'Star Trek' movie breathes new life into franchise

[lalisabelita]

You don't expect to find much fresh air in outer space, but that's exactly what the reboot of "Star Trek" brings to the musty franchise.

The film finds compelling new angles on iconic science fiction characters, thanks to spot-on casting and a young, sexy "Abercrombie & Trek" vibe. Faithful to the outlines of the classic TV series yet original, this revitalized, reimagined "Trek" is a gift to nerds and newbies alike. It's engagingly acted, intelligently scripted and confidently directed. Put it alongside "Casino Royale" and "Batman Begins" as a fresh start that gets almost everything right.

Take the command deck of the USS Enterprise. It's the same, yet different. Kirk, Spock, Sulu and Chekov sit in the same relation to each other on the bridge, but the controls, instruments and displays have a cool, elegant new design. Old "Trek" was a PC; this is definitely a Mac.

The cinematography and special effects have evolved. Space scenes feature lens flares and nebulas that look stunningly authentic, and the gorgeous landscapes on rocky Vulcan and a remote ice planet would be at home in a coffee-table book.

The first mission of the Enterprise is to neutralize a time-traveling Romulan craft boasting unheard-of weaponry. That's the basic setup of every "Star Trek" movie, and it's the film's weakest link. Eric Bana is all right as the villainous Nero, who has his reasons. And there are nods to contemporary geopolitics that will please "Battlestar Galactica" fans. But the spectacular space battles are beside the point. This is really the story of how the Enterprise crew meets, hammers out its differences and becomes a team, and the telling is pure bliss.

After a scene-setting space battle that opens the story at warp speed, we meet young Kirk, a juvenile delinquent before he enters his teens. He's joyriding in a 300-year-old Corvette, blasting the Beastie Boys, anachronisms that make him easy to relate to. Chris Pine's Kirk contrasts nicely with the original. He's a hellion and a cock-of-the-walk wise guy who joins the service as an alternative to doing jail time. He grows in the discipline of the Starfleet Academy, but he's still too impulsive to make the grade as a space officer. It takes real skullduggery to get him aboard the Enterprise. He starts out with more than a dash of "Futurama's" chauvinist, swashbuckling Zapp Brannigan, matures in a crisis and becomes an inspiring leader.

The script is ingenious in setting hurdles for the characters and then leaping them. It's delightful how deftly the film touches on and twists the standard ingredients of "Trek" lore, how it uses our familiarity for surprises and graceful storytelling shorthand. You will appreciate it if you are a casual fan, and the more "Trek" lore you know, the more your admiration will grow.

Yes, the red-suited member of the landing party is a goner, but never has his demise been so swift and darkly funny. Of course young Spock's logical Vulcan side and his human emotions are at war, but Zachary Quinto's tilt is far warmer than Leonard Nimoy's. Uhuru (Zoe Saldana) develops a romantic attachment to a shipmate, but not the one you expected. Before you accuse the filmmakers of rewriting history, understand they anticipated your objections and used a classic science fiction idea to answer them.

With the exception of Winona Ryder, wooden and unpersuasively aged as Spock's human mother, the cast is flawless. Simon Pegg is a superb Scotty, the kind of gregarious bloke you'd hope to sit next to in a pub, but that's no surprise. Who suspected that Karl Urban, a specialist in dark drama, would make such a delightfully grumpy "Bones" McCoy? How can you hear him call Spock a "green-blooded hobgoblin" and not smile? John Cho's Sulu, Bruce Greenwood's Pike, Anton Yelchin's Chekov - all honor the characters' creators but lift the roles to a new level.

The quality that has kept audiences revisiting Gene Roddenberry's universe for more than 40 years is the camaraderie between his characters, and this crew has it in spades. When the film ends, you miss them. After this exhilarating new start, "Trek" is guaranteed to live long and prosper.





________________

The x file 1-9 dvd
Supernatural dvd
Battlestar Galactica dvd
Twin peaks seasons 1-2 dvd box set

[Taminar]

My husband and I saw the new movie today. I liked it slightly better than he did, but neither one of us thought it was the best Trek movie ever.

I agree that the command deck looked good. Engineering was a mess, looked more like a chemistry lab than Enterprise engineering, and doesn't fit with the exterior of the ship. You can't have a four-story mansion set inside, and look at a ranch home on the outside.

Some of the effects were very good. Some looked extremely CGI. Yes, I expect realism. I mean, the same people who condemn the original effects of the Trek series as "cheesy" will gush over fake-looking CGI, just because it's done on a computer. You liked the lens flares, we found them (especially the ones inside, to be extremely distracting and pointless).

You don't seem to mind that the whole set-up of the movie ("to neutralize a time-traveling Romulan craft boasting unheard-of weaponry") is poor. I think that having a good basic story to build on with characters and plot is essential. The time travel motif within the Trek universe is getting very old. I'm also really sick of science fiction movies feeling that every character has to be conveniently wrapped up in each other. In the Navy, for example, you get assigned to a ship and maybe you know a few of the people, but not everyone was at the Academy together. I'm a huge "Star Wars" fan, but it irritated me that Chewie knew Yoda, and Boba Fett's dad got killed by the Jedi, and there was even talk of a young Han Solo appearing in the first trilogy. Not everything has to be connected to the beginning of time.

Another thing I'm getting sick of is that just about every movie hero is a delinquent these days. Can't anyone come from a two-parent home, do well in school, and stay out of trouble? It irritates me to seek Kirk, Spock, and McCoy turned into rebels and troublemakers.

The direction, especially of the action scenes, was terrible. I cannot stand to try to watch something and not be able to focus on anything or tell what's going on, because the camera is moving and shaking while being tightly zoomed in. Come on, J.J., let me see what's happening!

Before you condemn Winona Ryder's performance, keep in mind that Majel Barrett as Amanda was fairly wooden in her own performance, and the gray in her hair looked just as bad. I think Winona did exactly what the director wanted.

I was happy to see Simon Pegg as Scotty. It's nice when a science fiction fan gets to be part of a legacy that he enjoyed so much. He was a little more exuberant than James Doohan's Scotty, but I'll attribute that to youth and genuine excitement about being aboard the Enterprise.

It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, it's not the worst Trek movie I've ever seen, but it could have been better and more respectful to the people who've kept the "franchise" alive this long. That said, I will see the next one, and if it's a smart script, and the acting is just as good, they might win over my remaining doubts.

[GuessGirl]

This movie is so big at the box office right now. It looks good but I've never watched Star Trek.