Reply to Topic
|
|
Year of release
2013
2013
Directed by
J.J. Abrams
J.J. Abrams
Written by
Roberto Orci
Alex Kurtzman
Damon Lindelof
Roberto Orci
Alex Kurtzman
Damon Lindelof
Starring
Chris Pine
Zachary Qunito
Benedict Cumberbatch
Simon Pegg
Karl Urban
Chris Pine
Zachary Qunito
Benedict Cumberbatch
Simon Pegg
Karl Urban
Star Trek Into Darkness
-
Plot - After breaking the Prime Directive on a distant planet, Captain James T. Kirk (Pine) is relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise. This proves to be a short-lived development however. When a destructive force of terrorism emerges from within Starfleet itself, Kirk is reinstated and tasked with tracking down this terrorist. The terrorist in question is John Harrison (Cumberbatch); a darkly mysterious and extremely powerful force waging a one-man war against Starfleet. When the score between them becomes personal, a vengeful Kirk follows Harrison into dangerous territory, risking a war in the process. As it turns out however, things are not what they seem. With events and revelations turning the world of Kirk and his crew upside down, loyalties are going to be questioned and sacrifices demanded.
Whatever your opinion was of J.J. Abrams' first stab at the world of Star Trek, I think you're very likely to feel the exact same way about this; his return trip aboard the USS Enterprise which I found very similar. I found his 2009 reboot of the franchise to be a very fun, if flawed film. I had hoped this sequel would take the foundation laid out and realise the potential hinted at. While I would give this film the edge over its predecessor, sadly I don't feel that it quite lived up to my hopes. It was able to retain all the things I enjoyed about the first film, but unfortunately it did likewise in terms of its flaws.
Up front I feel I should admit to not being a devout follower of the Church of J.J.; I'm not one for worshipping the ground that the man walks upon. Which would be fine, I wouldn't feel strongly either way, except for the fact that so many people seem to adore and rave about the man; thus creating in me a sort of irrational contempt towards him. I think he certainly knows how to deliver on spectacle and thrills, but on the strength of his two Trek films and the underwhelming Super 8, I'm not so sure about his abilities to deliver heart and emotion. The two Star Trek films he has delivered have scored high as slices of big-ass action, but to me they don't feel like classic Trek. I imagine they're missing the adventure, the derring do, the sense of exploration, the warmth and the level of character that has made me love the franchise over the years. He's in danger of turning the franchise into nothing but a special effects bonanza.
I also have a problem with Abrams' presentation at times, though whether I can expound upon why exactly this is I'm not sure. His direction entails a frequently moving camera, numerous whips and pans and really likes to get up close and personal to his subjects. At times it is suitable and indeed successful at breeding a lively and energetic mood, however there are times (particularly on the bridge) where I wish he would just settle down for a moment, pull back and allow the moment and the characters to breathe a little. His approach creates a bit of a TV feel for me, perhaps a leftover stemming from his time working on the small screen. Oh and when it comes time to adding the visual effects in post-production, can someone please hide the 'add lens flare' button from the man!
However the one area where this film truly does improve upon Abrams' first attempt is in its villain, who this time around is given a much more fleshed-out character and interesting story. In Star Trek, Eric Bana was given very little opportunity to make an impression as Nero; his character felt like it existed merely as a plot device to get the crew involved in time travel and alternate realities. In John Harrison however, Benedict Cumberbatch is given greater scope to work with and truly makes the most of it. His terrorist foe oozes menace and charisma. It's a fantastically gripping and magnetic performance which just cements his growing reputation as one of the hottest young talents around. He absolutely dominates the screen and your attention whenever he appears, and for me is the best thing this sequel has going for it. All of which makes it rather unfortunate then that I don't feel he is really utilised to the fullest, with the script conspiring to have him off screen for more time than would have been ideal. Abrams' main focus remains the occasionally strained dynamic between Spock and Kirk, and on the action. The script flirts with some more complex issues such as morality and the rights of a terrorist, but quickly dismisses them to blow some more stuff up. It also opts for quite a rushed and clumsy conclusion which seems to ignore the consequences created. The script just feels rather lazy at times.
When it comes to the Enterprise crew the undoubted star amongst the cast remains Zachinary Quinto who continues to deliver an uncanny impersonation of Leonard Nimoy. It's actually rather eerie and unnerving just how similar they are; it's the same voice, the same face, the same mannerisms, the same nuances - everything! In fact, were it not for the small issue that the original Spock is still alive I'd be tempted to believe Quinto was actually Leonard Nimoy reincarnated! As in the first outing, Chris Pine proves to be a solid and decent Kirk but I've still to truly warm to him and the character. I just don't feel like he has truly inhabited the character and made it his own, or that he has the suitable natural star power. As a result, in the scenes where Kirk goes face to face with Harrison, I personally felt that he paled in comparison to the magnetic and over-powering gravitas of Cumberbatch. So much so that I rather found myself cheering for the villain which I don't think is a particularly good thing to feel for this type of venture. And Pine is not helped by the fact that the script often conspires to make his Kirk flawed, weak and not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I read another review which criticised the film for having supporting characters presented as little more than window dressing, and that really is the case when it comes to much of the Enterprise's crew; with the likes of Sulu, Chekov, McCoy and Uhura all suffering. Basically everyone but Spock, Kirk and Scotty. The actors are given pitifully little to work with outside of basic traits imitated after the men and women who first brought these characters to life. As McCoy, all the script allots Urban is the chance to deliver grumpy one-liners. Anton Yelchin remains an endearing presence as Chekov, but is relegated to basically mispronouncing his v's and his w's. As a result I've still to really take to any of the supporting cast in any great manner. Oh and as I've mentioned on here a few times before, I'm not a fan of Simon Pegg and take umbrage at him portraying a Scotsman. I found him annoying in the first film, and so was rather despondent to find his role had been increased this time around.
