Reviews

The plot of "putting the band back together" was inevitable, but was so painful and dry that it left a bad taste in my mouth for the rest of it. This review is solely of this "motion picture" as a motion picture. Not a franchise love letter.

2001: A Space Odyssey appears to be a heavy thematic inspiration for this one. Long shots of over lit spaceship models abound but not to the same effect as 2001 (I saw the directors cut). I have heard that the success of that film and others in the mid to late seventies that balanced art and mass appeal. "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" does not accomplish this. It feels less like a movie and more like an overblown episode of TV show. I DO understand that's what the audience would be familiar with, but if you're going to make a "motion picture" make a good motion picture not a TV special!

The love interest was hollow and thin. Couldn't help think while watching that the bald woman was casted to fit into the unattainable sex appeal role. The characters allude to past unrequited love, carefully placed to let the audiences minds run wild and look forward to culmination. Predictable.

I think it's fair to assume just by watching the film that it was constructed to be a one off standalone incase it flopped big time. But, it seems that it did well enough for the Star Trek IP to continue. As we have MANY more Treks available to view.

Overall, the plot is suffocated by the all powerful bad guy/force. There's themes that they're trying to go for but they are not as profound as they try to be. Such themes as {mortal man's superiority over hyper evolved machine}; {Love surpassing all trial}; {Creation challenging its creator}.

Script... same thing as the plot. Feels forced, jolty and dry.

There are good elements to the movie. Some of the practical effects like the blurring of the wormhole are effective. Albeit a little too long winded. The final special effect is actually quite good. Shocking.

Those small glints of greatness are what bump up my opinion from 2/10 to 4/10.

This documentary provides a powerful perspective on a lesser known part of blues music. The shipyard postwar 1940s attracted many African Americans from the south to find a better place to live in the Bay Area, particularly from Texas and Louisiana. This thesis film by Marlon Riggs and Peter Webster unveils the truth that Oakland blues and blues from all over the world is mostly unknown by the vast majority of bluesers, much less the general public. It is reminiscent of (I hate to say it) a Ken Burns style interviewing with archival images and footage. It tells a story rooted in the present that even in 2021 feels relevant, of east bay culture and would make any Bay Area native nostalgically proud. There's more to the blues than Chicago and the Deep South. Some of the performances are quite moving and may just make a fan out of anyone who watches. Enjoyable and personal, but nothing outrageously innovative.

Should you see it? Meh, if you've seen pirates of the Caribbean or the African Queen or been on the ride at Disneyland, prepare to be disappointed. They try to make it seem "fun" but most of it comes off very forced. Not very original. There's a macguffin, some romance, some carefully placed LGBTQ stuff to make it politically correct. They didn't expound upon that to not alienate anti-LGBTQ people. Which makes it even weaker. Kids might be scared by the Pirates of the Caribbean style animation. A few jump scares too.

There's a lot of "nods" to things previous. The ride at Disneyland this movie was based on was heavily inspired by the classic movie "The African Queen". And the parallels to it are uncannily obvious. But, adding a big name to the male lead draws crowds, even though Johnson looks uncomfortable aim his role.

Main Characters: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is a suspender wearing, flask sipping, river slob just like Humphrey Bogart in the African Queen. However, as Disney does in ALL of their movies now, there's sarcasm up the wazoo. Which is understandable if you've ever been on the ride at Disneyland, the cast members "guiding " you along the track and making puns. Some of the puns made are... okay. Most of them are dull and don't hold a candle to some of the routines I've seen at the theme park. As I was watching in the theater what I saw made me think, wow, the writers must have explored every script option at least twice, because the dialogue didn't flow. It was cut up and couldn't get into a rhythm.

Emily Blunt: Her character is one dimensional. Typical "ahead of her time" feminism trope. I personally really don't like Emily Blunt. She's white, always has a "know it all" attitude in all her roles, and doesn't have as much range as her employers or agent might be trying to pass her off as. Her acting technique seems to be "neutral face".

The villain (Jesse Plemmons) was... ok. It apparently takes place during the early 20th century, around World War 1. I could hear in my head people saying about the villain, "oh yeah, the Nazi guy? He was creepy. What is it with those Nazis and classical music?" That made me chuckle because he wasn't a "Nazi" but the writers chose a German because "most people hate Nazis". Not the actors fault, it's all on the production company. In my humble opinion, that's a very safe artistic choice. This character and his attributes harkens back to Fitzcaraldo with the music playing. At least that's what I saw, insane guy with connection to classical music.

The plot was so bad that they had some of the main characters verbal explaining what happens next. Example: "Look, xxxxx is happening which means that xxxxxxx will happen!" Very confusing plot when you try to think about motives and the like.

Is the choice of name for main conquistador inspired from Aguirre: The Wrath of God? Maybe, I frankly don't care. The Aguirre character and his comrades are undercooked. They're just there for "cool CG effects".

It wasn't as bad as the Marvel superhero movies though. It is effective at giving the atmosphere of the ride at Disneyland, that's one good thing about it.