Boldly Go

REVIEW: STAR TREK (88%)

It pleases me to tell you that “Star Trek” is great. I have seen it twice now, and I heartily endorse it as a rousing space opera. Helmer J.J. Abrams, responsible for TV’s “Alias” and “Lost,” takes command of the franchise with real gusto, pumping it full of blood much the same way he did “Mission Impossible III,” although “Trek” must be considered a superior picture. The real story of this movie may be Abrams, who is gradually growing into his britches as a filmmaker, and with this flick he takes another big step. Although “M:I-3″ was nothing to sneeze at, its pizzaz and high gloss masked a sort of hollow thud in the central relationships of the characters, particularly noticeable between Ethan Hunt and his fiancee. The movie could never completely recover from this flaw, because without us caring about Hunt’s girl, the insane lengths it took to rescue her lost that little ounce of impact.

The problem is, Abrams is a man with an extraordinary gift for cool. He knows things that are awesome like the back of his hand, and he can make any character, any scene, any piece of dialogue completely hip. He never insults your intelligence, he’s usually a step ahead of you, and as an idea man he is the first competition George Lucas has had in some time. So why is this a problem? Because J.J. has to stop, take a breath, and remember his characters. It would be all too easy for him to take an idea, make it cool, and put it up on the screen before he made it matter, and he’s so damned good at it that you might not even notice you didn’t care until you were driving away from the theater. With “Star Trek,” we begin to see him tread more carefully. Cool is coming out of this movie’s ears, but we care about the people (and aliens) in this world, and we’re along for the ride on those grounds first and foremost.

You’re not getting a description of the plot. If you honestly have no idea, you have not been paying attention to your own culture.

Foregoing proper form, let me discuss my favorite things about this movie, with little or no regard for journalistic pattern. Number one: the cinematography. “Star Trek” boasts the finest rendering of ships flying through space that I’ve seen in years. Nailing an incredibly fine line between vibrant colors and grounded reality, everything on display here is simultaneously beyond belief and oddly believable. From the noble, righteous blue wake of the Enterprise’s engine to the sickly, evil green glow of the Romulan adversary, everything is oozing attention to detail. I’m sure it’s all smoke and mirrors, I can’t imagine many of these ships actually functioning, but for every frame they were up in front of me I bought it. I thought to myself, “Well, naturally, I guess that plume of smoke there is an exhaust vent. I wonder if they need to vent every time they take off, or just in emergencies?” There have been a select few space movies whose vessels have stood the test of time: “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Starship Troopers” (you laugh, but go watch), and I think this new “Trek” is destined to become one of them.

Even more than that, though, the framing of the space action is as good as you could possibly ask for. Learning from but not slavishly copying “Battlestar Galactica,” the team behind this movie puts their lense nose-down into the action; at one point, I noticed the camera shaking back and forth from the force of an explosion, which was a wonderful little trick. There are also fast-zooms, uneven tilts, and all kinds of handheld, combat-drenched camerawork which makes these fights feel threatening. At the same time, we are also treated to a dozen or more absolutely breathaking pull-backs–the camera is still, the sound goes quiet, and we see the insidious black warship stalk its prey as a frighteningly small band of lifeboats zoom away, cloaked in the hot orange glow of a nearby star. This is just one example. My breath was repeatedly taken away by how stunning the composition so often was, and I may be so bold, I was reminded of the kind of obsessive care that Kubrick took when he tread through space. I look forward to buying the DVD, pausing the damned thing, and just staring at the work these guys and gals have done. Incredible.

High marks also for casting, especially in regards to Chris Pine as the heroic Kirk. A wonderful choice from any possibly angle, Pine’s boyish good looks betray a fast wit and real gravitas that make him captivating the whole way through. He is respectful of what Shatner did, but he also respects himself and what he brings to the table. The results are grand, and thank God, because if Kirk slips even a little bit, the game is up. Ditto for Zachary Quinto as Spock, of “Heroes” fame, one of the most obvious casting choices in history, but still enormously gratifying. Poor Zach is given the extra burden of acting up against the original, Mr. Leonard Nimoy, who is in predictably incredible form. And yet, the young turk holds out, defiantly crafting his own character as if he were the first man to take the job. His Spock is a more passionate man, his eyes bore holes into everyone around him, he is Kirk’s better in combat and happily displays the fact, he even has a fiery romance. Oh, he retains that Vulcan calmness they’re so legendary for, but he distorts it, perverting it into a weapon. Even against other Vulcans, Spock’s mellow nature has an edge, a threat to it. He is less like a tranquil forest, more like a time bomb. I have nothing but praise for Quinto’s performance, which I found captivating: I loved him, and I loved to hate him, sometimes at the same time. What more can you ask for?

