STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS--A not-so-pygmy review:

The #StarTrek reboot and I have a very complicated relationship. The first time I saw it, I loathed it utterly. Later, I came to appreciate and even enjoy it. But it never had any sort of connection to the soaring humanism and utopian idealism that made the franchise so beloved and has allowed it to flourish for nearly 50 years. In the years since I first saw the film, we have settled into a sort of disenchanted stalemate, circling each other warily. While dynamic and sexy, I also know that there is no "there" there--the film's slick veneer hides plot holes the size of black holes, misplaced humor, and credulity shattering contrivances. Certainly fun, it was slight, inconsequential and featherweight. While I'm undeniably delighted it managed to breathe new life and fans into my favorite television show, the fact is that it did so in about as preposterous and caricatured a manner possible. And so it was that I went into last night's screening of "Into Darkness" with a hefty, cynical shaped chip on my shoulder. I was confident I'd appreciate "Into Darkness" as a piece of summer blockbuster popcorn, but surely not as a legitimate "Star Trek" film.

I ended my review of the reboot with these words: "I look forward to seeing what 'Star Trek' will be when it grows up." Rather than give me that film--in which the characters more closely resemble the responsible adults of real life--"Darkness" has decided to let us participate in the transition; we get to be a part of those very growing pains. In doing so, the new script acts as sort of a confessional, acknowledging the missteps and misdeeds of its predecessor, and literally referencing those areas in which it careened off track. It even critiques itself in the moment, allowing one character to unleash a barrage of over-the-top cliches and then chastising him for it (in this way the film gets to have its cake and eat it too). James T. Kirk is cocky and reckless, a trait, a superior notes, that will end up getting him and his people killed. There is colossal greatness in him, to be sure, but unless it is corralled and focused, it will be his undoing. This movie is about those hard lessons.

Holistically speaking, "Into Darkness" is far superior to the 2009 reboot. The first film boasted sky-high mountaintop experiences, to be sure, but it was also shackled with plunging valleys every bit as low as the mountains were high. This film is far more even-keeled, if necessarily darker and less overtly fun. Its humor is still pervasive, but feels far more natural and organic. The writing team of #RobertoOrci and #AlexKurtzman stayed miraculously on target, taking their material seriously for perhaps the first time in their careers. And there isn't even a whiff of the sort of intellectual shallowness and philosophical shell gamesmanship typical for a project in which #DamonLindelof--who's managed to derail projects with boundless potential (like TV's #Lost and last year's #Prometheus)--is involved. The plot involves a terrorist attack, a mission of vengeance, and a significant plot twist, all before the half-way mark. The twist should actually delight "Star Trek" purists, as should the character inversions that follow it. The reboot was a homage in only the most superficial manner possible, more lip service than faithful reverence; "Darkness" is a true homage, managing to speak to some of the franchise's most epic moments (both narratively and relationally) without somehow managing to resemble a retread of the exact same material (see: "Star Trek: Nemesis").

More than just its heady utopian philosophy, "Star Trek" has always been about its ironclad character relationships, and "Darkness" captures those immaculately, deepening abiding friendships that have stood the test of half a century of time. The 11th hour casting of #BenedictCumberbatch (if you do not watch #Sherlock, you need to have your head examined) is truly inspired; he makes for one of best and most deliciously malevolent and menacing "Trek" villains ever put before the camera. The visual effects are so jaw-droppingly good as to be almost unrecognizable as effects. As with "Prometheus" and #Oblivion before it, "Into Darkness'" effects have reached a point of such astonishing photo-realism that one must wonder how they can possibly be improved upon. The set design and art direction is, likewise, extraordinary, building off of the lived-in practicalities of the previous film, yet doing so in a much more convincing, realistic and elegantly realized way. To be fair, "Into Darkness" still manages to sport some pretty obvious plot holes and elementary mistakes, and tries to distract from one too many ludicrous moments with whizz bang and shiny explosions, but these moments are blessedly brief and, for the most part, inconsequential.

"Into Darkness" even manages to have something to say about the prevailing angst of our time: terrorism, drone strikes and state-sanctioned reciprocity (in the same way the original series spoke to the Cold War, Vietnam, and race relations), even going so far as to chastise itself for its inflated and admittedly increasingly uncomfortable militarization. The film's preference for settling conflict with violence rather than intellect goes against "Star Trek's" very DNA. Let's hope this about face holds and is nurtured in future films as the USS Enterprise finally sets out on its storied five-year mission. "Star Trek" has always been about going where no one has gone before and exposing us to the soul-stirring wonder and awe of the cosmos. Yet Abrams has played it mostly safe and domestic with these two films. It is time for "Star Trek" to truly spread its nacelles and fly. Out there. Thata way.

Reply · Report Post