• What’s Good: J.J. Abrams and Spock. What a team! This film is good but, provided a second, has the potential to get a lot better.
• What’s Not: Chris Pine as Capt. Kirk is the most annoying man in the universe next to Tyler Perry (who’s also in the film). Nearly ruins the film.
• Faux Ken Turnan Quote: ”A burst of pure filmmaking exhilaration.” Actually, I didn’t make that up! That’s actually him and he’s a bigger dick than Kirk.  

I called it. When he made ”Mission Impossible: 3″ I saw the work of a new kind of auteur. Not one raised in Hollywood or prepped by TV commercials or MTV but television. Not since Frankenheimer and Lumet has this been big but it’s a trend that’s long overdue. My entire review of this (really unpopular) film detailed J.J. Abrams status as  a visionary director who has come to film and brought with him the best impulses of television. Lets face it, TV has way more ability to entertain than Hollywood films these days and I give credit to Hollywood for noticing this and embracing the talent that comes from this once inferior medium. It’s also fitting that they hand it over to the “Trek” franchise which, of course, began on television. After the release of ”Star Trek,” a flawed but fantastic(ical) film, it occurred to me that I would rather have a J.J. Abrams or Joss Whedon take on a franchise than a thousand Brett Ratners or Michael Bays.

That being said, “Star Trek,” historically speaking (…and I’m sorry for speaking historically…), sucks. Always has. It’s never really been that big of a deal in my world. Always something second rate, always something good in theory but never on paper (books, comics etc.) or in practice (TV, film, video games). Sure I watched every ”Trek” film and even liked a bunch. The tolerable ones to dare are threefold: “First Contact” (which retains its crown as the best “Star Trek” movie), followed by ”Star Trek VI” (the film where Kirk fights Evil Kirk!), and of course Khan! Still, I never enjoyed myself or felt the same space mojo on the level of the truly great sci-fi stories such as “Star Wars” or ”Alien.”

This film, I am glad to say, is not second rate. It legitimizes the franchise into something other than, well, something most of us secertly laugh at. This is clearly the first time I’ve ever felt excitement or wonder with a product bering the “Star Trek” name.

J.J. directs this pivotal franchise reboot with less formalized experimentalism as “MI:3,” which was shot like an action documentary with moments of startling close-ups that cut into the high gloss objectivity. This film is more safe but to call it that does not do the confident filmmaking justice. It’s tight and bright but not controlling or flashy. And while the plot sometimes feels rushed along as if a commercial break is just about to hit, J.J. and his “Alias” screenwriters never let their story venture into “Harry Potter” levels of hurried pacing. Which is to say it’s not impossible to savor bits of what goes down from one snappy scene to the next. Visually speaking, J.J. also gets a lot of information across in as little amount of time possible. Early pivotal moments such as Kirk’s upbringing and eventual recruitment to the star fleet are shot with great economy. The film, then, often feels condensed but in the most exciting ways possible. This “Trek” is all about quick (and often quirky) throwaway moments (Kirk bangs a green skinned hottie is one of many winks to the past) are juxtaposed with big broad action strokes. And of course the obligatory fan service can be a lot of fun even if it’s also a bit forced.  

Being a fan of “Alias” and “Lost” (though J.J. has virtually nothing to do with this show even though the media loves to note it as his biggest achievement) I always noticed that, as a writer/director, J.J. was a natural fit for sci-fi because he had the ability to take everyday things and empower them with realities so heightened that they felt like fantasy. Now that he has finally made an all-out sci-fi adventure he does the opposite by taking fantasy content and making it feel grounded and real. Most crucial is the fact that he takes the film and genre seriously. Here is a science-fiction film that actually uses science! When characters talk about black holes, relativistic physics (nobody says that word better than Simon Pegg’s Scotty!) and of course time travel I found myself really drawn into the angle that these are real theories being thrown out. Sure, liberties are taken to a point where the science at hand is anhiliated (NOTHING CAN OUTRUN A BLACK HOLE except light and Shatner’s ego!!!), but that’s hardly a negative since it’s called science-FICTION.

