I’ve been blogging my past movie reviews from Facebook — this was my own humble pan of “Star Trek: Nemesis” (2002).

—–

It’s easy to understand why “Star Trek: Nemesis” (2002) was the lowest grossing Star Trek film of all time. I didn’t hate it quite as much as everybody else (I’d give it a 4 out of 10), but it was a pretty big misfire.

The movie was, frankly, boring for most of its first hour. At one point the film’s villains scold its antagonist, “You promised us action – and yet you delay!!” Yeah, that’s pretty much how the viewers felt. This movie has no sense of pacing at all. There’s an admittedly neat horror flourish early on, then an action sequence cheesy enough to have been lifted from “The A-Team.” Then a good portion of the film seems to revolve around … planning …and conversations. Did the filmmakers think they were writing Shakespeare?

This is also a cobbled together pastiche of plot elements we’ve seen many times before. We have a charismatic leader uniting two groups of bad guys. He’s got an astonishing secret and a link to Jean-Luc Picard. He’s got a new secret weapon and is heading to earth to destroy it. There’s another model/clone/whatever of Data. Telepath Donna Troi is mind-raped by a creepy alien (which just might be a plot device in poor taste). Only some inspired ship maneuvers and a surprise stratagem by Data manage to save the day. If this sounds familiar, you may have seen Star Trek movies or the TV show before.

Even the special effects were average. Did this movie really come out the same weekend as “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones?”

Then there are the nitpicks connected with the entire franchise. Why do seatbelts not exist in Star Trek’s universe? If any matter at all can be created out of nothing via “replicators,” why do mining colonies exist? Why are all the aliens humanoid, but with funny foreheads? WHY IS EVERY CREW MEMBER PERFECT IN EVERY WAY? Is the future inhabited solely by cheerful, hardworking honor students who are always home by curfew? Please watch Ron Moore’s “Battlestar Galactica,” people. There are reasons why Starbuck is a compelling character, and Donna Troi is not.

And even a casual viewer of the TV show could spot the … complete lack of continuity. This film really does contradict the “All Good Things” climax for the show (though, admittedly, the show’s writers really did paint future stories into a corner with that far-future epilogue). If imdb.com is correct, director Stuart Baird had no familiarity with show, and even thought that Geordi LaForge was an alien. Wow.

All of this is a little sad, because there are a few elements of a great movie here. Tom Hardy (Space Bane?) was damn fantastic as the story’s villain. I had no idea he was this good of an actor. The guy is intense, convincing and scary, and I love the way he delivers his lines. What a shame his face and mouth were obscured in “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012). The guy is incredible.

Patrick Stewart is also fantastic, as usual. He does just fine in the “X-Men” films, but he seems like a one-note character there, because he’s almost always serene and in control. Even the “Star Trek: The Next Generation” TV show gave him a better range to show. He’s great when he shows remorse, concern and apprehension. You can tell the guy’s done Shakespeare.

Finally, the movie’s climactic ship-on-ship battle was quite good.

This movie also had some damned interesting themes stemming from Hardy’s bad guy, who is a younger, angrier clone (literally) of Picard. (Maybe that’s a spoiler, but it’s okay – you really don’t need to see this film anyway.) The script presents this well – it actually isn’t as stupid as it sounds. Any sci-fi movie in which Hardy and Stewart comment on the duality of man, or nature vs. nurture, ought to be an automatic classic. And this movie did just fine when it let the two actors explore that.

Oh well. They can’t all be gold, right? It’s just a little sad that the cast of a decent TV show (and a couple of decent movies) had to embark on this as their final voyage.