gtw-168-105516
This was a good episode of Star Trek. I think you could argue that it was not worth a movie when you could follow a more significant plot line (perhaps the end of hostilities between the Romulans and Federation ala Undiscovered Country, which I think they meant to do with the following movie but failed somewhat due to who was at the helm of the project). But I think it was also an attempt to add some fun for the crew (and audience), Riker shaving his beard, Picard's mambo, etc. It's great fun, decent but simple story, well executed. People arguing the philosophical questions are one, not suspending disbelief- this is the future, your problems are not the future's problems and two, forgetting the godd*mn Prime Directive. In the whole 7 seasons and movies the Prime Directive is a central theme. Yeah, let's throw it out because of a planet's potential benefits. Lastly, for some reason there are a few reviewers that are upset with the Amish aliens in the movie. Boo hoo. There are different kinds of people in the universe. Relax. Enjoy the movie.
zkonedog
Though often reviewed as a typical "odd numbered" Star Trek movie (for some reason, the even numbered movies in the series have performed much better than the even numbers), Star Trek: Insurrection is actually a rather strong forte into the Trek universe.The conflict of this film works on two levels: First, there is the conflict between two races of people (a plot point as old as time but one that, if done right, can be quite effective). Second, there is the conflict between Captain Jean-Luc Picard (and thus his crew) against upper-ranking Federation officials, who want to violate the sacred Prime Directive of the universe. Both of those areas of conflict, acting simultaneously throughout the movie, are surprisingly effective and compelling.Besides the effectiveness of the main plot, however, this film also (much like the previous First Contact film) contains some interesting and humorous character development. While trying to rescue a persecuted race of people, the crew of the Enterprise investigates a planet on which the effects of aging are reversed. Thus, while the android Data is unaffected, other characters are taken on an interesting hormonal journey: Worf begins acting like a typical (violent!) Klingon youth, Crusher and Troi notice certain, um, body parts firming up, and Geordi LaForge regains the use of his natural eyes.To conclude, Star Trek: Insurrection, while generally regarded as a sub-par effort, actually breaks the "odd-bad, even-good" chain of Star Trek movies. If you are new to the Star Trek universe and are interested in this movie, I would recommend watching the previous film, First Contact, in order to get a better handle on the Next Generation characters before watching this film. If you thoroughly enjoyed First Contact, this movie (with its action/adventure combined with great human drama and humor) will not disappoint you.
Edmund Bloxam
I read somebody ranting about the 'selfishness' of the people who would not give up their land (although actually, they were never asked, but that's by the by) for the 'common good'. A good contemporary analogy is to Native Americans being kicked out of their homes for oil. Everyone benefits from oil. However, the moral of this movie directly refers to forced relocation. Destroy the people and their culture for material gain (not 'prevent endless suffering').There is an environmentalist point interwoven here too. Destroy the world for gain (let's say the oil was actually...oh, right, there isn't a better analogy)-this is science fiction-the resource is 'health juice'- find some other way to become healthier rather than destroy a people and its culture.Anyway, the only problem I had with this movie was pacing. I wanted more Anij and Picard, to take it the sights a bit more. Even slightly longer lingering shots of spaceships shooting each other. I thought the battles were taught and rhythmic though--you don't need one hundred ships for a good movie battle. Probably too many characters requiring screen time. You don't need to give EVERYONE deep character development-so, more Data, or more Troi/Riker.But it was all there. The action and plot made sense. There were no holes. I thought the 'insurrection' was not a real insurrection first time round (even the writer thought he could have slotted in a Starfleet ship or something to make it look like the crew was fighting their bosses), but the interaction with the admiral and Picard covered that. Link to 'Magnificent Seven' was amusing. (Caves were a reasonable hideout-anything more, which is what they wanted, would not have fitted in with 'natural planet'.
Wuchak
Released in 1998 and directed by Jonathan Frakes, "Star Trek: Insurrection" is the third Star Trek film featuring the Next Generation cast. The plot revolves around a serene alien race, the Ba'ku, whose planet offers regenerative radiation and therefore extremely long lifespans; moreover, they live in harmony with their environment and reject advanced technology. With the aid of an alien race called the Son'a, the Federation secretly (deceptively) researches the Ba'ku culture, but the Son'a intend to take the planet for themselves and others who secretly want to regenerate their bodies (i.e. drink of the 'Fountain of Youth'). The problem is that Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E crew are loyal to the Prime Directive.The plot is good with some interesting ideas — the paradisal planet where immortality is nigh reality — but something prevents the movie from taking off and soaring. It's decent; it's just underwhelming and doesn't always 'click.' Some kinks needed worked out in the creation process. The film runs 103 minutes and was shot in California at Convict Lake, Mammoth Lakes Park; San Gabriel Dam, Angeles National Forest; Lake Sherwood; Bishop; and Paramount Studios, Los Angeles. GRADE: B-
AD
