$185mil worth Sci-Fi bromance soap-opera made almost completely with closeups

Rating: 5/10 (24 May 2013)

Who would thought that after very good Star Trek reboot in 2009 we'll get this as it's sequel. J.J. Abrams and his writers tried to play it safe with villain that almost every Trakkie loves, they really tried to preserve the flavor of original series (although in parallel universe, where they can do anything, they decided not to write anything new), to make funny dialogues and J.J. went in extra trouble to make us remember every inch of every actor's face with so many closeups that Indian soap operas looks like Battle of the Pelennor Fields compared to this view. He tried so much to give us as little as possible. Even the special effects are way under the today's blockbusters level. For almost 200 millions dollars we expect way better visual impression than few shots of Enterprise and future London, although the beginning was very promising in that field. In other hand, beginning was promising in many fields, pretty much all of them. But at the end of the movie there was very little of upsides. Let's see the plot. At beginning we get standard fast sequel characterization primary for those who haven't see prequel. So we once again meet modern captain Kirk, who looks and acts like all-American high school quarterback who doesn't respect any rules but he is extremely moral and brave. We also meet his logical Vulcan friend and first officer, Spock, who in every appearance on screen, logically, remind us that he's logical and unemotional but he makes more illogical and emotional decisions and acts then otherwise. We also meet all those other characters who more or less serve just as humor relief what actually isn't all bad but it is a degradation of those, once interesting, characters. Not to forget, there's even one character whose only purpose is to do a lingerie scene. It's female, of course. That dynamic, interesting, funny and visually impressive beginning with a little dose of philosophy is also this movie's peak. Then we get very fast intro into movie's main plot which is spinning around an evil terrorist who makes a big mess in The Godfather style and then runs away. Guess who's going after that evil man!? Whole idea for plot is solid, but it's way from being original. Every segment in which this writers tried to be original, even in slightest possible way, ended as catastrophe with plot holes, a lot of questions (not philosophical or theoretical, just practical ones), useless characters and constant big and important battles with some new laws of physics which felt like infinity. Approximately one third of a movie went on Spock's and Kirk's bromance and those cheesy and pathetic dialogues and closeup stares between them. Another third was spent on explosions, bad visual effects and Kirk acting like an superhero (aren't all those Marvel screenings enough?). But in one third of a movie we actually saw something good. It was Benedict Cumberbatch as main villain. Although acting was in high level in general, Cumberbatch stole the show. He had help in a view of very good characterization of his character and pathetic one of good guys, so it isn't strange that big part of audience actually cheered for him. Both Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock gave us top performance so it's fair to say that acting performance is the biggest (possibly the only) upside of latest J.J. Abram's Star Trek. Star Trek: Into Darkness ended up as an confirmation of J.J. Abrams's directing and Damon Lindelof's writing incapability. Every one of projects that two of them touched in these roles ended up as a disappointment. But the worst thing is that they have good ideas but realization of those ideas is terrible. We can only hope that they will get better in time and that new Star Wars will not end as an Indian soap opera.