Unreal Movie Review: Star Trek Into the Darkness
2.5 out of 5 stars
In 2009, JJ Abrams took on perhaps his greatest challenge to date, a reboot of a sci-fi franchise more beloved than (almost) any other, Star Trek. In his film, he fashioned a parallel timeline to the original universe as a rather clever way to not upset longtime fans by changing the story, and assembled one hell of a talented young cast that few took issue with.
The new Star Trek film was everything the Star Wars prequels were not. It was well-filmed, fast-paced, charmingly funny and it paid respect to the original without being slavishly devoted to it. Star Trek was a hit, and a film that I personally demanded be turned into a franchise, something I’ve rarely said about a movie before.
Star Trek Into the Darkness is the answer to my request, a continuation of the reboot and a depiction of the further adventures of the cast. It’s everything I said I wanted, but I didn’t expect it to feel so…ordinary, by the time it was over.
James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is getting an earful after saving a planet from destruction at the hands of a particularly volatile volcano (uh, okay). In doing so, he violated more directives than Starfleet can count, and is up for disciplinary action.
Fortunately and unfortunately, his misdeeds are quickly forgotten when a rogue Starfleet officer, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), blows up a secret research lab in London. When all the best captains in the land get together in one room to discuss next steps, he tries to blow all of them up too.
When Harrison flees this time, it’s to the Klingon homeworld, out of the reach of Starfleet who is dangerously close to war with the species and can’t risk sending a large force there. It’s left to Kirk and the Enterprise to hunt him down, with standing orders to eliminate him on sight with long range, stealth photon torpedoes. Kirk and his crew weigh the morality of the illegal request to execute a man without trail against the rage they feel about the atrocities Harrison has committed.
The promotional materials for the film have gone to great lengths to obscure any details of the plot past this, but it should surprise no one that Harrison is more than a simple turncloak. I highly recommend staying away from the film’s IMDB page which inexplicably has spoilers about his character. Though really, I could have done without the subterfuge from the beginning, as it really doesn’t add anything to the film.
All the crew has returned and each given their own little moment in the sun. Chekov (Anton Yelchin) takes over engineering when Scotty (Simon Pegg) is indisposed. Sulu (John Cho) gets to sit in the captain’s chair when Kirk is away. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) gets to speak with the Klingons, and Bones (Karl Urban) gets to say “Damnit, I’m a doctor, not a photon torpedo technician!”
Of course its left to Kirk and Spock to have the lion’s share of screen time. The two make for nearly all of the film’s most hilarious moments, and honestly, I’d watch a show about just the two of them sharing an apartment together. Spock, in particular, is probably one of the funniest, best written characters across any genre in the last five years or so, and Quinto is perfect in this part.
I was particularly excited to see Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain, as I’ve loved him in Sherlock and pretty much anything else he’s ever been in. He does a great job here, but I fear he was underused and ill-explained. Even as a sci-fi nerd, I had trouble understanding his backstory when it finally was revealed in the film, nor did I really process his master plan. It seemed less like a inspired masterpiece and more like something the writers slapped together over lunch. It shares many, many, many parallels with another older Star Trek film, but if it’s trying to convey the same ideas to a new audience, it does a poor job. Yes, we’re free from many of the time travel plot holes of the first movie, but plenty more crop up and some are big enough to fall into. They’re ones you spot as the film is playing, not simply when you think about it days later.
Perhaps the most inexplicable portion of the film is the introduction of Alice Eve as science officer Carol Marcus. She has a half second scene in the trailer where she’s in her underwear, which is the same length in the film and completely out of nowhere. She has exceptionally little relevance to the central plot, and you would assume that at the very least she was brought in to be a love interest for Kirk. But it was dumbfounding to learn that wasn’t the case either, and as such she earns the honor of perhaps the most pointless cast addition I’ve ever seen in a sequel.
The film is big and over the top the way the first one was, but almost too much so. It’s nearly veering dangerously into Transformers territory with a plot with a similar intelligence level. It’s so jam packed with insane action sequences and pithy dialogue that when it does try to hammer in a dramatic moment, it doesn’t land correctly and there’s no emotional impact. The end of the film has a scene that’s supposed to be tear jerking, but it just comes off as silly and predictable as the clumsy plot has spelled out what’s going to happen miles in advance.
No one was more excited for Into the Darkness for me, and though I somewhat enjoyed it in parts, there was just something missing. It’s a film that’s shot well with fantastically casted characters, but these films really need to work on their plots so it takes more than a single viewing to point out a dozen or more holes by the end. Blockbusters don’t have to be dumb, but it’s like Star Trek believes its explosions and funny Spock one-liners and Kirk’s piercing eyes will forgive them their story transgressions.
If anything, it’s made me a little worried about JJ Abrams taking his turn with Star Wars. It’s one thing to get a great cast together and making an exciting film, but it’s another to insert them into a worthy story, and Into the Darkness feels like a misstep in that department.
