Should I Watch..? 'Star Trek Into Darkness'

Updated on July 10, 2018
Benjamin Cox profile image

Benjamin is a full-time carer and former volunteer DJ at his local hospital radio station. He has been reviewing films for over ten years.

Poster for "Star Trek Into Darkness"
Poster for "Star Trek Into Darkness" | Source

What's the big deal?

Star Trek Into Darkness is an action sci-fi film released in 2013 and is the twelfth film in the Star Trek film franchise. It is directed by J.J. Abrams and is a sequel to the 2009 reboot Star Trek - the film's cast includes Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin and John Cho. The film sees Kirk and his crew sent to the Klingon homeworld Kronos to intercept a former Starfleet officer-turned-terrorist. The film also features Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve, Peter Weller and Leonard Nimoy in his final filmed appearance. The film was released to a warm reception from critics and it became a hit at the box office as well with global takings in excess of $467 million - making it the most successful movie in the series so far.

Watchable

3 stars for Star Trek Into Darkness

What's it about?

Kirk is stripped of the captaincy of the USS Enterprise after breaking the Prime Directive by saving the lives of primitive inhabitants on the planet Nibiru. Finding himself First Officer to the Enterprise's previous captain Admiral Pike, Kirk is called to a top level meeting after a terrorist bombing of a Starfleet archive in London. The man responsible is renegade Starfleet operative John Harrison who hijacks the meeting with his own vessel and opens fire, killing a number of Starfleet personnel including Admiral Pike.

With Kirk now filling the role of Captain of the Enterprise, he approaches Admiral Marcus and begs to be allowed to pursue Harrison to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos. Knowing that a Starfleet team in Klingon space could be considered an act of war, Marcus agrees but only if the Enterprise use a prototype long-range torpedo developed by Starfleet's shadowy Section 31. Setting off after Harrison, Kirk and his crew are about to discover that not everything they've been told is true...

Trailer

Main Cast

Actor
Role
Chris Pine
Captain James T. Kirk
Zachary Quinto
Commander Spock
Benedict Cumberbatch
John Harrison
Zoe Saldana
Lieutenant Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg
Lt. Comm. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
Karl Urban
Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Alice Eve
Dr Carol Wallace
Peter Weller
Fleet Admiral Alexander Marcus
Bruce Greenwood
Admiral Christopher Pike

Technical Info

Director
J.J. Abrams
Screenplay
Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman & Damon Lindelof *
Running Time
132 minutes
Release Date (UK)
9th May, 2013
Genre
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Academy Award Nomination
Best Visual Effects
* based on "Star Trek" created by Gene Roddenberry
Cumberbatch's baddie feels underwritten and uninspired, despite the supposed plot twist because you can see it coming a lightyear away.
Cumberbatch's baddie feels underwritten and uninspired, despite the supposed plot twist because you can see it coming a lightyear away. | Source

What's to like?

Anyone familiar with Abrams' reboot will know what to expect here - lots of fancy CG, plenty of in-jokes and references and a cast struggling to shake off the portrayals of the original TV crew. Sure enough, the film has plenty of the first two but the cast actually acquit themselves pretty well. Cumberbatch is superb as Harrison, combining the chilling calmness of Hannibal Lecter with the more violent aspects of The Joker. Quinto also does well as Spock, which isn't easy considering how iconic Leonard Nimoy's portrayal was (and how much this "alternate timeline" harks back to it). Others such as Pine and Pegg aren't there just yet but there are signs of progress.

The big budget CG fills every inch of the screen with explosions, phaser fire, sprawling cities of the future and distant worlds and star systems. I like the look of the new Enterprise which contains plenty of nods to the original show from the Sixties (like I say, Abrams loves a reference) while still feeling contemporary enough for younger viewers. And the action, which has so upset traditional Trekkers, isn't just about gun fights and fisticuffs - there is a thrilling sequence featuring characters drifting at high speed through speed loaded with shattered debris while the opening volcano sequence is also exciting as well.

Fun Facts

  • Cumberbatch recorded his screen-test on an iPhone in the kitchen of a friend of his. His character wasn't revealed to him until a week after he was cast - security was so tight that the studio rep had the script handcuffed to him between Los Angeles and London.
  • Paramount wanted the film shot in 3D while Abrams preferred to shoot in IMAX. The two compromised and as a result, this is the first feature film in history to be shot in IMAX and converted to 3D in post-production.
  • Amazingly, this marked the first time in the franchise's history that shooting took place outside of the US. The crew went to Iceland for certain special effects sequences.

What's not to like?

