[While this review is spoiler-free, please assume the comments section is not]

For me, the release of a new Star Trek film is an emotional event. As a longtime fan of the show, I still remember my theatergoing experience in 2002, when I saw Stuart Baird’s Star Trek: Nemesis during its initial release. Trek, as a theatrical franchise, had been flagging; while First Contact (the 8th Star Trek film) had raked in almost $100 million domestically, its follow-up, Insurrection, had barely mustered $70 million and many thought of the latter as merely a 90-minute Trek TV episode.

Nemesis, the 10th and last Star Trek film until Abrams’ reboot, was a failure both artistically and financially; not only did it completely lack any of the drama, suspense, and sci-fi elements that made Trek great (Baird was a disastrous choice), the film only managed to crawl its way to a tepid $43 million domestic take. Baird had essentially killed off Trek as a viable film franchise, forcing Trek fans like myself to subsist off the scraps of television’s  Star Trek: Enterprise. It was a difficult torch to carry, and let’s be honest, that show did it poorly. Enterprise flamed out of existence in May 2005 and Star Trek has barely been heard from since.

Until now.

In popular culture, Trek is probably best known for helping to spawn the image of the modern geek. Star Trek fans were the ones who dressed up in elaborate costumes when they went to conventions, who had philosophical conversations in the Klingon language; who argued about whether or not Kirk or Picard was a superior captain; who debated endlessly on newsgroups about whether episode #27, which took place on Stardate 3087.6, violated the show’s continuity. But setting aside the idiosyncrasies of this crowd, which epitomized the very concept of “nerd” (and a crowd with which I proudly associate myself), I still am convinced that Star Trek, at its best, didn’t simply unite a group of disparate, lonely geeks. In our culture, where fictional depictions of the future are often still rife with post-apocalyptic, dystopian overtones, Star Trek was far more optimistic, giving us a version of the future that saw humanity coalesce under a common vision. Despite its flaws, the fictional United Federation of Planets was always depicted as a welcoming body, open to people of all races, creeds, and even species. Humanity, the series seemed to say, could transcend its ephemeral squabbles and latch onto more noble ideals. And while these ideas were rarely made explicit, they were always lurking in the background.

This is why to see the series go out back in 2002, not with a spectacular bang, but with a disappointing whimper in the atrocity that was Star Trek Nemesis, was doubly disappointing: Not only were we witnessing the death of the beloved characters and sci-fi concepts we had once cherished, but in some way, we were also witnessing the death of Roddenberry’s ideals, which had grounded the series for so long. For awhile it seemed that all that Star Trek stood for was going to be consigned only to our memories forever. That is why it gives me great pleasure to tell you that JJ Abrams’ new Star Trek film is not only a thrilling sci-fi actioner, but also a film that gives the series the shot in the arm it needs to re-enter the mainstream consciousness. Perhaps most importantly, it shows hints of the moral complexity and the geeky intellectualism that once made Star Trek great.

I’ll start very simply by saying that JJ Abrams’ Star Trek is the reason why many of us go to the movies: We go for the spectacle, for a simple story of good overcoming evil, for the charismatic charms of a strong leading man, and for the visceral thrill of an all-out assault on our visual and aural senses. In this regard, Star Trek is an unbridled success. I’ve often mentioned how Abrams has a really good sense of pacing the action scenes and set pieces in his films, and he continues to demonstrate it here. Just when you’re starting to get restless after you’ve just been given a hefty scene of exposition, you’ll hear a tense music cue from Michael Giacchino’s great score and Abrams will somehow find a way to deliver a spectacularly shot suspenseful action sequence (occasionally, the randomness of these scenes even works to the film’s detriment!).

Exciting, thrilling, action-packed…These are not the sensations that are typically evoked when we think of Star Trek, but they are certainly Abrams’ calling cards. I don’t necessarily think the new film is, in some fundamental way, incompatible with the ideas from the shows and older films. But Abrams isn’t limited by a shoestring budget, nor the directorial shortcomings of Stuart Baird. In my opinion, Trek always had potential for great action, just not the propensity for it. In any case, for a casual movie-watcher, let alone a sci-fi nut or a Trek fan, the sheer momentum of the film enough to grab you and keep you thrilled through the very end.

