Star Trek into Darkness

If you really wanted to, you could say that Abrams created a multi-layered, sophisticated revival of Star Trek, in which he strengthened and updated all aspects of the classic series, not only its idealism and ethos, but also its campiness. However, it is rather more appropriate to admit that the second new Star Trek has some fundamental problems that make its unintentionally ridiculous elements stand out, with the terrifying replay of all of the main participants at the fore. The script is the film’s Achilles heel, as it is built around a single major twist connected with the revelation of the main antagonist’s name and the resulting variations on the iconic moments of the classic Star Trek films. Other than those elements, however, the film offers nothing else that would attract the viewer’s attention and thus strengthen the effectiveness of those moments. If with the new Star Wars Abrams sponsored the creation of great fan fiction, which inventively varied, overturned, updated and enriched the canon, Star Trek Into Darkness is a prime example of sloppy fanfiction that merely varies its template in a non-conceptual way, but does not bring anything new or independently functional into it. We could theoretically be thankful that Star Trek has thus paradoxically become a frightening example from which the folks at Disney learned and therefore entrusted only the first of the new sequels to Abrams. The second Star Trek showed that Abrams is great at creating new and clever variations of old worlds, but he unfortunately does not know what to do with them the second time around. (12/16/2016)

I loved the first movie of this restarted Star Trek series. It was full of action, good effects and it was fun, which is something I was grateful for. Four years ago, it was fun to discover a movie like this, but now these blockbusters are a dime in a dozen and it’s hard to find a really good one. But this one was great. It might not match up to the first movie’s quality, but it definitely comes close. Because Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely perfect as a villain. And J.J. Abrams is an amazing director, so apart from digital orgasms, you also get plot twists and you get to build an even stronger relationship with actors such as Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto or Simon Pegg, which all makes me happy as a clam. You can clearly see the Star Trek fans in this movie. It’s just a shame that this movie has too little in common with the original decent Star Trek and a good portion of the fans can’t forgive the creators for that. If they only looked past it, they would enjoy a pleasant popcorn fun that has a message behind it, you just have to open up to it enough. (07/21/2014)

The screenwriters couldn’t resist. Honestly, it was just too enticing, but hats off to Abrams for saving fans from themselves (clever differences in the trailers) because he knows the value of a good secret. The story of Into Darkness is a solid political sci-fi thriller, working perfectly with the main characters and visually provokes nothing less that amazement. Both Kirk and Spock are given equal space. The divergence from the primary story line, caused by Nero’s intervention completely turns around some events and changes the context of certain events to a chilling extent. I’m afraid the creators just can’t afford to do this next time. The so acclaimed bad guy with a mug like Benedict Cumberbatch lives up to his reputation both mentally and physically (his hands are like skull-crackers). And Peter Weller is cool! - If Spock were here, and I were there, what would he do? - He’d let you die. (06/10/2013)

Star Trek shattered the traditional concept of space opera with all its naivety and old rituals and boldly stepped toward the younger generation and those who had remained outside the world created by Gene Roddenberry. It resulted in an entertaining blockbuster that is modern, dynamic, and full of action, battles, memorable lines, and tension - simply a likable popcorn movie for mass audiences. The sequel follows a similar spirit, although it reduced the number of memorable lines and humor, replacing them with pathos and, in some cases, pure sentiment (yes, brave space heroes are not ashamed of shedding tears), and overall the film slightly lost the lightness of its predecessor. On the other hand, it is by no means a failure; many sequels struggle to even come close to the original film's quality (Guy Ritchie could tell you all about that). The film's generous production, breathtaking special effects scenes, the action following one after another, and the fast pace prevent viewers from noticing the gaps in logic and the simplicity of the story. This type of blockbuster is not meant for contemplation or reflection, but for quick consumption, and it fulfills this role more than adequately. Overall impression: 80%. (07/09/2013)

I can hardly abstract from the emotional factor because, as in the previous episode, I felt at home swallowing Abrams' upgraded poetics of the rigid Federation and the less-clamped crew of the Enterprise to the fullest. In some ways, the flight into darkness is a little less consummate than its predecessor - it was actually atypically brisk, functional, dynamically connected and clever for a prologue. He built the foundations of a new mythology, paid homage to the old, and economically sketched the new chemistry of the characters. The sequel toils more with the explanation of some motivations and events, the last instance being deus ex machina, or a reference outside the world of film (to The Wrath of Khan, to the series episode "Space Seed", to the first Abrams ST, to the accompanying comics, etc.). As a result, Into Darkness may seem like a nerd encyclopedia with poor logic. To some extent, I agree. Anyway, if we abstract from the occasional naivety, unsuccessfully pointed dialogue, and a certain sparsity (or rather evasion) of the script, the film simply works. The film elegantly uses the established motifs, cleverly re-interprets familiar events with a raster of "changed reality", all while not forgetting to work with a key element of the new ST: the relationship between Kirk and Spock. In many ways, it surprisingly brings them together (fatherly motif, anger) while not only acting as a derivative of the original film duo. Cumberbatch in the role of Khan is probably the most successful transcript - he was able to combine a certain human fragility with the theatricality of Ricardo Montalbán, and he also acts as a catalyst: in some ways he is similar to Spock (superior physical and mental abilities), and in some ways to Kirk (obvious interest in improvisation and problems with self-control and order). In any case, he puts them both in a situation where they have to reconsider their basic attitudes and views on their service. Fortunately, he does not resemble in any way the "destructive fateful" villains that Christopher Nolan so masterfully constructed, but he is actually old-fashioned at his core (good old fashioned revenge). The new ST is primarily an attraction. At times, it seems that the obsessive fondness for thinking and rendering that the Star Trek series is famous for was set aside and was replaced by pure dynamics. Nevertheless, observing the ingenuity and dynamism of often parallel and precisely constructed actions brings almost infantile pleasure. So does experiencing bursts of nostalgia from familiar scenes that shine again and, despite a certain rational calculation, still work and enrich the new story. A film where everything is in place for me. Sometimes it's a bit mysterious how it got there, but ST simply offers enough for a viewer raised on Rodenberry's world to come to terms with it. (06/10/2013)