Review of Star Trek (2009) by Dave M — 30 Aug 2013

J.J. Abrams's ''Star Trek'' is one of those movies that really grows into you the first time you see it. Then, if seen later, the film's imagery you may have had fades away as easily as it became. This is the first blockbuster I recall from recent years that tried to combine the replicated aggresive realism of Christopher Nolan while making it enjoyable enough for a teen-targeted audience. It is more likely, the most obvious attempt of recreating the ''Star Wars'' formula in almost 40 years. And, you know what? It works. It really does.

Adapting an incredibly successful TV and film franchise whose appealing to general audience seemed unlikely, Abrams has managed to turn off the overly seriousness of ''Trek'' and finally making the universe aware that is not smarter than it looks like. Yes, this ''Star Trek'' is very sci-fi enough, but it is also very funny and dynamic. Good (though not solid) screenwriting will most likely please diehard fans, and also allow us a sense of incorporation absent from other ''Trek'' flicks. Every scene taking place on the deck of the ''Enterprise'' is priceless because of its incredibly well rounded dialogue and expertly executed performances. The latter quality is mostly thanks to Zachary Quinto's great job as Spock. Personally, I found him more likeable than Leonard Nimoy. Please don't kill me for saying that.

With teen-targetting/Nolanism formula I meant that I recall several movies after ''Star Trek'' that felt the same way. Namely, there is ''X-Men First Class'', a movie with a great deal of entirely dialogue-depending scenes, and a heavily in-your-face teenage way of thinking. Also, ''The Avengers'' is pretty much ''Star Trek'' in superhero costumes. Hell, even a stargate similar to Spock's wormhole appears in that movie.

So, what are the individual fails of Abrams's ''Star Trek''. Personally, I felt the movie moved too fast to be concerned enough of plotholes (and this movie has a lot of them). The middle part of ''Trek'' feels very slow, and the conclussion just... happens. The resolutory order of the film is very illogical after almost an hour of very slow and meticulous storyine buildup. Spock feels overcriticzed a bit. Sure, the guy is very Sherlockian and has almost no attachment to human nature, but that's what made him so appealing after all. Humanizing Spock too much is like giving Han Solo an alcohol problem. It just doesn't feel right. Also, like in ''The Avengers'', the villains are extremely lacking. Aside from having their home destroyed, the Romulans seem to have no purpose for rebeling. Worse, they don't even feel like a threat. Like in the superhero movie, the audience can never expect the heroes to fail. The story is decisively straightforward.

Nonetheless, ''Star Trek'' is a well accomplished science fiction and adventure film. If completely derivative, it is a successful blockbuster whose biggest achievement is to make the ''Star Trek'' world feel friendly and ''uncartoonish'' for the first time.