Star Trek

It seems that with the film Star Trek, one should preface discussing it by stating what one's involvement is with Star Trek as a whole. Therefore, I am not much of a Star Trek fan. I've seen my share of episodes, but never had a passion for it. During high school (the show was then a decade after cancellation and firmly in syndication) I had a couple of friends who were passionate fans (Trekkies, Trekkers, whatever) so I lived somewhat vicariously through them. We were just out of high school when the first feature film was released, and a whole bunch of us went. The movie stunk, of course, but it was interesting noting how glorious it was for these fans to see, after more than ten years, the Enterprise and its crew in action again.

Since then nine more films were released, some with the original cast, some with the Next Generation cast. I've seen most of them, although without looking at the IMDB I couldn't swear to which ones. Most have been acceptable entertainment, the Next Generation ones better simply because we were spared the sight of the aging and spreading original cast. Now J.J. Abrams has resurrected the franchise with a "reboot," a popular and dangerous term for starting familiar characters and storylines all over again, as if everything that happened before never happened. The results are mixed.

Abrams, creator of TV fare Lost and Alias, has previously directed only one film, Mission Impossible II, and is notable more as a mastermind of worlds than a hands-on tinkerer. Star Trek, the series, was always about ideas more than action or special effects (I mean they had Styrofoam rocks, for goodness sake), while this Star Trek tries for both, but comes up short in each. Abrams doesn't show much of a flair for action, and he recycles an idea that is now on display in his TV brainchild, Lost.

The film really consists of two halves. The first is a frequently dull introduction of characters, all with a kind of wink at those who recognize them. For anyone who walked into the film with no knowledge of Star Trek, it would be extremely painful. We meet Jim Kirk, son of a heroic captain, who is squandering his talent on driving fast and boozing; Spock, the Vulcan-Human hybrid who deals with racial discrimination and tries mightily to suppress his emotions; McCoy, the ship's doctor and comedian, and Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov, all of whom would patiently occupy their respective chairs on the bridge in the series. Abrams tries to give them a bit more to do (a romance between Uhura and Spock?) and some back story.

Then the plot takes shape. It seems that time travel is involved, so an alternate storyline is created, thus denying Trekologists the right to complain that such and such never happened or couldn't be possible. It's a clever move and cynical one at the same time. Anyway, a Romulan (played unrecognizably by Eric Bana) swears revenge on the Federation after his planet is destroyed, but comes from the future to do it.

The film began to get interesting when Leonard Nimoy shows up. Just who he plays and why he is in the film is something of a spoiler, but suffice it to say that his presence is both reassuring and gives the film a kick-start. Despite the focus on Kirk, this film is really about Spock, and when I think about it is his character, along with Nimoy and the fine performance by Zachary Quinto that is in my brain. His struggle at being in two worlds is, in his term, "fascinating."

There's plenty for the old fans to chuckle over. A lot of the catch-phrases are there, such as McCoy's "I'm a doctor, not a..." and Scottie's "I'm giving it all I can!" (By the way, Simon Pegg is a delight as the excitable Scot). I would imagine more than a few Trekkers got a little thrill hearing Spock say, "Phasers set to stun."

I'm guessing that there will another film, and I'm actually optimistic about that one. With all the introductions out of the way, the story can probably get underway immediately, and perhaps we can see more of Abrams storytelling gifts.