One of the main flaws in Abrams' first trip into space aboard the Enterprise was the romance between Spock and Uhura. Revealed out of the blue late on in proceedings, no development or explanation was really put forward. It came across as nothing more than a flimsy gimmick; as if Abrams & co had merely included it for a bit of controversy, just to get people talking and create some buzz. I had hoped that they would take the opportunity to expand upon it in the sequel but sadly that is not the case. Very little progress is made on that front, and they decline the chance to address issues such as how a relationship between a human and a vulcan actually works, or even why they're together. We've had two movies now and still have no real clue why these two have hooked up.
As with the first film, the one area where the film is a pretty much unreserved success is in its effects and the sheer spectacle they create. It looks spectacular and remains a great theme park ride of a movie, full of large scale space battles and thrilling set-pieces. Though the battle on Kronos suffers from the manic, quick-fire editing that hurts many modern films, making it almost incomprehensible to figure out what the hell is happening at times. One problem with so much action however is that I began to suffer peril fatigue (a term borrowed from another review). With Kirk & co in danger every five minutes it begins to wear on you a bit. Again as with its predecessor, Into Darkness features numerous nods to classic Trek, and near its conclusion this is particularly true of Wrath of Khan. This blatant callback will likely work fine for newcomers to the world, but for trekkies (well this one at least) the scene felt incredibly forced and cheesy, even verging on being cringeworthy, and completely sabotaged any potential emotion in the scene. For a film trying to breathe new life into a franchise it seems overly obsessed with the past.
And lastly, another thing that wasn't so much a flaw with the film as just a personal nitpick is the fact that I was disappointed with just how much of the running time was spent aboard the Enterprise or on Earth. That was fine on TV when you only had to wait another week for a new episode, but with a potential wait of a few years between instalments I feel its a shame not to spend more time exploring “strange new worlds” and interacting with alien races. Outside of the film's prologue our only real exposure to the wider universe is a brief visit to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, but much of it is shrouded in darkness preventing us from really getting an idea of its aesthetic, and the Klingons themselves I found to be a disappointing creation; not really evoking their look from any previous outings.
As seems pretty typical for this type of fair these days, the film does have its share of plot holes. Quite a large share actually. But I won't get too bogged down in them right now (perhaps later 
). One thing I did have an issue with however was some of the deus ex machina plot devices they came up with to get themselves out of a jam. They may work fine in the short term but I'm curious to see how they play out as we go along. For example, is it just me or did they actually just remove the threat of death from the world of Star Trek? Or at the very least greatly diluted it.
). One thing I did have an issue with however was some of the deus ex machina plot devices they came up with to get themselves out of a jam. They may work fine in the short term but I'm curious to see how they play out as we go along. For example, is it just me or did they actually just remove the threat of death from the world of Star Trek? Or at the very least greatly diluted it. Conclusion - Given how many flaws I've pointed out it may seem strange that I've still given it such a high rating, indeed even I think it looks generous! But for all its problems, as a big summer blockbuster it remains a highly entertaining (if disposable) popcorn flick, and as a result of Benedict Cumberbatch's inclusion it is an improvement on the first film. And my inner Trekkie is pretty damn strong which is always going to help anything carrying the Trek name. However with more screentime for Cumberbatch, more attention paid to the script and better use of its supporting cast this could have been something special.
Oh and another interesting aspect, which perhaps hurt my enjoyment of this, was just how similar this was to Iron Man 3 in terms of sharing similar themes and story beats. I found IM3 to be a much smarter, wittier and overall a far more thrilling experience however.
I have to say that the best part of the whole thing for me was the badass Black Starfleet ship turning up. That awesome nightmarish scene where it catches Enterprise in warp was probably the best sound visual/sound effect that I have seen in a Sci Fi movie, despite it only being seconds long.
That being said it was a bit of Deja Vu having another massive ship like the Romulan mining ship from Star Trek turn up. I would probably rather have a ship to equal the Enterprise and a great tactical battle of wits ensue, a bit like Enterprise vs Reliant from Wrath of Khan, or Enterprise vs the cloaked Bird of Prey from Undiscovered Country.
I hated, and I mean hated the switcheroo with Kirk/Spock death ending. The scene doesn't even come close to matching the emotion of Spock's death from W.O.K. It was almost embarrassing to watch and straightaway you know they are going to use Khan's blood to save Kirk, in turn making the ending entirely predictable and the weakest point of the film.
Quite right also about the "Peril fatigue", every 10 minutes is another death defying situation in which you are NEVER at any point concerned for the wellbeing of any of the major characters. These guys don't have the brass balls to kill off a major character like in Wrath and have him stay dead (at least until the next instalment
).They could do with taking a look at the old films, using a bit less action and more of those tense bridge situations with the dark red battlestations illumination where Kirk/Spock must cleverly outthink the bad guy. Also many of the magic moments of the better old Star Trek films are scenes of dialogue that haven't been matched by the new films. Slow it down a bit guys we don't need an action scene every 10 minutes, or having a good dialogue scene broken by action.
That being said it's a decent sequel that I enjoyed enough to watch twice in 3 days.
I do worry a little about Star Wars though. Are we going to end up with the two powerhouse Sci Fi franchises identical to eachother?
