The tagline might be "to go where no one has gone before," but J.J. Abrams went where no one wanted to go without a reasonable fiscal return. The trans-generational sci-fi series Star Trek - fashioned by Gene Roddenberry as a promising vision of the future, in spite of the numerous death and damnation serials of the 1950s and 60s - broke barriers technological and social, and launched an entire empire of devoted followers. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone over 40 who didn't either grew up on the show, or who won't mind admitting that they've seen more than ten episodes.

Though the fictional Star Trek universe always seemed to thrive on the passage of time, time in the real world has weathered the popularity of the series in recent years, with trends as shifty as Starfleet’s dress code. Paramount has suffered a significant decline in viewership as old fans pass on and potential fans are lost to reality television. In fact, only four years ago, fans found themselves without a Star Trek series on the air for the first time since 1987.

Enter J.J. Abrams, the small screen savior whose spindly King Midas fingers turn would-be prospects into gold. That's certainly been the case for his most recent projects, proving his aptitude as producer in the film world (Cloverfield) as well outside the television one (Lost, Alias). It is in this respect that, even with barely a directing background to speak of, Abrams must have seemed a capable wizard to ailing Paramount for resurrecting Star Trek, in whatever capacity they might have been able to afford.

Frankly, I’m surprised the film ever got financed, much less made. I thought Star Trek was all but finished. I guess that’s a testament to the franchise’s roots: that unlike Star Wars, it never sold out or neutered its mission statement to sell tickets; that it simply faded away like old technology. So it’s nice to see this re-boot come to fruition. And it is a re-boot. The film employs a plot device to explain (or rather, apologize for) why the reset button has been punched, but aside from the fact that such apologies are unnecessary, it really doesn’t matter anyway. We’re in a new old era, and that's that.

Mostly, the film hits its mark. It’s a dynamic, action-packed romp that’s part high school reunion, part college graduation. The effects are probably its greatest strength, and - like most have said – depict the dangers of space in a way no previous Trek ever did. You get the sense that these people are really flying by the seat of their pants, whether they're dodging giant space debris, beaming onto ships mid-warp, or simply finding themselves in danger of falling into large, bottomless chasms. It’s a deadly universe, it is.

The characters, with respect to their 1960s counterparts, are rendered well. Spock (Zachary Quinto) is the standout here, somehow managing to make a stone face intensely believable. Everyone else is likeable and amusing enough(this film has got some of the most well-delivered comedy I’ve seen in years), and while I think Chris Pine has got a long way to go before he can match the personality and bravado that we remember from Captain Kirk of yesteryear, he’s well on his way.

The latest Trek villain, Nero (Eric Bana), is intense, scary, believable, and unfortunately, completely underused. I think a backstory such as his is easily the best kind, but the resulting conflict it causes within the viewer is not really conducive to films of the summer action variety. Suffice it to say, the moral questions that his involvement arises would have been exciting to answer, but alas, that might have cut into good explosion time. In this respect, he’s largely absent from the film, obviously to keep the spotlight on the boys/girls in uniform, which is a real shame. In the few glimpses we’re afforded, we see an obligatory character taken seriously by an actor who does his best to make the role his own.

There are nods to the old series everywhere, and it’s a shame many will never catch the references. Some of them are delivered poorly, though, which made me wonder if the writers had work sessions devoted entirely to these moments, and if so, which ones didn't make the cut. (Although, I’d have given all of my nonessential body organs to science, and maybe some essential ones, just so I could be in those meetings.)

I have many complaints, most of them having to do with logic and undeveloped characterization. I won’t go into too much detail, lest I'd have to get all spoilery. But I will say that the biggest misstep was writing the film to a prescribed model, versus letting the story dictate what the model was going to be. I know that sounds vague, but with something as iconic as Star Trek, it’s easy to let the mythos take precedence over a technical groundwork. This film operates on a few questionable platitudes, and although they can be explained circumstantially, it’s the writer’s job to leave no stone unturned.

I’m also torn over the film’s cacophony of smarminess. On the one hand, I’m happy that Star Trek is back, and that a new cast of hopefuls have enlivened these beloved characters. But on the other hand, the upbeat, Hallmark one-liners they speak at each other throughout the film are the kinds of things South Park has been lampooning for years. It just makes you want to roll your eyes. Are people really this sentimental in the future? There at the end, I could have sworn I was going to see a group hug. I just knew it.



All in all, Star Trek is a fun, impressive, hilarious, beautiful action flick that’s more thrill ride than feature film. If only Abrams and company had put the script through one more revision, perhaps by someone outside the scope of the project who could identify and iron out the kinks, then I think the film would have easily been one of the year’s best. Because even on a production like Star Trek, which for years has operated almost entirely on its viewers’ ability to extend disbelief, the story still must read left-to-right, just like everything else.