the "simple" story never feels "dumb." Sure, it's not as methodical and thought-provoking as classic Trek, but the writing is still sharp and doesn't rely on visuals for enjoyment. Apart from the character interactions, there's humour, heart and intrigue. The vitals. The essentials. The Infinity Stones of blockbuster film writing, if you will. That's right. Marvel reference in a Star Trek post. I'm out of control.
On the flip side, the negative side, I think the villain was a step down after what Cumberbatch brought to the table in Into Darkness. Idris Elba does a fine job, even though I found it hard to understand what he was saying during a few scenes, and I loved the look of the character, but Krall's motivations aren't made known until late in the game, and even then they seemed a bit too...I don't know, unrefined. I still have questions about villain that I don't feel were answered very clearly in the film. Either that, or I just couldn't hear him, because I couldn't understand what he was saying during a few scenes. Maybe that's where a rewatch would benefit. With subtitles.
And this is only a miniscule gripe, but as much as I praised the film's simple plot, I still would've preferred a bit more "meat to the bone," so to speak. I still love the movie as it is, don't get me wrong, but I guess was expecting a little bit more depth. Again, I'm not saying this a big problem, nor do I think the movie is at all "dumb." I liked the layers of story in Star Trek and Into Darkness, and, by comparison, Beyond is fairly two-dimensional. There must have been a way to make Beyond three dimensional while retaining its simplicity. But again, still love it, and it's not a glaring problem.
So far, the Star Trek reboot films haven't let me down. I consider them to be prime examples of what blockbusters and reboots should be like, and Beyond continues that just fine. As to how it measures up with the previous two entries, I'd say it's on par with Into Darkness, though both are good for different reasons. Beyond is a high-octane cosmic adventure that I'm looking forward to watching again.
No comments:
Post a Comment