HuffPost Review -- Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek
2009
126 minutes
Rated PG-13
"You will always be a part of two worlds. And fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is which path will you choose."
JJ Abrams's ambitious Star Trek reboot desperately tries to have it both ways. Not confident enough to choose its path, it straddles between affectionately campy homage and its own franchise. Like Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, it is too afraid to boldly chart its own destiny, but refusing to be a true extension of the original franchise. While it portends to separate itself from the Star Trek mythology that inspired it, the picture completely counts on said mythology for any and all emotional impact.
A token amount of plot: Born on the very day his father died aboard a star ship, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is adrift on Earth, unable or unwilling to decide what to do with his life. Fate intercedes when Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) challenges him to live up to the courage shown by the George Kirk so many years prior. Meanwhile, on the planet Vulcan, the half-human, half-Vulcan Spock (Zachary Quinto) is torn between his destiny as a Vulcan, and his desire to embrace his human side and join Starfleet. Their destinies will soon intertwine, and the rest of our favorite USS Enterprise crew members will join in a maiden adventure that will test and define them and their novice crew.
For the record, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and the rest of the gang are all in ship-shape form. While Karl Urban comes on a little strong right out of the gate as Dr. McCoy, his character works better once he actually has more to do than complain. With the exception of one first-act scene, Pine keeps the frat-boy rebel cliches to a bare minimum. Quinto gives an impressive interior performance when the script isn't forcing him to give on the nose speeches and engage in plot-mandated emotional outbursts (although I will concede that the follow up to said outburst is an affective and moving scene). The rest of the gang is barely sketched in, but our memory of the original actors does most of the work for us. Sulu's (John Cho) main character beat is cribbed from Galaxy Quest, although he does gets a major action scene. Chekov speaks in an ultra-thick Russian accent for comic relief and little else, making him the prime candidate to die in the sequel. Scotty (Simon Pegg) shows up fully formed, while Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana) is allowed to take her character in some surprising directions.
Taken on their own, many of these characters are paper thin, and the film depends on our affection for their prior legacies in order for us to care about what happens to them. Further more, great pains are made to allow the plot to both set out on its own course while allowing to the prior Star Trek continuity to remain intact. While I won't reveal the details, the film eventually becomes the equivalent of an 'elseworld', except the characters are pretty much the same as they are in the regular Star Trek universe. The film lacks the courage to either stand firmly within Star Trek continuity or completely break free and tell its own story. As it is, we are stuck wondering why we should care about the exploits of basically the Enterprise crew of 'Earth-2'.
Let's put aside the film's lack of courage in picking a path and my distaste for the concept of the 'multiverse'. Taking as its own thing, does the film work? Not really. The villain, played by Eric Bana, is the least interesting adversary in any tent pole adventure film that I can remember. While he is given token 'motivation' against Spock, it doesn't make much sense (had Spock actually been indirectly responsible for Nero's grievance, it would have made more sense and helped the drama), and he is given so little to do that the character becomes 'insert antagonist here'.
Despite the huge budget and attempt at scope, the film is shot mainly in close up, leaving the film feeling more claustrophobic than epic. While the film never, ever stops moving, there is actually very little actual action. Said action beats fail to excite because most of the action involves people running in panic from one room of a star ship to another, or arbitrary scenes of one ship annihilating another (one-sided slaughter isn't action, it's just violence). Plus, much of it is shot and edited in that super-tight, million-edits a second fashion that only Steven Spielberg, John Singleton, and Martin Campbell seem able to avoid. Only a pointless but frightening chase involving a snowy monster and a swashbuckling duel involving Sulu atop a giant drill elicit any sense of excitement. By the time a climactic phaser shoot out occurs, I couldn't help thinking how much more emotionally involved I was in said shoot out at the end of, yes, Galaxy Quest.
There are countless comic callbacks to the original franchise, but most of them feel so forced, out of place, and on the nose that they take us right out of the picture. Various lines of dialogue, action beats, and character moments are rudely inserted from previous films and television episodes. They do not feel organic and imply Abrams's lack of confidence in his own ability to please the Trek fans without resorting to 'oh, that's from that movie/episode' moments. Furthermore, the insertion of the fabled 'Kobayashi Maru' test takes up valuable screen time while seemingly missing the point of the original story. In this variation, Kirk is a cocky punk who cheats out of entitlement, rather than a stubborn refusal to fail. Ironically the best nod to the original show is the subtlest, involving the unspoken destiny of Chief Engineer Olsen.
