Resistance is futile: New 'Star Trek' exerts a strong pull
By Claudia Puig, USA TODAY
Unlike previous incarnations, there are no weighty scenarios or moral quandaries in this refashioning of Star Trek. It's an energetic sci-fi extravaganza, with spectacular action sequences and nifty visuals.
Clearly aimed at broader audiences than die-hard fans, it boldly goes a long way where previous Star Treks haven't gone before. We get the back stories of the two contentious leads, Spock and Kirk, which fill in a lot of blanks.
A time-travel scenario has potential — and a key appearance on a remote ice planet is likely to thrill devotees — but the time flight doesn't jell.
Still, when it comes to sheer spectacle, Star Trek, as re-imagined by J.J. Abrams, delivers.
It's the USS Enterprise's maiden voyage, and intergalactic warfare looms. The interaction among the characters on the ship, however, is most fascinating. We meet the cocky renegade James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) and the half-Vulcan, half-human Spock (Zachary Quinto). Though both are fine in roles made famous by William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, Quinto impresses with a thoughtful performance that avoids caricature.
We learn that Kirk was a hellion growing up in Iowa and that brainy Spock suffered the slurs of Vulcan bullies. They become friends, but the film creates a conflict around their early years. It also posits a surprising relationship between Spock and the linguist Uhura (Zoe Saldana).
Simon Pegg is perfectly cast as the upbeat engineer Scotty. John Cho, as helmsman Sulu, shows he can be as convincing an action hero as he was a stoner in the Harold & Kumar comedies. Karl Urban has some of the funniest lines as the irascible yet likable McCoy. Anton Yelchin does a humorously over-the-top Russian accent as young Chekhov. Eric Bana is virtually unrecognizable as Nero, the evil Romulan ruler who despises Spock and menaces the Enterprise.
Creator Gene Roddenberry's idea of an enlightened future takes a back seat to pyrotechnics. The film starts with a bold action sequence; later battles grow frenetic. Throughout, the human factor burns brightest.
Given the volume of Trek lore, aficionados may find plenty to take apart. But non-Trekkers are likely to be transported by this latest voyage on the mother ship of sci-fi sagas.
8 comments:
We're going to try and get some babysitting this weekend in order to check this out. Haven't seen a movie since...jeez, I think Slumdog.
Review: 'Star Trek' is exhilarating
(CNN) -- Did somebody just reach through the space-time continuum and pull out a white rabbit?
The crew of the Enterprise, led by James Kirk (Chris Pine, left) goes forth on a new voyage.
1 of 2 Even diehard Trekkers might agree that Capt. James Tiberius Kirk's best days are behind him, but by going boldly back into the past for "Star Trek" -- a "reboot" of the famed series -- director J.J. Abrams and crew have done more than prove the point. They've presented him with a whole new future.
This exhilarating blockbuster gets under way at warp speed with a prologue that climaxes with Jim's birth -- under fire from angry Romulans -- and the heroic self-sacrifice of his father, who goes down with his Starfleet command. Life, death and special effects!
The widow Kirk doesn't get much of a look. Next thing we know, James T. is an angry teenager hot-rodding in a vintage convertible and nearly throwing himself off a cliff in the process. A few years later, he's still the impetuous hothead, getting into a barroom brawl with a company of space cadets and then reporting to the Academy himself the next morning.
A Cold War hero who doves could dig, Kirk has always been a projection of American "soft power," a gunboat commander on an intergalactic peacekeeping mission. He's not perfect, but his flaws are human -- and in the Cold War context, American flaws: he's stubborn (or determined), irrational (independent) and above all, emotional (feeling). He never met an alien of the opposite sex he didn't like or a problem too complex for his gut.
These traits have a youthful, Kennedy-esque character, so it makes sense that they're accentuated in Chris Pine's portrait of the captain as a raw Starfleet recruit, bucking the system. No offense to William Shatner, but it's been a long, long time since Kirk was this sexy.
Spock traditionally mitigates Kirk's hot-blooded excess with a dose of cold, hard logic. In the classic Gene Roddenberry scheme of things, the Enterprise runs most smoothly with both men side by side on the bridge. Watch how the actors shot a key scene in the movie »
In this new, young, sometimes angry "Star Trek" -- written by Abrams cohorts Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman ("Alias") -- most of the running time they're banging heads, rubbing each other the wrong way. In the development most likely to dismay "Trek" traditionalists, they even have eyes for the same girl (Zoe Saldana as a prickly Uhura).
Don't Miss
New 'Star Trek' attracts fresh blood, high hopes
iReport.com: Why do you love 'Star Trek'?
EW.com: A 'Star Trek' timeline
Despite the tension between them, Zachary Quinto's young Spock is considerably less aloof than Leonard Nimoy's; Quinto stresses confusion and earnest self-doubt where Nimoy mined cool irony. The performance makes sense, in context, but the balance of the story doesn't allow the younger actor to step out the of older Vulcan's shadow in the same way.
This is definitively Kirk's -- and Chris Pine's -- movie: brash, confident and affectionate.
It's cleverly cast across the board, from Winona Ryder, quietly effective as Spock's earthling mom, to Eric Bana, a tattooed and wrathful Romulan. Karl Urban ("Bones" McCoy), John Cho (Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Chekov) and Simon Pegg (Scotty) are physically close enough to evoke their counterparts from the original show, but they're not the finished article, which is where a lot of humor comes in. Orci and Kurtzmann have crafted brisk, snappy scenes for each of them, playfully bouncing off our shared sense of these men's future (our past).
You'll notice I haven't explained the plot, and I don't propose to try. Whether it will stand the test of time -- or even a second viewing -- I don't know. But I do know I watched this movie with a big smile on my face; it's a film with a near-permanent twinkle in its eye.
The new Enterprise is a joy to behold. The movie positively gleams with big-budget production design and deep-space special effects. If the studios are smart, they'll be lining up to get J.J. Abrams to rejuvenate every other washed-up franchise in town. May his work live long and prosper.
i'm in, but some of my work geek friends have said the really rabid trekkies aren't all loving it.
the reviews are not universally positive, unless you think roger ebert giving it what amounts to a C+ a positive review.
Ebert is in the extreme minority, Rotten Tomatoes has Trek at 96% positive reviews out of 188.
A co-worker of mine saw it last night and has been raving about it, I'm getting excited!
Tony and I are going to try to go this Saturday, probably an early show since I'm sure the evening will be packed.
Saw it last night.
The good:
- Fun fun fun.
- All the actors clearly enjoyed inhabiting these icons.
- Plenty of sci-fi action with lasers, transporters, and photon torpedoes and the like.
- Hot green chick in underwear.
- Made me want to go back and finally watch TOS.
The not-so-good:
- Not as "smart" as usual Abrams fare.
- Whole thing felt a bit rushed: "3 Years Later." Left little time for character development (especially relationships, which basically are etched in shorthand).
- Also I want more background on Starfleet, the training, the organization, etc.
Verdict: Really fun reimagining of ST as an action flick in the Die Hard vein. Probably not going to please some diehard Trekkies, but should have mass appeal.
Very accurate description Landshark. There were 2 things that disturbed me as a pretty die hard Trekker but overall I really liked it. I don't want to mention my 2 things until I'm sure everyone has seen it.
Post a Comment