• newsletters • best of austin • find a paper • submit an event • advertise with us • contact • jobs •
Calendar: Film Listings

Star Trek

Year Released: 2009
Directed By: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Winona Ryder, Leonard Nimoy, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross
(PG-13, 126 min.)

Star Trek: Has there ever been any other television program that so captured the imagination of its (initially modest) fan base? Almost 40 years after NBC pulled the plug a mere three seasons into the USS Enterprise's five-year mission, we're still aching to "boldly go where no man has gone before." Trek creator Gene Roddenberry originally pitched the show as "Wagon Train to the stars," a canny reference to a wildly popular Western that ended its seven-year run almost one year to the day that Trek debuted at 8:30pm EST on Thursday, Sept. 8, 1966. Roddenberry's genius – and the reason we're still eager to be thrilled by the ongoing voyages of the USS Enterprise and her various crews – has everything to do with the franchise's bedrock humanism and mankind's itchy, primal drive to discover what lies beyond the beyond. (The Cold War space race, about which the original Trek spoke so eloquently, is long over but not so the longing for, and fear of, the great unknown.) So does Abrams' back-to-the-future, big-budget reboot measure up to Roddenberry's twin warp drives of high-minded idealism and pop-culture adventuring? Does Spock get all emo-freaky when it comes to the Vulcan mating ritual “pon farr"? Abrams' Star Trek is an immensely satisfying origin story that, narratively, goes all the way back to James Tiberius Kirk's corn-fed and hotheaded Iowa youth before introducing, one by one, the characters we know – before we knew them. Abrams is respectful of Trek, and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are clearly big fans. For all its epically chaotic space battles and Bana's scheming, time-tripping Romulan, Nero, Star Trek is most audacious in such scenes as when the not-yet-Captain Kirk (Pine, getting the Tiberius just right but wisely forsaking the Shatner) beds a green-skinned Orion sex bomb while simultaneously making a play for Saldana's Uhura. In quick succession, the iconic characters enter in ways delightfully unexpected yet cleverly apropos: tippling, proto-curmudgeon medical student "Bones" McCoy (Urban, grimly comic); future helmsman and ้p้e-wielder Hikaru Sulu (Harold & Kumar's Cho); a giddy, gung-ho 17-year-old Pavel Chekov (Yelchin); and in a role that needs to be expanded next time out, Pegg's competently crazed engineer Scotty. And then there is, of course, Spock. Two of them, actually: Quinto's dire, logic-beholden youth, and Nimoy's "Prime Spock," who serves a key narrative role while effortlessly bridging Trek-then and this new, hyperactive, hormonal crew of budding heroes. It's not necessary to be a longtime fan of the Star Trek universe to appreciate the sheer emotional punch and swagger of this rough and randy Enterprise crew. They're unlikely companions – antagonists, even – not yet boldly going wherever it is they're going, but discovering that trial by fire and photon torpedoes is the best, if not the easiest, way to forge both friendships and franchises.

  Marc Savlov [2009-05-08]

Share Digg Twitter Facebook Del.icio.us LinkedLn Email Print article
COMMENTS
9
 
Another screw up by JJAbrams NowTraveller May 17, 2009 - 10:49 pm
Would'nt you know it that something Savlov gives a 4 star rating to would turnout, in my opinion, to be the biggest disappointment in prequel movie making? This movie has absolutely NO cohesive plot structure to tie into any of the other Star Trek films, including the series. This movie also insults the very nature of the Star Trek Genre. Why?well the obvious one is that Shatner was not given a cameo role and also because this movie makes ALL the films of Star Trek ever made obsolete. Yes that's right obsolete. Destroying Vulcan, Destroying Romulus, Killing off Spock's human mother(which btw is alive in star trek 4 the voyage home),having spocks character have a relationship with Uhura. Having the old spock from the future meet and talk with his younger self. All these factors mixed in with the time travelling justifications and the ever volatile and dangerous "Red Matter"(which we really knew nothing about)that makes all this happen. The plot structure here is very loose and unconvincing and Typical of JJ Abrams. This guy has been screwing up plots for quite a while now and i am very surprised that he was allowed to make this movie. In the real world of movie critiquing i give this film TWO stars. One for being visually entertaining and 2 for decent action sequences. Everything else is crap and very dissapointing


NowTraveller: Wayne Alan Brenner May 18, 2009 - 10:27 am
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! OMIGOD, STOP, YOU'RE SLAYING ME HERE!

