'Star Trek Into Darkness' review by Captain Raptor

'Star Trek Into Darkness' review by Captain Raptor

What I find most interesting about Star Trek Into Darkness is how it relates itself to the initial Star Trek series. There's no real way to satisfy the hardcore Trekkies (if you change too much it's sacrilege, if you don't change enough it's cheesy), but Into Darkness hits what I feel should serve as a proverbial sweet spot, with enough references to older installments to feel like a labour of love by a genuine fan, but changes enough to escape the trappings and shortcomings of the original version. I say 'should serve' because predictably the fanboys are up in arms, but there comes a point where you have to sit them down and shout 'The writing was hackneyed, the acting had no subtlety and we are moving on'. 

J.J. Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie was handicapped by having to reintroduce characters and concepts to a new audience and as such lost valuable trekking time, but the sequel is now able to leap straight into the action and give us the movie we should have had 4 years ago. Star Trek Into Darkness is an engaging, energetic adventure movie, with matching strengths in dialogue and providing excitement. The references and recurring phrases from the TV show are for the most part clever, perhaps occasionally bordering on clumsy,  and there's an atmosphere of epicness surrounding the piece as they sail off, adventuring through the stars. The most effective new element that Star Trek Into Darkness brings to the table is Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison, a villain who is simultaneously impossibly threatening yet fully realised. A sufficient villain was one of the things the previous film was lacking, and Abrams has clearly responded to a lot of the flaws in his earlier film, such as a simpler but more comprehensible plot and allowing each character their own moment in the spotlight (although some crew members such as Chekov and Sulu seem unfairly sidelined). Abrams near-fetishistic fondness for lens flares persists though, and certain scenes are almost blinding to view, particularly ones taking place on the bridge of the Enterprise. The film's other glaring flaw is in its action, which is simply too fast and too overwhelming to actually appreciate: huge explosions, flying lasers and the grand scale of it all is shown with such breakneck speed, meaning you can't take in and enjoy any of it.

The component of the film that really heightens its quality is a selection of spot-on performances from a cast who fit perfectly into their roles. With the exception of Kirk and Spock, most of the roles aren't particularly well-written, but the actors are essentially doing impersonations of the original cast (Simon Pegg's deliberately poor Scottish accent is brilliant), and Dredd's Karl Urban manages to both imitate and surpass the original portrayal of the character of Dr 'Bones' McCoy, and has basically stolen the role as his own. The only character that's taken in any different direction is Captain Kirk himself, who seems slightly more resolved and stalwart than the roguish, unpredictable Shatner incarnation. Except perhaps for Urban, the finest performance of all must surely go to Benedict Cumberbatch, giving a master-class performance in both uncontrollable rage and subtle intimidation that could possibly end up as the greatest villain you'll see this year.

My favourite thing about sequels is the chance to rejoin established characters and expand their adventures further, and Star Trek Into Darkness is a prime example of that. Familiar characters are invigoratingly brought to life with fresh relish, and while it's certainly no game-changer the film gives a cast on their A-game a chance to take us for a ride. Here's hoping for another installment, preferably focused on Bones single-handedly taking on an entire fleet of Klingons armed with only a phaser and fed-up attitude.