Review: Star Trek
by John NolteJ.J. Abrams reboot of the much beloved “Star Trek” franchise is reminiscent of the films that came before, but not the best of them. Like the other odd-numbered disappointments, this entry, number 11, works best when concentrating on character, but falls flat due to a dull villain with nothing to do other than act as a macguffin. After a splendid first hour expertly sets up and re-introduces the characters, the second half turns as derivative as a video game with superb special effects supporting poorly choreographed and frantically edited action sequences that carry no suspense because the outcome is obvious and the personal human drama missing.
“Trek” opens with what turns out to be its best scene and one of the best in the franchise; the circumstances around the birth of James Tiberius Kirk. Our hero is well-served here with an imaginative and exciting mythology that shows the filmmakers understand the unique importance of the character. This sequence is also effective in setting up our villain, the Romulan Nero (an almost unrecognizable Eric Bana), who’s leaping about in time hell-bent on the worst kind of revenge against the Federation for something yet to happen.
The narrative then efficiently moves to Iowa and one of the worst scenes, an unimaginative sequence that has wild child Kirk looking for thrills in a stolen Corvette. Set to a blistering heavy metal score that screams “demographic bait,” young Kirk, who can barely see over the steering wheel, expertly outruns police and drives off a cliff leaving you to wonder why the writers resorted to a show-don’t-tell used so many times before to inform us we have a reckless, adrenaline junkie on our hands.
The contrast between young Kirk and Spock couldn’t be stronger. Whereas Kirk grows into an aimless young man with little interest beyond beer and girls, on the planet Vulcan, Spock is a serious, studious and ambitious individual who knows what he wants and where he intends to go. Or does he?
Though they’ve yet to meet, Kirk and Spock do share an unresolved conflict, a pull towards a destiny neither is quite sure they want. Spock’s half human and never allowed to forget it. The prejudice he faces builds both resentment and the bitter knowledge that he’ll never really belong on Vulcan. Starfleet not only offers him a place, but in a fine character moment, the satisfaction of thumbing his nose at those who have marginalized him.
The uniformity of an organization like Starfleet, however, doesn’t fit well with Kirk’s rebellious streak and reactionary distrust of authority, but the legacy of his father hangs over the young man, as does the unspoken acknowledgement of his own potential for greatness. A chance run-in with Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) turns into a “Top Gun-ish” motorcycle moment and so we’re off and running.
Here the narrative hits a strong stride, smartly and quickly bringing our crew together, offering fans fast but welcome character touchstones and establishing the familiar relationship dynamics. But the heavy plot demands of putting Kirk in the captain’s chair for his first saving of the universe slowly overwhelm what was working so well and it isn’t long before an engrossing story breeds indifference as the narrative goes through unspectacular motions.
Abrams not only reboots the franchise but almost completely frees himself from what came before in the opening scene when Nero emerges from the future and in both big and small ways alters everyone’s destiny. Using the classic “Trek” questions of time travel and destiny to throw off a burdensome mythology built up over 70-plus television episodes, 7 feature films and a library of books, is clever and very well executed. Not only do you buy it, but because who the characters are and how they interact doesn’t change, the rest feels unimportant. One major misstep, though, is a very odd and out of place love affair between two crewmembers. There’s no universe alternate enough to make these moments work. This relationship is wildly out of character, especially the lack of discretion.
As Kirk, Chris Pine has big shoes to fill and only rises to the level of promising in his debut. He’s got the swagger but lacks the simmering passion that so defined Shatner’s immortal creation. Zoe Saldana’s Uhura brings the smarts, but why replace the voluptuous Nichelle Nichols with just another skinny supermodel? But if that’s the worst physical replacement, in the personality department Simon Pegg’s Scotty misses by a country mile reducing the competent and dutiful Starship Engineer into a mouthy, exasperated Disney cartoon sidekick.
Johnny Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov both have their moments to shine but Zachary Quinto’s Spock and Karl Urban’s Dr. McCoy are as perfect a fit as any fan could hope for.
Ultimately, what brings the film down is the emotional disconnect between Nero and our protagonists. There’s no personal engagement between them. Nero’s driven by hatred for Spock but he might as well be angry at a houseplant. When “this time it’s personal” is a one-way street the impression given is that like an angry spouse smashing increasingly valuable things, a rise out of Spock would be enough to satisfy Nero and make him go away.
Sure, the stakes are high enough with billions of lives in the balance, but they always are. With little doubt our heroes will survive, something bigger has to be added to the action stew above and beyond get-to-the-thing-before-the-thing-explodes, but there isn’t. Pike’s unfortunate circumstance in all this could have been exploited to great effect, but we never come to care about his character much and are allowed to forget his predicament.
