I'm coming out of hibernation because I saw the new Star Trek film last night, and I have a lot of feelings about it. Specifically, I have a lot of BAD feelings about it, which have left me disappointed to the point of anger - which, on the one hand, is kind of ridiculous, because at the end of the day, movies aren't worth getting mad about...but on the other hand, I was SO EXCITED about this one. JJ Abrams' first Star Trek is one of my favorite m movies. I had it on my top ten list for 2009. I thought it was Best Picture material.
Into Darkness is...not. It manages to feel both bloated and hollow, drilling the same parallels into you over and over again with all the subtlety of an anvil, taking what were some of the best things about the 2009 film and tossing them merrily out the airlock.
I'm going to do this review in two parts, a spoiler free one and one where I can more fully enumerate the crimes of Star Trek: Into Darkness, the better to fully explain how I came to leave the theater feeling like I saw a different movie than everyone else I know (believe me, I wish I'd seen the one everyone is raving about. That sounded like a GOOD movie.).
To start, it's too long by about a half hour. The first twenty minutes are great - they move along, reveal some interesting conflicts, and get the action started...which then almost immediately tapers off into endless, pointless fight sequences and way, WAY too many shots of various crew members running down the white hallways of the Enterprise (which, by the way, has anyone ever bothered to map out the ship? Because I had no idea where we were supposed to be in the ship most of the time).
In addition to feeling padded out with unnecessary running, poorly edited action sequences, and revisiting the same plot points over and over, Into Darkness seems to take pleasure in wasting some of its best resources. Karl Urban as Bones is reduced to stupid metaphors and bitter one liners (to the point where another character actually says to him, "Enough with the metaphors!"). Uhura manages to somehow be both more and less interesting, getting to accompany Kirk on a mission but choosing the worst possible moment to bitch about her relationship problems. In fact, most of the crew, such strong presences in the first film, are basically reprising that here - hardly anyone gets anything new to do, or even say.
There's some good stuff here, not enough to assuage my feelings about it as a whole, but just enough to be frustrated by the film. The first two scenes are excellent, as Kirk' s methods and attitudes are called into question by the one person who's opinion he might actually care about. There's enough of the Klingons seen that I wish they'd been the villains of the film. And Benedict Cumberbatch, our actual villain, delivers monologues both traffic and sinister in a way that might have given me chills...If the material he'd been given had had more punch. But it's all so bogged down in senseless, motive-less buckshot that I had trouble keeping the good stuff in mind.
The conflict introduced in the opening sequence is pretty instantly brushed aside for something much less interesting, so that Abrams can pull what I'm sure he thought was an epic level bait and switch...but which ends up pretty much guaranteeing that the rest of the movie has no tension, because you now know exactly how it will end. This might be my biggest criticism and biggest disappointment: I thought that, with his first Trek, Abrams was making a grand statement that we were now playing by his rules. The old timeline was scrapped, he could send the Enterprise and her crew wherever he wished, and it would all be new, and fresh, and exciting. Into Darkness is none of those things. It is a group of people patting themselves on the back for being clever and good looking, while offering nothing in the way of new experience. I know you can do better, Mr. Abrams. I sincerely hope your next effort is more with my time.
Into Darkness is...not. It manages to feel both bloated and hollow, drilling the same parallels into you over and over again with all the subtlety of an anvil, taking what were some of the best things about the 2009 film and tossing them merrily out the airlock.
I'm going to do this review in two parts, a spoiler free one and one where I can more fully enumerate the crimes of Star Trek: Into Darkness, the better to fully explain how I came to leave the theater feeling like I saw a different movie than everyone else I know (believe me, I wish I'd seen the one everyone is raving about. That sounded like a GOOD movie.).
To start, it's too long by about a half hour. The first twenty minutes are great - they move along, reveal some interesting conflicts, and get the action started...which then almost immediately tapers off into endless, pointless fight sequences and way, WAY too many shots of various crew members running down the white hallways of the Enterprise (which, by the way, has anyone ever bothered to map out the ship? Because I had no idea where we were supposed to be in the ship most of the time).
In addition to feeling padded out with unnecessary running, poorly edited action sequences, and revisiting the same plot points over and over, Into Darkness seems to take pleasure in wasting some of its best resources. Karl Urban as Bones is reduced to stupid metaphors and bitter one liners (to the point where another character actually says to him, "Enough with the metaphors!"). Uhura manages to somehow be both more and less interesting, getting to accompany Kirk on a mission but choosing the worst possible moment to bitch about her relationship problems. In fact, most of the crew, such strong presences in the first film, are basically reprising that here - hardly anyone gets anything new to do, or even say.
There's some good stuff here, not enough to assuage my feelings about it as a whole, but just enough to be frustrated by the film. The first two scenes are excellent, as Kirk' s methods and attitudes are called into question by the one person who's opinion he might actually care about. There's enough of the Klingons seen that I wish they'd been the villains of the film. And Benedict Cumberbatch, our actual villain, delivers monologues both traffic and sinister in a way that might have given me chills...If the material he'd been given had had more punch. But it's all so bogged down in senseless, motive-less buckshot that I had trouble keeping the good stuff in mind.
The conflict introduced in the opening sequence is pretty instantly brushed aside for something much less interesting, so that Abrams can pull what I'm sure he thought was an epic level bait and switch...but which ends up pretty much guaranteeing that the rest of the movie has no tension, because you now know exactly how it will end. This might be my biggest criticism and biggest disappointment: I thought that, with his first Trek, Abrams was making a grand statement that we were now playing by his rules. The old timeline was scrapped, he could send the Enterprise and her crew wherever he wished, and it would all be new, and fresh, and exciting. Into Darkness is none of those things. It is a group of people patting themselves on the back for being clever and good looking, while offering nothing in the way of new experience. I know you can do better, Mr. Abrams. I sincerely hope your next effort is more with my time.
I don't want to be *That Guy* but I pretty much guessed the plot twist when they announced Benedict Cumberbatch's inclusion in the cast. Gee, an smooth-talking European known for playing strong-willed characters with analytical and resourceful minds will be playing the villain in a Star Trek sequel. I wonder what character he could be playing?
ReplyDeleteAlso, while I'm happy Simon Pegg got a dramatic increase in screentime, I'm upset it was at the expense of John Cho (who was reduced to a background character), and Anton Yelchin (who was reduced to a combination of plot device and parrot repeating the line "Captain on the bridge.")
We can only hope the new Star Trek films mimic the inverse of the original franchise; namely, odd-numbered movies good, even-numbered movies not so good.
And what we DID see of Cho was so good! I feel like there were so many good starts to things - Sulu's difficulty with command and unexpected steelyness in the face of danger, for example - that just got brushed aside for the sake of smug reference and revenge plot bullshit. Abrams gave us such EXCELLENT characters in the first go-round - it was a shame to see them all treated so carelessly.
DeleteThe sooner they can completely write Yelchin out, the better. All the revamping they did for the remake, and they couldn't fix Chekhov's accent? The first one was good despite the fanboy handjobs. The second was all handjobs, no movie.
ReplyDeleteI actually think they can keep Chekhov, since Yelchin is a good actor when he has actual stuff to do, but they, you know, need to GIVE HIM STUFF TO DO (see also: Urban, Saldana, John Cho, every other secondary character in that movie). Maybe next time edit out some of the pointlessly long running sequences and add some actual character development.
Delete