J.J. Abrams's Star Trek

Proof that a franchise can live long and prosper

A A A Comments (14) By Robert Wilonsky Wednesday, May 6 2009

It's difficult for this long-time Trekkie to review J.J. Abrams's relaunching of the U.S.S. Enterprise. It's difficult to dispassionately dole out compliments and complaints per the job description. Because, yes, the professional critic understands: This is Paramount Pictures' latest effort to jump-start a profitable but long-stalled franchise, to do for James Kirk what MGM did for James Bond. Studio execs know that just enough time has elapsed since the original to engender just enough nostalgia for characters named Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. For the professional critic, this reboot has all the trappings and trimmings of the quintessential summer blockbuster: shiny things that fly through outer space and make boom. Plus plenty of merch: Mommy, can I have a phaser?

Click here for Ward Sutton's cartoon about the new (and old) Star Trek.

Details

Star Trek
Directed by J.J. Abrams. Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman
Rated PG-13

More About

Good thing I'm not professional. Seriously, Mommy: Can I have a phaser?

Trekkies and civilians (those for whom William Shatner's long-ago "Get a life!" jab didn't have the same sting) alike can rejoice: Not only does this Star Trek proffer smart thrills and slick kicks, but it builds upon the original's history–from its very first pilot episode to Robert Wise's 1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture and beyond–while creating an entirely new future.

Retooling Gene Roddenberry's hoary, winded pop-cultural warhorse, Abrams has scrubbed, polished, and turned the volume up to 11 with admiration and affection for the original series, but little of the die-hard's encased-in-amber reverence. All at once, he's revived the corpse but wiped clean its memory–a fresh start. Star Trek is like all of the best offerings in the big-screen Trek series: "wonderful dumb fun," as Pauline Kael wrote in her glowing review of 1982's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the franchise's high point from which Abrams and his longtime collaborators–writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, responsible for everything from Alias to Mission: Impossible III–crib so many plot points that Star Trek almost qualifies as a remake.

Even in a universe altered by that most worn-out of Trek plot devices–time travel–Abrams remains faithful to all of the things that transformed a modest science-fiction series, made popular in 1970s reruns, into a beloved touchstone. Trekkies already know half the dialogue by heart; it's the sampled soundtrack to a misspent youth in front of a television. Except now, it's set to the Beastie Boys' "Sabotage."

The story is no more complicated than that of your best Trek TV episode: A bad Romulan (Eric Bana, sporting the full Mike Tyson face tattoo) has come from the future in a tricked-out spaceship to destroy the past (specifically, planets Vulcan and Earth). His motives are barely explained and even harder to understand–unless one has read the four-part prequel comic book, ahem. No matter: Like most Trek baddies, Bana's Nero is decidedly besides the point; he's merely phaser fodder, the latest villain in possession of a doomsday machine who exists solely to threaten Vulcan and bring together on the bridge of the Enterprise Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), McCoy (Karl Urban), Scotty (Simon Pegg), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho), and Chekov (Anton Yelchin), who–at warp factor 10, red alert, damn the photon torpedoes–must save the universe, this time for the very first time.

The crew is a bunch of untested Starfleet cadets: Kirk is a know-it-all horndog with a penchant for green-skinned ladies; Pine plays him like he's starring in an episode of Dawson's Kirk. McCoy is, well, a simple country doctor who abhors space travel; some things never change, as Urban, among all the cast members, comes closest to spot-on imitation. As for the rest, places, please: Sulu is a guy who likes swords and steers the ship; Chekov is a wunderkind who speaks in a weddy, weddy tick Russian accent; Scotty is working miracles in the engine room; and Uhura is still trying to hail Starfleet on all frequencies to no avail. The more things change . . .

Spock is the centerpiece–not only as played by Quinto as the tormented youth in revolt raised by the Vulcan Sarek (Ben Cross) and human Amanda (Winona Ryder, almost unrecognizable), but also in the form of Leonard Nimoy, the once-dead first officer who's lived long enough to travel back in time to offer sage advice to old friends in need of–dare one say it–the human touch. Nimoy's scenes elicit genuine emotion, not just the nostalgist's thrill of familiarity or the newcomer's delight at discovery. When Spock tells a young Jim Kirk, "I have been and always shall be your friend," or when he realizes a "Live long and prosper" salutation simply will not do, it's enough to move even a Star Wars fan to tears.