I've always said that Star Wars is for action lovers while Star Trek is for more serious fans of sci-fi. And here's where the problem with this film lurks like a Cardassian sniper - Abrams is now in charge of both sci-fi franchises and this almost feels like a trial run for The Force Awakens. And seeing as that film basically is a remake of A New Hope (oh yes, it is - don't argue with me!), this is essentially a remake of another Star Trek movie - one which is both fondly remembered and also much better. I won't spoil it for anyone (although the Internet has plenty to say on this) but ripping off a film many fans will be familiar with isn't that smart an idea. It definitely didn't fool me, anyway.

Some of the effects are almost overpowering at times while at others, the film manages to underwhelm - something no sci-fi film should ever do. Take the final sequence in San Francisco which provides the viewer with more destruction than Independence Day ever managed before having characters conduct a chase sequence on a couple of random flying vehicles. It lacks that crucial spark of imagination that typified much of Roddenberry's output - although it did manage to shoehorn in the most pointless underwear shot I can ever recall seeing in a film so the old man would have approved of that! But generally, the film is a dark and depressing film that stomps over the traditional exploration of deep space and settles for being a standard sci-fi shooter. Shame.

Quinto's performance and character arc is lost amid the CG battles and destruction
Quinto's performance and character arc is lost amid the CG battles and destruction | Source

Should I watch it?

Depends on your point of view. If you're new to the series or prefer your sci-fi films to be about battling spaceships then you'll probably get a real kick out of this. Long-time fans, however, will feel like they've been kicked in the teeth - Star Trek Into Darkness has none of the charm or smarts of the original series, instead concentrating on being a rough-and-tumble exercise in CG violence and inexplicable sequences. A poor script doesn't help while some of the cast still can't quite make the roles their own. A missed opportunity.

Great For: people bored of endless Star Wars episodes, casual sci-fi fans, Internet perverts

Not So Great For: fans of the Star Trek TV show, plot-hole spotters, convention debates

What else should I watch?

Abrams' reverence for the original series is fully understood - the likes of Shatner, Nimoy and the rest reunited for six films after the cancellation of the TV show. Blasting back onto our screens in 1979 with the slightly odd Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the original crew had the most success with the second, third and sixth films. The Wrath Of Khan is a superb thriller with arguably the series' most iconic villain, The Search For Spock combined mystery, action and Christopher Lloyd as another classic baddie but the best of the lot was The Undiscovered Country. The last full outing was a brilliant and exciting piece of cinema with quality visuals, performances and a story befitting of the retiring cast.

For whatever reason, the season seemed to stall once the crew from The Next Generation took over. Despite the likes of Patrick Stewart heading the crew against perennial bad guy Malcolm McDowell in Star Trek Generations, the film was a mess of ideas and things never really improved afterwards. The death-knell was Star Trek: Nemesis in 2002 which signalled the end of the series as we knew it and left the way open for Abrams to pitch his reboot.

© 2016 Benjamin Cox

Soap Box

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Benjamin Cox profile imageAUTHOR

      Benjamin Cox 

      8 months ago from Hampshire, UK

      Thank you for not considering me a Trekkie-Dunce! The beauty of cinema is that each viewer will take something different away from the experience - one man's meat is another man's poison. Every one of my reviews is always written from my own perspective because, frankly, I would be insulted if someone presumed to know my own opinions before I have formed them myself. And from my perspective, I enjoyed this film overall - the visual update works a treat and the cast give it their all. My only real issue is with this supposed timeline borrowing story and characters from the original. It merely felt as though the film-makers were attempting to remake "Wrath Of Khan" (my personal favourite) and not inject new ideas to the series, something I desperately wish they would. I criticised "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" for similar reasons so don't presume I'm simply bashing Trekkers.

    • profile image

      Hawkeye Pierce 

      8 months ago

      I am both a die hard fan of the original series and I'm crazy for the Abrams' Kelvin Timeline films which restored energy and political thinking and moral analogies and great fun-as-all-get-out moviemaking to a "franchise" (I hate that word; the best mainstream studio movies, dramatic concepts, etc. aspire to Art, not, generally, generally speaking to fast food) that had become moribund over time. And of the three, INTO DARKNESS is both my clear favorite and, I think, an objectively and generally speaking a great film. (I rank it alongside KHAN, The VOYAGE HOME and TMP as the best of all the films and of all of STAR TREK.) I would gladly go on and get into specifics and in-depth analysis and argument but I won't waste your time. I am glad that you at least consider it "Watchable" unlike a lot of Trekkie-Dunces.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, reelrundown.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://reelrundown.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)