Movie Review: Star Trek (2009)
A fun piece of entertainment you are sure to enjoy
Photo: Paramount Pictures
The marketing for Star Trek has said, "This is not your father's Star Trek," and by the end of the film the mythology of Trek may indeed not belong to your old man, but the catchphrases and character quirks make it hard to separate 2009's Trek from the 1960s original that started it all. Director J.J. Abrams has pieced together a film that is light on story, heavy on convenience, weak in villainy and perfection in character and casting. It's a mixed bag to be certain, but in the end it is a lot of fun.
From the outset, Star Trek alters the 40+ year mythology of the classic series, asking die-hard fans to give in to the film and not concern themselves with what they know. This is a film more determined to build a quality cast of characters rather than concern itself with timeline's and the history of the franchise as it has been documented in the "Star Trek" annals.
The cast includes Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Anton Yelchin, Zoe Saldana, Eric Bana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Chris Pine, Karl Urban, Bruce Greenwood, Winona Ryder, Rachel Nichols, Jennifer Morrison, Clifton Collins Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Ben Cross, Tyler Perry, Jimmy Bennett and Scottie Thompson. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Star Trek" is a Paramount Pictures release, directed by J.J. Abrams and is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.
Chris Pine, in particular, not only brings the ego of Kirk to the screen, but he also manages to make the role his own. Zachary Quinto handles the role of Spock like an old pro and I bet George Takei wishes Sulu was as strong a character as he is here with John Cho of Harold and Kumar fame reaping the rewards. The biggest surprise, however, is Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard McCoy, or "Bones" as many fondly remember him. I didn't think there was any way to tap into the unique character played by the late DeForest Kelley, but Urban brings the attitude and tired confidence of the doc to life adding another memorable face to the landscape. The only real disappointment is Nero, the Romulan villain played by Eric Bana with definite dedication, but he had very little to do. Bana managed to eek out as much menace as he could with a script that wasn't necessarily in his favor and a story more focused on Starfleet camaraderie than anything else.
Abrams quickly manages the film's flimsy plotline, dealing with space and time in a way that really doesn't hold up to even the mildest of scrutiny, with a larger attention to character. As a fan of the original "Star Trek" I didn't have much of a problem with this, but critical viewers are likely to take issue with the decision to always fall back on spectacle over substance every time.
Star Trek is dedicated to action and punch-lines, and doing it all at a quick clip. Story details are pushed aside as any problem faced by the characters is quickly resolved thanks to clever sci-fi trickery and seconded by a funny one-liner or a breath-taking moment of action, allowing you to quickly forget plot holes and continue enjoying the show.
Spectacular effects benefit from exceptional sound as phasers blast and photon torpedoes tear through an enemy ship's hull. One of the largest issues facing CG elements in live-action movies is the inability to give computer generated images a sense of weight in real space, but Star Trek proves sound designers are up to the task. Through the use of sound and, conversely, silence even massive starships floating in space benefit and have a real sense of substance in a digitally generated expanse.
Loaded with references and classic lines from the original "Star Trek" television series, I have already talked to one person that knew nothing of the original "Trek" and didn't catch on to any of them and still enjoyed the movie. Personally, I recognized them all and at times thought it was a bit overloaded, but not to a point it's ever bothersome. Star Trek is a film that will appeal to all audiences, Trekkie or not, it's hard not to have a good time with this 126 minute actioner that has reinvigorated a dying (if not dead) franchise and will likely spawn several sequels.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 21 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
can't wait to see it friday
this is very comforting news. I did not know whether it would be goor or bad, but this is reassuring. I was a fan when I was younger, but no where near die-hard. I cant wait to see it
Saw it today and, while I didn't completely LOVE it, it was a great way to spend 2 hours of an afternoon. The plot is slightly-convoluted as it involves time-travel – although I'd be more than happy to sit through it again to try and grasp the finer points – and the only complaints were the criminal underuse of Simon Pegg's Scotty (he only pops up in the last quarter) and Nero not being quite evil enough.
And I loved Anton Yelchin's Chekov, but then that's probably the lost puppy eyes…
I saw the film at a free screening a few days ago….I;m not a trekkie,but I thoroughly enjoyed it……
Chris Pine is a star…..
I've primarily been anticipating Chris Pine's performance as Captain Kirk. Though it was a small role, I feel he really nailed his role in Smokin' Aces. I only thought of good things when I found out he was the lead in the star trek resurrection movie.
the guys at ign gave its 3 1/2 stars out of 5, their review was very in depth, and certainly think karl urban as bones really outdoes spock and kirk. kinda saw that coming. who here thinks urban would be a good thor???iiiii
The Movie is a failure for Star Trek- It is nothing more than a Parody of a true work of Science Fiction. Star Trek Fans accepting the TOTAL LOST of all Past Stories are not True Star Trek Fans. You have just disgraced the creators, characters, actors, and technicians that spent decades giving you Roddenberry’s Vision. If you have not noticed -There now is no Original Series, Next-Gen, Mirror Universe, or even a Wrath of Khan – They never happened. This New Movie Series will never show you those stories. Believe what you want. There will be no next-generation of viewers if the old generation past does not exist.
