Star Trek Into Darkness Benedict Cumberbatch


Khan is a bad villain, badly executed.
The music booms. The camera pulls in, and Benedict Cumberbatch announces to the audience that, indeed, he is KHAN. Kirk, Spock and Bones shrug and wonder, who’s that? A lot of “Into Darkness” feels like cheap fan-service, but the fact of simply featuring a character with a superficial resemblance to Ricardo Montalban’s legendary “Trek” adversary feels like the writers assuming that merely tossing in elements from “Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan” counts as storytelling. There’s literally zero reason for Khan to adopt the moniker of John Harrison except to allow a reveal to the audience, an audience who given that ‘Wrath’ was thirty years and ten “Treks” ago, probably don’t give a shit if he’s Khan or not because, like the Enterprise crew, they mostly don’t know who or what a Khan is. And for fans, Khan’s smarts have been replaced by brute force, a drastic miscalculation for several reasons, one being that the chance to match pig-headed pugilist Kirk against an actual thinker is a dramatic contrast that interferes with the constant bang-boom-pow of the story. Credit the creative forces behind “Into Darkness” for their naked dismissal of the need for new ideas: seeking information about Khan, Spock dials up Spock Prime, a move akin to simply popping in the DVD of “The Wrath Of Khan.” Furthermore, it’s never really clear what Khan wants -- to kill things? -- what he believes, or why he does any of the things he does. Not every villain needs a great backstory -- Heath Ledger’s Joker, for one -- but whilst Cumberbatch is fine, he’s hardly mind-blowing in the role partly because he doesn’t have anything interesting to play with. The film hints halfway through that perhaps Khan is the wronged party, and might be on the side of the angels, which might have been a worthwhile surprise. As it is Khan only makes Eric Bana’s villain from the original “Star Trek” look more compelling.

Most of the cast don't have anything to do.
This was probably also true of some of the original movies but in theory "Star Trek" should be an ensemble piece. To an even greater degree than first film, everyone except Spock and Kirk fade into the background. Simon Pegg fares the best as Scotty; again, he's perplexingly kept to the sidelines for much of the film, but he's allowed to do more than just be comic relief, and pulls it off nicely. Karl Urban's Bones on the other hand, such a highlight of the first film, has a few decent quips but little else of any substance to do. Zoe Saldana as Uhura pretty much has to watch the boys get on with the action (see below), and neither John Cho's Sulu or Anton Yelchin's Chekov have a single memorable moment. It's all well and good casting the bridge of the Enterprise with such talented actors, but there's not much point in doing so if you're not going to use them.

Star Trek Into Darkness, Cumberbatch
The film's 9/11 references leave a sour taste, and the politics are muddled.
One of the more clunky and cumbersome aspects of "Star Trek Into Darkness" is its politics.  In part it’s because a terrorist attack is seen as a gee-whiz moment early in the film (when a Starfleet member is coerced into blowing up a building) or because the overtly 9/11-inspired climax sees the giant Vengeance ship taking down buildings in downtown San Francisco (this is all the more uncomfortable when you consider co-writer Bob Orci’s Twitter persona as a 9/11 truther and conspiracy fanatic.) The imagery alone is tricky, but the politics become even messier when you think that the movie is really a metaphor for American military intervention overseas. This is most notable in the scenario that the Dick Cheney-esque Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) cooks up, which involves firing stealth missiles at a potentially retaliatory civilization, which would trigger a long and costly intergalactic war. Like “Iron Man 3,” it’s flirting with real-world ideas -- the kind of thing that the original series did -- but these notions never really solidify into anything noteworthy or relatable and instead come across as half-formed (and not particularly timely). We're not against the idea of using real-world parallels in blockbusters -- Spielberg invoked 9/11 effectively in "War of the Worlds," for instance, but it has to be thought out, and here it just feels cheap.

Kirk's death is cheap and terrible.
Something that the trailers had been hinting at from early on was the possibility of one of the crew of the Enterprise dying. Was Spock destined to be deceased by the time the credits rolled around, like the last time he tangled with Khan, in "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan?" In fact Abrams flipped expectations (in a way that pretty much everyone guessed, to be honest) by killing off Kirk, who succumbs to radiation poisoning having heroically restarted the plummeting Enterprise. We can see why it was a tempting choice but it was a pretty terrible one, all things considered. For one, having been the lead of the film, and having set up his conflict with Khan, it takes him out of the game for the film's conclusion. For another, Abrams doesn't even have the courage of his convictions from 'Wrath,' which at least left Spock's resurrection until the next movie. Here, Kirk's barely got time to get cold before he's up and kicking again, and it lessens the weight of his sacrifice. These are only just the beginning of the problems here. For one, the device of Khan's magic blood is so lazy and so half-heartedly set up that you figure that writers Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci must have thought it up in order to get out of work early. For another, Spock chases down Khan for his blood when he has 72 perfectly good deep-frozen spacemen that he could use for the same thing. Finally, with Khan & co still on tap, Bones has essentially cured death, and it's pretty much robbed any future movies of any real stakes. It's a disaster on pretty much every level, to be honest.

