Movie review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

[John]

Star Trek Into Darkness
Director: J. J. Abrams
Writers: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof
Stars: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana
Opens: May 16, 2013
Screened: May 15, 2013
John's Grade: D

This is a spoiler-free review

J. J. Abrams has made a point of the fact that he was never a Star Trek fan, and boy, does it show in his Trek films. Trek has always been about looking forward with hope and wonder, solving problems with ingenuity and diplomacy, and appreciating how our greatest weakness – our emotions – make us capable of truly great things. But Abrams doesn’t care about any of that. Abrams isn’t into lofty ideals, deep thinking, or weighty themes; that’s not his forte.

Don’t take that to mean that Abrams is a hack; far from it. Indeed, he is perhaps the cleverest man in Hollywood today. His single greatest talent – greater even than his ability to blind audiences with lens flares – is his ability to sell anything to prospective filmgoers, not on merit but on potential. I have never seen anybody so adept at generating hype for his work. If Abrams had nothing to his name but two cow pies and a box, I guarantee you he would find a way to part you from every last dollar in your pocket based solely on the promise of what lay inside the box. (Pssssst… it’s cow pies.)

Abrams’s uncanny skill at salesmanship is all the more impressive given his dubious big-screen track record – and it really is dubious when you examine it. He wrote and directed arguably the least of the Mission Impossible series and the terribly disappointing Super 8, and he directed a Star Trek reboot that has divided fans as to its worthiness. He was a co-writer of Armageddon and a producer of Cloverfield, movies that speak to Abrams’s “style over substance” inclinations.

But Abrams is no fool. He knows he can only pitch that mystery box so many times if you keep coming away disappointed. If he can’t be a master craftsmen of clever, moving narratives, then, he can dazzle you with spectacle and nonstop kinetic energy. Never mind that it’s all the very definition of “sound and fury signifying nothing”; Abrams makes sure you never have a moment to think anything deeper than, “Oooooh, pretty!”

And so it is with Star Trek Into Darkness. In the opening seconds, we’re thrust into the middle of some inexplicable madcap caper that has somehow landed the captain and chief medical officer of the starship Enterprise in a spear-chucking chase scene straight out of Indiana Jones. We’re off and running, literally, and you better have great lung capacity, ‘cause we’re not stopping for the next 132 minutes.

Abrams ensures that Stuff is Steadily Happening. The “SSH approach,” as I like to call it, means you’ll never have a moment to reflect on what just happened; a wise choice on Abrams’s part, since this would provide time to smell the cow pies at the heart of this particular mystery box. How does our villain, a man who is under exceedingly close scrutiny by Starfleet, have the liberty to approach a compromised member of Starfleet and arrange for his assistance in a plot that kills dozens of people? How does this villain fly a gunship into what surely must be the most restricted airspace in America? How convenient is it that transporters function precisely when and where they absolutely must in order to extract a character from a story-crippling predicament? Aren’t these Enterprise officers just one-note skill set vehicles utilized to advance the plot whenever necessary?

Don’t expect to be asking these questions during the film; Abrams won’t permit you the time. You surely won’t have a moment to ponder deeper questions like how Star Trek Into Darkness fits into the greater Trek vision, which, again, is good, because you would surely be disappointed if you did. Hope and wonder? You’ve come to the wrong place, pal. This oppressively bleak Trek certainly lives up to the “darkness” in its title, both in tone and in the hues of gray color palate, excepting interior shots of the Enterprise, which has become a whitewashed, sterilized environment.

The story, too, has been sterilized of any of Trek’s loftier themes or messages. We’re not exploring the universe or bettering mankind here; we’re just letting SSH propel us through a relatively generic sci-fi yarn where a plucky crew of under-characterized misfits squares off against a megalomaniacal military despot with scant motivations or logic behind his plots. Logic is also largely absent from the solutions the crew finds for their various and sundry predicaments. Threats never rise above “surrender or be blasted,” and the two-fisted approach is employed in the resolution of most problems. Even Spock, that paragon of logic, is reduced to MMA fighter.

Unsurprisingly, nobody learns much of anything out of all this clamor. Ostensibly, Star Trek Into Darkness turns on the notion that Spock learns what it means to care so much for a friend that you would break the most sacred rules to save him. That’s what Kirk does for Spock at the start of the film, despite Spock’s fervent protestations. But Spock is never placed in a reciprocal situation. Kirk is later imperiled, true, but unlike the initial scenario where Kirk must choose between his friend and the Prime Directive, it’s a straightforward matter of self-preservation and vengeance for Spock. There is no moral ambiguity, no difficult choices to complicate the decision-making process: the bad guys are wholly bad and must be terminated with extreme prejudice, pure and simple.

