His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking

Rating: Null/10 (31 March 2015)

"Star Trek: Into Darkness" opens with its best sequence. Here Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) saves the inhabitants of the planet Nibiru from an extinction-threatening volcanic eruption. Kirk's actions violate the Prime Directive of the organisation he works for – the United Federation of Planets – which forbids meddling in the affairs of certain species. This meddling, the Prime Directive argues, may derail the evolutionary paths of other indigenous lifeforms, possibly condemning them to extinction. That the Federation does not allow one to "play God" in such circumstances, contradicts its other Utopian mandates; it exists to help others and foster intergalactic co-operation.
Whilst saving the inhabitants of Nibiru, Kirk also breaks another Federation cardinal rule; he contaminates the evolution of Nibiru culture by revealing advanced technology to the "primitive" locals. Kirk does this to save the life of his buddy, Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto). Spock insists that Kirk made a poor decision. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," he scolds his captain. Kirk tells Spock to shut his damned utilitarian mouth.
The aforementioned sequence is pretty much the only interesting thing about "Star Trek: Into Darkness". In it, director J.J Abrams captures that blend of science, philosophy, adventure, space-communism and Kennedy-era chauvinism that made the original "Star Trek" television series popular. After this sequence ends, however, Abrams proceeds to unleash a tsunamis of clichés. His film features yet another dull super-villain, generic action sequences, silly battles with comically large "big, black spaceships", and a plot that spends most of its time inventing plot twists only to promptly undo them. The film sees Kirk "dramatically" losing command, for example, yet he re-assumes command moments later. The film sees Spock transferred to another captain, yet is reunited with Kirk when the film's first crisis occurs. The film's villain, meanwhile, is "sympathetically" portrayed, a stance which is quickly undone by a needless betrayal. Kirk's engineer, Commander Scott (Simon Pegg), likewise "dramatically resigns", yet is back with his buddies soon after. The film even ends with a giant deus-ex-machina, Kirk heroically dying to save his friend, a sacrifice which is made irrelevant when he is suddenly given a miracle cure.
Ironic for a franchise which espouses "infinite diversity in infinite combinations", no "Star Trek" movie can go six inches without ripping-off "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan". As such, Abrams borrows his villain from director Nicholas Meyer's 1982 film. He also ends his picture with a reversal of the famous sacrifice at the end of "Wrath of Khan". In that film, Spock dies so that Kirk and his crew may live. In Abrams' picture, Kirk dies so that Spock may live. Are these reversals a conscious attempt to create a parallel universe which echoes but subtly differs from the original Trek time-line? Are these reversals simply emblematic of lazy writing? Is this all bad fan-boy lip-service? Or does Abrams have some elaborate twist up his sleeve? Is he subtly turning his Trek franchise into what Trek fans call "The Mirror Universe", a parallel universe in which the Utopian ideals of the Federation were not realized, and in which human society became militaristic and violent instead? Is Abrams setting up the pessimistic flip-side to Trekkian optimism? After all, in Abrams' series, the planet Vulcan (a bastion of logic, rationality and the guiding force which shaped the ethos of the United Federation of Planets) has been destroyed and our heroic Captain Kirk is revealed to have "evil" clone DNA in his blood. Does this franchise now literally go "into the darkness" that is Mirror Trek?
Regardless, the second half of "Darkness" finds Abrams attempting to get political. His film contains a subplot which criticises extralegal killings, drone strikes and Western warmongers who manipulate hot-headed warriors and cook up false-flag operations in order to justify invasions. Though well-meaning, these themes feel shoe-horned into a picture which has no interest in them, and most are undermined by Abrams' need to turn his villain into a literal "evil terrorist" anyway. Elsewhere the film features unimaginatively remodelled Klingons (a warrior race which now wears "Predator" styled face-masks), clichéd Evil Starfleet Admirals (complete with "Dr Strangelove" War Rooms), a Medical Officer who's reduced to a one-liner delivery system (Karl Urban), and yet another villain whose plan necessitates that he "let himself be captured by the enemy and be kept in a cell". The film also features hokey transporter technology, which now lets people "beam" across vast chunks of space, thereby eradicating the need for spaceships. It ends with our heroes punching a bad guy on what looks like a flying garbage truck. Apparently that's how problems are solved in the 23rd century.
7/10 – Worth one viewing.