How to pack a ton of emotions into an action-filled science fiction adventure? We should probably ask JJ Abrams and his team to teach a short course on this topic. It was an era of reboots and sequels when the 2009 Star Trek movie arrived with a bang to the theaters, and J.J. Abrams impeccably rewrote the character sketches of the entire Enterprise crew. In the 2013 sequel, the writers decide to take these characters, play with their emotions, create scenes and sequences that push these characters to the brink of their emotional balance, and provide an amazing roller coaster ride for the audience.
Half an hour into the movie, we are exposed to some spectacular visuals, impressive acting of Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as Kirk and Spock respectively, beautiful dialogues, and excellent writing. For example, when Admiral Pike questions Spock, "Are you showing an attitude to a superior officer?!", Spock responds, "Actually, I am showing multiple attitudes. Which one are you talking about!?" There is so much subtle humor infused throughout the movie that you would burst out laughing on numerous occasions which would otherwise be extremely tense.
Enter Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison to blow off a Star fleet building in London. Scratch all those two-year old rumors claiming that Benedict was playing Khan! Enterprise starts off on a seemingly simple chase to track John Harrison, and even manages to capture him. But as we have already seen in The Avengers, The Dark Knight, etc., capturing the villain is only the beginning. After a couple of twists and turns, Enterprise is on the verge of destruction, and its crew members are staring into imminent death. Just like the 1982 Wrath of Khan, sacrifices need to be made to restore order.
The writing and direction show off their mastery over character development and emotions, in addition to creating stunning action sequences. The music was further expanded from the 2009 movie, and was aptly suited to the story line. The cinematography blended so well with the special effects that certain sequences were mind blowing, for instance, the atmospheric re-entry scene. On the contrary, the movie was not as taut as the 2009 film; may be the simplicity of the first venture of JJ Abrams was lacking in its sequel. Also lacking were certain original science fiction elements which were present in the older films; while there is mention of genetic engineering, cryo-beds, etc., they are not wholly key to the central plot.
I had one of the most unique experiences watching Star Trek Into Darkness. The first ever Star Trek movie I watched was the 2009 reboot. I had made up my mind to get acquainted with the original movies before I watched the 2013 movie. Being the procrastinator I am, it did not happen until the Monday prior to the release of Star Trek Into Darkness. I started watching the "original motion picture" on Monday evening, and given the spectacular bore it is, I did not finish watching it until Thursday evening. I was planning to go watch Into Darkness on Saturday, and started watching "Wrath of Khan" late night on Friday. I finished the first hour of the movie; though I really hate watching movies in installments, I could not complete the movie, and the latter half of Wrath of Khan had to wait. However, in retrospect, I ended up having an amazing one-of-a-kind experience. On Saturday morning, I watched "Into Darkness" at the theater, and came back home to complete "Wrath of Khan". Wow, what an excellent experience the entire thing turned out to be! Did JJ Abrams deliberately choose to pay his respects to the epic 1982 film? What a superb homage!
What I saw:
Direction: 3.5/5
Writing: 4.0/5
Acting: 4.0/5
Music: 3.5/5
Cinematography: 3.5/5
What I felt:
Degree of Tautness: 3.5/5
Emotional Quotient: 4.5/5
Intelligence Quotient: 3.5/5
Entertainment Quotient: 4.0/5
