Star Trek not only successful reboots the franchise but is the first film to feature a Beastie Boys song in the 23rd century. The film is visually spectacular thanks to the direction of J.J. Abrams, which features innovative camera angles and a brisk pace. The film also re-introduces the primary characters, combining familiar traits with new wrinkles well enough to satisfy most fans. (I had heard that Christopher Pine based his portrayal of James T. Kirk on Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones and Han Solo and was disappointed when he did not take advantage when Spock perfectly set him up for a “Never tell me the odds” line’; “You’ll succeed” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.)
24th century Spock may say that “I am — and always will be your friend” but the characters have yet to develop the rapport seen in the original series. The relationships between the characters are not fully developed and tension lingers, especially between Kirk, Spock, and Uhura.
There are some flaws, such as a protagonist who is occasionally too superficial and an antagonist – Nero – who channels too much Shinzon and not enough Soran or Khan. At times, the space battles are too murky.
Like Batman Begins, Star Trek makes the audience intrigued and excited to see further sequels, unlike Nemesis which made the audience angry and unruly. However, if the timeline is irrevocably altered and the characters that fans enjoyed in four series and ten films – like Picard or Data – no longer exist, why patronize this film? Audiences undertake a willing suspension of disbelief and create emotional bonds with the characters on screen. Films are popular because of these relationships; otherwise viewers would walk out at any time and catch the rest on of the film on YouTube. Why watch Star Trek if Paramount Pictures is willing to destroy these bonds like the planet of Vulcan was shattered in the film? **½