Star Trek Episode II: Attack of K...

Rating: 7/10 (12 May 2013)

Four years have passed since J. J. Abram rebooted the Star Trek franchise with spectacular results. We finally have a solid sequel for all to enjoy.
I'm no Trexpert but I know common tropes like Dr. McCoy's cantankerous outbursts or the tribbles when I see them. Chris Pine is a wonderful actor but the script still hasn't furnished him with enough material or classy moments to outshine the likes of Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch. Yes, he can bed alien babes, get into fist fights and hang from dizzying heights but we have yet to see him display the tactical skills and strength of character that made Shatner such an iconic Captain Kirk.
Then again, Pine is doing very well at shouldering an immense burden. The movie is quite staggering in action and scale. Unlike the modest budgets of the space-faring action films in the 80s Abrams has been entrusted with a mind-boggling $230 million. Big money can be a big turn off since it usually implies complacency or compromise.
The creators are a teeny-wee bit guilty on both counts, but a bit of pandering is forgivable. The pressure to make back the money, not to mention the moral responsibility of pleasing all the hard-core fans, must be immense. He did seem fatigued during the London stage of the publicity gauntlet and apologised in advance to those who think he has compromised on essence of Roddenberry's creation.
If one tries to judge this film on the "classic" standard of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan (or even The Empire Strikes Back) then it pales into comparison. This is not the nostalgia talking here: it is a fact borne out a better script, better dialogue, better editing, and superior score by James Horner.
It maybe better to compare Star Trek into Darkness favourably to Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Both films start with a terrorist attack on a capital city, followed by an assassination attempt on a high-ranking political leader. The villain is then tracked across space to a remote location where genetically-altered soldiers are waiting to be activated for a war fabricated by a secondary villain.
As a Lucas toy boy I must say this film is leaps and bounds better. The scene where Spock and Uhura fight a superhuman bad guy on the roof of a hovering junk ship tops the pursuit of the bounty hunter on Coruscant and brings the Spock-Uhura dynamic to a nice conclusion.
The Kirk-Spock bromance is spot on once again and a scene where they bicker in an elevator brought to my mind a scene of Anakin and Obi-Wan (only much better of course).
There are course numerous other visual similarities to other sci-fi and fantasy genres like Mass Effect, Battlestar Galactica, or The Avengers, which have either been imitated consciously or have (more likely) seeped in through a sort of creative osmosis. And Peter Weller appears too, 'nuff said.
Despite the healthy mix of influences and sources of inspiration there is something not quite right about this film besides the obvious overuse of lens flares and over-the-top action set pieces (the film STARTS with Spock in erupting volcano!)I'm sure that critics and die-hard fans will identify the film's weaknesses in the weeks ahead. For some viewers Into Darkness may seem like a step backwards after a successful reboot; much like Quantum of Solace or Sherlock Holmes 2: Game of Shadows.
Yes, there are plot holes, missed opportunities and ways this film could have been elevated to classic status had a bit more thought been put into the script/screenplay. One the biggest disappointments (for me) was not ending the film with Kirk returning to the Enterprise after a stint in hospital only to find the bridge crawling with tribbles.