Director JJ Abrams’ 2009 STAR TREK film was a literal reboot
of the long-standing series; wiping the slate clean with a clever time-travel
angle which gave our familiar characters a brand new stage to explore. Where
the second film was the introduction, the second film, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS,
is where that stage is given its test of durability.
Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and his crew…which includes Spock
(Zachary Quinto), Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban), Scotty (Chris Pine) and Uhura (Zoe
Saldana) are sent out into space to hunt down a vengeful terrorist (Benedict
Cumberbatch).
To reveal more of the plot would be a crime, as DARKNESS is loaded
to the bridge with many twists and turns, character drama and revelations, and
layers of political and personal deceit. With the events of the first film in
mind, DARKNESS is an extended time-travel story. Familiar characters, places,
and events from the old TREK universe are present, but this time they unfold in
unpredictable and fresh ways. Old TREK fans will have their minds blown
half-way across the universe, while even the most casual ones will pick up on
the gravity of what is being revealed before their eyes. The film is saturated
in TREK lore; it is familiar territory but presented in a fresh new light.
At the core of the TREK-ness are the characters, with Kirk
and Spock being at the moral center. Amidst the roller-coaster adventure are
two men who couldn’t be more different, but wind up sharing a friendship which
keeps the film grounded and likeable. Their characters, and the characters
around them, develop and excel via the events around them, and it is a
fascinating watch to see them be themselves and grow into the old forms in
(again), new light.
JJ Abrams keeps the pace brisk and humor well-timed. The action
set-pieces for the most part are thrilling, while some other ones only feel
like they were spliced in just to spruce things up. Similar to JJ’s first TREK,
the script makes some massive leaps to get characters from A to Z, but it is
forgivable as the eventual payoff is well worth it. JJ has put together a
beautiful looking film, and the energy levels throughout are high enough to
power a warp drive.
Acting is superb. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto really seem
to believe in their characters and hit all the right emotional notes. The
supporting cast is equally great, with Simon Pegg’s Scotty getting the most
laughs and an interesting arc for himself. The show is stolen by Benedict
Cumberbatch, who gives a downright chilling performance. The smaller roles are
held down very well by Alice Eve, Bruce Greenwood, Peter Weller, Anton Yelchin
(Checkov), and John Cho (Sulu). Karl Urban continues to give a creepy,
bring-DeForest-Kelley-back-from-the-dead performance as Dr. McCoy.
The finale goes for the emotional heartstrings and nails
every one of them. It is so good that the film almost feels anti-climatic as it
goes into another breakneck action sequence in the last ten minutes. However,
the payoff which eventually comes is worth it, and the extra flashes and bangs
can be forgiven. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is fun, entertaining,
thought-provoking and meaningful. Abrams has taken his new stage and elevated
it to places where we haven’t been before.
BOTTOM LINE: See it
I fear for the future of Star Wars in JJ Abrams' lens.
ReplyDeleteSpoiler Alert from here on out:
I did not like this movie. I started out enjoying it as a tourist; here's part of the Starfleet world I saw before, a species that reminds me of any number of TOS races the Enterprise encountered. The characters were spot on and I concur; the acting is fantastic across the board.
And then the first big reveal. For months now there's been so much speculation about who Cumberbatch is playing, and when you find out....nothing. Who cares? The biggest bad in the Trek Universe and his appearance means NOTHING. The scene is handled with no emotion, no build up, no payoff to the months of speculation and more importantly, no impact the people hearing it. He may have said 'My name is Fred" and it would have garnered the same reaction.
Let's not forget that Khan was not a villain, at first. His nature it to be better than all of us and he's merely doing what comes naturally. Kirk (in TOS) gave him exactly what he wanted, and all was to be right with the universe. Until we incurred his wrath.
In this world, he's a villain from the start.
Then comes 'THE SCENE'. The most iconic moment from the best Trek movie and Abrams chooses to rip it off, note for note. I can't express how offensive this was. It's geek hubris "I can SOOOO do that scene better" mixed with poor creativity "woudln't it be cool if we reversed the roles...you know, since we're in a different timeline" and absolutely NO EMOTIONAL IMPACT. You're not going to kill Kirk the second time out...especially when McCoy inexplicably injects some of Khan's blood into a dead tribble.
(Question on this plot development...why didn't Khan give it to McGivers on Ceti Alpha V?)
I found the whole Khan plot irritating. He didn't need to be Khan. He could have been any of the other popsicles in the Botany Bay and they wouldn't have wiped their backside with the greatest moments in the properties history. I'm not sure if its a rule, but it should be: if you're allowed to continue a story, don't lessen what came before.
Just as Vader yelling 'NOOOOOOO" taints RoTJ, Spocks tin-eared rendition of "KHANNNNN!" makes me wonder if I'll ever watch Shatner's rage the same.
You know what? I will...because THAT scene was handed with emotion, weight and is deserving of its iconic status.
Screw this film.
I think the point you're overlooking is that this film is really a continuation of the time-travel story established in the first film, which altered the characters' destinies. Scenes and situations repeating themselves are not "ripoffs", but instead signs of the universe trying to right itself; Kirk and Spock had to face death, and they had to do it together. I don't think the original Khan scene is lessened; it actually has more weight because we know that somewhere in an alternate reality, the same thing is happening.
DeleteAlan, is there a precedent in any of the multiple universes of Trek that the universes are trying to right themselves? If so, your perspective has weight and I can accept it...if not enjoy the scene. Perhaps there is a way to view it as seeing Anakin in black, foreshadowing his fall, places more weight in Luke showing up 20 years earlier in black; facing a similar test.
ReplyDeleteUnderstand that I wanted to love this film. I love Trek. I love that Scotty had to remind them that 'we're explorers!' I love that Spock thinks he knows where his emotions begin and end...and is still surprised at how human he is. I love this cast; worthy torchbearers of the legacy.
But they're not ready to face death in the same way. It's too early in the relationship. WoK gave us old Kirk and Spock, confirmed bachelors and married to Starfleet. They (along with McCoy) had long ago become brothers IN this timeline, it's early enough that Spock is still surprised when Kirk asks for him as his 1st officer. They are friends, shipmates, but not brothers. Granted, they are after this, but not before.
Stil, this felt cheap and unimaginative. 'Can't have Khan without the reactor scene and the scream." Ignore that they happened separately. I blame Abrams as the director, and the one who's running the ship. The fault lies with Orci, Kurtzman and Lindeoff.
And Alan, you are correct. The scene does not detract from the 1982 scene. I've thought a lot about it today and I have more appreciation for it. Darkness made me thankful for the incredible job Bennet, Shatner, Nimoy and Meyer did, and the high bar they set for everything that's come after.
I