"Star Trek"

By David Hudson on 05/07/2009

[Updated through 5/10]

"A bright, shiny blast from a newly imagined past, 'Star Trek,' the latest spinoff from the influential TV show, isn't just a pleasurable rethink of your geek uncle's favorite science-fiction series," writes Manohla Dargis in the New York Times. "It's also a testament to television's power as mythmaker, as a source for some of the fundamental stories we tell about ourselves, who we are and where we came from. The original captain (William Shatner, bless his loony lights) and creator (Gene Roddenberry, rest in peace) may no longer be onboard, but the spirit of adventure and embrace of rationality that define the show are in full swing, as are the chicks in minis and kicky boots."

"JJ Abrams's 'Star Trek' is a gift to those of us who loved the original series, that brainy, wonky, idealistic body of work that aired to almost no commercial success between 1966 and 1969 and has since become a science fiction archetype and object of cult adoration." Dana Stevens in Slate: "For fans who grew up watching the show in ubiquitous after-school reruns and who commandeered the La-Z-Boy as an impromptu captain's chair, 'Star Trek' is neither a franchise nor a property. It's a world. Abrams's cannily constructed prequel respects (for the most part) the rules of that world and, more importantly, retains the original 'Star Trek's' spirit of optimism, curiosity, and humor."

Back to the NYT for a moment, then: Abrams was no Trekkie, and hardly even a fan, and Dave Itzkoff finds this "emblematic of why this particular team, comprising broad sci-fi fans and a couple of 'Trek' aficionados, has been handed control of a fantasy franchise that is one of the most recognizable in entertainment yet was in serious disrepair, a victim of diminished expectations and waning enthusiasm. Mr Abrams and his partners are guys with mainstream pop-culture aspirations; their forte is taking on genres with finite but dedicated fan bases - science fiction, fantasy and horror - and making them accessible to wider audiences. And what they had in mind for their 'Star Trek' movie is a film that is consistent with 43 years of series history but not beholden to it."

"It takes lot of gall to recast characters as iconic as Captain Kirk and Mister Spock with fresh-faced barely knowns, promising in the annoying ad campaign that 'this is not your father's "Star Trek,"'" writes Sean Burns. "The punch line is: No matter what the TV commercials and billboards might say, this really is your father's 'Star Trek.' Sure, there's a fresh coat of CGI paint, and everybody's impossibly good-looking in a modernized, metrosexual sorta way, but Abrams has captured the upbeat sense of adventure that defined Gene Roddenberry's original 1960s series. More than any 'Trek' project in decades, this one conjures the camaraderie, the easy humor and most important the swagger we associate with headstrong Jim Kirk and his logical, pointy-eared pal. Rare for a landscape dominated by dour popcorn blockbusters, this one isn't afraid to be fun." Also in the Philadelphia Weekly, Matt Prigge lists "Six Belated Prequels."

"[G]iving the extremist fans something to complain about seems to be part of Abrams's merry scheme to damn the (photon) torpedoes and ram home his re-imagined version of 'Trek' with the velocity of a professional's tennis serve," writes IFC guest critic Gene Seymour. "And the volleys come at you, high and hard, from the birth of future Enterprise captain James Tiberius Kirk while his newly-widowed mom barely escapes a dying starship to the growth of young Kirk (Chris Pine) into a thrill-seeking delinquent challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to fulfill his martyred father's legacy by enlisting in Starfleet Academy. Meanwhile, young Spock (Zachary Quinto) makes his own rebellious way into Starfleet as a gesture of defiance to his planet's elders, who'd rather he stayed home and taught science. The crossing of their paths is depicted here as a rocky one, with Spock 2.0 openly, even fiercely disdainful towards the brash Kirk 2.0."

"Spock is the centerpiece," writes Robert Wilonsky, "not only as played by Quinto as the tormented youth in revolt raised by the Vulcan Sarek (Ben Cross) and human Amanda (Winona Ryder, almost unrecognizable), but also in the form of Leonard Nimoy, the once-dead first officer who's lived long enough to travel back in time to offer sage advice to old friends in need of - dare one say it - the human touch. Nimoy's scenes elicit genuine emotion, not just the nostalgist's thrill of familiarity or the newcomer's delight at discovery. When Spock tells a young Jim Kirk, 'I have been and always shall be your friend,' or when he realizes a 'Live long and prosper' salutation simply will not do, it's enough to move even a 'Star Wars' fan to tears." Also in the Voice, a cartoon from Ward "Energize!" Sutton: "Why Shatner Isn't in 'Star Trek.'" And he explicates a bit at the Huffington Post.

