by DAVID KERN

Well, here we are.

First we were introduced to those three sub-par, so-called Star Wars “films”, then the re-birth of a new, younger Bond, followed by bold reconsiderations of Batman, Superman and a host of other superheroes (not that any of those films stoop to the low, low level of the Star Wars prequels) all of whom successfully breached the tech-savvy, heavily ironic, slightly jaded world that is early 21st century cinema. Now, arriving in warp speed, arrives a re-boot of the famous Star Trek franchise called, well, Star Trek - a thoroughly post-modern, visually bold and essentially re-defining take on a cast of characters long beloved by pointy eared followers the world across, or should I say, the universe across.

Advertisements for this new Trek film, which is directed by J.J. Abrams (of ABC’s Lost and last year’s Cloverfield), insist that this ain’t your daddy’s Star Trek, and they certainly weren’t lying. Of course, how could it be? This is a film of green screens and fantastic explosions; it’s CGI heavy and hell-bent on driving your adrenaline through the roof, it’s a film that simply couldn’t exist in it’s present manifestation even ten years ago. Where previous installations in the franchise’s 45 years were perhaps stuffy to the not so die hard viewers, and where older versions were perhaps too heady (or should I say nerdy?) for audiences looking for pure escapist fare, Abrams version is nothing if not sleek, sexy and, well, escapist. It’s fast paced and witty enough to serve as a worthy blast-off for a box-office summer that promises to be exciting as ever.

Mr. Abrams certainly faced a rather daunting task when he took on the project: to recapture the imaginations and hearts of the millions of fans who, for so many years, faithfully followed the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk, Spock, Dr. McCoy, Scotty and the rest, while also effectively capturing the short attention spans of today’s younger moviegoers - and keeping them interested for the long haul. This film is clearly a launching pad for an entirely new series of films and inasmuch is a fine film overall. However, standing alone, it certainly has its clear flaws.

The film’s great success, though, lies in its ability to collect a fantastic new cast, led by relative newcomers Chris Pine (as Kirk), and Zachary Quinto (as Spock) and featuring a stellar, hilarious performance by Simon Pegg (as Scotty). Pine plays Kirk with a Han Solo like charm and charisma, and with a distinct sense of hipster-esque sarcasm. He’s the film’s archetypal bad boy who learns a valuable lesson about friendship and working together with others. The film doesn’t successfully delve much into his character or what truly motivates him (other than passing references to his father-less youth) but I trust that future films will do so with the necessary precision. Pine is a fine, confident actor and will almost certainly find himself the new object of Hollywood fanfare. Quinto’s Spock is proud and analytical, even cold, but he is the most complicated character in the film and the one who will likely carry the heartbeat of the franchise forward. His logically driven Vulcan (you know, from the planet Vulcan) half competes, for much of the film, with his more emotionally driven human side (his mother is from earth, after all). On the one hand, he believes he must act according to logic, to what adds up. On the other hand, he can’t help but feel things. He knows emotion but doesn’t know what to do with it, doesn’t know how to approach it, doesn’t seem to know what it means. Kirk is the polar opposite. He lives one minute at a time, driven fully by his desires and emotions and passions. He is rash and bold and trouble seems to follow him wherever he goes. He’s scruffy and usually caked in mud or blood, and at first he’s self-serving and pragmatic in his approach to pleasure. He’s a mumbler and often sarcastically insulting. Spock, meanwhile, is clean cut, well spoken and by the book, if you will.

One might say that in these two lead characters we have the juxtaposition of two paradigms: one aging, fading away; the other only now growing to maturity, one looking back with nostalgia (as Spock is forced to do), the other looking forward with brash confidence (as Kirk does). One the one hand, one might say, we have the suit and tie paradigm of our parents and grandparents generations, the generations who were first introduced to these characters. On the other hand, we have our current, hedonistic, post-modern generation, fashioned as it is by the desire to cast our own seed and cut ties with the 9-5 mentality of our predecessors. We’re tech savvy, worldly and forward thinking, guided by our senses and confident in our abilities to face any challenges. Those old folks had their ways and they worked for them, right? Now we have ours and they work for us. Or so it goes. This film leans, I think, toward the latter camp, in tone and voice. There’s a hint of wistful nostalgia, but mostly out of duty. And ultimately when Spock is advised (by a face most Trekkies will immediately recognize) to do what “feels right” for once, we discover the true sentiment at the core of the film’s philosophies.