But how does Star Trek function as part of the Trek universe? I’m constantly torn about my feelings on Trek screenwriters Kurtzman and Orci; while they are very good at what they do with genre writing, their dialogue rarely feels well-constructed, nor does it usually resonate with me emotionally. This is essentially how I feel about their work on the new Trek film. I was impressed with the inventive concept they came up with to frame the film, allowing it to “reboot” the franchise in the truest sense of the word (Without giving too much away, I can say that it involves time travel). The character arcs also feel satisfying overall, but many elements of the script feel clumsy to me and, had they been in the hands of better screenwriters, might have made a great summer film into a true masterpiece.

Nonetheless, Star Trek does what any Trek fan could hope for: It gives you younger, sexier versions of classic, beloved characters and makes them fresh and exciting again. There’s a geeky thrill that I hope any Trek fan can feel from seeing these crew members, who we’ve come to know and love over the past few decades, come together for the very first time. What I also loved is how many references and nods to the original series and films were thrown into the mix (My favorite one? The appearance of an old, familiar friend). Even better, the references all feel organic, as though they were expertly crafted by someone with a deep love for the franchise, not as last-second, distracting throwaways.

Regardless of how much they resemble those of their forebearers, the performances in the film are a joy to watch. A couple of the actors do merely great impressions: Anton Yelchin does an impeccable Pavel Chekov accent and Karl Urban is mysteriously able to channel DeForest Kelley’s Bones with irresistable aplomb. But it’s Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine who really steal the show. Quinto, who I didn’t have great expectations for going into this film, truly embodies Spock as a creature constantly struggling to strike the right balance between logic and emotion. His line deliveries make him a quintessential Vulcan but he also has some great character moments as well, and I think he really pulls them off. Chris Pine as Kirk is a revelation. Rebellious, intelligent, funny, and capable, Pine’s Kirk is one who has the potential to take the USS Enterprise, and the franchise as a whole, into the future. I didn’t see much of Shatner’s Kirk in Pine’s performance, but it’s a testament to Pine that this doesn’t even matter. Pine’s Kirk is cocky, arrogant, yet still manages to be irresistible. Overall, it feels like everyone is having a blast making this film, and that enthusiasm is infectious.

The way the characters are reinvigorated is also reflected in how the film appropriates old Trek concepts and ideas and tweaks them for the 21st century, while still maintaining their integrity. When a ship goes into warp, it now looks and sounds incredibly satisfying. Hand-held phasers operate more like blasters from Star Wars, with more thrilling results. The Enterprise’s Sick Bay actually looks like a state of the art medical center. Weapons on a Federation ship now have a surprising grittiness and realism to them. To a Trek purist, these things might be blasphemy, but to me, they are huge opportunities to geek out.

Visually, the film is absolutely astonishing. Abrams’ continues his fruitful love affair with ILM in this film and the results are dazzling. I’m not going to give away too many of these sequences, since they are best experienced for the first time in the theaters, but I will say that after my initial viewing of the film, I watched the trailer again and again, eagerly anticipating my second viewing of the film:

[If there's one flaw with how the film looks, it's with the excessive use of lens flares. You can tell even from the trailer that for some reason, there are lights pointed at the camera in virtually every scene in the film, even scenes where you would not expect it. While I'm a fan of the occasional lens flare, its use in this film is gratuitous and bordering on ridiculous.  There is more bloom lighting in this film than in Halo 3.]

Some shots are so beautiful, so memorable, so well-composed that after seeing them on the big screen, they lingered in my mind for weeks afterwards. Abrams knows how to hit all the right Trek beats and milk them for what they’re worth. Hell, even the way a brief scene at Starfleet Academy is filmed, with its sweeping camerawork amidst a sea of cadets, is impressive.  There’s also a shot in the film when our intrepid crew members first are exposed to the sight of the USS Enterprise. Combined with Giacchino’s new Enterprise theme, which is pitch-perfect, I actually got chills. Here’s a clip from that track:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Perhaps the film’s most impressive achievement is its depiction of space. In a scene early on in the film, Karl Urban’s Dr. McCoy opines, “Space is disease and danger, wrapped in darkness and silence.” The film aptly captures the endlessness and terror of life in outer space, especially in its terrific battle sequences. But it also captures the grandeur of space, the excitement of exploration, and the thrill of navigating through celestial bodies. This rendering of the unknown is the essence of the Star Trek franchise, and that’s what makes this film so beautiful.

