2009 / 126 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz

“Star Trek” was once an eternal commodity. Though originally cancelled, it had lived on to become a movie, another TV show (”Star Trek: Next Generation”), a prequel (”Star Trek: Enterprise”) and pretty much everything else. But, in recent years, it had grown stodgy, stale and, if my memory of “Star Trek: Nemesis” serves, kind of ludicrous. Though it once achieved a mass market appeal, it had recently returned to the margins. It was beloved by the geeks and science teachers that had loved it in the first place, but few others. “Lord of the Rings” once lingered in this pop culture ghetto, until a nerd from New Zealand filled it with bad-ass special effects and sword fights and made the world fall in love with it . Before 2000, I only knew a handful of people who knew who the hell Frodo Baggins was, now EVERYONE does.

Well, “Star Trek” fans, your day has come. Prepare for everyone to care about warp drives and Prime Directives because J.J. Abrams has rebooted the “Star Trek” franchise and brought about your worst nightmare: “Star Trek” is finally cool. The end is nigh, people, start stocking up on canned food and shotguns.

How did J.J. do it? First of all, he went back to formula. Kirk, Spock and the rest of their crew are the most iconic and recognizable “Star Trek” characters, so it made sense to focus on them once again. But the actors who played those iconic roles are now ancient (or even dead) so having them star in a giant summer blockbuster would not have worked (dammit, Jim, this is a season for giant robots and explosions, not an AARP meeting) so he had to recast them. But he also didn’t want an entire nation of sci-fi enthusiasts (which is, basically, a fancy term for geeks…and I am one, don’t get offended) rising up in protest, so he defused the situation by focusing on those characters when they were younger, in their Starfleet days, therefore necessitating the use of younger (read: sexier) actors.

Ah, but watching the original characters go to class and take tests would be boring (it’s why I never got all that excited by “Top Gun”) so he introduced a bad guy (the Romulan Nero, played with great, glowering intensity by Eric Bana) who has traveled back in time intent on destroying the Federation and Spock…not necessarily in that order.

SPOILER ALERT!

But the most brilliant component of Abrams’s film is that he has given the entire “Star Trek” world a reboot, a do-over, by having the villain screw with time itself. The old “Trek” events that everyone knows and loves? They’ve just been thrown out the window. This is a brand new world, one that Abrams and writers Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci can play with to their hearts content without having to worry about maintaining the continuity of the original series and all the series that came after. They’ve given themselves license to do whatever the hell they want. Of those three innovations, I think this one is the most inspired. This universe now exists in an alternate timeline from the one that everyone knows and loves. Therefore, things you just know CAN’T happen because those planets and characters exist in chronologically later series and movies CAN happen, because Nero has come back in time specifically to change that future. This generates suspense that would otherwise have been lacking in a prequel. ANYTHING can happen (and generally does) so the audience is on the edge of its collective seat.

SPOILER OVER!

But enough about how Abrams has kick-started the “Star Trek” universe, on to the big question: is the movie any good? The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes!” The characters you’ve always loved (or hated) are here and the actors put a fresh spin on them while retaining everything that made them lovable in the first place. Chris Pine is fantastic as James T. Kirk. In Pine’s hands, the character is like Maverick from “Top Gun” (he’s cocky, he’s got daddy issues, he plays by his own rules and he loves the ladies) except he’s cooler. He’s vulnerable without being a whiny schmuck and he’s arrogant without being an obnoxious prick. This is Pine’s first major film role, and he nails it! He may even be a better Kirk than Shatner! (Though I need to see him yell “Khan” before I get definitive on that.) As for Spock, Zachary Quinto isn’t going to erase your memories of Leonard Nimoy (Nimoy appears in this movie to remind you just how great he is at this sort of thing) but he’s decent. He does a fine job with the whole “logic over emotion” angle (Spock’s defining characteristic), though he seems to skew a bit too emotional. Then again, this is a young Spock we’re dealing with. Perhaps he hadn’t yet quashed all emotion. And I think ANYone, Vulcan or not, would get emotional during the events of this film.

