J.J.
Abrams’s 2009 reboot of Star Trek is,
for me, the ideal blockbuster. It develops characters who are charming and
utterly worthy of the audience’s attention and sympathy and allows them to
drive the action sequences, which are, while not particularly innovative, at
least not mind-numbingly tedious and carry actual weight. Just look at that
heartbreakingly brilliant opening scene as evidence that the filmmakers’
understood the rich power of emotion, even in a movie stuffed with CGI, and the
importance of making an audience feel
before they can be expected to care. Eschewing the notion that escapist
entertainment must be brainless and without substance, the film satisfies the
heart, mind and pulse, appealing to both diehard Trekkies and franchise virgins
like me, to those who simply want to relax and those looking for real quality
in their popcorn movies. A sense of fun, lovable characters, excitement and an
honest emotional core? What more could you possibly want? Abrams’s sequel strives
to find that same delicate balance, but while Star Trek into Darkness is an enjoyable enough flick as it stands,
it falls short of the expectations set by the original.
In a way, the return of Captain
Jim Kirk, Spock and crew falls prey to Hollywood’s “bigger is better”
mentality, though it suffers from this less so than something like, say, Iron Man 2 or any number of other
blockbuster sequels. With the
protagonists’ origin story taken care of, Abrams tackles a more expansive,
ambitious plot that focuses less on his characters’ personal growth and
relationships and more on external conflicts. This isn’t to say that they
completely ditched the character-centric emotionality that highlighted the
original, but rather, that the quieter, more dramatic moments scattered
throughout have less breathing room and feel more like segue ways from one
action set piece to the next, making the proceedings seem rushed and overly
hectic. Covering themes of violence and revenge, loyalty and sacrifice,
leadership and responsibility, not to mention the usual intuition/logic
dichotomy inherent to Kirk’s and Spock’s relationship and an overt but
relatively basic 9/11 allegory, the film bursts at the seams with a variety of
ideas but doesn’t take or have the time to explore them as thoroughly as it
could have. A couple of twists that I won’t describe here and shifting further
complicate matters, and certain characters’ motives aren’t always clear, making
it seem like some events happen just because the movie needs them to, rather
than being causally linked to each other. Perhaps a repeat viewing would
clarify some issues, but the convoluted, bloated narrative stands in stark
contrast to the stripped-down simplicity of the previous movie.
What could have been a complete
mess, however, is saved largely by the presence of a strong, intensely
charismatic cast. Led by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, who reprise their roles
as, respectively, Captain James T. Kirk and Spock, the ensemble mostly consists
of familiar faces returning from Abrams’s first Trek movie, and suffice it to say that they are all as perfect for
their iconic parts as they were last time. Newcomers Peter Weller, who got the
role thanks to his absolutely lovely performance in the J.J. Abrams-created Fringe, and Alice Eve are adequate as
Captain Marcus and his science and tech-savvy daughter, Carol; the lack of
meaningful depth to their characters can be attributed more to the writing than
any notable failings in their acting abilities. Likewise, even many of the
returning characters, like Anton Yelchin’s Chekov, John Cho’s Mr. Sulu (who at
least gets a pretty sweet moment in the U.S.S. Enterprise Captain’s chair) and
even Zoe Saldana as Uhura, could have used more screen time, though the sheer
size of the cast meant that their ability to concentrate on most of them was
limited.
The standout performance of the movie arguably belongs to Benedict
Cumberbatch, who portrays the mysterious and sinister George Harrison.
Interestingly enough, the biggest weakness of the previous Star Trek – the antagonist (Eric Bana was passable as Nero, but
it’s telling that I had to do a Google search just to remember the character’s
name) – is perhaps its sequel’s greatest strength. The name “George Harrison” turns out to be an
alias for Khan, who first appeared of course in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and is widely agreed to be among
the Star Trek franchise’s best
villains, in a twist that might’ve been surprising had it not been blatantly
telegraphed in the movie’s many trailers. I’m not sure what it says that Abrams
and co. crafted a memorable villain by recycling an old one, but then again, Heath
Ledger’s Joker was a revival as well. Anyway, although Cumberbatch’s casting is
rather controversial, considering that he’s a white British actor taking on one
of Hollywood’s few iconic roles for an Indian actor, it’s hard to complain,
because the guy is just so damn good. With his dark, beady eyes and a face
capable of being completely expressionless on the surface yet conveying the
swiftly, constantly working mind underneath (a trait that also helps him
succeed as Sherlock Holmes on the BBC TV show that made him a star),
Cumberbatch commands the screen whenever he’s present without completely dominating
his costars. He exudes menace of both a physical and an intellectual kind,
important for a character that can toy with his enemies’ minds and also crush
their skulls with his bare hands. His Khan is a ruthless, carefully engineered
machine, always calculating his next move or how to manipulate a given
situation, like a slightly less robotic Terminator. Even when he allows emotion
to seep through that icy façade, you sense that it’s manufactured and he’s
still in complete control, that he’s laying a trap and just waiting for the
other characters to step in it.
Plus, he seriously knows how to rock a badass trench coat.
Star Trek into Darkness lacks the freshness of its predecessor. References
and jokes that were surprising the first time around feel ever-so-slightly
tired and forced this time, and thanks to an unwieldy plot, it does not
completely capture the breezy fun of the previous film. However, the effortless,
delightful chemistry of the cast and a general sense that the movie isn’t
taking itself too seriously, while avoiding self-parody and maintaining the
franchise’s wide-eyed, earnest tone, makes this U.S.S. Enterprise voyage one
still worth taking.
Photo Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment