Star Trek Into Darkness is a difficult film to review. In watching it, I felt conflicted as two separate but connected halves of myself battled for dominance of opinion on it, neither one particularly sufficed by any mental concession I may have made. Pieces of a franchise will do that to someone who has any kind of investment in that franchise, and it makes it difficult to judge a film’s qualities based on what that film may distinctly offer in a larger scale. Liking Star Trek: The Original Series makes attending the new Trek films equivalent to those stories our grandparents used to tell us of walking to school uphill both ways: illogical.
And, I mean, I have thoughts here, people. My thoughts on 2009’s Star Trek were so adamant that I lost friends over it. How can I look at Star Trek Into Darkness with any less than the same amount of conviction and ego?
So with that in mind, I propose a special kind of review just for this occasion. I will review it as Spock — that is to say, using a mix of logic and emotion. I will first look at the film objectively, critiquing it based on its own merits, and then I will look at it emotionally (read: as a fanboy, I guess), judging it as a small piece of a greater whole in one of the most endearing sci-fi franchises of all time. There will be some light spoilers in the fan-oriented section, but that is the nature of that particular beast, no? Nothing excessive, I promise.
One film. Two separate judgmental factors.
Let’s do this.
The Logical, Vulcan Side of Things
Star Trek established itself well. A previously geek-only territory was suddenly friendly and inviting based on the involvement of people who implicitly understood that Star Trek only appealed to such a niche audience and that that niche needed to be removed. In its place we were given a sci-fi action film that played off a basic familiarity of the source material, offering up a new interpretation of classic ideas for a generation of people who either weren’t aware of their existence or those who perhaps shunned it based on previous stigmas.
To that end, much is the same in Star Trek Into Darkness. The movie does everything the first film did right and amplifies it a good deal. All of that pesky “origin story” stuff is gotten rid of and the film focuses on the characters and the chemistry of the various actors involved. That was the thing that really made 2009’s Star Trek work in the first place; anyone who saw it without having any interest or investment in Trek in general ended up enjoying the film because it was such a great ensemble, with a clever enough script behind them to motivate the audience to get involved. Star Trek Into Darkness is a movie that wants you to like it very much, so it takes a look at everything that the first film did right — the balance of pathos and ethos, the cast, the compelling antagonist — and turns the knob to eleven in order to maximize the end results.
The new members of the cast are rather fantastic. Benedict Cumberbatch does an excellent job as the film’s central villain, balancing a character that is a mix of human and something more; it’s a role that rests primarily on the performance, as you’re never supposed to be able to get a firm grasp on who the character is or what his beliefs are. It’s that slight touch of a humanistic quality that makes him an endearing villain, one you’re not totally sure you want to root against but one you can’t help but love to hate. Alice Eve also joins as a brand new member of the crew, a smart and fast-talking science officer who helps to balance out a male-heavy cast while never being fully reduced to an object (no more than the rest of the glamorous, beautiful cast, anyway). While the film does have a few missteps with her character in terms of introducing a strong female role without relying on tired (and slightly sexist) tropes, she’s never the less a great addition to the Enterprise, with her role as endearing and easy to latch onto as any of the past cast, and hopefully her character will stick around for any following films of the franchise.
Continued belowIn terms of the direction, you get exactly what you’d expect from Abrams. The movie is fast-paced with quick cuts, and all of Abrams’ directorial trademarks are there: shaky cam, a focus on realistic found-footage type docu-filmmaking and so much lens flare you may need sunglasses. It can be a touch distracting at times, especially in terms of the flare, because there doesn’t seem to be any particular rhyme or reason to it anymore, but the other aspects are mixed into the film with quality that helps to ground a film that spends most of its run-time in space. Abrams, despite not being a fan of the original Star Trek, clearly has a firm grasp on what the franchise needs, and he helps pull out some fantastic performances from the grandiose ensemble.
The writing is on point as well. It’s a humorous script, but one that makes the best of all the characters involved. Almost everyone gets a moment or scene to shine, which is saying something given how many people are in this movie (too many to even fit on one regular poster, it seems), and the movie does a good job of balancing just the right stuff to be a general crowd pleaser — something touching when it needs to be, humorous when tension needs to be broken and thrilling enough that you get lost in the two hour runtime. Throw in a few easter egg nods (tribbles!), references (the Mudd incident!) and a touch of meta and you’ve got what you can expect from a sequel to 2009’s Star Trek.
That said, it’s a bit predictable. Star Trek Into Darkness is the kind of film where if you’ve seen one film like it, you’ve pretty much seen all films like it. Heck, if you’ve seen Star Trek then you’re essentially in for more of the same with this. That’s not inherently bad; the film certainly follows a formula, as many movies of this kind do, and it simply follows it in a logical fashion. Nothing about the film is pushed too far and a lot of is still spent introducing concepts familiar to Trek fans to those who aren’t readily Trek fans. It weighs the movie a bit down, but no more than the lens flare. The main point is to entertain, and the film does so on a variety of levels so it can be viewed, by those standards, as a success.
So from the standpoint of someone wanting to see a big budget sci-fi action film, Star Trek Into Darkness is an engaging and spectacular looking performance. It may be a bit generic, but in terms of making accessible science fiction, the movie does a stellar job of being broad enough to appeal to a wider range of audiences than Trek ever has in the past.
The Emotional, Human Side of Things
Again, light spoilers from here on out.
