Just Watched Insurrection Again After Years

I must say it's actually certainly not as awful as I remembered (I was 25 in 1998 so maybe I'm more mature now). Sure it was a lightweight, inconsequential "Diet Star Trek" movie, but it wasn't unpleasant to sit through. Sir Patrick Stewart had his acting flares and needless to say, I'm a sucker for ballsy-testosterone Goldsmith Trek music. As a Star Trek movie it was low-key and easygoing, even if I didn't really like and agree with the story. I just wish they could have made that BORING, self-righteous Baku species more interesting. And I think it would have helped to do some truly alien "world building" to make the Baku planet a lot more gonzo-colorful, alien, weirded-out and unique, maybe with multiple suns and moons. As opposed to the recycled Earth setting the movie used. Including an Earth hummingbird in one scene.

Basically, it was reasonable to watch but it was severely lacking in the wild, crazy, creative alien-world department. I think it could have been good if they really went nuts with the alien creativity of that ringed planet.

Does anyone remember Jim Henson's 1983 masterpiece "The Dark Crystal"? That masterpiece of a children's movie had the most creative alien-world-building and detail I've ever seen in sci-fi. And it's still smarter and better-looking than James Cameron's overrated "Avatar" world-building. And Insurrection, needless to say. If any sci-fi story takes place on an Earth-like alien planet, I WANT them to go insane with the bizarreness and complexity of the alien life. Like The Dark Crystal's 3-sun planet did.

 

I'm glad you enjoyed it on your second viewing. The best I can say about the film is that it's mediocre.

 

I 100% agree it was simply mediocre as opposed to awful, I didn't enjoy it that much, but it wasn't painful to sit through. I just think its major problem is that it suffered from a complete lack of creativity. In spite of the boredom of the planet/species, nobody can deny that the movie's space scenes/battles/explosions were artsy-detailed and beautiful as far as fiery '90s visual effects go (set to Jerry's musical swirls, lol).

Compared to abhorrent-in-every-measurable-manner Jar-Jar Abrams lobotomized Trek (which I walked out of in 2009 since I ceased to give a flying Federation fuck what happened in it),
Insurrection looks like an Oscar-sweeper by contrast. So do all other Trek movies. Abrams is the four-eyed, dumb cretin who actually stated, "I never liked Star Trek. I think it should be more like Star Wars."

 

I recently watched Insurrection and I probably enjoyed it for the first time. The first hour is good. I enjoyed the setup of the story and the discovery of the conspiracy. The cast was great together, Picard's love interest was a dish, and Goldsmith's score was excellent as always. The biggest problem are the meaningless and unexciting action scenes that end the film. I agree with the other complaints leveled against the film. The humor was cringeworthy and the Baku were generic and not very alien.

 

You may have missed these entries on this very same topic:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/insurrection-snore-fest.298949/

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/insurrection-rewatch-so-much-potential.299383/

And, it really is a shitty movie. It's the only Star Trek movie I actively dislike. When you strive for "light mediocrity" with your $50M major motion picture, nothing but bad can come from it. With INS, we got a movie less interesting and less well-crafted than 2/3 of the 45-min episodes of the TV series it was based upon (episodes, BTW, that cost an average of $1.5M each).

That's truly awful.

 

No one strove for mediocrity, they were all trying to make a good movie. It's just that they failed, which resulted in a mediocre movie.

 

Those poor priveleged white people! I'm so glad Captain Picard was there to rescue them from the evil forces who wanted to use their home to help billions.

It was a tone deaf creation what desperately needed a reality check early in production.

 

It's not an bad movie.

According to wikipedia it cost seventy million dollars. Even worse!

 

All the ship scales are wrong in that movie. The ships look massive in one shot and then small in others.

 

I think the FX, bar a couple of shots in the Briar patch were pretty shoddy in this movie. The FX in Generations were far better and that's an older, cheaper movie FFS.

 

I rate this the number 4 TNG movie (and 12/13 overall--w/TFF coming in last--if they improved the special effects in TFF I could probably move that ahead of Insurrection--but the effects in TFF were so God-awful it kills the film for me).

That being said I don't hate any of the Star Trek films.

I agree with others that say Insurrection doesn't break any new ground. But I was engaged enough with the story that I didn't lose interest. It's does remind me more of an episode of the TV series--not necessarily a bad thing, Beyond did some of that to good effect IMO, but it lacked a big movie feel, which Beyond also had.

Two things I loved about Insurrection--Goldsmith's score, of course. No matter what he's given he can evoke the right emotions with his score, light-hearted when a scene calls for it, romantic at other times, action oriented, etc. He gets the right feel.

And the cinematography was well done, esp. on the planet. There were some beautifully set up shots, the sunrise over the village being a favorite, along with some of the views of the lake and the mountains. It's probably the first Star Trek film where I thought they paid attention to that sort of thing (maybe a bit in Generations on Veridian III).

