Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Dark discoveries

A review of ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ by James Murphy

 

Starfleet data:

Director: Jeffrey Jacob “J. J.” Abrams.

Stars: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch

Genre: Science fiction/Fantasy/Adventure.

Cert: 12A.

Running time: 132 minutes.

Now on General Release.

 

Captain’s log:

Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) violates the ‘Prime Directive’ of non-interference in a primitive alien culture and is reprimanded, severely. But he is rapidly restored to the captain’s chair and sent on a mission of vengeance when a powerful terrorist (Benedict Cumberbatch) threatens the world. Friendships will be tested; lessons learned and battles fought, as the USS Enterprise ventures ‘into darkness’.

 

Benedict Cumberbatch is one of the stars of "Star Trek Into Darkness"
Benedict Cumberbatch is one of the stars of “Star Trek Into Darkness”

Review:

The title says it all. Why not just call it ‘Star Trek 2’? The answer could be that there is already a ‘Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan’. ‘Into Darkness’ desperately wants to be its own animal, whilst enjoying the benefits of a previous series’ mythology. It fails to achieve those anti-pathetic and contrary objectives: a matter of basic ‘logic’ (as Spock might say).

 

The previous entry in this new series (2009’s ‘Star Trek’) had a similar problem: was it a remake, reboot or just another composite, cynically cut and pasted summer blockbuster rebrand? It didn’t matter, as the film had an infectious charm, wit, pace and visual signature, c/o director J. J. Abrams.

 

Now, Abrams’ genius (part Hitchcock, part Spielberg) manifests itself in this sequel, but does so solely in sporadic glimpses. ‘Into Darkness’ is a curate’s egg and missed opportunity to ‘boldly go’ near original territory. It also attempts to tag on serious subtexts about our current foreign and defence policy dilemmas, thereby muting the initial tone of frenetic fun.

 

Granted, the original ‘Star Trek’ always reflected the essential optimism of its creator (the late, great Gene Roddenbery), using sci-fi to address and simulate solutions for (then) present-day problems (prejudice, discrimination, bad hair).

 

But Roddenberry’s ‘Trek’ never shied from a sense of good vs. evil, either and therefore punctuated open-minded episodes of exploration with the purposeful punishment of villainy. Indeed, it is for that very reason that many welcomed the return of old characters (Kirk and co) in fresh guises: a new platform for old heroics.

 

I won’t give away plot ‘twists’, but suffice to say that the film’s big baddie is aided by a powerful ally (and I don’t mean the Klingon aliens). The sub-text is a tired one and cropped up in ‘Iron Man 3’ recently, too. Memo to Hollywood: stop it now. It’s an ill-timed and ill-judged conceit.

 

There is also a scene involving a child with a terminal illness (the aesthetic would indicate cancer) which is as manipulative and insensitive as it is entirely dispensable to the movie’s motifs. That also neglects the ethos of optimism that defined original ‘Trek’ lore (with disease being a thing of the past in a utopian future).

 

So what are the film’s strengths? The acting is one. Chris Pine is a brilliant leading man and personifies movie star magic: confident, commanding and charismatic but likeably natural in his delivery of dialogue. Zachary Quinto is also an asset, displaying immaculate comic timing, physical presence and emotional depth, all while playing an alien logician (quite a balancing act). These are great actors and true stars.

 

The music is majestic (download it now) and the sets, design and special effects are flawless. Those qualities alone bode well for Abrams’ leadership on the imminent ‘Star Wars’ sequel. But ‘Wars’ is not ‘Trek’ and this film needed to be more than an extended trailer for its rival franchise.

 

‘Star Trek into Darkness’ is fast paced, well performed and stunning visually. But it lacks originality and suffers from a smug and sententious sense of self-importance. Verisimilitude is also a basic problem and for all its liberal ambitions, the script chronically neglects women as characters.

 

You will probably enjoy the film overall but struggle to remember why, having simply been numbed by cinematic bombast. ‘Beam aboard’ for this one by all means; just don’t expect to make any new discoveries on the voyage.

 

Final verdict:

3/5: Fine but ‘must try harder’: simplify storyline and tone for Captain Kirk’s next mission; dare to be original and this franchise might just ‘live long and prosper’.

 

Website and trailer: http://www.startrekmovie.com

 

 

Subscribe to our free once daily email newsletter at: http://thesteepletimes.com/subscribe

The Steeple Times
We research and background check our articles. If you believe we have made and error in some detail please get in touch, we seek always to write the truth and stand against a press owned by a self selected few. Please help us, we will accept all your likes, subscriptions and anonymous suport. The Editor and his team at the Steeple Times.
  1. misogynistic tripe but then so was the original series. all the men beat the out of each other, chase after each other, cry a lot, save each other from themselves, from the baddies, from the goodies, from God knows what, bromance bounces off the walls of the SS Enterprise, and the women, what do they do? – they watch and swoon. everyone fancies Kirk. I think even the men fancy Kirk. Spock is fancied by Uhura, who for someone that bright, acts real stupid. And he likes her against his logical self and better judgement and Kirk cries a lot and tries to get Spock to show his emotions like a ‘real’ man – although I think Spock is actually more like a ‘real’ man than Kirk is. There’s a blond who supposed to be a rocket scientist daughter of a general or something who acts even more stupid. I thought they’d even used that camera trick when a woman fancied Kirk or Kirk fancied someone and the screen went all blurry denoting the fact that romance was on the cards in the original series, but then I realised my 3D glasses had dislodged so that’s why it looked blurred. waste of space.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Advertisement
Advertisement

Become a Patron of The Steeple Times

Independent journalism will only remain independent if it is supported by clear-thinking people like you. We each have the command to make a real difference. Join us.

2,668FansLike
2,068FollowersFollow
11,654FollowersFollow

Subscribe For DAILY NEWS

Please subscribe, like and share this very British site, it helps us grow. Your data is protected and The Steeple Times will send you an email at noon everyday that we rather trust you will enjoy.

Advertisement

Weather

London
clear sky
16.8 ° C
18.3 °
14.3 °
74 %
2.5kmh
6 %
Wed
17 °
Thu
22 °
Fri
23 °
Sat
23 °
Sun
23 °