Looking To The Past While Boldly Going Forward

Rating: 7/10 (21 June 2013)

Following on the successful reboot of Star Trek in 2009, the question was where the series would go next. After four years of waiting the answer has finally arrived with Star Trek Into Darkness. So how does this new film stand up?
The film's cast is strong, especially with its supporting cast. If 2009's film established the new versions of Kirk, Spock, McCoy etc. than this is the film that cements them. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto in particular are given the chance to go further in their roles of Kirk and Spock and their sometimes fractious friendship. Most of the main Enterprise crew is put to go use as well including Zoe Saldana as Uhura and Simon Pegg's Scotty who is given a much welcomed larger role in this film. There's a strong supporting cast including Bruce Greenwood's welcome return as Admiral Pike, Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus and Alice Eve as Carol as well as those in smaller roles such as Noel Clarke who has a small but pivotal role early in the film. The real star of the film though isn't any of them.
That would be Benedict Cumberbatch as the film's villain. With him the film brings us the most fleshed out Trek villain we've had in some time which, given who it turns out to be, might not come as a surprise. What is a surprise is that Cumberbatch brings to this villain something that villains of any type are so often lacking of: unpredictability. Cumberbatch is anything but predictable in his choices as he goes from what the publicity has called "a one man weapon of mass destruction" to the point of even managing to get the audience's sympathy at one point. While the film as a whole works, it shines at its brightest when Cumberbatch is on screen.
Though it doesn't have the galaxy hopping locations of its immediate predecessor, Into Darkness is blessed with some strong production values. The mainly earthbound locations of 23rd century London and San Francisco are well realized with their mix of iconic locations of the past and modern day with more futuristic architecture. The film also gives us our first glimpse of the alternate universe Klingons, who are used sparingly, and their homeworld of Kronos. The film is also dependent upon CGI for much of its special effects and the film has its share of impressive moments involving the Enterprise in all its glory that really need to be seen on the big screen to be truly appreciated. While it may lack some of the scale of the preceding film, it is nevertheless an impressive piece of work from a visual stand point.
Then there's the script. Star Trek in the past has proved that it can be at its best when focusing on its characters and by reflecting our present day world into its futuristic setting and Into Darkness does both. As mentioned earlier, the film develops the friendship between Kirk and Spock along with the friendships and relationships between them and the other crew members of the Enterprise. Like Star Trek VI reflected upon the end of the Cold War, Into Darkness reflects the post-9/11 world into Star Trek's 23rd century setting, something which there has been some talk about elsewhere. As part of the background that makes the films plot, it works quite well though I can't help but wonder if the point of it has been lost on some (Does the film's villain secretly being used to help in a Cold War style situation against the Klingons before turning against his former ally and giving its militaristic elements the context for a war sound familiar to anyone?). If you notice that it adds an extra layer to the film but if you don't notice it then it is just part of plot and you can enjoy it anyways.
The film also continues the trend set by its predecessor of making use of already existing elements from the Trek universe. They range from possibly obscure references to characters (some perhaps more obvious than others) and plot points. Just how successful they are will likely depend upon how much you know of Trek going into the film, especially when it comes to the films last act which is either an incredibly good homage or a downright shameful rip off of one of Trek's best endings. Which of those it is I can't quite decide myself but I do think that this film perhaps over relies on it and, combined with something quite predictable, does undermine the film somewhat. Yet the mixing of old with new works for the most part, as it did in the last film, and shows that the filmmakers are looking to what came before as much as they are looking to the future.
For some of its flaws, Star Trek Into Darkness' successful continuation of the franchise has proved that 2009's film wasn't a fluke either creatively or financially. While the alternate timeline still has its detractors for some of the changes it has brought about, the film works because of its mix of old with new as it looks to the past while still boldly going forward. As a result, there can be no doubt that the franchise will continue on for the foreseeable future. The only question is, to quote a line from the film itself, "Where should we go?"