Review: Star Trek (2009) ***
As directed by J.J. Abrams (Mission: Impossible III, TV’s Lost), the new Star Trek is a solid if unspectacular reboot of the beloved space franchise. It moves briskly and entertains with plenty of humor and action while all the actors do a nice job of making familiar characters their own. Unfortunately, it’s saddled with a gimmicky plot and it spends so much time putting together the elements expected by fans of the series, it never has an opportunity to distinguish itself as a vibrant and viable work on its own.
The story begins with a federation starship under attack by a mysterious vessel from the future. When the federation ship is destroyed, a still unborn James T. Kirk is left fatherless. The story then jumps forward to a rebellious Kirk growing up and raising hell on Earth while on Vulcan a young Spock struggles to reconcile his Vulcan and human halves. Before long the two are rivals at Starfleet Academy, but when the mysterious ship returns, the cadets are rushed into action aboard a new starship, the U.S.S. Enterprise. Along with the familiar roster of characters including Uhura, Sulu, McCoy, Scotty and Chekov, they must stop this seemingly invincible ship bent on destroying all the planets in the Federation.
The main strength of this new Star Trek lies in the cast. Chris Pine is surprisingly effective as the inexperienced but still charming and cocky Kirk while Simon Pegg provides a nice jolt of energy as Scotty midway through the film. Karl Urban (Eomer in the last two Lord of the Rings films) borders on caricature as Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy, but his performance works and he steals most of the scenes he’s in. Zachary Quinto (TV’s Heroes) looks right as Spock, but he struggles and mostly fails to make his humorless and emotionless Spock interesting. John Cho is fine as Sulu, but Anton Yelchin lays the Russian accent on way too thick as Chekov and Zoe Saldana tends to disappear into the background after showing early promise as Uhura.
Beyond the generally good performances, the nicest surprise of Star Trek is the vitality derived from the character-based humor. There have been times in the Trek franchise where the humor seemed forced as though the cast and filmmakers were afraid to take the property seriously. If the people on screen don’t believe what they’re doing, then why should the audience? Here thankfully, the humor mostly feels natural. It fits the characters and goes a long way toward making the film as entertaining as it is.
Where the film gets tripped up is in the creaky time bending plot. It’s true that Star Trek has a long tradition of plotlines that revolve around time travel. Every incarnation of the TV show, including the animated series, had episodes where characters would jump through time. Even on the big screen, the fourth film hinged upon the crew traveling back to the late 20th century to save the world. Indeed, time travel is an honored sci-fi staple. Here however, time travel is nothing more than a gimmick. It allows the filmmakers to bring back a beloved actor from the series and, because events resulting from a time warp are pivotal to bringing the familiar crew together, it allows the writers to completely jettison the continuity of everything that has come before. This isn’t so much an origin story as it is a reorganization. The characters are the same, but their configurations are different and there’s no obligation to the past. It might be a clever reworking, but it’s also a complete copout and it’s not very satisfying.
Though it ends with a familiar refrain and a familiar theme, the new Trek is not much like the old Trek after all. On the other hand, it isn’t very bold in charting a new direction and finding its own identity either. As a result, it’s not a great film, but it’s still a good one. It has a solid cast, it’s never boring and it should appeal to most fans while being user friendly enough for new audiences. Though Star Trek might not leave much of a mark all by itself, it successfully navigates a box office safe middle ground that will likely provide a satisfactory springboard to future sequels.
Star Trek. USA 2009. Directed by J.J. Abrams. Screenplay by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. Cinematography by Dan Mindel. Music score composed by Michael Giacchino. Edited by Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey. Visual effects supervised by Roger Guyett. Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin and Winona Ryder. 2 hours 6 minutes. MPAA rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content. 3 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Tags: Alex Kurtzman, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Chris Pine, Dan Mindel, Eric Bana, J.J. Abrams, John Cho, Karl Urban, Leonard Nimoy, Mary Jo Markey, Maryann Brandon, Michael Giacchino, Roberto Orci, Roger Guyett, Simon Pegg, Winona Ryder, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana
Thanks for an informative review, Craig. Why do I get the impression you’re one of the few critics to watch this with a clear head and their critical faculty intact. I like my SciFi to be cerebral and artful rather than action/adventure so I’m guessing I’ll have a similar reaction to you on this one.
