‘Star Trek Beyond’ Review: A Slick Movie About Absolutely Nothing

Director William Shatner’s widely hated “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” (1989) is at least about something. In fact, it is about many things, which is why despite its flaws I love it. Themes of loyalty and what it means to be human abound as our beloved crew goes in search of nothing less than God. Kirk’s refusal to give up his personal pain because it makes him who he is, is, for my money, the best character moment in the entire series.

Even the most TV series-ish of the film entries are about something. In “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock” (1984) the crew pretty much commits treason against the Federation in order to rescue one of their own. Why do they do this? Because “the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” The nearly flatline but still watchable “Star Trek: Insurrection” (1998) is saved primarily by an intelligent theme examining the concept of committing a moral wrong in pursuit of a greater good.

The exploration of Big Ideas is as vital a part of what makes “Star Trek” “Star Trek” as the exploration of space. What makes the latest franchise entry, director Justin Lin’s “Star Trek Beyond,” so forgettable and hollow is the complete lack of a Big Idea.

“Beyond” pretends to be about something: unity. Unfortunately, the script co-written by Simon Pegg (Scotty) and Doug Jung (Sulu’s husband) is only interested in glad-handing this idea through shallow exposition. In reality, the movie isn’t about unity. It isn’t about anything really. In the three titles listed above, the Big Idea drove the story and character. In service to this idea, impossible, gut-wrenching choices had to be made…

Sarek: Kirk, I thank you. What you have done is…

Kirk: What I have done, I had to do.

Sarek: But at what cost? Your ship. Your son.

Kirk: If I hadn’t tried, the cost would have been my soul.

…there are no impossible choices faced by anyone in “Beyond,” just the kind of personal decisions we all face (leaving a job *clears throat*, staying in a relationship) and even these are literally bookended. Oh, make no mistake, these moments are window-dressed up to appear Big. Even the wonderful Shohreh Aghdashloo shows up to participate in the ruse. But I doubt even the shallowest of fanboys will be fooled for long.

In two of the franchise’s best entries, 1982’s “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” (the greatest science fiction movie ever) and 1984’s “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” it is the antagonist that drives a Big Idea. “Khan” of course is about the revenge being a poison you give yourself. In the “Voyage Home” the antagonist is the dilemma and the dilemma is caused by mankind eventually paying a price for his greed and inhumanity.

“Beyond’s” villain is Krall and I’m still not sure what drove him. His motives made no sense (something about missing his days as a soldier). It probably didn’t help that the actor behind Krall, the fine Idris Elba, is hidden behind too much make-up to break out of, and at least half of his dialogue is unintelligible.

Krall’s actions certainly made no sense. The space weapon he uses to obtain a super weapon is actually more effective than the super weapon. Moreover, had he not gone to so much trouble to obtain that MacGuffin, and by extension tipped his hand to Starfleet, he could’ve easily achieved his ultimate goal of wiping out a Death Star-sized Federation space station.

“Beyond” isn’t as much of a mess as I’m making it out to be. Although the story is rather dull in parts, as are some of its overblown action sequences (one involving Kirk on a motorcycle is both dull and stupid), this is still a slick piece of entertainment. It just fails mightily in everything but barely holding on to your attention.

One thing I did appreciate is that “Beyond” is eager to deepen its characters, especially their relationships. This of course is what makes the original series and the six feature films that followed so beloved and timeless. We adore those characters and return again and again to spend time with them.

In this realm, the only element “Beyond” gets right is that Kirk (Chris Pine) has finally matured into someone who we believe anyone would trust with a command. The others are wasted. The gratuitous shot of Gay Sulu and his husband adds nothing to story or character. The result is that a beloved and iconic character has been unforgivably and illogically turned into a Social Justice Token. And I say this as someone who believes a homosexual is long overdue in this franchise.

Spock (the excellent Zachary Quinto) and McCoy (the awful Karl Urban) spend a lot of time together trading stale banter. Urban is a wonderful actor and presence, but thus far the franchise has refused to allow him to do anything more than a “Saturday Night Live”-level imitation of DeForest Kelley. Urban’s Bones is all put upon bluster and folksy advice over contraband liquor. None of the depth or pathos (the self-doubt and personal insecurity of feeling like a third wheel in the presence of Kirk and Spock) that made Kelley’s McCoy so indispensable and wonderfully complicated are anywhere to be seen.

I’m the exact same age as “Star Trek.” My abiding love for the original crew is over 40 years old and naturally I resented the idea of seeing this crew rebooted. But I’ve come to terms with this and actually loved “Into Darkness,” which sets me apart from most Trekkies. My problem with “Beyond” has nothing to do with bias, it just misses the mark, and does so for the first time in a half-century.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC