Star Trek Review

Star Trek
Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Written by: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Eric Bana, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, John Cho, Bruce Greenwood

startrek09_1

Back in 2002, I remember being pretty excited about a little movie called Star Trek: Nemesis. It had the promise of action and adventure, along with an epic screenplay written by John “Gladiator” Logan. Sure, Star Trek: Insurrection had been a disappointment, but based on the curse of the odd-numbered Trek movies, that was to be expected. The next even-numbered movie would make things right again… they always did. But then a strange thing happened: Star Trek: Nemesis didn’t make things right again. Not only did it suck, but it also tanked at the box office. There would be no saving Star Trek after this one. The franchise that once represented a vision of the future, had now become a thing of the past.

Years later, as Hollywood started playing with the idea of reboots, someone realized that maybe Star Trek didn’t have to die after all. With a fresh, young cast and a serious makeover, maybe they could re-introduce the concept to a whole new generation. And who better to oversee this re-imagining than the current king of sci-fi, J.J. Abrams? He had certainly earned the unwavering support of geeks everywhere, but would he have the skill to steer the Enterprise in the right direction? In case you haven’t heard, the answer is a resounding yes.

This Star Trek movie is both a prequel and also a fresh start to the series, setting the stage for a whole new chronology to unfold in its wake. It is a brave new take on the franchise, one that some fans will feel uncomfortable with, and yet the core elements remain in tact. As we are first introduced to James Tiberius Kirk, he is a troubled youngster, clearly smart and talented, but with a massive chip on his shoulder. One day he gets in a bar fight with some Starfleet cadets, and crosses paths with Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood), who happened to serve with Kirk’s father. He challenges Jim to enlist in Starfleet as well, and enlist he does, even though his hot-headed and rebellious nature threatens to derail his career at every turn. Coincidentally, Kirk finds himself on board the Enterprise at the same time that its crew runs into Nero, a Romulan who has travelled back in time, hellbent on destroying Vulcan, Earth, and anything else that stands in his way.

Many have called this the best Star Trek movie since Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and indeed, there is a similar importance placed on having a bad ass villain. Eric Bana is fierce and intense as Nero, although admittedly his back story is somewhat glossed over in the movie (it is more fully explained in the Star Trek Countdown comic book mini-series). All that really matters is that he is simply an evil guy who wants revenge, and the fact that Kirk has a history with him makes for a bit of addded drama. There are no grey areas to explore, no last minute double crosses or clever plot twists. The movie is set up to be a straight ahead action movie, and that’s exactly what it is.

J.J. Abrams and his team have taken cues from Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Firefly and many other recent sci-fi series to give Star Trek a much more visceral feel than ever before. There are hand-to-hand fights, phaser fights, and dog fights in space. The ships are not slow and lumbering, they are quick and mobile. When a ship takes damage, you feel it, and you see the repercussions. Handheld camera work adds to the grittiness but never gets carried away, while bold angles and sweeping camera movements maintain a high level of energy and intensity at all times.

Star Trek has never looked this good. It’s true that the technology for the special effects are finally at a point where they can do it justice, but it’s not just the technical advancements — they’ve clearly put a massive budget behind this thing. Paramount has shown a serious commitment to the property here, bringing Star Trek to a level playing field with all the other major blockbusters and comic book movies out there today. While some may take issue with the sleek, shiny look of the bridge, or constant barrage of lens flares, the space battles alone are some of the most visually interesting ever captured on screen. Heck, they even dispense with the age old accusation that all aliens in Star Trek are just humans with weird foreheads, by adding lots of interesting digital creature FX.

startrek09_2

It’s a difficult thing to reinvent and update something without losing the intangible feel of the original, but they do a good job of re-using certain sound effects and visuals to unlock bits of nostalgia from our minds. There are moments early on where the movie struggles a little to find its footing, and tries a bit too hard to be hip and sexy (although it’s good to know that the Beastie Boys are still being enjoyed 250 years from now). In the end, I can forgive some of these missteps because I think the goal was to help the audience to identify with the main characters by starting on Earth in a familiar environment, before the crew actually goes off into the final frontier.

