A solid "reboot" of the iconic franchise

Rating: 7/10 (9 May 2009)

To say that "Star Trek" is a cult phenomenon is an understatement of galactical proportions (ha ha, this time the pun is intended!). The fans of the famous series are the butt of jokes from every fabric of our culture (not only do they have a collective name, Trekkies, but TWO documentaries about them!). Their only rival in fan fever that they have is "Star Wars," though I think many of them belong to both parties.
For a long time now, old TV shows have been resurrected on the big screen. Not quite a remake, but a new "version". But ever since the massive success of Christopher Nolan's new vision of the "Batman" franchise, the term "reboot" is the correct lingo. So how does J. J. Abram's "reboot" of the "Star Trek" franchise measure up? Well, it's not Nolan's re-envisioning, although to compare any "reboot" to those films is unfair to just about any movie. Abram's film is a solid start to an inevitable franchise.
Oh, there are flaws. Most of them are little things, like music carrying over when it shouldn't, mildly awkward cuts, and the like. But there are three BIG problems, which I will get to later.
This is an "origin" story, and it feels like one. What makes this different is that it tells one story with one villain, as opposed to propelling the development of the characters through episodic chunks. This direction runs the risk of rushing the development or not adequately doing so, but "Star Trek" avoids doing this.
James Tiberius Kirk is a rebellious young man who has accepted his lot in a life of meaningless existence. However, he is challenged by a Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to join up with the space fleet. Of course, Kirk does this, but he seems more concerned with pursuing women than really working hard. This puts him at odds with Spock (Zachary Quinto), whose Vulcan side makes him a strict adherer to rules and protocol. Nevertheless, they are eventually put together on the U. S. S. Enterprise when they run into a nasty Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who has a nasty habit of turning planets into black holes. Now, Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the crew have to save Pike (who was captured by Nero) and defeat Nero while not getting destroyed (or destroying each other, in the case of Kirk and Spock) in the process.
This is very long winded, but it's relatively straightforward. At least until they insert time-travel into the story. Normally the sci-fi mumbo-jumbo is just frosting on the cake. Not here; it's an intergral part of the story, and I spent a frustrated 10 minutes trying to figure it out.
The performances are where "Star Trek" really shines, and that's probably the most important part of the film. In order to sustain a franchise (which "Star Trek" will undoubtedly become, given the fact that every movie that makes even a dollar more than its cost gets at least two sequels), we have to like the characters and they have to be able to hold the audience's attention. Abram's cast does this, in a way that's actually better than expected.
Everyone gives it their all. Chris Pine is great as the rebellious, somewhat cocky role as Kirk. He's a guy you can root for. The main characters in movies are typically the most grounded, and therefore the least interesting. But Pine injects Kirk with enough personality that he's never dull. Zachary Quinto steals the movie as Spock. He turns what is a one-dimensional character (a rule-abiding nerd) into a fully three-dimensional character. While Kirk may be the "hero" of the movie, it's Spock that we really feel for. Qunito ably conveys Spock's internal conflict between his emotionless-Vulcan side, and his human side, which is anything but. Quinto, of "Heroes" and "24" fame (neither of which I have seen), is an actor to watch. Eric Bana is completely unrecognizable as Nero; he's vicious and a more than worthy adversary to the Enterprise crew, but he's not going to go replace science-fiction's most iconic villain, Darth Vader. Other actors, including Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, and in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo, Winona Ryder, dive into their roles just as fully. Leonard Nimoy brings a wise presence in what is much more than glorified cameo.
Apart from the time-travel confusion, there are other problems. "Star Trek" gets off to a bad start. The problem is that it immediately dives into the story. While there's certainly no crime in getting to the meat of the story quickly, it is essential to have at least some development with the characters. Given the way it turns out, it's not such a big problem here, but even spending a minute or two with the characters would have made it more effective.
The second is the lack of character development. Apart from Kirk, Spock, and to an extent, Nero, no one is even remotely fleshed out. But with a cast this big, it's probably unfair to expect more than the film gives. I guess we'll have to wait for future installments to get to know the secondary characters more.
Is "Star Trek" worth seeing? I liked it. Will the most die-hard fans like it? Not being one myself, I can't say. But I'd say they should give it a shot (if they haven't already). Will it turn me into a Trekkie? Doubtful; I'm not running to Best Buy to buy every season of every show, though I might watch it when it's on TV. Best of all, it's a much needed antidote to the superhero movies, which I have long since tired of.
Note: I saw this at 10:15 on the second day of its release. The theater was dark, but from what I could see, there didn't appear to be anyone dressed up as one of the characters. Make of that what you will.