As a sci-fi fan, a Star Trek fan, even a regular filmgoer, there are a wealth of nits I could pick in this film (and probably will at some point, either on slashfilm’s podcast or in a separate article). But despite all that, I love this movie. It does honor to the Star Trek universe while appealing to mainstream audiences. It capitalizes on our knowledge of long-loved characters, while making meaningful contributions to their mythologies. It is a non-stop thrill ride, and I can’t wait to see it again.

/Film rating: 9 out of 10

David Chen can be reached at davechensemail(AT)gmail(DOT)com. You can also follow him on Twitter or Tumblr.


About the Author

David Chen currently does research and writing for a university in the Boston area. He can be reached at davechensemail(AT)gmail(DOT)com.

  • So...you....liked it?
  • jjrkincaid
    Watched it directly after I watched a trade screening of Terminator this morning. I gotta say it was much better than Terminator IMO.
  • Stryker
    Great review David. Just wish there was a Simon Pegg shout out...
  • Pegg is always fantastic, and provided great comic relief in the film. Not really sure how I felt about the sidekick though..,
  • I think you are though......
  • cool to hear you enjoyed it. Definitely seeing the film opening day (friday)!
  • Great review, Dave...I'm sorry I missed out on your filmcast earlier today (curse my NZ timezone).

    I saw the film earlier this week at a midnight showing and was very impressed, albeit with a few tiny points. The people I was with are by no means fans and they "couldn't believe this was Star Trek!". That Onion video that's doing the rounds is actually the truth - people are going to find this an extremely accessible film which bodes extremely well for the franchise continuing on strongly.

    Despite the heat given to Orci and Co., I was really pleased to read in Scripts magazine that they'd used some of the non-canon sources (books by Diane Duane in particular) to provide the basis for Kirk's backstory. I think that despite some aspects of the story being a bit rushed to move the plot along, they've done the best job of their careers to date.

    {Minor film info below - I assume you've seen it!}

    A stand out moment for me actually came right at the start of the film, with opening pan of the USS Kelvin...the blend of the sound effects (sensor pings??) and backgound transmissions of crew conversations, music and the shots of the ship just gave me chills. This was a beautiful treatment of the material.

    My only comment froma pure fanboy perspective was - don't ships have shields any more? Despite the odd comment of "Shields at X %!", there wasn't any obvious sign of them in some of the dramatic moments.

    I also felt that there could have been more of a sense of a ship battle....a la Wrath of Khan. I felt that Kirk needed to be portrayed as more of a tactician when in the chair. Some time spent given over to a duel between the ships, broadsides firing, torpedo exchanges etc would have gone down a treat.

    However, I will be seeing this more than once - IMAX and all - and I tip my hat to JJ - I hope he can continue at the helm of this franchise.
  • John M
    I think that the thing with the shields was that Nero's ship, somehow was advanced enough that his weapons were easily breaking through the "present" timeline's defenses... That's what I took from it anyway.
  • Josh
    "I also felt that there could have been more of a sense of a ship battle....a la Wrath of Khan. I felt that Kirk needed to be portrayed as more of a tactician when in the chair. Some time spent given over to a duel between the ships, broadsides firing, torpedo exchanges etc would have gone down a treat."

    Agreed. This was my one huge gripe with the film. I wanted to see starship fights akin to Wrath of Khan and gigantic naval vessels.
  • John
    The film was a good action film yes but it was not Star Trek, Uhura was protrayed as a hussy. They killed off Vulcan, thus eliminating parts of the orginal and the other shows.

    This was a new enterprise from spacedock, Pike was Captain for years before Kirk.

    Gene Roddenberry would be rolling over in his grave
  • Dan Pettit
    No offense but how do you know that Gene wouldn't like this movie? His widow participated in this movie so that should say something. Show me in the contract where J.J. Abrams was told to stay directly on course with the series and the movies starring the original cast. Don't move that arrow called the Star Trek universe storyline. This franchise needed something different and I'm sure alot of people feel this movie has done it.
  • Mr. Roddenberry would be rolling with joy.
  • I wish Zoe Saldana would have acted like more of a hussy.
  • ThePurpleExperience
    Dude... It was clearly stated that this films take on Star Trek was an 'alternate reality' making it officially a reboot. This frees the future of this franchise up to do whatever the hell it wants FOREVER. Hints... 'This Is Not Your Father’s Star Trek'. Enjoy the ride.
  • Zac
    When Nero destroyed the Kelvin, he set forth the chain of events that altered the future. Hence, different enterprise, different Kirk, etc.

