Reviews

Star Trek Into Darkness

4

Kirk’s on a mission to dish some frontier justice

Two men hot-footing across an alien landscape as if they’ve got Usain Bolt at their  heels. Someone yelling “If the volcano erupts, the planet dies!” A desperate plunge off a cliff. Last-second deliverance and then away into the night… Star Trek Into Darkness opens with thrusters on maximum – and then it puts its foot down.

With the origin-story, world-building, slightly tortuous parallel-universe-establishing stuff out of the way, J.J. Abrams embraces the chance to slip the leash in part two of his mission to make Trek viable, vibrant, cool again. Part one, a $385m hit in 2009, blew great clouds of dust off the decades-old franchise.

Still, it wasn’t perfect: despite efforts to widen appeal beyond the sci-fi hardcore, the dialogue often gave into gobbledegook. Then there was the underdeveloped villain, the hurried climax and an odd compulsion to leave Kirk dangling from ledges.

Into Darkness papers over many of the cracks. There’s a whole lot less trans-warp theorising for one thing. A more intriguing baddie than Eric Bana’s raving revenge-seeker for another. True, our new nemesis, John Harrison (a menacing, mystery-cloaked Benedict Cumberbatch) also has payback on his devilish mind, but it’s… complicated.

There are surprises dotted all over the spacescape, so we’ll keep the synopsis vague. Harrison, a former Starfleet high-ranker, does a Very Bad Thing. Kirk (Chris Pine) and the Enterprise crew go gunning for him.

They travel to hostile places, encounter faces new, old and new-old and do an awful lot of running, fighting and bickering. There’s less of the dangling this time out, but cliffhangers abound. The script feels structured around them; we hop from emergency to crisis to catastrophe and back again (and again).

Mostly, this is fantastic fun: a two-hours-plus blockbuster that doesn’t bog down in exposition or sag in the middle. There are reversals and rug-pulls galore, most of them executed with whiplash skill. Trouble is, at a certain point peril-fatigue starts to creep in, putting the story (like the overtaxed Enterprise) at the risk of burning out.

What’s more, this wild, plot-driven ride has a tendency to leave character moments on the back seat. Often, minor figures first time out remain minor figures, some of them left out in the rain until the narrative calls for them to make a reappearance.

Meanwhile, one emotional thunderbolt is undercut by an arguably too-cute wink to the franchise faithful.

Rewardingly, though, this isn’t Star Trek Into Vastness, a sequel that aims bigger but ends up bloated. True, there’s the sense of an expanded universe, and how it might determine the direction of future installments.

On the other hand, most of the drama is confined to the Enterprise, and all the better for it (if it’s expanse you’re after, judicious use of 3D brings added depth to those sleek corridors).

As for darkness, it’s there literally (firefights in the gloomiest corners of the galaxy) and figuratively, Abrams dragging his heroes over sticky ethical terrain (debates over whether to put villains on trial or on the chopping block; a scene where a good guy pummels a bad guy after they’ve surrendered).

But this is no hopeless dystopian vision; not when there’s Simon Pegg (back in a bigger, funnier role as engineer Scotty, complete with a cabbage-headed sidekick) dropping exasperated one-liners, or Karl Urban (medical man Bones) chipping in with colourful metaphors (“You don’t rob a bank when the getaway car has a flat tyre!”).

Shame that a romance teased in the first film only makes minimal progress here, but then it’s always been the Kirk-Spock, captain-first officer, love-hate thing that’s at the fore in Trek.

The prickly, tickly dynamic is alive and well here, a central thread running from get-go to wrap-up. If the cool, commanding Zachary Quinto already had a sure sense of Spock in the first film, it’s Pine who comes into his own here, essaying a more likeable, vulnerable, humble take on Kirk. Although he’s still a bit leery with the ladies.

