Humble, ordinary Jane Q. Movienerd has reservations about J.J
Abrams’ Star Trek.
She can’t fathom the considerable expense poured into such a chintzy
relic, and she never paid much mind to the original series, for which
this movie is a prequel. However, she regularly goes to summer
blockbusters in the hopes that the film will transport her away from
the nauseating hoopla surrounding it. Iron Man, The Dark
Knight and Watchmen managed to do this, so why not
Trek?
The doubts about Trek linger in her mind and eventually
articulate themselves into larger annoyances that Jane has about movies
in general—that reboots and re-dos are now a constant in her life and
that attempting to revamp a flagging franchise is considered a genuine
artistic risk for a director on par with pursuing original material.
She is galled by the irony that Christopher Nolan, The Dark
Knight‘s director, made this so. She believes that unoriginal
material is crowding out everything else in the limited space of her
local movie market. “No one values originality anymore!” she fumes.
But maybe, Jane thinks, she is being hyperbolic and narrow-minded.
Shakespeare and Chekhov are dusted off year after year by the gifted
and the talentless alike and no one questions it. Those stories provide
templates and inspiration for brilliant directors and writers. A fan of
lush, literary pieces, Jane doesn’t believe in “definitive” adaptations
because she thinks that each attempt is a time capsule of the valued
aesthetic and influences on filmmaking at a particular moment. Is Jane
being hypocritical when she champions the perpetual slew of Jane
Austen-inspired movies, while pooh-poohing the Lazarus-like raising of
long-dead sci-fi series?
So Jane decides to look for an escape, transcendence and a worthy
companion for two hours of her life. During Star Trek, as many
things drag her out of her reverie as pull her back in. She admires
that the script is totally character-driven but realizes that this is
at the expense of the plot, a forgettable jumble of time warps, black
holes and renegade Romulans.
Spock, played by Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy, is the stand-out.
That Vulcans are equally impassive and strictly logical creates an
interesting quandary for Quinto’s half-human, younger Spock. His
emotional, human side has not reconciled itself with his stoic, Vulcan
side. The elder Spock has come to terms with the duelling pressures of
his psyche and Nimoy plays him with a dignity and regality.
Star Trek was enjoyable enough for Jane, but the younger and
sexier versions of Kirk and Spock are evidence that, for Hollywood,
anything is now up for a remake. Jane was always a Star Trek: The
Next Generation fan and can’t think of anyone other than Patrick
Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. “Some nerd probably thought the exact same
thing about Kirk,” Jane realizes. “These decisions are made independent
of what I want.” Jane only goes to movies, what she sees isn’t up to
her.
This article appears in May 14-20, 2009.


I guess the Coast prides itself on being different and contrary to the rest of the world…..restaurant reviews suck too…..resistance is not futile….and this Star Trek was up their with the great ST movie’s…..
This review is way too reviewer-centric. Jane this, Jane that. Reading this in the third person is pretty annoying. Talk a but more about the movie, maybe?
The worst movie review I have ever read.
Did the Coast need to hire an Emo for some sort of internship?
Poor review.
The movie was very well done. Visuals were stunning. Characters (especially Dr. McCoy) were spot on. Completely entertaining.
I found the movie to be incredibly well made, I can’t imagine how anyone could have done a better job of taking a franchise that was all-but-dead and reviving it into the commercial and critical success it has been. Though, this review isn’t void of a few good points
My question is, what are the new franchises? Why constantly revive old ones? Star Trek started when…? ’66? Star Wars… ’77? What in the past 10 or 20 years can compare? The Matrix, maybe. This constant zombification of older material is fine, to a point, but it would be nice to see fresh new stuff developed.
What an odd movie review. Painful to read.
Star Trek is FAR from a “flagging franchise”… check out the next annual Trek conference before you go printing stupidity. There’s an entire Trek culture spanning a few generations out there and you write this crap? I’d feel pretty uncomfortable publicly reviewing anything out of the side of my head and, if it was part of my job, I think I’d make an effort to DO IT WELL. Next time, just go rent the movie’s and then check out the new release, Jane… or go get a job you’re actually qualified to do. Pathetic review…. could have summed it up in one line, “duh, I dunno, duh hu ha”.
