Star Trek (2009)

I don’t know much about “Star Trek,” the beloved TV series. But I think I know enough about J.J. Abrams’s new film to understand it, just not to enjoy it.

In making “Star Trek,” Abrams sought to make the classic sci-fi cool again, making the characters more youthful, improving the special effects, making sense of the plots, you know, just branch out to a whole new audience of ignorant fanboy yuppies without losing the old ones. Abrams retreads the original series by means of yet another origin, prequel story. As is necessary of any origin film, Abrams does some name-dropping (“What’s your name citizen? My name is James Tiberius Kirk!” says an over compensating 12-year old), parades out all the old catch phrases and stays true to the series’ vast realm of logic.

With that said, newcomers to the series not already familiar with the universe’s rules are not welcome to Abrams’s comeback celebration. They won’t grasp the breadth and meaning of Spock’s (Zachary Quinto) very verbose dialogue. They won’t know that Chekov (Anton Yelchin) is intended to be somewhat of a comic relief and not just the worst casting choice in history.

They also won’t know that in a way, “Star Trek” is not an origin movie at all. I figured as much out, but they might simply think the big plot twist is a ploy to work Leonard Nimoy into the screenplay, and we all know who that is.

Now I’ve got you wondering about the plot: On the day of James Kirk’s birth, a large spacecraft of Romulans attacks a Starfleet cruiser, killing Kirk’s father. Years later, Kirk (Chris Pine) has grown up as the cocky country boy from Iowa and is inspired to enlist in Starfleet. On planet Vulcan, a young Spock likewise rises in the ranks at Starfleet after leaving home because of persecution from being half human. Although the two initially clash, Kirk and Spock collaborate in fighting the Romulans after the Romulan leader, Captain Nero (Eric Bana), calls for revenge over the destruction of his planet.

More about the plot I cannot say, but I can say that the complexity of the plot twist (a) assumes that we are familiar with “Star Trek’s” particular rules on the issue and no other sci-fi’s rules, (b) hopes we’ll forgo asking questions about the film’s logic in favor of some more elaborate special effects, and (c) believes we’d rather have more catch phrases and battle scenes than topics of a deeper significance.

The plot and special effects aside, most audiences will find the screenplay to be fun and fast-paced, but at what cost? These characters are the same tired clichés we can find in any high school movie. Kirk is a cocky homegrown boy suffering from “Good Will Hunting” syndrome, and Spock’s “be true to yourself” crisis is about as adolescent as a Disney Channel Movie.

Abrams likewise stays very true to his original source material in terms of the rules of the universe and the action. I’ve already ranted about the film’s logic, but I can even say I found the galactic space battles dull and lacking. Overhearing the crew shout every single command worked well for the series, as there were no special effects to back them up. Audiences would imagine what was going on in space, but now in a time when actions speak louder than words, the battles appear repetitive.

And yet I wish Abrams stayed true to the show’s morals as well. Instead of “Live long and Prosper,” Spock’s new message is no more than believe in yourself and do what feels right. That’s how many of these action sequences seem to play out. A young Kirk drives a 60’s Corvette into what looks like the Grand Canyon (in Iowa) and stylishly leaps out of the moving vehicle at the last minute to stare down a police officer. Kirk, Sulu and a nameless character dive out of their ship to parachute onto a small platform, but the nameless one is enjoying the plummet so much, he pulls his shute late and dies. Once on the platform, the heroes forgo advanced lasers in favor of, ahem, more primitive weapons.

“Star Trek” had the potential to ask questions of destiny, fate and character, and instead we get a popcorn movie. Maybe an adequate one at that, but it’s one with no other purpose than to inspire additional popcorn films in 2011 and 2013 no doubt.

2 ½ stars

1 thought on “Star Trek (2009)”

  1. Pingback: Review: Star Trek Into Darkness *** | The Sanity Clause

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.