Star Trek is hardly a new concept to humankind, but the re-imagination of the classic series on the big screen looks to usher in a totally new stable of followers. The new film is the vision of director J.J. Abrams, who by all accounts is more than qualified to take the helm. But with a few missteps in casting and an even bigger letdown in the battle between good and evil, Star Trek is at best just an okay film.
Star Trek: Making the Old New Again
The eleventh motion picture of the franchise is more of a prequel, chronicling the events and phenomena that bring together the principal crew members of the USS Enterprise: Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and McCoy. In the onset of their careers in the Federation they are confronted by the villainous Nero, a Romulan from the future whose path with Spock intersects on a more personal level than anyone realizes. The fate of Earth and the allied planets of the Federation hang in the balance as the crew attempts to foil Nero’s nefarious plot.
After watching this film people have rejected the possibility of time travel as an acceptable vehicle for the events of the movie. Those in disagreement should probably watch episodes of Lost and Fringe so they may understand the baselines for why this concept was utilized by writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci for the screenplay in the first place. The entire notion of unexplained phenomena is how these scribes make their bones in Hollywood; what better way to explore this notion than on the backdrop of the events and occurrences in space…the final frontier?
Time Travel and the Trekkers Who Hate It
Why is time-travel so eschewed in this new world of Star Trek? The concept of time and space, how it can be bent, reshaped, and how it can affect a singular being or entire galaxy could possibly be why the show was so beloved in the ‘60s, the four subsequent decades of syndication, and now a lifetime on DVD and Blu-ray. For some, it may be that it was too gift-wrapped an explanation for how the plot progressed; Spock may or may not be the architect of the events leading to the destruction of his home planet, so he goes back in time to warn young Kirk of the past he would compromise in the future, thereby presenting an anomaly that will now be out of his hands and in that of his longtime friend and colleague. Sorry, lost you yet?
For fear of giving the entire plot away (or is it already?), let’s digress from this point and discuss the players in Star Trek. Chris Pine as Kirk presents a refreshing take on how the man we know as Captain began on that journey. Using a relative unknown to fill the shoes of The Shatner was a tall order, but his delivery was impressive and didn’t harp on the silliness of his ‘60s counterpart. Zachary Quinto was masterful as Spock, even uncanny in likeness and behavior. Honorable mention goes to Zoë Saldana as Lt. Uhura and Simon Pegg as Engineer Scott, whose strength and ingenuity respectively rounded out the memorable characters of the television series, and not just to create an excuse to throw in a few more catchphrases.
However, Karl Urban’s portrayal of Dr. Leonard McCoy was a head scratcher. The lack of back story for him led to guessing why his temperament was the way it was, and any answer for it was either disappointing or inconclusive. It seemed as if his character was established just to round out the principals as Kirk’s most trusted friend, and not contribute in any significant way to the plot. Additionally, Eric Bana as Nero may quite possibly be the least-feared baddie in the entire Star Trek franchise. His presence contributed to the much-debated plot direction of the film, but his believability as a remorseless villain sputtered immensely. One scream-induced (albeit intensely accurate) thrust of a spear to the heart of a Federation officer hardly warrants the tour-de-force treachery shared with the likes of Ricardo Montalban as Khan Noonien Singh from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or various incarnations of the Borg in the more recent Trek shows.
J.J. Abrams in Star Trek: Impossible
That being said, most of the blame for why this film is just okay unfortunately falls on Abrams, and to understand this gripe you also have to be a fan of his work, especially his first feature film as a director, Mission: Impossible III. While the out-of-focus wide establishing shots to the quick zooms-in works regularly for him, his overall filmmaking style has become just a bit too commonplace and predictable. A visionary of his ilk can afford to try a few new tricks to broaden his horizons as a filmmaker, but that just wasn’t done here. Visually, Star Trek is one of the more stunning movies out this year, with a basic and engrossing view of the vastness of space. But since Abrams wanted to make the film on an organic level rather than appease the countless Trekker universe with an homage to the series, he should have provided something new and memorable to experience on a visual front, rather than a reboot of the stunts and cinematography of his feature debut.
See, Skip, or Rent It?
At a healthy 2 hours and 6 minutes long, Star Trek can be an entertaining, fun, and thrilling ride that doesn’t feel as long as the runtime suggests. If you’re a real sci-fi adventure fan, you’d be better served to shell out the extra bucks to catch it on IMAX if it’s available in your town. Otherwise, the convoluted plot and less than stellar battle of good and evil may not be entertaining enough to enjoy in the theaters. Make it a rental; that way you can pause or rewind to catch up with the plot.
Omar Bobb-Semple - Omar Bobb-Semple has made Los Angeles, CA his home for the last five years. This New York City native sought fame and fortune, but instead ...
Join the Conversation