To George P. Wansor in particular:
Of course the old adventures still happened. They were made, they exist, we've seen them and continue to watch them. Nothing that this movie does will take that away from us. I, for one, would rather have this new series do something completely different – even if it is with the same characters – than simply retread the old tales. I think that would be far more blasphemous to the work of Gene Roddenberry and all those creators, characters, actors and technicians you mentioned.
Generally speaking though, this new Trek is pretty fantastic. It's not the greatest science fiction, and doesn't offer anything new, but it's very well made and ridiculously entertaining.
(SPOILERS)
George, that's just not the case. If you had been following the discussion about this issue for the past few months, you would know that Nero and Spock entered a parallel reality when they went through the black hole. The place where they "came from," the Star Trek universe where the previous stories took place, is still there. Except from their point of view, Spock and Nero died when they went into the black hole – end of story. Vulcan is still there, although Romulus has been destroyed. Notice that Kirk and old Spock discuss that universe as though it is still there, going strong.
Now, you need to open up your mind to accept a less rigid understanding of how space and time function. If you can, you might just enjoy the new movie. And if you can't, well… then you should ignore it and watch reruns of Deep Space Nine.
(END SPOILERS)
A+ I have never taken an interest in anything Star Trek in my life until i decided to see this film. J.J. Abrams needs to consult with George Lucas on a remake of the Star Wars prequels. This is what a sci-fi film is supposed to be like. This movie was Academy Award good and I mean that. This reminds me of King Kong in that it shows us exactly why we go to movies in the first place. FANTASTIC. A+++++++++++++
Well personally I just watched this movie and I think it SUCKS! J.J. has gone too far now there’s two Spock’s, and his mom dies, and his dad feels grief over it. Jim Kirk is an only child, born in space not in Iowa. Uhura is Spock’s lover. Christopher Pike Never goes to the planet of illusions. Vulcan is destroyed, and everyone seems to know what a Romulan looks like. Did he ever pick up a book or even watch a show about STAR TREK before he did this movie. I mean yes its got a lot of action the fight seen are greet but he doesn’t know the first thing about what STAR TREK is. Star Trek is about people and there struggle to be better. He’s made it into” WOW I hope I can kill them first” Not to mention that he changed things about the ships to just stupid designs. First the turbo lifts are behind the bridge for a reason. If people get hurt or some thing gets damaged say oh I don’t know in a space battle, medical personal and engineering crews can get to were they can help out WITHOUT CROSSING IN FRONT OF ANYONE WHO HAPPENS TO BE FIGHTING THE ENEMY SHIP It would get kind of crazy if every time some came on the bridge the captain has to say OH COULD YOU PLEASE STOP FIRING YOUR RAY GUNS AT US THIS MAN IS BLOCKING SOMEONES VEIW
Second not everyone sits at the same level as everyone else on the bridge because unlike oh say on a submarine everyone has to be able to see the view screen OH IM SORRY BUT COULD YOU MOVE YOUR HEAD could cost lives in the wrong situation.
Carl and George,
If you're wondering how [they] eat and breathe and other science facts/Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show, and should really just relax"
Seriously.
I have seen it twice now.
I am a bit disappointed that they used the "time travel" bit overused in the early
movies and series and the altenate time line bit that was overused in Enterprise for their premise.
They started early enough in the time line to begin to make changes, so even hard core encyclopediests can't reallllyyyy complain about the new history. The old time line doesn't exist in this universe.
They did have to kind of squish the timeline allow everyone to be on the Enterprise at the same time for this movie. A little more acknowlegement of the timeline as it exists would have been nice, but for people who have never seen the show, it doesn't matter, and for those of us who do, we have to just accept the story and move on.
However, the changes that resulted will allow them to make more movies, and can we hope, a new series!
Just saw it the other day and was very happy to see that JJ and Co. followed most of the rules that Trek has laid out over the years.
I think that Gene would not have objected. He himself broke the canon and timeline to make his point many times through TOS and TNG (Tasha Yar anyone?). He had said himself that he hoped future writers and directors would improve upon his vision. This film does just that.
No, it did not have the ultimate moral message that was Gene's trademark, but it did very well to re-introduce us to these characters and at least a little bit of their stories. More movies to come and with them, more development.
If the rest of the die-hards like me can find the brilliance of this film, and realize that there is going to be a whole new generation of trekkers to discuss/argue the finer points of the films with, then a great success it is.
