See it

Rating: 10/10 (12 May 2009)

I'll start by admitting the following: I'm an old-school, original series fan; I reluctantly accepted "The Next Generation" after it was well into syndication; never watched "Deep Space Nine" or the other spin-off series; have never attended a Star Trek convention; but know every episode of the original show inside and out. I've seen all the movies, & think ST II, III, & IV were the only ones worth the price of admission. Each subsequent film seemed to get worse. All that is to provide some context for what follows, and to explain why my expectations for this film were very low.
I was, however, pleasantly surprised. Strong points include cinematography, set design, story, character development, costume design, creativity, and fun. As a dyed-in-the-wool fan, I was on the look out for inconsistencies of plot, technology, character history, etc. Many such inconsistencies began to appear within the first few minutes for the film, and I resigned myself to a post-modern deconstruction of the original series characters. This is especially true of James T. Kirk, who appears not as the powerful but controlled, suave, entirely confident, all-around capable leader we know from the 60's series, but rather, as a raw, brash, impulsive, unformed pre-character version (a la Daniel Craig's James Bond in "Casino Royale").
The story, however, cleverly winds around itself to provide not only a time-warping explanation of these inconsistencies, but more importantly, establishes an entire new timeline/divergence/parallel universe, whose essence is familiar to science fiction fans, and whose employment here creates an entirely new treatment of Star Trek. It provides the franchise with a new lease on life, independent of the history of the old series and its successors. In other words, it is a fresh new start.
This is infinitely preferable (for me) to a plodding homage, attempting simply to retell an old story over again -- the worst example of which is perhaps the abysmal "Superman Returns." I think it also provides younger viewers with the opportunity to form their own (current) attachments to Star Trek and its characters. Whatever this says about our culture, at the very least, it's good for the box office.
On the down side, the script was frankly a bit weak. An ample helping of familiar aphorisms from the old show was served out to please old fans -- e.g., Dr. McCoy's famous "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a (fill in the blank)," but with enough restraint to keep the film from becoming a parody. These were dished out sparingly at first, and with increasing frequency as the characters began to evolve into the more familiar constellation of relationships one recalls from the original series. The rest of the script, however, lacked a bit of punch. Trekkies will no doubt compare it unfavorably with the script in "Wrath of Khan," which was stellar.
Nonetheless, this is a minor criticism of what was overall an enjoyable and inventive treatment, reviving an old mythology for a new audience (without alienating an older one). Honestly -- and truly -- none of these films is "Lawrence of Arabia" -- but within its genre, I have to give it a strong 9 out of 10. And I am planning to see the as-yet-unwritten sequel. My recommendation: See it. And definitely on the big screen.