For the most the part, the action scenes are a mess of jittery camera work, quick cuts, and pointless close ups. Some of the space sequences are spectacular but again and again I wanted to yell at the filmmakers to get out of the stylized-way so I could see what the hell was going on. This gets progressively worse as the film rolls on until you just sit there numbed by the frenzy.
In the plus column is a refreshing lack of moralizing and politics and a new cast with some life in them. This bodes well for the already greenlit sequel, but make no mistake, there’s still that lingering “Bugsy Malone” feel of it all to overcome.
“Star Trek” qualifies as a promising start. Not a disappointment, but not exactly memorable.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
88 Comments
BOO! HISS! I left the theater no more than an hour ago. IGNORE THIS REVIEW! GO SEE IT. It's AWESOME! God I hate professional critics.
This is a poor review, based on conclusions reached before the film was released, and indeed before this website even came into existence. Gee, couldn't force the film into your political agenda? Must be bad.
I'm reminded of the old Groucho line, about how much stock people should put in their own eyes.
It's difficult to take this review seriously when John had posted a couple of months back about how this reboot, which he named "Star Trek 90210," was "raping" his childhood. All this before he'd seen a minute of the actual movie.
Jonah Goldberg's review (with his spoilerish commentary on Nimoy's joy-draining presence in all of his movie appearances) plus yours ==== waiting for cable. Sad.
Looks like the little lady and I will be watching the Met on the big screen this weekend instead.
Fingers crossed for Terminator: Salvation.
What they did to that Corvette was a crime in any century.
Boy, the trekkies hit the comment section quick!
Whether you like the movie or not isn't a reason to slam a review. It's John's opinion and he's not needlessly attacking the film. He's saying what he does and doesn't like– exactly as he should. I wouldn't want to read the reviews of someone who blindly follows the pack.
I'm not a fan of time travel / time line / alternate reality movies. But at least they didn't go cheap on the special effects like Wolverine. And homegirl was absolutely stunning.
i think it's cool you are strong enough to be different from everybody else… f*** all the trekkers and their fans. this movie is all hype.
Although I liked the movie much more than John did, I have to agree with him on the romance–it didn't make sense and didn't add anything to the movie.
John's reviews are honest and damned good. 'Nuff said. MY own two cents is that I won't be watching this film – and John's review just solidifies my refusal.
The real reason I won't see this film is because these actors aren't the least believable. Instead of Star Trek warriers, they look like spoiled high schoolers who snuck into their parent's garage on Halloween and found some old clothes to wear. But no matter how many clothes or makeup or icky scars you put on their face with glue and make-up, they're still KIDS. They're kids. You take one look at that photo John put up – and they're kids. They're barely out of the pimple stage. They're kids. And you can't make that work. Remember the motto. 'Go where no MAN has gone before!" It says 'man', not dewy-lipped boychild. And that's the real reason I won't watch this flick.
Good review John. Yeah, the Trekkies need to back off (and I'm a bit of one myself). John's just giving his honest opinion on a film, something that is always appreciated.
Sorry, no sale. I appreciate the thought that went into this review, but it's quibbling.
After seeing the raving reviews, both pro and con, I saw this last night with no preconceptions or expectations either way.
My response: GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
ST movie series 2.0 rocks, and the new crew rules.
It was worth every penny of full price for a ticket.
I just came home from seeing the film. Lots of fun, lots of action, left me with a glow that didn't last. I agree with everything John's written here. This is summer popcorn fluff, great as long as you don't think about it , and makes as good a promise re future Trek as Casino Royale did for Bond. Let's hope the Trek sequel does better than Bond's.
Oh, and I'm very much a Trekkie, and have been since 1966.
" … action sequences that carry no suspense because the outcome is obvious and the personal human drama missing."
I completely disagree with that. The one thing that comes with a reboot that literally changes the entire timeline is a sense of uncertainty. For instance, when the Enterprise was getting sucked back into the black hole, I really thought it was possible that it was going to go all the way.
At that point, anything could happen — and that's a testament to Abrams and his crew, who showed incredible confidence their approach.
Shorter Jon: "Lord knows why the producers release trailers and pictures and interviews but let´s pretend they don´t exist!"
Are you saying a person is not supposed to write about his expectations and fears regarding a movie that purports to bring back the heroes of our youth? The fretting and speculation beforehand is where the whole fun is!
I saw the movie last night with my girlfriend and we both loved it! We came at it with opposite perspectives; me being the Trekkie, and she being the one who always makes fun of me for being the Trekkie. This movie really had everything one could want in an action flick–great f/x, good music, an intelligent plot, a villain you hate, strong characters, and an homage to the nostalgia. It had a very unique look to it, yet incorporated a lot of the elements from the original series–the ships, the uniforms, the sound effects on the bridge and planet.
