Star Trek – Review

Star Trek!Starring:  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, John Cho, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban and Eric Bana

Run Time:  2 hrs 6 mins

Plot Synopsis:  The greatest adventure of all time begins with Star Trek, the incredible story of a young crew’s maiden voyage onboard the most advanced starship ever created: the U.S.S. Enterprise. On a journey filled with action, comedy and cosmic peril, the new recruits must find a way to stop an evil being whose mission of vengeance threatens all of mankind.  The fate of the galaxy rests in the hands of bitter rivals. One, James T. Kirk, is a delinquent, thrill-seeking Iowa farm boy. The other, Spock was raised in a logic-based society that rejects all emotion. As fiery instinct clashes with calm reason, their unlikely but powerful partnership is the only thing capable of leading their crew through unimaginable danger, boldly going where no one has gone before!

Space… The final frontier.  One where many boldly went where many others had gone before.  The Star Trek franchise, once a gigantic juggernaut, able to generate massive amounts of cash purely based on name recognition.  Legions of fans were so committed to the franchise that they would dress as Trek characters, and throw meets, festivals and parties to celebrate the franchise they hold so dear.  Sadly to say, over the years the quality of Trek tales began to plummet, and the franchise was soon on it’s deathbed.  The last film of the franchise that was once a guaranteed money maker, Star Trek:  Nemesis, grossed a paltry $43 million domestically, and with international numbers it just barely succeeded in recouping the studio’s loss from production budget of $60 million.  Trek, it seemed, had lost it’s mojo.  Personally, as a fan bordering on the edge of being a Trekker, I thought the franchise simply over saturated itself.  So many different series, films and novels that it became near impossible to continually produce original stories without stepping all over canon.  Despite  all this, the trekkers remain loyal to the early years, the times when Trek was good.  Obviously, if a studio were able to recapture some of the magic from those times, they’d have a major money maker.  Fans would flock to theaters in droves to check out the return of Star Trek!  With that in mind, Paramount called on JJ Abrams to inject new life into the dying franchise.  His offering to us all, Star Trek, is his attempt to reboot the series by showing the “humble origins” of the Enterprise and it’s crew from the original series Trek era.  The obvious question is:  “Will Abrams Trek relaunch the Enterprise, or just aim it at the ground, leading to the series’ crash, burn and inevitable death?”  Short answer?  While Star Trek was an honest attempt to pay homage to the original while still being accessible enough to draw in new fans, it simply failed in recapturing what truly made the original series special; the biting social commentary and addressing the issues of this nation.  It was fun, and there was enough on screen magic to surely start a new franchise, but it just was not enough for this Trek fan.

When JJ Abrams was tapped to relaunch Trek, he was open and honest about his lack of knowledge of the franchise.  I respect that.  His first idea, the only thing that really stood out to him as a way to draw in solid numbers, was to do an “origin story.”  Again, commendable.  Then I started hearing and seeing things that did not sit well with me.  Now, let me reiterate that I am not a Trekker, just a big fan.  So the overwhelming majority of my complaints had nothing to do with canon, nor were they based on my fandom.  My list of pre-viewing complaints consisted of my problems with casting and their choices for design of the interior of the Enterprise.  I thought that most of the actors cast looked way too young, and I found it hard to believe that they were not still in Starfleet.  Though I will say that I absolutely loved the casting of Karl Urban as Bones.  He seemed to be channeling DeForest Kelley.  I was also interested in the casting of Simon Pegg as Scotty.  I know that he didn’t exactly fit the look of the character, but I was more than willing to overlook this because I am such a big fan of his.  I really wanted to see what he could do with the role.  My other complaint, and this was major, was the design of the bridge.  Not. A. Fan. At. ALL!!!  I couldn’t stand, and still can’t stand, the Apple store looking design.  I understand “modernizing” it and giving it a distinct look and feel that differs from the bridge in TOS, but come on!  Give the equipment a modern look, change the color schemes if you want, and I’d be fine with all of that.  I’m not opposed to change, I just don’t like what it was changed into.  Now, as more and more footage of the film came out, I became more and more interested in the film.  By the time it was released, I was excited.  I went into the theater expecting to have fun, say wow, and leave thoroughly impressed.  I can honestly say that when I was done with the Trek experience, I satisfied two of the three expectations.