Ha Ha so they decided to cut most of what I wrote last time so lets see if I can get this in Has anyone stopped to think about all the things that could go wrong with the way this universes Star Trek is? Sarek will die in Journey to Babel because it was Spock’s mom that convinced Spock to go thru with the surgery to save his fathers life and if that happens when David (if he even exist) when builds the Genesis Device and its explodes Spock will die. But no one will go to Kirk to ask him to retrieve Spock’s body so the Kingons will kill David, Spock, and Savak. McCoy will most likely die in some mental hospital so sick from Spock,s Katra that no one knows how to treat him. When the Enterprise /A doesn’t work properly Kirk will go on vacation he will fall to his death because Spock will not be there to catch him. But I guess that that will all work out in the end because that mean that Spock cant make a promise to save Romulus and he and Nero cant go back in time and Screw every thing up.
I enjoyed the new movie. Even though I am a hardcore fan. But I have to admit with the passing of time as the TOS actors get older. This prequil will insure continuation of the Star Trek franchise. So, in the end I welcome Star Trek XI.
im not a trekkie but i liked the film
in fact, i bought 2 star trek glasses from burger king
Green Women YES!!
Simon Pegg yes yes!!
Eric Bana eh?
anyone know any place that still sells them i got to get kirk
@Dman:
For post # 9
When they went in the black hole it was considered time travel. If it were a parallel reality or other deminsion then nero would not have hunted down Spock or destroyed Valcun in this new parallel reality because the origional reality would not be altered or changed. Why would he waste his time accomplishing nothing?
If it were a parallel reality Nero would have spent his time trying to get back to the origional reality because then he could actually do something that would matter.
Spock just meant that the time line has changed and now their reality is the true reality. This means all Star Trek has been erased and staring new.
Sir Wansor,
I think you went off the deep end a little bit with this comment.
I must say I absolutely loved the movie. J.J. Abrams really revolutionalized Star Trek… he eliminated the need for Star Ships, for a more efficient way of transportation: Beaming. From a modernist view I think its great.. ships becoming obsolete and being replaced with mordern technology. Imagine in Voyagers time during the new time line…. just imagine how many planets away you ll be able to beam 2….
Furthermore he added what Star Trek was missing… the Star Wars element.. you now have the little aliens… Scotty's friend… it is the Jawa… and then you got the skinny aliens… those that sing in the movies…you know the background aliens… Go J.J.
@carl:
I think you do not understand the way the universe works. please don't ever decide to write about quantum physics or something similar.
The whole thing happens to establish an alternate timeline whithin the same universe. The original still exists and goes on, but at the point that Nero entered the past, the timeline split, creating two possibilities that both exists at the same time in the same universe only divided by what I call "the ARB" (alternate reality barrier). Every choice we make sends us on a certain path that we have to follow through. We cannot go back nor look at different possible paths that would show us what happened had we made another decission. The same is with this Star Trek and the Original (not even TNG or DS9 or Voyager (or Enterprise for all that matters) were timeline and canon consistent.).
All the stories that you pointed out do not necessarily have to happen and maybe they won't happen at all. This Kirk becomes Captain a good 10 years earlier and parts of the crew would also still be cadets in canon. In canon Pike would still be Captain of the Enterprise until the whole "Cage" thing. Thus it is only logical that Kirk and crew will have to undergo adventures that originally would have been done by Pike and his crew.
Take the "Babel" reference you made. Who says that the Enterprise will be the ship to do the job? Who says that there will be a conference at all? And who says that the same characters will be on board, in case the first 2 things do happen?
Get in in your skull: THE FUTURE IN THIS IS WIDE OPEN. Nothing can and nothing will happen quite the same as in the original, should they decide to actually make another series. The only thing we can be sure is that they will find a way to overcome whatever might be thrown at them. They did in TOS (and acording to parallel timelines/alternate realities/or whatever you want to call it) and still do.
Oh yeah: I am a great Star Trek fan but not a hardcore Trekker. I have the original series and the movies up till First Contact at home but I don't have a uniform in the closet or tons of merchandise standing around. I also like Star Wars (Old Trilogy) but find the Prequels quite boring, because unlike the open possibilities that this new Star Trek brings, the end was fairly obvious.^^
Having said that, I like this new movie. It brings new pep into Star Trek, after the really really over-cerebral and forced characters and stories that the TNG movies did (except First Contact). The movie had to bring the old characters to the new possible fans. Nothing against a good message, but to get this message across you have to reach people and most people these days want more than a cardboard set and violet sprayed grass.
Ask youself: How would Star Trek look, if Roddenberry had created it TODAY? It's the same question that people ask themselves when they discuss Classical Music vs Rock or Pop. Would Beethoven have used a Synthesizer or an E-Guitar? Would Mozard have used a PC-programm to create his music? Would they still be recognized for their genius? Things change. Everything changes, has to change. That's how the universe works. That's how evolution works. Things that do not change will soner or later be left behind in favour of new things. To live through time things have to change, because survival and being alive is not the same as living. Don't shun people who have other preferences. Discuss your different opinions with them without prejustice and development in some form will happen and thus change, which lets Star Trek live on and prosper.