The most important component to this whole project, however, was definitely the cast. These folks had the unenviable task of redefining iconic characters, staying true to the original personalities without falling into bad impressions of the previous actors. They all deliver beyond expectations. Karl Urban is perhaps the most impressive; he simply disappears into the role of Leonard McCoy to the point where he is unrecognizable. Zachary Quinto certainly looks the part of Spock, but he plays him as a much more young and unpredictable version of the character (and he even has sex appeal!). Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, John Cho and Simon Pegg all bring interesting new dimensions to their characters, but the center of the film is Chris Pine. Although some people had concerns that he was just a no name pretty boy, he absolutely nails the cocky and rugged attitude of Kirk without mimicking Shatner’s signature delivery. (I still could have seen Matt Damon in the role though, especially since Kirk is basically Will Hunting.)

All this being said, I don’t think that Star Trek is a flawless film. There are some major glaring issues with this movie, most notably in the plot department, and I’m surprised no one has really complained about them. Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, J.J. Abrams’s partners in crime from Alias, write scripts that are tailor made for blockbusters, plain and simple. They paint with broad strokes and they think in terms of set pieces and punchlines, not logic and subtleties (these are the same guys who wrote Michael Bay’s The Island and Transformers as well).

There are all kinds of weird coincidences and unlikely events that we must accept in order to bring the crew that we know together on the Enterprise, things that really push the boundaries of believability — yes, even for a Star Trek movie. For the most part, I think we are willing to let it slide, because we want it to happen, but on paper I think this script would have looked pretty weak, maybe even indistinguishable from a fan script in some places. It’s the cast and the special effects that make us forget how mindless a lot of this movie really is.

Still, most people seem willing to overlook these issues, and I can understand why — once the action takes over, you are hooked and enthralled and willing to forgive just about anything. It’s been a long time since we’ve seen a hero like Kirk in a major blockbuster, someone who is so much fun to root for, a loose cannon who shoots first and asks questions later. Plus, the movie has a great sense of humour, something that so many action movies lack nowadays, and it has an unmistakable chemistry among its crew members that simply crackles on screen.

I can happily confirm that Star Trek is back in a big way, and will probably be around for some time to come… living long and prospering, if you will. Are there things I miss about the old Star Trek? Sure, but I can’t deny that J.J. Abrams has given us a hell of a ride and a promising start to a whole new adventure. This is what was needed to make Star Trek a mainstream phenomenon again. Where they decide to go next is anybody’s guess, but with this crew I am willing to follow them just about anywhere. — Sean

SCORE: 3.5 stars



Recommended If You Like: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Wars, Serenity



  • He figured out that the enterprise was being setup by the fake distress call from Vulcan. That’s pretty smart. Sure, it was lucky to be in the exactly right locations at exactly the right times, but that’s how these LOST-guys picture good storytelling.

  • Goon

    Thats a cheapshot and you know it, considering you’ve watched like one or two Lost episodes ever, and the people who wrote this have nothing to do with Lost.

    Abrams has little to nothing to do with how Lost operates. Lindelof was a producer on this but what does that really mean. The writers of this film are Michael Bay’s Island and Transformers go-to-guys…

    so dragging lost down by attacking the writing is just flat out wrong.

  • I am not attacking the writing, but the storytelling. The guy who directed this movie, created Lost and executive produces if I am not mistaking? I don’t see how you can absolve him of anything, even though you may like one and not the other.

    I see alot of the same breakneck pace, plot-hole laden, arbitrary actionscene inserts as I have seen in Lost, although you are right, I have not seen that much. Like 3 episodes.

    I guess I maybe should not have said LOST-guys, I thought the two writers were in on that one as well. It’s only the director and producer that is involved with Lost.

  • Rick

    uhurra does not have the capacity to make any decision making. senior officers or not, “ballsy” is not her or the docs strong point. and if they diddn’t explore the other officers then why even consider it.
    it was a gamble by the captain, and it paid off.

  • Goon

    “The guy who directed this movie, created Lost and executive produces if I am not mistaking?”

    JJ Abrams directed Lost’s pilot, and thats it. Im not sure he’s ever otherwise been credited as anything other than a producer or creator. Its like “Tim Burton’s the nightmare before christmas” – its Burtons characters, Burtons creation, and his vision is throughout, but thats Selick’s film. Likewise, on Lost, Abrams developed and produced but anyone familiar with the show knows its Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse’s baby. Those producers are actually heavily involved with writing everything, and over 100 episodes fleshing out the particular storytelling. I’m not sure Abrams even came up with anything other than the general setting, I’m not convinced he ever had an ending or a fraction of the mysteries or character ideas.