It was a little deficient in a few areas, but the movie had so many good things going for it that you could overlook the rough areas. With so much character exposition and the task of explaining the backstory of Kirk/Spock, and how the main crew of the Enterprise came together, I can forgive the emotional disconnect between Nero and the protagonists. Quite honestly, I couldn't see a Kahn-type villain in this movie, because I don't think that's what the creators were trying for. Nero succeeded in being the source of evil that created the bond for the Enterprise and her crew. I would see a more fantastic villain better suited for the sequel, which this movie set the stage for so wonderfully.
This was a fun fun movie, and had something in it for everyone. It was well-worth the $9.50, and I might actually see it again before it goes to DVD (something I rarely do).
Well written review, but I've been jazzing on this film since I heard Quinto was playing Spock, and I've enjoyed Trek for, well, decades now, so this is pretty much critic proof for me. I do have to take John's criticisms with a grain of salt, though, because he did mock the movie months ago based on stills of the "metrosexual" cast, a bandwagon on which many posters joyously jumped. I think I'll skip the weekend crowds, but Monday matinee, here I come!
John, I agree with you on Nero being a one dimensional villain, but that is not unusual in Trek. I disagree on Simon Pegg. He just wasn't given enough screen time. This was how they introduced him but I can see him growing into the character we know. I thought he was funny.
While the action could have been much better choreographed (a problem with Abrams other films), I still enjoyed it a lot. The baton was passed and I feel the new team is off to a great start.
"…these actors aren't the least believable… they look like spoiled high schoolers… "
So you formed this opinion by watching the film? No? Thin air then?
[...] says John Nolte in his Trek review. John is the first to notice that this is installment 11 of the series, which makes it an [...]
I respectfully disagree, John – everything you say that didnt work, DID work as far as I could see. Scotty was positively delightful and Karl Urban delivered as my favorite growly, grumbly, sarcastic Southern country doctor, right down to hauling Kirk through sickbay deliberately making him sick so his friend could come along. Excellent in keeping with what the Old Guard established.
There is nOne think I will agree with you about is choosing a stick figure to play Uhura – somehow cannot picture her doing a feather dance to lure Kretins away from a target of interest, but I was actually kind of willing to buy the romantic interest in Spock, although I did think it was kind of startling to see it pop up – there was a lot of history implied already and my first exposure to her relationship with Spock was teacher/student. That whole thing was jarring in that respect. BUT, because its an alternate universe, I was willing to buy that maybe, just maybe, Spock, in his youth would have opened up to a relationship. I dunno…I liked the idea…just wish they'd found an actress who had real curves to her.
And I really dont know that there was any less preposterousness in this set up than there were in previous manifestations of ST lore…I like that this story line was tightly knit and respected the premises it set up for everyone…unlike some other ST movies/episodes I could name.
And I loved how the "old" Spock involved. ever too much Bones McCoy – I ate up every episode that featured him.
RE: The Corvette scene
I saw an early review of the Star Trek teaser, which was basically an abbreviated version of the Corvette scene. One reader had an interesting take on the scene. The Corvette appeared to be an older model, from around the late 60's or so, around the same time as the original Trek series. What JJ Abrams does it takes this car, representing the old series, and drives it off a cliff, as if Abrams to say "this ain't your daddy's Star Trek".
RE: Scotty
One of the more endearing parts of Scotty's character was his attachment to the ship and his anxiety whenever it came to the abuse she took, or how hard the captain wanted him to push her. In the movie, Scotty had JUST arrived on the ship. Give him a little time to grow attached and form that bond with her.
John, I agree with some of your criticisms (particularly the aforementioned romance). But, I came away with almost the exact opposite overall opinion. It is easily the best since Khan, in terms of development and growth of the characters (full disclosure: I vary between 2, 6, and First Contact as favorites). I do wish Nero had been developed a bit deeper, I think he and Kirk, and he and Spock could have had a bit more screentime together to flesh out his motivations and personality a bit more. Like you, I agree that the opening sequence is the best in the series. I'll go one further, and say it's one of the best I've seen in recent memory. It is a tremendous origin moment, setting up where Kirk comes from and explains the next 25 years of divergence from what "we" know. There are also bones (no pun intended) thrown to even the most hardcore of fans (the ones like me who complained about things like the inconsistency of Kirk being on the Enterprise instead of his first duty on the Farragut) that clear up changes in the vaunted "continuity" in a satisfactory manner. My most major complaint, though, is that there are a few leaps that feel awfully convenient and the time-travel is a bit of a deus ex machina giving the filmmakers license to change what they please. These aside, the new movie is, at it's core the best of Star Trek: engaging (heh) interpersonal drama, galactic crisis, an accessible, if quasi-philosophical plot that speaks to the question of inert exceptionalism, destiny, and free-will. All punctuated by a shell of excellent special effects and action sequences.
And yes, it still stinks to be a redshirt.