Maybe Trek fans will be too busy geeking out over the constant callbacks to Trek lore to care about the film’s storytelling failures. Abrams may not be a Trek fan himself, but he has packed Star Trek Into Darkness chockfull of references to classic Trek episodes, characters, and creatures of old, right down to a tribble. The villain himself is pulled from the pages of Trek lore. When Spock is uncertain about this villain’s intent, he dials up a cameo from a beloved member of the original Trek crew, who informs him that it is forbidden to provide information that would affect this alternate Trek timeline… and then goes right ahead and provides the information anyway. It’s a perfect example of how, in the SSH approach, characters are positioned as one-off problem-solving machines to be used and disposed as needed.

But all the callbacks really do is serve to remind us that this is a hollow imitation of past greatness. Nowhere is this sad realization more stark than in the anticlimax, pulled beat for beat from arguably the greatest moment in Trek film history. Back in its day, this moment was deeply meaningful, moving, and earned. It was the culmination of hard choices made by characters who had been impacted by their earlier experiences and found themselves truly changed by the end of the film. By contrast, the conclusion of Star Trek Into Darkness is robbed of all its gravitas within minutes, as the consequences of self-sacrifice are conveniently scrubbed away via deus ex machina. The “twist” ending is perhaps the lamest committed to the silver screen in recent memory. The outcome is so telegraphed that every drop of emotional weight is sucked from what should be the film’s most heartfelt moment. A few moments later, we’re asked to hold our breath as the Enterprise, powerless, plunges towards Earth. How can we be expected to feel genuine concern for the crew? If this were Trek by way of George R. R. Martin, sure we’d be scared because we’d know that choices carry risk and consequence, but in Abrams antiseptic future, even the ultimate sacrifice can be washed away with a splash of J. J.’s Whitewashing & Revitalizing Tonic.

Now while Star Trek Into Darkness may be hollow, it sure is visually stunning, not so much for the color palate – the red vines and painted white natives of Nibiru, the planet where the opening scene occurs, being a notable exception – as for the neat vision futurist vision of life on Earth. Scenes from London and San Francisco give us a glimpse into how sleek and stylish our lives may be 246 years from now. It’s also worth noting that despite initially resisting shooting in 3D, Abrams makes relatively effective use of the extra dimension. A space shuttle, for instance, looks impressive as it turns towards you and joins a formation. The movie cost $185 million to make, and every penny shows up in the impressive visuals.

If sights, sounds, a self-referential story, and mindless escapism are all you seek, Star Trek Into Darkness delivers the goods. Woe to you who expect a Trek movie to reflect core Trek ideals, though. Abandon all hope, ye who yearn for character development, reasoned problem-solving, or genuine emotion. This is Trek-dusted popcorn; never expect more than that and you won’t be disappointed.

Speaking personally, Star Trek Into Darkness marks the moment where I finally make my break from Abrams. I’m no different than anyone else. The man keeps sucking me in with high promise, and repeated disappointment doesn’t stop me from shelling out for his next mystery box, certain that this will be the one containing gold instead of cow pies. Well, no more; I have had it with the unfulfilled promises. Star Trek Into Darkness has pulled off a mighty feat: not only has it killed my enthusiasm for future Trek films, but it has killed my hopes of a rebirth of relevance for the Star Wars franchise. Of course, Abrams holds the fate of both Star Trek and Star Wars in his hands. He will be directing the upcoming Star Wars film, and the hype machine has already begun. Well, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me five times… well, that’s just one time too many. Damn you for killing my enthusiasm for two of my most beloved science fiction franchises, J. J. I’ve finally accepted that the dark object peeking out of your next mystery box isn’t the tip of Vader’s helmet.

[Tyler]

I saw Star Trek Into Darkness last night and am writing this review prior to reading John's take. In a rare move for me, I avoided spoilers about most of the movie and didn't read any reviews before heading to the theater.

