Star Trek reviewed
One of the big “oooh” moments of Star Trek is undeniably the first time the audience sees the bridge of the new USS Enterprise. Its design seems to have come straight out of Apple’s head office; all smooth white surfaces, shining glass and glowing display panels. It’s the iBridge, incredibly pretty to look at, sleek and sexy, and this same description pretty much sums up the new Star Trek film, the eleventh in the series, as a whole. Star Trek is a lot of fun and very visually engaging… but little more.
With a convenient time travel storyline, Star Trek is essentially a reboot of the franchise, erasing events that fans of the old TV series, as well as 1979's Original Motion Picture through to 2002’s Nemesis, are familiar with. This kind of negation of Star Trek history is in its way sad, but at the same time it doesn’t mean director J.J. Abrams and his writers are treating the Star Trek universe, and its various beloved characters, with disrespect.
In fact, Star Trek draws a great deal from the original TV series. It’s not afraid to be cheesy or goofy. There’s a moving opening sequence that is also admittedly a massive cliché. There’s Eric Bana flying way over the top as Nero, the film’s chief villain. Female Starfleet recruits still dress like 60's go-go dancers. At one point Kirk (Chris Pine) runs around with horribly swollen hands and a paralysed tongue. And this after he’s been trying to bed a green skinned alien girl. The point is that the makers and cast of Star Trek don’t take their film too seriously. There is no stiff Episode I-III reverence here.
Speaking of performances Chris Pine deserves a great deal of praise for his portrayal of Kirk. The young actor refuses to coast on his pretty boy good looks, and he steps into William Shatner’s shoes with confidence. Pine is surprisingly charismatic as cocky rule-breaker Kirk, throwing himself into action scenes with zeal. Zachary Quinto is also excellent as Spock, an emotionally repressed Vulcan-human hybrid who seems to be the only alien subjected to any kind of “racial” prejudice within the Federation.
Abrams is actually careful to make sure that each of the main Enterprise crewmates receives at least one big moment to shine during the film. Out of these characterisations, my personal favourites were the youngest and oldest of the crew. Anton Yelchin is adorable as Chekov, a 17 year old Russian whizkid who struggles to make himself understood. And Karl Urban, who has played grim heroes in Lord of the Rings, Doom and Pathfinder, gets to unleash his scowl as Doctor McCoy, the Enterprise’s resident pessimist, and Kirk’s closest confidant.
All this said, Star Trek isn’t a perfect movie. While the sky diving mission is genuinely exciting and the action highlight of the film (for me anyway), the extended ice planet sequence feels out of place. It sucks energy and carefully cultivated tension from the film and, with its marauding monster and scaly Ewok, feels more Star Wars than Star Trek. I half expected Kirk to whip out a lightsaber at one point.
And ultimately, no matter how you look at it, Star Trek is tonally lightweight. The film has many big life-and-death moments, whole planets and starship crews are obliterated, but you don’t feel the anguish. There is no space for brooding and despair in Star Trek, and disagreements are quickly overcome. This said, my gripes in this regard may just be personal taste, as I’m a recent convert to angst-saturated Battlestar Galatica. Star Trek has always been optimistic science fiction, where humanoids from many different planets and backgrounds come together to work for cooperative galactic harmony.
Star Trek is ideal blockbuster entertainment – a fun, exciting way to pass a few hours, as long as you don’t think too hard. It's the Iron Man of 2009. Now I’m waiting for this year’s Dark Knight.
With a convenient time travel storyline, Star Trek is essentially a reboot of the franchise, erasing events that fans of the old TV series, as well as 1979's Original Motion Picture through to 2002’s Nemesis, are familiar with. This kind of negation of Star Trek history is in its way sad, but at the same time it doesn’t mean director J.J. Abrams and his writers are treating the Star Trek universe, and its various beloved characters, with disrespect.
In fact, Star Trek draws a great deal from the original TV series. It’s not afraid to be cheesy or goofy. There’s a moving opening sequence that is also admittedly a massive cliché. There’s Eric Bana flying way over the top as Nero, the film’s chief villain. Female Starfleet recruits still dress like 60's go-go dancers. At one point Kirk (Chris Pine) runs around with horribly swollen hands and a paralysed tongue. And this after he’s been trying to bed a green skinned alien girl. The point is that the makers and cast of Star Trek don’t take their film too seriously. There is no stiff Episode I-III reverence here.
Speaking of performances Chris Pine deserves a great deal of praise for his portrayal of Kirk. The young actor refuses to coast on his pretty boy good looks, and he steps into William Shatner’s shoes with confidence. Pine is surprisingly charismatic as cocky rule-breaker Kirk, throwing himself into action scenes with zeal. Zachary Quinto is also excellent as Spock, an emotionally repressed Vulcan-human hybrid who seems to be the only alien subjected to any kind of “racial” prejudice within the Federation.
Abrams is actually careful to make sure that each of the main Enterprise crewmates receives at least one big moment to shine during the film. Out of these characterisations, my personal favourites were the youngest and oldest of the crew. Anton Yelchin is adorable as Chekov, a 17 year old Russian whizkid who struggles to make himself understood. And Karl Urban, who has played grim heroes in Lord of the Rings, Doom and Pathfinder, gets to unleash his scowl as Doctor McCoy, the Enterprise’s resident pessimist, and Kirk’s closest confidant.
All this said, Star Trek isn’t a perfect movie. While the sky diving mission is genuinely exciting and the action highlight of the film (for me anyway), the extended ice planet sequence feels out of place. It sucks energy and carefully cultivated tension from the film and, with its marauding monster and scaly Ewok, feels more Star Wars than Star Trek. I half expected Kirk to whip out a lightsaber at one point.
And ultimately, no matter how you look at it, Star Trek is tonally lightweight. The film has many big life-and-death moments, whole planets and starship crews are obliterated, but you don’t feel the anguish. There is no space for brooding and despair in Star Trek, and disagreements are quickly overcome. This said, my gripes in this regard may just be personal taste, as I’m a recent convert to angst-saturated Battlestar Galatica. Star Trek has always been optimistic science fiction, where humanoids from many different planets and backgrounds come together to work for cooperative galactic harmony.
Star Trek is ideal blockbuster entertainment – a fun, exciting way to pass a few hours, as long as you don’t think too hard. It's the Iron Man of 2009. Now I’m waiting for this year’s Dark Knight.
Comments