More of the same on the USS Enterprise

Rating: 7/10 (28 May 2013)

After J.J. Abrams' impressive 2009 reboot of Star Trek, I found myself eagerly awaiting the next installment. With a little fine tuning to the quality of the script and giving some depth to some of the main characters, Star Trek could have become a classic. The issues with the first film I thought would be addressed for the sequel, making it far superior to an already great film. Unfortunately, it all turns out to be more of the same. Star Trek Into Darkness meets most expectations while exceeding very few. Like a truly great sequel, everything feels back and in its proper place. The cast members all feel comfortable in their given roles, almost similar to watching the TV show. You know where they all belong. This is an improvement on the original, which squeezed the crew into their roles on the Enterprise much too quickly. Kirk (Chris Pine) is more tolerable in this film. His frat boy mentality, while still present, is dialed back a bit now, so it feels like a characteristic more than a personality. This opens up opportunities to add some dimension to Kirk's character. Unfortunately, the film just doesn't take that risk. He is a young (inexperienced) and reckless leader, who is often brave and selfless when it comes to his crew. His role is as safe and cliché as ever and adds nothing new to the part. This is, regretfully, how most of the characters end up filling their roles. Particularly Scotty (Simon Pegg), whose sole purpose is comedic relief. It's frustrating because as funny as he is (he actually is!), the character is nothing more than a walking one-liner waiting to happen. Most egregious however, is Carol (Alice Eve), which, upon first introduction, I thought was going to be a strong female character. This opportunity, as quickly becomes evident, is completely squandered as she is reduced to nothing more than eye candy and jokes for Kirk and Bones (Karl Urban). It would have been better, to not introduce her character at all, as she is completely unnecessary.
Even the villain, Khan, played by the magnificent Benedict Cumberbatch, is a disappointment, albeit to a much lesser degree. He ends up appearing more interesting than he actually is, mainly due to Cumberbatch's acting abilities. When we are first acquainted, Khan exudes an aura of mystery and menace. I still have goosebumps from when he says, "I am Khan!". This feeling doesn't last however. Khan flourishes in the shadows; his ambiguity is what makes him successful. As his layers slowly strip away, his motives become weaker and in the end nothing is left but disappointment. In this sense, Khan becomes a metaphor for the entire film; the build up is fantastic, but the movie cannot resolve its many facets successfully. Exception to this is the gifted Zachary Quinto, who plays Spock. You can tell that Spock is the character that the screenwriters (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, & Damon Lindelof) enjoyed writing about the most because he is the only well-developed character in the movie. The best scenes develop out of his cracks of human emotion hidden behind his tough Vulcan exterior. These are brought out from his relationships he shares with the film's main characters: his love for Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and why he hides his emotions from her, his bromance which blossoms into a deep friendship with Kirk, and his rage with Khan. Once again, Leonard Nimoy, makes a cameo as Spock from the future, which is one of my favorite parts of the original. However here, it feels unnecessary, and I wished it was scratched. His purpose here is to give insight into Khan. The revelations he gives, should have come about naturally through the movie, instead of all at once, adding more suspense to the film.
I felt that the film didn't know how to bring all its wonderful pieces together for the end. A good example of this is the relationship between Kirk and Spock. Throughout the movie, the relationship slowly evolves but it falls apart in its climax. The story ends up faltering to make room for some soap opera-esque drama. There are ways to display the friendship sentiment differently and more suitably. The film looks fantastic. One of the key perks of Abrams' first Star Trek was the look of it. Into Darkness, takes the alluring action from the first movie and amps it up. Space looks as gorgeous as ever and all the ships and equipment have a brilliant sheen to them. The action set pieces, particularly the volcano in the opener, are beautifully designed and staged. The screenplay here is also an improvement over the original. I was impressed by how much funnier this movie was than the first, which tried often and failed. On the whole, the story is a marked improvement over the first installment, even with its hiccups. And before the end, where all the various plot pieces and character relationships don't quite fall into place, the movie functions at top level. Maybe the film is called Into Darkness because it works best there.