Star Trekwas a very fun movie. It was thrilling, exciting, action packed, and did a fine job of establishing the relationships between crew members that I saw in TOS.  The actors, while still looking too young, did an amazing job of channeling the characters that their characters were based on.  Pine as Kirk was exactly as I would’ve wanted him to be.  He was charismatic, bold, brash, reckless, and at times quite funny.  Quinto stood out to me as the strongest of the main cast.  His performance made me really feel like his character would eventually grow to be the Spock that I knew and loved from TOS.   Also, Urban was just as I expected him to be.  He was DeForest Kelley back as Bones as far as I’m concerned.  The other actors did a fine job, with the exception of Cho, though nothing about their characters stood out to me as either overly bad or overly good.  The film had plenty of flashy F/X, explosions, and other visual candy.  It simply put was a good movie.

My time in the theater seemed to pass way too quickly.  It felt like I had just sat down and BAM!  Movie over.  Isn’t that a pretty damn good mark of a good film?  I was enthralled.  I won’t go into the plot of the film, as this review is spoiler free, but I will say that it was not at all confusing, boring, or generic.  The writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, crafted a fine story loaded with “easter eggs” for all you hardcore Trekkers.  It was quite clear that they had an affinity for the franchise, and they wanted to make something that fans could be proud of.   However, the one key ingredient that made TOS so special, was missing.  I always found TOS fascinating because of the social commentary and addressing the problems facing the nation at the time it was made.  Granted, I was not alive during those times, but anyone who took a history class in High School could tell you what it was like.  TOS addressed things like inter-racial relations, sex, and the cold war.  Whilst doing all of that, it managed to stay light and fun.  The show never took itself too seriously despite the sometimes serious themes it addressed.  Simply put, as anyone can see now when watching a TOS rerun, the show was a great escape from all the stresses of the time.  I wouldn’t expect Abrams’ new Trek to explore those same issues, but it should at least start to dive into that arena to give the films in this inevitable new franchise the feel of TOS.  In an interview with EW magazine, star Chris Pine stated that he thought the film could start addressing social issues later.  At least the actors involved know that they should, so we do have hope that the next film will incorporate some of that.  These are tough times as well, and people could use some inspiring ideas and a fun way to escape.

It was blatantly obvious that the studio is planning more Trek films, as the actors are all signed on for two more films and the studio has already announced it’s working on a new script.  So we can assume that this film is just the first in a new line of Trek-related products?  Yes.  The film was fun and did quite well at the box office in it’s opening weekend.  It didn’t make Wolverine money, but it surely made enough so far to warrant a sequel, and for fans to anticipate the return of Star Trek.  People will love this movie.  It is both full of stuff for fans and features plenty for those completely unfamiliar with the Trek universe.  It could serve as not only the relaunch of Trek but the return of sci-fi prominence.  My one line summation of this film would be that “Trek is a film that is accessible to anyone, and it will be fun and exciting for everyone.”  Go check out Star Trek.  You won’t regret it.  While I have my problems with Star Trek, I am okay with all of that.  I look forward to seeing more of these films in the future.  For the sake of Trek, let’s cross our fingers and hope that money grubbers don’t over-saturate the market again and kill Star Trek for the second time.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (8) Posts

About the Author

Jon Stephens

I don’t know everything about every movie, but I’m working on it! I love movies in all genres from any time period. From black and white classics to flashy F/X driven spectacles, I'll watch 'em all! There's just nothing better than a good movie.
  • I loved this movie, I thought everything about was awesome and well done, with the exception of Cho and some character devlopment on the underused Nero. I look foraward to seeing many more films after this one and i agree, lets hope that paramount does not oversaturate Star Trek again.
  • 790
    The first 20 minutes was emotional compelling and impressive.