As for the supporting roles: Simon Pegg is hilarious as Scotty, Zoe Saldana does more with “Uhura” than Nichelle Nichols ever got the chance to, Anton Yelchin is a riot as Chekov (note his line readings of the word “Vulcan”), John Cho is fine as Sulu and is given more action scenes than Sulu usually got. But the real standout here is Karl Urban as “Bones” McCoy. I’ve never thought much of Urban one way or another. In the “Lord of the Rings” films he was…well…there. Same with “The Bourne Supremacy” and the ill-advised “Chronicles of Riddick”. Here, however, Urban delivers all the gruff sarcasm, cynicism and tetchiness that DeForest Kelley brought to the role and risks overdoing it just enough to make the performance a droll delight.

The movie gives us the characters people have cherished for decades, but it has the thrilling audacity to dissect them and see what makes them tick. It takes us back to the moment when all of these icons first met and imagines what that must have been like. It also gives these young cadets a baptism by fire in a solid plot that has more at risk than any “Trek” film I’ve yet seen. Abrams also manages to take all the pomp and stateliness of “Star Trek” and replaces it with dazzling spectacle and wonder. I have liked “Star Trek” in other incarnations (read my “Khan” review for proof) but I’ve generally admired it from a distance. Let’s face it: “Trek” is a highly revered and bloodless institution. Abrams takes the stuff that has always worked (the humor, the characters) and injected some genuine suspense and emotional punch. The first ten minutes of this movie had me closer to the edge of my seat and closer to tears than the last forty years of “Star Trek” ever have. I don’t know how he did it, but Abrams has managed to do what “Trek” has never quite done before: he and his collaborators have sucked me into this world and gotten me lost in it. This is the sort of trick that George Lucas made a name by miraculously pulling off in the sci-fi field but, aside from “Revenge of the Sith”, even he hasn’t been able to manage for quite a long time. As a longtime “Star Wars” fan, this is the finest compliment I can give this new “Star Trek”: it’s the only “Star Trek” film that I’ve loved almost as much as the original “Star Wars” trilogy. It’s got that same sense of wonder and excitement without the corniness inherent in so much sci-fi entertainment. It’s also the first movie since “The Dark Knight” that I’ve wanted to see again, immediately. But this one is more flat-out fun. “Star Trek” is what summer filmmaking is all about. It’s got great characters, amazing special effects, a stirring score from Michael Giacchino (those first few notes played over a black screen actually gave me goosebumps), it moves at a brisk pace, it’s got action sequences that get the blood pumping, and it’s downright hilarious at times.

My only quibble with this film is that it borrows perhaps a few too many elements from what is generally regarded as the best previous “Trek” film: “Wrath of Khan”. It’s got a revenge-driven villain with an axe to grind with a member of the crew (Spock instead of Kirk). That’s fine. But…brain slugs…again? That’s a little much. A couple of the people I went with bitched about the fact that there were big, bloodthirsty creatures living on an ice planet but, personally, I didn’t have a problem with that. One of my main gripes with “Trek” has always been that there aren’t enough creatures in it (another of the things I love about the “Star Wars” films) so I appreciated that Abrams was trying to rectify that. After all, gang, that’s why it’s called science “fiction”. If you don’t like it, read a Carl Sagan book and shut up.

But that’s my only real complaint, and it’s not a very big one. I have no qualms about recommending this film to anyone and everyone. THIS is what I want when I plunk down my eight-fifty at a movie theater between May and August. It’s exciting, funny entertainment that doesn’t require you to shut off your brain. It’s got moments of darkness and sadness, but it’s light and bouncy enough that it’s not depressing. Conversely, it’s also not SO light and bouncy that it drains the emotional impact of those dark moments. That’s a tricky balance, but one that this movie effortlessly achieves.

Thanks to J.J. Abrams and his cast and crew, “Star Trek” is looking sleeker and cooler than ever. In fact, it’s now Lucas’s “Star Wars” empire that’s starting to look rather stale and stodgy.

Share on Facebook

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 at 4:10 pm and is filed under Dale's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.