I haven't yet processed the movie enough to put my thoughts into a proper order, so this is going to go out bullet-point style. I've used "spoiler" tags for huge reveals:

• While I was watching the movie, I was having fun - it may have helped that I had a nearly-full theater around me, but the script and acting has a large amount of wit that rarely veers into "cheesy" territory.
• The one or two moments the movie got caught up in being too light ("Go put on a red shirt") didn't really matter to me since they got it right most of the time.
• All of the characters felt much more like themselves this time. For example - as great as Simon Pegg was in Star Trek, he wasn't really playing Scotty - he was just playing Simon Pegg. This time around, he felt like he was truly Simon Pegg's take on Scotty, which - while still hilarious - is the character we know and love.
• Very much liked that this movie actually had something to say about leadership, responsibility, friendship, etc. STID is not exactly a character study, but the first one just waved its hands while yelling "These characters are real!", and you get more than that this time.
• Also enjoyed how the events of the first film are used, and learning that Pike gave the Enterprise to Kirk. Makes much more sense.
• The action gets a bit long - ok, way too long - in several spots (though the movie does not suffer this problem nearly as much as Iron Man 3 does).
• My biggest issue with the movie? Well, it's gonna clearly mark me as a Star Trek nerd, but hear me out - I don't think this mistake (yes, I call it a mistake) is fanboy nitpicking. Yes, I'm talking about Khan. I didn't know going into the movie this was Cumberbatch's character, but I had a strong suspicion. Now, according to the events of Star Trek, the timeline changed in 2252 (or something close to that). Khan was frozen in 1996. So, Khan should still be a Ricardo Montalban popsicle in space. Now, I understand that obviously you have to re-cast him. I am a-ok with changing the ethnicity of characters, the new timeline, etc., but you've gotta account for this one - it only takes one line! Imagine how easy it would have been to have Cumberbatch say "Section 31 took everything from me. My crew, my family, even my identity. They gave me a new name, a new face - and but nothing could make up for what I'd lost." Fanboys are happy, casual fans simply get another detail about why Harrison is so pissed off, we assume he had 23rd century plastic surgery, and everything's all tied up! Instead, we get nothing - and by the way, they were looking at a large number of Hispanic actors to play Khan prior to casting Cumberbatch. It would have been so easy to re-write the part for him - as in, you could do it in one line! I felt like I was being asked to accept a lie during the movie.
• This also creates some delightful absurdities - none of Starfleet's senior officers took a Eugenics Wars class? Nobody recognizes the mass murderer on their screens? It was only 300 years ago! I think people would squint twice at modern-day Napoleon or some-such. And we're theoretically talking about some of the best and brightest explorers of the future.
• Also, why did Admiral Marcus want a war? Because, um...because...?
• That said, the acting by every single cast member was incredible - Cumberbatch especially.
• In summary, once I had the villain's identity, the end of the movie felt underwhelming - that's it? It was just a space battle? Meh.
• I'm sure John's review will touch on the fact this movie was (for some) another derivative Hollywood remake, but I actually didn't mind the movie's use of actual quotes and moments from ST:II. I felt they took enough of their own spin on events to justify their re-use (and changes). I'm also not the biggest fan of ST:II compared to everyone else - it's a good-not-great movie, so I don't hold it up as sacred like some do.

It's hard to give an overall rating, so I'm going to give four. Find the correct category for yourself:

Film connoisseur: D
Trek fan: B+
Action movie fan: A
Generic moviegoer: B

EDIT: Just want to say I nailed John's rating.

[Tyler]

One of the bloggers I read regularly (thank you, RSS!) has his review of STID up. Phil Plait is a professional astronomer and huge sci-fi geek, and his opinion seems to be a blend of mine and John's:

Now, I didn’t hate it. It was fun, and entirely watchable. But, well, I just didn’t actively like it. It was OK for a fast-paced action movie where you can just watch and go along for the ride, but as a Trek movie it fell short. I think this reboot series still has a lot of promise, but this movie, for me, was just marking time.

[John]

WARNING: From this point forward, SPOILERS will be openly posted in this thread!

Tyler, first, great review. I love how you broke the review down into four separate grades. That's actually a very clever way of approaching a film like Star Trek Into Darkness, which is most assuredly going to be viewed quite differently depending on the viewer's background.

Yes, you did nail my grade. But it's funny: I could easily be slotted into three of the four categories you listed. I'm going to go ahead and own up to the upturned nose by dubbing myself a film connoisseur rather than a generic moviegoer. But I have also frequently been a big action movie fan. Consider that I ranked The Raid: Redemption amongst my six "A" movies from last year, and I also gave Dredd and Haywire high marks. Snitch is in the running for my favorite film from the first half of 2013.

