THE AISLE SEAT - "STAR TREK: INSURRECTION"
by Mike McGranaghan
There is a thing known as the Star Trek Movie Curse, which simply states: The odd numbered Star Trek movies are always inferior to the even numbered ones. Think about it - The Wrath of Khan (#2), The Voyage Home (#4) and First Contact (#8) are leagues better than The Search for Spock (#3), The Final Frontier (#5) or Star Trek: Insurrection, which is #9 in the series. In fact, not only is this not one of the better Trek movies, it is one of the worst.
Regular readers of this magazine might know of my aversion to Star Trek. I don't like it. Never have. Star Trek, in its worst moments, has always been esoteric, reveling in its own obsessive minutia. I concede that some of the movies have, in fact, been good, largely because they were accessible to all audiences, not just Trekkies (and I don't want any e-mail about how you prefer to be called "Trekkers;" I prefer to be called Your Enlightened Royal Critic-ness, but one ever abides by my wish). The recent films, featuring the "Next Generation" cast, have been my favorites because unlike the original cast, these people can actually act. After the exciting, eerie First Contact (directed by Jonathan Frakes, who also plays Riker), I made the suggestion that all future Trek outings should be helmed by Frakes. I stand by that idea (this new movie's lameness is not his fault), but Insurrection embodies everything I despise about Star Trek. This movie is totally inaccessible to those of us who haven't absorbed every last little factoid about Gene Roddenberry's imaginary universe.
One curious thing about Insurrection is that it starts mid-stream, with plot elements already in place. I felt like I had walked into the movie after it had been running for 30 minutes. Things don't improve. In fact, this movie is so esoteric that I can't even tell you exactly what it's about. Here's what I do know: the opening scene finds android Data (Brent Spiner) roaming around on some planet that looks like an island resort. He's wearing an invisibility suit, which he soon removes before shooting a mountain with a phaser. The mountain disappears, revealing what looks to be a gigantic office desk with windows. Peering out from the other side is a senior officer of the Federation, as well as a guy who looks like he's had 50-too-many facelifts (F. Murray Abraham).
Data, apparently, has gone nuts and it is up to the Enterprise crew to retrieve him. I never did catch why he was on the planet, or what the invisibility suit was all about, or why the others were hiding inside the big desk. Anyway, we are told that the planet is inhabited by a race of people called the Ba'ku (I immediately distrust any movie that has to create races of people with apostrophes in their name). The Ba'ku live near some planetary rings that give off radiation which makes them eternally youthful. The bad facelift guy's name is Ru'afo and he comes from the Son'a race (again with the apostrophes!). Ru'afo has some plan to move the Ba'ku somewhere else. I don't know why or where, but I can only assume that he wants to tap into some of that radiation for himself. Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) and crew find out about this plan and - against Federation orders - fight to keep the Ba'ku put. Perhaps it has something to do with the lovely Ba'ku woman Picard finds himself fancying.
That's a lot of plot, and I know I haven't explained it very clearly, but neither does the screenplay. Everything that happens is explained in that quasi-nonsensical Trek-speak where people prattle on about metaphasic radiation, intergallactic briar patches, and other vague mumbo jumbo. You need to have a detailed working knowledge of Star Trek minutia to understand what's going on. Devoted fans of the series will undoubtedly get it, but others will be lost. It's akin to walking into a business meeting where everyone is speaking technical jargon. If you don't know the terms - or the style of the language - you're out of the loop.
Aside from these complaints, Insurrection is just not as strong as some of the other movies. Rumor has it that the studio (Paramount) tampered with Frakes' cut of the film, necessitating re-shoots and drastic editing. Most Trek movies run two hours; the end credits here start rolling after just 95 minutes. There is a lot of missing exposition, especially in regard to the F. Murray Abraham character. A longer cut might have explained the story more fully. As it stands, the Ba'ku are an incredibly boring people, hardly worth caring about. And if I told you that a certain Ba'ku member is eventually placed in peril, could you guess which one?
The best thing about Insurrection is the cast of characters. I've grown to like them, especially Picard, Riker, and Data. There are some nice human touches in the film, and some effective character-based humor. I'll mention the terrific special effects while I'm at it, too. Some of the effects shots here are really dazzling, which is always a hallmark of any Trek movie.
Essentially, Star Trek: Insurrection is a film for die-hard Trekkies only, but even they might find themselves disappointed. I saw the film with three friends, all of whom have more of an appreciation for Trek than I do. They laughed when I proclaimed, "Thank goodness it's over!" - and then they admitted that the Star Trek Movie Curse lives on. At least I can rest assured that, if the pattern continues, the next one will be a lot better than this mess. The only thing I hate more than a bad movie is a movie I can't follow.
(
out of four)
Return
to the Film Page
