"Star Trek: Insurrection" didn't do too well with audiences or critics, so the folks in charge of the franchise made a few executive decisions. First, they decided to bring in some new blood: John Logan, award- winning screenwriter of "Gladiator", and Stuart Baird, director of action flicks. The former choice was not a bad idea, since Logan was a fan of the series and threw in some treats for his fellow fans: Riker and Troi get married, and the Enterprise gets seat-belts. The latter choice was not so good: Baird was a stranger to the show and didn't know anything about the characters.
The second thing the Powers That Be decided to do was try to evoke the most successful Trek movie to date, "Wrath of Khan". They gave Captain Picard a personal enemy and built the movie around a space battle. It was going to be "darker and grittier".
The result is a movie pulled in opposite directions. Logan's script dwells on mirror images, with Shinzon, the evil young clone of Picard, and B4, the undeveloped "brother" of the android Data. It's a story about how everyone is able to make their own decisions and create their own "destinies", rather than having their fates predetermined by their genes or programming. All in all, that's a pretty clever subject for a Star Trek story to deal with.
But then there's Baird's direction. It's dark, muddy, and not particularly distinguished. Budget cuts seem to have hit the production designers hardest of all, and both the Enterprise and the enemy ship end up looking like submarines, filmed on the cheap and with gloomy lighting. Baird wanders through scenes of dialogue and character development with disorienting close-ups, then fast-forwards to the next action scene. Star Trek gets its first car chase, a repetitive and very loud space battle, and some punch-ups here and there. At most it's an efficient action movie, but Baird clearly has little interest in his actors or characters.
Finally, Data's death makes little difference. It's such an inept film in many ways that even the heroic sacrifice of a beloved character seems tacky and unbelievable. I think John Logan should get credit for trying to concoct a worthy Star Trek story -- he even remembered that Troi was a telepath! -- but the whole thing inevitably collapses in an unpolished, generic mess.
The second thing the Powers That Be decided to do was try to evoke the most successful Trek movie to date, "Wrath of Khan". They gave Captain Picard a personal enemy and built the movie around a space battle. It was going to be "darker and grittier".
The result is a movie pulled in opposite directions. Logan's script dwells on mirror images, with Shinzon, the evil young clone of Picard, and B4, the undeveloped "brother" of the android Data. It's a story about how everyone is able to make their own decisions and create their own "destinies", rather than having their fates predetermined by their genes or programming. All in all, that's a pretty clever subject for a Star Trek story to deal with.
But then there's Baird's direction. It's dark, muddy, and not particularly distinguished. Budget cuts seem to have hit the production designers hardest of all, and both the Enterprise and the enemy ship end up looking like submarines, filmed on the cheap and with gloomy lighting. Baird wanders through scenes of dialogue and character development with disorienting close-ups, then fast-forwards to the next action scene. Star Trek gets its first car chase, a repetitive and very loud space battle, and some punch-ups here and there. At most it's an efficient action movie, but Baird clearly has little interest in his actors or characters.
Finally, Data's death makes little difference. It's such an inept film in many ways that even the heroic sacrifice of a beloved character seems tacky and unbelievable. I think John Logan should get credit for trying to concoct a worthy Star Trek story -- he even remembered that Troi was a telepath! -- but the whole thing inevitably collapses in an unpolished, generic mess.