Star Trek Into Darkness review

JJ Abrams’ daring take on the “Star Trek” franchise won over millions back in 2009. The alternate reality established by his half sequel half reboot injected much needed life into a franchise that was slowly but surely growing significantly stagnant.

With the possibilities numerous, Abrams chooses to tackle classic “Star Trek” themes and iconography with his own spin in a film that satisfies but doesn't quite live up to everything that it could have been.

Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine) and the crew of the Enterprise return as a part of a response team to take out a rogue Starfleet agent that has launched a one man campaign against Starfleet, the most recent attack of which resulting in the death of Kirk’s close friend and mentor, Christopher Pike (reprised by Bruce Greenwood).

Embarking on a mission to stop the renegade agent John Harrison completely under the radar from Starfleet, Kirk and his crew will be tested in ways that will rock the very foundation of the way that Starfleet operates.

From the very moment that the film starts, its frenetic pace is established and only continues to build momentum the second the opening titles leave the screen. “Star Trek Into Darkness” is fast, flashy, and does not slow down for anyone. Such a tactic would sound like it would make for a fairly shallow or cluttered movie but the result is quite the opposite. “Into Darkness” is quick but ultimately witty, emotional, and more substantive than what we typically get during the summer blockbuster season.

Character chemistry is in full effect. With the groundwork of “Star Trek” laid out, the cast is fully established and completely unchained. The tight chemistry of the cast adds certain unpredictability to each interaction and despite the moderate size of the ensemble; every character manages to serve a definitive purpose without feeling underutilized.

Pine continues to carve out his own interpretation of a younger and brasher Kirk, tempered only by his love for his crew. Despite starting out rather bratty, he undeniably comes into his own in all of the right areas.

 While Pine’s performance remains solid, Zachary Quinto’s Spock truly steals the show with a performance that I question even the great Leonard Nimoy’s ability to pull off. Spock’s nature of being constantly caught between acting logically and allowing himself to be human is portrayed with a delicate level of subtlety that puts the rest of the cast’s highly impressive performances to shame.

To say nothing of Benedict Cumberbatch’s incredible performance as the film’s antagonist would be an absolute crime. Despite my reluctance to accept a certain twist taken with his character, I cannot deny his ability to sell it better than the scrip itself.

“Into Darkness’” post 9-11 feel brought upon by Abrams’ interpretation leads the charge, allowing the film to approach classical “Star Trek” concepts with a more contemporary eye. The militarization of Starfleet into a defensive and offensive navy from an organization of armed but peace welcoming explorers, the merits of emotion driven thinking, and action within perceived no win scenarios are all given a fresh and unique perspective with a level of poignancy the likes of which could have never have existed at any other time in our history.

The themes compliment Abrams’ incredible eye for action well, striking a fine balance between thought provoking and entertaining. “Into Darkness’” direction has provided for several of the most breathtaking action sequences that I have seen all year. If this is what he can do with “Star Trek,” the “Star Wars” franchise is in good hands.

From a general standpoint “Star Trek Into Darkness” is a fully well balanced package, a fun summer blockbuster, and undoubtedly one of the best films of 2013 so far, however what holds me back from loving it as much as I desperately want to is its unfortunate tendency to play it safe at the worst possible moments.

The alternate reality established by “Star Trek” was created to explore new territory and tell stories free from the constraints of continuity while leaving the stories of the past to be explored or developed upon in the prime reality at a later date. Although many of the story inspirations for “Star Trek Into Darkness” come from one famous source of “Star Trek” lore, it takes numerous chances and twists well established formulas in such a way to give it its own stamp. So it baffles me why, after tinkering with so many fascinating ideas, the film ultimately decides to play itself out so straight that I’m left questioning what was actually accomplished.

The tightly balanced and ambitious first two thirds of the film are resolved by a third act that, although still satisfying as pure entertainment, ultimately cops out on almost every single idea that gave the film its own sense of identity.

The exploration of shifting political tensions and enemy alignments brought about by the destruction of Vulcan at the end of the previous film, discussing the merits and the cons of cultivating an organization of peaceful exploration into a combat read navy, and a certain shift in the command structure of the Enterprise provided boundless materials that could have given “Star Trek Into Darkness” a true legacy within the franchise but are sadly discarded in the name of playing it safe and conforming to status quo.

Despite failing to live up to all of its potential however, “Star Trek Into Darkness” is far from a bad film. It’s action packed, heartfelt, and even smart at the end of the day. It is an overall package that every film should strive toward. I only hope that its success grants the franchise the courage it needs to follow through on its more bold concepts in the future. 

8 Out of 10