REVIEW: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS: SPOILER EDITION

Presuming the purpose of a film review is to act as a sort of consumer guide/advisory, what then could possibly be the point of a "spoiler" film review?  After all, you probably don't want to be reading the spoilers before you've seen the film, and if you've already seen it, then why have a guide for what to expect?  In actuality, a spoiler review is closer to an analytical essay than a review, and that can be beneficial to stirring an internal dialogue.  Anyway, if you have not seen STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS yet, I do not advise that you read this essay as plot twists and undisclosed details will be discussed at length; you have been forewarned.  If you have seen STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, hit the jump:

Kirk, Kirking off.

What I have to say will very likely rile the so-called Trekkies, or Trekkers, and even a lot of movie fans, but I think for many others, it may make my opinions more accessible.  I am not a Star Trek fan, or rather, I'm not a Trekkie, or whatever they call themselves; I've never seen a full episode of the television show, because even just ten minutes of it is so campy and so boring that it just bounces right off of me.  Of the movies, I've seen STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME, large portions of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, and bits and pieces of the "Next Generation" films.  I've enjoyed just about none of it.  I think it's telling that, for a film series that's been around since 1979, up until 2009, the highest grossing of those films had been about going back in time to save the humpback whales.  Then, in 2009, the slightly confusingly titled STAR TREK was released as a "re-boot" under the guiding hand of J.J. Abrams, and the result was astounding.  STAR TREK was a rapturous movie-watching experience; thoroughly entertaining with thrilling action, bizarre humor, interesting characters and strong emotions.
With the release of the teaser trailer last winter for STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, speculation exploded over whether Benedict Cumberbatch's villain, "John Harrison", was in fact, Khan, but the filmmakers vehemently denied this, insisting that he was an original character.  Not many fans seemed to believe them, and in the end, Cumberbatch is Khan.  Admittedly, I was doubtful, so when it was confirmed in the film, I think I was one of the few to be surprised.

Benedict Cumberbatch is...Khan?  Yes, Khan.  He's so wrathful.

 With Abrams' re-imagining of Khan, I've heard a lot of talk about THE WRATH OF KHAN having been
such a great film and Khan being a great, definitive Star Trek villain.  Honestly, I am completely oblivious to this sentiment.  I can understand the fan appreciation of the retrospection between the aging characters in WRATH OF KHAN, but that's about as far as I can go.  It's such a campy film, and Spock's sacrifice notwithstanding, barely registering in emotion.  Yeah, yeah, I know that the restraint and subtlety is admirable and all, but frankly, I tend to prefer a more emotionally direct approach in film, and that just my taste.  Nor can I take Ricardo Montalban as a serious threat.  Despite the bit of protest that's been made at having the pasty white Brit Cumberbatch as Khan, who's meant to be an Indian Sheik, Montalban offered no allusions to Indian heritage either.  His thick Mexican accent translated to camp as he spoke his threats with no menace at all.  Of course it's all subjective, and I respect that, but I think THE WRATH OF KHAN is mostly boring and a little silly.
As such, I didn't register STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS as having a legacy to live up to, at least, not beyond the expectations set by its 2009 predecessor.  Unfortunately, it doesn't quite reach that height, although it's only a few steps behind.

Zoe Saldana: Action Pose

  Interestingly, while the Khan "secret" was hardly a huge surprise, there was another villain, perhaps an even more significant villain, who was not speculated on in the least, that being Robocop himself, Peter Weller, as Admiral Marcus, a sort of W. Bush Administration allegory (as the filmmakers have specified in interviews).  Marcus is a veteran of Starfleet, but after intergalactic threats, perceived or actual, have increased, particularly with the Klingon homeworld, he has been weaponizing Starfleet for a preemptive war.
In our post-9/11 world, the popularity of terrorists as villains and skepticism of security measures in cinema has skyrocketed, most significantly with 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT, although, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS doesn't take us as far into the "darkness" as the title suggests.  I suppose it's probably a bit darker than STAR TREK was, but the typical "dark sequel" involves a major death or other such loss to the protagonists, whereas INTO DARKNESS ends on a strongly reassuring note, one that leaves its successor with minimal cleanup.  There's been some talk regarding the twist on WRATH OF KHAN's emotional climax in which Spock sacrificed himself for the crew, but in INTO DARKNESS, the roles have been switched around, with Kirk fixing the Enterprise's reactor core and, in this case, more or less dying.  Nerd quibbles aside about how Spock was able to stand the radiation long enough to fix the core because he was a physically superior Vulcan (honestly, why can't we just assume that in this case, there isn't as much radiation as in KHAN?), the decision to revive Kirk before the film's end, as opposed to WRATH OF KHAN, at the end of which, Spock remained dead, it a little questionable.  But I would say only just a little, because we all know he would be brought back in the next film, but this way it's cleaner and more contained, and I don't think it mitigates the effect of his "death".  I must admit that at first, I was a little irked by the revelation that Khan's blood would heal Kirk, before I realized that that point had already been made early in the film in Khan's first scene, but in which I hadn't realized at first that Khan had used his blood to heal a little girl.  I'd just taken it as Khan had healed her by whatever way and then put that aside.  But nah, if they have that fact set up, especially from so early on, I'd say it's reasonable.

Zachary Quinto as Spock.  I bet that smells lovely.

 In terms of the actual scene of Kirk's sacrifice, I happen to love it, and at the risk of only infuriating a large number of Star Trek fans and movie buffs, I just did not get what I assume was the desired emotional effect from the similar scene in WRATH OF KHAN.  WRATH OF KHAN, and other Trek of that era, is so coy about emotion, and the merits of emotional restraint aside, it feels like going through the motions, not in terms of writing, but of execution.  Okay, now that your minds are convulsing with fiery rage at my disrespect, I was rather moved by the variation in INTO DARKNESS.  Michael Giacchino's (one of the finest composers working in film) subtle and wrenching piano score accompanies Kirk's and Spock's moments separated by glass, as Kirk faces the unknown fearfully, and Spock crumbles helplessly.  On the part of Kirk, too often do our heroes face death with inhuman coolness and nobility, but to have Kirk tell Spock, "I'm scared," as he's dying, hits a lot closer to home, and I believe, is a much more beautiful scene.  In terms of Spock, there is some reluctance to accept his new, more sensitive aspects and his yelling, "KHAN!" but I much prefer this more human Spock.  The original Spock was a very alien sense of logic, which is fine and all, and hell, maybe it makes more sense, but it made him so foreign.  Quinto's portrayal of Spock is more like autism, with his usual lack of emotional response and his logic-driven behavior clashing with his human counterparts, whom he cares about, but has little ability to show it.  Obviously, that's my opinion, and possibly it's less sophisticated, but there you have it. 
I think STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is an excellent and highly enjoyable space adventure, formed in a series of well-conceived action set pieces and ethical conundrums, although I do believe it falls just short of STAR TREK.  I'm not sure if it's just less fresh as some have suggested; I think it's just a bit less lean, less tightly held together than it's 2009 predecessor.  So, no, it's not Abrams' EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, but his Star Wars movie doesn't come out until 2015, and EMPIRE was considered the superior Star Wars film and years after its release, so who knows where this all winds up?

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Three and a Half Stars out of Four
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Peter Weller, John Cho, Simon Pegg 
PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.