Star Trek Into Darkness

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is how Captain Kirk rationalizes working with a terrible foe. Is it logical? Is it safe? A confusing sense of morals and ethics is what drives J.J. Abrams' newest "Star Trek" adventure, "Star Trek Into Darkness," and yet it's still a lot of fun. That's what is most appealing about J.J. Abrams in his role as directing the "Star Trek" films: he understands the delicate balance between action and thought, rarely focusing too much on one or the other. Consider that in one scene Starfleet is attacked by a merciless killer--it's a loud, somewhat intense fight scene with lots of laser blasts. Only moments later, we get an allegorical debate on the ethics of counterterrorism. Most of all, the filmmakers here understand the character-driven nature of the series. The action scenes are all good fun, but the ones that are more lasting are the character scenes.  "Star Wars" fans should rest assured with Abrams directing "Episode VII" next year.

We're more or less on a new adventure here, as Starfleet is attacked by a callous Starfleet officer, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is ordered to hunt him down and destroy him. Harrison knows that he can hide in dangerous enemy territory where Starfleet would not dare chase after him, but chase they do. I could be a bit more specific in these details but as expected, the plot is a bit confusing with likely more than one hole in it. Regardless, when I watch space opera of this kind, I'm not necessarily after perfectly comprehensible details. Who cares about details when there's such a terrifying performance by Cumberbatch? Cumberbatch is particularly enjoyable as the villain, with a deep low voice that is haunting; I can only imagine that Pine, Zachary Quinto and others were just a bit frightened on the set. (Though, as an actor, Cumberbatch could probably afford to relax his jaw a bit and tone it down.) Fans will be happy that virtually every character is given something to do instead of simply pressing buttons. Scott (Simon Pegg) conflicts with Kirk about new weapons being brought on board the Enterprise, while Spock (Quinto) continues not so much to struggle with his emotions but to struggle to clarify them to those who do not understand him. Sulu (John Cho) gets to take the helm for some scenes and threatens his enemies not to test him, or else he will unleash the firepower of the Enterprise. (I'm sure George Takei was smiling.) And Pine was good as Kirk in the first one, but here he is really good, perfectly comfortable in his role, striking the right balance of brilliance and arrogance. But I think the best performance is by Peter Weller as the hawkish cold warrior intent on provoking wars with Starfleet's enemies. His constant lectures towards Kirk, not-so-subtly calling him "boy," fuel the disconnect between the two.

Oscar-winner Michael Giacchino's score is haunting, particularly the piano tune that accompanies Harrison and his actions. I'm a harsh critic of CGI, but Abrams and his team at ILM have made visual effects that actually (mostly) looked quite good. They back up half-a-dozen exciting scenes, like the opening chase through a bizarre jungle hued in red or a roller-coaster head-dive through a debris field. And instead of a gratuitous amount of green screens, Karen Manthey provides some really nice, elaborate sets. But one consistent flaw in every Abrams movie is his inability to sustain a film passed the second act; indeed, with "Star Trek Into Darkness," the third act is just as clunky as it is in his other films. Still, he and his writers (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, his collaborator on "Lost") put together a nice, albeit somewhat unoriginal story. I'm not a fan of spoilers at all, and it will be delicate not to spoil anything. That being said, there are numerous surprises here, and some of them might cause more eye-rolling than amusement. The writers have enjoyed going further with adjusting the "Star Trek" mythology and flipping everything. Indeed, there are scenes here that mirror scenes in previous "Star Trek" films (again, I won't elaborate on why); I was touched by these scenes, but alas, not as much as the originals. Still, the scenes are clever, as is this movie.  I think I might like it more than its immediate predecessor.

On a personal note, "Star Trek" from 2009 was the last movie I reviewed for the Daily Kent Stater in undergrad.


film, movie, cinema, J.J. Abrams, Chris Pine, Kirk, Spock, Star Trek, Star Wars, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch