Fun, enjoyable and colourful but missing something integral.

Rating: 6/10 (14 May 2013)

The Star Trek universe didn't really excite me. I enjoyed the original series reruns as a boy and watched several of the films before deciding The Wrath of Khan was probably as good as it was going to get and that I couldn't deal with watching the wrinklies staggering across the screen in roll-neck jumpers any more. Then along came 2009's Star Trek with a Batman Begins jumpstart.
It was a moment (well, 127 minutes) of eye-opening reassessment. J.J. Abrams had cleverly, spectacularly reinvented the franchise for the fanboys and the jaded alike, and the USS Enterprise was back in some fashion! So, naturally, expectations were very high for Star Trek Into Darkness. How could the wizard who conjured it back to life not succeed?
Well
No, it's not fair to go as far as to say Abrams has failed. He hasn't. Far from it. Star Trek Into Darkness is a fun film, has plenty of spectacular moments, countless visual feasts to consume and lots to enjoy, but it just doesn't touch his first effort. I departed feeling unsatisfied. It should have been so much more and it felt incomplete despite being rammed full of effects, action, drama
Star Trek Into Darkness is a new take on a familiar story with a villain (Benedict Cumberbatch – I'm not sure if there'll be cries of "Plot spoiler!" if I reveal his character) on a mission of destruction and revenge; roles are swapped, action ramped up, emotions toyed with and, rather than feeling tired, it gives a sense of comfort. We're with old friends here, both in terms of storyline and characters, but there's a danger of complacency and a real presence of flippancy. Far too often drama or tension gives way to a quip and the positioning of a tongue deeply in a cheek. I didn't buy 'funny', I bought spectacle, but too often the magnificence is diluted by frivolity.
There are moments when it works, like the first couple of interactions with Scotty (Simon Pegg) and his pet, Keenser (Deep Roy who, strangely, isn't worthy of a credit on IMDb), but after a while it just becomes tiresome. That said, Pegg slips into the character more convincingly this time around; or maybe it's just that Abrams trusts him with more screen time.
There's sufficient on screen to keep the fanboys happy with numerous references to the Star Trek canon, peripheral characters that mean little to most viewers and the obligatory nod to previous incarnations (both with actors and model spaceships lined up) and, visually at least, there are plenty of scenes of pure CG magic. The digital and physical sets are beautiful and the opening scenes, though a little too Indiana Jones to be taken seriously, are an exquisite blend of striking reds, bold yellows, stark whites and, finally, as the sea enters the frame, startling blue. It's a visually gorgeous sequence that feels a little tainted by cheap dialogue.
There are periods where Star Trek Into Darkness feels confused. No, not confused, cluttered, as if too much has been stirred into the soup with no real idea of what the overriding flavor should be. We are given a two-hour game of musical chairs with the captain's seat in which every characteristic gets a shot at being in charge of something or just watches longingly from the sidelines: sexy Carol (Alice Eve), priggish Spock (Zachary Quinto), nervous Chekov (Anton Yelchin), grumpy Bones (Karl Urban), supercilious Uhura (Zoe Saldana), dependable Captain Pine (Bruce Greenwood) and, of course, rascally liability Kirk (Chris Pine). It's like watching a weird recasting of the seven dwarfs all vying for attention when they should be doing their jobs.
Despite this being the second film in the reboot, Star Trek Into Darkness spends too much time introducing us to characters rather than allowing them to progress the story. We know who they are, so why does it need to be spelt out again so precisely? And why, oh why, does Abram still insist on Chekov mispronouncing his Vs as Ws? Yelchin is Russian, so surely he knows better. Admittedly, I don't have a lot of Russian names in my address book but I've not met one yet who actually drank wodka, other than in unimaginatively stereotypical movies.
On a positive note, Cumberbatch makes a very dependable villain. He relishes the opportunity to exude power and menace and emerges the prominent star, or at least the most memorable performance, of the film. Strangely, though Kirk should be the hero of the piece, he is almost lost in the mayhem and his standout scenes are memorable largely for the presence of others: Carol removing most of her kit, Spock being stoically cantankerous or Pine just having the screen presence to swat Kirk aside.
Not that it matters. Star Trek Into Darkness is fun. It's worth wasting a couple of hours over. It's just that it feels like the 'difficult second album' after a huge hit. Let's just hope Star Trek 3 is back on track.
For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.