Nope. Like I said up front, I formed the opinion by looking at THEM. And they're kids. Kids playing men – only – they're not. I'm sure they're sincere and intense but – you can't play what you're not. It's like a ninth grader who's really pretty, actually she's beautiful and she's got violet eyes and a pretty voice – but sorry, somebody in a training bra can't play Scarlet O'Hara. And that's what those kids are in that photo – kids. I have no problem whatsoever seeing them playing the young Treks – but having me believe they are MEN – put those dewy-lipped things in charge of the Enterprise? I wouldn't give them the keys to my Chrysler.
In my review I didn't want to get too far into the dit-dit — it's longish as is — but Kirk gets thrown off the Enterprise, lands on a vast planet, and is chased into the very cave where you-know-who is?
That was some lazy storytelling, right there. Insultingly lazy and disprespectful to the intelligence.
I should also add that Kyle Smith and I rarely agree on films, but on this one we completely agree.
I really enjoyed it.
Abrams' jittery camera is a current style I'm comfortable with. It is in a lot of cool movies and tv by other guys too, like Blackhawk Down, Firefly, Superman Returns.
[...] Big Hollywood added an interesting post today on Review: Star TrekHere’s a small readingJ.J. Abrams reboot of the much beloved “ Star Trek ” franchise is reminiscent of the films that came before, but not the best of them. Like the other odd-numbered disappointments, this entry, number 11, works best when concentrating on character, but falls flat due to a dull villain with nothing to do other than act as a macguffin . After a splendid first hour expertly sets up and re-introduces the characters, the second half turns as derivative as a video game with superb special effects suppo [...]
I would then expect that you have this same criticism of countless movies and television shows that do exactly the same thing. Movies aren't an exercise in reality. If audiences wanted to see reality and feasibility, they wouldn't fork over 10 bucks to sit in the dark in front of a ginormous screen.
We go to movies to escape reality. To be presented with fantastic scenarios and ridiculous coincidences. Are there times when you have to roll your eyes and go "ok, that's a little over-the-top"? Sure. But if that bothered you so much, you probably wouldn't have been much of a fan of the original series either.
Yeah, that's a good point. But the whole premise requires such a suspension of disbelief to begin with that I can deal with that.
have you actually seen it?
In depth review, but we expect nothing less from Nolte. I disagree re Scotty (I liked him better than John) and Chekov (didn't like him at all). I thought the Time Travel was poorly written and worsely (is that a word?) developed. Bana's ship looked like a flying feather. What's with that? Uhura was WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK. Nichelle was beautiful. Zoe ain't. And shoving her tongue down SPock's throat in the elevator! What's with that? As John says, even if the two did get it on, where was the discretion? This guy is a VULCAN, remember! Pike played Shatner playing Kirk. Karl Urban stole every scene he was in.
LOVED the movie.
I say f*** bob.
Sorry, it was pretty crappy. Somewhat enjoyable like a piece of candy but absolutely no substance, no complexity, and completely forgettable. The 'science' is ludicrous, the 'comedy' tiresome and always interjected at the wrong time, and there's no tension – because obviously you know who can and cannot die. It's J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Babies.
Oh and the "we'll pound it into your head that Kirk is a rebel" scene of young Kirk stealing the car and driving it to a … 12 year old …. Beastie Boys song … in the future … retarded. Embarrassingly so.
I love Carl Urban: I love to love him when he's the good guy, and I love to hate him when he's the villain. Casting him as McCoy is my favorite thing about this film, while not casting Adrien Brody as Spock is my biggest disappointment.
It's interesting that you don't like Pegg as Scottie, as another reviewer here thought he stole every scene he was in. I actually watched Run Fat Boy Run to check him out, and he seems to me to be a natural for Scot.
If the timeline weren't so bolloxed up by that point, I would've suggested that Spock simply went to the cave that Kirk was going to be chased into.
I totally agree with your point on the style of action filming. Especially in a scene where there is a lot of detail and stuff going on, I want to be able to drink in the details. During the Dominion War, you'd have 2000+ ships going at it at once, but you always knew where everything was. The busy-jerky-shaky-cam style really discombobulates me, and throws me out of the story.
I'm still waffling about seeing this one in the theater. Granted, my schedule and my 9-month old daughter make the whole exercise academic, but I'm still curious. As far as my wife goes, however, the word about the action scenes was the final straw. Her exact words were "Oh, God, no!" To her, it's not worth wasting a night out. I guess we'll wait for the DVD and RiffTrax.
If I may posit a supposition that I really didnt make until after I left the theatre and was reviewing it in my mind: I thought it was a nice little homage to one of the episodes that featured Spock in the OS…I cant remember the exact title, "Yesterday's Tomorrow"??? If I remember correctly, wasnt Spock holed up in an ice cave then? I know it wasnt considered a very good episode, but I thought if that was a reference, then it was a really good one…its not like it would be wholly out of the range of possibilities that the evil villain would strand Spock, and I frankly thought it was rather an original way to bring in the cameo that we old style Trekkers love.
