Somewhat dull and aimless.
Castmember Jonathan Frakes returns as director for this science fiction movie which was released
in December of 1998.
The ninth "Star Trek" film came just shy of doubling its $58 million dollar budget, but
given its unimpressive scope - you have to wonder where all that money was spent.
Especially since most of the sets, costumes, and props were redressed or reused from earlier
productions.
When Starfleet conspires to forcibly relocate the peaceful inhabits of a "fountain of youth"-like
planet, the crew of the Enterprise defy orders to defend them.
Taken at face-value, their defiant, 'white knight' actions seem honorable, but later
we learn the truth; if the Federation can relocate this tiny village of 600 people,
they can drastically lengthen the lifespan for entire civilizations.
Maybe I'm missing something - but wasn't it this very franchise that famously said, "The
needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"?
As a result of this fundamental contradiction, the reasoning from the bad guy is actually
more convincing than the reasoning of the good guy.
It is a fatal misstep for the PG rated film.
This central conflict takes nearly forty minutes to develop...
with "Insurrection" just ambling along like a Hardy Boys' mystery.
This plodding pace invites closer scrutiny of the 103-minute movie's plot; which is where
the narrative begins to fall apart.
Like, why was the giant holoship cloaked inside a nearby lake, if the villagers were just
going to be transported onto it anyway?
Patrick Stewart leads the TNG cast in their third outing; Brent Spiner goes for a swim,
LeVar Burton finally gets his eyes fixed, Michael Dorn is shamelessly reincorporated,
Marina Sirtis and Gates McFadden compare breast-firmness, while Frakes shaves his beard.
Unlike the cast of the original series, this group actually gets better looking with age
- especially Stewart, who seems to benefiting from the fictional age-defying magic in this
film.
He has a tender romance with a quiet and wise 300-year-old villager played by Donna Murphy.
The two share convincing chemistry, even if their short relationship culminates with a
tender embrace as time inexplicably freezes around them.
That said, Patrick just isn't really suited for these romantic moments.
It honestly feels like watching your parents make-out.
Meanwhile, F. Murray Abraham plays the villain, a selfish, but pragmatic alien who combats
his advanced age with hideous facial stretching.
Working as his secret ally is Anthony Zerbe as the double-crossing Admiral, a twist that
was obvious from the word "go".
The small society of warp-capable humanoids the Enterprise attempts to protect have chosen
to reject technology, explaining, "We believe that when you create a machine to do the work
of a man, you take something away from the man."
This mentality makes them of the more interesting species in "Star Trek" canon, which is why
it's a damn shame they weren't given any personality to go with it.
Instead, they're dressed up like Mennonites on holiday in the south of France.
Spiner's frequent one-liners - often delivered with a sly hint of rebellious attitude - feel
inauthentic, existing only as clumsy fan-service.
On the plus side however, this cringeworthy dialogue is immediately followed by some legitimately
exciting, and well-structured action sequences.
A hilltop escape from incoming combat drones is particularly well-done.
But Stewart and Abraham's final fight onboard an orbiting harvester ship is poorly choreographed
and anti-climatic.
And what's with all the blue backgrounds - did Paramount run out of money in their chroma-key
budget?
It's not that hard fellas.
Jerry Goldsmith's familiar leitmotifs return, this time with some leisurely flutes thrown
in to fit the more laid-back mood of the film.
This more casual approach forgoes the use of a traditional "Captain's Log" narration,
or any scene mentioning Earth.
The result is a "Trek" film that feels unbound by consequence or familiarity, and not in
a good way.
Fans of the series will enjoy this picture, thanks to some strong character moments and
competent second-act tension, but as a standalone sci-fi film, it just isn't that interesting.
But let's see what you wrote.
Calling it 'bland' and 'disappointing', you definitely didn't like this one - rating it
a THREE out of ten.
For me, "Star Trek: Insurrection" is an easy-going adventure without a compelling narrative - but
remains an ALRIGHT film.
That does it for this quick excerpt - but if you'd like to watch full episodes of "Movie
Night", and submit your own reviews to be included on the show, please visit the Jogwheel
YouTube channel.
My name is Jonathan Paula, thanks for watching and have a good Movie Night!