Review: Star Trek Written By Matthew Watkins on 5.29.09
Admittedly, we are a little behind the times here at ReelGamers. Due in part to our own somewhat lackadaisical approach, as well as the fact the site's resurrection came a busy time of year. Here, however, is a review of Star Trek. As some crumbling historian might have remarked, “better late than never.”
All in all, it's not a bad way to kick of the summer. Despite the insistent grumblings of my associates and colleagues about the inadequacies of Mr. Abrams, I found myself whisked away by the momentary fervor that surrounded the early May release Star Trek. (I'm still not sure where all the hate toward Abrams comes from, and maybe I've just taken a scientifically bad sample, but in my humble opinion, the man has done pretty damn well for himself.) Like it or hate him, J.J. Abrams can produce a film, and his certainly knows how to turn a buck. Star Trek is a perfect example of this, as it has already raked in a hearty pile of cash. Luckily for the viewers, Abrams has also crafted a fine piece of summer entertainment. More roller coaster than fine art, of course, but wonderful, pop-corn munching, junior-mint-sucking, nachos-nibbling visual pleasure.
As sort of the origin story of origin stories, Star Trek goes back to the beginning of the Star Trek Saga. How far back, you wonder? Well, Kirk is born on screen. (It doesn't get much closer to the start, unless you're really interested in the conception.) In any case, Abrams makes childbirth interesting by... putting it in the middle of an epic space battle. Not a bad way to get our attention. Which is what Abrams is truly great at: catching us, and holding us tightly pressed to the screen. After this initial thrust of action, the film never really lets up.
We're introduced to the all the characters, Spock, Kirk, Uhura, Pike, etc. They all come at you quickly, and the viewer is rapidly wrapped up in their respective dramas. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman do an admirable job of branding each character with, at the very least, a small arc for them to travel along. This gives the work a more robust feeling than it deserves, since Eric Bana's villian, Nero, is the least interesting thing on screen. He's not bad, he's simply not as engaging and is therefore revealed to be comparatively weak.
Zachary Quinto, for his part, is rather good. As an unabashed hater of Heroes I was fully expecting to roll my eyes every time he stepped on screen. He's powerful though, and he's got an impressive stare, which he utilizes quite often. As Kirk's foil, he's great. Chris Pine's Kirk is way more maverick hotshot than brilliant Star Fleet captain, but Pine does a good job of planting the seeds for the later development of the character. The chemistry between Kirk and Spock is a centerpiece of the film, and both actors carry their scenes together well. The viewer knows how it's all going to end up, but the journey there is a viable source of interest.
My one major gripe, which I've seen echoed around the dark corners of the internet, is Abrams incessant need for flare. (Mind the spelling, that's not “flair!”) The film doesn't go five minutes without a strange lens flare occurring right in the center of the frame. It's not exactly stylistically interesting, and I suspect most people don't even react to it. I was left wondering what the goal was. The majority of people who will really notice it will probably just be annoyed by it, so it seemed like a waste of time. It's rare that sci-fi gets to find its way to the big screen with such an impressive budget and cast, so relish the moment.