Plus I (wife in comment above) isn't sure that I want to see a reboot that destroys that much canon. Especially since there's apparently no effort to restore the timeline in the end.
Did you read the part where he was happy that it was apolitical?
agreed. i'm seeing this movie again.
Exactly. When I saw the conveniently placed cave, I knew that the writers were about to rip me off.
One cave on a huge planet has a special character hiding in it, and that's where Kirk's capsule lands. It's as if George Lucas was asked to write a Yoda scene for Star Trek.
Then we have an unexciting chase by a red lizard that has no evolutionary explanation to be on an ice planet, and conveniently has a phobia of small torches.
I think the problem with Pegg as Scottie was that it was nothing but goofy, jokey comic relief. The whole movie lacked consistent tone (it reminds me of the way T3 pissed all over the Terminator series by making everything into a joke) but Pegg being a goofball in every scene really wrecked all tension at the end of the film.
I am a Trekkie. Canon is very important to me. I don't mind things being changed so long as it's not being changed just 'cause the new guy wants to. So long as they try to give a reasonable explanation for the change I'm o.k.. In this movie a lot of things have changed. Alot of what I knew about the characters and the universe they inhabit has been thrown out the airlock. And I'm perfectly fine with that. I loved this movie,everything about it. Watching it I realized that Abrams and company really cared about and respected the world of Star Trek. There were so many moments that would elicit an ear-to-ear grin from me throughout the movie. This movie was simply wonderful and when it was over I felt good about what they have done for Star Trek and for us. Can't wait for the next one.
[...] Big Hollywood created an interesting post today on Review: Star TrekHere’s a short outlineJ.J. Abrams reboot of the much beloved “ Star Trek ” franchise is reminiscent of the films that came before, but not the best of them. Like the other odd-numbered disappointments, this entry, number 11, works best when concentrating on character, but falls flat due to a dull villain with nothing to do other than act as a macguffin . After a splendid first hour expertly sets up and re-introduces the characters, the second half turns as derivative as a video game with superb special effects suppo [...]
Shatner should sue!
McCoy was the world's most abrasive idiot in the original series (I was in my mid 20's and Star Trek was nirvana) and all the ST movies suck!
The best thing the movies gave us was the opening scene from '79's hated "Star Trek: The Movie".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwLrEcwtFM4&fe...
Group think, it's what's for supper.
Sadly, in this age of ignorant and undisciplined thinking, instant gratification and intolerance of the slightest criticism, people can no longer disagree in good faith. Indeed, some people take every disagreement as a personal affront and they lash out like children throwing a tantrum at the person making the criticism.
And in so doing, they expose the flaws within their characters.
My husband and I just got done watching the movie (IMAX version though) and two things I will give you are the frantic pace of the shots and the romance between Spock and Uhara. I kept thinking I might be missing something with all the jittery camera shots and puh-leeze – the romance was unnecessary. But other than that, this film was amazing! We are going to see it again next weekend in the regular theater and we Never Ever do that! I cannot wait to see the followup to this movie – film or series? Anyone have any ideas?
I almost expected the younger Spock, being hip for the today's young movie-going audience, giving a gangsta-hip gesturing of the famous "Live Long and Prosper" hand sign to the older Spock.
(SPOILERS AHOY)
I actually think that the writers acknowledged the coincidence of it all: that, despite all the changes to the timeline, Kirk had made it to the Enterprise with Spock. When the older Spock saw the second unbe-freaking-lievable coincidence — finding Scotty just a few kms away — he began talking about destiny, Kirk's destiny and his own.
If the movie had played this up more, it would have overplayed it, but for whatever reason, there was "destiny" in this movie that brought the (new) old crew together despite the timeline changes, and the movie *DID* acknowledge the otherwise implausible odds of it all.
On this subject, the idea of destiny strikes an odd note for a franchise as humanistic and secular as Trek tends to be. The idea of overarching forces guiding history is something that makes more sense with Star Wars and the Force.
But, then again, the Mirror Universe from TOS had the same basic crew of the Empire's Enterprise, and the alternate timeline shenanigans of TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" had the same crew, but with the no-longer-deceased Tasha Yar. This might be the first time that a trope became a driving force, and I would love to see an explanation for that "destiny".
I agree……Wait, are you talking about the reviewer or the talkbackers?