    The rest of the film was a kick in the balls. Sure it was fun to look at, but didn't leave me satisfied, if anything I felt insulted. Star Trek is truly dead inside.

    My one word review, " whatever"....
  • I don't know many hardcore Trek fans personally, but after seeing the film, and knowing what I know about the Trek universe, I have a feeling a lot of Trek fans will feel the same exact way you do 790.

    It's the clear beginning of the "New Trek" not the same as the "Original Trek." Will it ever have the same dedicated fanbase that TOS and TNG had? Not likely.

    Thanks for your thoughts guys!
  • JD
    I watched this with my Dad who loved the original series. He's not a Trekker but still watches the original series if it's on tv. He thought this film was great. He loved the all the "nods" to the old show and thought the new actors did a great job in the roles. This is an amazing review coming from my father who basically has the same reaction to every movie he watches....eh...it's okay. He only had one issue with the film and that was a relationship between two certain characters. Just didn't feel right to him. That's its.

    All I can say is I wish these writers could have go a hold of the episode 1, 2, & 3 scripts from Lucas. Those Trekkers have nothing to complain about...as far as I'm concerned...
  • "It simply put was a good movie."

    I believe it was a wasted opportunity and average.

    Urban's intro and accompanying dialog was great.

    "Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, crafted a fine story loaded with "easter eggs" for all you hardcore Trekkers."
    They crafted a story full of holes, in some scenes, completely devoid of logic.

    "they had an affinity for the franchise, and they wanted to make something that fans could be proud of"
    You have got to be kidding me. An affinity for the franchise? Star Fleet Officers, in front of their crew no less, do not murder a crippled enemy.

    "It could serve as not only the relaunch of Trek but the return of sci-fi prominence."
    If that is true God helps. I stick with good sci-fi.

    ""Trek is a film that is accessible to anyone, and it will be fun and exciting for everyone."
    That is not the case. Sorry.

    @790 We are in agreement.
  • You are always so negative Filmbook. You obviously hated the movie. That's fine with me. Watching it I was pretty sure there would be a lot of people who disliked it. You are more than welcome to bash the movie all you like. But you don't always have to be so rude and bash people for their opinions.

    "I believe it was a wasted opportunity and average"
    Sure, it was definitely a wasted opportunity. It could've been a lot better.

    "They crafted a story full of holes, in some scenes, completely devoid of logic"

    Yes, there were holes, and for serious sci-fi fanatics it was pretty obviously devoid of logic at points. But it's important to remember that it is just a movie, one clearly made for non-trekkers first, people who tend to accept science fiction as FICTION, without trying to make sense of everything. I felt the story was entertaining, and it did have plenty of "easter eggs" for hardcore fans, whether or not they enjoyed them are a whole different issue.

    "You have got to be kidding me. An affinity for the franchise? Star Fleet Officers, in front of their crew no less, do not murder a crippled enemy."
    Orci and Kurtzman had said many times that they were big trek fans, particularly of TOS. That is not just a statement that I pulled out of my ass. Do you really believe that they would do the movie just for the hell of it, or for the money? I'm sure they had every intention of making something they enjoyed, and that fans would be proud of. The end result could differ from what they intended for the film, but you can't blame them for the whole film, and all of this does NOT make my statement any less true.

    "If that is true God Helps. I stick with good sci-fi."
    Again, not your cup of tea, I get it. Doesn't make the idea any less possible. Based on the majority of the reviews, obviously discounting the Trekkers and hardcore sci-fi fanatics like yourself who hated the film, and the profits so far, this is only the first film in what will surely be a trilogy unless the second movie they are already working on completely tanks and loses money. The return to sci-fi prominence statement refers only to the potential return of science fiction to the public eye as it was a while ago. I am by no means stating that we will see a whole bunch of good sci-fi films come out; the statement does not mention my personal thoughts on the "return of sci-fi prominence" in terms of quality. IF my statement comes true, I would not expect to see a whole lot of really good sci-fi films. I would expect to see a whole lot of sci-fi films. There is a difference.

