Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Third in the series. As always with J.J. Abrams films (he produced rather than directed this one), the focus is on breathlessly speeding from one thrilling scene to the next with little room for light and shade or character development. The general absence of quieter moments means that the film rarely touches you. It just looks spectacular and feels exciting.

On the plus side, this has a stronger plot than Star Trek Into Darkness, even if it still steals from existing Star Trek mythology rather than inventing its own. I was curious why the pointless Spock/Uhura relationship was suddenly ended when it never rang true in the first place.

I wondered why there were relatively few ideas, too. The 1960s series was packed with thought-provoking concepts and complex ethical issues. These films are just hasty action romps. One of the key scenes has Captain Kirk riding around on a motorbike, presumably because it worked visually. The film also manages to include records by Public Enemy and the Beastie Boys as part of the storyline.

It was good to see the Enterprise being destroyed, even if they did rebuild it at the end. Maybe Rise of Skywalker would have been improved by the Millennium Falcon being trashed or some other equally audacious move.

Simon Pegg has a more prominent role (as Scotty), perhaps because he wrote the script. Idris Elba is underused and underdeveloped as the villain Krall.

And as with the previous film, the title makes no sense.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Sequel to the first reboot, again directed by Jar Jar Abrams. The characters are just as strong as before (even if the Spock/Uhura romance fails to convince and Spock can be both emotional and emotionless as the story requires), but the plot is somewhat tortured. It’s not entirely clear what the motivations of the villain are and parts of the story just don’t make sense. Even the title is bafflingly random. 

Some of the dialogue is a little clichéd, which is a shame because a better script could have lifted this out of “adequate sci-fi thriller” mode and let these interesting characters develop further. 

Leonard Nimoy appears one last time (he died in 2015) although seemingly just to appeal to the fans. There are many other reference points apparently thrown in as crowd-pleasers (Khan, Tribbles, etc). As with the Star Wars sequels, you wonder why they have to endlessly rehash old ideas rather than creating new mythology and iconography of their own. 

Despite amazing visuals, some thrills and some welcome humour (mainly from Simon Pegg’s Scotty), it doesn’t work quite as well as the first film. And once again it frustratingly ends where the TV series begins, with the crew about to “explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has gone before” (although “no man” has now become “no one”). Odd that it has taken two films to get to this point.

Star Trek (2009)

J.J. Abrams’ reboot of the iconic franchise injects new vitality into the tired space saga. It deals briefly with the early life of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), introduces the other key characters and effectively ends where Gene Roddenberry’s 1960s TV series begins.

Kirk is established as a super-confident, highly talented liability who ends up captaining the Enterprise. In parallel the film explores his relationship with – and the character of – the young Spock (Zachary Quinto). In particular, it probes the psychological complexity of his half-Vulcan, half-human origins. Does he have emotions or doesn’t he? Leonard Nimoy also appears as the older Spock, explained via a complicated time-travel narrative.

The character of Uhura (Zoe Saldana) is better developed than it was in the TV show, and Simon Pegg adds extra quirkiness to Scotty.

The effects are remarkable and the large-scale space scenes look impressive.

The only real flaw is that the villains – the tattooed Romulans – aren’t especially convincing. For baddies to be scary they need to seem real.

That aside, it’s a highly entertaining romp.