'Star Trek: Beyond' makes the case for more 'Star Trek' films

When Star Trek was rebooted by J.J. Abrams in 2009 it was a game-changing event, and while there was some grumbling among diehards in the fanbase, the general consensus was that the film had effectively paid homage to the past (both on film and TV) but also took the franchise into the future.

I was not a detractor of Star Trek: Into Darkness, but I understand why that film's aggressive attempts to intertwine itself with the legacy of the series' greatest film -- The Wrath of Khan -- rubbed some audiences the wrong way.

Now here comes Star Trek: Beyond, the first film featuring the Chris Pine-Zachary Quinto era cast not to be directed by Abrams.

He is a producer on this one but he's handed over the reins to Fast & Furious guru Justin Lin. And Lin does a great job of transporting the ensemble camaraderie of the F&F films to the new Star Trek.

The best thing about the new film is the cast, which three films in has really come into its own. Quinto's deadpan Spock is still a delight, as is Chris Pine's cocksure Kirk. And Karl Urban, getting more to do this time around as Bones, scored some funny lines with his extended DeForest Kelley impression. They all seem to be a little liberated not having to establish their characters and relationships anymore. And this one labors less to pay homage to the projects that proceeded it, and that's a good thing.

Still, this movie is very much in the same vein as the first two in that it's paced and stylized much like a mainstream summer blockbuster, which will likely turn off audiences seeking a more cerebral sci-fi experience. Lin stages some nifty action set pieces, but far too many are also somewhat forgettable and drowned in CGI.

Unlike superior action films like Captain America: Civil War and The Force Awakens, the action in this movie doesn't feel driven by story or character. Instead it seems to be more about appeasing audiences who may be less interested in the Spock-Uhura romance, or Kirk's crisis of faith.

That said, it's not a bad film. It's just like the new Ghostbusters, in that it is a bit of a disposable one. It has a few nice moments of grace, even sweetness -- but it doesn't have the sophisticated social commentary that great Star Trek films like The Undiscovered Country did.

Chris Pine

But there's still time. This new one has been well-received enough by audiences to justify another sequel (although, sadly, the premature death of Anton Yelchin, means Chekov will either need to be recast of killed off). And this cast has yet to deliver their certifiably classic entry, unless you count their first, which I do.

I have never been a hardcore Star Trek aficionado. I watched the early films as a child and liked them -- even if the quality did seem to ebb and flow between even and odd editions. And I recently started delving into the original 1960s TV show.

On a certain level, the TV show doesn't lend itself to film. It is the very definition of episodic, very talky and almost always about something else than what the plot portrays. Still, Hollywood figured out how to make Star Trek work for the cinema, by goosing up the effects and piling on the action.

What has been missing, to a certain extent, from the new films is the soul. But the good news is that the cast is game and capable -- especially Pine, who has a lot of old school movie star charm -- and all they need is a script that dares to make some not-so-subtle allusions to our real world.