    "That is not the case. Sorry"
    Wow, you really took that literally didn't you? I did not mean literally every single person who would see the movie. You see, when I write a review, I try to keep in mind that not everyone is a fanatic, or a know-it-all. I try to write my reviews for whom I commonly refer to as "middle Americans." The film, as I'm sure we both agree was made for the non-trekker, is accessible to anyone. That doesn't mean everyone will like it. But you are right, I'll go back and revise my review to say "exciting for most everyone" though I refuse to believe that you sat through the entire movie without finding yourself enjoying at least a small part of the film. It's okay, I've seen a lot of terrible movies that I hated, but I can admit that most of them have there moments, however few and far between they may be, or however short they are. You say that you are in agreement with 790, and even he has said that there were parts that were enjoyable in some fashion.

    I enjoyed the film. I had my fair share of problems with it, but overall I was entertained for the most part throughout the film. I wrote a review that tried to address the wants and needs of the non-trek fans, as the trekkers had already seen the film and made up their mind about it, and I thought it would be helpful for the "average joe" to read a review that was not a bunch of over-reacting by an angry fanboy. I try to be fair and objective in everything that I do, and I try to do it without offending anyone. Along the same lines, I try to keep my criticisms related to the film itself, not the reviewer, but you are by all means welcome to say whatever you want. I think I can handle it.

    I'm sorry my review pissed you off so much filmbook.
  • "You are always so negative Filmbook. You obviously hated the movie. That's fine with me. Watching it I was pretty sure there would be a lot of people who disliked it. You are more than welcome to bash the movie all you like. But you don't always have to be so rude and bash people for their opinions."

    Very well put Jon.
  • @jon
    Shame on you Jon, my belief is that any good writer never apologizes for anything he writes regardless of how others feel about it. I firmly beleive you are good writer and don't need to apologize for anything.

    If Film Book wants to be an ass, let him be an ass someplace else where he can feel validated as a human being or whatever he maybe.

    @Filmbook
    It is all fine and dandy voicing your opinion, thats what blogging is all about, but when you lamblast a writer for presenting his opiions as objectivly as possible, like Jon, you end up being an arrogant prick trying to compensate for something. I think that something that Jon has that you don't is passion. Your reviews, although informative and breakdown films to the core, lack the passion and emotion that Jon has in his reviews, thats the difference, and honestly I would rather read a review from someone who is objective and puts a lot of effort into what he writes then someone who strips film from its purpose and throws in large words to make himself look smarter then he actaully is. When was the last time you actaully sat down and watched a movie for the pure entertainment and joy of it, based on your reviews, i would have to say its been a long time. I recomened every now and then sitting down and just watch a film to be entertained rather then looking for every single flaw or critiquing the film.
  • I appreciate the support guys, but we have to be careful to not be asses ourselves.

    Let's all play nice!
  • JD
    Such hostility! I don't even know where to go from here? Play nice!


    I've posted in the forums a link that I will share here too. It is for a podcast interviewing Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. Sure, these guys have frustrated me in the past with decisions they made when writing Transformers, but this interview is fantastic. At the end of the interview they have a great Q&A with the audience. Really, it seems like these guys really put a lot of thought into this "film full of holes". I have a little more respect for them now that I've listened to this. Maybe it's because I'm not a Trekkie, or maybe because I enjoyed the film. I'm not sure, but what I do know is you should check this podcast out if you have time. I would recommend downloading it because it's pretty long.

    http://creativescreenwritingmagazine.blogspot.c...
  • At the time i wrote that comment, i actaully did not think i was comming off as affensive, but upon reading some time later, i can see that there was a little hostility in there, and for that I do apologize, but my point remains the same, Don't piss on other writers simply because they do not agree with you.
  • JD
    Well said! No worries here...I was just trying to lighten the mood. How 'bout that new film OoberMind?
  • I'd heard that before JD. It was great. I thought they really sounded sincere as opposed to just saying the usual stuff. To be honest, I haven't exactly been a huge fan of their writing, but I've never had any real problems with it either. I think they've gone out of their way to show that they genuinely cared for it and really tried to craft a story that would do the franchise proud. Whether or not they accomplished their goal is argueable depending on who you talk to, but have to show a little respect for the hard work they put in. It is all just a matter of opinion when it comes to Trek. It's not like it's universally accepted as a piece of garbage like Battlefield Earth typically is.

