In regards to tone, Star Trek: Into Darkness begins where the 2009 blockbuster left off. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is a rebel trying to keep his temper in check, something that often comes into conflict with the all-too-logical Spock, whose genetics play a role in his personality that has a hard time differentiating between the literal, sarcastic, and the emotional. Much more than the first installment, this version of Spock feels like a more pointy-eared version of The Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon (Jim Parsons). While often amusing, there’s something disingenuous about the snarky exchanges that comprise the discourses on morality, duty, and friendship.
The action is aplenty, and the visuals, characteristically for a J.J. Abrams work, are stunning, but snark and overt metaphors stymie this film more than they propel it. The film begins with an allegory on religion, wherein the Enterprise alters the destiny of an aboriginal people, when they allow themselves to be noticed – something not entirely difficult when a few thousand ton ship emerges from the ocean. For this Kirk is stripped of his ship, he and Spock are separated, and he is placed back under Pike’s command (Bruce Greenwood), where he must learn to be a leader, not a maverick. In these moments, it feels as if Into Darkness was poaching from Top Gun, and I was often waiting for a Kenny Loggins-laden volleyball scene to commence.
This is not to say that the film is poor all around or that it wasn’t enjoyable. Rather, it’s just a further example of how the film is a conglomerate of allegories and moments that often feel out of place. The look at religion is interesting and satirical, but it quickly passes on anything heavy and transitions into a dialectics on superiority and friendship. On the surface, these look a bit disparate, and for the most part they remain this way, but there are some overlaps. Kirk, as the captain at times, disregards Spock’s intent to sacrifice himself in a volcano to save civilization. In effect, his military superiority is showcased as well as the brethren bond that he feels for Spock. At the same time, the philosophical pandering within is rather shallow. The overt issues are ones of friendship, and coupling this with Spock’s overriding Vulcan, emotionless traits is fine, but a deep subtext it does not make.
And granted, I’m not sure Star Trek ever intended to be deep, but in this film, it pretends to be, which is almost worse than being purely shallow. And in its shallowness, it buries itself in an irony: they are punished for exposing themselves to the aboriginals because it changes the destiny of the peoples; however, their entire mission – preventing a volcano from exploding so they can save civilization – would inherently change the destinies of every peoples in the vicinity and perhaps the world.
The film stops short of exploring this irony too far and sets us on another mission. John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a menace who orchestrates the destruction of a building and then bombards Star Fleet command, killing a handful of folks and propelling Kirk and Spock back into action as they head toward Kronos, a planet inhabited by Klingons, to take Harrison into custody. This proves to be no easy task as Harrison shows his combat acumen, only ending up in Kirk’s possession upon surrender.
The origin of Harrison’s superhuman nature and his design for the 72 torpedoes loaded onto the Enterprise are the most interesting facets of Into Darkness. Perhaps it’s because Cumberbatch, in many of his roles, can easily keep the audience guessing as to whether or not he’s a sincere, heroic, or villainous character. Or perhaps it’s because he stays on the outskirts of this installment’s style of dialog, which is most often a bunch of orders that are volleyed in increasing volume.
For those familiar with the string of original Star Trek films, the true identity of Harrison will be no surprise, and there will be a few allusions to the original television series. No doubt, the intent here is to marry the Trekkies with the new generation of budding Trekkies without alienating the former. At the same time, the last third of this film was a bit of a letdown. Interesting yes, but ultimately predictable in that it mirrors the ending of the Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn. There is a slight difference, which is rooted more in a campy cameo than anything else, but the result is the same.
On the whole, this is slightly annoying. In the first Star Trek, time traveling, meeting the original Spock (Leonard Nimoy), and creating an alternate universe was a way for Abrams to take this franchise in a separate direction without having to stick closely to the rhetoric or truth of the first series. But Into Darkness suggests that these moments were less about creative freedom and more about gimmick, as the second one plays on a similar gimmick and brings in Nimoy again for a brief discussion with the contemporary Spock (Quinto). And despite Spock 1’s (Nimoy) protestation that he won’t provide Spock 2 (Quinto) with any information that will alter his destiny, he does anyway, which make us wonder – aside from the adequate visual effects – what else are we to take from this new franchise?