*wipes tears from eyes*

You, uh ... you must be ... um ... heh ... hoooo ... "Shatner was not given a cameo role" BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! "the ever volatile and dangerous 'Red Matter'" WHOOO HOO HOO HOOOOOOO! "i am very surprised thathe was allowed to make this movie" HEEEEEEEEE! "in the real world of movie critiquing" ROFLMAO!

Also, BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!



Nothing wrong with a little healthy debate Kimberley Jones May 18, 2009 - 12:02 pm
NowTraveller: While I'm pretty sure I have a much higher opinion of my colleague Marc Savlov than you do, on the subject of the Star Trek prequel, you and me are of the same mind (well, except for the part demanding Shatner get a cameo -- his presence would have been a distracting goof).

The fact that Abrams' prequel, as you put it, rendered "ALL the films of Star Trek ever made obsolete" rankles me to no end – and I say that as someone who's never really been a fan. I've had friends argue that the new Star Trek isn't meant to rewrite history, that it only means to say that there are different versions existing on alternate planes – but that still feels like a cheat to me -- a Get Out of Jail Free card.

As for my buddy Brenner's bewildering comment: Hey, bucko -- some of us take movies very seriously (and have chosen the totally appropriate forum to discuss them). If you *don't* take movies seriously, then I would gently suggest: Nothing to see here, move along.



Bewildering? Wayne Alan Brenner May 18, 2009 - 01:01 pm
Kimberley, You were able to read NowTraveller's screed without bursting into peals of (nigh on) maniacal laughter? I commend you on your emotional restraint and trust that you will live long and prosper. But I'm further to infer that you're implicating NT's comments as those of someone who takes movies seriously? As seriously, I'd imagine, as, say, Thomas Kinkade takes painting? BWA H~~~ *stifles further laughter*

And, good heavens, there are an infinite number of parallel universes. That a story takes place within such a genre (sci-fi ~ or "skiffy," as the cognoscenti put it) as to allow the display and hacking of such phenomena, ESPECIALLY IN THE NAME OF AN EXCELLENT VARIATION ON AN ESTABLISHED THEME, that's somehow a problem?

Ms. Jones. Certainly that's a hobgoblin of much smaller minds (I would suggest approximately 98% of the population) than your own.

Better for someone who takes movies (or narrative itself) seriously to rail against the inclusion of that chibi xenomorph as Montgomery Scott's, what, helper? Mascot? Pet? That shortish creature at the cold planet's Federation outpost ~ the cloying alien that appeared to be an example of miscegenation between an Ewok and a pile of roofing slates: The only misstep in an otherwise relentlessly superlative addition to Star Trek's multifaceted canon and to action-based filmmaking in general.

You want discussion, I got discussion.

Unfortunately, I also got Listings ~ so I'd better beam my ass back to that section before Pon Farr kicks in and the Vulcan part of me tries to CLAW its way to Orlando ...

<3



Wayne Alan Brenner NowTraveller May 18, 2009 - 07:55 pm
Glad you found my post funny. Im glad that you were able to feel better about yourself and i am certainly glad that This new Film met all your expectations and that it provided for you good mental stimulation. Be sure to keep a warm moist towel by your bedside, sir. Good day to you.


Shatner a distracting goof?? NowTraveller May 20, 2009 - 08:33 am
Kimberly, and Leonard Nimoys appearance wasn't?