The plot is just what the series needs if viewed in the context of being a reboot. It engages fans and non fans in similar ways “Batman Begins” did. Unlike “Batman,” however, the villain (Eric Banna) is dull, obligitory and has a retarted agenda. Bana plays Nero, a space janitor from the future that happens to know how to navigate black holes with pinpoint percision and when bad stuff happened to his planet he goes to the past to, um, to stop Spock from destroying (but really saving) his planet and other stuff and… why does it have to be so convoluted? Villainous glitchs aside, the film’s opening draws the viewer in with tractor beam precision and really gave me the chills because of how it touches upon the grand and the deeply emotional (Kirk’s birth and parents). And early scenes involving Spock’s childhood years really set a nice tone for the film. The central theme is living up to one’s responsibilities, perhaps even destiny, but a cool twist to that is that both Kirk and Spock, before they become WHO THEY ARE, are literally instructed as to the greatness that will come from them. Wow, talk about a burden. 

The cast is for the most part handsome and winning but sometimes too polished and perfect for their own good. The film is about Kirk’s formative years of chasing ladies and letting everyone know he’s the shit. Oh, it’s also about his eventual rise from cadet to a Captain. This gets… well, see the next paragraph. Lucky for us the film is very Spock heavy. VERY. And Zachary Quinto is very good at inhabiting the alien skin of Spock. VERY. The story manages to open up new insights into this hard shell of a alien/man in ways I never thought possible. The film is so enamoured with this character that it almost functions as a study of him! His mother issues are compelling to me because, well, I never knew he was half human! (And, on top of that, never knew Winona Ryder was his mum.) I also appriciated how this character evolves into the Spok we know and love with a lot of help from the Spock we do know and love, Leonard Nimoy. The twist involving ”future Spock” is fantastic and not worth spoiling other than to say it’s there and it’s cool. The downside is one horrible subplot that gives Spock a clandestine love interest that’s, ahem, not Kirk. Blah. I’m obviously not a Spock scholar but, seriously, the big balls on Spock rings false more than the wonky science.    

I hate to do it but this is where I have to get negative. The reason why “Star Trek” is “Star Trek” is because Shatner is Sharner–an enormously likable if corny character. This shat-less “Trek” does indeed nail just about everything… except for Kirk. Which is a biggie to not to get right in a film aboutKirk (but George Lucas didn’t nail Vader till ep. III so it’s not the end of the world, or empire… or federation as it were). As played by Chris Pine (think Matt Damon’s face with Christian Slater’s voice and Kanye West’s ass-holiness), James Tiberius Kirk……………… is a douche. A huge fucking tool. Too chiseled, too smart, too perfect and, making matters worse, zero awareness of this uber-ego; his cock(iness), his bluster and his I-can-do-anything-attitude really start to irritate by the one hour mark. By the second hour I was wishing they set the gun on a level other than “stun” if you catch my drift. 

It’s just impossible to relate to this guy on any level! Yes, Kirk must be a cocky brat but there also must be (or should be) an underlying flaw or venerability to this trait. Shatner got that but, to be honest, even if he didn’t his hamminess made up for it. Unlike Shatner’s escapades I never found myself rooting for Pine, even when being chased by pissed off Romulans or icy space monsters (which, by the way, totally don’t belong in a “Star Trek” movie). As Pine’s Kirk saunters into rooms and calls the shots I like how characters stare at him, astounded that someone in the Federation could be so annoying–and mind you, Tyler Perry is in the movie so that’s saying something. This Kirk is like a young sci-fi version of George W Bush in “W” except, y’know,  talented. The film loves to place Mr. Perfect in a position of hanging from ledges too. Seriously, three big action set pieces revolve around this act (is there a ledge hanging a fetish I’m unaware of?) and, of course, all three are overcome with ease and are followed by a twinkle toothed smile. But impressive feats such as this are rendered limp due to the fact that Kirk knows Kirk can do anything and Kirk knows how awesome Kirk looks doing it. The effect is, ironically, not amazing. And this hurts the film.

The lesson of the day is that if anyone should be cocky about their talents it’s not Kirk but JJ Abrams. The director’s one weakness however turned out to be the ability to make Kirk interesting or likable.

• Kirk: D
• Star Trek: A-
• Star Trek w/ Kirk: B-