Star Trek (2009)

D: J.J. Abrams
C: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Leonard Nimoy, Simon Pegg, etc.

I hadn't been to the cinema for a few months, so I decided to see Star Trek, mostly due to the positive feedback and a promising trailer. I have no emotional investment in this particular franchise, I'm pretty much a novice to all things Star Trek. Funnily enough, after seeing it I realized that I was the target audience.

When you get past the fact that there are some odd looking characters in this film, it's quite entertaining. Rachel Nichols painted green (why oh why?), various guys with pointy ears and a whole roster of oddly shaped, disproportioned creatures brought me back to when I experienced Star Wars for the first time.

Casting was surprisingly good and surprising because I wouldn't have imagined most of these actors playing these sort of roles, seeing them doing completely different type of stuff prior to Star Trek. It's not like with Star Wars, where the majority of the cast was unknown to me at the time, so I had no preconceptions of the actors involved. There were some that bothered me though. I have nothing against Eric Bana, but I don't think he was the right choice for his part. I felt he was holding himself back or perhaps it was the part that required it, but the villain was relatively uninteresting and Bana's performance rather dull.

Chris Pine was a great choice and I'm glad he landed this gig, mostly because of his performances in Blind Dating and Smokin' Aces. The guy's got talent and I hope he doesn't get trapped in mediocre projects. This was a welcomed boost for him, I'm sure. Zachary Quinto was a nice surprise, whom I'm completely unfamiliar with, mostly because he's done nothing else but TV. The part of Spock was undoubtedly the most interesting one, the film is pretty much built around this particular character. Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry were odd choices, Ryder who has yet to find a speech therapist and Perry who's just a talentless git. Anton Yelchin, however, is one talented kid, destined for a great career. A few days ago I watched Charlie Bartlett, where he did a very good job. That and Star Trek shows that he's also good with accents and the enthusiastic Pavel Chekov really stood out. That shouldn't be a surprise though, since both his parents are Russian. I have high hopes for him in the upcoming Terminator Salvation, where he plays Kyle Reese. John Cho was also a nice addition, but Simon Pegg gave me mixed feelings. I don't know who played the character originally, but Kirk, McCoy and Chekov provided enough comic relief, so Scotty or namely Pegg's performance as Scotty was excessive. He's a great comedian, but he didn't really fit in here or give any particularly funny moments compared to the rest of the cast. Nothing interesting or memorable, just bland. Leonard Nimoy was a nice touch for the fans, kinda made me feel bad for William Shatner not getting a part, but there wasn't any room for him anyway. Not with this script.

Since this was a reboot, it tries to give an overview of the franchise's universe or more of an introduction and it succeeds in doing that. The story is pretty straightforward, easy to follow and therefore perfect for mainstream acceptance. Earning $72.5 million during three days is proof enough. J.J. Abrams has found a middle ground with his films, producing one visual spectacle after another that appeals to the masses. Mission: Impossible III blew John Woo's piece of shit out of the water, Cloverfield was a $25 million dollar disaster movie, which is an achievement on it's own right and Star Trek can be placed among the list of other successful reboots such as Casino Royale and Batman Begins. That's not something you can say about Superman Returns, for example.

The score by Michael Giacchino was pretty good all around, held up surprisingly well with the sound and visual effects. They played it too safe though, the score is quite easy to forget. The use of licensed music was great though. Beastie Boys with "Sabotage" fit perfectly. I think there was also something else, but I can't remember at the moment.

The use of shaky-cam was more or less satisfying, although it wasn't necessary in some scenes. I just didn't understand how it added to some of the indoor scenes, whereas in the space battles it made more sense. It's always risky using the shaky-cam, cos you don't want to disorient your audience or even make them feel sick. In Cloverfield it was great, also in Paul Greengrass's Bourne films and Daniel Craig's Bond films, but it didn't fit that well into Star Trek, into those particular scenes. A little off balance, but great camera work despite it.

The work of the sound department and the visual effects are one of the best out there. It's a pretty nice balance between the eye candy and the story, although the story is a bit too straightforward for my taste. But it's a reboot, different rules apply and compromises are needed in many aspects. The reason it cost $150 million dollars to make and has earned over $100 million dollars globally in a matter of days, should be pretty obvious. It's solid entertainment, heavy on visuals and sound, with a nice dose of humor. A lot less cheesier what Michael Bay churns out, although the ending was the usual elevated farts and grins, and naturally scored accordingly. Wasn't so bad as many other cheesy endings, but I would've expected something more ballsy or just different. Unfortunately it follows a familiar path. Either way I'm looking forward to seeing what the sequel has in store for us.

8/10