2.5 out of 5 stars
Wow – I think this is the first time that I completely disagree with you Paul. I thought the movie was near perfect in every way, especially when compared to it’s predecessor. If anything this film has even made me like Abrams more than I did before.
Granted I don’t know anything about the Star Trek universe and enjoyed the first film quite a bit – but the first film seemed to have far more flaws (especially the notable plot holes) than this one did. Not only that, but almost everyone I’ve spoken to about the “emotional” moments of the film thought that they were top notch – and so did I. Particularly the few moments towards the end of the film.
Based on your rating scale I would’ve given it an easy 4/5 maybe even a 4.5/5 …
I agree that the plot was so very thin. So much was made of Kirk’s transgressions at the beginning and then its all suddenly forgotten about, it seemed so pointless. And Cumberbatch was so underused, I liked it when he had a few action scenes but his plan was barely that. Being so intelligent he surely could have done something productive, instead he really just goes on a hateful rampage with little focus.
I did enjoy the film but it was at the expense of willfully pretending all the flaws weren’t there. At least it had some good funny moments.
I agree that the weakest part of the film was the villain’s masterplan and backstory. They inexplicably tried to pull it off in just one single scene where Benedict Cumberbatch tries his best to cover up the clumsiness of the whole thing with some great acting, but fails.
But as for plot holes that you detect as the film is playing, I’m positive there are far more of them in Dark Knight Rises (uh, so they just flew to this prison or…?) and, say, Iron Man 3 (so, none of the other Avengers is concerned about this??). Even if the holes are there, Into Darkness has more than enough good-hearted action and emotional moments to be appreciated for what it is: a great, fun sci-fi action movie. It’s definitely no more shallow than 90% of the superhero movies out there.
For every hit Abrams has, he has an equally impressive miss. Lost was fantastic (even with possibly show breaking flaws). On the other hand, he wrote the screenplay for Armageddon. That in itself cancels out half his body of work in my mind.
Just look at his IMDB page. He puts his name behind, writes, and directs some gold, but also a bunch of very mediocre and crap productions.
I’m a Lost fan, but never understood how he was elevated to Midas Touch status so quickly and with so many flaws.
Into Darkness.
You won’t find a bigger Trek enthusiast on Unreality than I am (yeah, I said it). With STAR TREK (2009), I said then what I’ll repeat now: “JJ’s STAR TREK is Star Trek for a new generation of fans.” JJ’s pretty much said as much himself; his writing crew have done likewise, then recanted, then repeated their original sentiments in a different package, then recanted, etc.
The problem with almost everything JJ puts his name on is his predicates everything on “visions” (looking & sounding slick) instead of the singular “vision” (story & messaging of the work). Dig closer, and you’ll find JJ has very little to do with story — one could argue that stories don’t even interest him, per se, so much as do the puzzles that GET to stories. That’ll always be a flaw no matter what universe he dabbles in.
I enjoyed INTO DARKNESS solely as a popcorn flick. It — like the first one — is the kind of film that you can’t think too hard about or it all fails to miserable pieces.
Wow. Couldn’t disagree with you more. Thought it was better than the original in 2009, which I also hold in high esteem. I sometimes wonder if reviewers in general may have missed, or misunderstood a vital part of the story when they start talking about plot holes in some movies. I found the intentions of every major character to make complete sense with their overall aspirations.
You seem to have said a lot more positive things of this movie, than when you reviewed Prometheus with the same score last year. Do you actually feel both these movies are around the same level?
I’m also curious on what criteria do you score movies? Could you write an article on that (if you haven’t already) so some of us could get a better understanding of your scores. If you had a link to your criteria for scoring movies at the beginning of each review it could give your readers a better understanding of each critique.
Do you actually feel both these movies are around the same level?
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit until the final quarter when it borrowed the climax from a much better Star Trek movie. I guess this is supposed to be some kind of “fan service” or something but it was so jarring and on-th-nose that it was painful and ruined the movie for me. This may not be an issue for those who don’t know or care about the previous films/series but as a fan I thought it was cheap and insulting more than clever or interesting.
Also, the movie is emotionally flat. There was one scene in the entire film where it slowed down enough to recognize that someone had died tragically. There are terrorist attacks… there are explosions… buildings fall down… starships are ripped to pieces and one CRASHES INTO SAN FRANSISCO AND DESTROYS LITERALLY BLOCKS OF OCCUPIED BUILDINGS… there isn’t so much as a pause. Sulu comments on the leaping ability of the villian and Spock runs off to get in a fist-fight with him. It’s 2013, we all know what happens when terrorist bombs go off and occupied buildings fall down. The Transformers comparison is accurate, to introduce a villian as ruthless as this one and write the story in such a way as to not acknowledge that his actions have impact is poor writing.
Anyway, I was disappointed.
