Star Trek Into Darkness
After J.J. Abrams’s 2009 reboot of “Star Trek,” a franchise I’ve only been marginally a fan of over the years, it didn’t take long to really figure out what I thought of the film: I loved it unreservedly. With his second adventure in the world of Gene Rodenberry, however, I feel a few reservations.
Don’t get me wrong: I still feel more engaged in this version of the original “Star Trek” crew than I think I ever was with Shatner, Nimoy, and the rest. (That’s not meant as a critique of their work, by any means, but like Abrams, I grew up more of a “Star Wars” fan, so the “space cowboy” model of his films just works better for me.) But something just didn’t gel this time around. Whereas the new actors in these famous roles seemed to work together effortlessly in the first film– in particular, the dynamics between Chris Pine’s Kirk and Zachary Quinto’s Spock; Spock and Zoe Saldana’s Uhura; and Kirk and Karl Urban’s McCoy –this time out…there seemed liked a little bit of effort was needed. And overall, the sense of fun and easy humor from the first movie was lost in a more dramatic story, albeit in a very good one.
Since this is being published after the film’s first weekend, I won’t necessarily feel inclined to shy away from spoilers, but those will be saved until closer to the end. Although Abrams has said that his approach to “Star Trek” was intended to make it feel more like a “Star Wars” film than the earlier “Trek” films, the ways he begins “Into Darkness” harken back not just to the “Trek” tradition of “exploring strange new worlds,” but also, in the way it introduces John Harrison, the film’s antagonist, Christopher Nolan’s Batman films. The film opens with a scene of the crew of the Enterprise doing what it could to prevent the destruction of an indigenous tribe (the scene that was shown before IMAX shows of “The Hobbit” last December), and it’s a fun adventure scene, albeit one that puts all of the character stories in motion that we’ll see play out. The narrative thrust of the film begins, however, after the title comes on-screen, when Harrison (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) convinces an employee of Starfleet to cause an explosion in a London archives office. This terrorist attack brings together the leadership of Starfleet, including a recently-demoted Kirk, who becomes determined to find Harrison, and bring him to justice.
“Into Darkness” brings back screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman from the first film (and the first two “Transformers” movies, I’ll grant you), and adds another Abrams alum in Damon Lindelof, who had a rough year as a geek punching bag after “Prometheus” came out. This time out, there’s much more in terms of “fan service” than the first film had: this comes not just from that opening sequence, which places it much more in context of the “Trek” universe, but also a reference to Gorns by McCoy; a look at a Tribble; a not-so-shocking revelation about John Harrison (more on that later); as well as the introduction of Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), the daughter of a Starfleet Admiral (played to smarmy, wonderful delight by Peter Weller), who– as Trekkies might remember –was the mother of Kirk’s son, David, in “Wrath of Khan” and “Search for Spock” from the original cast’s franchise. Even to a not-so-Trekkie like myself, a lot of these were entertaining little tidbits peppered around the story, but most of them were throwaway elements that, had they not been included, wouldn’t have diminished the film at all.
Back to the story, however, and here’s where I feel like I need to get into spoilers. That “shocking” revelation about midway into the film about Cumberbatch’s character– that he is, in fact, the beloved fan-favorite villain, Khan –isn’t really that surprising, seeing as though most people were speculating that Cumberbatch’s character would be the iconic antagonist from the best “Star Trek” movie anyway. And from what I have heard from some people, the movie does a lot of melding of the two Khan stories (the TV episode “Space Seed,” and “Wrath of Khan”) in its second half, and I’ll leave it to bigger “Trek” fans to determine whether Abrams and co. succeeded in doing so. In the context of the film, however, I felt like the writers and Abrams missed a golden opportunity, however, for a better film. You see, after the London attack he orchestrated, Harrison/Khan first attacks the meeting of Starfleet’s finest, which leads to Kirk’s reinstation as Captain, then warps to an isolated planet inhabited by Klingons. We are briefed on the Federation’s tenuous relationship with the Klingons, and how any military action could lead to war, before Kirk is sent by Admiral Marcus to engage Khan. After landing on the planet, in hopes of taking Khan alive, Kirk and co. are discovered, and attacked, by a Klingon patrol, and it’s only through Khan’s intervention that they survive. After that, however, nothing is heard of out of the Klingons; it’s all about the plot involving Khan, and while it’s an intriguing, albeit convoluted, plot, the lack of follow-up on the threat of war with the Klingons leads me to think that Abrams and his writers only set it up with an inevitable third film in mind, a disappointing prospect, to be sure. And if it isn’t the basis for the third new “Trek” film? Than what the Hell was it included for, than for more “fan service?” Would that, then, be ALL this film was made for?
I think that’s the thing that frustrates me most more than anything the film did otherwise, like recycling the Khan story, leading to a blatantly obvious play on “Wrath of Khan’s” famous ending. Abrams has shown, in each of his feature films, that he’s definitely the right storyteller and genre filmmaker to bring the “Star Wars” saga back to the screen after the prequels; he has a great visual eye, sense of character, and can deliver on action sequences that help define his characters. And all my issues with the film aside, “Star Trek Into Darkness” doesn’t make me anxious about his taking over the sci-fi adventure universe I grew up with more than I did “Star Trek”; “Darkness” has all of those characteristics I mentioned about Abrams earlier, and even has great story elements to work with. But something just feels off about the way Abrams tells this story, and I think it boils down to what I mentioned earlier in my review; the sense of fun. Abrams’s first “Trek” film, as well as his 2011 movie, “Super 8,” were both brimming with fun and adventure and humor that flowed naturally from both the characters, and the story. In “Into Darkness,” even with the same, great cast in these characters, as well as some terrific new additions, that sense of cohesive enjoyment was missing, with the darker aspects of the story taking over. Hopefully, if Abrams comes back for a third “Trek” film after “Episode VII,” maybe he’ll be able to find that fun again, and we’ll get something akin to his first voyage into “space, the final frontier.”
