Entertainment

Star Trek Into Darkness’ is a major disappointment

Image
Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirk (Chris Pine) are back in the somewhat disappointing Stark Trek Into Darkness.
Jeffrey M. Anderson

The Details

Star Trek Into Darkness
Two and a half stars
Chris Pine, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zachary Quinto
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Rated PG-13
Beyond the Weekly
Official Movie Site
IMDb: Star Trek Into Darkness
Rotten Tomatoes: Star Trek Into Darkness

At its warp core, the story for Star Trek Into Darkness is a good one, drawing bits and pieces from deep inside Star Trek history and grafting them onto new ideas. In the right hands, this core could easily have become a terrific, exciting movie. It didn’t. But perhaps there’s enough still here that Trekkies and Trekkers alike will leave the theater in ecstasy.

In this sequel to 2009’s reboot (and 12th Star Trek movie overall), Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and his crew—Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Bones (Karl Urban), Scotty (Simon Pegg), Sulu (John Cho), Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and newcomer Carol (Alice Eve)—have a new mission. A dangerous terrorist (Benedict Cumberbatch) has attacked a data facility on Earth, and the Enterprise is ordered to find him and shoot him down. But after debating with Spock, Kirk decides to capture him instead. This leads to all kinds of trouble.

While the supporting cast is immensely satisfying, capturing the essence of the original characters, a major problem is Pine—his blue-eyed pretty-boy rebel is designed mainly for looks. Filmmakers could learn a lesson from the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, not to mention William Shatner as the original Kirk: An actor with personality is worth all the dazzling blue eyes in the world.

Indeed, Star Trek Into Darkness is more business than artful execution. Director J.J. Abrams just isn’t a natural-born storyteller; he’s all high notes and no rhythm. For example, Abrams’ idea of a “signature style” is lens flares. Lots of them. Everywhere. All the time. They were once considered mistakes in movies, until filmmakers in the 1960s decided to leave them in for effect. But in 2013, in 3D, they’re like hovering flies that you want to swat away from the movie.

Moreover, Abrams is a camera-shaker. Rather than staging and suggesting chaos through clear camerawork, his shots are actually just chaotic (made worse in 3D). Abrams is currently a hot A-list director, but his techniques are a far cry from the depth and personality exhibited by the likes of Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa in their choices of shots. For Abrams, a lens flare is just a lens flare.

Fueled on empty style, the movie charges ahead at all the wrong speeds, hitting too many high-pitched points, the hull constantly threatening to cave in under wobbly logic. And it’s all kept in flight far too long. Finally, this Star Trek just fades “into darkness”—whatever that means.

Share

Previous Discussion:

  • Returning to the Palms, LVFF 2018 offers talked-about indie films shorts programs, animation, student films, parties and more.

  • Solo: A Star Wars Story opens Valleywide on May 25.

  • Movie screens are becoming more like TVs, and robots will serve you frozen yogurt.

  • Get More Film Stories
Top of Story