[6.7/10] There’s a lot that I admire about *Star Trek Into Darkness*. It’s wrapped up in character and theme: Kirk learning the importance of playing by the rules and Spock learning when the bonds of friendship means breaking it. It laudably tries to speak to political and societal issues just like *The Original Series* once did. It offers some stellar set pieces, includes some endearing exchanges, and services the whole Enterprise crew quite well.

But it’s also a mess, something which becomes apparent the longer the movie wears on (and boy does it wear on). It jumbles those arcs and themes in a geomagnetic storm of confused plot points and overstuffed action sequences. It taints the timely notions of not losing our principles despite unprecedented threats by dabbling in 9/11 Trutherism. It even indulges in what is, in hindsight, an unfortunate recurring trend in director J.J. Abrams’s filmography, where his movies reveal some secret identity for one of the major players that matters to the audience but not to, you know, anyone actually in the story.

Resolving the good and the bad here becomes difficult. If you stopped this movie at around the two-thirds mark, roughly where Spock engages in his fancy torpedo ruse to doublecross Khan, *Into Darkness* would be a flawed but still quality film. But from that point on, it becomes utterly exhausting, filled to the brim with unnecessary fireworks and fistfights, contorted and awkward wholesale references to *Wrath of Khan*, and games of take-backsies which neuter the dramatic sacrifices and concomitant lessons that are supposed to emerge from them. The most grievous insult you can level at this movie is that the longer it goes, the worst it gets.

That’s a shame, because it starts so strong! The opening sequence is like an episode of *The Original Series* in miniature. The return and demise of Captain Pike is powerful (and Bruce Greenwood once again commands the frame with minimal screen time). The setup of philosophical and personal conflicts between Kirk and Spock is another strength carried over from the last *Star Trek* film, and the initial hints of one of Starfleet’s own turning on the organization with devastating effects sets things up for a great adventure.

*Into Darkness* just cannot live up to that promise. There’s still plenty of great moments and scenes after those points. Say what you will about Abrams and his hit-or-miss collaborators like Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, but the group knows how to bounce characters off of one another amid potent themes, even if they can’t quite nail any of it down.

While some have more to do than others, pretty much every member of the crew gets time to shine, from Scotty’s principled stand, to Uhura standing up to the Klingons, to Sulu’s time in the captain’s chair, to Chekov’s filling in as chief engineer, to Bones’s usual grumpy wit. Even when the movie’s narrative is falling apart or suffering from yet another overblown action scene, it’s just fun to spend time with these characters, which buoys the film’s weaker moments.

Sadly, the same can’t be said for the film’s new legacy characters. *Into Darkness* includes dramatic reveals that the two new denizens of the Enterprise are Khan Noonien Singh and Carol Marcus, names that mean nothing to anyone in the audience who hasn’t seen *Wrath of Khan* and which mean nothing to the movie’s characters since, you know, they haven’t seen that film either. At least with Marcus, there’s some in-universe significance to her hidden identity given that she’s the progeny of the thirty-seventh villainous admiral in Trek history, but she has next to nothing in common with her *Star Trek II* counterpart, making the in-name-only addition a head-scratcher.

Likewise, Khan is a complete misfire here. Separate and apart from the whitewashing of the character, which is its own meta-problem with the film, he’s just a dull bad guy. His motivations are jumbled in J.J.’s latest mystery box and twist-generating machine, rendering him little more than the latest undifferentiated bland blockbuster badass. Benedict Cumberbatch gives a weak performance, one that’s overly bombastic but lacking the human element behind all the theatrical mustache-twirling. Without the connection to a different, better movie, he would be totally forgettable.

The saving grace on that front is Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus, the morally compromised Starfleet leader who wants to turn this group of peaceful explorers into an unstoppable military force. Weller, who made his franchise bones with a great turn on *Star Trek: Enterprise* (an impressive feat in and of itself), carries the gravitas, conviction, and shitheel qualities to make a good villain and avatar for how Starfleet has lost its way. He gets lost in the narrative soup that is Khan’s array of schemes and eventually take over as the movie’s big bad, but he’s a better vessel for *Into Darkness*’s themes than Khan, who’s really only a vessel for unfortunate Trutherism and/or games of “Hey, remember *Wrath of Khan*.