Check out this week's featured ad for Movies

Sushi Lounge

View Ad View Website

More Ads >>

Email
to Friend

Write to
Editor

Print
Article

Garydrewlevine 03/06/2011 2:21:00 AM

get a life
Jim 11/11/2010 7:06:00 PM

The original Star Trek offered a blend of 1950’s heroic nobility, 1960’s liberal, progressive values, and science-fiction ideas that were truly interesting. It was a timeless combination. This film has none of those things. The characters are not the original Star Trek characters; they just have their names. The original Kirk had nobility and a strong sense of ethics. Do you think you might enjoy seeing him portrayed as a reckless-driving, bar-fighting jock? McCoy was cantankerous, to be sure, but it was borne out of a concern for human safety, and tempered by old-world graciousness. Do you want to see him revealed as an embittered divorce who swigs whiskey and has lost both his southern accent and his gentlemanliness? Uhura was devoted and skilled, but humble and insecure about her abilities: it is what made her endearing and the character many of us could identify with. How would you like to see her transformed into a conceited super-model? Only Spock resembles his original character, though what was originally an inner conflict between his Vulcan and human selves is now rendered more crudely as a thumb-sticking stance against a stuffy Vulcan establishment. If think you’d enjoy seeing the original Star Trek characters portrayed as horny, drunken adolescents, and if you have nothing better to do than sit through two hours of glare and cartoon explosions, then enjoy, because that’s basically what this movie is. Nothing more. It’s like bad fan-fiction, but with a huge budget. I kept hoping this film would turn into a version of “Mirror, Mirror,” and for the original Star Trek characters to pop into this repellent alternate universe and teach their doppelgangers a few good lessons. But it didn’t happen. Perhaps the writers were thinking, “Well, everyone was young once, everyone was reckless once. Why not the Star Trek characters? Let’s do something radical and show them in their reckless youth. It’ll be interesting and bold!” For one thing, it is easy to forget that the original Star Trek characters were, in fact, young when they appeared, and the youth of the cast was one of the main attractions. But the makers of the current film made another, much more profound mistake. The spirit of youth is not embodied in recklessness. When my friends and I were young, we were occasionally reckless. But mostly we lived the spirit of youth through imagination. Through creativity and passion. Through curiosity and fascination with the world around us. Through the desire to learn and try new things. Through the courage to be who we wanted to be (which was more than driving fast and having bar fights), and through having the courage to love ourselves and each other. The original Star Trek series embodied these values. Pure recklessness, on the other hand, is not youth. It is infancy. And this movie is infantile. If it becomes more popular or more accessible to young people today than the original series, it is because the spirit of youthfulness has now nearly disappeared from our culture, and the media gives us infantilization as a crude substitute. Don’t fall for it. If it entertains you for two hours, enjoy it. But keep searching for experience, for beauty, for truth, for love, for yourself.
stanley Foster 06/30/2009 2:08:00 PM

My God. I just read some of the reviews - I feel like I'm trespassing on sacred ground. Some of you are seriously questioning things that have never been and probably won't (in our lifetimes) be done! "How can a young 17 year-old officer work faster than a computer?" - BECAUSE IT'S A MOVIE, THAT'S WHY!!!!! What is a good movie in your views?
Joe M 05/19/2009 2:10:00 AM

I am starting to believe that J.J. Abrams�s relentless camera shaking technique actually does work. �Lost� continues to enjoy strong ratings despite the pathological inability of its writers to actually complete a single coherent storyline. �Cloverfield� made money despite being little more than a hysterical clamor of vapid characters and blurry explosions, and now we get this sad fabrication. Somehow, a blithering array of critics and moviegoers alike has emerged from theaters raving about this film as if it were the second coming. Meanwhile, I'm left with the strong feeling that either I am immune to this man�s hypnotic powers, or I was subjected to a different film entirely. Even if I could put aside all of the purely subjective gripes I have with this film � cinematography that features shaky cameras in EVERY scene, lens flares aggressive enough that Obama would have banned them from interrogations in Gitmo, and special effects that conceal animation flaws by employing ludicrously frequent cuts and constant blur � I would still have one issue after another with the premises and plot devices used: � What kind of civilization sends a geriatric diplomat (Spock), however venerable, by himself on a mission to rescue an entire planet (Romulus) from a supernova, in a ship with enough power to create multiple black holes? � If that mission failed, how by any stretch of physics did both Spock�s ship and Nero�s survive passing through a black hole � even if we forget for a moment that both also then proceeded to travel backward in time? � If both Nero and Spock�s ships are capable of surviving trips through a black hole, why does the black hole at the climax of the film represent such a danger? At one point in the movie, a black hole is a convenient time travel device � and 30 minutes later, it is a force that easily destroys Nero�s ship? � If this film�s magical �Red Matter� can create black holes simply by �igniting,� why, then, must the villain bother with elaborate (and highly vulnerable) giant orbital drills � other than to provide a contrived stage for a sword fight? � If a transporter can theoretically operate while a ship is in orbit (which requires a velocity of � what � 20-30,000 mph?) why is the device unable to lock onto a person who is merely falling through the air or off a cliff � which would represent a tiny fraction of that relative speed? � This film contains fleets of ships capable of traveling faster than light, which presumably requires incredibly advanced technology. So how, then, is 17 year old Chekov able to operate the Enterprise�s transporter faster than the ship�s computer? I heard no references to his use of �the force�. � In what universe would a group of egotistical, untested rookies � no matter how intelligent they supposedly are � land seniority on any advanced military vessel, before even proving themselves in a single real-world situation? Were there no senior officers at all assigned to the Enterprise? � Why does every single character, in every single scene, speak at such an unnaturally fast pace? Barring a handful of contrived one-liners, this film regards dialog as a nuisance that distracts from far more interesting scenes featuring the destruction of personal property, fights, attacks, explosions, implosions, and virtually any other form of over-the-top, gratuitous violence that J.J. could ram into its two-plus-hour confines. I could go on for weeks. But in the end it makes no difference how many elements of this film are ludicrous, even by today�s science fiction standards. It makes no difference how many were shamelessly stolen from other sci-fi franchises, or whether this film represents Star Trek �canon� (it does not, and in fact, retains nothing at all of Gene Roddenberry�s intelligent, optimistic vision). It makes no difference that the main characters are approximately as believable as a microwave oven capable of cold fusion. In the end, the sum of all the shaking cameras and relentless, blurry explosions has succeeding in duping millions of viewers and countless critics into believing that this 127-minute ordeal in a dentist�s chair is an enjoyable film. Perhaps my gray matter hasn�t yet been turned into red matter. Or maybe I just need to ask for more nitrous oxide. It seems that J.J. Abrams and his followers may have plenty to spare.
Russ 05/19/2009 1:47:00 AM

