Star Trek

I'm a fan of "Star Trek", but not obsessive, having read only one "Star Trek" novel, owning no merchandise and only TOS in its entirety on DVD. I abhor "Voyager" but like every other Trek series, including "Enterprise" although nearly all of that show's especially good episodes are in the fourth season. My favorite remains TOS for its unforgettable characters, performances and stories, as well as the sense of camaraderie aboard the Enterprise.

I hope I've established my feelings on Trek (after all there are Trekkers who think "The Motion Picture" is the best Trek film, and a lot of people seem to like "Nemesis") and what I truly value in it. As long as it wasn't overwhelmingly dumb I didn't require any sort of truly thoughtful sci-fi in this film, nor did I expect it. What I desired, what I can say with a deep, deep sigh of relief, I got, is a film brimming with confidence, energy, a sense of adventure, a suitably emotional story for the film's main characters, and, thank heavens, superb characterization.

Using a plot device bring Nero, our Romulan villain played by Eric Bana, and Nimoy's Old Spock into the film, the writers Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman maintain canon. While Trekkers will whinge about many things here no more canon contradiction happens here than in the Trek series following TOS. Instead of merely rebooting the series entirely and creating an entirely separate canon, the writers have fairly deftly worked this film into the existing Star Trek universe. It's an alternate (not mirror) universe story done well. A great deal to enjoy for Trekkers with throwbacks to the originals but there's also a lot to satisfy summer movie-goers. It's a very, very fast-paced film, the action scenes are exhilarating (and you can actually keep track of them), and there's a great deal of humor

It sounds almost unbelievable but they've actually managed to pull it off: they've made a "Star Trek" film which is a Trek film through and through and yet will still draw a bigger audience than any of the previous films, and moreover satisfy that audience. The film has been compared to "Iron Man" in more than one review the similarities are clear. Both films feature excellent dialogue and character interactions, swift, clever characterization, a minimum of laborious exposition, and also have a common flaw: a rushed plot which overall is almost a side plot. The only reboot to truly escape this pitfall thus far is "Casino Royale", which successfully told a very tight story and also consistently developed Bond as a character. Bana is menacing enough and his ship is well-designed but overall he's no Khan or Chang and was much better-written in the Countdown prequel comic than in the film itself. There are also a series of massive contrivances to get everything where it needs to be which will have viewers rolling their eyes, but even these are handled well by the script, which is smooth and fast as opposed to clunky and sterile. Plus, they're necessary for this origin story not to be a typical boring origin story and become what it is.

The partnership of director Abrams and cinematographer Mindel will annoy some people with their deliberate use of lens flares as well as shaky cam in scenes (not in a Greengrass or worse, Peter Berg style, but merely a slightly unstable camera), but overall I found it to be consistently involving and thrilling to watch, with good visual storytelling throughout. I also quite enjoyed the lens flares. It's not quite on par with Nicholas Meyer's attempts for me but still good, and interesting. The score by Michael Giacchino suffers from familiarity and a lack of individual identity, but works well with the film itself.

Chris Pine is absolutely terrific as Kirk, doing so much more than a Shatner impression and creating something of his own character (and it is, after all, an alternate Kirk) while absolutely nailing several of the trademark attitudes and behavior of the Kirk we all know and love. Much more than a pretty face, Pine's in for mega-stardom after this. Quinto's Spock is really quite terrific and much more nuanced than expected, and Spock's emotional story (and backstory) in the film is well-written as is Kirk's (though Spock gets a more emotional and better overall arc for sure). Pegg is fantastic as Scotty, used here mostly as comic relief. Urban's McCoy is the closest to an impersonation but overall just a joy and a pleasure to behold. Cho's alright as Sulu, who doesn't really get much to do (heck, when did he ever?), though Uhura is surprisingly prominent and well-played by Zoe Saldana. Yelchin as Chekhov is the only really problematic casting choice for me, he really overdoes the accent and takes you out of the film a bit. Bruce Greenwood as Pike nails the character and in a crucial role Leonard Nimoy shines yet again as Spock.

