Star Trek -- Review

I only recently became a fan of Star Trek (the original series), last year to be precise. Growing up, I would occasionally watch syndicated episodes on Saturday afternoons, and they would invariably put me to sleep; perhaps because, as much as I'd like to fashion myself a deep thinker, I'm not fond of Big Ideas, or at least I didn't use to be. For I am of the Star Wars Generation, and any show set in space that didn't involve whiz-bang action and was heavy on both concepts and dialog wasn't my idea of fun. My bad, because some twenty years later, after a former co-worker gave me a burned DVD of Star Trek's first season, I realized how great the series is (despite its camp and tendency to cannibalize itself, surprising for a show that lasted only three seasons). I could go on and on about exactly how and why Star Trek hooked me so late in life, but it basically boils down to one thing: the contrast between the infinite expanse of space and the claustrophobic atmosphere of the USS Enterprise's bridge.

In that regard, JJ Abrams new film left me disappointed. For a movie that is largely set in space, I rarely felt a sense of wonder at the settings, whether they were on alien planets or far-off galaxies. That gripe aside, Star Trek manages to be a compelling picture that both pays homage to and redefines Trek lore. The characters are re-imagined in such a way that they, remarkably, stand boldly apart from and complement their earlier counterparts (save Karl Urban, who mimics DeForest Kelley as Dr. McCoy so accurately as to elicit goosebumps; and I dare anyone to find a single flaw in his performance). No mean feat. Hardcore Trek fans might begrudge the film's writers for making Spock too emotional (and, in a blatant plot device that works, making Uhura less one-dimensional) or for tinkering with other canonical aspects, such as the color of Chekov's hair and Romulans seen on the view screen pre-Balance of Terror; but it simply works, and, in fact, the plot hinges on just that idea: one of an alternate reality. Rebooting the Star Trek "franchise" while staying true to its roots -- however sleight-of-hand it may be -- is, much like the film itself, a thing of wonder; and despite its faults I cannot say the movie suffers from a lack of effort.

The plot is another matter. Discounting the great character development and winks to fans, there's not much there, all told. Par for the course vis a vis so-called "origin" movies, too much time (read: the entire fucking movie) is spent showing us how the Enterprise's crew formed, and invariably some shoehorning has to be done. The ubiquity of Uhura in earlier scenes is just the tip of the iceberg; and when Kirk is marooned on an ice planet and first encounters Old Spock, then Scotty a hop skip and a jump away, the movie leaps from somewhat-believable coincidence into the realm of script manipulation. I can forgive the film its 10,000-plus lens flares if I try hard enough, but I'm only Vulcan, and that criticism is, I think, somewhat logical.

Star Trek has a lot going for it: it's well filmed, despite the aforementioned lens flares -- a style concept run amok -- and a glaringly Apple-esque/insane-asylum-padded-room sterile bridge; despite Nero's ship looking like a titanic pine cone; despite the usage of words such as "bastard" and "bullshit," shocking in their context, seeing as how the context is Star Trek. Despite Scotty being the caretaker of a new-millennial Ewok whose reappearance later in the film is never explained...

3/4 *_*

PS - While the film's denouement elicits chills, boo on not having William Shatner narrate the closing lines.