    I type this because it keeps coming up whenever Kurt blasts Lost based on Abrams’ MI:3 – it has nothing to do with anything.

  • Goon

    “it was a gamble by the captain, and it paid off.”

    I dont think you could call it that – you can look back with 20/20 and because alls well that ends well, Pike is some visionary. But considering Spock abandoned him and he had to be rescued by old Spock and Scotty, so much of that is just luck and chance. Kirk didnt even get to outwit or trick the ice monster to save himself, all he did was run.

  • Rick

    so don’t blame kirk, blame the writer. just because he chose to run from a man eating space monster doesn’t mean he’s not capable of other amazing things. I found it interesting though that the monster through away that first wolf looking monster to chace down the smaller of the meals

  • 1138

    @ Rick

    “uhurra does not have the capacity to make any decision making. senior officers or not, “ballsy” is not her or the docs strong point. and if they diddn’t explore the other officers then why even consider it.
    it was a gamble by the captain, and it paid off.”

    What do you mean Uhura is not have the capacity to make any decision? She is a senior member of the command crew on the bridge! Just as Sulu or any member of his team. If these guys aren’t capable then get of the bridge! They shouldn’t be there. Just because someone is ballsy doesn’t mean they are capable all they are is ballsy and sometimes that gets your ass handed to you. i.e. the bar scene. Kirk got his ass handed to him…in fact he got his ass handed to him alot.

  • 1138

    @ Rick
    “so don’t blame kirk, blame the writer. just because he chose to run from a man eating space monster doesn’t mean he’s not capable of other amazing things. I found it interesting though that the monster through away that first wolf looking monster to chace down the smaller of the meals”

    But it would have been nice to find out what he was capable of other than sleeping with women. I mean Kirk loved women but man this guy was sex fiend. He never demonstrated any other ability…where was this genius Kirk that graduated the academy in 3 years. The writers never demonstrated this aspect of him. He couldn’t even get on the enterprise without Bones help. He had to sleep with a women reprogram the Kobayhsi Maru and then turned it into a cocky joke and he relied on Spock for info to get out of the jam and Sulu had to save his ass on the antenna array. Yeah some ballsy quick thinking character.

    The actors were great the writing sucked.

  • Rick

    hahah, i’ll agree with that. star trek is defiantely out of my scope of knowledge, i’m just going off the movie. I wasn’t saying that ohurra couldn’t make decisions i’m just saying…since were going off the movie i assume..is that she made 0 decisions the whole time. If he graduated in three years that leads one to believe he’s obviously talented and skillful. Yeah he got his but kicked in the bar scene but it was him facing atleast five guys. he took 3 of him out. i think thats a good fight for one on five

  • 1138

    @ Rick.

    That’s true It did take five guys but man that last guy should have broke Kirk’s jaw in like 900 pieces! The way he was laying blows! :) And in the end it was Spock’s girl anyway! :)

  • Goon

    Listening to the show and I think Jay makes good points, but I hope he realizes its a catch 22.

    If you can just accept and turn your mind off to one thing, and ask people to just go with a movie and be a kid – well when another movie comes along and you dont like it, you’re gonna have to give the same courtesy back, and I dont see that happening :P

    And I understand the eternal battle vs. just letting yourself run with something emotionally and turning your brain off, vs. overanalysing and nitpicking. For me all I can say is I walked in with no love for Spock and Kirk built in (I’m a TNG guy who has never watched TOS), and while it started off good for me, it just didnt grab me viscerally. When I go back and try to figure out why I’m in the vast minority disliking this, thats when the nitpickings start showing up, and it may start looking to others like you hate the movie simply because of lens flares.

    When it comes down to it, I didnt get into the characters, and the story never made up for it. I think it may be that simple.

  • Anne

    I have just returned home from viewing the new Star Trek movie and although I found it to be a wonderful experience I must say that the absence of William Shatner left an enormous void in both the thread/integrity of the movie… and my heart. He is so much the essence of Capt. Kirk (and such an excellent actor) that the film simply screamed for his presence in some form. That, Mr. Abrams, was the true “Black Hole” you created in your new Star Trek endeavor!!!