    That out of place, expository line about their destinies changing, and acknowledging that Jim knew his father in old spock's reality was to remind you that this is another mirror universe.

    Since trek fan get all wet over mirror universes and time travel, this sounds perfectly Star Trek to me.
  • John, what you obviously didn't get while watching the movie, NOR when reviewing the synopsis BEFOREHAND (which I doubt you cared to study), this particular mission of the new Star Trek was in an alternate universe/time/reality. Remember that black hole that warped Nero and Spock out of their universe/time/reality? Remember Kurt asking Spock about the other universe/time and if his father got to know him (which Spock said that his father got to see him grow up and become captain)?

    Now you're going, "ohhhhhh, yeah, that's right!" IDIOT!!!
  • John
    Actually no i am not going ooh i am an idiot, a black hole in one scene which causes time travel and the next it destroys a planet, then destroys one of the ships it sent back in time.

    The movie gave no regard to the Star Trek canon or the science in fact.
  • Mike
    ya, i wish they'd had a more regard for science too... Like in Star Trek 4 where they scientifically went back in time and scientifically shipped whales back to the future... Loved that. I think they covered that in grade 11 physics... or maybe you liked the advanced science displayed in the old series with that scientific "time door made of rock." I believe they're making one of those at CERN... Or the gravity generators that really make sense too... Wow, I also wish they'd stuck to the old series' careful adherence to science...

    And canon - not only my favorite kind of camera, but also the ultimate excuse for fanboys to winge! Having all those amazing effects clearly contradicted how shit everything looked in the old series... I couldn't see a single string hanging the ship in front of the black sheet with all the holes poked in it. That's just SHITTING on all the hard work they put in back in the 60s in the parking lot behind the studio...

    Star Trek canon = whatever the shit the writers felt like writing that week... It's all SO arbitrary... And the alternate timeline thing means there was absolutely no need to give a stinky shit about what happened in episode 30297500210193985 of Deep Space Voyager... Fantastic idea... No one's complaining that batman wasn't wearing blue and grey in The Dark Knight.

    This movie rocked.
  • That's right, John! I see now you're finally giving in to the fact of the plot. Oh, and let's not forget movie 7 where Kurk was caught in the Nexus.

    And what ship did did the black hole destroy? What was destroyed was Nero's ship by the Enterprise. The reason the planet was destroyed is because the black hole occured in the CENTER of it = no core, thereby collapsing in on itself. Get it? Regardless of how it's explained to your hypocritical mind (thanks for showing that against him, Mike ;) ), you'll still criticize this movie.

    Mike, btw, nice follow up to his post. I think you're on to something, maybe all movies should go back to the amazing special effects of Lost In Space? Maybe we should bring back Michael Keaton for Batman? LOL! Good job guy. :) B)
  • andy
    "yesterday's enterprise" was the basis for how the series was rebooted only on the show they undid everything that went wrong. As picard put it One brave ship can change teh face of the universe.
  • lkcroff
    Amen to that. I was vary disapointed.
  • Robb
    Actually, nothing this movie does eliminates aything...the beauty of it is that Star Trek has now been sent along a new alternate timeline and both co-exist in parallels. And you'd have to be an Elizabethan to think Uhura was anything but a chaste and very capable communications officer...hussy? Wow.
  • wow.... nice review, David... i love the sentimental tone of this. I'm not a Trekkie, but I can appreciate the fact you have a lot of love for Star Trek and I'm pleased by how the film has been well recieved by critics and audiences... can't wait to see it tomorrow.
  • stb247
    This is not my Dad's kind of Star Trek and it isn't even mine.

    Give it another name, and it's a fine Sci-Fi film. But Star Trek it is not.

    BTW you are kidding, right? A younger, sexier version of classics is what fans hoped for? Not in my book. There is so much wrong with this film and you found the right words to describe it.

    You know, what I hoped for? Something special. Something with more emotion than action. With more heart. Something, that gives me time to breathe instead of suffucating me with action, action, action - and lens flares.
  • This statement is completely ridiculous. This is one of the best blockbusters of the last 5 years. What more do you want.