It’s a shame, because the movie plays with some good ideas, even as they get mangled in the beaucoup crashes and explosions and bouts of hand-to-hand combat. After roughly the opening act, the movie all but loses any downtime for the characters to reflect on what’s happened or what’s happening, instead just resorting to bang-bang-bang arrays of well-done but over-quota’d action set pieces. Some of these are memorable -- particularly the Enterprise plummet below the clouds only to rise back up triumphantly -- but most of them become static when stacked on top of one another.

That avalanche of images of death and destruction are part and parcel with *Into Darkness*’s examination of the wounded psyche of post-9/11 America. Abrams and company posit a once-noble body, believing that a war of civilizations is inevitable, and turning away from peaceful ideals in favor of arms races, provocations, and the equivalent of preemptive strikes. Abrams and company aren’t subtle about these concepts or the damage they see in them, but the Federation makes for a good stalking horse to explore them nonetheless. From 1966 onward, *Star Trek* has long been a sci-fi vessel for social and political commentary, and it’s nice to see that legacy upheld.

Moreover, before the film sinks in a sea of homages and explosions, it roots those ideas in character. Pike essentially outlines Kirk’s arc here, going from believing that the rules don’t apply to him and being ready to take reckless risks, to recognizing the utility of those guardrails and seeing how his risk-taking can harm other people. Spock, once again, has an equal and opposite journey, beginning with his expected Vulcan detachment and rule-bound honesty, to learning how to bend the rules when necessary and, more importantly, how the bonds of friendship can rightly affect your decision-making, even as a commander. As with so much in *Into Darkness*, those character stories get mixed up at various points, as the film as a whole gets more disjointed, but there’s strong throughlines for both characters.

The one unmitigated positive this movie draws from its Ricardo Montalban-starring predecessor is notions of the value of life and the hollowness of retribution. From Spock and Kirk trading “I saved your life” moments, to Khan being driven by trying to preserve the lives of his fellow frozen augments, to Kirk offering himself up to the Admiral in order to spare his crew, there’s an acknowledgment that the costs here are not a mere “bloody nose.” In a franchise known for disposable redshirts, the importance of saving your friends, even if it means a personal sacrifice, is true to the broader spirit of *Star Trek*.

In the same way, *Into Darkness* treats revenge as a futile and harmful goal. Kirk wants to honor the memory of his murdered surrogate father by taking out his killer, only to realize that the better tribute is to live up to his, and Starfleet’s, ideals. Spock turns furious upon the (very temporary) death of his best friend, wanting vengeance on Khan only to learn that restraining his anger and keeping the dastard alive is the only way to save that friend. Hell, in keeping with the sociopolitical themes, there’s an argument that Admiral Marcus wants revenge on the Klingons for their past actions, representing the idea that efforts in that direction destabilize us and make us lose the people we are and hoped to be.

That’s all commendable, complex material. In a more streamlined film, one less beholden to and reliant upon other entries in the franchise, it could shine and bolster another stirring space adventure. Instead, those powerful notions are just hidden gems in a thicket of questionable choices, which only grow in duration and density and obscure more of the movie’s praise-worthy qualities as the viewer gets closer to the end credits. There’s still so much to like about *Star Trek Into Darkness*. I just wish it wasn’t so eclipsed by how much there is to be disappointed by.

A caveat - this is not the Star Trek that Gene Roddenberry intended and one would imagine that he would not have approved. But then, some of the best Star Trek episodes, and indeed series (DS9), have come from a divergence from Roddenberry's positive vision of the future and a willingness to explore the difficulties humanity would have in aspiring to this unlikely ideal. Abrams was wise to begin his film versions of Star Trek prior to the realisation of Roddenberry's utopia. What Star Trek has also often been good at is providing a canvas upon which to comment on the moral and social questions that resonate with modern society and here the notion of terrorism and how humanity addresses this in personal and global terms feels particularly relevant.
Not that Abrams allows this to get in the way of delivering what can only be described as a perfect summer movie, but the overall themes of the film ascribe to this notion of Star Trek. What Abrams also gets right in spades is the characters and the interaction between all of them, in particular Kirk and Spock, with a great effort made in ensuring all of the crew get a moment to shine (something notably lacking from the original movies). Pine and Quinto are a fantastic double act and the development of their characters and their relationship is the highlight of the film. Cumberbatch makes for a great central villain, yet the film develops in surprising ways. There are plot holes galore here and to be sure they mar the overall rating. They are also likely to enrage the pedantic fans of a series which has often suffered from a need/desire to retcon or fit everything into a preordained timeline often at the expense of simply enjoying the moment. And that is what the filmmakers seems to be doing here. Rarely do these plot inconsistencies detract from the sheer fun and enjoyment of seeing these characters race through a film whose pace is relentless. What is unnecessary however is this film's attempts to connect with a previous instalment in the series. There is nothing inherently wrong with the connections but it adds little to the story and wholesale reminders of scenes from another film detract from their intent. These similar moments could have easily been staged in a different way and the film would have been better for it. There is also an incredibly convenient "deus ex machina" moment that is as predictable as it is ridiculous and completely unnecessary as it only serves to fulfil the desire of the film to connect with its predecessor. Still, this is great entertainment!