The rest of the cast is a neat little dream team, well-known faces who are not yet superstars who feel planted by God to play these roles. It must be fate that this movie gets made when you have Karl Urban to essay Bones, Simon Pegg to take Scotty (thank you Lord), John Cho for Sulu. How can it be a coincidence that this talent was lying in wait for these characters? Kudos to Abrams for assembling the most exciting crew for his Enterprise that I can imagine. I wish all casting in Hollywood was handled like this. Oh, and while we’re on the subject, due credit also goes to Bruce Greenwood, a veteran with so much charisma it hurts. He plays Captain Pike, a father figure for the semi-orphaned young Kirk, and his instant believability reminded me of the greats in Hollywood like Denzel Washington. I’m always glad to see him in any movie.

As for the script, by Kurtzman and Orci, it’s also in fine order. I was surprised by how much comedy the film used, and I liked its willingness to embrace that. “Star Trek” is a movie that takes itself very seriously, and it should, so those doses of levity are absolutely crucial to keep from annoying your audience. There’s no question that “Trek” is an action flick through and through, it’s packed to the gills with as many set pieces as the story can feasibly hold. But no more than that, Abrams is a man who knows when to say when. Yes, this thing is heavy on the spectacle, but it’s not “Quantum of Solace,” jamming a fistfight in every time you blink. It walks right up to the line of credibility, but it does not step over, and that is an incredibly important distinction.

So. There are flaws, let’s go ahead and talk about them. First off, Abrams has got to learn how to handle fight scenes. His shoot-outs are okay, they were actually a bit better in “M:I-3,” but his hand-to-hand has always been shaky and discombobulated. That continues here. I’m also not wild about the climax. It works in a kind of rote, Hollywood way, but it basically amounts to “kill the bad guy.” Since I was utterly involved in the Kirk/Spock friendship/rivalry, I wanted to see these two forced to some kind of brink, either in cooperation or competition, because that is the real story going on here. Eric Bana’s Nero may be the “villain,” but he’s a means to an end, and the story forgot that in its last hurrah.

The film makes its heroes butt heads with great success a few times in the middle, but by the end it has mostly resolved their differences, and I think this was a mistake, since it leaves us with little to do. If their reconciliation had been deep and profound, it might have been satisfying, but they are muted and cautious with one another, and the last thirty minutes sort of drops their conflict pre-emptively. The result of this fumble is that Kirk and Spock never forge the friendship we so long to see between them. Their rivalry is so compelling it hurts, but we feel cheated as the credits roll, because we know these men are practically brothers and we feel we’re going to miss their coming together.

I think two forces are to blame for this: firstly Trekkies, who Abrams clearly thought would not stomach Kirk and Spock being at each other’s throats the whole time. Second, the studio, which I’m sure put pressure on the team for a textbook “whiz bang” ending. As the last few explosions start going off, the movie seems to suddenly remember Nero, and awkwardly attempts to shift back to him for the finale, as if the conflict with him was anywhere near the real point of this story. The first time through, none of this will bother you in the slightest, but on repeat viewings I think the problem will bear itself. If Abrams, Kurtzman, Orci, Pine and Quinto hadn’t done such a great job through the whole thing, they might have had a real problem here. But they get away with it, there’s no other way to put it than that, because their bases are well enough covered to take this blow. Just like “Batman Begins” got away with a kind of “what the hell?” climax, “Star Trek” gets away with focusing on a boring character at the end. Sometimes, when you’ve done your homework, we just let this stuff slide.

Lastly, Uhura says “I’ll be monitoring your frequencies” to Spock in a tender, emotional moment. Am I missing something? Is that a Trek-ism? If it is, okay, but if it’s not, then that was a blatantly awful line which sticks out in an otherwise adept script. Both times I saw “Star Trek,” people laughed out loud. I hope I’m just missing something.

I can’t say how pleased I am with “Star Trek’s” great success. These franchise re-boots are starting to be a real pleasure, since studios have begun recruiting real talent and making dynamic, modern new statements about classic characters. There’s something sweet and sort of reverent about our newfound love for retooling the old classics, especially since so many of these new flicks have had such obvious respect for their ancestors. I like getting in the habit of looking to the past as well as the future, to remembering the stories that we loved when we were young, and sitting obediently at the feet of the old masters.