    The original series may have heart but it certainly doesn't stand up. It's boring, soooo boring. Great for its time it is functionally out of date. Take for instance the social commentary on American race relations. You have an African-American president now, its social commentary is far less relevant. This film managed to bring the series into modern filmmaking while still holding true to the characters. What more could any Trek fan want?
  • andy
    I've watched star trek for as long as I can remember and teh prologue alone had me in tears. This movie was mainly about the charecters of kirk and spock and what its was to be them. Spock's mother dies before his very eyes and within his grasp and he can never release that pain.
  • Dean
    9 out of 10? Wow. Really? I did enjoy it but man.. I feel like I saw a different movie. First let me just say that this is definitely a movie from the mind of the people that brought you The Island and Transformers... and The Legend of Zorro. Some of the plotting was so bad and contrived I was in shock it got through and made it to screen.

    The Hoth/Phantom Menance scene?
    The Scotty/Jar Jar Binks Water tube scene?
    The contrived non explanation of how the time travel works?
    That horrible horrible needless Kurt car chase scene?

    I dunno man.. I think just those mentioned above stops it from being anywhere close to great.

    It has a great fun cast that saves it from being just plain bad. As it stands I think it's a solid 5 out of 10 movie and a great set up for further adventures..

    If anything I kind of hope Abrams stays on as producer and lets more talented writers and a more cinematic director have a go next. He, like Jon Favreau did with Iron man had the chops and the sensibilities to put together a fantastic cast and set a great tone/look for a new franchise. I just hope that not unlike Columbus did with the Potter movies they can both step aside soon and let better more interesting filmmakers step in and make something GREAT.

    I've enjoyed Abrams tv work.. I just wanna see the guy step away from the remakes and the sequels and make something ORIGINAL now.
  • brian
    actually the time travel is not contrived. a spinning black hole causes the point of singularity to become a ring where one could theoretically pass through. the idea of the multiverse is the theoretical explanation for the alternate reality that was created.
    the "hoth" scene was clearly explained.
    disliking the water tube thing is purely personal preference.
    the "kurt" (his name is kirk by the way, i mean jesus did you even watch the movie) chase scene was best explained on this site as the car being of the time period of the original show, a symbolic gesture of throwing it away for this new vision of kirk.
  • Dean
    You're gonna make a thing about a spelling mistake on an internet talk back? Like... really?

    And I think you need to go look up the word contrived and check out its definition. Because at no point have you argued against any of my examples being it.

    as for your reasoning behind the car chase scene being there (I notice you don't refute it being a horrible scene btw) I didnt need a website to explain the reasoning. It was like being hit over the head with a sledge hammer.

    While you're looking up the definition of contrived. Also look up the tern "on the nose" in regards to screenwriting.

    It's a perfect example.
  • brian
    well i'm not going to do an all out internet argument, cause you're not making any points besides thinking an opinion is an example, but
    Kurt is not a misspelling its a totally different name (which just so happens to rhyme leading me to believe you don't know the character's name)
    and contrived means unnatural and forced, which i did argue against by way of being an actual theory in quantum physics (and you did not argue any examples of it by the way)
    i don't think the car chase scene is horrible because its well shot and edited and the symbolism mentioned, and you don't say how you think its horrible either
    and symbolism is the antitheses of on the nose writing

    you don't need a degree in film production, which i have, to understand my points, and an obligatory fuck you for getting all pissy and insulting my intelligence
  • brian
    and to be clear, i'm not going to regularly check up on forum posts so i won't respond if there is a reply. i've already made my points
  • "'Ive enjoyed Abrams tv work.. I just wanna see the guy step away from the remakes and the sequels and make something ORIGINAL now."

    Cloverfield? The most meaningful movie on 9/11 yet made. I'm perfectly serious about this. I'll write an essay to back it up if you'd like.
  • Dean
    Cloverfield... You mean the movie Abrams neither wrote for directed?
  • Dan
    Wait what? Cloverfield was produced by Abrams, which if you ask me is a pretty major part - not just directing and writing, do you even know what a movie is?! Oh yeah, well done on saying Kurt in a previous post, people who haven't ever even watched a Star Trek movie know it's Captain Kirk, idiot.
  • I think terms like "non-stop thrill ride" and "emotional roller coaster" should be banned from movie reviews
  • musicsoup
    Yes, you liked it, but was it better than trailer 3? Cause that trailer is still one of the most beautiful things to ever be produced.
  • It is.
  • That is one of the greatest trailers of all time. It doesn't quite live up, but who expected it would. Though it got mighty close.
  • Thanks for the review.
  • Goddamit, I forgot about possible spoilers in the comments. That was a long post but I am so excited about this film. I'm going later on today. Just need to sleep first.

    Remember. The geek shall inherit the earth.

