First off, let me say that I liked Star Trek Into Darkness a lot. A whole bitch-load, if you want to use technical terms. (For those of you that failed science, there are four bitch-loads to a metric fuck-ton.) It’s one of those rare sequels that meets or exceeds its predecessor, much as the original Star Trek IIwas far more entertaining than the first film. I was every bit as entertained as I was with J.J. Abrams’ last go-around. The characters–James Kirk, in particular–continue to grow and mature, which is particularly vital for this film considering the relative youth of the crew compared to that of the originalStar Trek cast. Kirk’s lack of experience is especially well-addressed.
The pacing is just as good as the first film, with plenty of action and clever dialogue. The development of the relationship between Uhura and Spock is unbelievably entertaining. The storyline is fairly straightforward and relatively simple without being thin. While I’m not an advocate for balls-out CGI, the digital effects in this film were spectacular without drawing undue attention from the story.
I should note that I did not see this movie in 3D. I have seen a handful of moments in 3D films where the gimmick was well-used, but never enough to justify paying an extra $3.50 for it. And frankly, if a movie needs a gimmick to carry it, it’s not worth seeing anyway. (I’m looking at you, James Cameron.)
The choice of villain was a bold–and dangerous–one. The decision to bring Khan into the new franchise is probably sending a lot of fanboys into a tizzy. Whether Benedict Cumberbatch handled the character well depends on what you want. If you want the classic Khan portrayed by Ricardo Montalban, you’ll be sorely disappointed. If you want a more modernized Khan that better fits the environment of the new films, you’ll find exactly what you’re looking for.
That’s not to say that the ridiculous overacting of Montalban’s Khan isn’t at all present in Cumberbatch’s version. Specifically, there’s one scene in the holding cell, when Khan is explaining his actions against Starfleet earlier on, where you’re just flat-out unable to suspend disbelief for a moment, it’s just that cheesy. Other than that silly scene, however, Cumberbatch manages a fairly disturbing villain. His acting chops are meaty, to be sure. (If you have not watched him and Martin Freeman in BBC’s series Sherlock, I say shame on you. His rendition of Holmes is incredibly brilliant, and definitely outshines Robert Downey Jr.’s version of the character–no small feat.) Cumberbatch’s Khan exudes an aura of menace in everything he says and does.
Cumberbatch’s version of Khan is a serious and scary threat. Montalban, on the other hand, was a very goofy threat. I understand that bare-chested shirts and poofy hair were par for the course in the 80’s, but come on. Some of those lines were just goddamn silly. “From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee!” Okay, Captain Ahab.
It’s hard to say which of the two is the better Khan. It really does come down to what your film calls for in a villain, scary or over-the-top. I mean, Montalban in Star Trek Into Darkness would have utterly ruined the movie, and Cumberbatch’s darker Khan would have looked completely off in the originalStar Trek II. A place for everything and everything in its place, as they say.
Oh, hey! I just got it. Heh. White whale. Enterprise is white. I see what you did there, Khan. Well played, sir. Well-played.