The biggest 'callback' (this could be considered a spoiler) involves the second act appearance of a major character from the prior franchise. Without going into details, said character becomes an hour long deus ex machina. He constantly offers helpful plot exposition, tells the characters exactly what they need to do in order to progress, and then tells the characters what they should do once the film is complete. Said character comes off not as one imparting wisdom, but rather as one who has already read the script. This element by itself kills much of the dramatic tension in the third act of the picture.
In the end, despite fine acting, several moments of potent drama, solid production values, and high ambitions, Star Trek comes off as a 'Star Trek for dummies' variation on the fabled story. Similar to X-Files: Fight the Future, this film is Star Trek for people who have never seen the shows or the movies, and furthermore need their characters drawn in broad strokes and the philosophies explicitly explained in monologue. Maybe if I had no prior knowledge of the franchise I could take it all at face value and simply acknowledge that it is a broadly drawn big-budget B-movie with an incredibly weak villain and some poorly staged action beats. But because the film continuously reminds us of its legacy, I have no choice but to judge it in comparison to its predecessors. There is potential for a solid franchise with these actors, after all the even-numbered sequels are almost always the best. But, despite all the pomp and circumstance, J.J. Abrams's Star Trek remains merely another disappointing odd-numbered Star Trek picture.
Grade: 2.5/4
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Spot on review; this was watered-down Star Trek for the masses, designed for the low attention span crowd. Nonetheless, it was cleverly produced in that it worked in its primary goal: to bust the trend of slow box office numbers heretofore always associated with ST productions, while including just enough nostalgia to keep the trekkers happy and feeling newly acknowledged for their years of dutiful loyalty to an important franchise.
Can't we have someone re-imagine the bible to make Jesus a direct megalomaniacal creator of hate, and get hte knee-jerk reaction that bans non- 100% faithful adaptations? Surely we can throw that as a rider
Someone was already creativre for you JJ, follow it, or step aside for someone who will. You do fine on your own already without pissing in our pool
I loved this movie and I'm glad it didn't take itself too seriously, unlike some of these "Real Trekkies" on this post. You'd think they'd be happy that the geek actually gets the girl in this movie! sheeessh.
Some of these supposed "real trekkies" need to get a sense of humor:
www.theoni
I really enjoyed Scott's review. I generally agree with Scott, maybe I think the movie was epic in many ways, i'm curious why Scott says it is not epic. BTW DS-9 was the best star trek. Lots of great SF.
Did anyone read the novel by Vonda McIntyre entitled ENTERPRISE??
THAT detailed how the crew of the Enterprise came together.. It had everything. Action, Values, Klingons, Morality, Contemporary Commentary, First Contact, Alien Species, Humor and Fun..
And it was written YEARS ago...
All the elements that make Star Trek what it is, in that one novel..
Why couldn't THAT be the Star Trek movie?
In the beginning of the movie, the Corvette represents all the greatness of Star Trek that came before.
And it’s driven off a cliff by a little snot that has no concept of values or value, who just wants to take it out for a spin.
Michale...
Oh brother, ARealTrekker, you really need to stop taking yourself so seriously. The movie was what the original Star Trek was about, campiness, silly story lines, overly-emoted acting and pure fun. Maybe you should wait for a new Enterprise movies with Picard because those were so much more cerebral and boring.
That's YOUR opinion..
It's the same opinion of those who don't "get it"..
Star Trek engendered a set of beliefs, values and morality that was sorely desired in it's time and still is desired today..
The "real" Star Trek can be summed up in one word... HOPE..
Oh gee, where have I heard that concept mentioned in the last year or so?
Oh yea... That's right.
We elected a president because of that one overriding theme!!!
Now, answer me this.. What concept was taken away from this alternate Star Wreck??
The concept that tongue and testosterone always wins out over logic and consistency.
This Star Trek is simply low-brow eye candy for those who cannot understand the thinking person's Sci Fi that was the REAL Star Trek..
Sorry, if that's too "serious" for you, but as Kirk said to the Klingon commander in Star Trek III..... "C'est le vie"....
As I said in another thread..
This is NOT Star Trek. This is an Alternate Star Trek.. It's a low brow version for the fast food, instant thrills that don't require any thinking types...
I mean no disrespect
There is no shame in enjoying cheap thrills... Just don't try to pass those cheap thrills off as something noble and cerebral..
Come on ARealTrekker, nobody is trying to pass this movie off as something "noble and cerebral" if it were, it would be one entirely long yawn fest!
By saying it's Star Trek, Abrams and Paramount are, indeed, trying to pass the movie off as "noble and cerebral".
