Tuesday 21 May 2013


Not much to say about this.
I've seen all the Star Trek films at the cinema though I've never been a fan - and never even sat through an entire episode of any of the TV series. But I would marginally rather watch a Star Trek film than one of the 'Star Wars'. The former's stories tend to have rather more human interest. However, in this film, when one takes away the fortississimo soundtrack gunfights, crashes and explosions, most of which occur in airless (and therefore what ought to be soundless!) space, the basic plot-line seems fairly perfunctory. Having said that, I didn't find the film as bum-numbingly tedious as some of the previous efforts in the series. But it's really one for those who have 'bought into' the Star Trek notion - and that obviously excludes me. I'm pretty sure it would leave most hardened fans thoroughly satisfied, which is all it was really intended to do.

In terms of 'pleasure' (or not) obtained for this viewer.....................3.5


  1. Replies
    1. No great loss, J.G., as went to a £3 screening anyway - and at least my record of seeing all the S.T. films remains intact. Were I an admirer, like you, of Mr Q then I'm sure I would have got more out of it, but 'fraid that he just doesn't 'light my fire'.

    2. I might feel that way too if only he had some 'face fur'.

  2. I will probably go see this, although I will be outraged at all the storyline errors.

    1. In any science fiction films set mainly in space most of my attention is focussed on the scientific howlers rather than storyline errors, and I've no doubt that you'll find a good many of the latter type to keep you distracted or even amused.
      Actually, even in any film at all I STILL can't get my head around seeing explosions happening miles away with the sound of it being heard instantaneously. Wish I could just let it go, forget it and simply enjoy the film, but it exasperates me every time.