Star Trek Into Darkness Review

Damn that generic title. Luckily, it's the worst thing about it.

I'm a very rare breed of Star Trek fan in that director J. J. Abrams' original 2009 reboot Star Trek is actually what converted me to the franchise. Before that, I had always been a Star Wars stalwart, preferring Jedis, Death Stars, and grand pyrotechnics over the headier and more philosophical take on science fiction spawned by Gene Roddenberry. Then Abrams comes along, and suddenly, Star Trek very much resembles the other, with big action setpieces, musings on destiny and war, and a lot of good old-fashioned fun. After viewing it, I proceeded to watch what many (including myself) to still be the high watermark of Star Trek (give or take a "The Best of Both Worlds"): Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Without ever having scene an episode of the television series, I was immediately drawn into the world of Kirk, Spock, and the moral quandaries, fearsome foes, and themes of life of death. As such, I have now seen most episodes of the TV series (along with the follow-ups), and all of the films. And Abrams' sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, represents the first time I am entering a Star Trek film with prior knowledge of the larger universe. For many, this represents a bit of a test drive for Abrams, as he's (as I have previously discussed) been selected to helm the highly anticipated Star Wars Episode VII. After the photo, my response. (AND SPOILERS. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM, DO NOT PROCEED. IT IS BETTER IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING GOING IN).

Um... what? Oh, right, right. The response. I was... distracted for a moment.

As I walked of the theater, my response was this: Star Trek Into Darkness is, for all intents and purposes, The Wrath of Khan in reverse. And this may not be as bad a thing as it could have been. Much of the hubbub surrounding this film was its secrecy, and the identity of the villain, played by Sherlock actor Benedict Cumberbatch (and an actor who I've wrote extensively about already). Guesses ranged far and wide, even after he was given the name "John Harrison". Many suspected him to be Khan Noonien Singh, the iconic genetically enhanced foe of Captain Kirk from the Original Series episode "Space Seed", as well as the aforementioned Wrath of Khan, previously portrayed by Ricardo Montalbán. Others put forth the name of Gary Mitchell, from the series' second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Others still insisted (and hoped) he was a fresh antagonist, one we had no seen before. I was kind of hoping for a new enemy, but ultimately, Abrams' two Trek films to date have been primarily about putting a new spin on prior Star Trek iconography. Hence, Cumberbatch's "John Harrison" is actually Khan in disguise. This fits in perfectly with his two movies' inclusions of Romulans, Klingons, the original USS Enterprise, Captain Pike, Carol Marcus, Khan, Section 31 (I LOVED that the movie acknowledged Deep Space Nine, which is (IMHO) the best Star Trek show), and the Original Series crew, all updated and reinterpreted for a new timeline, the sole remnant of the previous series being the appearances of Leonard Nimoy's "Spock Prime". Star Trek Into Darkness is a flawed and deeply imperfect film, for reasons I shall get into, but it's also a ton of fun. It is roughly on par with its predecessor, with deeper valleys, but also higher peaks.

More than anything, though, I can describe the movie as thus: It ends with Spock fighting Khan Noonien Singh on a moving platform in downtown San Francisco, with Khan attempting to crush Spock's skull with his bare hands as Spock attempts to mindrape him. Seriously.

