Movie Thoughts: The New Star Trek

Rating: 9/10 (11 May 2009)

And so, I watched the new Star Trek flick directed by JJ Abrams on Friday morning for $6 (since it was before noon at AMC) with some buddies. It was massively entertaining and I liked it just like everybody else who came with me, although I did have one major nitpick about it (although those who see it will probably know exactly what I mean... but I understand fully why they did that). Definitely, worth watching again. The casting and the acting was excellent. I loved the little fanboy elements, small little details that elevated my appreciation of it, and the visuals are colorful, optimistic, while being mature in its execution. Despite the fact that I was more on the Star Wars side of the Trekkie-Jedi spectrum (at least before the prequels), I did love the old Star Trek series. Cool thing about Star Trek was that although they explored new worlds "physically," in reality it was more of an inner journey that was projected as physical manifestations (just like the great Twilight Zone series), which made you think a little bit more. It also made the cheesy f/x charming, because those things became irrelevant. And, Captain Kirk, what a character! Spock, what a square! (in a good way) Mc Coy was a like a grumpy, emotional grandma, but a ton of fun! Admittedly, much of the movies that came out of it were more about the dogfights than exploring, however. Despite the fact that people do make fun of the first motion picture, I appreciated it simply for the fact that they actually tried to "seek out new civilizations."
Yes, going back to the movie at hand. I loved the fact they got an unknown and not Matt Damon as Captain Kirk. Yea, Matt Damon might as well have been a great choice... but it would just be Matt Damon playing himself. His personality in movies are already too much like Captain Kirk. He's too likable, gets the chicks, and can beat up everybody. I'm sure no one minded Pierce Brosnan becoming James Bond in Goldeneye or Jack Nicholson become the Joker in Bat Man as they were already "perfect" for that role, but seeing Heath "Brokeback Mountain" Ledger becoming the Joker? Unheard of! Hugh Jackman as Wolverine in the first X-men? Hugh who? A blonde Daniel Craig as Bond? What? Just to clarify, these untested unknowns have now "become" these beloved characters to the fanboys. Simply put, these actors had to "try harder" to get over all the hoops and suspicions of the audience and wound up with something better, more original, and daring. While Chris Pine as Kirk wasn't some great breakthrough role, I appreciated the fact that he wound up as far from being any parody or a caricature (Let's face it--how can you NOT make a caricature of Captain Kirk? Everybody....else and...their grandmother....has). True, Karl Urban, being spot-on perfect as Mc Coy ALMOST treaded the line toward caricature, but he was so excellent at it, it was a tear-jerking homage more than anything. Zachary "Sylar" Quinto as Spock--he brought dimension to what could've otherwise have been a flat character in the wrong hands. I generally dislike most portrayals of Vulcans in Star Trek--Leonard Nimoy as Spock was probably the only Vulcan that I liked. I LIKED Sylar's Spock. There was actual inner struggle in this version of Spock, which can be both good and bad, but it makes sense...I'll merely say: "Facinating." Anton Yelchin's Russian accent as Chekov, however...well.... I didn't mind. Wasn't Chekov already kind of like a stereotype? Haha. I dunno. I still liked him. Hey, it was the Cold War back then--having a Russian in a USS starfleet was quite an accomplishment in itself. There were also small and major details I did love. One was a scene where Spock beams down on a planet while crouching. This kind of detail made perfect sense especially assuming that most planetary (or rocky) surfaces are usually not level. Another great treat, a major one, was that there was actually a scene where James Kirk takes the Kobayashi Maru test, which was mentioned before (or would that be late?) in the best (and still best) film of the series, Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan.
Admittedly, much like the other movies of the series, the new Star Trek film doesn't "seek out new civilizations" either. However, given the fact that it's more about the introduction of the characters and their quirks and what they're capable of and how they came to be where they are, I can let that fact go (for now). It may simply be better that they "seek out" in the next movie instead (which hopefully won't be about dogfights but actual exploration). It's sometimes just hard to fit everything in. Even movies like Spider-Man and Batman Begins, where the main character goes through a journey from ordinary to extraordinary, one wonders if it's so important to have a major baddie in the first film given that the bad guy will always lose screen time to the main guy. In the case of this movie, where there are lots of main characters, this discrepancy may be quite noticeable, even though I think Eric Bana as the Romulan baddie Nero handled it perfectly well and I have no real complaints on that regard. After all, thanks to time travel (one of the central parts of my aforementioned nitpick), the bad guy appears to the good guys ready-made and angry, ready for consumption (to become cannon fodder) like an instant TV dinner. I wonder if they have a "bad-guy replicator" in the future? Nitpicks aside, the action is aplenty, the special effects are excellent, the characters are lovable, and you want to see them win (a good sign) and well, what do you expect? Overall, a very good film: 9/10.