Review of Star Trek (2009) by Cameron J — 30 Aug 2013

Man, it had been almost seven years since the last "Star Trek" film, and about four years since a "Star Trek" episode, but just when you thought that this franchise was finally over with, they finally come back... to the first step. Ah, yes, the prequel, one of every big franchise's favorite ways to break long lapses in productivity (Shoot, after three years, "Star Wars" figured out how to do a prequel within a prequel, just not well), but hey, it only took 39 years, 10 films and five TV shows to get where "Star Trek Enterprise" left off, so this reboot should return the "Star Trek" franchise to its former glory in no time. Jokes aside, no, I can't say that this film is as strong as the other "Star Trek" films, because it is too decidedly better, and that's mighty shocking, seeing as how this is J. J. Abrams, the same guy who did "Cloverfield", "Mission: Impossible III", "Alias", "Lost" and "Fringe", which, of course, means that this was pretty likely to stink. I joke, but it's hard to figure out what you're going to get out of a "Star Trek" film with Karl Urban from "Doom" and "Pathfinder", John Cho, Simon Pegg, Eric Bana (People, he can't act, get over it) and, of course, Zachary Quinto, who, ever since 2011, just cannot be looked at without you thinking, "Gay Spock", even though Quinto is supposed to be pretty awesome on "Heroes", and is certainly pretty awesome in this film. Wow, this "Star Trek" film really does stray away from what you might expect, though I can't say that a gay portrayer is the most shocking thing about this version of Spock, because, well, first off, Quinto didn't come out until a few years after this film ("Star Trek" has offended enough Christians already, Zack, so what was with all of the stalling?), but mostly because this cast has Eric Bana, and yet they end up getting someone else to play someone incapable of showing emotions. Okay, maybe I'm being harsh, because Spock has shown emotions at times, but as for Bana, he's in this film playing someone who is somehow angrier than Hulk, and he's still not selling it as well as he probably should. Oh well, at least he's not this film's biggest problem, because as strong as this prequel is, no matter how much it tries to correct the past mistakes made in the "Star Trek" franchise (Forget y'all, I thought that "Nemesis" was alright), it hits its own share of mistakes.

There's probably about as much meat to this film as there has been to any "Star Trek" film, but this franchise has never been able to consistently avoid some form of chessiness, and J. J. Abrams and the screenwriting duo of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman aren't exactly known to have a terribly greater track record when it comes to that, so it's only a matter of time before all of the momentum slows down for a moment for the sake of an overly fluffy moment, most of which are quite effective, yet aren't without cheesy attributes that range from the occasional overemphatic nod to the recognizers of this mythology, to some rather bombastic comic relief that undercut the tension of this often thrilling drama. Tonal unevenness is an almost surprisingly frequent issue, but more often than not, it's kind of mild, at least in comparison to the even greater issue of pacing unevenness, because as tight as the film is in a lot of areas, when there isn't some fat around the edges to slow down momentum, plotting gets to be too brisk in momentum to not wear down on you after a while, if not pick up the pace enough to actually end up slam-banging the narrative along, and thin out exposition in the process. There's something kind of undercooked about the characters who drive this film, and I can't say that hurrying is solely the culprit behind a sense of underdevelopment, as there are moments where references to development are forced in in the place of visual exposition, as well as uneven character usage that convolutes the level of importance within the roles, - especially within the underused antagonist who Eric Bana certainly isn't competent enough to bring to life as compelling through characterization shortcomings - and leaves you wanting more out of this otherwise fairly well-rounded character piece. I've seen some deleted beats out of this film, many of which offer surprisingly rich additional insight into the heart of this drama and really should not have been cut, yet ultimately are for whatever reason, and I'm betting that there's a whole lot more scrapped exposition beats than the ones presented on the DVD/Blu-Ray of this film, because most every one of the holes in exposition throughout the final product - not just the ones filled by the deleted scenes that I've had the honor of seeing - feel as though they were forcibly robbed of material, and that's a shame, because when this film does focus on fleshing things out, it really draws some juicy meat, even though it never manages to fully wash away that pesky conventionalism. There are refreshing areas to this film, to be sure, but in a lot of ways, this is actually fairly clichéd, not just as a "Star Trek" film, but as a modern sci-fi blockbuster, hitting enough tropes to firmly establish a certain predictability that you can't help but notice, and in turn leaves you to notice the limitations within this narrative in concept, because no matter how meaty the film may be in plenty of areas, just as much areas go held back by fluffiness that gradually builds as the human core of this drama begins to creep its way into the backseat, behind good old-fashioned, blockbustery thrills. The film's hook is certainly outstanding, but even the early acts of the body are very strong, and such a period in the film reflects a potential for excellence that is almost achieved, yet as things go along, the heart of this film starts to settle and natural shortcomings ensue, backed by enough storytelling issues - some of which are glaring - for the final product to run the risk of collapsing short of what it could have been. Needless to say, such issues actually make this film more impressive, at least in certain areas, because even though this film doesn't kick as hard as it probably could have, it's stronger than you might expect, and certainly as strong as you might hope that it would be from an aesthetic standpoint.

