OK film, bad science fiction

Rating: 7/10 (9 June 2013)

Star Trek Into Darkness, judging from the host of reviews at this site, is turning out to be a very controversial work. As a summer blockbuster, it was fun. The script was more intelligent than, say, Wrath of the Titans and the visuals were great. For those who grew up on the Star Trek franchise, the homages to the 8 or 9 previous movies and the first original series--were enjoyable and since we "know" McCoy, Scotty, Spock and company, we don't need a lot of characterization. (Actually, Zoe Saldana's portrayal of Uhura has more depth and interest than most of Nichelle Nichols' portrayal...not because Ms. Nichols is not a fine actor but because the original writers didn't give Uhura a lot of business in the 60s series). Without mentioning any spoilers, complaints that part of the last half hour is strongly influenced by the action and dialog of an earlier film are just silly; the 2013 film is supposed to depict an alternate time line where things are somewhat--but not exactly--like the original Star Trek universe. The more serious problem that keeps this from being a really good film is that Into Darkness is very bad science fiction. What made the original series successful, despite cheesy sets and occasionally preachy or inept story lines, is the same thing that created the Star Wars franchise and makes the depressing Blade Runner into a classic: their depiction of a detailed and plausible future and its attendant problems. This is where Into Darkness fails. The first half-hour depicts a future that makes sense, more or less; but then rationality is repeatedly sacrificed so that the film can move from one visually stunning cliff-hanging sequence to the next. For example, the visualization of the Enterprise's main engine workings as a cavernous vault similar to the boiler room of the Titanic helps a nice action sequence but seems like a really unlikely outcome of 23rd century technology. The result is that Into Darkness is closer in spirit to comic book blockbusters than to science fiction or, at best, is a dilithium-powered version of Rocky Jones, Space Ranger. If Mr. Abrams wants the relaunched Star Trek to provide employment during his 50s, perhaps he might consider an entirely new approach that focuses on a future that we can believe in rather than one that's basically the background to a cinematic thrill ride.