I must first state how I view Star Trek as a franchise, how I grew up with it, how I feel about it and such and such. I feel that to give a truthful review of the new movie, this is needed. All biases must be brought forward. I am a huge fan of the original series, the first six films and Next Generation films, and of Voyager. I never watched more than a few episodes of Deep Space Nine, nor of Enterprise. I have seen many episodes of The Next Generation, but was not a huge fan of the show. Now, when it comes to J.J. Abrams' 2009 adaptation, I was not a huge fan. I felt that the characterizations were, for the most part, not great. Sure, Kirk and McCoy were what I felt were right, but they just picked Zachary Quinto because he looked like a vulcan. The plot was a mess, the villain was crap, and the lens flares were quite annoying. The biggest problem to me was that it lacked the moral questions and chemistry that were the center of the original Star Trek series and movies. It was just an action film with a lot of destruction. A lot of those problems have been addressed at least somewhat for this, the sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness.
So the story here is that Starfleet is under attack by a rogue element. The crew of the Enterprise must go into the Klingon Neutral Zone, onto the Klingon planet of Kronos, and kill the man responsible. Well, of course that doesn't happen, as it would be a very short movie. No, of course the Enterprise has some warp core problems, and all hell breaks loose. That's all I'm going to state of the plot, as to not give spoilers. Unlike the previous film, I had no problem with the plot of this one. It was exciting, it had moral questions, and it actually made sense this time.
Even from the first scene of the movie, I knew this one would be better than the last. They are on a new world, there's been a misunderstanding, there are Prime Directive concerns. It's like the original series! This is what I wanted! Of course, the Enterprise hiding underwater kind of ruined that a bit. I don't think the ship should be meant to do that, but I suppose if it can go into space, it should be watertight enough to go underwater. It's obvious as well that the chemistry between the Star Trek trinity (Kirk-Spock-McCoy), is now more convincingly molded. The other crew members still have some growing to do. I still don't think John Cho was a good choice to play Sulu. He's given him no personality, and is just there for show. As well, Anton Yelchin's portrayal of Chekov isn't really that great either, though he is given more to do in this film, thankfully. (I still don't know why he was master of transporters in the last film, or why he's great at engineering in this one. He controls weapons, J.J.! Weapons!) Those are really the only two I have a problem with. Spock's character has grown more human, and as such more in line with the series. McCoy and Kirk were spot on to begin with. Uhura has a lot to do in this film, which I thought was an excellent idea. Scotty as well, is used quite a bit. Sadly, the little alien guy he hangs with isn't seen much. Nurse Chapel is gone, but we get a new major character in her place. A nod to Wrath of Khan and one of the first season episodes of Star Trek, Where No Man Has Gone Before. (The little blonde lab technician mentioned in that episode?)
Now I'm sure people are wondering about the villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. I suppose he does the job well enough. He does angry very well, and he has a menacing deep voice. However, that's all I've got for him. I'm not a huge fan of the actor's work, and I don't get why people love him so. True, he's a better villain than Eric Bana was in the 2009 film, but that doesn't take much. Nero was a HORRIBLE villain. One that I forgot was even IN the movie for most of it, as he has like a combined total of 7 minutes of screen time. Well, Cumberbatch has much more screen time. His allegiances are questioned through most of the film, which I thought was great, as it actually had me guessing for a while. I'd put him about on the same level as General Chang from Star Trek VI. He's one of the better ones. I still don't get Cumberbatch as an actor though, and probably never will. I just think of him as the amazingly ugly man. (Well, I think that of Matt Smith in Doctor Who as well. Where does Stephen Moffat find these ugly guys?!)
The special effects are amazing. If you can, see this in 3D IMAX. That's how I saw it, and can not fathom seeing it in a theater any other way. I loved the space shot between the two ships towards the middle of the film. Seeing that in 3D was phenomenal, what with all the debris and such that went whizzing by. The sound design was just as good, though I must confess I can't remember any of the soundtrack, save the end credits. It must not have made a big impression. Action movies rarely have memorable soundtracks, though. And make no mistake. This is an action film. It's not a adventure film as most Star Trek films are. This is sci-fi action, more akin to Star Wars than Star Trek. I do not have a problem with that if the chemistry of the show is still there. Otherwise I'd have hated Wrath of Khan and First Contact, which are two of the best Trek films.
On the whole, I had no huge issues with this film. In fact, I'd say it's now in my top Trek films, whereas it's predecessor was one of my least favorites. The crew of the Enterprise has become sort of a family, in some ways moreso than Star Trek ever had in it's 3 seasons and 6 films. Blasphemy to some, I'm sure, but I do believe it. I went into the film thinking I'd hate it, or at least find it silly as I did the last one, but this is a huge improvement. I now feel that the characters will develop over the franchise's run, whereas I had felt before that the characters were just look-alikes to their prime versions, but with no real traits. They felt oddly... empty. Well, that's gone now, thankfully. I still have issues with J.J. Abrams' directorial style, which I don't think fits the series, and that's the one real gripe I still have. He has improved since 2009. For instance, there is not as much lens flare in this film. It's still there in great quantities, but it didn't really distract me this time. He does tend to go for too many exaggerated camera moves and angles that are unnecessary and this has gotten worse since the 2009 film. However, I think I can learn to overlook that.
6 stars out of 7. Highly recommended. (In IMAX 3D of course.)
No comments:
Post a Comment