I have no idea how this movie is at almost 80%. Especially when Beyond is 3% lower and is a MUCH better movie.

Tbh, I admit, for the first hour or so of this movie I was thinking "wait why did I give this only a 5 again?", because the movie holds itself together pretty well for awhile. It still suffers from the Abrams problem of being a good product instead of interesting art, but its watchable. But god, the final act. A complete mess. The role reversal stuff is just absolutely terrible. [spoiler]Spock shouting "Khan" was the worst moment. Just corny as hell. And I'm sorry, but the Kirk/Spock relationship is just not established enough in this continuity for Kirk's death to resonate. Especially when they already established was was SO OBVIOUSLY going to be a way to bring Kirk back. And low and behold, it was, and it was corny. They never should have tried to follow the act of Khan at all tbh, Ricardo is way too tough and act to follow. and Whitewashing one of the greatest poc villains in movie history is ridiculous.[/spoiler]. Also, a nitpick, but the fan service scene with Carol Marcus in her underwear was jarringly unnecessary. Like yeah, sure, Alive Eve has a great body, but it being out of nowhere and not serving any narrative purpose and a bit of tonal whiplash. It just didnt fit.

This is actually my least favorite Star Trek film. Because the worst original timeline movies at least were TRYING to do something interesting and not make a cynically marketable product and failing even at that.

I will admit though I do like the element of the destruction of Vulcan changing Starfleet to be more militaristic. It might not be "Gene's vision" but it makes sense for the alternate universe and is the most interesting plot point. They should have just had Alexander Marcus be the main villain.

**The following is a long form review that I originally wrote in 2013.**

_Star Trek: Into Darkness_, or _STID_, as the kids are calling it (which makes me sad 'cause it's akin to both STI's and STD's) is, in my unprofessional opinion, a step up from the previous instalment (which I did still quite enjoy).

Both J.J. Abram's 2009 film, as well as _Into Darkness_ did both, however, seem to have an issue I couldn't overlook in common. And that is that both essentially feel like an incredibly drawn out episode of a TV show. And I've seen next to nothing of the old _Star Trek_ series, so it's not from that sort of a view I've come to have this feeling. It's just a sort of unshakable notion I developed after a few minutes from the start during each film. Even in this aspect, _Into Darkness_ is a slight improvement on its forebear.

This new _Star Trek_ film is, unfortunately, riddled with plot holes. Some... Or at least one, is completely unforgivable. They're not enough to ruin the film per se, but it does make me wonder about Abram's ability to be a showrunner in the future if he can't even handle _Star Trek_. Right from the get go I had questions that could have easily been answered with only a couple of lines of dialogue's worth of effort. Which was sad, because it cast a pall over what was, at its heart, an enjoyable piece of cinema.

Despite these issues worsening as the movie progressed, a congratulatory word does again have to go out to Abram's and his team for their tweaked timeline. Working a way in which to successfully reboot the franchise, without belittling the integrity of the original was a great move (moreover, they've left themselves open for more deviations in the future, now that the concept is established). Very smart.

Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho and Anton Yelchin returning is of course a big plus for me. Completely unsurprisingly there just as fantastic as ever. But, that kind of Tumblr user would I be if I didn't give a special bit of praise to Benedict Cumberbatch (which all levity aside, is actually well earned from the Brit, who makes for a spectacular villain).

65%

-_Gimly_

Weak story for a movie with a huge budget.

Honestly, I think you will only like it if you are a Treky. In no other way you will be able to get any logic out of it and the fact that the Captain of the space ship is the first to get out to do field work.