’cause I’m telling you what you want to hear? :)
What Daniel said on the WF thread about this being this year’s Iron Man – critically overpraised because it’s the first big summer movie that doesn’t suck – rings really true here. I liked it, but there are an awful lot of 100s on Metacritic.
I’ll be curious to hear how the real fans like Sam and Jeff respond to it. I’m just a tourist.
“I like my SciFi to be cerebral and artful rather than action/adventure so I’m guessing I’ll have a similar reaction to you on this one.”
Yeah Satre, then this one might not be for you… I admit, there’s plenty to attack here (especially the whole “dude! there’s gonna be a huge black hole. Get the hell out of there already!” thing), but my inner geek was willing to overlook it just for the thrill. Cerebral, it is not. But I had a blast with it.
Glad you had a blast Hedwig. Who knows, my own cruelly repressed inner geek might be able to enjoy it too.
There was a lot to like about it Hedwig, I just felt a little robbed the more I thought about it.
The destruction of a certain planet was especially cool and I wish it wasn’t in the trailer.
Well Craig, this view seems to be an extremely minority one in the sphere of criticism, but I still respect it. If it’s all adventure, and nothing cerebral or character-driven, well then I guess you may be dead-on. I like my sci-fi to be ‘cerebral and artful’ like sartre (and Hedwig, who still saw it’s entertainment value apparently). That’s why I regarded Aronofsky’s THE FOUNTAIN as a masterpiece.
But I’ll admit that I am a lifelong fanatical trekkie (as you graciously acknowledged here to Jeff and myself) and so many are singing its praises. Yet, I most assuredly had no use for IRON MAN, so we’ll have to see. I will be seeing it later today, so the proof will be in the pudding, and with all due respect I hope I disagree. LOL!!! As always, and honest and most thoughtful review. Your kudos to the cast was a hopeful sign. The fact that it essays characters that have always been dear to my heart may well mitigate against the fact that I generally do not much care for these kind of adventure-driven films. I’ll know soon.
I genuinely hope you love it Sam (and Jeff too) and something tells me you will (Jeff, not so much, but we’ll see if my guess is right on either score). Then again, if you’re looking for intellectual heft, I don’t think you’ll find it with Star Trek. Not this time around. Now that they have all the pieces in place and the freedom to do whatever they want, I predict the next one will be better.
And I don’t disagree with the positive reviews, but the people who gave it 100 on Metacritic are smoking dilithium crystals.
Finally, I wouldn’t consider myself inside the sphere of criticism in the first place. I’m just a guy who watches movies and reviews them.
“…….but the people who gave it 100 on Metacritic are smoking dilithium crystals.”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Craig, the critical concensus en masse would mean less to me if it weren’t for the fact that both Manhola Dargis and Stephanie Zahareck both gave the film superlative reviews themselves., as did Christopher Orr in THE NEW REPUBLIC. That is a most significant fact, since neither is generally very generous, and maintain very high standards of scrutiny and scholarship.
Still again, one’s perception will often ‘buck the trend’ so to speak. The critics went hog-wild over the Korean film TREELESS MOUNTAIN a few weeks ago, and I thought it was rather undistinguished..old hat.
I glanced at the review of EMPIRE, and saw a critic there named Colin Kennedy who wrote the review. You never told me you had some relatives in the same business, and with the same initials to boot?!?
I will admit that the incredible numbers at RT, 180 to 8, 8.1 cumulative and a staggering 96% (higher than any other 2009 film domestic or foreign) does seem over-the-top. It sets you up for the kill. These numbers are better than what WALL-E received last year! It simply doesn’t seem possible.
I doubt many of those people who are giving it 100s would say it was better than WALL-E or The Dark Knight, but there it is. Such is the nature of scoring reviews.