It is probably fair to accuse Star Trek Into Darkness of totally ripping off the plot of The Wrath of Khan, much like the lousy Star Trek: Nemesis (in general, the Next Generation movies mostly suck, with the possible exception of First Contact). However, it has many merits that the former does not. For one, instead of taking the hollow shell of Wrath of Khan and plastering a new sheen on it (as Nemesis did), it instead reinterprets the material, serving us up a far different storyline, as well as an extremely compelling villain (Tom Hardy is a great actor, but his Shinzon lacked basically any coherent motivation whatsoever). Many have complained that Khan is played by the British (and very Caucasian) Cumberbatch, as opposed to the Hispanic origins of Montalbán. Originally, Abrams sought Benicio del Toro for the role, which may have been a more accurate similarity, but I pose this question: If we can have a black Human Torch (as the rumors state for Josh Trank's Fantastic Four reboot), black and Asian Norse gods (Thor), and a Hispanic actor play the supposedly Indian-born Khan, then why can't a white actor essay the role? And especially when it's one as tremendous as Cumberbatch. MY GOD, Cumberbatch. Since watching Sherlock, I knew he was great, but I have a strong feeling that Star Trek Into Darkness will be his big breakout. He plays Khan as a mixture of the original incarnation of the character from "Space Seed" with Hannibal Lecter, as a master manipulator, genius intellectual, and truly worthy challenge for the Enterprise crew. CumberKhan easily outstrips Eric Bana's bland revenge-driven Romulan Nero from Abrams' 2009 film, and gives Montalbán a fair run for his money, even if he's not quite as iconic. For my money, though, Cumberbatch would have absolutely killed it as Q.

The rest of the cast also shows up, in fine form. Chris Pine continues his mastery of the cocky, arrogant, and young James T. Kirk, bringing his Han Solo-esque "never tell me the odds" mantra, but also giving him a new arc, as he matures into a more able leader deserving of his captain's chair. Abrams said that Star Trek Into Darkness would be about Kirk earning his command of the Enterprise, and that absolutely comes through. And as Kirk grows, so does his relationship with Spock. Where Spock dealt with his conflict between his human and Vulcan heritage in the last film, he now fights his conflict of emotions. He attempts to find peace in death early in the film, only to alienate Uhura. He has difficulty understanding Kirk's sense of camaraderie with him. However, when driven to a point, his emotions emerge, and he begins to act a bit more like his captain. And Zachary Quinto, too, is great. He's so good that he gives Leonard Nimoy a strong challenger, playing Spock a bit colder, but also with emotions that run deeper. And for Nimoy fans, yes, he pops up in a (somewhat gratuitous) cameo, which runs concurrent with one of the film's main flaws, which I'll get to. As for the rest of the cast, Karl Urban and Simon Pegg continue to provide excellent interpretations of Bones and Scotty, even if they are occasionally underutilized. Anton Yelchin's Chekov voice is great, though I wish his character had more relevance than serving as a Scotty stand-in for a large chunk of the movie. Peter Weller's Admiral Marcus serves as the secondary villain, and RoboCop plays him pretty damn well, as a militaristic leader hellbent on war. As for the female roles...well...I'm getting to them now. Abrams' direction is as good as last time, significantly elevating the holes in the script from writers Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman. Michael Giacchino's score is also consistently excellent, as his Trek theme continues to grow on me. The movie is also very well-lit, with Abrams doing away with many of his lens flares, and the editing keeps things fast-paced when the plot falters.

Now, on to the flaws, and while I think Star Trek Into Darkness rises higher than its predecessor, it also sinks lower. It changed my directorial perception of Abrams as a man who never takes risks, because in the last act of this film, he took some HUGE ones. Some stuck, and some don't.

- The Female Characters: The two main female characters in the movie: Zoe Saldana's Uhura and Alice Eve's Carol Marcus, are both woefully underused and misused. Uhura's only purpose is to be an angry girlfriend to Spock, talk to Klingons, and to shoot Khan in the final fight. Other than that, she may as well have not been there at all. This is even more egregious with Marcus, introduced ostensibly to serve as Kirk's love interest and to tell more on the new torpedoes, only to spout expository dialogue and occasionally show skin (see picture above). For a series that has given well-drawn characters of both genders in the past, it falters heavily here.