This review was brutal and couldn't be more wrong (or obviously biased). It reminds me of when that douche Siskel panned Star Wars (or when his creepy buddy Ebert gushed over the Michael Moore movies). Most critics can't actually review the movie in front of them, they have to turn it into some sort of exposition of their philosophy and life. It was an excellent movie, although certainly not perfect. I could see an unbiased reviewer finding fault with many of the flaws, but they were a distinct minority of the film, so the reviewer has to be ignoring far more exceptional moments. Very few Sci-Fi movies have reached the quality of this effort.
Speaking of the creepy Ebert, he panned this movie after giving an enthusiastic thumbs up to the Mummy 3 last year. Anyone who agrees with that assessment on any level needs to immediately stop experimenting with illegal substances.
Sorry. I know you guys missed me. I'm always late to the party, but this one was worth it. =D
I saw "Trek" last night, and twice today. I was born the year NBC canceled "Star Trek" and have grown up watching "Star Trek." John's absolutely right: Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto nail their characters of McCoy and Spock, respectively!!! And here I am, a Captain Kirk gal, I couldn't keep my eyes off Urban and Quinto!
Maybe after a few more showings, John, then we can discuss the lazy writing (and yes, I concur there was some shoddy craftsmanship in there).
Anyone else see the eerie similarity between "Star Trek (2009)" and "Stargate SG-1"s episode, "200"? Did the screenwriters of "Trek" also work on "SG-1?"
Well, you're missing a treat based on one still. The whole point of the story is how they _grow into_ the brave men and women we know they become over the history of the series. This is them at the start of their careers. They're SUPPOSED to be kids–they aren't men and women yet. They SHOULD be green. (Except for McCoy, who was always a bit older) It seems pretty clear from both threads on the board here that most people who've seen the movie found it very enjoyable and had no problems with the actors' youth. Give it a try! It's not Seven Samurai, it's just fun!
So much for waiting! Saw it tonight with a full house, broad age spectrum, and we all had a blast! A great deal of fun was had by all, with enough winks to the original series to make true believers happy, and a strong base to launch a new film series. John thinks we forget about Pike–I sure didn't. He's established as a very strong leader at the beginning, and we can see how Kirk and Spock would have learned from him, and been willing to risk danger to rescue him. I never quite understood how red matter can make a black hole (guess I missed some key original episodes), but the Letters of Transit in Casablanca really didn't make sense either.
I think John Nolte's review misses what made Star Trek the Original Series great: the dramatic structure between Kirk, Spock, and MCCOY.
Who was just as important as the other two.
The classic Trek setup is this: Kirk is the Captain, he must make a decision. He MUST act. Acting wrongly can kill everyone on the ship and perhaps more. Spock advocates a "logical" and Stoic philosophy. McCoy an emotional and humanist one, each according to their backgrounds, Desert Planet controlled Vulcan Science officer, versus Warm and Compassionate Country Doctor. Neither is completely right or wrong, and Kirk doesn't care about morality.
Only results.
That's because the shows were not about the 1960's, even though they were written in them. But about the 1940's, specifically WWII, with Roddenberry drawing on his experience on a B-24 Liberator, and duty, life and death decisions, going by the book vs. surviving and accomplishing the mission. His stint as a police officer on the LAPD helped too.
McCoy according to all accounts is an afterthought and that violates what made Trek dramatically interesting and beloved, rather than another forgotten Sci-Fi show like "Land of the Giants" or "Time Tunnel" or "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea." Only if Kirk is forced to choose between the two advisors, who find the other's thought process totally alien, can you replicate what made the show work in the first place.
As for Uhura, the original was warm, nice, and with an undercurrent of sexual tension with Kirk. What has changed is sexual/racial politics (both Black Men and Women dislike seeing depictions of White men and Black women romantically on screen) and the gender politics of fearing feminine compassion. Uhura was good because she was nice and warm and the second most compassionate character after McCoy. [There was also a minor-mirror with Scotty as a lesser Kirk, Sulu as a lesser Spock, and Uhura as a lesser McCoy, which found focus in B-plots in the series.]
None of the dramatics here work, Kirk is too young to be a credible leader of men, and the uber-PC, lacking in the original series when both creator/writers and the audience understood what hard decisions meant (in 1968, WWII was only 23 years away, as close to us as 1986 and Miami Vice).
You're wrong, you dumb s.o.b. And you're a maroon besides.
[...] characters, the second half turns as derivative as a video game with superb special effects suppo click for more var gaJsHost = ((“https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : [...]
So… in Nolte's estimation, Wolverine's a better movie than Star Trek. That says it all.
'Quantum of Solace' was terrific- and gets better with repeat viewings. Hard core Bond fans only need apply…
EXCELLENT REVIEW! SPOT ON! Paramount has their shills on the internet, desperately posting on blogs and forums, but nothing can save this movie. It's a formulamatic plot. John Nolte's review is completely honest. Chris Pine even admitted last night on Jimmy Kimmel that he's getting boo'ed wherever he goes.
