Star Trek Into Darkness Movie Review

Back in 2009, J. J. Abrams took on the tricky task of not only appeasing a notoriously judgmental fan base but of winning over a new generation of movie goers with a relaunch of the 1960's cult classic TV series, Star Trek. Four years later we get a much anticipated sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), and it's quite a ride!

The USS Enterprise and her crew have been sent to a distant planet to observe a primitive civilization. Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) violates the Prime Directive when the life of First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) is jeopardized, exposing the Enterprise to the planet's civilization during the rescue. Called back to Earth, Kirk is demoted to First Officer of the Enterprise with his mentor Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) resuming command. The two attend an emergency meeting at Starfeet Command to discuss the bombing of the secret Section 31 installation in London, perpetrated by former Starfleet agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). The meeting is attacked by Harrison who flees to the Klingon home world, Kronos, leaving Pike dead. Kirk is reinstated as the Enterprise Captain, and is given special permission from Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to hunt down and kill Harrison with 72 long-range prototype photon torpedoes. This violates several of Starfleet's usual codes of ethics. With some trepidation, Spock, Uhura (Zoe Saldana), "Bones" (Karl Urban), "Scotty" (Simon Pegg), Sulu (John Cho), and Checkov (Anton Yelchin) follow Kirk as he leads the way to seek out Harrison, the one-man-weapon-of-mass-destruction.

Into Darkness picks up where Star Trek left off. In the previous film, the character driven plot revolves around Kirk and Spock being at odds with one another. Now the two have found a means of working together. They still have polar opposite personalities, but now they have an understanding that Kirk is the captain and Spock is the first officer and should have Kirk's back at all times. Spock does have Kirk's back but "Vulcans don't lie" and sometimes when Kirk breaks the rules, Spock is obligated to address that. It's a logical progression of the two characters' development and we get to see how this interesting dynamic brings the two of them closer together as friends. This relationship is the heart and soul of Star Trek; the ambiguous compound of rivalry, warmth, and interspecies misunderstanding. There are plenty of other characters who are well developed and make significant contributions to the story; it doesn't exclusively revolve around Kirk and Spock. The whole Enterprise crew gets multiple moments to shine.

The visual effects are brilliant. There are massive explosions, outstanding chases, beautiful scenery created through CGI, and the sets for the interior of the Enterprise look amazing. I loved seeing the Enterprise go into warp, buildings collapse, and space ships crash. Everything was shown in glorious detail. There were no shaky cameras to obscure details, and we got plenty of wide shots to show the magnitude of the damage. Into Darkness spares no expense on its stunning visuals nor it's riveting action.

There's an interesting theme that lends itself to a cautionary tale of real world politics. Yes, Harrison is a great villain, but I think the real "enemy" is the prospect of war, or rather how to best handle the onset of war. Kirk and Spock represent the two arguments about war; what is expedient and what is right. They have specific orders that are not in harmony with Starfleet's values, and would probably start a war with the fearsome Klingons. Spock readily puts forth the counter-argument to the crew's mission to destroy the fugitive Harrison; aren't they morally obligated to capture the suspect and bring him to trial instead? Our heroes are often set upon by the dilemma of choosing between moral ideals and making hasty retaliations. We aren't necessarily given a specific answer to the question, but it should make the viewer think about their country's stance in the face of contemporary international conflicts.

I think Into Darkness has a few more Star Trek references from the old TV show and movies than the first movie did. If you're a hardcore Trekkie, you'll notice lots throwback references throughout the movie. There's even some classic Star Trek lines delivered in new and unexpected ways, which was a very creative implementation. But even if you lived under a rock and never watched Star Trek before, you won't become lost watching Into Darkness. I watched Into Darkness with a couple of non-Trekkie friends and the only thing they were confused about is what a tribble was, and that is at best a detail of miniscule importance.

Star Trek Into Darkness was incredibly fun. I didn't think it was quite as good as its predecessor, but it was a good solid movie. J. J. Abrams knows how to construct a good blockbuster with a perfect blend of incredible action and meaningful characters. We are shown an excellent script which brought us some good dialogue. The visual effects are gorgeous and detailed, the action is exciting and well presented, and the classic Star Trek references are delightful. This will keep old school Trekkies and noobz captivated and enthralled.  Star Trek Into Darkness is worth catching on the big screen, and is worthy of a blu-ray purchase once it becomes available.

