Sunday, June 14, 2009 at 10:53PM 
Boldly go where no prequel has gone before.
| Overall Grade: | A- |
| Story: | A+ |
| Acting: | A- |
| Direction: | A |
| Visuals: | B+ |
Summary: Instead of patronizing us with a film to placate the trekky hordes, this film completely revamps the Star Trek legacy, giving us grit, humanity, plot believability and fantasy in what used to be a one dimensional world of trek-dom; a triumph of what can be possible with a great filmmaker at the helm.
Review: Writing a new movie for a decades old iconic franchise is the pivotal "chance-of-a-lifetime" for any director. And few succeed. But JJ Abrams is no ordinary director. His prestine vision of the ultimate rebirth of the Star Trek universe infuses, above all, a powerful humanity into the long-loved science fiction yarn.
For over 40 years the legacy of Gene Roddenberry's story has conveyed many things- fantasy, fiction, technology, adventure, characature and time travel. But rarely did you see much more than characature and stereotype in the development of the cast. This may seem strange given the cast, but we found each member of the Enterprise to ultimately become one dimensional place holders that allowed for a plot driven TV show that lived on twists and technology to keep us interested. Character development was never a strong suit of the franchise. It was attempted moreso in the follow-on movies of the last 3 decades, but never ascended to become more than enhancements of the originals: an arrogant Kirk, calculating Spock, acerbic Bones and mindless Checkov (etc).
Then comes this new Star Trek, told to us this time from the man who brought us the best movie of 2007 (Cloverfield)- a movie he shot (seemingly) entirely through a single camera- and pulls it off with flying colors. Abrams is always reaching to pull in the viewer, making everything human, flesh-touchable, gritty. He succeeds in Star Trek (2009).
Kirk becomes pretentious and arrogant, but fraught with that same guise as a mask to his own failure and pain. Bones is acerbic, for sure, but we gain a look at his real life that exposes those origins. Most of all, we see Spock. A Spock that is far more human than he ever has been. Strangely, this makes his Vulcan story seem far more believable. You grasp his story, you believe it, and you love the ride it takes you on. But let's be clear- this story is about the rise of James T. Kirk. It's his human path to a starry, almost super-human stature as the pre-eminant character of science fiction lore.
It's perfectly done, very well acted, and a great adventure tale to boot. There have been rumblings of "true trekkies" that have dissed the film. I expected as much. The vitality of the tales have never been more brilliant in this new film for Star Trek, but we have left behind the plastic, inhuman characters that the original series had given us. A welcome change. If you even remotely like sci-fi, this film will delight you. See it in the theatres, as the shots and action are very engaging.
(I have to say it... even if Nemoy won't!)
Live long and prosper!
Amazon link: http://amzn.to/UvqQty
Review by Kim Gentes.
2009, Abrams, JJ Abrams, kirk, movie, roddenberry, science fiction, spock, star trek in A-Movie, Movie Review
Reader Comments (2)
That's interesting that you liked it so much. I was personally disappointed with the movie. I had very high hopes for it and left the theatre so disappointed.
I thought that the story line was weak and implausible, even for a sci-fi. The whole premise of the plot particularly the emotional motivation was too far fetched. Especially when you basically have one mad man behind it all and then a bunch of followers who seem almost passionless about the issue yet follow the mad man with devotion. In fact, I think that the story was so weak, shallow and 'Hollywood' that it took the rest of the movie down with it.
I also found that they tried to go all 'Star Wars' on the film with constant fast action and aspect changes with little story and more just trying to impress with a barrage of images. That technique could have worked well for them if the story and sub plots were much stronger. But they weren't, so it was like 2012 - visuals without an interesting plot which robs the visuals of meaning.
The characterizations were OK, but I found the Kirk character involved too many extremes and character flaws to ever make it in a pseudo military organization like Starfleet. That level of instability, insubordination, bad temper, etc is just not good captain material. I certainly would not want to follow him - and that's were the film looses. His character was just too flawed and frankly unbelievable.
I'd give the movie a C at best.
good points Nathan! 2012, though.?! Oh my.. now that was a horrid movie...
I should say that you have a point on the antagonist of the movie.. it was as cheezeball as regular Trekkie plots.. but maybe that amount of cheeziness is what seemed to tie old to new... as far as military and insubordination... for me, its a given that movies never portray military realities at all.. they can't, or the movie would be an exhausting depiction of rote subservience... not much to clamor for theatre seats in that...
but, yes, you bring up all good points... still I thoroughly enjoyed the ride on this movie and stand by my review...
my thinking is this--- mindful people will balance the review with the subject matter, I am hoping... a glowing review of a Star Trek movie, doesn't make it Schindler's List, it just makes it a better Star Trek movie ..