Star Trek isn't really about Starships and space travel. Pointy eared Moes (aka Vulcans), ass-sewn klingons, and whatever other cheesy aliens showed up were always meant to represent the various aspects of humanity. They represent the best or worst in all of us. Ultimately Star Trek is about doing good even when doing evil or even just doing nothing would be so much easier and probably more profitable. Gene Roddenberry always insisted that every installment of Star Trek, that is every episode and every movie, must in the final analysis convey a message about doing right even in the face of insurmountable odds. It was never about the action or the explosions, or the uniforms, or the aliens. It was always about doing right and about trying to be better tomorrow than you are today. I feel kind of sorry for the people whose minds are so un-engaged that all they can see is the window dressing of a story. The all time greats of science fiction such as Isaac Asimov and Phillip K. Dick always had deep moral to their stories. Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry always had that aspect. Even the modern version of of Battlestar Galactica which is very dark and brooding had an underlying current of spirituality and personal struggle. Star Trek by JJ Abrams had no moral to it whatsoever. It was a shoot-em-up video game. The consumer response to this film is the proof positive that marketing is the ultimate mind control tool. With good marketing human beings can be turned into unthinking machines of consumption.
Andrea Freiboden 05/18/2009 1:20:00 AM

Isn't enough enough? I can understand the longevity of 007 though I wasn't much of a Bond fan: Handsome guy, hot chicks, cool cars, fancy gadgets. But, just look at Star Trek. It is soooooooo gay! A guy with Moe hair cut and point elf ears? A spaceship that looks like a big plate stuck to an electric shaver. A race of people called Klingons with heads that look like asses sewn together. How can people actually watch this? Are they crazy? Are they gay? This is embarrassing, that a nation as rich and advanced as ours would have so many people who spend time and money on one of the most gimpiest sci-fi stories ever imagined.
Martin C. 05/17/2009 3:49:00 AM

A good adventure (or, in this case, a science fiction movie) is supposed to allow me to feel good about suspending my belief for a few hours in order to enjoy the highs and lows of the characters along with the triumphs of the heroes and the defeats of the villains. This movie deprived me of that joy. Too much of this movie was unbelievable in the literal sense of the word. Not being able to believe what appears on screen is a fatal flaw for a movie, and this movie has too many of them. I could not believe that a CEO-type leader (Captain Pike) would make college students (Cadets Kirk, McCoy, and Uhura) major members of his crew. Captain Pike himself made Cadet Kirk his First Officer-- how am I supposed to believe that? Doctor McCoy boards the ship as a classmate of Kirk, yet he ends up as Chief Medical officer-- there were no commisioned officers present or alive who could assume that job, it had to fall to Cadet McCoy? Pike replaced his Communications Officer with Cadet Uhura. Student-teacher relationships happen in mainstream colleges and universities, although they are still frowned upon. How much less likely then is a student-teacher relationship which takes place within the context of a military school or institution? Somehow, Cadet Uhura gets to reveal her true feelings for her teacher, Commander Spock. How are we supposed to accept that? Nero, the main villain of this movie, is supposed to be a fearsome villain, yet he pales in comparison to Darth Vader in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK or even Khan in THE WRATH OF KHAN. Had Nero been developed better, perhaps then I would have appreciated how menacing he was intended to be. If an adventure is only as good as its villain is bad, then right there this movie fails. Indeed, special effects were good, and the musical score properly set the various moods. Casting was mixed, but even the misses were OK. The uniforms from the classic series received fresh updates. Regardless of what good qualities exist in this movie, they are not good enough-- individually or even as a cohesive unit-- to overcome one fatal flaw: bad screenwriting. Using an alternative time line is the excuse for presenting the movie as it is. It's not enough to prevent the inclusion of elements which take away from the believability a good movie of any kind is supposed to have. How am I supposed to care for the good guys if I can't believe what I'm seeing? How am I supposed to despise the bad guys if they seem to be stupid and petty? The movie will rake in loads of cash, and many people will call this a good movie. For the reasons I provided here (as well as numerous others which can be found elsewhere), I cannot call this a good movie. I just couldn't believe what I was watching.
Russ 05/17/2009 1:07:00 AM

