Star Trek: Insurrection

I kind of failed to follow through on my vow to view all ten Star Trek movies before watching the eleventh- which I'm going to do tonight at 8 PM. There will be a review of that later tonight or tomorrow, I'd imagine- but as the Missus has snuck up north to visit her Mother for Mother's Day, I thought I'd take advantage of the situation to shuffle the order of our Netflix cue to knock off two more Trek movies as part of a general celebration of all things Trek related in honor of the new movie.

So, I decided to take on 'Star Trek: Insurrection.' I did this because I think Insurrection is the only Trek movie that I haven't watched multiple times. As the follow up to 'Star Trek: First Contact' it had a lot to live up too, and it did not deliver the goods, but re-watching it today, I was pleasantly surprised at how genuinely decent it was. Nothing special, nothing amazing- but far from being bad. I would say that it even dodged the dreaded curse of the odd numbered 'Trek' movies- it's only sin is that it doesn't jump out at you at all.

The themes are strong: what to do if the Federation itself is doing wrong? Can the Federation do wrong? Is the future all shiny and happy? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or not? Insurrection explores the morality of playing God and the ghosts of Earth's history with a story of a pastoral, peaceful people being forcibly relocated because their planet has rings that possess astonishing regenerative properties. In other words: the Federation found the Fountain of Youth and naturally wants it. This radiation could benefit billions, cures for aging and disease.

The catch: these people live there. And they like living there- and harvesting the radiation from the rings of the planet would render their planet uninhabitable. The moral conundrum for Captain Picard and Company: what to do? Star Trek II had us thinking that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Insurrection turns that notion on its head-- Picard and company refuse to participate in the destruction of a society to benefit the Federation at large-- in fact, they stop it in the end. (Good always winning and all...)

Thought provoking, but not overly cerebral, where Insurrection runs into trouble is with its choice of villain. I think it might just be a desperate thing for anyone trying to make a Star Trek movie, but Ricardo Montablan ruined it for all the other bad guys. Try as they might, they can never quite measure up and be that truly insane, evil bad guy that Khan was. (Christopher Plummer as General Chang came very close... the Borg would round out the top 3.) Try as he might though, F. Murray Abraham comes off more as a reject from Nip/Tuck gone wrong than a truly evil man. Screaming that god-awful, hammy scream of his and getting his face stretch, his Ru'afo truly is one of the more uninspired villains I've seen in Trek.

Of course, the story demands him. The pastoral, peaceful people expelled the angry, young people that wanted to drive fast cars- or, well spaceships and experience all the joys of modern life. Ru'afo and company are, of course, the expelled students wanting to take back the 'immortality' they lost by being expelled from the colony. It ties the story up in a nice, neat bow, but Insurrection missed an opportunity. By pairing the Federation with one of the more villainous races (Romulans, Cardassians or even the Dominion) they could have mined the themes of the movie even more. (Is it right for the Federation to be working with people who don't adhere to the same ethical standards as they do? Doesn't that compromise the Federation's principles...?) I think such a move would have made the story of Insurrection a little more compelling and maybe have made it a little more memorable.

Overall: Uninspiring, but far from bad.

My Grade: ** out of 4. Perfectly average in every way.