Whereas past Trek stories (both on the big screen and the small screen) were interested in exploring and expounding upon the mysteries and philosophical boundaries of space and what might be found there, not to mention the political and social ethos of the time(s), this new version is more interested in sensuality and emotion. There’s a reason that the old, cardboard cut outs TV series still attracts older viewers but has largely left younger generations behind. In fact, I would venture to guess that this film will not appeal much at all to many of the older fans of the series. It is perhaps just a bit too snarky, a bit too interested in mass appeal. But there is a suggestion of deeper meaning. Kirk and Spock certainly undergo some distinct changes as the story progresses. They seem to meet somewhere in the middle, between Kirk’s hedonistic, sensual approach to life and Spock’s cold, deliberate approach. The former learns what it means to lead others and to put others first (although what exactly teaches him this is unclear) while the latter learns the value of heartfelt emotion and humility. It’s an archetypal kind of tale, stock in a sense, but still potentially meaningful if the visual splendor of the film doesn’t distract you, which it will for many viewers.

Star Trek does look - and sound - splendid, just as one should expect a film that thematically focuses on the senses would be. In fact, the film’s opening sequence, an emotionally driven, powerful first ten minutes, might just be as visually beautiful as you will see all year in theaters - at least this summer. But what makes this sequence so powerful is it’s use of silence. Without giving anything away, much of it takes place during a chaotic and frenetic space battle, naturally complete with glorious bursts of light and the sounds of explosions and death, reminiscent in some ways of Danny Boyle’s visceralSunshine. It’s a loud and overwhelming scene. That is, until suddenly the sounds of the action are muted, and we see only the visuals: explosions and light and colors and contrast and faces fraught with the mixed emotions of fear and hope and love and hate. In this powerful moment the franchise is re-born and, dare I say, because of this moment millions of new fans will be brought on board.

Abrams is a master of highly stylized CGI (if there is any other kind of CGI!), but at times he wanders into distracting self indulgence thereby diminishing the effect that the character’s experiences might otherwise have. CGI should enhance those experiences, make the audience more a part of them rather than functioning as a self contained entity in and of itself. Too often Abrams allows his CGI to overwhelm the other potentially powerful moments in the film, and they certainly don’t mask the story’s less than stellar plot points (and subplots), including an extremely poorly drawn villain, a lazily conceived love story and a slew of incomplete secondary character sketches. I haven’t said much about the plot, mainly because there isn’t much there to chew on, so you may as well go and eat while you can, but the film essentially centers around the efforts of the Star Ship Enterprise to subdue and defeat a violent uprising by renegades from the planet Romulus who are, for various reasons, all bent out of shape. Put simply: they want everyone dead. Following a conflict here and a kiss there, the youthful Kirk finds himself as acting captain of the ship, the universe’s well being resting on his confident shoulders. It’s safe to say, I think, that devotees to the series will find themselves more or less at home while newbies should catch on quickly, if for no other reason than that the film has a great ability to proficiently speak today’s cinematic language.

But for much of the film it’s difficult to identify with the major problems of the characters, in part because they are slightly convoluted, but primarily because the villain (played with an “eh” by a so-so Eric Bana, who is, I might add, sporting a curiously Mike Tyson-esque face tattoo) just isn’t terrifying; he certainly isn’t close to Darth Vader on the scale of Sci-Fi bad guys. Ironically, for the most part, the film’s plot line is a re-tread of the famous Star Wars films: gifted fatherless child drives fast on sandy planet, is discovered by a wise sage and, following a bar room brawl, is whisked off to an academy where he learns to harness his skills, finds he must fight the man who killed his father, is dumped on a snowy planet, fights on the ledge of a half built space craft, and so on. Entertaining but by no means original.

I think it’s safe to say that, for the most part, fans, old and new alike, will find pleasure in the experience of this new Trek film. It’s complete with all the glitz, glamor and gadgetry that we’ve come to expect of our most explosive summer fare. But fans of the old series should expect something more akin with the recent Transformers franchise than any previous installments. Is this a good or a bad thing? Well, to each their own, but Star Trek will certainly excite it’s share of new fans and should provide a capable blast-off for the fireworks of summer cinema as well as a successful new franchise.

David Kern is the editor-in-chief of Into the Hill and a film critic based in North Carolina. You can email him at david@intothehill.com.

This entry was posted on Friday, May 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm and is filed under Film Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.