- A Convoluted Plot Riddled with Holes: As much as I think the general idea of the movie works, it just remains that the plot is messy, and has many oversights. For one, Kirk is being sent back to the Academy, then he returns as First Officer, then he's Captain again because Pike is dead, and he's going after CumberKhan on Kronos with Advanced Torpedoes that do... what? Then they fight Klingons and CumberKhan on Kronos, then capture him, then fight the Vengeance, then take it down from the inside, then fight Khan, then save the ship from crashing, then Spock chases Khan and fights him, and so on and so forth. Too many threads in this movie with too many of them being underdeveloped. This is clearly Abrams' attempt to do a classic Star Trek movie style plot, with many threads and twists and turns, but it's just too twisty. Khan's a bad guy, then a prisoner, then an antihero, then a villain again, and the full intricacies of Admiral Marcus' plan are never fully explained. Then there's the transwarp beam that Khan uses to get from his shuttle in San Francisco to Kronos. MY GOD. If that tech exists, WHY ARE THERE STILL FRIGGIN' SPACE SHUTTLES??!! Also, did Khan's blood Lazarus serum just remove all consequences from any Star Trek movie, ever, or was it a one-time plot device to resurrect Kirk that will never be mentioned again?

- A Massive Overabundance of Fanwank: The third act of this movie moves from "Same villain, different plot" into straight up homage territory with The Wrath of Khan, and in attempting to please fans, it goes too far. Direct line callbacks, the presence of Carol Marcus despite her being generally unneeded, McCoy's constant "I'm a doctor, not a..." lines, and the Enterprise facing off against a secretly commandeered Federation ship. But as I said above, it does it in reverse. And while I actually like the clever reversal, it attempts too much. Spock faces off with Khan on the ship's bridge, while Kirk goes into the radiation chamber. Kirk saves the ship, but is fatally hit with radiation poisoning. The glass separation. "Ship? Out of danger." "I'm your friend". The hands touching against the glass. Kirk slumps over and dies. And, in the movie's silliest/greatest moment, the music swells, Spock coarses with range, and he.....

KHAAAAAAAAANNN!!!!

While, arguably, Quinto's delivery of the line is great, and he really sells the emotion in it, it doesn't change that it totally feels ridiculous.

But again, despite the plot issues and the fan wanking, I enjoyed the hell out of Star Trek Into Darkness. The movie's deeply flawed, but it also succeeds at Abrams' winning streak of making superbly entertaining blockbusters. If Star Wars Episode VII is as good as this, I will be sufficiently pleased.

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a 7.5 out of 10.

When exactly did they trek into darkness? Or anywhere?

Also, for the third film, whether Abrams directs it or not, my bet is on the Borg. You could have Kirk and crew go out into to space, and maybe the Borg were drawn in by the destruction of Vulcan. Kirk and Spock never faced the Borg, so while still culling elements from prior incarnations, it could indeed be very interesting. Just leave the Borg Queen out; they're more threatening when they're faceless.

Iron Man Three Review

Tony Stark meets Johnny Gossamer. God, I wish they sold this masterpiece.

Saying that Marvel Studios had a tough act to follow this year is a bit of an understatement. Not only was The Avengers the highest grossing superhero movie of all time, but it also deserves the honorable title of being the highest grossing film not directed by James Cameron. Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe ended with a bang. But because money, the wheel continues into Phase Two, offering up the potential for some new superheroes, as well as to allow some new filmmakers to step into the comic book movie pot. And since Marvel needs to make sure Phase Two starts successfully, they began by returning to the original source of their universe's success: Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr. is perfectly cast as Tony Stark, so much so that I never want to see anyone else play the role (despite the inevitability that it will happen, as producer Kevin Feige has already speculated on "James Bonding" it once Downey has had his fill), and director Jon Favreau served up a great comic book movie in his own right back in 2008. However, the 2010 follow-up, Iron Man 2, was more problematic. While still being eminently watchable and entertaining, the sequel was stuffed with forced Avengers tie-ins (to the point of feeling like a 2-hour commercial for it at times), subplots, weak villains, and a rather skimpy amount of action. Needless to say, after this, Favreau decided to back out of directing the third film. However, in his place, a far more exciting filmmaker was selected: Shane Black, writer of the first two Lethal Weapon movies, and director of the underseen and underrated buddy-crime-comedy, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Downey was the star of the latter, and it is credited as one of the movies that helped resuscitate his drug-hindered career, so it was only natural that Black be in the running. And now, we finally have the beginning of Phase Two, Iron Man Three (as Black refers to it in the end credits sequence). My response to the movie itself after the jump.

