After conquering prime time television with ABC’s hit show Lost, J.J. Abrams set his sights on science-fiction’s final frontier: the silver screen. Cloverfield came and went with plenty of commotion, but the film didn’t resonate with audience members on the same level Star Trek managed to. Abrams’ appreciation for enormous, multi-mandibled monstrosities is easily visible in both action-adventures, but his attention to fine details, precise craftsmanship, and a genuine understanding of movie-goers explodes off screen all throughout the two-hour space expedition. The eleventh Star Trek movie serves as a tangential foundation for the original series, and as it happens, Abrams managed to produce spaceward entertainment for Trekkies and series newcomers alike.
We begin before the beginning – before Kirk’s first televised meeting with the Romulans, before the impenetrable friendships, before the resolved conflict with the Klingons, long before Jonathan Frakes, and before boldly going where no man has gone before. If sci-fi nerddom were to be represented by an actual pie, the pie would be apple, but it would also be half Jedi, half Vulcan. Or, if you prefer, half Klingon and half Sith. (Both are equally unfortunate to gaze upon.) The true cornerstone of space exploration in the science-fiction genre will be debated until the end of time, which I’ve just remembered is relative, so I suppose the arguments will only last as long as I’m around to embrace them. Regardless, the Vulcan (or Klingon) half of the aforementioned pie can be further dissected into two quarters: Kirk and Picard. Keeping this delicious pie in mind, whichever slice you’re digesting is hardly pertinent to the movie. Regardless of the series you’re admirably backing, or the amount of hair you prefer on your Enterprise Captain, you will enjoy Star Trek.
Assisted by clever implementation of time travel, Kirk and Spock are allowed to face immediate danger without the story-telling hindrance of a foreseeable outcome. In other words, here’s a prequel minus the predictability of your average pre-game story. The film’s plot was so thoughtfully calculated that I’m inclined to believe Abrams has returned to our time from the future, bearing a fan-created list of scene omissions and unwanted scenarios, paving the way for a perfect Star Trek film. It’s a stretch, but I prefer to aggrandize, because calling Abrams a “visionary” is akin to calling Ben Stein with a telephone – boring (but factual). And if there’s anything Star Trek absolutely isn’t, it’s boring.
Dynamic duo Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have had all sorts of hands on experience writing scripts and doing touch-up work for such films as The Island, Mission Impossible III, and Watchmen, and that’s not to mention their recent co-creation of FOX’s Fringe. Sound resumes aside, Orci and Kurtzman are deeply invested in creating balanced dialogue and driving a steadily paced story. Star Trek‘s plot is hard focused and doesn’t squander with irrelevant tangents. Rather than delving deep into specific character backstories and working from the ground up, the film skims the surface of Gene Roddenberry’s already well-drawn universe. And even though our beloved U.S.S Enterprise inhabitants have been replaced by youthful lookalikes, those similar-looking faces mask the show’s classic counterparts in their truest forms.
First and foremost, Zachary Quinto more than adequately explores the duality of the half-human, half-Vulcan character Mr. Spock, and in doing so shifts into an entirely new head space relative to Heroes’ nemesis Sylar. Admittedly I was afraid I wouldn’t be able to banish the Sylar character from the forefront of my mind every time Spock stepped on screen. It turns out the feat was a small task, the larger obstacle now being to endure Sylar’s comparably cheesy lines without gritting my teeth. Opposite Quinto is Chris Pine, who pays just enough homage to Shatner’s performance of James Tiberius Kirk as is necessary. Far from being fickle, Captain Kirk is portrayed as brash but decisive. He’s a man with good instincts whose relentless determination gets him into plenty of trouble. He’s certainly not wise beyond his years like the always-classy Leonard Nimoy, who reprises the role of Mr. Spock, albeit a much more aged version. Don’t worry; it all fits in with the plot development.
And who can forget the rest of the unforgettables? McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Scotty, Chekov… These characters needed something more than good casting calls, and they got it. Perhaps the greatest quality of Star Trek is its absence of A-list actors and presence of real people who have learned knowledge of the characters we know and love. A perfect non-example of this scenario is actor Michael Gambon (the second person to portray Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films) being quoted saying, “I just say what the script tells me to say. I learn the lines and say them – I don’t have much sub-text.” The polar opposite couldn’t be more true for the performances seen in Star Trek – a film encompassing professionals who clearly followed their predecessors’ leads and warped themselves in order to snugly fit inside Gene Roddenberry’s character-gloves. Essentially, the original cast of Star Trek was reborn, and each member of the ensemble helmed his/her role amicably.
Abrams is strikingly good at fine-tuning his productions, making sure even the simplest textual footnotes pop out in unique ways. What’s more is that Abrams knows how to work a camera. Star Trek‘s cinematography works wonders in bringing the audience into a spacey atmosphere (or lack thereof). Camera pans, zooms and rotations are subtly interchanged and interwoven, creating a fresh perspective for viewers, who may have noted similar direction from the critically-acclaimed series Battlestar Galactica. The few of you who made that particular note will have undoubtedly noticed the difference in visual effects as well – Abrams beastly Trek boasts astonishingly realistic looking (and feeling) locations and computer generated imagery. Romulan ships never looked so colossally crude, dwarfing the Enterprise while on the brink of attack. By that same token, the eerily dead silence of space is presented in such a way that’s bone-chilling to witness. And before I forget, the redesigned bridge had me drooling. McCoy’s delivery of “Damn it Spock, I’m a doctor, not a physicist!” was icing on the cake, and that’s but one of the many classic lines to be uttered.
I can type with full confidence that this is the first time in my life I’m hopeful of a sequel to a prequel, and it can’t happen soon enough. The film maintains the original series’ tight grip on old school Trekkies and opens up the floodgates for a whole new era of Star Trek fandom.





>I can’t wait to see this..probably #1 on my list since the new Terminator is rated PG13…ugh.
>Yeah, it does suck about Terminator Salvation’s rating, but to be honest, I’m a LOT more hopeful about that movie than I was when I first heard about it. I had absolutely no faith in McG, but he seems to have done alright with it.
>Phenomenal movie. One of my favorite sci-fi movies of all time, next to Star Wars, of course. Only thing with the review.. ” What’s more is that Abrams knows how to work a camera.” He had almost nothing to do with the direction of cinematography and camerawork for the film. Sure, he MAY have developed the idea for the lens flare over all of the footage, but the Camera and Electrical crew did a stellar job creating this movie. Yeah, I’m being technically nit-picky over who-did-what when it came to making the movie. Sorry.Dude, you are such a good writer.
>The director, being responsible for the creation and employment of his unique artistic realization, typically works first-hand with editors, actors, producers, and cinematographers. My meaning is that Abrams’ vision was expressed well via his preferred camera angles, pans, zooms, etc., regardless of who was physically manning the camera.Cool bit of info about the lens flare; I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for the feedback, sir.
>We should give this movie an 8