But man of the match is, of course, Abrams. His aim with Into Darkness was to mint a standalone adventure, one that welcomed total Trek neophytes at the door. Mission accomplished – there’s buried treasure here for long-term fans, but this is a franchise flick that demands fanboy foreknowledge far less than it does slack jaws and high stamina.

Verdict:

After a confident take-off, Abrams keeps the franchise flying with a faster, faster, FASTER sequel that makes for the most thrilling Star Trek since First Contact.


Seen and loved Star Trek Into Darkness? Get involved with our spoiler-filled discussion video below, or watch the gang talk about the movie's key bromance - and the possibility of a Star Trek 3!

 

Watch the trailer

Film Details

Try This...

User Reviews

    • alexrossignol

      Apr 25th 2013, 16:45

      1

      So, lot of explosion, lot of vfx, lot of punchlines but, the Spirit of Roddenberry? Where is it?? The 2009's Star Trek was a crappy scifi movie and this one is the same thing...

      Alert a moderator

    • garymakin69etc

      Apr 25th 2013, 17:11

      I bet alexrossignol hasn't actually seen the film.

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Apr 25th 2013, 18:05

      I bet Kirk ends up having to choose control, destroy or synth. NoOoOoOoo not again!

      Alert a moderator

    • kraut1701

      Apr 25th 2013, 19:11

      People haven't even seen the damn movie yet and they're already whining and complaining. As the Shat once said, "get a life!"

      Alert a moderator

    • GFoley83

      Apr 25th 2013, 23:22

      Great review. Informative critique without throwing in spoilers. If only everyone else at Total Film reviewed like this (I'm looking at you, whoever reviewed Iron Man 3).

      Alert a moderator

    • TheShamrock

      Apr 26th 2013, 10:36

      GFoley83 - you've hit the nail on the head. I had to stop reading the Iron Man 3 review as I wouldnt need to see the film if I carried on. This is a good review and I enjoyed the first film and I've got a feeling I'll be enjoying this too.

      Alert a moderator

    • dholleyuk

      Apr 26th 2013, 11:21

      Great review thank you for avoiding spoilers and I agree with garymakin69etc please stop bashing something that you probably can't correctly pass judgement on. Lets leave that to the under 4 year olds and have constructive comments

      Alert a moderator

    • tommyvogt

      Apr 26th 2013, 19:52

      We don't have to see the movie to know that the whole story is total c**p! This review even confirms it, "Meanwhile, one emotional thunderbolt is undercut by an arguably too-cute wink to the franchise faithful." There is the proof that the online spoilers are true... This movie totally misses the freaking mark and it is so annoying and frustrating that it is a POS remake of the BEST Star Trek film, something that never needed to be remade. And that ending..FUUUUU!!!

      Alert a moderator

    • piffle

      Apr 27th 2013, 10:12

      Seems like a fairly tepid review overall with the prose suggesting a score closer to the 3 star mark. In saying that the review is also overly critical of the strong first outing making me think the reviewer just isn't that into this series so I'll reserve judgement until I read a few more critics.

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Apr 28th 2013, 9:59

      I can't wait to watch Into Darkness so it can erase the bad taste Iron Man 3 left in my mouth.

      Alert a moderator

    • Seedorf

      Apr 28th 2013, 11:56

      I agree when people say don't bash this film before it has been seen, but I can see where alexrossignol is coming from. You know what you're going to get with this, and if you didn't like the first outing, then the same will apply with this follow up. Not because it's a bad film per se, but more to do with the direction Abrams has taken ST. Some love what he has done with it, some don't.

      Alert a moderator

    • mediacritiquer

      Apr 30th 2013, 19:26

      The first JJ Trek was slick and well made - fast, furious and entertaining. Ultimately, it was hollow, having thrown out Trek canon. This second film looks the same - entertaining, but Earth-bound and without soul. To boldly go...nowhere (fast).

      Alert a moderator

    • rome270ad

      May 1st 2013, 9:15

      Yet another dumbed-down brainless, special effects piece of sh1t for the thick masses.

