I’ll be the first to admit that I was never a Star Trek fan growing up. When I first discovered what the show and movies were about I had already pledged my allegiance to the more colorful and diverse world of Star Wars. The only things I knew about the show were Captain Kirk, Spock and the Vulcan Salute. Until J.J. Abrams’ first film was released the only actual footage of Star Trek I had seen was the movie Star Trek: Nemesis back when I was a freshman in high school. Eventually Paramount had decided to reboot the franchise and that’s when I began to learn more and more. When the film came out in 2009 I was thoroughly impressed and found myself really enjoying the sci-fi adventure that Abrams had created. Fast forward four years and now we find ourselves on the brink of the release of the highly anticipated sequel Star Trek Into Darkness, a two hour and change sci-fi action adventure that’s chock full of explosions and intense action sequences but, for those who are wondering, I’m not so sure it lives up to the high expectations that we, the audience, set.
With the original cast and more returning, Star Trek Into Darkness follows the adventures of Kirk (Chris Pine) and his USS Enterprise crew as they try to track and hunt down an incredibly intelligent and amazingly strong renegade Starfleet Commander known as John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) after he commits a couple of terrorist attacks and kills a ton of people. Eventually they track Harrison down to the Klingon home world of Kronos and threaten to shoot of a massive stockpile of experimental torpedoes, provided by Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller), at his location unless he surrenders. With ethical issues being brought into the equation thanks to Spock (Zachary Quinto), will Kirk blow the isolated area of Kronos to smithereens or will John Harrison come peacefully and accept his defeat?
What follows is spoiler-free:
If I think about the film from strictly the point of view of a guy looking for some great action and entertainment, Star Trek hits its mark. The actions sequences are massive spectacles that’ll occasionally make your jaw drop and appreciate how far effects have come since the series first aired. Additionally, there are some nice little twists that made me happy but when you start thinking about the film as a complete picture it doesn’t really impress me as much as the first film did which I really enjoyed. Without even nitpicking, there are clearly a handful of issues that revolve around the abilities and intelligence of John Harrison and the execution of his evil deeds. Furthermore, and this is just from hearsay, the film’s major scenes and revelations are directly taken from past Star Trek films that they can’t even count as re-imagings, they are just old scenes rehashed and updated with flashy CG effects and maybe an identity swap, something that would seriously bother real Star Trek fans.
Besides the action, the other layer of the film I actually did enjoy was the acting. I thought the cast did a great job even 
if we didn’t get as much comedic relief from Simon Pegg’s Scotty as I would have hoped for. That being said, the best part of the film for me was Benedict Cumberbatch’s performances as the menacing and calculated John Harrison. I loved him almost as much as I loved Ben Kinglsey in Iron Man 3, and that’s saying a lot. He brought a fierceness to the role that I wasn’t expecting and, thanks to his deep voice, he was able to command everyone’s attention without even having to try.
As for the final cinematic level, I thought the 3D was good but when it came to the shaky camera shots I absolutely hated it. On top of that, and I’d never thought I’d ever say this, seeing it in IMAX actually took away from my enjoyment. I wasn’t able to completely immerse myself in the picture because my eyes were darting all over the screen trying to take in all of J.J. Abrams’ impressively built landscapes. Maybe a second go around on a large TV will do the trick but as it stands, Star Trek Into Darkness was just pretty good but nowhere near as great as what I, and I’m sure many of you, was hoping for.
Due to the proximity of the releases, everyone will be comparing Star Trek to the recent Iron Man film and while there are issues with both, I personally felt that Iron Man 3 trumped Star Trek Into Darkness. I know many people will disagree completely with me on this but the reason I feel this way is because Star Trek felt like a rehashing of the first film. It followed the same formula, not bringing much originality to the presentation and story unlike Iron Man 3 which showed its lead being much more troubled and vulnerable which I don’t think Kirk ever truly felt.
To sum it all up simply, on the surface Star Trek Into Darkness is a cool film but as you begin to look just a little bit deeper and begin to really take in the story, that’s when you begin to question what you’ve watched and see the clear mistakes that should have been seen from a mile away and corrected back when they were making the movie.
Rating: A pretty good film that doesn’t live up to the massive hype but if you’re just looking for action this will suffice (6.8/10)
P.S. If someone can tell me why Alice Eve’s character Carol has a British accent when her father doesn’t I’d be really grateful? I don’t believe her mother was English for the sheer fact that he father just doesn’t seem the type to have a child with one. Thanks.
Recent Comments