    I like that Chen guy.
  • I enjoyed it alot, I haven't seen much of the original series to compare it to, but from what I do know I liked the way it was redone in a new way that made it very accessible to everyone, my dad who grew up with the series also enjoyed very much(still said that Wrath of Khan was better)
  • Chrys
    I just got back from the early screening of it at my local theater, and all I can say is WOW. I think David really sums it up with his opinions. The only issue I had was the constant lens flares, but that didn't take away from the film at all, really. Being only 17, I'm not at all familiar with the original Star Trek series, and am only vaguely familiar with TNG, so I was going into this blind basically. I expected a mediocre attempt at a Sci-Fi film, but boy was I surprised at what I got. Every actor did a fantastic job, and I can not name one point at which I though "Wow, that's some terrible acting..." which is so uncommon nowadays. In most modern movies there is at least one or two maybe even more parts of the film where you can't help but avert your gaze from the screen and try to convince yourself that that actor did just screw up that bad. That was not the case at all with J.J.'s Star Trek. The acting was top-notch. Being a big fan of Heroes I had high hopes for Quinto's Spock, and he delivered. He portrayed the character quite nicely (I am of course making this assumption strictly based on my limited knowledge of the character). I also very much enjoyed the fact that there was no love interest introduced for Kirk, as I feel most love side-stories in films really take away from the overall scheme of things. The action sequences were phenomenal. I mean, every space battle sequence was flawlessly portrayed and beautiful to the eye. I personally can not wait until the sequel, as this is easily one of the best movies I have seen in a long, long while. It truly was a breath of fresh air. If you see one movie this summer movie season, I beg of you, make it Star Trek. I assure you will not be disappointed.
  • Jake
    Thought it was great. There are some truly incredible moments. I started misting up when you see the Enterprise exit the dust cloud near Saturn at the end. Stunning.

    The only real problem I had with it was the explanation for their escape from the black hole. If they were at high warp (as indicated), then how does ejecting the warp cores provide a greater escape velocity? Doesn't really make any sense. Maybe I'm nitpicking but it still annoys the hell out of me.
  • Technically, nacelles and warp cores don't exist. Maybe it stems from there as well...
  • Jake
    Heh, true. Though if we are talking about the Trek "universe" then surely ejecting the cores would drop it out of warp. Apparently the force on the ship created by the explosion allows for a speed many times greater than high warp. Which, even within the Trek "universe", doesn't really make any sense.
  • I watched it again, and I talked to some veteran science-oriented trekkies- here's to clarify.

    1) If you pay attention to Sulu, he says the Enterprise is already at warp when it was getting sucked in (You already know this).

    2) When Scotty ejects the warp cores, it doesn't immediately take it out of warp mode, since it takes time (30 seconds maximum) for the loss of energy from the cores to go to the engines.

    3) When the explosion happens, the nano-second burst of massive energy in addition to built-up force by the still at warp (but slowly decelerating) engines (imagine a slingshot pulled all the way back) push the Enterprise out of the singularity's gravitational pull.

    4) By equalizing the force to the black hole, the Enterprise switches to maximum cruising speed (not warp), as the warp engine's energy fades away. This is why the Enterprise flew by (not warped by) the camera.

    5) Although never shown, the veteran trekkies I talked to said the Enterprise could have easily used reserve energy to power a warp jump back to Earth or the nearest Starfleet station without the warp cores.

    I guess that makes more sense. I do agree that it could have been explained better.
  • Jake
    I'll buy that. Hey, I loved the film so anything that makes it sit better with me and makes some kind of sense I'll run with. A couple of lines could have cleared that up though.
  • Quinto and Pine were surprisingly good while Urban nailed the role 100%. Also I don't care I will always hate Anton Yelchin.
  • Why hate Anton Yelchin? I didn't see any fault in his acting (Maybe just the accent), and in truth, I never heard his name before this movie.
  • aside from Yelchin's butchering of the Russian accent. :P I can't find a flaw in the film. I seriously can't. Maybe its post movie euphoria speaking but I loved every minute. I thought Yelchin was fantastic as Chekov. Quinto nailed Spock, Pine.. Pine was.. well.. Pine IS Kirk. Urban, wow, you cannot praise him enough as Bones. Just everyone was great.

    (I loved the little moments too.. like when Nero address pine for the first time "Uhh.. umm.. Hello Christopher.. I'm.. I'm.. Nero.")
blog comments powered by Disqus