I could easily have gone a half star in either direction depending on my mood.
I have issues with time travel plots anyway. Sometimes they’re handled elegantly and they’re great and other times they’re messy and awkward. This was more the latter.
Again though, I’ll defer judgment until I hear from you and Jeff and some of the other Trek fans. I’d hope the film will appeal most to the hard core fans, but we’ll see.
I’ll go read these other reviews now and see if I have anything to say about them.
Ok, I just read Manohla’s review. She gets the humor without mockery part right, and Christopher Pine’s performance as well, though she gives Zachary Quinto too much credit as Spock I think and doesn’t say enough about the guy who played McCoy
She doesn’t waste any time on the story which is the part that tripped me up. She enjoyed the humor and the tone and the Kirk/Spock bi-play…no pun intended.
Others might not agree with me, but I’d definitely take Star Trek over The Dark Knight (which I’ve mentioned numerous times didn’t work that well for me). As for Wall-E, no way in hell, of course.
As a guy who liked TDK a teeny bit less than everyone else, I know where you’re coming from Michael…and frankly I understand why you and Hedwig are fans of Star Trek. There was a lot to like with it.
Even as a fan though, would you agree that critics who are giving it 100 on Metacritic are a bit crazy? Or am I just totally missing the boat and it’s really that good?
“Unfortunately, it’s saddled with a gimmicky plot and it spends so much time putting together the elements expected by fans of the series, it never has an opportunity to distinguish itself as a vibrant and viable work on its own.”
I don’t agree with that at all. There are a lot of references to the old Trek, but I never got the feeling Abrams was bending over backwards to please fan expectations. Quite the opposite really.
It does head off in a bold new direction, I think. I was skeptical about this film at first, but truly I think it is a quintessential summer blockbuster and the most enjoyable film of the year.
It’s an absolute pleasure to watch and I loved every minute of it.
Sorry Craig, the film is awfully good. Yes, it’s primarily summer fluff, but it’s fabulous summer fluff. I think Quinto is terrific. McCoy to me felt like an imitation.
I’m glad you boys enjoyed it. For me it just felt like a big warm up to better things to come.
In retrospect, imploding the previous continuity with the time travel plot was a great idea (sticking too close to the established story would’ve been boring and foolish), but the plot itself wasn’t very interesting. A small gripe? Probably, especially considering large chunks of the rest of the movie were so entertaining.
McCoy did feel like an imitation, but in a very amusing way ultimately. I’m obviously in the minority on Quinto. He’s the one character for me that didn’t live up to the original, but then he had the biggest shoes to fill, plus he had to compete with the guy on the same screen.
***Spoilers****
Spock saving the current timeline by telling Scotty what he already knew in another future was very annoying. Kirk just happening to get chased into Spock’s cave was also silly.
But here I am defensively nitpicking.
****end spoilers**
Alright, I just heard from Sam. He loved it too. Now it’s up to Jeff to rescue me from this island I’ve stranded myself on.
Craig, you were right: I didn’t like it. I’d give it a 5/10, or a 2.5 out of 5 on your scale. I also didn’t expect to like it, which could be considered a self-fulfilling prophecy, but whatever. It wasn’t your father’s Star Trek, and it’s not mine, anymore, either. I’ll have more to say later.
Jeff, I kind of hate that you hated it…call me an optimist but I like it when people actually like the movies they see…but I’m happy to have some company. Look forward to hearing your further thoughts and reading your review.
I don’t think I have the energy to hate it…but it definitely didn’t give me much pleasure. Resignation is the best word for my mood.
That’s actually worse than hate in my book. Hate is at least SOMETHING. You can sink your teeth into it.
Resignation you just want to take a nap and hope it’s all over when you wake up.
Wow, it’s going to be a very long summer indeed if that was the quintessential summer blockbuster. If I were being as gracious and cynical as most film critics are about summer movies, I’d probably give this a B+ but if I were grading it based on my own feelings and response to it, I’d probably come closer to a B-/C+.