"It's the Spock plot strands that give the new 'Trek' its best shot at once again commanding the zeitgeist," argues Steve Daily in Newsweek, and it's here that I want to interject an online viewing tip (#1): "Vulcan: The Soul of Spock," a 20-minute video essay by Matt Zoller Seitz for the L Magazine. And on a related note, Jeff Greenwald in Salon: "Big thinkers in both print media and the blogosphere - from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd to MIT media moguls - have referenced the Enterprise's science officer in recent months, drawing parallels between the dependably logical half-Vulcan and another mixed-race icon: Barack Obama."

Back to Steve Daily: "There's one more intriguing allegorical overtone to the new 'Trek,' perhaps completely accidental. With the willfully hegemonic Bush administration now gone, the tenets of Roddenberry's fictional universe feel very much in step with current events. Whether you're happy about it or not, the Obama foreign policy, at least for now, emphasizes cross-cultural exchange and eschews imperialistic swagger. That sounds very much in sync with the Federation's Prime Directive, which stipulates that humanity should observe but never interfere with alien cultures (no Iraq-style invasions, in other words)."

And back to Newsweek. "[H]ow do we account for the more than 40-year run of 'Star Trek'?" asks Leonard Mlodinow, one of the writers on "The Next Generation": "I would like to think it was the work of a few of us talented scribes, marching in lockstep with the genius series creator. Since 'Star Trek,' unlike James Bond, 'Star Wars' and most other megafranchises, is the child of television, its vision is really the vision of its writers."

"If you care about this universe (and I do, damn it), you won't sit passively through JJ Abrams's restart 'Trek,'" writes David Edelstein in New York. "You'll marvel at the smarts and wince at the senselessness. You'll nitpick it to death and thrill to it anyway."

Not so fast, say some: "Will this be a start of another Five-Year Mission, or the last spectacular tribute to a journey now long since passed?" wonders Jason Sperb. "It may seem unfair to compare one isolated film to a whole multi-media, multi-textual, decades-long franchise, but that is the challenging paradox - the risk and the reward - that any film version of 'Star Trek' (or other reboot) takes on today." But "there is no way around the fact that this is just not a very clever story (interesting, perhaps, but by default as it charts a chapter in 'Trek' hitherto largely unrepresented), nor does it contain a single particularly provocative idea, and being the long philosophically-oriented 'Star Trek,' this is not a matter to take lightly."

"Had Abrams taken the chances that Ron Moore did with his 'Battlestar Galactica' reimagining, this might have been a franchise worth getting excited over," argues Ed Champion. "But Abrams's failure to shake up the 'Star Trek' universe while remaining fundamentally true to the franchise's underlying appeal is a sign that some mausoleums are best left sealed and that reinvention is another way of saying that you're out of fresh ideas."

"[E]very time I almost gave myself over to the humming 'Trek' machine, a wrench was inevitably thrown into the works," writes Kyle Buchanan for Movieline. "Sometimes, it was the dialogue, where writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman rarely bothered to craft any lines more interesting than 'I knew I should have killed you when I had the chance!' Sometimes, it was the makeup... And sometimes, it was the frenetic camera work. Abrams may know how to shoot a muscular action sequence (and with his peripatetic, swooping camera, you'd better believe that every conversation on the Enterprise bridge is shot like it's a car commercial), but when the action moves into close-quarters fighting, it becomes near-impossible to spatially follow. That said? I still had a good time."

"It's a requisite of the summer blockbuster movie formula to offer the male viewer opportunities for sexual fantasy within the proceedings in the most unremarkable fashion, if for no other reason than to guarantee his continued interest," writes Karina Longworth at the SpoutBlog. "So I feel no guilt or shame in saying that whenever my attention started to drift from 'Star Trek's' march towards inevitability (in this origin story context, it should not be a spoiler to reveal that the core crew of the Enterprise survive their mission intact and ready for a sequel), I was soon drawn back in by a new opportunity to appreciate Chris Pine's sheer hotness."

"So why, this time, five TV series and 10 movies into the franchise, does this reboot of 'Star Trek' feel so fresh and entertaining - entertaining for perhaps the first time since the scenes between Data and the Borg Queen in 'First Contact'?" asks Paul Matwychuk. "It's not just that the cast is younger and sexier, although that helps. It's that the people behind the camera... feel young as well. They respect the 'Star Trek' universe, but except for the scenes where Leonard Nimoy turns up as a time-traveling future version of Spock, they aren't weighed down by the stifling reverence for the past that's been suffocating every incarnation of 'Star Trek' for nearly a decade now."

