Star Trek: Into Darkness

I watched a review of Star Trek: Into Darkness that was praising the movie for the first two acts but then just tore it to pieces with the last act calling it the one thing that tore down what could have been a brilliant Star Trek movie. Since it came onto Netflix, I watched the movie with that idea in mind, watching the last act of the movie pretty critically to see what went wrong. I mean if anything is going to give a bad taste to a viewer, especially a bunch of Star Trek fans, its going to be the ending to a movie. And my reaction to watching it this way? Well...

In short, I like Star Trek Into Darkness a lot. I liked it when I watched it in theaters, and I liked it when I watched it on Netflix. But I do understand why some people had a different opinion and thought this movie was not very good and voted it the worst Star Trek movie ever... okay I don't understand that but let's review it and see what works, and what doesn't.

Starting from the top, the movie begins some time after the first movie. Kirk (played by Chris Pine) is Captain of the USS Enterprise and Spock (Zachary Quinto) is still his First Officer. The movie opens with reintroducing the characters and establishing new conflicts of character and opportunities for character development.

After a mission where Kirk breaks the rules to save Spock's life, the Enterprise is taken away from him from his mentor and friend Christopher Pike from the first movie (played by Bruce Greenwood). I thought that this was a great scene because it shows the motives of each character. It shows that Kirk is still young and doesn't really know what it means to be a Captain of a Starship yet.

It also shows the awesome father-son dynamic between Kirk and Pike that was a brilliant choice for this film series. Pike and Kirk aren't that close in the TV series if I recall (from my browsing of wikipedia) and the films delve more into the development of the character of Jim Kirk, and its really good.

Well then a series of attacks happen leading to the death of Christopher Pike perpetrated by a Starfleet officer by the name of John Harrison. Kirk demands he go to arrest Harrison but the problem is that Harrison is in Enemy Klingon space.

He's given permission by Admiral Marcus (played by Peter Weller) to go and fire a series of photon missiles in the location Harrison is at.

This opens up to great moral questions that not only the characters and crew of the Enterprise are asking but also questions the audience and Star Trek fans are asking.

There's a great scene with Kirk and Scotty (played by Simon Pegg) where says that the missiles and the orders to go kill Harrison are clearly military orders but he originally thought that Starfleet was in the business of exploring. That has been the mission of the Star Trek Enterprise since Star Trek first aired. With the new movies, the tone of the series has turned more towards the action and away from the moral questions and the science Star Trek is known for.

A little bit off topic, but Simon Pegg is a great Scotty...

But that's why the first act or so of the movie is really good because it starts asking questions that Star Trek is known to ask.

It also allows for decisions that reflect Kirk's character development. Like firing Scotty. It reflects Kirk's state of mind and his commitment to this mission.

Moving on they get to Klingon and then the character of John Harrison is finally revealed. Get ready cause this may be a long rant.

Its revealed that Harrison is just a name that was created because the identity of this character needed to be hidden and he is in fact Khan.

The funny part is that J.J. Abrams wanted to make it super secret that Benedict Cumberbatch was Khan in this movie and a lot of people didn't believe him. The problem with this is if I wasn't a Star Trek fan and Cumberbatch said he was Khan, I wouldn't know what that means. I'm not even a huge Star Trek fan but I know about Khan and I wasn't even that surprised. So if nobody was surprised, why deny all the rumors?

Now since I've seen this movie, I have seen the Wrath of Khan, the Star Trek movie that is considered to be the best of all the old ones. And Khan is supposed to be the biggest villain of all time.

Now to the people who were disappointed that they used Khan, I would say, why wouldn't they use him? Khan is the biggest villain in Star Trek (don't quote me on that) to be given the opportunity to introduce that character for future film appearances, it would be silly if Abrams didn't do it.

And finally the people that complain that Khan was originally played by Ricardo Montalbân, a Mexican actor and now he's being played by Benedict Cumberbatch, an English actor I would say this. Was Khan so well known because he was a Mexican? Or because he was a compelling character? As long as Cumberbatch is accurately portraying an iconic character and giving the original source material due respect, I don't see the point in getting worked up on the details that he wasn't Mexican. Maybe that's narrow minded of me but I thought Cumberbatch did a great job and the performance added to the character rather than taking away from the original source.

If anything, the writers took away from the original source. And he's why.

Khan explains that he and his people had frozen themselves in a time long past and he had been awakened by Admiral Marcus to be used to strengthen the military of the humans and lend his military intellect and as Khan says, his "savagery" to the weapons and strategy of the military complex Marcus was looking for.

That would suggest that Khan is brilliant and cunning making him a great villain right?

Well unfortunately, the movie really only shows Khan beating the crap out of people, there's not really any moments where he's incredibly cunning or his intellect shines true because the majority of the movie he's either just beating people up, which shows his "savagery" sure but it doesn't really show his intellect, or the other half where he's just sitting in a cell.

Now that being said, I really like Khan, I think he's a great character and that's mainly because Benedict Cumberbatch rocks the role. The first time I saw this movie in theaters, I didn't even notice the lack of Khan in this movie because when Cumberbatch was on screen he stole the show and made me forget how little of the movie shows him as the villain.

Its an example of telling, not showing. The Star Wars prequels did a lot of it and this movie does it too with Khan. I can be told over and over that Khan is a badass mother fucker but if they don't give a chance for him to show it, what's the point?

And that brings me to the real "villain" of this film, Admiral Marcus. Marcus is very a kin to General Shepard in Call of Duty 2. His motivation is that he wants to be at the forefront of a war and the only way he can do that is if he starts the war himself. Its an interesting complex but in the end it just makes some of the decisions very one dimensional and makes him evil... because he's evil. It's selfish and the real great villains are the ones who believe they're doing the right thing. Marcus knows he's doing the wrong thing and he's just... evil. I like Peter Weller. I think he did a good job, similarly to Cumberbatch, because the performance was good I overlooked it at the theaters but again its an example of how the villains in the movie really aren't that good.

And then that brings me to Carol Marcus... or the person who is suppose to be Carol Marcus

Again, I don't know a lot about Carol Marcus. I don't know what he character is like or if she is anything like the way Alice Eve plays her.

What I do know is that there was no point for this character. She was just kind of a waste of space. An incredibly gorgeous waste of space, but a waste of space nonetheless.

She does ABSOLUTELY nothing in this film.

She fakes her credentials to get aboard the Enterprise... so?

She opens up the missile to reveal one of Khan's people in there... so? Anybody could have done that.

She thinks she can stop the Admiral, her father, from blowing up the Enterprise... No that fails immediately.

...she does this....

Yes... Yes she does. And don't get me wrong. Alice Eve... is drop dead gorgeous. Was it on my list to see her in her underwear, sure in my perverted list. Does it contribute ANYTHING to the story? No.

Consensus: Pointless character. 

So what is it about the last act that isn't as good as the first two? Well there's a lot of things. 

Well I've mentioned the villains. Khan is underutilized and isn't really developed properly, and Admiral Marcus is... well evil. 

Khan takes over the giant star ship that defies all laws set down in Star Trek and says, give me my people or I will kill Kirk. 

Except the fact that Spock and the Enterprise had all of Khan's people in missiles he could have used on the giant awesome ship. Spock actually has the advantage in this Mexican Standoff but the movie doesn't really do that right. 

And then... this happens...