  • Rick

    lol 1138 true that. most the time when he got the crap beat out of him there is no way he’d be walking away from it. and who cares if she’s spoks girl, from what i hear theres no pussy like green pussy

  • “Listening to the show and I think Jay makes good points, but I hope he realizes its a catch 22.”

    I agree, the show would have been better if it didn’t become a black and white issue were everyone put Reed on the spot to make him prove why he didn’t like it. The whole “its good and to nitpick it is a waste of time” is such b.s. Why can’t the attitude on these movie discussions be “It was good lets talk about what could of made it better” I mean we are on a movies site because we like discussing movies, no?

    I offered this at Row Three (another site that is in the throws of you either support the film or you don’t):

    Just to be clear, I liked Star Trek, but it has some rookie screenwriting mistakes that could have been solved that would have made it so much better! That’s o.k. because like Altman said, “you learn more from the mistakes that filmmakers do then you do the hits” Basically all of my problems go back to screenwriting 101, action equals character.

    Example 1: the ice planet – Kirk should have made active and unique choices that display something about his character instead of simply running away and having Spock show up out of nowhere to save his ass. Abrams wasted this scene and it could have been fixed so easily. Example Solution: On his way to the outpost have Kirk come in contact with the beastie pursuing a human that turns out to be Spock and Kirk saves him through some creative actions. It does the same thing as whats in the film but uses the scene to give the audience more insight in to Kirk’s mind and problem solving; this will help them buy him as the natural leader of the Enterprise later.

    Example 2: Spock’s interaction with his younger version at the end of the film. Old Spock, unlike old mystical Obi-Wan Kenobi, does more damage in this film then good. Obi-Wan give advice not formulas and solutions. Here Spock is constantly stealing thunder from the new stars Abrams is trying to establish. There is no reason in the last scene between the two Spocks that the younger Spock shouldn’t be able to realize that Kirk and himself can do great things together. They just did some amazing stuff, why does old Spock have to steal his thunder by vocalizing it. Have a good scene between the young Kirk and Spock and put old Spock off to the side. By having the older Spock telling him what to think Abrams again pulls the rug out from under one of his main characters.

    That is two examples of were Abrams and the screenwriters didn’t maxmize every scene. I’m to tired to give more but you get my point.

  • Anne, I am an enormous fan of Shatner, yet I didn’t mind him not being in the film. Your reference to the “Black Hole” was keen-witted. In fact, maybe the “Black Hole” was actually a metaphor for Shatner’s presence in the film. Nah.

  • Rick

    rus i 100% agree with you

  • Me

    Just stepping in to say I saw the movie today and enjoyed it, but also entirely agree that the plot, science and etc problems mentioned in all these past posts could have been completely avoided if it weren’t for what has to be pure laziness on the part of the Producer and writers. Though the thing that stuck out the most to me was no obvious friction when jumping to Vulcan, and the idiot who didn’t pull his chute in time with people yelling for him to do so? C’mon, Moronic writing.

    As for Uhura, wasn’t she a cadet too? Not an senior officer? She just happened to speak 3 romulan dialects so Pike gave her the job. What I couldn’t stand was, regardless of her being in a relationship with Spock (god please no say that didn’t happen), was her unprofessionally following him around the bridge, etc. Disgusting. Even for a new cadet.

  • Ray

    I watched the movie and as above there where things I liked and disliked about it. I am glad to have star trek back.

    Likes:
    Good action, good acting and great effects
    I thought the effects were great – best ever in star treks history
    The take on the original characters by the new cast was good – Karl Urban’s take on McCoy was great, at times he sounded just like DeForest Kelley.
    Great to see Leonard Nimoy back in star trek

    Dislikes:
    Why, Why, Why did they create an alternate timeline, it has been said that it was so they can get away with the things they did, and so they can start a new instalment. Star Trek TOS cover three years, so much of there story was not written or made. There is such a large gap before the TOS and between some of the movies. I believed the intent of the new movie was to reboot and tell the story of the young characters and how they came together. This movie did not do this for me. What about the five year missions?

    All the new Starfleet cadets (Kirk and crew) could not have enlisted in the same year… there may have been 10 years between Kirk and Chekov.

    To make a Starfleet cadet a first officer and to then for him to outwit Spock and to get the captains chair of the flagship that is only out of space dock is too much, there is no real rank and promotion system in place. It would have taken years for TOS Kirk to get to be Captain and along the way leaning tactics and diplomacy. I think Kirk has the record for the youngest captain but not right out of Starfleet Academy.

