Star Trek (Movie Review)
Originally written and posted on May 8, 2009.
Star Trek
Depending on what you expect from a revitalized Star Trek franchise, what J.J. Abrams is offering will likely leave newer audiences thrilled and older fans frustrated. As for myself, I don’t belong to either audience. I’m a passive observer aware of the series’ finer details but not immersed in it. This means that I’m equally as eager to “go where no man has gone before” as I am to question and pick at insidious doubts in the film’s logic that do unfortunately crop up. I justify my opening statement by assuming that the diehards will either forgive the inherent problems as nostalgia takes over or be resistant to what they might see as the bastardization of Roddenberry’s beloved sic-if opera. As for the newcomers, this Star Trek stands as a very compelling reason to beam aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise and see why Star Trek has endured for so long.
Star Trek is an origin tale of sorts, detailing the lives of the characters from the original series and how they come to be members of Star Fleet and the U.S.S. Enterprise. First among them is James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine), son of George Kirk, a man who captained the U.S.S. Kelvin for twelve minutes after engaging a hostile Romulan warship while investigating an electrical disturbance in the deeper regions of space. Next is Spock (Zachary Quinto), a half human half Vulcan who embodies the age old question of whether or not absolute reason and absolute emotion can coexist. McCoy (Karl Urban), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Scotty (Simon Pegg), Sulu (John Cho), and Chekov (Anton Yelchin) are also featured in the film, but aren’t exactly given their dues. The principle concern of Star Trek is the rivalry between Kirk and Spock, and the threat of the Romulans; the other characters must wait in the wings until a sequel explores them.
The film is very pretty and incredibly impressive. The sheer scale of Star Trek’s universe is impeccably presented owing much to a very liberal yet very convincing use of effects and CGI. Some might dismiss the relentless flash and noise as mind-numbing and distracting, but it’s a necessary marriage that is thankfully seamless. The weight of the space battles couldn’t be possible otherwise. As for the designs that aren’t indebted to the use of computer magic such as costumes and sets, overall they are very crisp and clean. It’s a bit unfortunate that the Enterprise looks like an Apple Store and that the Romulan ship appears to be designed by the Wachowski brothers, but it succeeds in presenting a plausible world of intergalactic diplomacy.
Where Star Trek begins to falter is where the plot is concerned. The script, dialogue, characters, and cinematography are all fine (outstanding in the case of the lattermost), but when the plot involving a black hole, vengeance, and world destroying technology take prominence, insidious doubts do arise as to the plausibility of it all. Generally, the progression is of the story is too convenient for my liking. Convenient not in the sense of predictability and blandness, but convenient in how the solutions to the conflicts are formed. Take for example a scene where Kirk is marooned by young Spock on an icy planet. There, he meets old Spock (Leonard Nimoy [did I mention there's a time paradox?]), heads to a Star Fleet outpost, and enlists the help of Scotty to beam aboard the Enterprise which is travelling at warp speed through space. Scotty describes the insane plan as “hitting a bullet with another smaller bullet while blindfolded on horseback” and concludes the impossibility of it all. Old Spock proudly announces that it’s impossible because Scotty hasn’t discovered the calculation that will enable it to work, plugs in the formula, and away they go. Doesn’t this strike anyone else as being a bit of a cop-out? I’m no astrophysicist and certainly one of the last people who should be debating this, but certainly it renders the whole misadventure more than a little moot if you ask me. And since we’re here, what about the impressive coincidence of Kirk being marooned on the exact same planet where old Spock was stranded, not to mention they’re both within walking distance of where Scotty is idly hanging around? The Enterprise might as well be powered by the infinite improbability drive.
Despite the above oddities, I do understand and appreciate what the plot enables the rest of the film to do. Without such conveniences, the brisk pace the film maintains for a shockingly brief two hour run time would almost certainly be impossible. I’m just not sure if it was a necessary sacrifice to let the plot suffer so the audience can eagerly tell their friends about how absolutely legendary Star Trek is and thereby ensure extended interest in the property. Was it necessary that Star Trek be a shade below its potential so that the series can exist for years to come? I personally do not think so, but I’m certainly glad that the other films hopefully won’t have to. Star Trek is a success, but it could have been a triumph.
Two words that would have made Star Trek beyond perfect: Nuclear Wessels.
Comments are closed.