[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img] The Star Trek franchise arguably began its decline with the Next Generation movies. After the Hugo-winning final episode “All Good Things…” – a series best and a pitch-perfect counterpoint to the outstanding “Encounter at Farpoint,” “Star Trek Generations” disappointed with a shabby death for Captain Kirk and the milestone transition from idea-driven narratives to action-fueled spectacle. “First Contact” marked a comeback of sorts with its winning blend of action and character drama rooted in the revenge psychology of Moby Dick, but the franchise lost momentum again with the forgettable “Insurrection.” A last-gasp attempt with the series’ swan song, “Nemesis” did boast a few good moments – all of them stolen from “Wrath of Khan” and not nearly as muscular. The focus on action also impacted the TV series to varying degrees; “DS9” devolved into a military SF soap opera, “Voyager” became assimilated by conflicts with the Borg, and “Enterprise,” despite a valiant last-season attempt at rallying itself, was undone by its temporal cold war storyline.

With the wheezing franchise overloaded by bloated narratives and crippled by a drifting direction, the need for a fresh start was, of course, logical – regardless of how it might offend purists. Enter J.J. Abrams’ simply named “Star Trek,” a resurrection more problematic than promising.  By shoehorning the quasi-reboot into the existing franchise courtesy of a time travel stunt involving Leonard Nimoy’s Spock, the whole effort begins as burdened by manipulated expectations. The distinction is naturally esoteric as to whether “Star Trek” occurs in a parallel universe or narratively wipes the canonical slate clean, but these sorts of alternate reality shenanigans for the benefit of old fans are mere pandering considering this reboot-in-all-but-name also aims for a new generation of viewers. With successful relaunches in the “Batman” and “James Bond” franchises serving as examples – reflective, inward-looking reboots that co-exist without diminishing the best of the past – a clean reset of the “Star Trek” universe (with all the optimism that comes with the name) would have at least been honest.

Beautiful: It Looks Like Trek

The issue is rather pale, however, in contrast to other failings, which stand in stark contrast to the film’s genuine achievements. After flirting with ridicule when early screen shots revealed a bridge that looked like the interior of an Apple store, “Star Trek” ultimately boasts of striking, and at times extraordinary, production design. The iconic starship Enterprise, including the bridge, is rendered in a way that is both faithful to the singular Star Trek aesthetic yet also distinctive and contemporary. Surprisingly, the result is that lump-in-the-throat, chest-swelling feeling that comes from reuniting with an old friend after a too-long absence.

And the cast exceeds expectations in their embodiment of the familiar, by now classic characters. Performances are well calibrated to avoid imitation or unintentional parody, and we can see in the actors the stuff a new franchise can be reliably, and enthusiastically, built on. With the notable exception of an arbitrary romance between two key characters that feels jarringly untrue to established character lore, there are surprisingly few meaningful quibbles to be found in the physical details of adapting “Star Trek” for contemporary audiences. (And if there’s one thing that can be said of purists, it’s that they don’t have trouble with quibbles; it goes to Abram’s credits that the adaptation, from an aesthetic standpoint, overcomes this.) To the contrary, the characters are given a chance to prove their mettle and show us what makes them tick. Scenes between Zachary Quinto as Spock and Ben Cross as Sarek offer tender insights into Vulcan culture and, specifically, the relationship between father and son. These stand out along with the back-and-forth between buddies Kirk, commandingly portrayed by Christopher Pine, and Karl Urban who hits the right loveable gruff tone for his McCoy.

…but It Lacks the Trek Spirit

Yet, for all that Abrams directs exciting special effects action sequences and offers a few good melodramatic scenes, it is singularly ironic that the film ends with the utterance of the immortal pledge to explore strange new worlds and seek out new life and civilizations when the movie does nothing of the sort. Leaving behind Roddenberry’s vision – if, indeed, his vision holds meaning anymore – “Star Trek” is a mediocre action plot dressed in the finest Starfleet clothing. Between the obligatory and often successful character moments, the film sputters out clichés in the conflict between Starfleet and yet another unstable revenge-obsessed villain with a superweapon at his disposal. Eric Bana plays that unshaven, tattooed villain, called Nero, as a bland imitation of Shinzon from “Nemesis” with little more than snarl and no depth of relationship beyond villain-hero with Kirk and his crew. (Think, instead, of Kirk and Khan, or Kirk and Christopher Plummer’s Chang.) A better question is: whatever happened to elegant, imperious, aristocratic Romulans?

Just as “Top Gun” was, for better or worse, the poster film for the US Navy, “Star Trek” conveyed the excitement of NASA. Kirk and his crew, despite the inevitable conflicts with hostile force, ultimately embodied a spirit of exploration, scientific curiosity, and the desire for peace. Abrams’ “Star Trek” lacks that spirit. It is not fiction about science (which screenwriters Orci and Kurtzman can’t convincingly write even in small amounts), nor a meditation on humanity’s evolution in the context of a universe filled, not only with terrors, but wonders too. Worse, it is a cavalier and heartless film that takes events of unimaginably tragic proportions and reduces them to mere plot points, stepping stones to that happy, cloying finale when viewers are rewarded, at last, with a revved-up, united crew and the familiar theme song. How does one present an optimistic vision of the future when delivering atrocities that should darken a story to the bleakest black? Answer: by having Orci and Kurtzman indulge their penchant for manipulative plot devices that sacrifice the bigger picture in favour of short-term emotional payoffs, and using nearly non-stop action to gloss over the story’s moral dimensions.

But there is ship-to-ship and hand-to-hand combat, and plenty of it, highlighting how Abrams’ “Star Trek” has fulfilled the ambitions of defining “Star Trek” almost exclusively by things that go boom and fists that go thump. Where “The Motion Picture” was about first contact with the unknown, “The Voyage Home” delivered an environmental message, and “The Undiscovered Country” dealt with enemies overcoming their bigotries and old hatreds to pursue peace, Abrams “Star Trek” doesn’t layer its explosions and fistfights with big ideas. If the film has a grander purpose, it lies in fulfilling Hollywood’s obsessive trend of offering origin stories for every creative property in sight whether needed or not, making “Star Trek” feel like a prologue to the real story, the placing of pieces on the board before the game even starts.

Entertainment Value: * (out of two)
Technical Quality: * (out of two)

Star Trek. Directed by J. J. Abrams. Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, and Winona Ryder. 126 minutes. MPAA rating: PG-13 (for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content).

Frédérik invites you to discuss “Star Trek” and more at his blog, www.inkandashes.net.