Handed the high responsibility of redefining the musical elements of a franchise that has always been at least somewhat recognized for its musical elements, J. J. Abrams favorite Michael Giacchino is an excellent score composer who seems fit for the job, and fails only at disappointing, tainting his noble efforts with plenty of formulaic elements, sure, but compensating for it all with a very tasteful and dynamic marriage of certain themes to the distinguished musical aspects of the classic "Star Trek" saga and Giacchino's own distinguished aspects that defines this relatively refreshing "Star Trek" score as both complimentary to the tone of this film and excellent by its own right, much like Dan Mindel's photographic artistry, whose rich lighting, warm color and stylish filming dazzle. If nothing else, the gorgeous visual style of the film puts down quite the fine polish job on the tastes of Scott Chambliss, whose production designs really stand out in the well-produced "Star Trek" franchise, being not simply immersive in their exhausting intricacy, but uniquely stunning, not unlike the special effects, which are easily the best yet out of the "Star Trek" series, with justly Oscar-winning make-up touches that are impeccable, and phenomenal digital touches that are dazzling and diverse in concept, and rendered spectacularly, enough so to both further secure you in this very digitally enhanced world, and compliment the thrilling and snappily well-edited action sequences, whose more small-scale moments are tightly well-choreographed, and whose grander moments are thunderously intense on a level unseen by the "Star Trek" franchise up to this point. As that padded out sentence will you, as a blockbuster, this film succeeds every bit as much as you might hope that it would, possibly more so than I make it sound like it does, and such considerable stylistic proficiency carries the final product's enjoyment value a long way, but really, what secures this blockbuster as more than just your garden variety, simply fun summer flick is the inspiration that goes into the deeper aspects of this drama, including the acting department. Okay, now, before I get into the praises towards the performances, allow me to first say that this film's compellingness is mostly anchored by the thorough color within the entertainment factor, as well as the drama among the leads, because when it comes to the antagonist who stands at the center of this drama's conflict, while there are conceptually intriguing areas to the Nero character, one of the bigger problems with the film is its lacking a compelling or even terribly memorable villain, not simply because of Nero's feeling kind of half-backed in the characterization process, or even because Nero feels a bit too much like a clichéd villain, but because Eric Bana further proves himself to be one of today's more overrated actors by turning in a mediocrely flat and distancingly under-inspired-feeling, if not simply poor performance, whose unevenness in anything from a thinly American, or rather, Romulan accent to what presence Bana has betrays the selling of potentially effective depths within our antagonist, as either a force to be reckoned with or a deeply scarred being who lusts vengeance, thus leaving our leads with more pressure on their shoulders to carry this film, which is, in fact, powered by the leads in a lot of ways, because on top of being incredibly well-cast as younger versions of recognizably iconic characters, the talents who head this colorful cast capture, if not redefine their highly esteemed roles with thorough charisma, sparkling chemistry and even the occasional effective dramatic note. From the fashionably late-to-arrive Simon Pegg as a delightfully down-to-earth, yet still pretty sharp Montgomery "Scotty" Scott, and the unevenly used, yet endearing Anton Yelchin as a fresh-faced young Pavel Chekov, to a dead-on Karl Urban as everyone's favorite grumpy doctor, and, of course, the especially transformative leads Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as Kirk and Spock, respectively, most every member of the main cast not only looks the part, but near-effortlessly pumps all of his or her heart into bringing life to new versions of legendary characters that still carry much of what made the original visions so iconic, but incorporate enough refreshing elements to very impressively define these leads as distinguished icons yet again, so if there was ever a standard for bringing legendary characters back to life, with audacious tweaks, this film sets it on a level that is near-miraculous, while still compelling by its own right, and not just with the onscreen performances. This is a formulaic story, with thin areas that go pretty unnervingly emphasized by an uneven and undercooked interpretation, but it is colorful, even strong, with a layered conceptual core that is, more often than not, successfully brought to life by screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, whose lighter moments, in spite of some hiccups, deliver on generally sharp dialogue and humor, as well as plenty of genuinely clever and fun winks to the Trekkies and a very intelligently handled mythology, and whose meatier moments offer generally well-rounded characterization and subtly layered tonal depths, really sold by director J. J. Abrams, whose slick pacing, while exhausting at times, keeps entertainment value constant, until broken up by surprisingly tasteful draws on depth that result in anything from raw tension to genuinely moving dramatic depth. The film's near-15-minute-long opening segment, which portrays the birth of James Kirk and simultaneous heroic death of his father, - who, in the process, saves many the lives of many - is nothing short of outstanding, letting you know that this is a prequel that does not mess around by starting out with a steady chill which builds as ambiguities to conflict are presented, until we end up with intense, dramatically charged action that is eventually broken by a seamless fusion of delightful nods to those who have always wanted to see the origin of an iconic character and saga, and powerful, maybe even tear-jerking emotional punch, thus making for an exemplary hook that may raise a bit too high of a standard for the body of this drama, but particularly encompasses the inspiration in Abrams' efforts and locks your investment in a film which proceeds to never lose too much of the kick it opens up delivering on, facing too many natural and, to a certain degree, consequential shortcomings to be truly excellent, but nonetheless with a style, entertainment value and heart that craft, not only one of recent memory's strongest examples of how to do a prequel, or a genuinely strong effort by its own right, but hands-down the best "Star Trek" film to date... or rather, stardate (nyuk-nyuk-nyuk).

At the end of the beginning of a new trek, you're left with an accomplished mission that doesn't go entirely according to plan, as there is unevenness in tone, pacing and characterization depth, as well as conventionalism and thin spells within a predictable narrative, for the final product to fall just short of excellent, but nevertheless come close, thanks to the excellent score work and cinematography, immersive production designs, phenomenal visual effects, thrilling action sequences and compelling story - anchored by endearingly transformative performances, and brought to life by thoroughly clever and layered writing and profoundly inspired direction - that make J. J. Abrams' "Star Trek", not simply thoroughly entertaining, but deeply rewarding as both a remarkably successful revival of a timeless mythology, and a winning blockbuster on its own terms.

3.25/5 - Strong.