"Star Trek into Darkness"
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood and Alice Eve
Sci-Fi, Action, Adventure
132 Mins
PG-13

 

I'd be lying if I said that J.J. Abram's Star Trek into Darkness isn't a bit of a misfire. Beleaguered with sky-high expectation, anything short of true greatness was destined to drag this sequel down and, sadly enough, Abram let this film flutter into darkness. Between the numerous character reveals, the big action set pieces, and the bounty of threats to the USS Enterprise, there's just too much going on. So much, in fact, that Abrams never lets it settle into one thread for long enough to really generate and grow our interest and our sympathy. Instead, it charges at light speed from plot point to plot point, forgetting to make the pit stops along the way that we would remember for years to come. 

Following the events of the first film, Star Trek into Darkness opens on a mission that is an obvious tip of the hat to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) are fleeing a white-plastered, spear-chucking horde of aborigines after stealing an artifact the aborigines were in the midst of worshiping. It quickly becomes clear that Kirk and Co's intent is to get these aborigines out of harm's way as Spock (Zachary Quinto) is pulling some dangerous maneuvers of his own trying to disarm a nearby massive volcano on the brink of eruption.


After the cable securing Spock snaps and he plummets towards certain doom (only to land on a convenient patch of non-lava), Spock insists that the crew leave without him, effectively sacrificing himself for the sake of their mission. Ignoring Spock's request, Kirk risks the success of the assignment (in which they were explicitly told not to make their presence known) in order to save Spock's life.

In the aftermath, Spock is not only ungrateful but goes on to report the incident and lose Kirk his captain's seat. This ongoing thread of logic pitted against gut feelings, that was already thoroughly explored in its predecessor, goes on to become a main foil for the film ignoring the fact that this was satisfyingly resolved in the first film.

 

This copycatting of dramaturgical issues are early evidence that Abram has less in the gas tank than he did the first time around and has resorted to retreading relationship beats already proven to be juicy and effective. Yes, Kirk and Spock's relationship is the centerpiece of the series but it feels like a step backwards to deprive them of their hard-earned respect and understanding of one another established in the first film. Backpedaling like this strikes easy dings into the veracity and authenticity of the storytelling at play here.

In the midst of the tepid (and quickly dismissed) political maneuvering that follow Kirk's insolence and stripping of rank, a new villain emerges in the form of John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). As a fan of Cumberbatch's work on BBC's Sherlock, the bar was already set high for John Harrison. Unfortunately, his character is a bit of a mess and Cumberbatch comes across as a rather stilted and wooden character rather than one to be respected, feared or plain old liked.

From our very first glimpse of Harrison standing across the street in a black trench coat and frowny-faced glare, he seems like kind of a joke. His whole getup screams fashionista rather than terrorista. While I don't have a problem with cheeky or even campy villains, it's hard to bat off the disappointment of a character is built up to be taken seriously that you can't help but chuckle at. Even as this antagonist progresses, his strength is all in what he does, often achieved through competent wire-work, and not in who he is or the complexity of his character. In order to talk more at length about my disappointment with his character, I'm going to switch on a rare...

SPOILER ALERT

 

So Harrison turns out to be the iconic Star Trek villain Kahn. Yeah, you know, Khan. He's super bad and super mean.... right? Ok, so I didn't know him either except that he was the villain of what is often called the greatest film in the Star Trek canon, The Wrath of Kahn. My problem here is that this reveal is supposed to be some massive, jaw-dropping revelation whereas in reality, it actually played out as more of a "So what?"

I have no inherent investment in the Star Trek series and was only won over by Abram's revisionary 2009 reboot. Without a standing history with the franchise, the resurrection of familiar characters has no weight. We weren't dying to see Khan. With Abram's gambling so much on the "John Harrison is actually Kahn?! Oh may gawd!!" revelation, the payoff is soured by it not really mattering. Calling him Kahn from the get-go would have changed nothing and relieved us of the ridiculous and embarrassing announcement from Cumberbatch: "My name is Kahn."

SPOILERS END.

Gutting of the film aside, it is a visually spectacular work with a more realized sense of the world at large than before. Lens flares are at an all time low (although not entirely in absentia) and the FX work is piping hot. And while most of the action sequences are only minorly upgrade on been-there-done-that wire-work, it's got steady-handed flair from Abrams, who is proving more and more to be an accomplished action director, and its fair share of excitement. A mid-space ship transfer in the third act is particularly cool and original but uniqueness is a rarity here rather than the standard. The race from set piece to set piece will give comfort to the casual movie-goer but will no doubt let down those with higher expectations.

 

Also onboard the USS Enterprise is a whole slew of others. The original supporting crew is back but are pigeonholed into doing things just for the sake of their being there and getting in their requisite screen time. Whereas its predecessor gave each of these people a reason to be here and exist, here they stagnate. Except for Simon Pegg, he can make all the throwaway jokes he wants and I'll still be smiling. These pieces were just more interesting as the board was being set up and the game that followed just wasn't all that compelling.

As a film that tries to climax too many times, the ultimate payoff ends up leaving us flat and asking, "That's it?" Sidestepping the address of blaring plot-holes staring the audience in the face is fine so long as it leads to something good. But to overlook these holes for no elevation of story is both lazy and stupid. The "epic" showdown is a prime example of an unforgivable plot-hole totally unexplained and conveniently truncation for no reason whatsoever. Instead, we're left with a wholly unsatisfying cursory summation of what went down.


I wanted to like it. I wanted to love it. But I didn't love it and I only kind of liked it. It didn't boldly go anywhere, it just...went. On the heels of a massively successful franchise relaunch, Star Trek into Darkness lets itself down with too much of a familiar thing.