    The red matter – Alias (Abrams must have a thing for red balls)

    The destruction of Vulcan – No, No, No – I do believe (after watching TOS and Movies) that Kirk and Spock and team would have done every think or anything possible to stop this as they did in Star Trek IV – the Voyage Home, yes the one were the team travel back in time to save Earth from destruction. Why did they not do the same here? The Vulcan’s are intertwined with star trek (Rodenberry’s universe)

    Chekhov teleports Kirk and Sulu in freefall but not Spock’s mother

    The absence of William Shatner – Abrams stated that he could not find a way that feet right to bring old Kirk back from the dead. Well this is Sci-Fi and as Shatner stated any thing is possible.

    The Movie was good but I did not find any real story to it – too much, too fast.

    Battlestar was a re-imagined version of the series and it worked. The reboot of star trek was a way of trying to keep all happy. Has the story worked? Would the Kirk, Spock (young and old), McCoy and team that we have watched and traveled with for so long have saved Vulcan?

    Star Trek 12 – Save Vulcan

  • Jeff

    It’s amazing that for a bunch of devoted Trekkies, the majority of you focus on all of the things wrong with the reboot, instead of appreciating what has been achieved here. Star Trek is back!

    All you purist moral crusaders and disciples of Stephen Hawking seem to forget it’s science fiction – not a bloody documentary. If the average audience member suffered from nosebleeds trying to understand the “hard” science you all want to see – the box office stats would be dismal, and Star Trek would be consigned to the scrap heap for good.

    Sure there are plot holes and inconsistencies. Who knows, maybe the vocal minority will luck out and get “Star Trek – The Certified Science Professor’s Edition”, complete with University lectures and a tear-out intelligence quiz!? Oh yeah, and the total film length is 16 hours, so nobody needs to feel rushed.

    So dust the lint off your velour uniforms, polish those pins, and go suck your thumbs in the corner, while you checked your boxed set of The Next Generation for scratches. Leave the rest of the world to be entertained.

    I loved the new film. It breathed life into a stale and over-franchised brand. Bring on the next installment!!

    Sean’s review is simply perfect.

  • Robert Johnston

    This movie is VERY well done. The later TV series, especially after Next Generation, were lame and without relevance, drama, inspiration or challenge. The movies had drifted into a very smug staleness.

    The vitality seemed to be back in Roddenberry’s original view of these futuristic space explorers, the projection of the human condition and the exploration of human possibilities. There is brilliance in the original setup of character traits and duties on the ship, of the regularly surprising aliens and events in space, , negotiations with aliens and the concept of Starfleet. NOW, this movie brings us back to the highly valuable original path and IT FEELS GREAT TO SEE THIS HAPPENING! Bravo Leonard Nimoy, acing it once again!

  • dean

    The story is good,but making twenty year old novices into first officers is unbelievable. This story sets up the crew into power way to early in the franchise.

    Costumes are lackluster, awful, dull and duller. The Star Fleet uniforms look like walmart wear. Spock Prime is the only character with interesting futuristic clothing and theost engaging character in the film.

    The Makeup is likewise horrible or these actors are butt ugly. The make-up shows discolored skin, blotches and blemishes in close-ups and the standard bruise over the right eyebrow of lead character James Kirk. Audiences watch film to see beautiful faces. Eric Bana as villan Nero looked better than the Trek crew in close-up. By the way the Punk heavy metal makeup for the futuristic bad Romulons was unimaginativealthough well done. We have seen it before. The Romulon costumes looked like cheap overcoats and too standarized for that wild beyond the edge look… Their clothes were boring cliches.
    One bright spot visually was Rachel Nivchols as Gaila in green body paint. She was interesting and gorgeous.