"Geeks will rev their engines, but the unexpected elegance of director JJ Abrams's reboot of the franchise comes in its large-scale disavowal of easy nostalgia," writes Joshua Rothkopf in Time Out New York. "Abrams, responsible for TV's 'Felicity,' 'Alias' and 'Lost,' has small-screen punch in mind."

"JJ Abrams has improved significantly as a director since 'Mission: Impossible III,'" finds Sean Axmaker. "He has a lighter touch this time around, with plenty of humor (at times coming dangerously close to the event horizon of flippancy) and real eye-candy spectacle and cosmic imagery."

"The happiest notes struck by the new cast are mostly comedic riffs on their predecessors," finds Bill Weber in Slant. "Karl Urban's irascibly technophobic Bones McCoy, Anton Yelchin supplying teenage Chekov's vaudeville Russian accent, and most broadly Simon Pegg, in his element as Scotty, because only a comedian can now bellow, 'I'm givin' 'er all she's got!,' from the engine room."

"[T]his summer spectacular will prove a largely thrilling surprise, its blend of humor, romance and action so kinetically orchestrated that calling out its shortcomings feels like excessive carping," writes Nick Schager. Also in Screengrab, Scott Von Doviak: "'Star Trek' is an undeniably fun summer ride - it's got the big thrills, big laughs and special effects that blow away any and all earlier incarnations of Trek, and only rarely insults the intelligence. (You won't want to give too much deep thought to the 'science' involving black holes and red matter.)"

"It doesn't all work," concedes Tom Huddleston in Time Out London: "Eric Bana's Romulan villain feels too familiar, just another plasticine-headed psychopath with a grudge against the universe. The climax, too, is undercooked: ten minutes of noisy ship-to-ship combat with very little emotional investment. But these are minor complaints when stacked against Abrams's many successes."

"It's hard to express in mere words how wonderful JJ Abrams's 'Star Trek' reboot is, especially for a worn in the wool die-hard 'Trek' head like yours truly," writes Bill Gibron at PopMatters. "It's a silly, grinning from ear to ear experience, a 'wow' that works overtime to keep from ever letting you down."

"'Star Trek' is easily the summer tentpole movie by which all of 2009's summer tentpole movies will be measured," writes Alonso Duralde at MSNBC.

No, it's "an entertaining diversion and little more," argues Eric Kohn in Moving Pictures.

More from Shaun Brady (Philadelphia City Paper), Paul Constant (Stranger), Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), Jeffrey Gantz (Boston Phoenix, where Brett Michel has a bit of background), Ambrose Heron, JR Jones (Chicago Reader), Robert Levin (Critic's Notebook), Neil Morris (Independent Weekly), Keith Phipps (AV Club), Mary Pols (Time), Jarmo Puskala, Duncan Shepherd (San Diego Reader) and Armond White (New York Press).

The Telegraph goes absolutely bananas with its special "Star Trek" section.

In a long conversation at the House Next Door, Jason Bellamy and Ed Howard "explore the factors that make 'Star Trek' beloved and belittled."

Time's Lev Grossman thinks back to what the franchise has meant to him all these years - and considers why it'll never be as "intimate" an experience again.

Steve Rose talks with Abrams and the Guardian presents a "beginners' guide to everything you really need to know about this seminal series (including how to dress like Captain Kirk)."

At AICN, Mr Beaks talks with screenwriters Orci and Kurtzman.

Online viewing tip #2. FirstShowing's Alex Billington talks with Orci and Kurtzman, too.

Online viewing tip #3. James Rocchi talks with the principles for MSN.

Online viewing tip #4. That Onion video you've most likely seen, "Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable.'"

Online viewing tip #5. The Guardian's Ben Child talks with Bana.

Online viewing tip #6. Joanna Cohen talks with Abrams; below that window, you'll find an annotated list of Abrams's five favorite movies.

Earlier: "'Star Trek,' Abrams and Wired."

Updates, 5/8: "Why have we filmgoers wasted so much of our time and attention on all those other beta-male bondings and under-par buddy hookups when the greatest friendship of all was right there under our noses?" asks the Guardian's Peter Bradshaw. "The story of Kirk and Spock is brought thrillingly back to life by a new first generation: Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, who give inspired, utterly unselfconscious and lovable performances, with power, passion and some cracking comic timing. It's a film in which my chief emotion was a kind of grinning embarrassment at enjoying it all quite so much."

