Star Trek (2009)

Of all the intellectual properties you could hope to resuscitate, Star Trek has to be the toughest. After a faltering pair of films with the Next Generation cast and the gradual death of the TV franchise through the money whoring abuse of Rick Berman and Brannon Braga (aka the on/off Voyager and the abysmal Enterprise), our beloved science fiction continuum had been put out to pasture for a few years. Let's face it, Star Trek needed the vacation. And after seeing this fair but ultimately futile attempt, I wonder if it would have benefited from a little more time off...

SPOILERISM. Don't want any? Skip to the score.

Now, before I proceed, I get that the primary filmgoing audience of the early 21st century has shifted to a new generation of young turks who want lots of explosions, plot holes, sexy girls and gritty dialogue and basically Battlestar Galactica-remake-tinted emo everything. The new Star Trek features all of these things and the sleek (though shoddy) CGI design it's been forging for the past 20+ years. It also features some of the most hideous, overrused plot devices that have been destroying genre fiction for decades. Yes, Star Trek is no newcomer to the use of time travel, dozens of episodes and even previous films have dealt heavily with it. So why do we need to use it again, exactly!? Perhaps so we can provide a cameo/deus ex machina with Leonard Nimoy and pretty much eliminate any sense of investment one could possibly place in this script. The film operates with almost no rationale as it attempts to propel its ludicrous revenge plot along through action sequence after sequence.

So, a supernova (a universal event far beyond the control of most mortals...oh wait, apparently not in the super science of the 24th-25th century) blows earlier than expected, and this guy decides he's going to kill a score or more entire species who had NOTHING to do with it? Splendid. 'I don't like how they looked at me' would be a more compelling motive, but alas we have Eric Bana trying his best to craft a villain whose substance is no deeper than the ten minute tribal henna he and his crew wear to look totally BADASS. I suppose I can't blame him completely, it's not as if he was written even a shred of decent dialogue. He's essentially a composite of previous Star Trek film villains Soren (Generations), Shinzon (Nemesis), and Khan, driven by a fanaticism that will never redeem him. The Narada is a pretty badass looking ship for a mining/cargo vessel, but didn't we just have a frightening black enemy ship in the previous film (the Scimitar)?

On the other hand, the younger selves of the classic Enterprise crew do a pretty standout job. Zachary Quinto is a natural for Spock, both in facial structure and ability. I had hesitations about Chris Pine, but he proved himself more than worthy for that chair, without ever lapsing into Shattner caricature. As for Bones, he is in perhaps the best hands of the three. It's great to see Karl Urban in this type of role, the guy can obviously act far beyond the limited scope of his past action heroes and villains. He literally channels DeForest Kelley here. The supporting cast are decent. Sulu and Chekhov get some screen time and Uhura gets more than she's probably ever had. As for Scotty...well, I found it hard to separate Scotty from the Pegg of his other roles, but it didn't help that his character was thrown in essentially as an addendum to the other deux ex machina. Also noteworthy are the performances of Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike and Ben Cross as Sarek. I could have done without the Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry cameos, but they were brief and inconsequential.

Another of the strong points to the film is Abrams' loyalty to the canon of Trek. There are droves of fanservice moments, from Sulu's fencing to Kirk's mountain climbing (all of which would manifest in the series and later films) to a fucking Captain Archer reference (ugh!). Red shirts look out. Kobayashi Maru confirmed. Also...Slusho. Yeah. The Enterprise itself looks pretty swank, though the interior is quite different than what we're used to from TOS (we all knew it would). It's also clear with this time travel/alternate timeline plot that Abrams has every intention of covering his ass with this film (and any future installments), and while I ultimately question the need for separate timelines or continuity, it's better than nothing. But this leads to much of the frustration I have in thinking back on the film:

Was this necessary at all? Just because we've rounded up some actors who have a dignity and loyalty to their forebears, and a director and writing staff with a good grasp of the lore, is this enough to force us through a pretty shabby script with a forgettable antagonist? I mean aside from the fan candy there is just nothing to grasp on to, certainly nothing that could take the place of classic Trek and the chemistry and performance of the original actors, which needed no fixing. After suffering through 4 seasons of Enterprise, did we need another prequel? Abrams probably could have taken Trek somewhere new...instead he took it somewhere we've already been. And if we have sequels with this cast, how well can we internally divorce the timelines? Many of us can probably separate the continuities, but why even bother with them? What about the normal Star Trek canon? Can't we do something with that?

Although my disappointment has only grown in the days since viewing the film, I don't want to come across as too hard on this movie. The cast was good. The director had good intentions. The action is meh. It's got plenty of those Hollywood narrow escapes, but Trek always has. The fan service is plentiful. The music is decent. There is little to no creativity. I could ramble endlessly about nit picks like what I consider the misuse of an Orion slave girl, or why you have warp drive yet don't know the gender of your unborn child (I'll concede that you could always choose NOT to know in advance). This is not such a bad version of Star Trek, and perhaps now that we've got the origin story out of the way, we're in for a decent sequel with a more interesting plot. I hope to hell an Abrams-helmed Star Trek II will NOT be a Wrath of Khan retread.

You knew the 'boldly go' speech was coming at some part of the film, Abrams chose the end of his film and, out of respect, the voice of Leonard Nimoy. So, assuming he's going to film another chapter, how about taking the content of those words to heart?

Verdict: Indifference [6.75/10] (but better than Cloverfield)

http://www.startrekmovie.com/