This looks... familiar.

As the above picture implies, yes, in some ways, Iron Man Three is the Tony Stark version of The Dark Knight Rises. Both films attempt to bring both the plot and arc of the character full-circle, and to tie up the loose ends from previous films. However, Black's interpretation of this fulfillment of the character's story is quite a bit different from Nolan's, as I will explain. 

SPOILERS AHEAD. TURN BACK IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, OR READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK. THOU HATH BEEN WARNED.

From the Marvel fanbase, Iron Man Three has been receiving quite a bit of backlash, particularly for three reasons: the alterations to the source material (in particular, the film's interpretation of Iron Man's archenemy, the Mandarin), a recurring focus on comedy over superheroics, and the lack of Iron Man action. 

When it comes to the first caveat, I totally understand for hardcore Iron Man comic fans, but I am not one of them; as such, I have no emotional attachment to their interpretation of the Mandarin. On the whole, I found the reveal of Ben Kingsley as drunken actor Trevor Slattery to be a genuinely surprising and hilarious twist. Really, when "the Mandarin" first appeared, looking like the most generic copycat terrorist ever, started talking about a bombing in Kuwait, and then awkwardly muttering "I... I did that", you didn't suspect something a little fishy was up? Yes, I know some people wanted Tony Stark to duke it out with ten magic rings, but that wouldn't have fit with what Black was trying to do here.

For the second and third angles, I present this definite, inarguable fact: Iron Man Three is a Marvel Studios movie filtered through the lens of Shane Black. It's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang with superheroes.

It's got all of Black's fingerprints on it: the Christmas setting (Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), the buddy cop/action-comedy formula (Lethal Weapon, Lethal Weapon 2, The Last Boy Scout, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), the Johnny Gossamer-esque pulp mystery style (again, see the above poster), and the goofy comedy. And all of this is then thrown into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with Tony Stark dealing with PTSD after the events of The Avengers, and bringing back the question Steve Rogers asked him in that film: "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that away, what are you?" At the time, Stark wittily answered "Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist", but that question may have hung on him. And thus, the central question of Iron Man Three is posed: Does the man make the suit, or the suit make the man? And by the end, we have our answer. Which brings me back to my two latter points. In regards to the overabundance of comedy, that question is not only answered by Black's style, but by the fact that the movie was mis-marketed. Don't believe me? Let's check out that first trailer from last October again:

Yep. A little darker than the final film, ain't it? This trend continued all the way until the film's release, where people were basically blindsided by the overabudance of Blackisms, from the goofy one-liners to the Riggs-n-Murtaugh relationship between Tony and Rhodey. Same goes for Harley, the kid. Normally, the introduction of the kid would be a kiss of death, but Ty Simpkins is no Jake Lloyd, and Tony's rather frank and rude treatment of Harley circumvents the normal pitfalls, making the kid's precociousness funny instead of grating. As for the lack of Iron Man action, that would run counterproductive to the film's themes. By keeping Tony in Tennessee, and having him solve the mystery of the Mandarin like a Johnny Gossamer, they make him a real hero, as opposed to just a narcissist in a power suit. There still is Iron Man stuff, like Tony's visually stunning rescue of the passengers of Air Force One, as well as the spectacular shipyard climax, it's just not the focus of the movie. As for the complaints about the Extremis soldiers tearing off Tony's armor (when Thor, a demigod, only managed to bend it), the Mark XLII and his Iron Legion were mostly prototypes that he was still tinkering with. His original seven suits (the ones he built and used during Phase One) were all destroyed in the helicopter attack. The power levels are still a bit off (as they were in The Avengers, where a gamma-powered Hulk was able to toss Loki, another demigod, around like a rag doll), but it never gets in the way of the overall movie. 