What I'm saying is that I'm not afraid to let my brow swing low as I enjoy me some fist/blade/gun/laser-play. So I don't think we can chalk up my dislike of Star Trek Into Darkness over its inclusion of action. I dig action. But I think that when it comes to judging action, a lot of it has to do with context. Ideally, I'll be enjoying action while simultaneously being drawn into a story involving a character (or characters) that I come to care about (a la Snitch), but that's not necessarily requisite. There's room for a movie that doles out action so gleefully awesome that the action alone becomes good enough to carry the film (witness The Raid and Dredd).

But here's the thing... those movies are billed as full-on actioneers from the get-go. When I buy my ticket, I know what I'm buying into. I come prepared to check my story and character development at the door - at least to some extent.

That is most definitely not my expectation when I'm consuming Star Trek fiction. Trek, to me, was never about big action. Sure, action has been part of the show since the original series, but it would be a huge stretch to suggest that it was the focal point of the series. In Abrams's Trek films, though, it really is the focal point. In STID, Kirk and Bones run from spear-chucking primitives. Kirk dodges Khan's gunboat fire. Khan goes Gattling gun on the Klingons. On and on it goes. It's not that any one of these action bits in isolation is a problem; it's that, in sum, they dominate the film's runtime, to the exclusion of world-building, relationship-building, and clever resolution of conflict.

I guess what I'm saying is, "Everything has its place." Packing a film chockfull of action in a movie like The Raid makes perfect sense (I mean, the movie's tagline is "1 Ruthless Crime Lord, 20 Elite Cops, 30 Floors of Hell," for crying out loud). But packing a Star Trek film to bursting with action seems inappropriate given that Trek, as a franchise, has never been focused on action. To me, it feels like I took a wrong turn and ended up in a screening of 2016's Fast & Furious... In Spaaaaaacccccceeeee! (Oh, come on... you know it's coming.)

Then there is maybe the bigger issue of just how much I fall into the Trek fan category. That's more debatable. Here's my résumé:

• I watched and loved all of the original series when I was little, but in retrospect, it doesn't really fire my passions or hold my interest anymore. Today, I see less the groundbreaking aspects of the show and more the cheesy acting and sets. In particular, I am no longer a fan of the "one-off" episodic formula used in all TV shows back when the original series was on the air; this is a preference that damages my view of most subsequent Trek series.
• I watched the first season of The Next Generation, decided I didn't like it, skipped season 2 and most of season 3, rediscovered the show, decided it had gotten much better, and watched it on and off for the remainder of its run. There remain plenty of TNG episodes that I haven't seen. That said, I would probably tab TNG as the best Trek series.
• I watched the first season of Deep Space Nine, then quit on it when I decided it was inferior to another space station-set sci-fi show on at the time, Babylon 5. I never came back.
• I watched the first couple seasons of Voyager, then asked myself, "Do I really have nothing better to do with my time than watch this?" Though I caught some scattered episodes after season 2, I was essentially done with the series.
• I watched all of Enterprise. To this day, I couldn't tell you why; it wasn't very good.
• I have seen every Trek film. Only Wrath of Khan would I rate as a classic. I'm a Star Trek: The Motion Picture apologist; it may not be a great film, but I dig it. I also like The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country and First Contact to varying degrees, though again, none of these films other than Khan do I hold close to my heart. I am ambivalent, with a slight negative learning, towards Abrams's Star Trek reboot. The rest of the films are utter dreck, in my book.
• Beyond the series and the films, I have consumed no Trek fiction.

So where does that all leave me? Would "casual fan" be a fair description? I think it would be. At least we can agree that If I'm a film connoisseur first and an action film fan second, my Trek fandom is trailing in third place. This reflects in how you don't see too many nitty-gritty Trek-specific critiques in my review. For instance, now that you bring it up, Tyler, I can totally see what you're saying about Khan's ethnicity swap, yet even in hindsight, this isn't something that throws me out of the moment. Where Trek is concerned, I'm more interested in an adherence to a broad concept of what the series is about. My view is that it's unfair to apply action-heavy Star Wars sensibilities to what has generally been a more thoughtful, character-driven franchise like Trek. Abrams is on record as being a huge Star Wars fan but never getting into Trek. I say that if you don't get the tone of the material, maybe you're not the guy to be helming the franchise.