What was disappointing was barely a mention that there was a major war going on at the time. A few throwaway lines. I still felt there should have been a way to incorporate the Dominion War into Insurrection more directly, in such a way that didn't require you to be familiar with Deep Space Nine. That was a big miss for me. There's a major war going on and where is the flagship of Starfleet? In the Briar Patch. Not a good use of Starfleet resources (you can argue it wasn't a sanctioned mission, but where were they supposed to go--to an archaeological mission--during a major war where Starfleet was losing ships in a bad way--WOW). I know they wanted to do something more 'light-hearted' after First Contact, but still--WOW.

Who wouldn't have loved to have seen the Enterprise engaged in a battle with a Jem'Hadar warship?

It's funny, Nemesis had more to say about the Dominion War and it was over by that point.

But all that being said I have the movie in my Blu-Ray collection and I still watch it from time to time.

 

Riker flying the ship with a Thrustmaster Pro joystick. Truly awful.

 

They had a good, meaningful story they wanted to tell, but producers and studio suits purposefully wanted to lighten it up and water the concept down.

Whether they knew that's what they were doing at the time or not, that is called striving for mediocrity.

 

Lack of mention of the Dominion War was NOT what made this a shit movie. Not by a long shot. Never even crossed my mind as I watched it, in fact.

 

Well, honestly, I wanted much more than just a mention, I would have wanted a mission that involved the Dominion War in some fashion (again in such a way that wouldn't require familiarity with DS9 since movies are supposed to appeal to a wider audience---and I do think that would have been possible). I mean, they did it with the Borg in First Contact. You really didn't need to be familiar with the prior Borg episodes to understand First Contact. They put just enough exposition in it to give you the gist without getting carried away.

That would have made it a substantially different movie.

 

Insurrection was written by Michael Piller. Piller knows how to set up a story with mystery and an ethical dilemma, develop the narrative, and write dramatic and light moments for the characters. He is not a science fiction or action writer and it really shows. Insurrection ends with forgettable space battles that feel meaningless, expected, shoehorned, and contrived.

Compare that to say the finale of Star Trek VI, when Kirk destroys Chang and stops the next assination, which resolves the story, and satisfies and engages the audience.

 

Agreed, this mirrors my ratings exactly, I think I'd rate TFF higher if it didn't look so poor, and like you said I don't hate any trek film but TFF actually makes me cringe with how bad it is at times. INS is better in that it's more competently put together but it's not good. At all.

And this is the rub for me - everything about Insurrection felt small scale and inconsequential, the plot, sets, visuals, yet TUC, a film that's 7 years older, cost just over a third of what INS cost managed to feel like a bigger movie because the stakes were much higher. I'll never for the life of me understand why they chose this bland nonsense for the plot of this movie when, like other posters have said, there were bigger things happening in the Trek universe at the time.

 

Yeah, at best I'd call it fair. It had good music, good cinematography IMO, and while the special effects didn't blow me away they were at least average. The story was fair at best though. It didn't lose me, I was able to stay engaged while watching it, but it didn't excite me. It was just meh.

I'll watch it, but usually only when I'm doing a film rewatch (much like watching an entire series). It's not one I'd pull out at random like I would First Contact or even Nemesis.

So for me it's not unwatchable. But it's not a go-to movie to watch for the hell of it.

And I'd love to see Paramount fork over a little dough to 'fix' TFF. In this day and age they probably could do it pretty inexpensively. And I do think there is a market for it. That would be enough to push TFF above Insurrection. But yeah, the special effects totally ruin any good in that film. I cringe every time. I still can't believe Paramount let it be released in that condition. Frankly I would have been embarrassed. The effects in the other Star Trek films varied a bit, but the other 12 films at the very least looked competent in that area. But TFF is just plain bad.

 

This is a good way of judging Trek movies - ones you'll pull out and watch randomly just for the hell of it. I can safely say I've never pulled INS or TFF out of my box set for any other reason than I'm doing a rewatch in release order - hell last time I did that I skipped TFF entirely. I would say every other trek film is worth a random rewatch.

 

First off, it doesn't matter what color they were. Unless one is racist. Nor does it matter how well they were doing, unless one is jealous of those who succeed. That's Marxist-Think, and I heartily piss on that.

Secondly, the dual cruxes (cruxii?) of the movie is that a) it's wrong to displace a people simply because they have something we want... I would have thought the lessons learned by the displacement of the Native American tribes would have made that clear, but apparently not, and b) the Federation had covertly gotten into a "family squabble" which sorta kinda goes against the Prime Directive, despite the Admiral's claim to the contrary.

Picard was right to intercede.

As far as the movie itself goes, it's not one of my favorites, but I like it better than most do.