"Star Trek: Into Darkness" - directed by J.J Abrams
(*** no spoilers ***)
There is a widely recognised phenomena with Star Trek feature films that the odd numbers are pretty bad and the evens pretty damned good.
I would argue that the movies that are good are less to do with numbers and more to do with Nicholas Meyer.
Meyer directed the second Trek film - "Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan" back in 1982.
This was after the terminally dull 1979 Trek feature film debut "Star Trek: The Motion Picture".
He returned for "Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country" in 1990.
I count his Trek films as my favourites.
Even the rather excellent 2009 reboot "Star Trek" paled next to these two.
J.J Abram's reboot was action packed fun and was successful enough to warrant a second film.
Legitimately a reboot, it was clear that Abram's Trek was a parallel universe even employing two Spocks - one from the original stories and a brand new young one played by Zachary Quinto.
This is standard procedure for comic books with multiple 'universes' with the same characters operating alongside each other completely independently and so why not for movies too?
And as with the 2009 movie before it this parallel universe idea continues with "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
But choosing to model itself on arguably the best Trek movie ever leaves a pretty hefty "Wrath of Khan" shaped shadow looming over it.
Of course there has been much speculation regarding how much Khan there is in this second Abrams film.
Chiefly the question of whether Benedict Cumberpatch's 'John Harrison' isn't really in fact Khan himself.
I am not going to comment either way - you'll need to see for yourself.
What I can say is that the attempts to pay homage to "Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan" in this film are clumsy at best and cringeworthy at worst.
Particularly the final half hour which honestly made me groan when I realised what was being attempted.
In fact the film spends so much time giving us nudge-nudge, wink-wink references to the 1982 film that it's a wonder it finds time for its own material.
What there is is fun enough and when it wants to be spectacular it surely is but cohesion and plot take a back seat for much of it.
I am determined not to spoil anything and it will be difficult to explain my problems with this movie in doing so.
But here goes...
I am not entirely convinced of much of Harrison's motivation in seeking revenge.
His plan is similarly baffling.
Why does every villain since "The Dark Knight" have to include deliberately getting caught in his scheme?
And why do the escape plans seem remarkably fortuitous for such clever chaps?
Looking at The Joker in "The Dark Knight", Loki from "The Avengers" and even the (presumably) non-villainous Superman from the latest "Man of Steel" trailers the same semi slowed shot of the characters being escorted in handcuffs surrounded by armed guards is shown.
It's starting to get a little dull.
With "Star Trek: Into Darkness" there is the sense - growing as the movie progresses- that the script has been cobbled together out of a checklist of ideas and nods to the 1982 film.
Wouldn't it be cool if a line or two right from original were included?
How about a characters fate being included but make it for a different character?
Another Old Spock cameo maybe?
Klingons for no good reason?
Along the way a compelling story, character arcs and something for poor old Chekov and Sulu to do have been largely forgotten.
This film focuses on Spock and Kirk and whilst this is par for the course for a Star Trek film it would have been a good idea to put some character growth in there.
Spock has a little bit of humanity seeping out and a lovers tiff with Uhruru but little else.
Kirk suffers the worst with a very lame and very tired theme of what it means to be a team player essentially.
It was pretty much done to death in the previous film.
Tragically he is even sidelined for much of the dramatic conclusion.
You'll see why and I guarantee you will not like it.
I had problems with rapid, magical conclusion moments in "Iron Man 3" but they disappear into irrelevance next to this one!
I'm being harsh.
I know I am.
But it is just that there was so much scope for this to be a great second film.
Great like The Wrath of Khan.
Great like "Aliens".
And yes- maybe even great like "The Empire Strikes Back".
But it isn't close.
It's still fun and it has some crowd pleasing moments of action and even a laugh here or there.
Pine and Quinto have great chemistry and Karl Urban once again is a riot as Bones.
Simon Pegg's Scottish accent seems worse than first time round and the stunningly beautiful Alice Eve seems to have been cast just for one (admittedly lovely) underwear scene.
However Benedict Cumberpatch is pretty damned good and I am starting see what the fuss is about this actor.
He does good villain - there's no doubt about that.
Visually there is plenty of eye candy and the 3D is very good indeed.
If you have the chance to see this on an IMAX screen and in 3D then definitely cough up the extra.
There were some worrying audio problems with dialogue in the first ten minutes which I hope were just down to a theatre issue rather than soundtrack.
I couldn't hear much of what anyone was saying.
Clearly this is a major movie and everyone needs to see it for themselves but I cannot see this being the major hit that it had a massive opportunity to be.
The first film successfully re-introduced characters and positioned them for bigger and better things (and a bigger budget).
This one has dropped the ball near the line.
Here's hoping that J.J is in better form for his take on Star Wars.
"Star Trek: Into Darkness" is decent.
No more, no less.
Starring:(*** no spoilers ***)
I would argue that the movies that are good are less to do with numbers and more to do with Nicholas Meyer.
Meyer directed the second Trek film - "Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan" back in 1982.
