Star Trek Beyond (2016) Review
A fun trip out of darkness and back to the final frontier.
Star Trek is, at its heart, about the optimistic sense of wonder that propels human beings to explore the unknown. It is at its best telling stories of people at their best. And while the American zeitgeist, as reflected in our entertainment, has recently veered more and more toward pessimism and disaster¹, Star Trek Beyond (2016) proves that there is still a place for hope, adventure, and humanity at the box office.
Beyond is the 13th Star Trek film, and the third in the rebooted “Kelvin timeline” featuring a younger cast filling the roles made famous in Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS). I happened to really love the first of the reboots, Star Trek (2009), which diverged from the “Prime timeline” of Star Trek up to that point and created an alternate reality. The producers did a pitch-perfect job casting new actors to play Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest. And by integrating Leonard Nimoy, the original Spock and probably the most iconic actor in the franchise, they tied the alternate reality into 50 years of established canon with adequate reverance.
But Beyond’s immediate predecessor, Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), was an unmitigated disaster. In essence, it was a rehashed version of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982). But since Into Darkness did nothing as well as or better than the original, it was totally unnecessary. Benedict Cumberbatch, one of my favorite actors, was completely wasted in a poorly written attempt to cram a familiar villain into a new context. The movie was so full of plot holes and plainly irrational contrivances that I had a headache by the end. Even the title of the film, Star Trek Into Darkness, is itself a contradiction, since Star Trek is not about “darkness,” but rather audacity and endless possibilities.
Into Darkness was roundly and justifiably panned by both critics and fans of Star Trek. Thankfully the powers-that-be seem to have heard our complaints and taken steps to address them with Beyond. Gone is the focus on tragedy, pain, and vengeance that was at the core of Into Darkness. In its place we have much more of the swashbuckling adventure that characterized TOS. We see these characters as friends on a long journey into the unknown, with only each other to rely on when things get dicey. To me, this movie shows the crew of the new Enterprise as a team — really a family — much more effectively than either of the other two reboot films. The relationships they have formed, and the respect and camaraderie that has grown between them, echoes back to the TOS of yore. Indeed, the lengths to which we will go for those we cherish is one of the film’s central themes.
Director Justin Lin brings new blood to the franchise, and clearly delights at showing us camera angles and effects never used before in the long history of Star Trek. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Zoe Saldana turn in acceptable, if somewhat muted, performances. As usual, Anton Yelchin is great as Ensign Chekov, and he will be sorely missed in future installments. John Cho is a formidable Sulu and, in a first for the franchise, its premier openly gay character.² I really liked the way that Sulu’s sexuality was written into the film matter-of-factly, as no big deal. After all, we’re talking hundreds of years in the future, when the bigotry we see today will have long passed into the winds of history.
Karl Urban and Simon Pegg, as Dr. Leonard McCoy and Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott, respectively, are where the film’s heart really lives. They have all the best, and most of the funniest, lines in the movie. Urban and Pegg also both happen to be fan-favorites (including of this author), and I’m glad they got more screen time in this film than in the prior reboot flicks. I particularly enjoyed seeing the relationship between McCoy and Spock develop, with them both uncharacteristically exchanging words of deep respect for each other in times of crisis.
Idris Elba is criminally underutilized as the film’s villain, Krall. For most of the movie you can’t even tell it’s him under the makeup, especially because he intentionally distorts his voice. I’ve seen his character described as one-dimensional, but I disagree. Although we don’t learn his motives until close to the end, Krall’s actions make perfect sense once you understand who he really is. And the MacGuffin he spends the film pursuing is certainly a terrifying (if a bit played-out) weapon. Actually I think my favorite antagonist in the film is the swarm of ships Krall sends against the Enterprise. Described as “bees” by the good guys, Krall has thousands of small attack craft at his disposal. Watching them move in unison, like a school of fish, was hypnotizing. In one scene they attack in the shape of giant tidal wave, ready to carry our heroes off into the cold abyss of space. And believe me, when they get their pyrotechnic comeuppance, you’ll be smiling. They’re a sight to see, and I can’t recall anything similar in Trek.³
Most of the criticism I’ve seen of Beyond so far centers on it not doing anything new, or for being too much of an action movie and not enough of a philosophical one. There is something to such criticism, but the fact is that the reboots have consistently sacrificed depth in favor of action. Both Star Trek and Into Darkness were at least five parts action for every one part character development. And no matter what hardcore Trekkies say in criticism, that formula brought in thousands of new fans that never had any interest in Star Trek before. That’s unquestionably good for the future of Star Trek, and may be responsible for the new Trek show coming in 2017.
On the other hand, action-action-action is arguably not the best road to go down for a franchise that has always been more about confronting big social issues than about blowing things up. Given my druthers, of course I’d rather have the exceptional acting of Star Trek: First Contact (1996), the humor of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986), or the Shakespeare-quoting, Moby Dick-esque battle of titans from Wrath of Khan. Each of those films made you think about what it means to be a human being, and where our place is in the universe. And that’s what Star Trek does best.
Don’t get me wrong, Beyond does raise some important, existential questions for its characters. Captain Kirk, for example, has to determine whether he joined Starfleet for himself, or for the father that died to save him and his mother during childbirth. Commander Spock has to decide whether his place is on the bridge of the Enterprise, or rebuilding his devastated civilization. And we can all question how appropriate it is for a superpower, even a democratic one, to unwillingly impose its values on everyone around it. The film would have done better delving into these issues with more vigor, but alas, I suppose there is only so much time to spare in a two-hour movie.
When it comes down to it, Beyond is exactly what most of us want out of a summer blockbuster. It has action, laughs, and soul, and you’ll leave the theater having been well entertained. Whether it is exactly what we want out of a Star Trek movie is a bit less clear. For my part, though I wish it was slightly more intellectual, I enjoyed the bits Beyond got right enough to look past its foibles. And I’m heartened to see that the series is moving in the right direction and getting back to its bright and sanguine roots. I’m convinced that audiences are starved for some inspiration, and Star Trek, done right, could be water in the desert. But for now, while it doesn’t quite match the franchise’s best, Star Trek Beyond is a fun time and definitely worth taking another trip into the final frontier.
¹ See Tomorrowland (2015) for an interesting take on this subject.
² I understand the objections of George Takei, the original Hikaru Sulu, to making the new Sulu gay. It could be seen as reductive, and it was not Gene Roddenberry’s intent. But my wife astutely pointed out that just as our reading of the Constitution evolves to match our contemporary values, so must our entertainment reflect current norms.
³ No, fellow Trekkies, Enterprise’s Suliban cell ships do not count. The production value on these is way higher and they actually look intimidating. The cell ships resembled a bunch of flying basketballs, and there were never a tenth as many on screen at a time.