Need i remind you and Mr Wayne that Shatner IS Star Trek. whether or not you like Shatner as an actor in the plethera of junk he has starred in over the years the Fact still remains that Shatner is Captain James T. Kirk. This whole movie is BASED on primarily Kirk's Ascension to his Captain status(and of course the other crew members). If Abrams was going to do the whole "Time Travel" plot theme and inject Spock into it then why would you not put Shatner into it? Well the excuse is that in Abrams star trek reality kirks father is killed by the psycho romulan,and then spock and his lines about the changing of history and blah blah blah also makes the dumb justification for not putting Shatner in as the young kirks Father,or Grandfather as it were. I stand by my opinions here. This movie was crap and doesn't hold up at all.



the case against shatner Kimberley Jones May 20, 2009 - 11:28 am
Nimoy radiates gravitas. Shatner is a joke. (No disrespect: He's in on the joke, too.)

Nimoy's never diluted the brand, so to speak, and Shatner's been hamming it up for decades now. Hence distracting, goof.



Bah rasmith Jun 01, 2009 - 03:52 pm
You would think that there would be a few criteria for selecting a director for Star Trek. Maybe 1) Is a good director, 2) Has experience with good Sci-Fi., 3) Is a fan of Star Trek. Abrams fits none of these. What's he done? Armageddon and MI:3? Uh. And of course, he wasn't a fan of Star Trek. And then, he goes off and selects wonderful writers, you know, the ones that did Transformers. It's no wonder that movie is just basically Star Trek for the WB. I don't mind the idea of time travel, and changing the timeline, heaven forbid that Abrams burden himself with the Roddenberry timeline of Star Trek that has been built on for the past 40 years. I'd hope he could at least do it with some substance. The movie gets good marks for style, this movie does at least get some style points. But I cannot dig an emotional Spock, or a whorish Uhuru, or the overdone Chekov. Sure Kirk is supposed to be a bit of a gunslinger, but I never pegged him for an all out loose cannon. It seems that Abrams totally ignored the military rigor of Starfleet. Rewriting the timeline is fine by me, but at least stick to the basic principles that have been laid down for the past 40 years and try to write a good story with some substance. Not only that, make sure that you are consistent with use of sci-fi constructs and try to create thought out events instead of far fetched ones. For example, the black hole in the beginning takes Spock and Nero back in time. But in the end, it eats half of Nero's ship? But wait, the black hole in the beginning also ate Romulus? Inconsistent. How about the ending where Nero decides to fire all weapons and leave himself defenseless so a newbie Captain Kirk can obliterate him. Time travel is ok with me too, but think of a better way to do it - a black hole does not have another side - it just rips you apart and you die, even science noobs like me know this. And the promotion of Kirk to 1st officer and then to Captain? What?? That makes no sense, this ignores the military order that is Starfleet, a more senior member aboard would have been selected, despite Pike's favoritism for Kirk. I could go on, but I'll stop there. This movie is great for people who want an action flick with no thought put into it, no substance, no care given to the actual development of the characters (McCoy just kinda shows up), and a lousy, grossly unbelievable implementation of a basic storyline that could have been good, with casting that was equally bad).


LouDobbs Jun 16, 2009 - 02:40 pm
....best Star Trek ever.

but when did Alamo start charging 19 bucks for a pitcher of Bass?





POST A COMMENT

(optional):
:

Permission to Print. Letter to the editor.


SHOWTIMES
BY THEATER

BY FILM

NEW REVIEWS

Dear John
In this obvious romance, a soldier on leave falls for a girl, which leads to an anguished correspondence. - Kimberley Jones


Ishqiya
This new Bollywood film is a realistically told story about two con men. - Marjorie Baumgarten

When in Rome
Kristen Bell stars as a woman who pulls three coins from a fountain … and three new beaus in the process. - Kimberley Jones


The Yes Men Fix the World
These anti-corporate pranksters strike again. - Marc Savlov


SPECIAL SCREENINGS

OFFSCREEN LISTINGS

FILM ARCHIVE
Search title, directors, and cast.

Browse 11913 archived film reviews by:

REVIEWER

TITLE
A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N
O P Q R S T U
V W X Y Z

RATING

MPAA

Short Story Party
Sound Wars
Mind Over Music
Online Contests
Chrontourage
Chronicle Merch

 

Ads of the Day