    I'll agree that hearing Orci and Kurtzman talk about the film helped me gain a newfound appreciation for them as writers. Say what you will about Trek, but those guys really tried.
  • "people who tend to accept science fiction as FICTION, without trying to make sense of everything."

    Yes, yes, very true Jon. I have a problem turning my brain off sometimes. I have seen Blade Runner and Aliens: The Director's Cut ("Drake, we are leaving!!") too many times I guess.

    "Orci and Kurtzman had said many times that they were big trek fans, particularly of TOS. That is not just a statement that I pulled out of my ass. Do you really believe that they would do the movie just for the hell of it, or for the money? I'm sure they had every intention of making something they enjoyed, and that fans would be proud of. The end result could differ from what they intended for the film, but you can't blame them for the whole film, and all of this does NOT make my statement any less true."

    Once again, true but it does not invalidate my statement either. Star Fleet Officers would not murder someone they already have beaten. Nero's ship was crippled. What was the point? The threat had been neutralized.

    I hope more sci-fi comes out but hollywood is in remake mode. They are thinking of remaking The Crow for Christ sakes.

    " I try to keep in mind that not everyone is a fanatic, or a know-it-all."
    Hmmm... ;)

    "I refuse to believe that you sat through the entire movie without finding yourself enjoying at least a small part of the film."
    I loved the first twenty or thirty minutes of the film. Abrams had me and I thought I was in for something special. Remember when Anakin goes to kill The Separatist leaders in the third act of Revenge of the Sith? For those brief scenes, the bar of Revenge of the Sith was raised high and met with most people's expectations perhaps surpassing them before being let down again. These were my feelings after the first twenty minutes or so of Star Trek. It actually made me not want to write a review for the film. I read another person's blog, Daniel Geta's, and decided to put my thoughts down on paper (or the internet) soon afterward. I knew it would be a long review but that sucker grew rapidly like that baby in the first season of Fringe.

    "over-reacting by an angry fanboy."
    ;)

    "I try to keep my criticisms related to the film itself, not the reviewer, but you are by all means welcome to say whatever you want. I think I can handle it.

    I'm sorry my review pissed you off so much filmbook."

    WTF! Lol. I was not criticizing you Jon. I was criticizing the film. If it came off that way, my apologies. Man. You guys have very thin skins. You did not piss me off whatsoever. I know Abrams made a more commercial Trek film and that was the goal. He succeeded. He just dropped the ball with Nero, Pike, the lame drill platform fight, the unnecessary ice planet/monster sequence...

    @Stan-Lee. I was not trying to be rude.

    "If Film Book wants to be an ass, let him be an ass someplace else where he can feel validated as a human being or whatever he maybe."

    "arrogant prick trying to compensate for something."

    @Richard Christensen. "There's that spice again." - Dolores Claiborne

    "Your reviews, although informative and breakdown films to the core, lack the passion and emotion that Jon has in his reviews, thats the difference, and honestly I would rather read a review from someone who is objective and puts a lot of effort into what he writes then someone who strips film from its purpose and throws in large words to make himself look smarter then he actaully is."

    I believe that I am objective. I do not strip films of their purpose. Where did that come from? Star Trek was designed to be accessible and make money. It achieved both of those goals and then some. Large words? Do you mean aggrandized words?