Star Trek villains are always complex with complicated emotional dynamics. Remember Ricardo Montelbahn's Khan? No one would call him one-dimensional. Kor(?), from the original series, was an intricate villian based upon Kirk's opposite number. V'ger had a complex back history. The success of Roddenberry's Star Trek's was, based upon believable characters that didn't treat the audence like they were stupid. That's why trek fans also enjoy Aaron Sorkin, Quentin Tarantino, and David Mamet – it's a thrist, a need, for a good story with believable characters.
As has been said before online, this poor excuse for Star Trek lacked the NOBILITY of the original Trek. Everyone's a screwup. The plot is unbelievable. The space battles are boring whern you know with complete certainty how they are going to turn out. This movie treats us like we are stupid.
That is it in a nutshell. We can go back through any reviewer's history and find horrible movies that they liked for some unknown reason. If they were really professional, they'd have standards that didn't shift. If they want to be "Just one of the guys" then I suggest they stop taking things so seriously. It's trying to walk both sides of the line that is the problem.
I walked out of Wolvering thinking, "Well, that wasn't as bad as I was afraid it was going to be." I walked out of Star Trek thinking, "Wow, I have to see it again in IMAX!"
You think Quentin Tarantino makes believable characters? I've seen episodes of South Park that had more believable characters (and I'm just talking about the episode where they ate Eric Roberts).
LOL! Oh, and up yours buddy.
Actually, I think our characters are flawless. Or are we just characters?
I vote for "flawless characters".
We have a winner!
Yes, the lawyers. . . as always. Sad huh?
>>>Pike played Shatner playing Kirk.
And who exactly do you think Urban was playing? Urban played it like a cheap impersonation. Weird. I didn't get that from anybody else.
I saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a fun ride and well worth admission. The introduction of the Kirk and Spock from their youth was well done; I couldn’t help but laugh at Kirk in the car especially when he opened the top of the convertible while driving; I’m sure many of us can relate to those antics when we were kids and the fun we had committing them. I wasn’t expecting a space epic just a fun action packed movie and this movie delivered.
Agreed, it gets better, but QoS was plagued with incomprehensible action sequences, much like this rendition of Trek. I did appreciate that QoS was actually more an investigatory film than "let us go forth and kick everyone's ass," i.e., a real spy story. Nonetheless, QoS is more set up than delivery. Eventually, I hope, we'll get to the plot. Maybe I'm not hard core, but I am a Bond fan, and I remain ever optimistic and, incidentally, Daniel Craig simply rocks as Bond.
Great movie! Go see it it's sci-fi for Gods, just sit back and enjoy, IMHO!
Okay, I finally got to see this so now I get to chime in. First, I have to say that John's critique is accurate in it's criticisms, but… I just don't care. I enjoyed this more than anything I have watched since "The Dark Knight." It is full of deus-ex-machina moments and you have to suspend disbelief all over the place. And yet… I liked it. Sometimes you just like something despite yourself. I'd totally go see it again right now.
I agree with most of John Nolte's comments about the latest Trek movie, and I am a serious Trek fan. I saw it last night, and I think most fans of the series would enjoy the movie, warts and all. (Or should I say "Moles and all.")
The worst part of it was indeed that romance though. That part needs to be obliterated in the next installment. Seriously. It is out of character, in my opinion, for both people—I don't care if it is a reboot. They shouldn't be together.
My very first child-hood memory, somewhere around age 2 or 3, was of Star Trek on TV. I've literally been a fan as long as I can remember. Despite one logic / plot flaw (Spock "marooned" on a planet with a Federation outpost just 14 miles away..??) I LOVED this movie.
I left the theater last night with a feeling of eminent satisfaction. I can't recall the last time I left a movie feeling that way. Just profoundly satisfied.
Watch the movie and forget the critics. I paid the cash to see it in DLP and LOVED IT. the Met on the big screen. Really… go see the movie.
Did you ever watch the original series. Kirk was a kid-captain knocking his shinny boots with every green-skinned and/or hot alien he came across. Please, you were never gonna see the movie.
Bravo, me too Friday and Saturday.