Tyler, you make a great point about nobody recognizing Khan. You would think somebody would be well versed enough in history to see that face and say, "Heyyyyyy..." And like you, I also felt the absence of Admiral Marcus's motivation for instigating war with the Klingons. He's seriously jonesing to get it on, enough to murder hundreds of his own kind, not to mention destroy an extremely pricey piece of Starfleet equipment. You'd think we'd get a better sense of why beyond, "Well, it looks like war is inevitable, so I might as well be the one to start it." The absence of Marcus's motivation for his actions is a real knock on the film. It's supposed to be this big twist when we find out that Admiral Marcus is a villain, but without understanding the reasoning behind his actions, it feels like another thing that happens just to advance the plot.

Thanks for linking to Phil Plait's review (and let me reciprocate by linking to Charlie Jane Anders's review for io9... its title kind of gives away her feelings on the movie, which run pretty close to my own). Plait's review is excellent. I wasn't as put off by the faulty science as he was, but I wasn't even as bothered about the nonsensical nature of several plot points (though I do acknowledge them). But I can certainly empathize with the fatigue brought on by “too-much-stuffism,” as Plait puts it (I dubbed it "SSH," for "Stuff Steadily Happening). It really is wearying, all that frenetic sound and fury, signifying nothing. And it really does signify nothing. Can we really say that any of those action scenes did anything to create a connection between us and the characters? That they made us worry for their safety? Did any of them even really thrill us? That's a pertinent question to ask. I like action... good action. I don't like action for the sake of action. STID seems to take the "quantity over quality" approach to action. There is plenty of stuff happening, but it's just a day later and I can only remember bits and pieces of the action scenes. Contrast that with The Raid: one year later, I can still vividly recall that amazing stairwell ambush scene.

Plait also made this great observation:

A big part of what made the original movies work was the way these old friends interact. In the new timeline they’re not yet old friends, of course, but in this movie there wasn’t a lot of progress made in that direction.

How true. Friendship really was a big part of the best Trek series. That element has been largely absent from the rebooted films. Kirk says he'll miss Spock when it looks like they're going to be assigned to different ships, but it rings hollow because we haven't seen any reason why these two should feel anything but irritation for one another. This is a huge missed opportunity. As a reboot, showing the origin and development of the Kirk-Spock-Bones friendship should be a primary goal. Yet Abrams was too busy establishing his new timeline and throwing SSH at us in his first Trek film to grow the Kirk-Spock relationship beyond "animosity turns to irritated, grudging respect," and STID doesn't advance that relationship. Which is why Spock's "KHAAAAAANNNNN!" moment feels so corny and undeserved. Spock, as far as I can tell, you don't even really like Kirk. Now you're screaming and jumping on flying ships to beat up the guy who apparently killed Kirk? That seems highly illogical.

Lastly, I didn't mention anything about the acting in my review. Even many of the reviews that are hating on STID generally give the cast good marks, particularly Benedict Cumberbatch, who has generally been touted as a fine actor in his career. Can I just say that I really didn't think much of the acting overall, and I felt Cumberbatch's performance felt particularly uninspired? Generally speaking, I sense that the crew has been cast more for their good looks than their acting chops. Pegg is clearly a talented comedian; I'll give him a pass. Quinto does a fine job with unimpressive material; he's off the hook, too. And I'm shocked to say that Urban, whom I've never thought much of as an actor, does a reasonably decent job portraying Bones in broadly comic strokes. That's the end of my accolades, though. The rest of crew is forgettable, stiff and wooden. Chris Pine, in particular, leaves me completely cold; I just don't feel he has much charisma at all.

And then there's Cumberbatch. He's being asked to fill big shoes. Ricardo Montalbán turned Khan into an icon. Love or hate Wrath of Khan, you will remember Montalbán's performance. I can assure you that I will not remember Cumberbatch's turn as Khan; indeed, it's already slipping from my mind. He's not menacing in the least. He chews no scenery like Montalbán did. He's just a guy. That's a huge problem. Khan isn't supposed to be "just a guy"; he's supposed to be larger than life. I never felt Cumberbatch rose to the occasion. This is only the second time I have seen Cumberbatch perform (I'm not counting his brief voicing of The Necromancer in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The first was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. He didn't have a huge role in that film, so really, this is my first big dose of Cumberbatch. If I'm being honest, I'm failing to see what all the hype is about so far.

[John]

I must admit I'm very surprised to hear that Star Trek Into Darkness is estimated at an $84M domestic four-day opening. That sounds like a lot, but it's considerably below the $100M projections. Paramount saturated the country with costly advertisements for the film; I'm guessing they spent over $60M on the ad campaign alone. Add that to the $190M production costs, and consider that theater owners begin taking ~50% of the box office after the first week. I mustn't discount the international take - add an additional $80M from the overseas box office. Still, STID is going to have to have a solid hold (i.e. not much more than a 50% drop-off) next week if it's going to be considered a success.