    "When was the last time you actaully sat down and watched a movie for the pure entertainment and joy of it"
    Let's see. The last time I sat down and watched a movie for the pure entertainment and joy of it was when I watched: Let the Right One In, Gran Torino, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Chrysalis, The Dark Knight, Taken, Predator, Robocop, The New World, The Good Shephard, Mr. and Ms. Smith, Casino Royale, Black Christmas (the original version), Fast and Furious, Red Cliff (both parts), The Last House on the Left (2009), Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut, Return of the Jedi. These are the recent movies that come to mind.

    No offense taken by the way.

    "but we have to be careful to not be asses ourselves."
    ;)

    @JD. Transformers? Do not even get me started. If I have time I'll check out the podcast.
  • @Filmbook
    Whatever
  • I expect nothing less from you Filmbook. I hope you had fun writing that comment.
  • None of those quotes you took from my comment were directed towards you in any way, shape, or form. You didn't offend me either. I've read enough of your comments like that to know that you were indeed trying to be snide, and honestly I laugh at stuff like that.

    I want to make it clear to everyone that all I want for those who choose to use this comments space is that we can all comment on a post without fear of "being called out" or mocked. Despite what you think I think filmbook, and despite what I actually do think about the comment, my response is to state that any nube to comments on a movie blog might not post a comment if they think they will get a response to it similar to your responses to my reviews filmbook. I want to encourage everyone to join the discussion about movies without fear, and it is for that reason and that reason only that I ask to please keep all anger, frustration or hatred CLEARLY directed at the film or it's film makers. I know you are not trying to piss anyone off filmbook, but you have to see how it looks to someone new to the site. Please, out of respect for the movie blogging community, refrain from sarcastic remarks that could be construed as insults. I would never go to your page and leave you a comment like that. Please respect that and treat comments on MovieGuys the same way I treat my comments on your page Filmbook.

    I seriously hope we can all put this to rest and go back to ENJOYING a discussion about movies.
  • Like I said, I did not dislike your review or the entirety of Star Trek Jon.

    Sorry if I offend again.
  • Back to the film at hand, I for one actually thought the film was well done, I enjoyed the story, it kept me engaged and interested throughout and I think Abrams has succeeded in bringing new life into a series on life support.
    Like any other film, it is not without its flaws, like the lack of charcter devlopment for Nero and the miscast of Cho as Sulu, but the writing and devlopment in other aspects of the film, more then made up for those minor details. I really think that the series can only do better from here and Abrams has really opened the door for potential, he can actaully rewrite the Star Trek history without having tampered with the orginal series canon, he in essence has really created this alternate universe where he can esplore different possibilites, where as before there was a restriction due to the large amount of history fro the series.
    The ball is in their court now and only they can screw it up.
  • I am going to go ahead and put the nail in the coffin here.

    Jon's last comment summed up entirely the situation and my feelings towards this discussion

    I have just created a small list of commenting rules that apply both to comments, and to the forum. Please take a moment to read them before commenting, a more formal list is being created as we speak.

    Any further discussion on this topic can be directed directly to me stan-lee @ movieguys.org.
  • I like Cho as an actor, I think he's hilarious in the Harold and Kumar movies, but he was horribly miscast in this one. I'm not going to say that he can't branch out from comedy, I'm all for actors showing their range. But this character just wasn't right for him. I was pleasantly surprised by Simon Pegg as Scotty, but that may be attributed to my being a big fan of his
  • I have to agree Jon, Cho was way out of his realm in this one.
  • I enjoy Cho, and i will give him credit where its due, since filling the shoes of Takai is no easy task, and could be daunting, so he deserves a little kudos for at least making the attempt. He did see a little out of palce in the Trek universe.

    I love Scotty, probably my favorite charcter in the Star Trek Universe, next to Q and Picard, and i really felt that Pegg nailed the essence of the character and Jame Doolhan ( totally butchered the last name) would be proud. I read up on the film before seeing it, and Pegg did a lot of research for the role.
  • Yeah Pegg really wanted to do a good job to pay tribute to a series that has become a part of US pop-culture, and a nearly world-wide known product.

    Q was a great character. Those were my fav episodes of TNG
blog comments powered by Disqus