Screengrab Review: "Star Trek" - Scott's Take

Posted by Scott Von Doviak

 

As J.J. Abrams’ mega-hyped, blockbuster-in-waiting reboot of the Star Trek franchise begins, we might be watching any other movie in the series. The usual massive space behemoth posing a threat to the continued existence of the galaxy has materialized, and Starfleet is racing to the rescue. As the responding vessel is not named Enterprise, it’s all reduced to fireballs and cinders in a matter of minutes. But something is different: the captain of the destroyed starship is named Kirk…George Kirk, whose son James Tiberius is born on an escaping shuttlecraft even as his father heroically goes down with the ship. There’s your back story: roguish adventurer Jim Kirk can’t help what he is – he was literally born into it.

All right, so there’s a little more back story than that. There’s the half-human, half-Vulcan Spock’s tormented youth at the hands of his cold, emotionless peers, and the tween Kirk joyriding in a borrowed “vintage” convertible, and smoking hot space cadet Uhura (Zoe Saldana) fending off the advances of twentysomething townie Kirk (Chris Pine) while slumming in a bar outside the Iowa-based Starfleet Academy.

It all sounds like the makings of a feature-length fanwank, but Abrams is nothing if not a clever fellow and he has a few tricks up his sleeve. It’s not just that the mega-threat is a vengeance-seeking Romulan from the future named Nero (Eric Bana) – that’s just another day at the office in the Star Trek realm – but that he’s seeking his vengeance against the future version of Spock we all know and love, played by Leonard Nimoy. And that the youthful Spock (Zachary Quinto) is unable to prevent the cataclysmic first phase of Nero’s revenge, an epic event that may have hardcore Trekkies shaking their fists at the screen and howling in outrage, “That never happened!”

They’d be wrong, however, because Abrams and his writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman have come up with an ingenious loophole that allows them to clear the decks of all the clutter comprising four decades worth of Trek mythology. Abrams doesn’t have to worry too much about being reverent, which allows him to rev it up and have some fun. And Star Trek is an undeniably fun summer ride – it’s got the big thrills, big laughs and special effects that blow away any and all earlier incarnations of Trek, and only rarely insults the intelligence. (You won’t want to give too much deep thought to the “science” involving black holes and red matter.)

The cast is game, although Abrams comes up against the same stumbling block that often bedeviled the original series and its spinoff movies: finding enough for the supporting characters to do. Uhura has a beefed-up role (and there’s a nifty piece of misdirection involving her character) and Simon Pegg makes the most of his brief screen time as Scotty, but the crotchety Bones (Karl Urban) gets short shrift, and Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin) are still just a guy who can fence and a Russian with a funny accent (“Enemy wessels approaching!”) respectively. (And let’s not even speak of the regrettable stunt casting of Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry in minor roles.)

As it ever was, the focus is on the Kirk/Spock dynamic, which is where the turning-back-the-clock element really pays off. There’s a sharper edge to the relationship here, as the hotheaded man of action and the cool, logical half-alien size each other up as both rivals and potential allies. Quinto has inherited Nimoy’s knack for infusing his matter-of-fact pronouncements with almost subliminal dry wit, and while there’s really no replacing the Shat Man, Pine is surprisingly adept at evoking the bravado and bluster of Kirk without devolving into parody. As unlikely as it once seemed, it looks like the ol’ Enterprise has a few more light-years left in it after all.

Nick's Take


Comments

Jim said:

so, where's the actual rating?

May 7, 2009 11:03 AM

Scott Von Doviak said:

?

May 7, 2009 11:36 AM

Mayday said:

He means the film's grade. My guess from this review would be A- (Using AV Club ratings - or 72 by The Man Who Viewed Too Much)

May 7, 2009 3:43 PM

Nomad said:

The new Star Trek keeps the audience's attention so much better than the other Star Treks... there is something fundamentally wrong with a movie that feels like a chore to watch (as are so many of the original Star Treks)

May 10, 2009 4:38 PM

in