It was understandable that the first film of the new "Trek" franchise would evoke, to some degree, the originals. That film was a transitional film, a bridge from old to new. And having accomplished that, I was hoping that "Star Trek Into Darkness" would carve out its own ideas, stake its own claim and justify itself as a fresh take on the "Trek" conventions (no, not those conventions).
Instead, if anything, this film is even more reliant on past story ideas than the first film was. And in the final analysis, "Star Trek: Into Darkness" can best be characterized as a remake of the classic 1982 film "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." And why do that? For over thirty years, that film has been available to anyone who wanted it. "Star Trek 2" is the best Trek film ever. It has a wonderful blend of action, character and original science fiction ideas. It also has enormous heart and interesting themes about aging, death and the costs of maturity. This film evokes the basic outline but none of what made that film great.
In interviews, the filmmakers refused to say the identity of the character played (very well) by Benedict Cumberbach, but said it was a famous Trek villain. It's a short list: Harry Mudd (who gets a shout out here), Q and Khan. At first, I thought it might be Q. Cumberbach more closely evokes John DeLancie than Ricardo Montalban. And that would be a neat surprise, since everyone in the audience would be assuming Khan. (And the fact that Q is not part of the Kirk "Trek" universe would be a neat surprise too.) It couldn't be Khan, I thought to myself. That was just be too obvious. Surely, the filmmakers have something far more interesting up their sleeve.
Alas, just as smoke is indicative of fire, the revelation that the villain is Khan falls entirely flat. It's about a surprising as the revelation in "Indy 4" of who Mutt's father was.
Cumberbatch is fun in his way, but I wished the writers had given him more to do, other than arch his eyebrows and speak the usual bad guy rantings in his melodious British voice. Montalban's Khan was a Shakespearian figure. He was angry, funny, sexy, soulful and, in the end, totally crazy and sadly tragic. (Nicholas Meyer, the film's director and co-writer was a Shakespearian scholar.) Cumberbatch is a cool actor but his villain is too one note, in the end, to register much.
As the film goes on, the references to "Star Trek II" pile on and on, until it becomes clear that this film is pretty much a straight up remake. There are some vague attempts to inject some fresh variations. (It's Kirk, not Spock who risks his life, etc.) But disappointment sets in as time goes on and the film fails to evoke any fresh ideas. The pile up of references and shout outs made me feel like I was watching a "Simpsons" Halloween episode parody. Spock's pained "Khaaaan!!" lament was the jump the shark moment, and it drew huge laughs at the screening I attended.
I enjoyed the film's action sequences, but I'm hoping that future "Trek" films will dial down the homage to the originals, and dial up the new and original ideas. The time has come to stop recycling and start creating. For a franchise that boldly boasts of "new frontiers," this chapter is sadly derivative.
Instead, if anything, this film is even more reliant on past story ideas than the first film was. And in the final analysis, "Star Trek: Into Darkness" can best be characterized as a remake of the classic 1982 film "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." And why do that? For over thirty years, that film has been available to anyone who wanted it. "Star Trek 2" is the best Trek film ever. It has a wonderful blend of action, character and original science fiction ideas. It also has enormous heart and interesting themes about aging, death and the costs of maturity. This film evokes the basic outline but none of what made that film great.
In interviews, the filmmakers refused to say the identity of the character played (very well) by Benedict Cumberbach, but said it was a famous Trek villain. It's a short list: Harry Mudd (who gets a shout out here), Q and Khan. At first, I thought it might be Q. Cumberbach more closely evokes John DeLancie than Ricardo Montalban. And that would be a neat surprise, since everyone in the audience would be assuming Khan. (And the fact that Q is not part of the Kirk "Trek" universe would be a neat surprise too.) It couldn't be Khan, I thought to myself. That was just be too obvious. Surely, the filmmakers have something far more interesting up their sleeve.
Alas, just as smoke is indicative of fire, the revelation that the villain is Khan falls entirely flat. It's about a surprising as the revelation in "Indy 4" of who Mutt's father was.
Cumberbatch is fun in his way, but I wished the writers had given him more to do, other than arch his eyebrows and speak the usual bad guy rantings in his melodious British voice. Montalban's Khan was a Shakespearian figure. He was angry, funny, sexy, soulful and, in the end, totally crazy and sadly tragic. (Nicholas Meyer, the film's director and co-writer was a Shakespearian scholar.) Cumberbatch is a cool actor but his villain is too one note, in the end, to register much.
As the film goes on, the references to "Star Trek II" pile on and on, until it becomes clear that this film is pretty much a straight up remake. There are some vague attempts to inject some fresh variations. (It's Kirk, not Spock who risks his life, etc.) But disappointment sets in as time goes on and the film fails to evoke any fresh ideas. The pile up of references and shout outs made me feel like I was watching a "Simpsons" Halloween episode parody. Spock's pained "Khaaaan!!" lament was the jump the shark moment, and it drew huge laughs at the screening I attended.
I enjoyed the film's action sequences, but I'm hoping that future "Trek" films will dial down the homage to the originals, and dial up the new and original ideas. The time has come to stop recycling and start creating. For a franchise that boldly boasts of "new frontiers," this chapter is sadly derivative.