This was after the terminally dull 1979 Trek feature film debut "Star Trek: The Motion Picture".
He returned for "Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country" in 1990.
I count his Trek films as my favourites.
Even the rather excellent 2009 reboot "Star Trek" paled next to these two.
J.J Abram's reboot was action packed fun and was successful enough to warrant a second film.
Legitimately a reboot, it was clear that Abram's Trek was a parallel universe even employing two Spocks - one from the original stories and a brand new young one played by Zachary Quinto.
This is standard procedure for comic books with multiple 'universes' with the same characters operating alongside each other completely independently and so why not for movies too?
And as with the 2009 movie before it this parallel universe idea continues with "Star Trek: Into Darkness".
But choosing to model itself on arguably the best Trek movie ever leaves a pretty hefty "Wrath of Khan" shaped shadow looming over it.
Chiefly the question of whether Benedict Cumberpatch's 'John Harrison' isn't really in fact Khan himself.
I am not going to comment either way - you'll need to see for yourself.
What I can say is that the attempts to pay homage to "Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan" in this film are clumsy at best and cringeworthy at worst.
Particularly the final half hour which honestly made me groan when I realised what was being attempted.
In fact the film spends so much time giving us nudge-nudge, wink-wink references to the 1982 film that it's a wonder it finds time for its own material.
 |
| There is no shortage of action |
I am determined not to spoil anything and it will be difficult to explain my problems with this movie in doing so.
But here goes...
I am not entirely convinced of much of Harrison's motivation in seeking revenge.
His plan is similarly baffling.
Why does every villain since "The Dark Knight" have to include deliberately getting caught in his scheme?
And why do the escape plans seem remarkably fortuitous for such clever chaps?
Looking at The Joker in "The Dark Knight", Loki from "The Avengers" and even the (presumably) non-villainous Superman from the latest "Man of Steel" trailers the same semi slowed shot of the characters being escorted in handcuffs surrounded by armed guards is shown.
It's starting to get a little dull.
With "Star Trek: Into Darkness" there is the sense - growing as the movie progresses- that the script has been cobbled together out of a checklist of ideas and nods to the 1982 film.
Wouldn't it be cool if a line or two right from original were included?
How about a characters fate being included but make it for a different character?
Another Old Spock cameo maybe?
Klingons for no good reason?
Along the way a compelling story, character arcs and something for poor old Chekov and Sulu to do have been largely forgotten.
 |
| Star Trek's villain - shades of Loki? |
Spock has a little bit of humanity seeping out and a lovers tiff with Uhruru but little else.
Kirk suffers the worst with a very lame and very tired theme of what it means to be a team player essentially.
It was pretty much done to death in the previous film.
Tragically he is even sidelined for much of the dramatic conclusion.
You'll see why and I guarantee you will not like it.
 |
| Alice Eve |
I'm being harsh.
I know I am.
But it is just that there was so much scope for this to be a great second film.
Great like The Wrath of Khan.
Great like "Aliens".
And yes- maybe even great like "The Empire Strikes Back".
But it isn't close.
It's still fun and it has some crowd pleasing moments of action and even a laugh here or there.
Pine and Quinto have great chemistry and Karl Urban once again is a riot as Bones.
Simon Pegg's Scottish accent seems worse than first time round and the stunningly beautiful Alice Eve seems to have been cast just for one (admittedly lovely) underwear scene.
However Benedict Cumberpatch is pretty damned good and I am starting see what the fuss is about this actor.
He does good villain - there's no doubt about that.
Visually there is plenty of eye candy and the 3D is very good indeed.
If you have the chance to see this on an IMAX screen and in 3D then definitely cough up the extra.
There were some worrying audio problems with dialogue in the first ten minutes which I hope were just down to a theatre issue rather than soundtrack.
I couldn't hear much of what anyone was saying.
 |
| Uhura, Sulu and Scotty |
The first film successfully re-introduced characters and positioned them for bigger and better things (and a bigger budget).
This one has dropped the ball near the line.
Here's hoping that J.J is in better form for his take on Star Wars.
"Star Trek: Into Darkness" is decent.
No more, no less.
| Rated | M for mild sci-fi action violent |
| Running Time: | 132 mins (2hr, 3 mins without end credits) |
| Chris Pine | --- Jame T Kirk |
| Zachary Quinto | --- Spock |
| Karl Urban | --- Bones McCoy |
| Zoe Saldana | --- Nyota Uhura |
| Alice Eve | --- Dr. Carol Marcus |
| Anton Yelchin | --- Pavel Chekov |
| John Cho | --- Hikaru Sulu |
| Benedict Cumberpatch | --- John Harrison |
| Simon Pegg | --- Scotty |
| Nolan North | --- *** |
| Bruce Greenwood | --- Christopher Pike |
Good Review! I have just seen it. I must say even though it is not as good as the previous one I very much liked it. I did not expect anything less or more.
ReplyDeleteHey Erik. Did the radiation bit at the end make you cringe? As soon as I realised what they were doing I couldn't believe it. I'll see it again just to get a second look but I was disappointed.
ReplyDelete