Worst review…ever.
Something tells me that if Jane had said, “I love this movie,” you wouldn’t have cared at all about the review’s style. Roger Ebert had to defend his less-than-thrilled review as well: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d…
I could care less if a review likes/dislikes a movie, thats the least useful part of a review, really. Its their reasons behind their thumb up/down that make a review useful to the reader.
Haven’t seen the movie, and I’m not going to.
I respect Ebert’s reviews because they are literate and not full of stupid “Jane thinks….”
If she never went to the other ones and is only a fan of blockbusters…I think the coast needs a new reviewer
This review sucks. I hope Ms. Titley (sounds like a pseudonym actually, Alan Smithee anyone?) goes back for some upgrading… Didn’t know King’s journalism program promoted this sort of drivel. It’s disjointed, and filled with third person references (a common issue, it would seem). This movie is on par with the ever-great Wrath of Khan, as far as I’m concerned. The characters have been refreshed, and you don’t have to be a fan of the series to like it, and there are plenty of sly references that the fans of the series would like. I could see why some reviewers would hate it: it lacks some of the Roddenberry touch, the overarching humanitarian themes, social and political commentary. That doesn’t make it empty; you see Kirk transform from a snot-nosed punk, into someone who channels that rebellion into a concentrated passion. Spock realizes that emotion is not something to be shunned and can be useful. Sure, it’s more of an action-oriented film than any of the previous series’ films, but the action is just frantic enough, and never out of control. Abrams was an excellent choice for a new set of eyes and he’s done an excellent job.
Hillary, you need get over it! It seems to me you hated the idea of this movie (as being a revival of the star trek franchise) rather than the actual movie itself. If you really didn’t like it, you got to be more specific about what you didn’t like. Don’t be contrary for the sake of being contrary.
What’s with this 3rd person BS?
The Coast wishes it was the New Yorker. They didn’t like Star Trek either…
Is your collective phaser set to EMO? Holy honking hell, you people take things like milquetoast dudes FIGHTING CRIME DRESSED AS A BAT, SHOOTING WEBS FROM THEIR HUMAN HANDS and PARTICIPATING IN INTERGALACTIC SPACE SPARRING awfully seriously.
Hillary I liked this review a lot — you stated why you had your reservations, which were completely valid considering the TV show was never a benchmark of social commentary, special effects or even decent acting (Sidebar: Is Heroes the new Trek? Resolution: Who gives a fuck?), explained how they were subverted, and stated your completely valid opinion of what you didn’t like. And you didn’t do it from your knees the way everyone else has. (HOW DARE YOU?)
PS She also liked it. A-DOYE.
PPS The best thing JJ Abrams has ever done or ever will do is Felicity.
Raoul Duke does not like when aspiring journalists feel the need to lament on the state of pop culture and pass it off as a movie review. What bothers Raoul Duke the most is the need for this scribe to create an alter ego, Jane Q, to do their own bidding.
Raoul Duke understands that not everything can save the world. Sometimes Raoul Duke just needs to watch spaceships blow up and eat popcorn.
Granted, Raoul Duke, might have been too busy sniffing ether in the desert when Star Trek was in it’s heyday, but, even a gonzo journalist with 3 active brain cells and an IQ above 15 can understand the social impact Star Trek has made.
Raoul Duke fondly remembers Star Trek gave North Americans the first inter-racial kiss on television. Not to mention episodes that dealt with overt racism, religious oppression, female dominated societies and the power struggles that ensue.
Raoul Duke would even go so far as to say the Prime Directive was to champion peace whenever possible and only to fight as a last possible defence. This at a time when America was knee deep in the Vietnam rice fields.