If they weren't trying to pass it off as such, they would have called it, STARFLEET 90210: The Fast And the Furious...
Scott
Your review is premised on the presupposition that the original franchise is somehow compelling, sophisticated, and intelligent in a way that is lost in the transition to J.J. Abrams' work. Non-trekkies have always snickered at Trekkies in part because of the enthusiasm with which they embrace a perceived cleverness that just isn't there. The entire Star Trek franchise is and always has been a futuristic campy B action drama with corny cardboard characters. For many of us who grew up with Star Trek and always found it quite dull, shallow, and stiff like card board, the new film is fun because of its campy irreverance towards the original franchise, and the great eye candy it brings to the screen.
At least your critique didn't revolve around commissions of certain "heresies" changing people's biographies or killing off people who are supposed to survive, etc..
Exactly! SaltySaltillo gets it! These "Trekkies" really do need to get a l.i.f.e.!!
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
My review is based on the presupposition that the movie would be compelling, sophisticated and intelligent, period. I have no objection to a quality 'leave your brain at the door' spectacle, but I expected more than just empty-headed lights, bells, and whistles. Come what may, I wasn't nearly as entertained as I expected to be. At the end of the day, I can't recommend a movie that I didn't enjoy, even if the reasons I didn't enjoy it were a little nit picky.
I ended up having mixed feelings about the movie. Basically I liked everything about it but the story. Star Trek peddles in implausibility a lot but there are limits. The plot seemed to be a slave to the action scenes rather than the other way around.
Scott, thank you for your review. I think you've sparked healthy debate amidst the sea of fawning praise from nearly every other critic. It must have taken courage to to swim against the tide and risk the wrath of fans. Or perhaps you are simply a crumudgeon and enjoy stirring the pot.
I will say that I completely disagree with your conclusions. Point by point I had exactly the opposite reaction to this movie. I loved it start to finish. I've been a huge Trek fan since the 70's and I was prepared to be annoyed and disappointed by JJ's reboot. But I found it satisfying on an emotional and visceral level and plan to see it at least 3 more times before it leaves the theater.
I was 15 when Star Wars came out and it was a feaking life changing experience for this kid. But I loathed Lucas' prequels finding them lifeless, unengaging, emotionally void, stilted - basically a special effects extravaganda overlayed atop a After School Special.
You however said you enjoyed the prequels. its interesting how different human likes/dislikes can be.
Anyway, thanks for your review. Folks need to hear all sides. Courage!
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
I wish I was a curmudgeon. Alas, I genuinely expected to love this new Star Trek. The trailers were insanely well produced and suggested an emotional attachment and epic scale that I feel the film did not produce. I'm genuinely envious of anyone who did like this picture. They get to share in the excitement of this new film's box office success, while I merely sit in a corner and hope that the sequel is better.
I salute you, sir...
I went in hoping to enjoy a new and grand, different (yet still Trek) Star Trek experience.
I was sorely disappoint
I distinctly remember sitting there about 2/3rds of the way thru and saying to myself, "They CAN'T leave it like this.. They just CAN'T!!"..
Sadly, I was wrong...
I couldn't agree more on its various failings. Abrams cannot direct actors--and never could. His movies and TV series like Lost rely on plot to drive the story rather than the paper-thin cast. Cloverfield, for example, required the novelty of the point of view to carry the viewer past its weak stereotypes. You could feel that in much of the dialogue, particularly when they're on the bridge and finally have a chance to act as an ensemble. I was hoping Scotty and Uhura would make it; nobody else really captured my sympathy or intrigued me--not the way the original cast (and other successful ensembles) are able to.
I really enjoyed Star Trek--lord did it feel good to hear people clap at a Trek movie again!--but I still wish I could see one more actual Trek film. It saddens me to think we will now probably never see a DS9 film made. Le sigh.
(Oh, and I still say there's no defending the Star Wars prequels ;)
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
It's funny, but I disagree with you there. I found the first three seasons of Lost to be incredibly compelling precisely because they focused on character and story, with the 'what's really going in' mystery regulated to subtext. The characters like Locke, Ben, Sayid, Hurley, or Charley were interesting and engaging, even if the week's given storyline was not. That the show has become far too wrapped up in its own plot this year is hopefully a minor setback, maybe a necessary one in the overreaching 'end game' plan for the series. It was because I knew what rich characters could be created in a JJ Abrams world that I went into Trek with such expectations. Maybe he's just a director who works best in the long form character-centric realm of television, since I didn't care all that much for Mission Impossible III or Cloverfield (both were merely 'not bad').
