Star Trek

Rating: ** (out of 4)
Director: J.J. Abrams

The annual Hollywood summer releases are not something I particularly looking forward to. Well, I was during my teenage days, but after years of film-viewing, I have grown weary of that. The summer blockbusters often look like they all came from an assembly lines, like a product made from a formulaic template, with lots of compulsory loud and explosive action and special effects.

And Hollywood's lack of idea must have reached an impoverished state when you see sequels and prequels dominated the scene.

I have nothing against commercial movies. They can be skillfully made through sheer craftsmanship. 2008's 'Iron Man' is a good example, it is formulaic but it is fun, we love and care about the characters and it's a great entertainment. 2009's 'The Dark Knight' is on another class of its own, it is a revolutionary entry to its genre.

But those are rather rare occurrence.

2009's summer season began with 'X-men Origins: Wolverine', and I called it 'mediocre at best'. The second blockbuster release of the season is yet(!) another back-to-origin attempt to revive a tired franchise.

I am not a trekkies and have hardly watched any Star Trek movies or TV series before. This material, is more space opera than science fiction. True science fiction films are thought provoking and philosophical, and the science in the films is treated intellectually, at least at a pseudo-science level. Examples of true science fiction films are Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey', Andrei Tarkovsky's 'Solaris' (as well as Steven Soderbergh's remade version), and Danny Boyle's 'Sunshine'.

Materials like Star Wars are no Sci-fi, they are space opera, there is hardly any science in it, they are essentially action movies set in a space background. This is not to say that one is more superior than the other, they are just 2 different types of movies, and they serve different purposes.

I thought the old Star Trek is part sci-fi, and part space opera. But never mind that, I don't know for sure. But I am pretty sure that the new 'Star Trek' is pure space opera.

If 'X-men Origins: Wolverine' was soulless, devoid of humanity, 'Star Trek' actually had potential to score in that area. The initial rivalry between Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), the former represents instinct, the latter represents rational reasoning, that eventually develops into a formidable partnership, is a potentially fascinating story arc.

Fire vs water, positive vs negative, ying vs yang, and they eventually harmonized into great effect. Hmm...that would have been interesting.

But alas, like so many of the summer blockbusters, director J.J. Abrams is more interested in showcasing loud explosion and expensive special effects. The personality of Kirk and Spock and the development of their relationship was only given a rather superficial treatment, giving way to the 'quota': loud explosion, space ships firing at each other, combat.

Really, what is supposed to be interesting was watered down by all those 'seen it all' action and special effects.

I wish for the film to explore the personality of Kirk and Spock more substantially, perhaps by putting them into situation that challenge the very quality that they represent for: instinct and rational reasoning, and how their eventual partnership complement each other's strength and weakness and thus overcome the challenges.

Anyway, I have to remind myself that this is space opera, after all. So, action rules.


* Note: 'Star Trek' scored an astonishingly good 95% in rottentomatoes.com. The tomato meter is my favourite tool to gauge how good a film is. It is usually reliable. This time though, personally I find it baffling to see such a high score.