Perhaps more worrying is that STID is actually underperforming Abrams's 2009 Star Trek reboot domestically. It has taken four and a half days for STID to barely top 2009′s Star Trek three-day opening weekend, and that's despite the addition of 3D and IMAX ticket surcharges. That has to be disheartening for the studio. On the plus side, the international take is up 80% from the last film (the Star Trek franchise has never been a big player overseas, for some reason).

I'll leave you with two competing essays on Star Trek Into Darkness, both courtesy of Film School Rejects (which graded the movie a "C") and both containing spoilers (although if you're reading this thread this far, you're already spoiled). FSR's Luke Mullen explains why, in his view, Star Trek Into Darkness works despite its many flaws. The cast is a big part of his reasons why, but Michael Giacchino’s score and Abrams's directing get credit, too.

On the other side of the coin, Jack Giroux poses seven questions left unanswered by Star Trek Into Darkness. I didn't really delve into the logic gaps in my review, but that doesn't mean I didn't notice them; I was just more put off by other elements. But indeed, a lot of these points came up in the post-film discussion. The biggest question in my mind, echoed here by Giroux, is why bother identifying Cumberbatch as a classic Trek villain when you're not really utilizing any of the special qualities that defined that villain? To me, Cumberbatch's villain was no more memorable than Tom Hardy's turn as Shinzon in Star Trek: Nemesis, a movie that I can barely recall (I had to visit the IMDb to get the name "Shinzon"; I wouldn't have remembered it on my own in a million years). Really, if you're going to lay down the "big name," you better make him a larger than life figure. I just didn't see that here.

Then there is the other thing... I didn't want to go on about it in my review because I thought it would sound nitpicky, but boy, did I complain about it right after the screening. J. J., I get it: you like lens flares. I'm not going to begrudge you your fetish. But seriously, when you have a character making her one big speech - I mean, literally, her only big moment of the movie - and you totally obscure her face while she's delivering her lines with lens flares, you have crossed the line from "harmless fetishist" to "dangerous deviant." Let the girl have her moment, for God's sake. The lens flares have had (and will continue to have) theirs.

[Tyler]

For instance, now that you bring it up, Tyler, I can totally see what you're saying about Khan's ethnicity swap, yet even in hindsight, this isn't something that throws me out of the moment.

Let me clarify this a bit - my issue is that, by changing the ethnicity of Khan, the writers are violating the rules of their own universe. The Kelvin is the moment everything changed and the alternate timeline started. Khan is Before Kelvin (BK), so he should be the same. Instead...British?

It's important to point out that, even as a huge fan of the original series, I'm fine with basically every big change made to the universe in these two movies - the Enterprise constructed in Iowa instead of space? Fine. Spock and Uhura dating? Sure! Blowing up Vulcan? Why not! But not Khan, and it's because Khan violates their own rules (not the fact his ethnicity changed, per se). Plus, it has the result of making everyone in Starfleet really stupid, as discussed previously.

Lastly, I didn't mention anything about the acting in my review. Even many of the reviews that are hating on STID generally give the cast good marks, particularly Benedict Cumberbatch, who has generally been touted as a fine actor in his career. Can I just say that I really didn't think much of the acting overall, and I felt Cumberbatch's performance felt particularly uninspired? [snip] And then there's Cumberbatch. He's being asked to fill big shoes. Ricardo Montalbán turned Khan into an icon. Love or hate Wrath of Khan, you will remember Montalbán's performance. I can assure you that I will not remember Cumberbatch's turn as Khan; indeed, it's already slipping from my mind. He's not menacing in the least. He chews no scenery like Montalbán did. He's just a guy. That's a huge problem. Khan isn't supposed to be "just a guy"; he's supposed to be larger than life. I never felt Cumberbatch rose to the occasion. This is only the second time I have seen Cumberbatch perform (I'm not counting his brief voicing of The Necromancer in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The first was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. He didn't have a huge role in that film, so really, this is my first big dose of Cumberbatch. If I'm being honest, I'm failing to see what all the hype is about so far.

The biggest question in my mind, echoed here by Giroux, is why bother identifying Cumberbatch as a classic Trek villain when you're not really utilizing any of the special qualities that defined that villain? To me, Cumberbatch's villain was no more memorable than Tom Hardy's turn as Shinzon in Star Trek: Nemesis, a movie that I can barely recall (I had to visit the IMDb to get the name "Shinzon"; I wouldn't have remembered it on my own in a million years). Really, if you're going to lay down the "big name," you better make him a larger than life figure. I just didn't see that here.

