The River Green

In a previous blog post, the 11th Star Trek movie is discussed, which premiered in the US on May 9, 2009. I liked it alot.

My views are not shared with the idiot City Paper movie reviewer Harry Kloman, whose scathing review not only proves that he hasn't seen the movie, but further cements the popular posit that he is no longer capable of writing reviews (none of the movies he has reviewed this year have fallen within his good graces).

He writes: 'There are some, I'm sure, who will argue that the Star Trek we all know (and, if you're reading this, probably love) had nowhere left to go with its original template, and if it were to survive at all, then someone had to erase the disk and begin compiling new data.'

Of course the original template had nowhere to go. That's exactly the reason it hasn't gone anywhere since the last movie. What Captain Obvious fails to recognize in his first paragraph is that the team behind the 11th movie is new to Trek. J.J.Abrams wasn't even a Trek fan until he came on board the project.

Paragraphs 3 and 4:

'But what's wrong with saying something is over? How about a little death with dignity? There may have been one movie left in this graying enterprise, but Star Trek, directed by J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost), isn't that movie. You can't grip an audience by destroying things that we all know still exist. The planet Vulcan -- obliterated? And Romulus -- just gone? Impossible! We've witnessed their futures in myriad detail.

And yet, they are gone, just like that. In fact, that's the concept with which I choose to quarrel. Why create a prequel about the lives of characters we've come to value by starting their lives over? Why not just concoct a snazzy action plot that shows us how they met and how they formed a peerless team?'

Death with dignity? Nemesis was no dignity and this is not death. This is new life. Gene Roddenberry himself once said that he hoped that the future of Trek would include a new generation of writers taking what he left us with and updating it and making it relevant again. That is what has happened here. I'm not going to belabor this point... Marcel does an excellent job of schooling Kloman in his comment to the article. Proof that Kloman did not see this movie? '...And Romulus -- just gone? Impossible! We've witnessed their futures in myriad detail.' Romulus wasn't destroyed in the timeline of the film, but 189 years in the future, after everything we knew about it had already taken place. Idiot.

Yes, Vulcan was obliterated in this movie. Also, Kirk's father died. Both of which we've known for the last 40 years not to have happened in Trek's history. It's called time-travel. Look into it. If the idiot Kloman thinks he knows everything there is to know about time-travel, perhaps he can educate us as to why he thinks M-theory is so asymmetrical. Oh wait. M-theory is supersymmetric, isn't it? Sorry to get all nerd up in here, but when an idiot such as Kloman begins to speak about things they clearly have not the first clue about, it angers me. Just like when people describe something that takes a really long time in terms of light years... I want to smack them. A light year, just so we're clear, is a measure of distance, not time. If one were to say 'that took five light years,' they would be saying that it took 1,825 days... which is five years.

If there is something about this move 'with which to quarrel,' this is not it. If it is, you didn't follow the story and you didn't see the movie, because in fact, a snazzy action plot that showed us how the original crew met and how they formed a peerless team, was what I took away from the movie. Perhaps the idiot Kloman saw a different film and thought it was Star Trek?

Paragraph 8:

'If they make another movie with this cast and its reiterated world, what character stories are there left to tell? The original Star Trek crew boldly went with a sense of wonder and adventure. Their clones are emotionally damaged in ways that make the galaxy a menacing place of perpetual war with no hope of even temporary peace. It's a completely different premise, masquerading as a brand name, and it promises no hope of originality.'

This is the overwhelming proof that Kloman is no longer fit to review films, since he obviously doesn't know a good one when it smacks him square in the face.

'...what character stories are there left to tell?'

How about Spock and Uhura? How about Spock rebuilding his race? How about Scotty becoming chief engineer? How about anything with Sulu, since we know nothing about him other than the fact that he fences. Seriously, is this guy stupid or what?

'...a menacing place of perpetual war with no hope of even temporary peace.'

Star Trek has always, always, always reflected the present. Our time is that of a menacing place of perpetual war with no hope of even temporary peace. What an idiot.

'It's a completely different premise, masquerading as a brand name, and it promises no hope of originality.'

The whole point of this movie IS that it is a completely different premise, you dolt. The whole story was nothing short of original.

To support my point of view, Leonard Nimoy says, 'Star Trek began in a time of great upheaval. There were antiwar demonstrations. There was political turmoil. There was social unrest. The world was a mess. A lot like it is now.'

Kloman needs to stop writing reviews of movies he hasn't seen before. And then he needs to go see this movie and realize just how utterly wrong he was.

Labels: movies , Star Trek