How does Star Trek rather famously begin? I’ll quote it for you, in case you forget:
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
That last line rings especially true to me – “to go where no man has gone before.” The beautiful thing about Star Trek is that it operates in a universe where anything is possible — nay, where everything is possible! They’re out in the depths of space exploring the unknown and anything goes, whether it be Lincoln floating around in space or an evil alternate dimension defined by goatees. It’s a sci-fi series so impressively expansive with its mythology that it can perhaps only be rivaled by Doctor Who in terms of grandiose and impressive long-lasting science fiction.
Heck, the movie starts in the right place. We open with an exciting and impressive-looking sequence in which the crew save an underdeveloped species from extinction. It’s an optimistic sign for the movie, because this right here shows you that the creators of the film have their head in the right place — anything is possible, any costume design, any idea, any whatever. Buckle your seat belts for an exciting science fictional ride, ladies and gents, because Lindelof, Kurtzman, Orci and Abrams are going to take you on a roller coaster! It’s a mix of sci-fi, humor and thrilling action, which is exactly what you’d expect for the film based on the first movie’s general experience, as we prepare to explore some new side of space we haven’t seen before.
Continued belowSo why, when there’s so much potential for growth, is the sequel to a series reboot essentially just a remake?
Look, let’s not play around with semantics: Star Trek Into Darkness was just an alternate reality/different timeline/whatever version of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, just with more allegories towards post-9/11 paranoia. It wasn’t subtle with its metaphors and it was liberal with its re-imaginings, but it was the same movie down to a T. The only thing that was missing was the birth of a new planet, which I imagine was tossed out to throw in a few more terrorism analogies.
But see, what bugs me here is not that this is a remake. Well, it is, but perhaps not in the sense that you’re thinking — I don’t mind that a movie was remade with new ideas and a new direction. It happens all the time, and it’s very hit or miss overall. What’s infinitely upsetting about this is just that it’s incredibly unimaginative. Re-doing Khan for a modern audience isn’t interesting because Star Trek fans have already seen that movie. It has been done before, and the first time it was done it was incredibly successful. In fact, many consider it to be the holy grail of Star Trek cinema. Why re-invent the wheel? Why not make the next thing, use the opportunity of a franchise reboot to tell new stories and explore new parts of the galaxy? This film featured new aliens and new space ships and new characters and new this and new that, but it couldn’t be bothered to come up with a new plot.
It’s boldly going where we’ve already been. And boy, that’s ridiculously dull.
Not only that, but really, by re-making what ultimately amounts to a sci-fi cult classic, you’re accidentally alienating half of your audience. Oh, sure, people will “get it” in terms of the context of the film, but there’s absolutely no reason for them to understand why it matters and what the purpose of it is. The movie leans so heavily on your knowledge of The Wrath of Khan that many moments can go by the average viewer and be completely missed, especially towards the end of the film. The first film was a success because even though the science behind it was about as sturdy as a collapsed bridge, it introduced most of the ideas of Trek to an audience who may have vocally expressed “no cares ever” for the franchise; a sequel that’s a remake of the original sequel condensing a 3ish hour storyline into two and removing all semblance of emotional attachment (which only exists due to three seasons and the idea that you’d seen “Space Seed”) is a fool’s errand.
I can remember being in junior high school and watching “Space Seed” as part of an assignment for class. Star Trek was being shown to us as an example of diversity, a television program doing things that no other shows were willing to do at its time, and “Space Seed” happened to be my teacher’s favorite episode. I’ll never forget that lesson, or how many times I’ve seen the episode/related film in question since then. If I wanted to watch these stories, I have them on DVD already. I’d rather have seen something new, and I imagine for the most part that the general audience would agree.
It’s essentially a two-hour wasted opportunity, one that seems relatively disrespectful towards its audience and the fans that keep this franchise going. It’s not an amazing re-imagining of a classic story; it’s just a re-imagining. It doesn’t take any chances, and while it assembles a good a cast, watching Benedict Cumberbatch and Chris Pine/Zach Quinto pummel each other only goes so far. On many different levels, it’s just pretty disappointing.
The Complete Spock Analysis
On a certain level, I can respect a film makers attempt to recapture that lightning in a bottle for an audience who don’t necessarily have the same love for Trek as your staple/stereotypical fan does. But what I (and the general movie-going world in general) appreciate more is a film maker telling their own stories, not just re-interpreting someone else’s and passing it off as something new. Even if a film maker like Abrams wears his influences on his sleeve with movies like Super 8 or Cloverfield, at least he offers something new each time, a truly exciting exploration of the types of films that enchanted him. That’s just not the case here.
The film leaves in a place where the future is limitless and anything is once again possible, and that’s the best place to leave it. All things considered, though, Star Trek Into Darkness is nothing we haven’t seen before, both in terms of the story it seeks to remake and in terms of films of this kind in general. It is exciting, it is visually stunning and it is a solid performance from an ensemble cast under the right director to make this accessible, but it is 100% a missed opportunity in every place that counts. It’s not a bad film, and it’s even something I would watch again given the right circumstance or opportunity, but it’s like a child bringing home a D+ report card after a D report card — you might want to give them points for effort, but it’s still a D.
Alas, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It matters very little what the old Trek fans say now, and at least new people are embracing Star Trek as a whole. I for one can’t wait to see all those space whales with lens flare in another upcoming reboot remake.
