The film opens with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) running from something. Maybe it is angry villagers. Maybe it is an exploding volcano. Maybe it is both. It is that uncertainty and chaos that defines "Star Trek Into Darkness", J.J. Abrams's second film in the re-boot of Ray Bradbury's science-fiction story. Maybe it was the IMAX sound ripping through my ears or the screen-filling 3D elements bouncing every which way but "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a loud, clanking movie. When you think of the "Star Trek" series prior to J.J. Abrams's 2009 reboot, you wouldn't imagine it as loud and clanking. These adjectives are often associated with mindless action movies like the "Transformers" films and while "Star Trek Into Darkness" is definitely more intelligent than those films, it is as equally interested in wowing you versus testing your mental capabilities. It would rather throw obvious references to past "Star Trek" movies and TV episodes than test your ability to understand confusing time-travel events like the previous film. While "Star Trek Into Darkness" might lack any true surprises, it does move at a break-neck pace, maybe in hopes that you won't think too much. Most of the time it is successful but when it fails, you can't help and watch it like a starship falling in space.
The U.S.S. Enterprise has been sent to a distant planet to kill John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a terrorist who attacked Starfleet offices. This plan of "kill, not capture" doesn't agree well with the staff, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), a stickler for following the rules in the name of "logic". When they do meet up with Harrison, they find that there is much more to this cunning adversary than they expected. His booming declarations start to influence Kirk and those around him. Is Harrison to be trusted though? Can they truly believe a terrorist? It is up to Kirk and his crew to figure this out.
Without getting into spoilers, there are far too many instances in "Star Trek Into Darkness" of characters all but "breaking the fourth wall" and winking at the audience to acknowledge references to the original series and films. While the 2009 "Star Trek" had its share of obvious connections to the original story, it didn't do it nearly to the degree this film does. While the first time this is done, it might be charming, it quickly becomes grating and manipulative. The final act (again without spoilers) comes as close to "nuking the fridge" (or "jumping the shark" if you will) as any film in recent memory. It takes an intense and action-packed story and completed stops it in its tracks making you wince and want to look away from such an obvious repacking of a former story. There is a thin line between knowingly referencing and out-and-out copying. The final act falls much closer to "copying".
The script's dialogue, written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, is another especially disheartening element. It seems much more interested in making the audience laugh than propelling the story forward in a straight-forward manner. There is an alarming amount of "s" words dropped into this film, no doubt in hopes of eliciting laughs. While I am far from someone who balks at language in films, there is something about the "Star Trek" series that seems above using vulgarities. It is understandable that the dialogue would need to be livened up to go along with the young cast and romantic storylines, but it pulls you out of the moment and almost seems to belittle the story.
Seen as a big-budget summer spectacle, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is not without its positive elements. Abrams knows how to film action and some scenes are truly exhilarating. Cumberbatch is also excellent as the villain. Had his character been fleshed-out further, he may have been looking at award nominations. As it is, he proves that he is definitely someone to watch in future films. Although it is easy to chide the dialogue for being somewhat cloying, it does make up care about these characters. While it had a built-in fan-base to begin with, the characterizations of Kirk and Spock are still very good and we buy their connection at every turn.
It is difficult to recommend "Star Trek Into Darkness" as a continuation of the story set up in the far-better 2009 film. While that film challenged viewers with a complicated storyline that contained action, here it seems that Abrams just wanted to experiment with the effects budget. Gone is any subtlety and in its place is just a somewhat numbing and forgettable action film. While it will no doubt have fans and entertain viewers (both old fans of the series and new fans), it still is disappointing and receives a weak recommendation. While I definitely hope Abrams's "Star Trek" series "lives long" in future films, it is going to need to take a look inside and push away what it thinks audiences want if it is going to truly "prosper".
Additional note: "Star Trek Into Darkness" was post-converted into 3D. This means that Abrams filmed it in 2D and then went back and used computers to produce a 3D effect. He has been quoted as saying he did not want to do this and that the movie studio told him that if he wanted to make the film, he had to release it in 3D. While some scenes do feature interesting uses of the extra dimension, overall it is distracting. 3D is not made for fast and kinetic action. It is also not made for scenes where the camera focuses in and out of two characters in a wide scope shot. Very often I found myself looking away from the screen to re-orient myself. While some of the action scenes do benefit from the 3D (especially when seen in sequences filmed using IMAX cameras), I recommend that you see "Star Trek Into Darkness" in 2D. Abrams would want it that way and your eyes and brain will thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment