Friday
08May2009
Movie Review - 'Star Trek'
Friday, May 8, 2009 at 1:12AM | Star Trek
Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, and Eric Bana  |
It's very hard to make a really entertaining movie. Think about it: There are close to 300 films in theaters every year, maybe more depending on where you live. How many of them are movies you'd watch over and over again?
Star Trek is not just endless fun, but it also more than matches the burden of expectations placed upon it. I'd argue that only three or four movies in 2009 have as much to gain or lose as this reboot of a legendary sci-fi series, and if those others come close to achiveing what Star Trek does, it will be a very good year indeed.
The characters are known to us even if we have not devoted ourselves to every iteration of the Star Trek universe: Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, the U.S.S. Enterprise. At the very least, we've heard the names. Even if by cultural osmosis, most of us are probably aware of the alien races that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry gave us during the brief run of the series, like the Klingons, the Romulans, and the Vulcans.
And that's all director J.J. Abrams wants you to know. Everything else in the ever-expanding Trek saga doesn't serve his story.
Abrams goes back to the beginning, which had to happen sooner or later; William Shatner can only be Captain Kirk for so long. The new Star Trek is a story of friendship, first and foremost, between James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto). We see how similar they are as children, despite being galaxies away. There are vast differences between them as men, however, which test not just the early years of a relationship we already know will last forever but also the smooth running of the Enterprise on its maiden voyage.
Called into space to respond to a distress signal sent by Spock's home planet of Vulcan, the Enterprise relies on a mostly inexperienced crew of Star Fleet cadets plus Spock and Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood). The distress signal is thought to be a natural disaster at first, but soon, the rebellious Kirk - who isn't even supposed to be on board - pieces together that it is actually a Romulan war ship captained by the evil Nero (Eric Bana).
With Vulcan and Earth both at risk, the swaggering young Kirk flies into action, literally and figuratively, at which point an already good sci-fi action flick really gets cookin'. J.J. Abrams knows what he's doing. He's enjoyed success on TV, currently with the multi-layered science fiction show Lost, and he proved with Mission: Impossible III that he can flat-out direct an action movie. He doesn't seem terribly concerned with the history of the characters, which is precisely how it should be.
Colin Boyd | Permalink | in J.J. Abrams, Prequels, Reviews, Sci-Fi, Star Trek | Print Article | Email Article | 16 Comments | Share Article
Reader Comments (16)
[quote]The characters are known to us even if we have not devoted ourselves to every iteration of the Star Trek universe: Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, the U.S.S. Enterprise. [/quote]
Fair enough. How will this movie play for the people - like myself - who know the established timelines of the original series and thus know things like:
Kirk graduated and served 10 years before becoming Captain of the Enterprise and Chekov would post to the Enterprise as a first year ensign - meaning he would have been (maybe) 1 year old when Kirk graduated starfleet.
And get this: I am trek fan but, my knowledge of timelines and canon of the series completely *pales* in comparison to what the real, convention attending, uniform wearing, trekkie types know.
Just how much did Abrams & Co. screw around with and re-write canon?
That's not for me to answer; I don't know everything about Star Trek, and I can tell you the majority of people who see the movie won't, either. There are obvious changes based on what you've written, but are you really concerned about how the update affects a fictional storyline?
I hope J.J. changed as much or as little canon as necessary to make a good film.
If it makes for a good movie, who cares what was written int he past to satisfy the insatiable needs of the fanboys and girls of the world.
I'm with you there Orinn. I do agree that canon which gets in the way of a good product should be ignored. I am totally on board with that. Indeed I contribute (in as much as someone who posts can contribute) over at the Star Trek Online MMO site and I am constantly tangling with the canon dedicated fanboys who complain about the absence of canonical things, the presence of which would not serve an useful or compelling gameplay ends.
So, I get what you're saying.
Colin - To draw a comparison - it is to me how you felt about 10,000 BC. Why have metalurgy or mathematics, etc in a movie set in a period where you know those things can't yet exist?
While I know the whole story line IS fictional, the people who took on this project also knew that this was sotried franchise which does include documented canon which came from it's creator(s) not the fanbase. When they took on that project, and committed to it being a prequel to recorded "known" events, didn't it then become incumbent on them to at least know that "history" enough to say "well, this character couldn't have existed yet so he can't be there."
That even opens up opportunity to introduce someone/something new to the mix.
"Hey look! A new and interesting character because that guy shouldn't be in the story yet!"
There is more than enough room in the recorded canon of the series to allow for tons of creativity and 'newness' without choosing to ignore it just because you don't want to deal with it.
For what it's worth though I will say this:
I had been planning to not see this movie. Not out of spite or the timeline stuff. Mostly I had planned to not see it because, from what I see in the trailers, it isn't *for* me. As the tagline says "This is not your father's Star Trek."
And thats fine. I get that they have retooled and rest the franchise to try and get it to appeal to a younger, fresher and longer lived demographic, which doesn't include middle aged me.