Abrams' "Star Trek" isn't quite tight enough and emotional enough to compete with "The Wrath of Khan", isn't as much fun for me as "The Voyage Home", but overall is probably the third best Trek film to date, on par with "The Undiscovered Country". It's a fairly new direction, yet totally faithful to Trek where it needs to be: in spirit. In a world of dreary blockbusters and 'dark' reboots, this Trek, though grittier in terms of design than anything before, shines, from opening to closing, as an example of optimistic, exciting, thrilling, humorous, and thoroughly enjoyable adventure cinema, as well as a great addition to Trek's long, long history.

I haven't seen the original Star Trek but it has a reputation for being heavy on the technobabble and continuity lockout. This film is an attempt to remake it closer to a traditional Hollywood blockbuster and it works. It is easy to follow and full of exciting action, though I can't compare it with the original.

For folks who dissed this movie, and the second, because it wasn't the Star Trek of yester year, get over it. Roddenbury rolling over in his grave? Oh, please. The events in the first movie somehow made all the other off-shoots impossible? Yikes! How does anything in this movie affect the series with Piccard, Janeway, etc.? Give it a break, eh?

Yeah, both movies had some corny lines and one or two ridiculous scenarios (Spock and Uhura making out?), but the first two movies in this reboot were great fun. The actors were brilliant even when their lines weren't, the action decent. Was either movie award-worthy? No, but not every movie has to be in order to enjoy it. I wasn't disappointed. Both kept me very well entertained. Sometimes it's good just to sit back, relax, enjoy, and not take everything so damn seriously.

Now, the third installment is altogether another matter. While it did have its moments, it was really terribly written. There is a limit to how much even good actors can do with pervasively bad lines, and how much slop a viewer can put up with. And if Hollywood doesn't stop with their "wokeness", I think I'll have to stick with foreign flicks.

I have to confess to being one of those people who never thought they should 'reboot' the original Star Trek franchise. William Shatner and co were so engrained in their respective roles that I didn't think anyone could fill their exact shoes (even if they were supposed to be their younger selves).

I was wrong.

Star Trek (XI) is undoubtedly the best of the franchise since The Wrath of Khan. If follows the early years of the most famous crew in sci-fi history. Yes, every actor nails his or her character (possibly with the minor exception of Simon Pegg as Scotty, but that's a minor gripe). Also, this isn't just 'Star Trek The Early Years' - the story cleverly weaves in the old mythology - I won't say too much on that in case you're not aware of how it all plays out.

I will say that (if you can forgive JJ Abrams slightly overused 'lens flare effects') it is the most exciting of all the Trek movies. There's plenty of action and decent special effects. It doesn't quite rival Star Wars - it seems to be able to maintain its 'alternativeness' to the other great sci-fi franchise. It doesn't just breathe new life into the franchise (Star Trek X was a little disappointing), it makes 'Trek' accessible to the masses. If you don't know your Tribbles from your Borg, it really doesn't matter - this starts everything again and you don't need to know the backstory - you only need to be in for a good, popcorn-munching, sci-fi ride.

May this franchise live long and prosper.

I was one of the few lucky fans who attended the Sydney premiere and my impression was "Wow!" The use of a well known Roddenberry plot device to reset the franchise was a brilliant idea and means the franchise can now move forward without the "FANS" shouting "canon!" The movie itself was brilliantly cast and performed with each actor being enough like the original to be believable in the role without the over the top acting that was part of TV when it all began in the 1960's.The special effects are top notch.

Its a film which you can take anyone who enjoys sci-fi to, not just someone who knows the last 40+ years of Trek.

So what level of fan am I? I own 3 costumes, attend conventions and appear in "Trekkies 2", and yet loved Enterprise because from the first episode I simply said its was in an alternate universe, its the same but different. I view this film in the same light, same but different.