Star Trek Sundays: "Star Trek" 2009 is fast, aggressive, and hollow

J.J. Abrams' bombastic blockbuster has aged to mixed results

It’s Sunday, and we’re going through all 13 theatrical STAR TREK films, a series that includes a number of pieces that have never appeared online before taken from my book 200 Reviews, available now in Paperback or on Kindle (which you should really consider buying, because it’s an awesome collection!). We continue today with the first in the modern reboot trilogy, simply titled STAR TREK. Enjoy…

Star Trek

2009, Dir. J.J. Abrams

Originally published in 200 Reviews, based on notes from 2022, and incorporating excerpts published May 8^th, 2009

When J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek reboot came out in summer 2009, I went mad for it, seeing it five times in theaters, and several more on the excellent, fully-featured Blu-ray package released later that year (one of the first truly great releases I owned on that format). I have a lot of memories tied up in the film – for instance, this was one of the very first films I ever saw projected digitally, back when my local multiplex only had one DCP-equipped screen and it was something of a novelty – and it was the first moment in my life when Star Trek was a vital, omnipresent, and cool part of the pop-culture conversation. Here is some of what I wrote back then:

J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek is an absolutely phenomenal film on all levels, one that is both a Trekkie’s dream come true and a revelation for those unfamiliar with the franchise. [Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman] came up with a truly brilliant story and a top-notch script, and Abrams has brought that script to life with more energy and vibrancy than Trek has ever had. 

I’m not going to discuss the plot—this is one you have to see for yourself, and I would be doing my readers a disservice by describing any of it here. Suffice to say, while many have been calling this movie a ‘reboot,’ using that term is missing the point. Star Trek is actually a sequel [while also serving as] a new beginning: the most brilliant thing Orci and Kurtzman have done in their script is to introduce a plot device that allows them to create their own, new continuity, thereby respecting and keeping in-tact everything that has come before it, while simultaneously allowing them to do whatever they want with the story and characters. I know it doesn’t make much sense, but trust me: it’s simply brilliant in the context of the film.

… Abrams has assembled a perfect team of actors here, and this was a nearly impossible task. The actors chosen have to convincingly portray characters played by the same legendary group of stars for decades, and at the same time, they can’t make you think about the original actors. Because if you do, you aren’t drawn into the movie. This cast fills these requirements and then some, and there is only one word for it: perfection.

There are parts of that review I would still enthusiastically sign off on today, like the general excellence of the cast, and some I would not. Watching the film now, the storytelling is a lot messier than I remembered, though I will agree with my younger self that the film’s time travel gambit is a smart way to thread the needle between respecting Star Trek continuity and having license to freely invent; even just to give Chris Pine more room to make Kirk his own, a character inspired by William Shatner but clearly distinct in so many ways, makes the whole ‘Kelvin Timeline’ idea worth it.