I have been burned by Star Trek Films in the past. I heard of the odd curse that John speaks of, but never believed it. #1 was new and a bit too new agey for me, but not bad. Kahn is my second best, for Ricardo and the character development. Search was good even with its changed up Saaviks and funky klingons. Voyage Home blew. Frontier, stupid. Country had to be the greatest for the original series cast, and Generations was the best for the next generation. The rest of the Next Generation series was never as good as Generations, but never really sunk to Voyage Home or Frontier level (This coming from a man who was raised on TNG series). So I have been riding the doldrums of sub-par Trek films. I read the reviews John made before the movie came out and felt he was a little tough on it. I wasn’t disappointed. It was stunning. I didn’t like Abrams’ always having the light flooding a face shot, but these minor moments were not enough to say don’t see it, or want me to not see it again. I suggest seeing it in stunning digital or IMAX. It is so worth it.
not to be a snob- but in the Blu-Ray all of a sudden even the action works well- saw it in the teater and it was poorly lit and kind of a blur; no such problem in HD… 'Solace' is the closest thing to an art house film you will ever get out of the series; and it is (and will be) the only sequel. Forster really nails the small stuff and the Tosca scene in Vienna is probably the best siongle sequence in any of the films. We only hope when they open up the series and put poor Craig in outer space or what have you it's half as good as this close to perfect 1-2 puch of 'Casino' and 'Solace'…
Ah, you're old–and you resent it. I understand.
How old are those 'kids'?
What? they're NOT 'kids'? not a one of them? Not even Chekov–who says he's 17?
Carloyn, 'kid' ends at 18–no matter how this society has tried to infantilise us into our early thirties, 'kid' ends at 18.
My kids ARE 18 and are chomping at the bit to get adulthood started–as you were at one time as well.
It's sad when we ossify to the point that we become grumpy old men or women who forget that we were young once–just like Kirk and Spock…..
Wow. The comments on this thread are cringe-inducing. Both those agreeing with John and those opposed. Not all, but most.
I love TOS, tolerated TNG (still haven't seen all of season 7), gave up on DS9 (finally going back and watching season 3-7 on DVD and it did improve substantially – second favorite after TOS), loathed Voyager (a series where the Borg babe and the holo-Doc are the best characters?) and gave up on Enterprise (gave it a 2nd chance when Spiner was on, but couldn't finish the 3 parter).
Khan is #1, Voyage Home, First Contact, Undiscovered Country and then the rest is no particular order.
Having established my bona fides and preferences, now to the subject:
The plot of the new movie is lazy, poorly written and full of plot holes. That said, the character were well done and that is the heart of Star Trek.
For all of the series, the only reason to watch was the characters. TOS had the best group since both major and minor characters were wonderful. TNG only had Pickard and Data (any episode focused on the other characters sucked). DS9 had Odo, Quark and Kira. Voyager I already covered. Enterprise had Trip.
Spock and McCoy were excellent. Kirk and Scotty were good. Uhura and Checkov were ok. Sulu needed something to do.
The romance was unexpected and indiscreet, but the Spock's response to Kirk on the transporter pad after Uhura leaves almost makes it worth it.
The 'vette scene, the ice planet sequence and the water turbine are best forgotten.
But the little touches were perfect. The security officer (whom Kirk fought at the beginning of the movie) calling Kirk "cupcake" three years later. Kirk's allergic reaction to the vaccine that McCoy gave him (remember Kirk was allergic to Retin-X and had to wear glasses). The Kobyashi Maru could have been better, but not bad.
I had agreed with the 90210 joke when the picture of the cast came out, but I was wrong.
I just wish the plot had been half as good as the cast.
Am I the only one who didn't mind the Spock/Uhura romance? I don't know; it's probably because I'm female, have always like the two of them together, and there was a point in the film where Spock REALLY needed a hug. And didn't the two of them flirt quite a bit in the first couple seasons of TOS? And the LAST person I want Uhura to end up with is Capt. Kirk. Bleh. They don't work at all.
I enjoyed Independence Day when it came out in '96. I thought it was fun movie and the effects where great for the time. I still remember people in the theater say how much fun that movie was. Now, I can't believe I ever liked that movie or why I thought it was fun. When I see trailers for the Star Trek reboot, I get the ID vibes.
Independence Day == Star Trek (2009)
Good review and while I agree with most of it particularly on the early part of the movie and using Time travel to basically give Abrams a chance to create his own 11 picture mythology in the future. However I don't have a problem the relationship you mention, with death of one of the characters family members I believe would have a strong impact on how he sees himself after that. This had never happened in the original storyline and the other character in this relationship they setup to be someone not as reserved or concerned about how she acts.concerned about how she acts. As a long time trek fan I was dubious but pleasantly surprised by a movie I expected not to be up to my expectations.
I agree it is a must see for Trek fans and non fans alike.
I thought it made sense given the new reality and what happend to one of the characters mothers. The conversation with his father after that and the effect on how he develops was changed from the original storyline where she survived.
As a veteran myself the persons who are out there on a daily basis for the most part are kids. When I was in it didn't seem that way but now well into my 40s I can say anyone below the rank of Platoon sergeant or Lt. Colonel is probably a kid to me now.
The big thing that didn't work in the Spock/Uhura romance for me (outside of the whole Vulcans don't show emotions) is that these people are in the military and you DON'T SUCK FACE LIKE THAT IN UNIFORM. At least when other people are around.
You must be logged in to post a comment.