And on we go

STAR TREK

Directed by J.J. Abrams
Screenplay by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci
Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, and Leonard Fucking Nimoy

Reviewed by Matthew Brown
May 7 2009

So here we are, at last. Honestly, the (latent? dormant? something) Trekkie in me - the one who, like umpteen million others, found Trek when he was a disenfranchised, too-cerebral adolescent - never thought the Powers That Be would have the balls, or the foolishness, to reboot the franchise as they have done in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. Balls because of the headiness of it - abandoning decades of laborious continuity that was, let's face it, choking any kind of dramatic usefulness in every Trek incarnation since 1993; foolishness because taking a franchise whose core idea is going forward into the unknown and back-tracking over previously-covered ground is a little like going to the Moon, and stepping only in Armstrong's undisturbed footprints.

Given the 6-month release delay, the much-ballyhooed previews, and the sheer quantity of communal obsessiveness and media hype that precedes the release of Star Trek, there's very little I can add to the debate at this point, besides answering the obvious string of questions that a Trekspert in my position will be called upon to answer in the coming weeks. And so, with apologies to Ms. DuPont...

How is it?

It's good!

Why the italics, monkey-boy?

Because it is "good." The other superlatives that have been levelled against the film, and there are many, do not (in this writer's view) apply.

So the fanboys are wrong?

Frick no. If you're a fanboy and you're watching this movie with Leonard Fucking Nimoy, your foaming response to the content is entirely reasonable. This is a beautifully-made bit of geekery. And don't let me dampen the glee too much, because on any scale (geek or no), Star Trek '09 is definitely, gloriously, demonstrably, praise-the-lordedly, good.

Chief qualm, then?

Lordy, this thing is dumb sometimes. There is stuff from a writing perspective that is going to make my girlfriend turn purple. Thank goodness the rest of the time it's just so much goddamn fun.

So does it effectively appropriate the bubble gum pop aesthetic of the 1960s TV series?

What does that mean?

Bright colours? Ray guns? Exciting spacefaring swashbuckling?

Yes, yes, and HELL YES.

Optimism? The exploration of the cosmos? Big ideas about where we're going?

Yes, not really, and not even a little bit.

Is it sexy?

Not so you'd notice. Remember when the bald chick strode onto the bridge of the Enterprise in The Motion Picture and announced that her vow of celibacy was on record to keep her from killing her crew-mates with her unmatchable sexual prowess? That sole concept, dropped as casually as the mention of the Clone Wars in the original Star Wars, is a quantum leap ahead of anything our new Mr. Kirk gets up to. Aside from a continued fascination with green slave girls (surely I'm not the only one who wants to see Oola and Veena get their freak on?), Star Trek '09 is stuck in a heterodox sexual whitebreadedness that is, unfortunately, strictly mid-1980s American.

So no gays?

No. Our sisters and brothers of the queer contingent continue to have no place in Earth's future.

What about blacks?

A fair few. Besides Uhura, the head of Starfleet is played by Madea, who is here inexplicably dressed in drag as an American male for some reason. I suppose that might qualify as some sort of queer representation.

Hispanics? Asians? Arabs?

No, yes, and yes. I think the latter qualifies as some sort of Trek first, though I must admit to having missed the majority of the last television series.

Jews?

Don't be ridiculous.

So the galaxy continues to be run by white men?

Pretty much.

How is our Mr. Kirk? Will he light a Green Lantern?

The boy has a future, that's for sure. Chris Pine nobly resists what must have been an overwhelming temptation to mock Shatner on a line-by-line basis (a temptation not overcome, it must be said, by his cohort Karl Urban, whose DeForest Kelley impression is worthy of an Oscar, or death, or both).

How are the others?

Quinto troubles me the most, though he's actually quite watchable; it's just that Abrams seems to want all of his Vulcans to really show the roiling emotions hidden under the logic, in case his audience can't figure it out for themselves. Otherwise, Zoe Saldana is lovely, and John Cho is marvellous. I could take or leave Anton Yelchin's Chekov and Simon Pegg's Scotty.

Whose action figure will you be buying, and in what scale?

I would nab the biggest, goldest Bruce Greenwood as Captain Christopher Pike dollie I could find, and not just because of my latent fondness for the character. Greenwood smacks the cover off the ball in this role.

And the fair lady herself?

This fancied-up Enterprise, though awkward from a design perspective (both internally and externally), nonetheless achieves some truly blissful "wow" moments on more than one occasion.

Is there opportunity to grab dinner while the director indulges in extensive, porny, SFX ship fly-bys?

You'd make it halfway to the bathroom before having to turn back.

And the plot?

An ingenious in-canon reboot of the franchise, as expected. Old Spock and a crazy Romulan come back from the future, Terminator-style, with Jim Kirk as Linda Hamilton. Through an ever-escalating series of unlikely circumstances, the band gets put (back?) together, and before you know it, the Heroic Crew of the Starship Enterprise is out there doing heroic things. Science fiction porngasms ensue.

And it moves. There isn't a trace of fat on this thing, and that's a welcome rarity these days.

At any point, does Kirk talk a computer into self-destructing?

I'm sure they're saving that for the sequel.

Does Spock mind-meld with a piece of rock?

Does Pine count?

Are there Tholians?

No, but that's more than made up for by the completely bitchin' Romulans. They're like the vampires in The Lost Boys, only in a good way.

Best part?

I must admit to an honest tear rolling down my cheek when George Samuel Kirk gave his life for his wife and child, a tear not solely borne of my continuing public crush on Jennifer Morrison.

Worst part?

I could live the rest of my life without ever seeing the sequences of Kirk and Spock growing up again. "Sabotage?" Nokia? What the fuck were these people trying to do?

Was your fondest fanboy wish (seeing Captain Pike in the chair - BOOP!) answered?

Sadly, no.

Does the kickass prequel comic book tie in a little bit, a lotta bit, or not at all?

It isn't required reading, but it is a surprisingly relevant addition to the overall storyline.

Is J.J. Abrams the cinema's new Ganesh?

Not as such. Abrams still suffers notably from "two-dimensional thinking" as a filmmaker and as a writer. No, Abrams' real strength lies in finding and using great people. He put together a terrific cast here, along with a group of writers who actually knew what they wanted to do, and amassed the collective goodwill of the entire American people to reboot Star Trek and make it soar. And it worked.

Will you go see Star Trek 12?

Why would I stop at 11? I've come this far. That's like asking whether I'd buy Quantum of Solace on DVD. There are, by my estimation, easily five Star Trek films that are worse than this, two or three which are contenders for equal share, and only a couple that are better. And were one to collapse DS9's entire run into the year in which it debuted, one could argue that this is the best Trek **anything** in fifteen years, by an (undiscovered) country mile.

Besides, now that Abrams and co. have finished explaining why this continuity reboot actually fits within the established Trek storyline, they might be able to do something with the cosmos they've inherited. But then, I'm the guy who wanted to see the sequel to Superman Returns.

Batman Begins, Casino Royale and this flick are locked in a room together with nothing but a hack saw and six paper matches. Who gets out first?

Still Batman. And Daniel Craig shortly thereafter. Yes, we have been mightily blessed of late with franchise reboots that don't just work, but kick all kinds of ass while working. Star Trek is in that echelon, but not anything like on par with its two most obvious antecedents. Still, for any flaws, the flick made Trek fun again, and so it gets the nod and knowing wink from me. If only everything old could be this new again.