Until not long ago, they said that you could
easily divide filmgoers into “Star Trek” fans, “Star Wars” ones and the
in-between group, those who liked neither. With J.J. Abrams’ 2009 “Star
Trek,” the origin story, such classification becomes as redundant as it
is unwanted. The director, an already well-known name in the industry
for his artistic vision, as well as for his ability to literally take
objects on screen, blow them up and have the explosion blast reach even
the viewer in the last row in the theater, has managed to do the
unthinkable: make “Star Trek” cool, an extremely enjoyable experience
and one amazing ride for every viewer out there.
Top movie critics – but, most importantly, fans – agree
that perhaps the greatest merit of this film, this summer’s first
smashing blockbuster, is the fact that screenwriters Roberto Orci and
Alex Kurtzman have discovered a means of having their own way with the
story without stepping on the (sometimes highly sensitive) toes of even
the most diehard fans.
It’s called an “alternate reality” and, of course,
it allows both cast and director to present the world with a brand new
“Star Trek” (believed to be an impossible feat following 726 hours of
television episodes and no less than 10 feature films), while also
staying true to the mythology. What the viewers get in return is a film
so frantic and overwhelming that it swallows them the instant it starts
playing onscreen, and spits them out at the end, dazed and confused, but
still wanting and asking for more – if one may be excused such a blunt
comparison.
“Star Trek” features, as fans must already know by
now, a cast of relatively unknown actors – yet all of them manage to
shine so bright that one is almost left wondering how come no one
thought of featuring them in major productions until now. The duo that
sets the pace of the action is, as expected, positively jaw-dropping:
Chris Pine makes for an unruly, fun and charming to the utmost James T.
Kirk, while Zachary Quinto as Spock proves himself by not letting the
pointy ears act for him, as the critics put it.
Strangely
enough, the more Kirk gets beaten, tossed and thrown around like a piece
of rag just because he can’t seem to keep his mouth shut, the more
clearly it becomes that he is indeed the calculated, highly
intelligent Kirk fans know ever since the ’60 early series. Spock, on
the other hand, is so charming and fascinating for his Vulcan-human dual
nature that he can’t seem to control just yet that it’s no wonder Nyota
Uhura (Zoe Saldana), along with all the women in the audience, fall so
hard for him.
Eric Bana, although almost unrecognizable as the
baddie Nero, puts an equally stunning performance. Still, critics point
out, it could very well be that he drew the short stick on this one,
since Nero is simply not given enough screen time to fully justify his
evil, vengeful nature – which, of course, is not to say that he lets
anyone down the little time he gets to show just how mean he can be for
the camera. Quite on the contrary, it is being said.
Simon Pegg as Scotty and Anton Yelchin as Pavel
Chekov are also adorable, and each time they open their mouth, they’re
bound to cause waves of hysteria. Yet they too might have deserved at
least a couple of minutes more of film, critics point out. On the other
hand, they say, perhaps allowing these three characters to have more
exposure would have dampened the Kirk-Spock relationship, and that would
have certainly disappointed many fans.
The truth about “Star
Trek,” perhaps the only movie in the longstanding franchise that has
managed to score so superbly with both critics and fans, is that it
actually makes the entire Star Trek universe cool for anyone, no matter
the gender, age or previous knowledge of the ways of the Trekkiness, so
to speak. It’s a fun, light (in terms of plotline – which couldn’t have
been otherwise, since the film was meant to introduce the characters to
non-Trekkies as well) and highly entertaining production.
At the
same time, it’s also extremely exciting and overwhelming, so attentive
to even the most minute details and so gripping that the 126 minutes of
runtime feel like 12, or even less for diehard fans. “Star
Trek” is, in short, a big budget film that shows quality is not
necessarily about star power, and which proves that Hollywood can still
put out amazing movies, even if they look for inspiration in older ones.
It not only warrants a sequel, it would better have one or else, fans and critics say.
“Star
Trek” opened in select US theaters in April. It is now running in most
European countries, opened widely in the US and UK on May 8, and will
conclude its theatrical run in Japan on May 29.
The Good
Director
J.J. Abrams and the wonderful cast of “Star Trek” manage to create a
world that seems as fascinating and gripping as it seems possible. It’s a
fun and crazy-paced sci-fi film that only a mad person could not enjoy,
critics say. “Star Trek” is, as of now, the best critically received
film of 2009, while also being a smashing hit with audiences worldwide,
and that should speak volumes on its part.
The Bad
“Star
Trek” is, surprisingly to many, a film about which one can hardly find
anything negative to say. Granted, Nero, Scotty, Chekov and even U.S.S
Enterprise could have used more screen time, but this is something that
is completely forgotten when looking at the bigger picture.
The Truth
“Star
Trek” is a must see, critics urge. Even those who usually shun hyped,
niche productions like this one will have a blast from second 1 to
minute 126 guaranteed, because “Star Trek” is simply the kind of film
that shows that, sometimes, you just have to go with the flow and put
all prejudices aside. A superb (and quite good-looking) cast,
breathtaking special effects, a mind-blowing score and J.J. Abrams’
skilled hand orchestrating everything as if from above make this film a
unique and wonderful viewing experience.
.jpg)