"[N]ever mind how odd and welcome it is to have a summer blockbuster about institutional tradition and public service as a key to individual achievement," writes James Rocchi for MSN. "Never mind that after too many summer films revolve around superhumans and robots, it's nice to see a film about what ordinary mortals are capable of in the defense of the greater good. Never mind the pop-politics synchronicity of a show kicked off by Kennedy-era optimism coming back for the Obama era. The people behind 'Star Trek' must be thinking of all that stuff, but it never gets in the way of the story or the fun."

"The characters, the relationships, the technology: It's pure Star Trek,'" writes Jeffrey Overstreet. "But the story?... This is 'Star Wars' territory, folks."

"'Star Trek' is an affectionate, exuberant picture that seeks to bring even those who don't know Klingon from Portuguese into the embrace of a pop-culture phenomenon," writes Stephanie Zacharek in Salon.

More from James Christopher (London Times), Anthony Lane (New Yorker), Shawn Levy (Oregonian), Derek Malcolm (Evening Standard), Pete Vonder Haar (Film Threat), Kim Voynar (Movie City News), Scott Weinberg (Cinematical), Michael Wilmington (MCN) and Andrew Wright (Parallax View).

For Slate, Arika Okrent tracks the history of Klingon.

Catherine Grant outdoes herself again: "Star Trek Studies Online."

Updates, 5/9: "At this point, Capt Kirk and Spock might as well have been real people," writes the San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle. "The emotions they incite are as strong as the ones associated with the most beloved historical figures, and the great thing about the new 'Star Trek' movie is that the filmmakers know it."

"Boldly Going Deep into Freudian Analysis," a conversation between Benjamin Sutton and Henry Stewart at the L Magazine.

"Paramount has already demonstrated enthusiasm for their newest 'Star Trek' caretakers by inking a deal for a second Abrams 'Trek' film before the first one was even released," notes Bruce Bennett at Stop Smiling. "In corporate entertainment a safe bet is often a bad sign. JJ Abrams's 'Star Trek' is exactly the kind of middle-of-the-road, impersonal multiplex fodder that gives production execs a peaceful night's sleep."

Jonathan Kiefer, writing for KQED, finds this an "audaciously entertaining outing, which remains just aware enough of the mythology's most cherished moments to move on without dishonoring them. Abrams's appropriately funny, silly and exciting new take on 'Trek' clearly understands its original mission objectives, and puts extra emphasis on the boldly going."

"I think this playful movie should be a perfectly enjoyable evening out for non-'Star Trek' devotees, but it's definitely a wink-wink treat for devotees of the original series," writes Robert Horton for the Herald.

Dave Itzkoff has a fun talk with Leonard Nimoy for the New York Times.

"[W]hat exactly is a reboot, and how does it differ from a remake, a revamp or a re-imagining?" At the Daily Beast, Tom Shone presents "six rules of the road for giving a time-tested franchise a shot in the arm."

Online listening tip. An On Point roundtable.

Updates, 5/10: "'Star Trek' was, from the start, more nostalgic than futuristic," argues David Hajdu in the New York Times.

"[T]he TV series commented on most of the big issues of the past 40 years: war, sexism, racism, animal rights, the environment, religion, sexuality," writes Marc Bain. "The latest film version of 'Star Trek,' however, is more brawn than brain, and it largely jettisons complicated ethical conundrums in favor of action sequences and special effects." Also at Newsweek, a bit of online viewing: Nimoy and Quinto discuss Spock.

"I was teaching at the University of Texas in 1972 when William Shatner, a well-regarded Shakespearean actor before getting the role of James Tiberius Kirk, captain of the Enterprise, came to appear as Angelo in a student production of 'Measure for Measure' at St Edward's University, a small, liberal arts college in Austin," recalls Philip French in the Observer. "None of my students showed the slightest interest in his visit. Shatner, I later learnt, was having a thin time. Then things changed."

Matt Maul, with spoilers, at the House Next Door.

"For a franchise that has fallen so far away from its original glory, puffing its origins up to gargantuan size is exactly what the show needs right now to get back into the good graces of both fans and curious newcomers," writes Simon Abrams at the House Next Door. "For once, bigger is better. And, in this case, oddly more personal."

"Abrams's love of a heightened, almost operatic emotion inflecting his slam-bam action, more Baroness Orczy than Michael Bay, is in evidence from the opening sequence," writes Roderick Heath. And yet, "despite is strengths and undeniable entertainment factor, Star Trek finally, and not so subtly, disappoints."

[Photo: "Star Trek," Paramount Pictures, 2009]

Tags: Alex Kurtzman, Chris Pine, Gene Roddenberry, JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci, Star Trek, Zachary Quinto