I liked most of the cast, especially Quinto as Spock, and Pine is also good at capturing the cocky jackass that Shatner perfected, but it felt like the script was working overtime to shoehorn in every well-worn trademark line from the original series.
It certainly delivers great effects shots, humor, and a fast-paced plot but I really disliked much of the narrative, which takes some really weird turns in the second act. Abrams shows once again how anemic his action direction is.
Ugh. I’m shocked Trek fans love this so much, considering how poorly conceived the massive paradox at the center of the plot is. I won’t spoil it for anyone, but the only way this film makes sense is if you ignore all the TV series and movies after the original Star Trek.
Dammit. I’m going to be swimming upstream on this one all frigging year. Ugh.
I’m going to have to revisit my opinion of Quinto apparently because even people who didn’t like the movie thought he was great.
Ah well, we agree Pine was good. That was the big surprise for me.
Even at B-, this could still be the best movie of the summer, though it’s sounding more and more like Up could be the one….at least for Pixar fans. Tarantino may still rescue us all and I’m sure Public Enemies will have some fans.
I’m growing more and more annoyed with myself that I didn’t enjoy this movie more, but ultimately I couldn’t get past the script and narrative. Oh well, done, move on. It was likely a 100 times better than Wolverine, so I have that to be thankful for.
Yep, Craig, Up and Basterds are the beginning and ending of my Summer season. In-between is going to be a slog though.
One conversation I had about this movie, it seemed like I basically agreed with the person…our likes and dislikes were about the same, but it was a matter of degree. The things that bugged me (a red dinosaur on a planet made of ice…that conveniently chases Kirk right to Spock Prime so he can lead the way to Scotty who is conveniently on the same planet!) bugged this person less and the things she loved, I only kind of liked. End result: similar perspective, but different reactions.
It’s not your fault the movie didn’t fully engage you enough that you could overlook its drawbacks.
Technically, this movie erases every previously-made Star Trek movie and series with the exception of, ironically, Enterprise, the least-liked series of them all.
Yeah, I did a little reading and can see now how their plot device actually does erase all the TV series except Enterprise without the apparent larger paradox I was referring to.
There are a variety of paradoxes introduced by the film narrative though, so either way it’s still completely illogical. Had I actually gotten into the movie, I probably wouldn’t care about any of these. My loss…I think.
Here’s a funny youtube clip for all of you who hated the lens flare lighting of the bridge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ
The funny thing about lens flare is that it was originally a filter in an old version of Photoshop and people abused the hell out of it when it came out, rendering it a cliche fairly quickly. Then it got added to 3D rendering programs and 3D modelers started abusing it to the point of cliche.
Now that they’ve figured out how to do this as a CGI fill-in to movies, film directors are abusing the hell out of it too.
I do have to wonder which sequel down the line will address the bridge crew getting cataracts and suing the Federation for an unsafe work environment.
I’m afraid to join this discussion. I have no balls. LOL! Still, I respect the excellence insights on display here, regardless of how I feel myself.
I am already over my feelings on Star Trek as I’m just a Trek tourist and don’t really have a horse in this race. Please Sam et al, ENJOY! Anything I’d have to criticize has more to with nuances of direction or the scripting but I don’t have the energy to fight the love.
In fact, I’d love to here some eloquence from folks that loved it. You might change my mind on some aspects.
You’re a good man Joel.
Don’t let the haters drag you down, Sam. Loving a movie is a great thing. It’s why we GO to movies.
Besides, now we’re even for Speed Racer :)
hahahahahah!!! You know I was actually thinking about SPEED RACER yesterday and how I opposed the general opinion here. It’s true, it’s far more pleasant to be on the favorable side. I’m sticking with this one, it’s really made an impression on me, but it’s not everyone’s thing. Fair enough.
There were a couple of SR fans around these parts…Evan and Ari for two and I think Joel rallied to the cause on DVD, but overall consensus is behind Trek where it most definitely wasn’t behind Speed.
Besides, don’t forget I did like the movie, it just didn’t inspire rapture in me. I really believe with this cast (and maybe a new writer and new director) the sequel could be great.