I just couldn't buy into this film. On a human (or romulan, or whatever) level nothing in it was believable. So this bad guy just hung out in space for 25 years and did what? What about his crew? I mean they could have gone back to Romulus and prevented the disaster in the first place. But instead they go around blowing up other people's planets? Right, uh huh. And Kirk gets a permanent promotion to Captain while he's still in college? Right, uh huh. This movie is the shasta cola of sci fi. Had it had been filmed in black and white I might have mistaken it for an Ed Wood film.
Ava 05/11/2009 6:46:00 PM

This should be called Star Trek/Lost . A fine movie but not a Star Trek film. It changes the canon entirely. Also Abrams, give up on time travel already. This is Star Trek for idiots, no story morals, just bang em up and an alternative universe.
sak 05/10/2009 3:30:00 AM

an enormous pile of shit----that rips off junk as well...! winona ryder from that lousy alien sequel; eric bana from lousy hulk movie....high school kids from lousy starship troopers....and of course star wars; kirk's climatic fight ripped off from i am your father empire stikes back fight....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING REMOTELY ORIGONAL IN MOVIE. and poor leonard nimoy, akin to boris karloff in a wheelchair in his 60s horror movies; nimoy on his last lap. the direction is awful...photography stinks...special effects even more bland than the cast. see this movie right now for free...justin tv, no virus worries, playing it the same time it in theaters!
DO 05/09/2009 1:10:00 PM

STAR WACK
OfNoConsequence 05/09/2009 4:16:00 AM

First I should say I'm just shy of 50 and I used to watch the orginal Star Trek episodes when they were new. My roots run deep in the Trek Universe. That said you might thing I've drunk the koolaid. Well, I haven't. There are plenty movies I've seen expecting great things and have been severely disappointed. I went into this movie thinking it would be a sad remake of the original (and still stellar in my heart and mind) series and I'm thrilled to say this loud and proud: This movie was outstanding! They had all the right jokes, and references that we've come to know and love from the original series. There were plenty of laughs for those who got the jokes (what was Uhura's first name?), and there was enough action for the new folks to to love as well. There were some serious plot twists (what? What did he say Uhura's first name was?), and the best part of all. It sets you up for sequels that literally throw away the Star Trek bible because hey, it's no longer your daddy's Star Trek! Yep folks, in the beginning of the movie they transport you to ---> Tada!!! An alternate timeline where anything can happen, and most probably will! It's got just enough of the old Trek to keep us curious with a serious side of "we now have a completely clean slate for any future stories." If any of the follow-on movies are half as good as this, JJ and his crew are going to bring us in for a wild ride.
edaddyold D 05/09/2009 12:00:00 AM

This movie should have been called "What If". You know Marvel and DC comics sometimes made alternate issues and called them "What If". You have to support people with real talent instead of supporting someone for the sake of supporting(who knows the reason why). Bush was an idiot and still became president of the US, why?! Same thing same here folks with this Movie. Had I knew that this was a "What If" before I went to the theater, AAA+ would have been my review. SORRY folks, (SPOILER) THIS MOVIE WAS NOT STAR TREK!!!! J.J. Abrams did what most of Hollywood is doing, "make it fast and make some cash". PLEASE don't waste your money. Wait till it comes out online for free, then you'll feel like you waste time watching it instead of cash.
George Curran 05/08/2009 6:28:00 PM

While paying homage to the earliest Star Trek series, let's not lose sight of the origin of so much of that series....1956's Forbidden Planet. The captain, doctor and engineer are all ripped from that seminal movie, as are facets of the ship, especially the transporters (which began as stasis fields to cushion the crew during deceleration from warp speed). Even the banter between characters and Kirk's womanizing, McCoy's fondness for drink, and Scotty's ability to accept impossible tasks are all borrowed from Forbidden Planet, as are the grand vistas, meaningful plots, lost civilizations and invincible enemies. So, let's enjoy the latest (and yes, perhaps the best) sequel to the 1950's best space saga.