Star Trek Into Darkness
The sexual politics are prehistoric
The original "Star Trek" television series was hailed for its color-blindness and its gender equality, and Abrams has, on TV at least, been behind some strong female characters. 2009's "Star Trek" seemed to live up to both of these, introducing an Uhura (Zoe Saldana) who could kick ass with the best of them – she engages Kirk in a technical debate while they're both in their underwear. It was cute and playful and sexy and moved the plot along. What's more – she was given a complicated inner life, especially in dealing with her Vulcan boyfriend Spock. In "Star Trek Into Darkness," Uhura's role is minimized greatly, much to the detriment of the film. When she does show up, she's mostly complaining about Spock's indifference towards her, but doesn't stand up for herself (instead he gives some confusing speech about choosing not to connect with his emotions or something.) Worse yet is when Alice Eve (who is fine in the part, it should be said) shows up as one of the more important canonical 'Trek' characters, Dr. Carol Marcus, the mother to Kirk's son. In this movie, she is some kind of "doctor" who sneaks aboard the ship under a fake name and takes Scotty's job as a scientific advisor. She then gets kidnapped and spends much of the movie hobbling around and screaming like a B-movie queen. But the real reason Eve is there is to take her clothes off, in a nakedly leery way that seems to have happened exclusively so it can be put in the trailer.

Star Trek Into Darkness, Zachary Quinto
There's no sense of awe
For some reason, despite Abrams' typically ace direction, much of the awe of the original 2009 "Star Trek" has largely dissipated. There were moments in that first film that simply took your breath away, like in the opening prologue when Abrams' chose to strips way the sound effects and concentrated on Michael Giacchino's score, to name but one. Whilst there are moments like that in "Star Trek Into Darkness," they don’t happen with nearly the same regularity. Part of this has to do with how much of the movie is set on earth, which instantly shrinks the movie's sense of scope and scale (it feels like a lot of this movie takes place inside office buildings and conference rooms). Abrams directed "Star Trek Into Darkness" really well, but after the first movie was over, our screening erupted into spontaneous applause. The same didn't happen this time around.

Star Trek Into Darkness, JJ Abrams
It’s not about anything.
Nay-sayers of the original film -- particularly those who were fans of the earliest incarnations of Trek -- protested that for all its bells and whistles, there wasn’t much substance to it. That was probably fair, but the film at least had well-drawn character arcs to make you feel that you were enjoying more than just things exploding. As we’ve said, “Into Darkness” fails to make much headway in terms of political subtext, but perhaps more importantly, it doesn’t really move the characters any further forward either. Kirk learns how to become a leader, which he’s already learnt in the previous film, and then mostly forgotten. Spock gets in touch with his feelings, which, again, we’d mostly seen in the previous film. Even Khan is pretty much just a merciless, fanatical killing machine, which isn’t wildly interesting. For an episode of a syndicated TV series, it’s fine to leave your characters in the same place as you started, but for a movie that happens once every four years, that’s hardly enough to maintain our interest.

The fan service.
JJ Abrams famously outed himself as a non-Trekker, but you wouldn't know it from all the Easter eggs added here by the film's three screenwriters: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof. While "Star Trek Into Darkness" is meant to play for a broader audience than those who will debate "Kronos" vs. "Qo'noS," the three scribes appealed to the diehard fans by inserting plenty of nods to the original series as well as "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” including the appearance of a Tribble, Alice Eve's Carol Marcus and Chekhov's reaction to switching from a yellow to a red shirt. That’s all well and good when you can slip them in every so often, but when you’re directly interfering with the narrative -- such as making the villain’s backstory the plot of a forty-year-old TV episode that 80% of the audience haven’t seen, or by having Spock shout “Khaaaaaaan” in a way that, if you haven’t seen ‘Wrath,’ seems kind of silly -- in order to pay fan service, you’re doing it wrong.

But what do you think? Agree? Disagree? What were your highlights and lowlights? Let us know in the comments section below.

- Drew Taylor, Gabe Toro, Kimber Myers, Oliver Lyttelton