ALARIS' REVIEWS

31st October 2010
Star Trek (2009)

I avoided watching this movie for quite some time because I found the idea of a Star Trek ‘reboot’ nothing short of sacrilegious. I love Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), I have a great respect for Star Trek: The Original Series (1966), I have mixed feelings about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993), I feel Star Trek: Voyager (1995) was losing its way, and Star Trek: Enterprise (2001) was a crass piece of regurgitated gagh that made me want to crash an infected Borg cube into UPN HQ.

Star Trek isn’t just a show, it’s a philosophy.

In short, the rebooted Star Trek film is a well constructed, science fiction action film. And had it not smeared itself in the Star Trek universe, I could probably speak in its praise. Were it not masquerading as a Star Trek film, I could say the plot is reasonably paced, if not complex; the acting is competent, if not outstanding; the effects are impressive, the action sequences effective, and the touches of humour welcome.

Chris Pine deserves a mention for delivering a lively and convincing character, however vulgar and irritating this incarnation of ‘Kirk’. Simon Pegg and John Cho make amusing versions of ‘Scotty’ and ‘Sulu’, although Winona Ryder as ‘Spock’s’ mother is the most confusing piece of casting since Angelina Jolie played Colin Farrel’s mother in Alexander (2004).

However, I come not to praise ‘Star Trek’, but to mourn what it could have been. The rebooted film carries the Star Trek name, but none of its spirit. Star Trek, as conceived by Gene Roddenberry, is a banner for tolerance, compassion, difficult moral questions, unpopular but important social issues, and a humanism that encompasses all sentient beings. It’s about who we are, what we are, where we’re headed, and what we could be. It’s about the highs and lows of humanity, the cruelty, the generosity, the magnificence and the simplicity. Star Trek is about giving your moral certainty a good, hard shake, and leaving you with a stronger, clearer, more compassionate certainty.

The rebooted Star Trek film is a decent action flick. But there is nothing remotely progressive or morally challenging about it.

I’m going to embark on a self indulgent metaphor now, so those without patience can skip to the end. The rebooted Star Trek film is like a person who changes their name and their face to match that of a departed friend, and tries to occupy their job and family role. When you look at this person, the likeness is there, but this stranger has none of the warmth, the memories, the convictions, or the heart of your friend. They’re a fine person, in their own way, but they are nothing like your friend. And had they not taken your friend’s identity, they might have become a new, different friend. But by pretending to be something irreplaceable, they are pouring sludge on the memory of your friend.

In conclusion, if the rebooted Star Trek film had set itself in another universe, it would have made for an entertaining, if not memorable, sci fi film. However, by calling itself Star Trek, yet offering none of the spirit, the wit, and the hope of its namesake, it becomes a hollow, cynical, marketing toy.

Verdict: A science fiction action film that resembles the Star Trek universe in window dressing only.

If you like Enterprise, you might like this.

**

Read Zee's review of Star Trek (2009).