Friday, May 17, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness


Growing up, I never really liked Star Trek.  My early childhood was the era of Star Trek: The Next Generation and I didn't have much interest in some bald dude sitting in a chair, giving orders to a tall bearded guy.  I was much more enamored of Jedis dive-bombing giant space stations and lightsaber dueling over windy chasms.  When I reached high school, I felt like it was a little late to hop on the Enterprise bandwagon.  I suppose I was alienated by the size of the Star Trek world.  I didn't know the different classes of Federation vessels.  I didn't know which way the Captain's toilet flushed.  And, I thought Klingon sounded like that one time my brother ate bad tenderloin and blew serious chunks.

One day, Star Trek made sense to me.  After college, a family member was in the hospital, and it was some pretty dark stuff.  Moping at home, I turned on Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.  All my Trekkie friends told me this was the worst of the movies, but I thought I could do with a laugh.  Yeah, a chuckling Vulcan is pretty ridiculous. Wait, they're searching for God?  Eesh.  Still, I was surprised to find that I was enjoying myself.  What's more, I was genuinely moved.  Suddenly, crazily, I had made my own relationship with Star Trek.  What got to me?  What melted my heart to the adventures of the Enterprise?  It was the trinity of Kirk, Spock, and Bones.  The love among and between these characters was infectious.  I don't mean they had crabs or anything. . . I mean that I was touched by these three guys . . . wait, that still sounds bad.  For real, their relationship was a light during dark times, and I'll be forever grateful for that.

I continued to ride the Star Trek train with JJ Abrams' first Star Trek film.  I was impressed by his reboot of the franchise and I thought that he balanced well the big-budget action and character development.  The origin story of the Enterprise was exciting, funny, and truly breathtaking.  I'm sorry I cannot say the same for Abrams' follow-up, Star Trek Into Darkness.

For the most part, I like JJ Abrams as a director.  After watching Super 8, I can clearly see that he wants to be the next Steven Spielberg. That's fine with me.  His admiration for the great director serves him well.  Like Spielberg, Abrams has a strong grasp of widescreen filmmaking.  He knows how to fill the screen with detail and movement while still drawing the eye to the important aspects of the frame.  He does go a bit haywire with the Steadicam and lens flares, but he sure can compose a beautiful and effective shot.

Visually, Abrams is in great form with Star Trek Into Darkness.  All of the action scenes are amazing.  There is a long shootout on the Klingon planet that feels like a mix between John Woo and Walter Hill.  It's visceral and fun, with plenty of unique flourishes.  In one scene, Kirk free-falls through space, dodging some rusty space debris.  I'm pretty sure I played that level in Dead Space, but it sure looks cool on the big screen.  All the vistas of alien planets as well as a futuristic San Fransisco are sharp, detailed, and epic.  If I were watching the film as twenty-five separate scenes, I'd have no problems.

Ultimately, the film feels like climax, after climax, after climax.  Kind of like me in the bedroom . . . sorry, that's gross.  There are no narrative through-lines, so it's not clear if we are at the beginning, middle, or end of this story.  It's just big explosive scenes followed by more big explosive scenes. I can't really blame Abrams here.  He was working with screenwriter Damon Lindelof.  In my opinion, this screenwriter is singlehandedly killing off the Classical Hollywood film script.  Gone are the days of clear character objectives.  Say goodbye to the three-act structure.  Who's the villain and what does he want?  Who cares!  Lindelof and many Hollywood screenwriters today are more interested in twist and turns than in logic and motivation.  In Star Trek Into Darkness, the character arcs are five minutes long.  For Lindelof and co-writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, there is no such thing as a slow burn.  One minute Kirk is militaristic and vengeful;  the next he's seeing the error of his ways.  The characters have realizations and catharses, but the film doesn't earn them.  It's insane.  Seriously, I'd love to see Robert McKee in a room with these three screenwriters.  He'd bust them up.

While the actors don't have much to work with, they still give some strong performances.  Zachary Quinto is funny and charming as the cold, calculated, yet lovable Spock.  Chris Pine smiles and winks as he stares death in the face.  Zoe Saldana actually makes Klingon sound sexy and less like my sick brother.  I also love Karl Urban as Bones, even though he doesn't have much to do here.  And, for real, it's great to see Peter Weller back at it.  Robocop as a Starfleet Admiral?  I'm in. I'd watch that guy read the phone book.

The best part of the film is really Benedict Cumberbatch.  This guy just showed up out of nowhere two years ago and now he's a cultural icon.  My Mom's even part of his fan club, the Cumberbitches.  Hey, I get it.  The guy made Sherlock Holmes culturally relevant, and he looks like a boss in a long, black coat.  As John Harrison, the film's villain, he's having a great time.  He goes Statham on a lot of dudes and rattles off some truly menacing dialogue, biting at every consonant.  Even though I'm not sure why he's doing anything, he's fun to watch.  Thanks, man.

In the end, it's all too much.  On one hand, a lot happens. On the other, I couldn't tell you the story if I tried.  Like most Hollywood sequels today, Star Trek Into Darkness follows the motto "More, Bigger, Darker."  This worked for films like The Dark Knight and Skyfall, but they had strong, crisp screenplays.  There sure are more explosions in Star Trek Into Darkness, but much less story and character.  The film really doesn't trek anywhere.  It spins in circles and, eventually, crashes to an end.  Hey, I just wanted to spend two hours with my Enterprise friends.  Oh, well.

1 comment:

  1. Martin nice review - as always. To help you understand the plot - reference "Demolition Man". The exact same premise is in STID where an ancient criminal/outcast is awakened in the future to help a complacent/tame/unprepared government cope with "ancient crimes (ha)" like terrorism. Cumberbatch is taken out of hyper-sleep to shock the flower children of the future into awareness. In Demolition Man, Stallone was tasked with defeating Wesley Snipes - just as Kirk is tasked with defeating Khan. Simple and effective. Notes: these new "Treks" by JJA are taking place in a skewed future where Kirks father is dead (although Kirk's father was never in any Star Treks) and there are 2 Spocks - one old and one young. This will be resolved in the next installment - presumably -- as there are 3 movies scheduled in JJA's contract with Paramount. Also - Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman's review has a fatal flaw in it that shows OwenG never really watched or understood the Star Trek culture. It's in the 1st paragraph on page 62 and references the "Prime Directive" but ass-backwards. I wrote them to correct the glaring error but since they already published two of my letters I'm on the outs with them. Keep up the good work.. Dave Gallinson - Trekker (not Trekkie :)

    ReplyDelete