Great effects, good casting and a plot that didn't suck

Rating: 7/10 (10 May 2009)

Visually dazzling.
Frenetically paced.
And amazingly, the plot did not suck.
These may be among the thoughts you'll be having after watching this sea-change in the Star Trek franchise from Bad Robot and Paramount.
As a fan of the original TV series, I was deeply concerned about how this universe and its characters would be handled by the studio, writers and director that brought us such turds as 'Cloverfield,' 'Transformers,' and 'Felicity.' 'Star Trek' is supposed to be the thinking-man's sci-fi. Oh sure, there's always the occasional bug-eyed monster, but the conflicts typically depicted in the TV show were of ideology, history, or conceptual science. In episode after episode, Kirk and his crew began their next adventure by having all their fancy weapons rendered useless by some overwhelmingly powerful set of circumstances and would invariably end up having to conceptualize their way out of a jam. That show's creators knew it was the human capacity for understanding that was the key to our future. Technical understanding, yes. But ethical and spiritual understanding, too.
So when I saw trailers for this supposed prequel with spectacular effects, collisions, and a young Kirk reinvented as Dennis the Menace, I was dubious to say the least.
And right away, my worst fears seemed confirmed. Ignoring any sense of pacing and story, we're dropped right away into the middle of some slam-bam action sequence jammed with quick-cut edits of people screaming, sparks flying, space-ships flopping around and big puffy explosions. In another opening sequence, a raffish, perhaps eleven-year-old James T. Kirk steals his step-dad's 20th century car and proceeds to drive it off a cliff – right after leaping out of it. Then a perhaps 20-something Kirk boozes his way into a bar fight over a girl and gets his clock cleaned.
No.
My Captain James T. Kirk was a daredevil only in his spare time. Always an ambitious climber, tactician, and scholar first. A 23rd century cold warrior who knew how to take orders as well as bend them. Oh sure, he might have raised a little hell at the academy now and again, but always more a grade-grabber than ass-grabber.
How did this film win me over? Everything it does right it does really right: Jaw-droppingly realistic effects sequences, smart casting, crisp acting and just the right tone for all the inside jokes and homages.
When our heroes are forced to parachute onto a titanic space-drill dangling in the stratosphere over the planet Vulcan, it's about as realistic and eye-popping a sci-fi scene as a movie-goer could hope for.
In case you missed the trailers, we meet all the original characters from the TV show as their careers begin aboard the USS Enterprise. Obviously, they could not have been played by the now greatly aged cast from the old TV show. A circumstance bound to breed hesitancy, especially among fans. But not only do we buy the new actors assigned to these old roles due to some uncanny physical resemblances, but we embrace them utterly the second they evince the slightest familiar affectation of each beloved role. When Karl Urban's updated Dr. McCoy winces and mutters "You pointy-eared hop-goblin," after a frustrating exchange with Spock, you buy it hook, line and sinker. We catch only whiffs of Bill Shatner's Kirk from the largely untested Chris Pine. But who really could adequately fill William Shatner's shoes? The real star of this film is Zachary Quinto's Spock. His performance never misses a note in capturing that character's inner demons and new challenges.
Where does this updated 'Star Trek' go wrong? First: pacing. Apparently it would kill the makers of this film to give us a breather or moment's rest from or reflection on the endless action sequences that crowd up this film like rowdy teenagers at a frat party. Give us a break already. Establish a scene. Set a tone. Gimme a chance to re-fill my Coke.
Second: Violence. Not just violent scenes, but the violence done to the vision of the Star Trek universe. In the 1960's, Gene Roddenberry envisioned a more evolved human race that had more fully embraced the virtues of calm reason, personal dignity, and unwavering good will. This film's fleet cadets routinely swear, misbehave, and otherwise act coarsely or callously. It's a little disheartening and I preferred it when we had Roddenberry's future to aspire to.
Third: theme. With the exception of 'The Voyage Home,' it seems like every Star Trek movie since 'Wrath of Khan' has involved some personal vendetta between a Starfleet commander and some ticked-off alien. Sadly, the present film is no exception. I understand Hollywood probably thinks it's risky to bet box-office returns on the intelligence of the average American movie-goer, but it can't be any worse than churning out the same silly vendetta story over and over. I'd prefer they challenge themselves to challenge us all with a fresh story more reminiscent of the old TV show.
What ultimately saves this film from its otherwise equal balance sheet of pros and cons? A little thing called story. Beneath all the glammed-up effects and winking Hollywood smart-assery, is an actual story about actual feelings involving conceptual science. And this (air-quotes) "story" actually manages to explain everything from Kirk's new raffishness to Spock's new humanity. It respectfully, almost reverently ties this new franchise to the old and we are left feeling eager for the next installment.
If this franchise's writers and directors can stay focused on the Star Trek tradition of stories that make its audiences think a little, it will hopefully live long and prosper.
This movie review by Erik Gloor