Feels more like an extended TV episode, which is the mark of a lesser installment

Rating: 6/10 (11 May 2016)

One of the many eternally pointless disputes of the last few decades is the rivalry between the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises. It's a topic I prefer to avoid because there really is little to discuss beyond a few points. Aside from the obvious difference in objectives and style, both franchises have a different dominant medium; it is utter folly to compare a television series to film. However, purely as a film series, Star Wars is the clear winner. Despite varying opinions on the quality of the individual Lucas-helmed movies, the Star Trek film series' episodic nature prevents it from achieving the scope and flow of its rival. Most of the individual movies don't complement each other, leaving half of them feeling more like bloated episodes of the television series' than big theatrical events.
Why do I start on this brief point? I was originally let down by the fact that "Into Darkness" doesn't lend itself to a larger tale, but have since come to accept that that's a given with these movies. What really cements this potential problem is that the plot lacks the momentum of a feature length production. The first half is too splintered, shamelessly dropping in elements that weren't present in the previous movie and not exploring them fully. Wouldn't the big machination by Admiral Marcus have had greater impact if we had gotten to know this guy earlier, or actually explored the nature of the Klingons from this timeline? Because so many things are shortchanged (like the Spock/Uhura relationship), the movie feels like it's scrambling about to find its footing, until the second half that features a drawn out jaunt into space. For a better example of this type of narrative, watch "Godzilla X Mechagodzilla: Tokyo S.O.S.".
The second big problem with "Into Darkness" is that it is premature. Clearly, it was intended to be the "Empire Strikes Back" in its own line, with everyone thrown into a desperate hour. But we haven't become sufficiently familiar with this group for such an event to have weight, nor is anyone's personal journey taken in a direction of particular interest (success in the latter is one of the reasons "The Dark Knight" and "Spider-Man 2" are excellent sequels). The lack of scope, an established threat and sense of consequences doesn't help. All things considered, the affair has all the symptoms of acting significant when it clearly isn't. The promising ending didn't necessitate anything that preceded it.
It's a shame that all the focus on the stagnant story detracts from the cast of characters. As was the case in the previous movie, Kirk and Spock receive the lion's share of attention; no other member of the crew ever amounts to more than a prop for the story. Unfortunately, some of this is rushed in context, adding to the premature or hollow feel. Kirk temporarily loses command of his ship even though we've hardly witnessed his exploits as captain, Scotty's dismissal is virtually impossible to care about for similar reasons, while Pike's death, though well shot and acted, comes too early into the proceedings. Spock's concerns with fear and death are criminally underutilized, and one of the few elements that carry over from the previous movie. Benedict Cumberbatch is the sole standout as this timeline's version of Khan, and the only true reason to watch the movie; the confrontations between him and Spock are intense and vastly more interesting than those between the former and Kirk.
As with its predecessor, the style favors action over protracted philosophical commentaries. But, as has been made very clear before, the Star Trek franchise does not lend itself very well to this sort of thing (and I'm sick of those phasers). Too much of the running length concerns multiple parties talking each other down, sizing each other up or SLOWLY progressing towards critical points with minimal payoff. The abundance of scenes within the Enterprise grow stale very quickly, and those lens flares reach a new level of irritating. Subtitling the movie "Into Darkness" was very deliberate, since there is an exorbitant amount of shaded scenes, but this makes everything less pleasant to look at rather than infusing them with a somber quality; just another example of trying too hard for a dark tone. The best fight in the movie is Khan's ground skirmish with a bunch of Klingons, which, in addition to boasting several unique weapons, is a good mix of armed and unarmed combat.
For all these issues, I cannot in good conscience label "Into Darkness" a bad movie. The acting remains above par for a blockbuster and there are a few moments of genuine poignancy. But with a story too small for a feature length film, it's more a random chapter than a significant leap forward, not exactly the best way to further the reinvigoration of a venerated franchise.