    Casting is seriously flawed also.
    Zachary Quinto as Spock is unappealing uninteresting, unlikeable, and terribly un-Spock like. His Young Spock is a boring petulant little man. Zoe Zaldana as Urhua sulks her way through the role. The Spock/Urhua romance is as palpable as roadkill. Watching these too unlikeable characters in a limp romance is a big eiooooyuc and kind unbelievable. Chris Pine as Kirk would be tolerable if we did not have to see the pores and flaws in his skin. His acting is infantile and brought nothing new to the screen, or the role. He has the look and style of a dumb football player.
    Some casting choices were successful
    Simon Pegg as engineer Scott, Karl Urban as Bones, Bruce Greenwood as Cpt. Pike and Winona Ryder as Spock’s mother each brought personality and life to their characters.
    JJ Abrams used CGI effectively but missed the ship err boat on character presentation. His lack of trekkie love shows.
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  • siparaka

    Muppet Babies…

    A Pup Named Scooby Doo…

    Tiny Toons…

    Cartoons have long known that an easy way to revamp a failing series is to simply repackage the characters as younger versions of themselves.

    Unfortunately, Hollywood seems to be falling into this mindset as well…

    While I kinda liked the new Star Trek (despite the painfully bad seating at IMax), I couldn’t get past the fact that there were literally decades between the ages of these characters (heck, wasn’t Spock several hundred years older?)… and now suddenly they’re all the same relative age and in school together?!

    Also have to agree with an earlier comment that its ‘youngness’ made it feel more like part of the Starship Troopers franchise than part of the Star Trek family…

  • Sean, i do not think you are going to like my FILM REVIEW for Star Trek:

    http://film-book.com/film-review-star-trek-2009/

    You believe this film brings Star Trek back in a big way. I agree that the film made splash but so did the Titanic when it nearly broke in two during its sinking.

    It does have a more visceral feel, especially at the beginning of the film but hand to hand combat scenes were weak, especially the one on the drilling platform. Been there, seen that.

  • CharlesG1970

    Well I am now most of the way through your second ST review.
    Must say I enjoyed the movie and would have more if there was less of the stupid humor items (knocking heads, giant hands, Ice planet monsters, Scotty in the water pipes etc.)

    I agree that the decision for spock to launch kirk to the ice planet was odd. I also do not believe that the federation would have sent old ambasitor Spock to deal with the super nova.
    Where are the planet defece of Earth and Vulcan?
    The pit in the mining ship was usles. Why would you have the control systems over the big hole. the giant pit only makes sense as storage.

    Thanks again for a good listen.

  • Tinta

    I think I enjoyed the film once I switched of to the plotting of it and accepted it for what it was going to be, but I found the science fiction script very weak.

    I was worried the film was going to be Bevery Hills 90210 in space with it’s pretty cast and it just about managed to pull away from that and be loud and enjoyable, but I don’t see how there’s enough in this film to sustain you seeing it again.

    I found the cinematography extraordinarily distracting, there was so much lens flare and bleaching it was difficult to see what was going on and that frankly made me not really care if I was seeing people dying on screen or not. The choice to have a lower frame rate to sharpen up the images and reduce motion blur for the majority of shots in the film to heighten the action I also found detracting.

    The baddie was too two-dimensional for me and I struggled to mind whether or not anyone ended up killing anyone and the bad science and junk plotting was a major issue for me.

    Why was there a lightning storm in a black hole? Why did no one seem to care they were leaving massive destabalising gravity well singularities in the hearts of vulnerable solar systems? Why did the mining ship have an absolutely pointless layer of water in it? Why didn’t a single ship get sent out from either the whole of Vulcun or earth to simply blow up the mining drill that was offensively digging in to their planets? It was so lazy that everyone just stood there like lemmings and watched.

    This was a massive triumph of style over substance and I mean that in its most positive and negative aspects. The main thing to say really is that this is not a Star Trek film. The feel of it is so much like a mix of Battlestar Galactica and the original Star Wars and I think it’s up to people to make of that what they will. It will be interesting to see if they reverse engineer this in to a television series. I think I’d be up for seeing that.

    My advice for the film…

    …switch off brain and Engage.

  • Donovan

    Okay, somewhere along the comment line I saw someone commenting on the ‘impurity’ of changing the Star Trek timeline. Um, excuse me? Really? Wow. So it’s never been done before, right? What about the Mirror Universe? What about All Our Yesterdays? What about the numerous times Enterprise crews and other ships traveled back in time to change events in the past?
    This movie was an interesting and refreshing look at what it might be like if things had gone a little differently. I didn’t personally care for the destruction of Vulcan because, hello, greatest race EVER…but that doesn’t make it bad, and Trekkies loving the idea of an alternate timeline does not mean they should turn in their commbadges and phasers(although if you really have those, you might want to think about hiding them…)
    Great movie, good review, nice work.