Film Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

DARKER, COLDER: THE LONG-AWAITED SEQUEL TO "STAR TREK"
by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, and Zachary Quinto at war in "Into Darkness"

Can a movie change your life?  Based on my experience with director J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” (2009), I would say yes.  Not only was a movie that thrilled and moved me, but it inspired me to delve into the world of “Trek” (which was originally created by the tele-visionary Gene Roddenberry) absorbing countless TV episodes and a total of ten more movies.  I am passionate about a lot of sci-fi/fantasy universes and the humor and humanity of “Star Trek” continues to inspire me like the best of them.

            Nevertheless, I find it hard to feel quite so inspired but Mr. Abrams’ second entry in the saga, “Star Trek Into Darkness.”  While the film has all the same actors and the same visual style as the first, a touch of the magic is missing.  It feels a touch more sinister, a touch less charming, and more rambunctious but not more thrilling.  This is in part due to the fact that Mr. Abrams (working from a screenplay by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof) is telling a very different story than last time.  The first film told the story of how the rebellious tactical genius James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) pummeled his way to the captain’s chair of the starship Enterprise, forming a bond with his crew (especially Zachary Quinto’s smoothly logical Vulcan Mr. Spock).  Now, in “Into Darkness,” Mr. Kirk finds himself facing two ruthless adversaries—the charmless, warmongering Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) and John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a super-powered supremacist who longtime “Star Trek” fans will no doubt quickly recognize.

            Perhaps one of the most satisfying parts of the film is the mystery than Harrison represents.  In the beginning of the movie, he cures a man’s ailing daughter to coerce him into committing an act of terrorism.  Harrison’s next move, however, is more befuddling—he flees to Kronos, a bleak world that interstellar accords prohibit Kirk from contacting.  Nevertheless, Marcus orders Kirk to go to Kronos and execute Harrison immediately, an order which the rest of the crew deem immoral.

            I confess I squirmed a bit as a listened to the crew’s debates about the ethics of killing a man before he can stand trial.  I appreciate that Mr. Abrams and company wanted to infuse the movie with a moral conundrum (such conundrums are the lifeblood of “Star Trek”), but this particular one left me feeling queasy.  One of the things that made the 2009 “Trek” so wondrous was that it was grounded in the crazed excitement of a group of young people going on their first adventure into space.  And while the growth of any multi-part story depends on an emotional darkening as the characters mature, the missing sense of wonder in “Into Darkness” takes its toll.  The incoherency of the action is hurtful as well—each mess of explosions drowns out the dialogue and the editing is so rapid that it’s hard to make much sense of the combat as well. 

            In these categories, “Star Trek Into Darkness” falls short of its predecessor.  Yet that is, perhaps, an unfair standard.  For me, the 2009 “Star Trek” is one of the greatest blockbusters of the new millennium, a beautiful and thrilling work that suggests that Mr. Abrams could one day stand proudly alongside Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer as a premiere entertainer in summer cinema.  And indeed, much of this movie is a testament to his skill—it is quite witty (Mr. Quinto is a master of delivering literally deadpan one liners) let the seriousness of the drama is never dampened by the witticisms.  The film invites you to invest yourself emotionally in its eclectic cast and that investment is repaid, particularly during a foot chase through San Francisco that sees Spock emoting like never before.

            All in all, I like “Star Trek Into Darkness” enough to see it again.  That’s how I’ve learned to do things.  Ever since I first saw “Revenge of the Sith” as an eighth grader in 2005, I’ve known that not every movie I anticipate will be a great one.  But I still revisit them, especially if like “Star Trek,” they feature characters I’ve come to care about.  An invitation to re-enter a beloved universe is always irresistible.

            At the end of the day, I have to wonder what to future holds for “Star Trek.”  “Into Darkness” is first and foremost an action film—any attempt at allegory is shelved readily in favor of duplicitous action which finds Kirk and Harrison slugging it out and teaming up for mutual advantage, before resuming their battle of wits and fists.  Yet at the end, Kirk reminds us that his mission as captain of the Enterprise is “to seek out new life and new civilizations.”  Could it be that the captain’s next venture could be such an exploratory, philosophical mission?  Or will it be another coldly explosion epic?  Either way, I will be there, waiting to see where Kirk and Spock travel on their next journey into the unknown.