I think you've answered your own puzzle here, John - you haven't seen Sherlock, and Khan's name in the movie could have been "John Smith" and the weakly-written character would still have made sense.

I saw the movie with two friends - one of whom hates everything about Star Trek and sci-fi with a passion, but is such a huge fan of Cumberbatch's acting that she wanted to see the movie anyway. That's really saying something (I know what you're thinking, and trust me, it has nothing to do with his looks). Like I stated previously, I had high expectations for him, and those expectations were met. In particular, his offer to Spock (clipped in the trailer as "Shall we begin?") and his "You should have let me sleep" moment stood out. However, if you're not familiar with the actor and the villain is written poorly, I see why Cumberbatch could fail to be compelling.

The moral of the story? Go watch Sherlock.

[Lions]

I'm not a particularly big Star Trek fan, and my interest in this film was almost entirely due to Cumberbatch being in it. I loved him in Sherlock, and he's not even the villain there. That said, I'm not anti-Star Trek, and I do like a good action flick. I'm more than willing to suspend disbelief than many others that I know, so I expect that I will like this film as an action movie.

[John]

I buy the notion that I'm just catching Cumberbatch at a low point. He has received too many accolades for me to believe that what I saw of him in Star Trek Into Darkness is the best that he can bring to the screen. A lot of times, first impressions mean everything, but in this case, I'm willing to stay open-minded. Actually, my experience here may inspire me to seek out Cumberbatch in something else so that I can compare performances. I'm quite sure that he'll come off much better in the next role I see him in.

In one way, though, I can't allow Cumberbatch completely off the hook. Yes, Khan as written in Star Trek Into Darkness was a massive letdown, a generic villain who really might as well have been named "John Smith" for as memorable as he was. I don't believe that any actor could have turned this script's "Khan Smith" into a memorable villain. Now some will say that it's not the actor's fault that his part is so poorly dimensioned by the writers. Perhaps that's true, but at the same time, Cumberbatch didn't have to accept this role, and isn't selectivity one of an actor's greatest tools for enhancing his/her fame? Tom Cruise achieved his level of notoriety in part because he is exceedingly clever in picking roles that will showcase him to maximum effect. It can work the other way around, too, like Denzel Washington choosing to play an alcoholic who endangers lives in Flight because the role is so compelling and so central to the film that it will have everyone talking about him, even though his character is a jerk.

Here, I think Cumberbatch chose poorly. I fail to see the elements that could have jumped off the page at him and made him say, "This is really going to move my career forward." He's just the foil to an ensemble cast. The majority of people going to see Star Trek Into Darkness won't be going to see Cumberbatch and they won't be going to see Khan; they'll be going to see Pine, Quinto, Saldana / Kirk, Spock, Uhura. Khan doesn't even get extraordinary amounts of screen time (I wonder if that's why Cumberbatch felt the need to over-enunciate his lines?). I can understand the allure of the character's name and the franchise itself, but I still think it was a misstep. Good actors should avoid pedestrian roles.

[John]

Star Trek Into Darkness: The Spoiler FAQ
WARNING: NSFW

io9's Rob Bricken has created a Star Trek Into Darkness "FAQ" that is actually an entertaining, vulgar, and (to my mind) eerily accurate point-by-point take-down of the film. It's done in a conversational style, where Bricken explains the film to an unnamed person who has yet to see it. As Bricken attempts to explain the story, the listener becomes increasing incredulous and agitated. The conversation culminates with the listener expressing his disgust over the climactic "goodbye" between Kirk and Spock:

Why don’t you like it?

I liked it just fine, the first time I saw it in Wrath of Khan. Of course, the reason I like it is is because Kirk and Spock’s friendship has been part of pop culture for 15 years, so Spock’s death and Kirk’s anguish was given some actual agency, instead of now, when Kirk and Spock have known each other for four hours of screentime, two of which they didn’t like each other. I also liked it the first time because it was new and not a crass, creatively bankrupt attempt to manipulate the audience’s emotions, not through sadness because there’s clearly no way Kirk is actually going to stay dead, but because the scene is nothing more “HERE IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE WITH A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE SO YOU WILL LIKE IT” as opposed to even trying to give us something, anything, genuinely new.

Oh.

So next movie is “The Search for Kirk,” I suppose?