My take was that in Lost when the writers themselves got lost and had no idea "what is really going on" they would cook up a background story and do character development. In other words, character development is what happens when the story has nowhere to go. You miss the main point about why the show is called Lost - because no one ... not the characters, the viewers, the writers, or the producers - have any idea where this thing is going... we are all effectively lost at this point. It is a metacommentary of itself - ... Lost is a show about what happens when TV writers get so carried away with their imagination that they lose the plot, and how everyone gets lost in the process ...
I couldn't disagree with you more, I saw the movie twice this weekend and I loved it! I have been a Star Trek lover since the original (grew up watching the shows over and over), and was thrilled that this movie version stayed true to the characters and also made me love them even more. I'm so glad I don't listen to movie reviewers opinions, I would have missed a great experience had I read your review because I probably would not have gone to see the movie based on what you have written here. You really are completely off the mark on this review. I found the other Star Trek movies sacriligious, though not this one! I also felt the action scenes in the movie were incredible! I also think that the part of the villian, Nero, was extremely well acted. I found myself feeling pity for him and understanding his feelings of helplessness in the loss of his wife and planet and his subsequent (albeit mislead) plot to avenge his losses. I highly recommend anyone go see this movie, whether you are familiar with the original or not, It was a very pleasurable viewing experience, and I usually hate going to movies these days!
Well, I'm sorry folks. But the next producer/d
Good is good, whether it's a "re-image" or not! I'm glad they re-made this classic!
I'm a story analyst, and I completely disagree with much of the sweeping criticisms this reviewer has made regarding story and character. The film works because it starts with conflicted characters with strong problems and has them actively learn and earn their way to victory. The action scenes work because they go back and forth from giving us good news followed by bad news that not only moves the story along, but convinces us that these people deserve to be seen as iconic. The writers haven't taken for granted that you will love these characters; they make these characters earn their reputation. One can feel that the writers embrace the history and writing that came before them; there is no disdain, just respect. They want the audience, old and new, to trust them with these characters. And they've largely succeeded.
If a reviewer decides to professionally criticize a film, they need to see it beyond the scope of what they personally like or dislike and judge within the context of the time period it's being released. Moviegoers - by and large - crave something that is optimistic after such a dark period. To disregard a film despite its storytelling skill, its character development and slam it just because it doesn't work for you personally, is a disservice to the people you're writing it for - YOUR audience. As a story analyst, if something doesn't work, I'd better be able to articulate very well and very specifically WHY it doesn't work.
See Scott Mendelson's Profile
It's my job as a critic to evaluate what did or did not work for me personally about a film. I certainly cannot guess which readers will disagree with said judgment, so I can only vouch for my own feelings and opinions. I explicitly stated what did or did not work for me, and why said elements made me respond accordingly. Just because 'people need a feel good film' doesn't mean I need to give a pass to a feel good film that is only so-so. People needed a feel good film in May of 2002 as well, and Spider-Man, while delivering in that regard, was a far better picture (if only for the coherent, exciting action scenes and stellar performance of Willem Dafoe). People needed something epic and inspiring in December of 2001, and Fellowship of the Ring did just that while being a far superior picture.
I say the characters are thin and rely on the history of the franchise, you disagree. You say the storytelling is skillful while I feel its illogical, overly reliant on exposition, and unsatisfying. That you disagree with my feelings toward the picture does not mean I was wrong or you were right. My audience is whomever chooses to read my work. And if they choose to read my review of Star Trek, then they expect to get my feelings and analysis on Star Trek, without needing to vouch for how every reader might agree or disagree with my judgment.
I believe your readers are a very niche market of moviegoers and not necessarily the average. Your judgment is based on very elitist opinions of what is 'good' storytelling and not necessarily what appeals to the mass market and that's fine. But I personally am tired of the snobbery involved in 'franchise' movies. If something is rebooted well, there is always a critic who will slam it for being a reboot whether or not it succeeds - if only for the fact that it is a reboot at all. The fact that you love Spider Man but dislike Iron Man already tells me what your personal tastes are. It's futile to try and argue based on that. I still firmly believe that you write according to you tastes and not the study of what is considered successful storytelling and character development. You appeal to you own biases instead of considering the psychology of what the average human being is attracted to at any particular time. That's okay. But as much as your opinion matters, I think there is space for mine as well. I just would rather the writer get his due when he does something right instead of getting needlessly and vaguely slammed by critics.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