      Alert a moderator

    • mattburgess

      May 1st 2013, 18:31

      I'm amazed at the amount of anger out there. So much hate for films that are just supposed to be harmless fun. The only person who misses out by you not liking a film is you.

      Alert a moderator

    • kaitlyn855

      May 1st 2013, 21:37

      If you think Randy`s story is unimaginable,, last month my friend's brother basically got paid $4892 working a ninteen hour week from there house and the're friend's mother-in-law`s neighbour has been doing this for eight months and got paid more than $4892 part time at there mac. apply the steps on this site, kep2.ℂom

      Alert a moderator

    • txrl9

      May 2nd 2013, 1:21

      The Spock and Uhura relationship makes absolutely no sense. Abrams has taken this key element in Rodenberry's concept and turned Spock into an emotional 20 something. Then you get too much relationship drama. All of this to the Spock charachter would be "illogical."

      Alert a moderator

    • MikeyRix

      May 6th 2013, 12:00

      @txrl9 Pahahaha! Okay, first of all - you clearly missed the billing of "Star Trek XI" as a PREQUEL. We do not arrive into the film, as TOS did, in medias rest - it goes back to the origins of the Enterprise and how the crew was assembled, even if it was retconned a bit. Second of all, which human BEING is fully and completely in control of their emotions by the time they hit their twenties, let alone a half-human/ half-Vulcan? At the end of "XI", Spock seems to be more at peace with himself and his place in the universe - I can imagine his character will cement that in this and #3, and he grows. This is called character development. Whilst there are many unrealisitic elements - hence the genre, science FICTION - it would be unrealistic for Quinto's Spock to arrive on screen completely (and some might say, rigidly) in control of his emotions. Thankyou and have a good day.

      Alert a moderator

    • dregj

      May 6th 2013, 19:51

      Star trek re imagined for the stupid age.Using science fiction trappings to create ,of course, a big dumb worthless action film as pointless as it is boring.Im sure they make a fortune

      Alert a moderator

    • Igrayne

      May 7th 2013, 20:09

      Stop bloody b******g about spoilers, why are you reading a damn review of a film if you are planning to see it you idiots? Check the star rating and the final analysis if you are not confident enough to rely on your own opinion and require to be led and stop fing moaning, jees.

      Alert a moderator

    • dholleyuk

      May 9th 2013, 11:56

      5

      Just saw the midnit showing and all I will say is LEGEND!!!!!

      Alert a moderator

    • aeneuman

      May 10th 2013, 4:13

      this film was boring , derivative c**p with no surprises. three years and this was the best they could do ?

      Alert a moderator

    • aeneuman

      May 10th 2013, 4:13

      1

      oh yes.

      Alert a moderator

    • TheGreatWent

      May 10th 2013, 7:31

      Lens... Flare... Overload...Retinas...Burning...

      Alert a moderator

    • mattburgess

      May 10th 2013, 10:53

      4

      I didn't love it. I liked it. It was a good film, but it wasn't incredible. I think maybe my expectations were too high, and now I'm trying to appreciate it from a reasonable perspective (The same thing happened for me with Iron Man 3). An incredible number of hard-core Trek references (Section 31 for example - wow!). Good start, but the film seemed to lose it's way 30 minutes before the end, when the whole thing became a parody of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn. Not enough effort put into some important moments, such as why Bones would randomly decide to inject a Tribble with blood (which was too obvious a set-up). Not enough room for all characters (poor Chekhov), but overall... yeah, I think it was a good film. I'd watch it again.

      Alert a moderator

    • mattburgess

      May 10th 2013, 11:00

      Oh, and additionally, moments that should have been really exciting were bizarrely devoid of any tension. That bit with Bones and Marcus opening a torpedo on a planet... no tension whatsoever - you knew noone would die, so why bother even going off-ship? Moments like this were just a bit too quick.

      Alert a moderator