May, 7th 2009 - 3:22 pm

bh123030745164rmd.jpg

I know what you’re thinking: Another Star Trek movie? Is this truly necessary after the cult TV show, the four spin-offs, the several (mostly bad) movies, and even the Trekkie subculture beginning to die-off? (The new generation of out and proud geeks now gravitate to the ComicCon festival—same crowd, different handshake.)
But guess what? The ol’ Enterprise still has lift-off, especially when in the hands of director J.J. Abrams (Lost), who brings an obvious reverence for the source material (read: he seems seriously geeked over the show), coupled with a TV guy’s understanding of character development, and a proven ability to steer a somewhat rusty franchise in the right direction (Mission Impossible III.)
This one is a prequel (they could’ve called it Star Trek: Origins, but X-Men got their first), so, obviously, casting was essential. Chris Pine oozes maverick cool as young Captain Kirk; Zachary Quinto is the logical but heartbreaking Spock, and all the other characters—from Simon Pegg’s hilarious Scottie to Anton Yelchin’s eager young Chekov, to Karl Urban’s fretful Bones—inhabit these well-worn characters with just enough reinvention to keep them interesting.
The story focuses on bald, tatted-up Romulan bad guy Nero (Eric Bana), who has traveled from the future to get revenge against Spock, whom he believes to be responsible for the destruction of his planet. Spock and Kirk aren’t friends yet—in fact they’re enemies, with Kirk’s reckless young recruit anathema to the half-Vulcan Spock, who tries desperately to suppress any of his own icky human impulses.
So the question remains: Do you have to be a Trekkie to follow the plot? Hardly. Of course, they drop the catch phrases—from “Beam me up” to “Live long and prosper”—but everyone knows those.
My only quibble? Abram is great at building an action scene, he manages to up the stakes in exciting and fresh ways, but he’s not so hot at finishing them. A few of his action scenes sputter out before they climax—perhaps his television background restrains him from going seriously over-the-top? He should’ve turned this one up to 11. A film this good needs more moments when the audience stands up and cheers.
Still, characters we care about, whip-smart humor, scary bad dudes, and mostly thrilling action—Star Trek is almost an object lesson is how to do good sci-fi. That other origins film playing a few theaters over should take notes.

To read my complete review, check out the June issue of Baltimore.

You must be logged in to comment. Register here, it's quick and easy!

Comments

Tchessi Carina's picture
Nice review of Star Trek. However I am SO weary of fans being called geeks. If Isaac Asimov and other notables are referred as such, at least they recognize the socio-political references, myriad of literary allusions and philosphical insights beyond the technobabble of the later Berman-helmed series (i.e. Next Generation 5 season and beyond). "Something for everyone." Well dandy, lowest common denominator makes it rate 3 stars, eh? Those darn "geeks" who catch the literary and cultural references (Narada for example) are just nerdy elitists that thankfully Abrams manages to circumvent (at least that how I see your take on things). Actually Abrams has done a great job revitalizing the franchise and the movie is expertly crafted with interesting examinations of quantum mechanics and the cast superb. But hopefully the sequels will explore the depths and philosophy of the original series and move beyond this well excuted reboot.
Lou Takacs's picture
While I appreciated the positive review of this movie, and the absence of immediate 'dismissal' of those called Trekkies, Trekkers, et al, I am not sure that you really understood the movie. Abrams has given a 'new take-off' for the franchise in that the reality shown in the movie is an ALTERNATE for the original series' reality--this is brought home by the fact that in the 'future' you mention, Romulus has been destroyed, and Bana's character is chasing after Spock--both of their ships go through the event horizon of a black hole with Nero's ship emerging 154 years in the past, and Spock's 129 years in the past---the 'timeline' is an alternate timeline, because in the PRIME universe, characters such as Scotty, Uhura, Kirk, Spock ALL served on other vessels prior to coming to the Enterprise. Therefore, this new 'timeline' allows for a different 'spin' for character development--I mean, really, Spock involved with Uhura? Please....