CLICK HERE FOR BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND MYSPACE LAYOUTS »

May 15, 2009

Movie Review: Star Trek (2009)


Directed By: J.J. Abrams

Starring:
Chris Pine as James T. Kirk
Zachary Quinto as Spock
Eric Bana as Nero





After X-Men Origins: Wolverine failed to live up to my expectations, I feared the worst from this year’s summer movie season. Right out of the gate, we had already stumbled and the threat of completely falling out was imminent…until now. Star Trek, a prequel that is everything a good prequel should be, is a near perfect mix of the traditional Trek charm and modern filmmaking techniques. Sporting brilliant special effects that never overshadow its characters or its plot, Star Trek does something that is very difficult to do: it has given us everything that we crave from a summer blockbuster, but it also has a knack for telling a truly compelling story. In addition, it manages a second miracle that was highly unexpected: it makes the Star Trek franchise cool again, without isolating the core fan base. For the first time in years (or perhaps ever), Trekkies dressed as Klingons and general audiences can sit together and enjoy the same film that goes where no man has gone before.

The film begins with the birth of James T. Kirk (to be played as an adult by Pine); his father (Chris Hemsworth) is killed while saving eight-hundred people, including Kirk’s mother (Jennifer Morrison) and Kirk himself. That is a rather large legacy to live up too…and, when we meet him as an adult, he isn’t even trying. He scoffs at the memory of his father, spends his time trying to pick up women at bars, and gets in brawls with people that are bigger (and stronger) than him. A chance encounter with Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), however, convinces Kirk to follow in his father’s footsteps and join Starfleet. Early on, he forms a volatile relationship with Spock (Quinto), who believes that Kirk is reckless and irresponsible. However, the two must transcend their differences and unite if they hope to take command of the U.S.S. Enterprise and protect planet Earth from the ruthless Captain Nero (Bana) and his army of Romulan warriors.

With the war against Nero as the driving force, Star Trek is free to explore the unlikely friendship that we know is to be formed between Kirk and Spock. As two men touched by incredible tragedy, they have a compelling bond that neither of them can deny. If there was a recurring complaint that I had with the original films, it would be that they often felt emotionless and robotic. Not only has J.J. Abrams injected the film with a more eclectic visual style, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have established characters and relationships that are realistic and vibrant. This, I believe, is the key to making Star Trek appeal to the masses. If there are any audiences members that do not enjoy watching grand-scale spaceship battles or swordfights on a giant laser drill, they will surely enjoy the unexpected romance between Spock and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), the beginning of the long-lasting feud between Spock and Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy (Karl Urban), and many more character-driven subplots.

It is easy to lavish praise on a film like Star Trek, especially when it is released only one week after a film like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Whereas Wolverine tried to skate by with the smallest amount of effort possible, Star Trek constantly seeks to push the boundaries of action, special effects, and storytelling. Though both films are prequels, Star Trek tells its own intriguing and distinctive story, rather than merely riding on the coattails of its predecessors. With numerous nods to the original films, it pays homage to many of the beloved Star Trek adventures, namely the cinematic Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn. Additionally, it remains firmly rooted in the Trek timeline so Trekkies will have no reason to reach for their pitchforks…ahem, phasers set to stun. Star Trek is what the summer movie season should be all about. Exhilarating action and beautiful special effects abound, but the story is so good that we are more absorbed in it than we are in any of the strictly visual stimulation.

0 comments: