“Star Trek†good, not great

Navigate Left
Navigate Right

Navigate Left
Navigate Right

Alex LaSalle

In 2009 J.J. Abrams surprised everyone by crafting a “Star Trek” reboot that didn’t suck. In fact, it was really good, though the sequel falls just short.

“Star Trek Into Darkness” continues the tale of Kirk, Spock and the gang on the USS Enterprise, this time chasing down former Starfleet agent John Harrison. Harrison is not who he seems. Shenanigans at zero gravity ensue. The plot mostly serves to bring us around to the action, which is fine since the action is remarkably entertaining.

There are fights in space ranging from giant ship-to-ship battles to classic punching and kicking. The action and special effects are top-notch and Abrams once again proves himself to be a talented director.

The acting is also solid, with Chris Pine’s Kirk showing more depth and a worthy effort from the rest of the crew. As the case tends to be, Benedict Cumberbatch’s villain has charisma that the good guys lack.

Unfortunately, “Star Trek Into Darkness” is simply a good movie. There are smart ideas floating around, sure, but every time an interesting idea is brought up, it is eventually forgotten for the sake of blockbuster action.

 Cumberbatch’s character is given an interesting backstory, but it is never really addressed. Spock’s balance between his Vulcan and human sides is a constant theme, but the movie never really tries to do anything with it.

There is also a copious amount of fan-service thrown in as well. Phasers are set to stun. Karl Urban’s Bones McCoy reminds you that he is a doctor, dammit, not a missile technician. There are even tribbles.

Ultimately, “Star Trek Into Darkness” is a competent, entertaining movie. It might prosper, but I doubt it will live very long.