There are plenty of Star Trek movies out. Star Trek Into Darkness is the 12th. Do you have a favorite? Comment below and let me know!

Super 8 Movie Review

When the 2011 movie Super 8 hit theaters, I saw lots of jokes online about how Super 8 was essentially E.T. (1982) with lens flares. Now that I’ve seen this movie that J.J. Abrams wrote and directed,  I can’t really think of a good argument against the critical jab at this movie. But to its credit, it has a great feeling of nostalgia.

In the summer of 1979, a group of 13-year-old boys set out to make a zombie movie on their Super 8 mm film camera. Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is still grieving the recent loss of his mother, but still agrees to help his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) shoot a movie. They enlist the help of Alice (Elle Fanning), an older girl who drives them to shooting locations and acts as their film’s leading lady. While shooting a scene at a train station at night, they witness a horrible train crash caused by a truck driving towards the train on the track. Narrowly escaping with their lives, the kids return home agreeing to never speak of the event. The next morning the Air Force is prowling around their little town and cleaning up the train wreckage. Over the next couple of days, unusual disappearances and inexplicable events begin taking place all over town. Pet dogs are found many miles away from town, people disappear, microwaves and car engines go missing, gas stations are wrecked, etc. The local Deputy Sheriff Jack Lamb (Kyle Chandler), Joe’s distant and depressive father, tries to uncover the truth to no avail. Once Charles’s film is finally developed they find that their footage caught something on camera that doesn’t appear to be from Earth.

J.J. Abrams is known for the TV series Lost and the movies Mission: Impossible III (2006) and Star Trek (2009). Super 8 is his first original film; not a sequel or reboot of a previously established film franchise. It seems as though Abrams hasn’t quite developed his own style yet and sought too much advice from the film’s producer Stephen Spielberg. A lot of Super 8 feels like a nostalgic early Spielberg movie in terms of character, setting, and even some camera work. Don’t misunderstand; I love Spielberg and his movies. It just seems like Abrams felt too insecure about his own story and directing, that the big name producer’s input over-insinuated itself in the movie.

Super 8 has an oft over-used story element where the kids have found something important and are piecing the puzzle together and the parents refuse to listen to them. When this is done poorly, it makes the characters and story unrealistic, glorifying children as something more than their stage of development would merit and making experienced adults appear abnormally stupid and narrow-minded. Super 8 did it the right way. The kids are obviously in over their heads, they are scared (one kid even throws up regularly when frightened), they don’t have the ability to oppose the powers that be, they lack experience to know how to handle these situations, and they try to tell the adults who would be better suited for the task. The kids act like kids in every realistic way. I have to praise Abrams for that.  And the adults aren’t listening to the kids because they don’t take the kids seriously. They are in the middle of a crisis, everyone is panicking and the adults don’t want to stop and hear about what the kids found on their camera.

While Super 8 has some great CGI and a great train derailment scene, the movie focuses more on the human drama between the characters. I like a good character driven story, but the characters aren’t that deep or complex. Some of the characters are given one or two shticks that are reiterated every time they are on screen. This is occasionally funny, such as the borderline pyromaniac kid who is supposed to be in charge of their film’s special effects and explosions. The kid actors do a decent job with their roles, but they aren’t going to win Oscars for it. Because the characters are simple and some even cliché, the character drama isn’t always captivating. That, compounded by the fact that the good action scenes are few and far between, only makes the movie drag out longer than is necessary.

All in all, Super 8 was an okay movie. It seems to be made for adults to remind them of movies they loved as kids. This isn’t something I’d show to young audiences; there’s a lot of intense frightening imagery, profanity (mostly from the kids), violence, and drug use to truly be a family film. People die in this movie, and the kids are constantly in peril. If you liked E.T., The Goonies (1985), Star Trek, or Mission: Impossible III you’ll probably enjoy Super 8. I did like it, but not enough to want to own a copy of. It’s a good renter.

What did you think of Super 8? Did you like it? Was it more than just “E.T. with lens flare?” Comment below and tell me why!