To argue that Star Trek was not a social benchmark of it’s time is blatantly incorrect. To quote Mark Twain …”it is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Putting the (very little) content in this review aside, the style this was written in makes it almost unreadable. The stylistic choices here are really indefensible.
The problem with this review is that it’s really an excuse to talk about your opinions of remakes, rather than the film.
If you have theories on the impact of remakes and prequels and whatever, write an article on that, you can still mention this movie as an example, but it needs to be seperate from the review.
People read movie reviews to find out the good, bad and the ugly of the film, not to hear about your random opinions that were brought up because you happened to see this film.
Oh, boy. Get thee to Ceti Alpha V, angry readers! Or wait–I think this comments section is a penal colony of sorts. Or my purgatory at the very least. I think the writing style is totally defensible. It’s a fun read and it pokes fun not just of ST but the whole reboot fantasy-comic book industry. I did like the movie (as did Hilary), but this thread is making me dislike it more and more.
Sorry, I should have said “The writing style is indefensible unless you’re a friend or co-worker of the author.” The very fact that Ms. Titley’s friends need to come on here and clarify that she thought the movie was good proves that she did a poor job writing the review in the first place. She may be a fantastic person but her reviews are consistently bad and occasionally incoherent.
To all Coast employees: no, it’s not an issue of whether or not the reviewer liked to the movie or not (although it’s unclear if Ms. Titley disliked/liked it, the writing is so horrible): it’s an issue that plagues the Coast’s movie reviews. They’re pretentious, overwrought, and irrational. For example: last week, Palermo panned X-Men Origins: Wolverine for “lacking emotional depth”. While not a great film, he was looking for “emotional depth” in an action film? Please. While I agree most films these days aren’t worth even a 3.99 rental, looking for art in something as commercial as that is like looking for the Mona Lisa in the lobby of a fast-food restaurant. Sounds like you movie review department needs a remake. In fact, week after week, the department is weakest part of the magazine.
My pseudenym is just as informative as yours – they’re both our first names. If it matters, I am Chris Parsons and I am also a shitty writer. I am also not sure where I slung shit. I said I don’t like her style in that review. I didn’t call her dumb, ugly or a coward. I made a comment about an article online and I did it in the comments section following the article.
If the Coast’s editors don’t want people criticizing their writers then they should consider disabling all comments rather than arguing with and insulting readers online.
What I like is that the webeditor and other “professionals” have waded in to tell me my opinion of the style of review is wrong.
Oh, ok.
Wouldn’t want to be a critic of something…..
ps Tara?
Caps on the internet is considered yelling.
Now you know
So, Carsten, what of the people who bank on their reputations? It’s fine for you guys, but there are some of us here who work in conservative workplaces and opinions can be hazardous. Boiling this down to a situation where people use pseudonyms and can “hide behind them is a bit childish, don’t you think?
Since you brought me farther in to this, I didn’t say anything about her review sucking, or her writing style being poor. I just wouldn’t consider what she wrote a movie review, it is more along the lines of a genre critique. Or a theory on filmmaking/styles.
If she wants to do that, fine, more power to her and the Coast if they decide that is something they want to start printing. But don’t use the forum of a movie review as your place to print film essays on the value of remakes.
If I were to read your movie reviews (which I have stopped doing ever since seeing Palermo’s own film, which made me realise what his tastes really were) I would do so to find out whether I wanted to see said film being reviewed. This review didn’t give me any real reasons to see it or not, but instead gave me insight into remakes. Not what I would read a review for.
I meant to yell. That’s what you do during a rage blackout.
Rage blackout?
Lay off the Lemon-Gin~
What kind of review is this?
The movie was great. The actors did fantastic jobs of playing younger versions of the characters.
I can understand someone not loving this movie, but what I can’t understand is why the hell the review is written in such an annoying way. It’s not creative or amusing. It’s hard to read, and more about the reviewer than the movie being reviewed. Boo-urns.
John D. enjoyed meeting Jane Q. at Coburg last week. He would welcome the opportunity to chat with her again.