"Star Trek: Insurrection" didn't do too well with audiences or critics, so the folks in charge of the franchise made a few executive decisions. First, they decided to bring in some new blood: John Logan, award- winning screenwriter of "Gladiator", and Stuart Baird, director of action flicks. The former choice was not a bad idea, since Logan was a fan of the series and threw in some treats for his fellow fans: Riker and Troi get married, and the Enterprise gets seat-belts. The latter choice was not so good: Baird was a stranger to the show and didn't know anything about the characters.

The second thing the Powers That Be decided to do was try to evoke the most successful Trek movie to date, "Wrath of Khan". They gave Captain Picard a personal enemy and built the movie around a space battle. It was going to be "darker and grittier".

The result is a movie pulled in opposite directions. Logan's script dwells on mirror images, with Shinzon, the evil young clone of Picard, and B4, the undeveloped "brother" of the android Data. It's a story about how everyone is able to make their own decisions and create their own "destinies", rather than having their fates predetermined by their genes or programming. All in all, that's a pretty clever subject for a Star Trek story to deal with.

But then there's Baird's direction. It's dark, muddy, and not particularly distinguished. Budget cuts seem to have hit the production designers hardest of all, and both the Enterprise and the enemy ship end up looking like submarines, filmed on the cheap and with gloomy lighting. Baird wanders through scenes of dialogue and character development with disorienting close-ups, then fast-forwards to the next action scene. Star Trek gets its first car chase, a repetitive and very loud space battle, and some punch-ups here and there. At most it's an efficient action movie, but Baird clearly has little interest in his actors or characters.

Finally, Data's death makes little difference. It's such an inept film in many ways that even the heroic sacrifice of a beloved character seems tacky and unbelievable. I think John Logan should get credit for trying to concoct a worthy Star Trek story -- he even remembered that Troi was a telepath! -- but the whole thing inevitably collapses in an unpolished, generic mess.

I'm conflicted in my opinion of the final adventure of the Next Generation crew. I can see why a lot the fan community slam the film but I can't help but find some positive aspects in the movie. I agree that it's a good thing NEMESIS was the final film in the series, as the filmmakers appear to have given up recapturing the essence of the series years before and were more interested in putting out blockbuster hopefuls. The film opens with the marriage of Commander Riker (Jonathan Frakes) to Counselor Troi (Marina Sirtis),but the festivities are soon put on hold when the Enterprise-E locates a prototype android identical to Data scattered in pieces on a nearby planet. As the android (dubbed B-4) is reassembled, the Enterprise is dispatched to Romulus where the Remans have risen up against the Romulans and their leader apparently seeks to find peace with the Federation. The Remans are led by a clone of Captain Picard named Shinzon (Tom Hardy),originally bred as a weapon against Starfleet but eventually relegated to the dilithium mines of Remus. Picard struggles with the feeling that a portion of his identity was stolen as the Enterprise is discovers that Shinzon's intentions are not those of peace, but of destruction.

As has been the case with all of the Next Generation movies (with the exception of INSURRECTION),this film is visually beautiful. The CGI effects are at their peak and the production design of Herman Zimmerman continues to blow me away. I loved the design of the Remans: part Romulan, part vampire. It was some of the best makeup design in the series since the Borg were redesigned for FIRST CONTACT. The filmmakers have even learned from their mistakes of the last film and used a cinematographer who gave the film a wonderful cinematic feel, as opposed to the flat television lighting they'd regressed to before. Nothing about the film's visual style disappoints, but the same can't be said for the story. Most of the earlier films retained the depth of the series, but NEMESIS really is nothing more than a flashy action pic. For proof, you need to look no further than the entire last half of the film. There is some weak subtext to the story but the entire second hour is drawn out battle leading to the climactic confrontation between Picard and Shinzon about the enemy ship.

As seems to be the norm with all of the Next Generation movies, Picard and Data are the focal points here. The other crew members are usually given plenty of their own to do, but not here. A lot of the crew members are underused and I'm sure they weren't happy about being background players in their final feature film. Patrick Stewart is certainly the strongest member of the cast and carries most of the movie, and Brent Spiner is great as usual as Data (and B-4). I wish I had more positive things to say about Tom Hardy as Shinzon. He's a fantastic actor and has the skills to go face-to-face with Patrick Stewart (for those who doubt me, watch his screen test for the film). I just couldn't help but feel his character was too young and that really robbed me of any sense of danger from him. Had he been a bit more aged and worn, I might see him as a threat to Picard.

I suppose the film is a fun action flick, but it's just a weak STAR TREK film. It's shallow story can't be saved by it's impressive effects, but I wish the crew had been given one more chance to do it right before calling it quits. It's an entertaining two hours but aside from a bittersweet ending there's nothing entirely memorable about it. Fans of the franchise will be polarized in their views on the film and non-fans might be able to stomach it as an action-packed sci-fi romp. One thing's for certain: it's not the best time spent with the crew of the Enterprise.

While there are many rabid Trekkies out there that would rate every Star Trek movie a 10 or insist that they are all great movies, you must learn to sift out these comments. They are as useful as those written by people who never liked the show or watched them. While I am a Star Trek fan (and enough of one to have stood in line many, many hours to see the first showing when the original movie came out),I am honest enough to admit that some of the films are pretty bad (I and V),some are great (II and FIRST CONTACT) and some are just ordinary, at best--like this one. I think a lot of the problem is that the series is really showing its age. As the public shows less and less interest, so the movies themselves are pretty unexciting. The series, if it is to ever be revived, needs something dynamic and exciting--this movie, unfortunately, was not it. It had an okay plot and by the books acting but not much more.