Nah. See, Bones drew some of Khan’s blood to figure out why he was so strong and resilient, and he injected it into a dead Tribble because… because I suppose Bones’ hobby is inject dead things with various people’s blood? It’s a little weird.

/sound of facepalm

As it happens, as soon as Bones’ hears Kirk has died, the dead Tribble comes back to life, thanks to Khan’s blood!

/sound of gun being loaded

Alright, I've had my fun with my fair share of STID-bashing. I even made the case for Fast & Furious 6 being a superior film than STID, a notion even I find borderline sacrilegious. Now I know some of you have seen this film, and I know you all don't have nearly the level of hate for it that I do. Who wants to stand up for STID? Tyler made a decent pro-STID case; anything to add to that, Tyler?

[Steel Dragons]

I have to admit I watch movies for the sake of watching them and enjoyed the Movie very much. I thought Cumberbatch was great in the movie. I will see fast 6 soon and I don't base movies on what one was better then the other , I look at it in the "Would I see it again point" I would see STID many more times. Movies like John Carter I will never see again.

[John]

I wouldn't choose to see John Carter again either, Mark, but if you pressed me as to which I'd prefer to see a second time, John Carter or Star Trek Into Darkness, I'm going with JC all the way. It's a failure, but it's a spectacular failure, which at least makes it kind of interesting to watch. STID, to me, is more of an irritating disappointment - not necessarily something that would draw me back in for a second viewing.

I still got something out of the experience, though, and that comes through the post-film analysis. But I admit, that's something that's more personal to me. My career ambitions provide me with a vested interest in understanding why some stories resonate and some don't. Most people aren't going to care about all that, which makes complete sense. To a large extent, these reviews that I post here are just me talking aloud to myself. Still, it's always gratifying when somebody pops into my little monologues to share their own thoughts, even if it's to say, "I see it totally differently, and here's why."

[Steel Dragons]

Yeah I see what you are saying,

I kinda can't wait for your World War Z review. As it has been similar to John Carter in a way. A massive over hauling of the film to the point it has bloomed to well over 200 million in production fees. Can Brad Pitt and his fan base make the film profitable?

[John]

Great comparison between the World War Z film and John Carter, Mark. There really are a lot of similarities between the two projects. As Mark points out, World War Z did indeed bloom into hyper-expensive productions, thanks in part to a very troubled development cycle that included a six month release delay for reshoots and several rewrites of the script's third act by multiple writers (including Damon Lindelof, providing us with a connection to Star Trek Into Darkness). John Carter, too, rose into the $200+ cost range, owing in part to the fact that first-time live-action director Andrew Stanton, so admired for his Pixar work, was given pretty much a blank check by Disney. Both films are based off of very well thought of literary properties. And both films angered fans of those properties by making significant changes to the established canon.

A final similarity is that both films were released to theaters amidst predictions of catastrophe from pundits. There are those who claim that the pundits created a self-fulfilling prophecy with John Carter, that they so embedded the idea that the movie was going to be a flop in the public conscious that they helped make it true, and that the film deserved a better fate. There may be a little truth to that way of thinking - John Carter is no classic, but it isn't the wretched film it's portrayed to be, either.

You can argue that the same thing may be happening with World War Z, a film many pundits have picked to be one of the top busts of the summer. I hate to admit it, but I think they're going to be proven right, and I don't think it's going to be a case where the pundits made it true. The World War Z film arguably deviates much further from its base material than did John Carter. Whereas the WWZ book is a relatively slow-paced look back at a fictional past event, a zombie apocalypse that the book uses as a means of exploring how different cultures would cope with a global crisis, WWZ the film is pretty much JAZM (Just Another Zombie Movie) about an action hero saving the day when the dead start springing out of their graves.

That alteration has turned me off to the production, and I confess that the film is already going to have a strike against it in my book when I walk into the theater. That doesn't preclude me enjoying it necessarily, and I will check it out, I'm sure. But yeah, there is going to be a bit of a hurdle for it to jump in order for it to get on my good side. Let's just say that a positive-ish grade from me will probably mean more for World War Z than it would for another film.

[Mike Dunn]

I just found this.

Star Trek Into Darkness Makes Way More Sense When Retold on Tumblr

Not safe for work, btw.

[John]

I just found this.

Star Trek Into Darkness Makes Way More Sense When Retold on Tumblr

Not safe for work, btw.

Love it, particularly the "Please wait while Windows configures Microsoft Emotions 3.0" barb at that ludicrous ripoff of the Wrath of Khan death scene.