Well made and promising, though it has room for improvement in terms of thrills

Rating: 7/10 (24 February 2015)

Star Trek was the unexpected success of the 2009 summer season. It's not hard to understand the reason for this. As James Rolfe put it, "it has a kick to it, which makes it more commercial than any Star Trek". I can't help but wonder, though, if timing had something to do with its success. Much like how "Godzilla 2000" may not have been so well received were it not for the failure that preceded it, it's not difficult to suspect that this film may have garnered less praise had it not followed the divisive entries in a certain other franchise.
There is not much delivery on the promise to "boldly go where no Star Trek has gone before", which is something that Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli have already discussed far better than I can. This prevents this movie from truly being the groundbreaking project that a re-imagining can potentially be. Even so, there are many things that I admire about it. The style is noticeably different from any other space opera of its decade, granting a breeziness that is appropriate for a summer blockbuster. J.J. Abrams seems to have an apt for this genre, providing plenty of fast paced sequences and good scenery. It's not very often we get to see the Enterprise stationary upon land, where I believe it looks more impressive than in space. The performers are all competent given what they are aiming for, bolstered by some rather effective humor. However, it is somewhat disappointing that so many of them are underutilized. Most of them really amount to superficial updates of previous incarnations, which will not do much for the casual moviegoer. Kirk and Spock are the only substantial ones, though Spock is less successful due to giving the impression of a self-righteous teenager for much of the first half. Pine is suitably entertaining and arrogant as Kirk, managing to put a new spin on the familiar captain. Even so, I will say that, as far as an initial chapter is concerned, there is a much better effort at establishing the characters than there was in "The Phantom Menace".
Where "Star Trek" falls short of the Star Wars prequels, however, is in imagination and excitement, a comparison merited due to a style that veers closer to an action packed space opera than a traditional science fiction film. The special effects are all polished and mostly pleasant to look at, but lack that creative flair that made those other space operas so visually versatile. This can be seen in both the creatures and hardware. Aside from the iconic Enterprise, the space vessels are rather forgettable and fail to inspire awe from the viewer; the villains float around in what looks like a giant mutated pine-cone. The most creative ship is the one that contains the red matter and seems to have some type of gyroscopic structure, but compared to some of the other things seen in space operas in recent years it might as will be a wind-up toy. As for the creatures, consider that red thing on the snowy planet that Kirk is jettisoned to. It's definitely weird, but there's something disorganized and fleeting about it. The giant red angler fish and bio-luminescent eel from "The Phantom Menace" managed to leave a better impression. The biggest issue is the villain, Nero. While his motives are made clear, he's not built up as a very impressive threat, mostly because it is painfully obvious that without his ship he is just another guy with a grudge. Compared to the unnerving quality of the Borg and the craftiness of Khan, I don't see Nero looming in the minds of many following the closing credits.
Nonetheless, this is definitely a successful outing for the Star Trek franchise, which has suffered a rather bumpy road with its feature films. I recommend it for its entertaining characters, humor and sleek effects, all of which hopefully will be taken in a more interesting direction with its second sequel.