The actors, are, of course, great, as they always are in the Marvel Studios fold of films. Downey delivers what may be his most complete performance as Tony Stark yet, one that only affirms his vital importance to the character, giving us his snarky and vulnerable sides, sometimes at the same time. Gwyneth Paltrow is given more to do here than she ever has as Pepper, and while it may not be up to her previous performances in the role, she sells the more interesting bits of this outing (Super Pepper). Don Cheadle proves me wrong, with a far superior performance to his bland outing from Iron Man 2. By giving him and Tony a buddy-cop dynamic, they overcame the weaknesses of the character, allowing Cheadle to overtake Terrence Howard from the first film, and making Iron Patriot (despite not being as cool a name or look as War Machine) pretty damn cool. Guy Pearce has the toughest role of the film, as the biggest weakness of Iron Man Three is the lack of depth from Aldrich Killian, the true "Mandarin" and the film's real villain. However, it says something that I don't even mention the film's real villain until way late in the review, as there just isn't much there. Killian basically wants revenge on Tony just for leaving him waiting out in the cold. And while some weak argument of his "desperation" is presented later, I just never understood the quantum leap from meek, disabled nerd to Extremis-enhanced douchebag. For sure, Pearce's douchebagginess is entertaining as hell (especially when Killian's creeping on Pepper), and that part where he breathes fire is the single greatest moment in cinematic history, with Ben Kingsley as Slattery going "Oley, oley, oley oley!!" running a close second. Here's a picture, just to refresh your memory of the moment where Aldrich Killian from Warren Ellis' Extremis meets the Mandarin meets a Fin Fang Foom:

Seriously, this is AMAZING. Screw the haters on this one.

But, yeah, as I said, Killian's motivations just aren't that convincing. Neither are those of the Extremis soldiers (other than Stephanie Szostak's Brandt), despite James Badge Dale also being an entertaining glowing douchebag. Though I do appreciate the attempts to fit in Coldblood and Firepower, two obscure Marvel villains who probably otherwise would never have seen the light of day on film, making them into glowing monsters doesn't entirely work. As for Maya Hansen, she's probably the weakest character in the film. She was the secret villain of the entire Extremis story arc, and she's basically wasted here. Her motivations change twice, and she dies like a punk, thus robbing us of any emotional investment in her character. I honestly don't know why they bothered to cast Rebecca Hall, as a far less exceptional actress could have done the same job she did for way cheaper. Apparently they cast Jessica Chastain first, which is even more insane. In general, the villains are by far the weakest part of the movie, as they have been in both previous Iron Man films (Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane was interesting until he became a generic evil robot pilot, and Mickey Rourke's Whiplash was quirky but completely ineffectual).

As for the technical stuff, Brian Tyler's score is excellent. Tyler's a great composer who's been stuck in the doghouse until now, scoring movies like AVP Requiem and Battle LA, and he establishes himself here, not only crafting a great soaring theme for Iron Man that's he's been sorely lacking until now, but also giving us the backdrop for Black's virtuoso end credits sequence, the fantastic 60s-Batman-esque "Can You Dig It?". See here: http://www.hypable.com/2013/05/07/iron-man-3-end-credits-sequence-officially-released-in-hd/ . John Toll's cinematography also crafts my favorite look for an Iron Man film yet, far more bright and colorful than the more streamlined work from Favreau's films. 

My verdict: Iron Man Three is the third-best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, after The Avengers and the original Iron Man. It's a BIG step up from Iron Man 2, and may be the most cleverly funny superhero movie ever. Ben Kingsley is easily the best thing in the film, as he plays both shades of his role so damn well. Black was an inspired choice, and other than some weak villains (and the curious lack of S.H.I.E.L.D., which Feige said will be explained in the upcoming Captain America: The Winter Soldier), this is a rollicking good time at the movies. It comes highly recommended.

Iron Man Three gets an 8.5 out of 10. 

I'll see you again in Phase Two come November, with the release of Thor: The Dark World.

Also,  Mark Ruffalo showing up was pretty cool.