SPOILERS IF ANYONE HASNT SEEN IT YET AND IS READING
you shouold read the IMDB for the old star trek movies, with shatner and nemoy, this movie made many plays on the old ones. like, dr carol marcus for one, in the old series, she was a love interest, and kirk had a child with her. setting up future plots and characters.
in star trek 2, the wrath of khan, khan plans on using a terraforming device to destroy earth, and whatever else. this device is being developed on a planet, by carol marcus, with her and kirks son. chekov and sulu i believe, are on another planet testing other stuff, but run into the exiled crew of superhumans lead by khan, they were on a planet, different than where they thought they were. khan takes them hostage and steals their ship, sending a message to marcus that kirk is confiscating the terraforming device.
that leads to plot devices really. but seriously, watch star trek 2, or read a full synopsis, the two movies, are hilariously identical. I fully enjoyed this one. but a few things, like “we are sending you to stealthily take out this asshat, with 72 photon missiles” and kirk not once said, dont we only need one or two, maybe 5 at most?
or, admiral marcus, freezing khans crew, as hostages to get khan to build superweapons for starfleet. thats like finding “the man with no name” clint eastwood and having him develop arms for us now. it made no sense as to why he had anything to do with development.
they should have stuck closer to the original series storyline that dealt with khan, i realize its a parallel universe, but they entirely changed a few things, which wasnt bad in its own right, but coupled with a terrible idea, makes no sense whatsoever.
You give Star Trek a 2.5 while complaining about convoluted story lines and plot holes but give Iron Man 3 a 4 even though that movie was just a massive mess of plot holes and worthless scenes. Clearly RDJ and a superhero movie is all that matters here for a better rating.
***SEMI-SPOILERS TO FOLLOW***
I too felt that there was something lacking in the movie. Considering the villain that Cumberbatch plays is held in such high regard, he felt a little “meh” to me, and I feel it is more of the scripts fault than BC’s. I just didn’t feel like he was that much more powerful/smarter/better than the other characters except for his Hayden Panettiere blood. When he gets hit by something in the debri-field I literally thought to myself, “Well, so I guess he’s not so great.” It may have been too ambitious a project, and this style is starting to lose steam, but I feel like BC’s character would have been better served in a two movie story arc.
***END SPOILERS***
Also, Paul, please don’t turn this thread, once again, into a defense of your reviews and review scores. You explained perfectly fine in the review why you gave it a “low” score. You expected a lot and it didn’t meet expectations. That’s as good a reason as any.
I think the tear jerker scene was the film’s master stroke. Kirk’s story is the reason the film is called “into darkness”. That was a necessary part if his exerience, or there would have been no lesson learned.
Due respect to older, better Star Trek movies, to which this one owes much of its plot, but I see nothing wrong with offering the same recipe using spicier ingredients. Quinto and Pine convinced me that they were friends in two hours, because they are good actors. Shatner and Nimoy convinced me they are friends because for 25 years prior to that moment, we were told that they were friends, allowing sentiment to overwhelm how painfully hammy Shatner’s acting is.
makes me laugh when people say it wasn’t good ,what did they expect after the last F.U. to star trek fans. This is the man that gave us lost and couldn’t be bothered with the ending. The man who’s about to do the same to star wars.
It aint good and (shocker)neither is the last one, for the same price they could have written to every star trek fan on earth and told them they hate them and have no respect for them
I’m as angry as anyone over how LOST ended such that my greatest irritation with this latest ST was seeing Lindelof’s name in the credits. I can’t say I was very annoyed by anything in this film while watching it, though. I can understand how some people felt it was just action scene after action scene without emotional payoff but that’s not how it struck me… Marcus wasn’t developed fully but there was some suspense surrounding her character and it wasn’t immediately obvious to me who she was (I’m not the best listener, I suppose). She played a role in the torpedo handling and added some intrigue to the standoff between Enterprise and what I’ll call “Dark Excelsior.” We all know this is a long story besides.
If I had to complain, I’d say the matter of Khan getting the Starfleet dad to blow up that lab didn’t make total sense. I gave my word I’d take out everyone in the building for my daughter so I guess I have to… Maybe Khan had threatened to kill her if he didn’t go through with it? We don’t really have to know, I suppose.
Khan’s blood as panacea is another thing. I’d have expected there’d be some drawback to its uptake or something in Star Trek world. The lack of detail here is disappointing. Wouldn’t you think the world might want the cure for cancer and/or whatever else is necessitating the “Royal Children’s Hospital” of 2259? The bomber must have hated everyone and being a parent, too.
Having Nimoy-Spock on speed dial’s another thing that didn’t really bother me but I could see how it might have others rolling their eyes. Between this and the “magic” blood, utilizing these plot devices is a risky business.
I thought the Klingons were introduced well but then was disappointed they just dropped out entirely (outside the unexplained warmongering from the elder Marcus – again, I don’t always hear the best so maybe it made sense to others why this “all out” war with the Klingons was so desirable).
Into Darkness was far better than the 2009 one. it was actually the best one of the whole franchise, although I’ve only seen the first two of the original ones. By all accounts the others were bad.
4.5 stars.