Movie Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

There are two kinds of viewers for the new Star Trek movies. The old-timey types (that actually may be in their teens) who have watched the past Star Trek television series and William Shatner and Patrick Stewart Star Trek movies on Hulu, Netflix or black and white tv; then there are those completely new to the franchise, of any age, who out of curiosity or boredom have been enticed by the J.J. Abrams action style of Star Trek. The movies without so much 'talking on the bridge.'

So here is the second hybrid movie, kind of like a Star Trek Prius. Star Trek Out of Darkness. All the excellent action that made J.J. Abrams famous on television (Alias, Fringe, etc.) and some of the higher level thinking from the Trek writers of the older models.

For those of us old-timey types, such as myself, I find the words from Leonard Nimoy's Spock in this new Trek to be like hearing quotes from Shakespeare. There is a dynamic frame of reference for us because we have thought and discussed and even taken inspiration from the first movies and from the several television series. The characters are well-developed and layered. Maybe it's because I was an English Lit. major, but I have always maintained the Star Trek writers achieved an excellence at the top of Bloom's Taxonomy. The 'Star Trek canon,' as it is described, includes some of the best of television characterization, plots, and dramatic arcs. And profound themes. And excellently played out by actors in complicated makeup.

How about this movie?
I enjoyed it. 3D effects have improved, the Enterprise was glamorous.
Sound effects did sound a little Star Wars, maybe because they were by Lucasfilms Light and Magic.

Star Trek Into Darkness 2013 HD 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XRjU5x3x_AQ

The villain was complex. James T. Kirk was Kirkish. The crew was creative in their problem solving. I liked knowing Uhura more. And when San Francisco and Star Fleet Academy were hit (not a spoiler, it was in the trailer) the San Francisco Giants Stadium was left intact.


But...

I think the movie is about Spock. And I feel Zachary Quinto is a wonderful Spock. The writers have brought Spock from childhood to manhood in these two films with growth and depth that we recognize in future Spock whom we already know. It's brilliant. Are the profound themes there? Yes.

Zachary Quinto as Spock

But although we see Spock, more or less in depth, the time given to action, especially at the end of the film, rob us of the thoughts and inner struggles of the other characters we care about. I really could have used that. These are characters I care about. And I know, really know, Benedict Cumberpatch could have truly risen to greater heights bringing more depth to the villain. (Maybe if they had consulted William Shatner like they did Leonard Nimoy.) The writers were limited.

How do I know that?

I watched the other Star Trek stuff prior to this. The writers gave the actors a great gift, and the actors gave us a great gift. Patrick Stewart, tremendous Shakespearean actor that he is, needed good scripts. He received them. Some were great.

The many great themes branching from 'Who are we? What are we doing here?' need more 'talky-talky on the bridge' and elsewhere.

However...

This is well worth watching. The appeal of Star Trek is that we can envision ourselves on the Enterprise, maybe a science officer (my choice), or security, engineering, or medical. You could be the First Officer. And I'm positive there are many Captains reading this, with the Kirkish hubris to take risks and come out smelling like a rose.

'I have been, and shall always be, your friend.'