After reading your review and seeing the rating you gave it, I probably will see it. Such is the weight I give to your opinion. :)
great for a non big fan of Star Trek series.
Well, from what I hear from the advance buzz, there is some sort of time travel/wormhole thingee which explains why the canon can be altered slightly to suit the needs of the current filmmakers. Isn't that right?
I think the most important question I want answered by the story is: How the hell did Sulu suddenly become Korean?
Wow! My loyalties have always fallen on the Star Wars side of fanboy-dom, but this looks fantastic. Plus, the way Lucas f-ed up his franchise I've been looking for a way out, anyway. I'm glad it lives up to they hype.
From what I heard the "changes" are somewhat explained in this version. Only time will tell if it works but the series needed a reboot to stay relevant imo.
People have taken liberties with Shakespeare so I don't see why Rodenberry needs to be protected. I might not live to see it but one day far far away someone will remake Star Wars....
The movie will explain any differences in the original series history and this "new" timeline of events. So, you can forget everthing you know about the history of the characters and just focus on the characters themselves.
We are fans of the original Star Trek series, and were skeptical at first about watching the movie - however, we were both pleasantly surprised. My husband and I enjoyed Zachary Quinto's portrayal of Spock (though obviously, there will NEVER be another Leonard Nimoy!), he was a different Spock - more inclined to let his human illogicality shine through - (he seemed quite interested in Uhura's advances); yet was perfectly logical when duty / necessity called for it. Chris Pine was a totally new Kirk, and that was OK too. The storyline was changed and maybe timelines were off, but this was still an enjoyable movie. Even my 60 year old mother (a die-hard trekkie - and a Nimoy lover) enjoyed the movie ...
I don't think the movie is supposed to be a re-make of the old Star-Trek. It is a new movie based on a great show. Enjoy it for what it is... an action / sci-fi movie with a decent story. It was a nice evening out with my husband and my mother. We are all looking forward to the next one.
who knew Eric Bana was a "Trekkie"? He did a great job as the villain though seriously
Tetleys' post is spot on correct. I've faithfully followed every star trek movie and television series over the years. The way Abrams introduced a change in the trek universe timeline was just like what they've explored countless times in the TV series. As a trekkie I found the movie satisfying in that Abrams' portrayal of the established characters was faithful to what we know of them. And I found it very exciting that the introduction of an alternate timeline decouples any future movies from the existing Next Generation, etc. events and frees them to change anything without conflicting with existing canon.
I think this reviewer was obviously stoned when he saw Star Trek. That is the only possible explanation for giving such a terrible movie a good review. How did it suck? Let me count the ways: Bad acting, stupid and insipid plot, action sequences that made absolutely no sense and were stuck in just because they would look cool, etc. Why they picked a hack like Abrams, who has admitted to not being a Star Trek fan, to direct this movie is beyond me. It just wasn't very good.
I was a big fan of the original series and thought the new movie embodied the true spirit of Star Trek without being too rigid. I've been lucky enough to have seen it 4 times so far, and look forward to it on DVD.
Quinto and Pine nailed it, with Quinto favoring his half human side more than Spock did in the original series due to his youth as well as the (minor spoiler) vunerabilities brought out by several crucial events in the script.
Pine did a nice job with Kirk's backstory, showing how TOS Kirk's cockiness might have been based on a potentially self derailing combination of insecurity and arrogance, bringing even more dimension to the character.
Hmmm, if anyone thinks this is a terrible film then they must be the most joyless, haters. I have watched trek since I was a kid and was worried at what this movie would turn out like, so it is with great joy that I see a fantastic retooling of our legendary heros.
j.j. Abrams and crew were brilliant in how they approached this story (closing the door on all fanboys and trek experts before they could even get going, you will see what I mean ;-)
I have not been this emotionally elevated by a movie since possibly the very first star wars hit the theaters back in 77.
Seen this one twice in IMAX and once on the regular big screen, if you missed the IMAX it is a loss, the film utilizes this format perfectly, I hope they send it on a second run so more can enjoy it on the BIG screen.
I think this movie, separated from the context of what came before it, was great. But it is very much a movie of our age. Star Trek, the original, was marketed as the first science fiction TV show for adults, and it pretty much was. It was not so much about action as it was about drama. By this I mean, it was not about endless fights between good guys and bad guys, but about dilemmas having to do with life in the future. It presented a future where Earth had learned not to try to improve, guide or control other cultures out there--in fact, this was called the 'Prime Directive' in the series. Does this sound like a lesson America has been learning lately? There is a Prime Metaphor here someone missed when making this movie. So don't expect a 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Fahrenheit 451, or even Zardoz ;-). In this age, we get toy commercials as movies (Transformers), movies as parades of CGI effects (Star Wars) and 'lite' versions of classic shows (Star Trek). I'm guessing the audience segment for actual grown-up movies has evaporated. There are no more adults, just really big infants.