Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
As a Star Trek fan I was cautiously optimistic about Star Trek Into Darkness. I liked the 2009 Star Trek reboot a lot when I first it in theaters but watched it a couple more times and enjoyed it less and less each time. I'm glad '09 Trek brought back the joyful optimism and fun of the original series but just wished it had more substance to it. I was hoping that the sequel would fix this problem now that the crew has been introduced but we still don't get much social commentary or philosophy here. I'm not asking for a dissertation, just something to think about while leaving the theater.

I didn't like the clunky title since it was first announced. I guess they wanted to avoid using numbers or the one word subtitles of the Next Generation movies but is this really the best they could come up with? It also doesn't help that the acronym is close to both STD (sexually transmitted disease) and STI (sexually transmitted infection)!
Star Trek Into Darkness was actually better than I expected and I liked it more than '09 Trek. The villain of this movie is much better than the over the top Eric "Fire everything!" Bana as Nero. I also liked how each main character had more to do this time around. I understand that this was partially because '09 Trek had to set up the characters but it was still nice to have Scotty do more than simply be comic relief. The opening scene felt like classic Trek to me and I would've liked to have seen more of it. I enjoyed this cast the first time around and thought they did a good job with the roles again. I particularly liked the addition of Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus, the father of Kirk's love interest, Carol Marcus. The Klingons are re-introduced and while I was glad to see them back instead of the Romulans yet again, I was not a fan of the re-design. It looked too CGI to me and if it ain't broke don't fix it. The planet Vulcan was destroyed in '09 Trek which I thought was interesting as it opened up a lot of new story telling possibilities. However, the idea is never followed up in this film other than a line from Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy does make a brief cameo, probably so his last movie didn't have to be Transformers 3!) about helping Vulcan survivors. I have a bad feeling that the destruction of Vulcan was not done as a commentary on attempted genocide or displaced persons but just because Alderaan blew up in Star Wars and to show that anything can happen in this new timeline.

Now it's time to get to the elephant in the room. By this point anybody who is a Star Trek fan and hasn't seen Star Trek Into Darkness yet probably knows that the villain of the movie is Khan from the original series episode "Space Seed" and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, one of my all-time favorite films. Unlike a lot of Star Trek fans, I had no problem with Khan being used in a reboot. In fact, I actually thought it could be a good idea as long as it was handled in a "what if" way. For instance, Khan could be discovered by a different Federation ship and then start to build up a new empire. This could shake things up in various ways by for example, causing a split in the Federation or making peace with the Klingons or starting a war with the Romulans. Into Darkness certainly does things different such as how Khan and Kirk interact as well as the lack of the Genesis device subplot. However, simply using Khan at all forces an unfair comparison. This isn't like when a comic book movie uses a well-known villain since Khan only has two canonical appearances while a character such as Joker for instance has had many incarnations over the years.

It also doesn't help that Khan is played by a white man when the character is supposed to Indian. Ricardo Montalban was not Indian either but first played the role in the 1960s when actors like him played a wide range of ethnic characters so it's understandable in that context. I don't think the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch was racist since the character is never referred to as Indian and really is a new character merely inspired by Khan. It seems to me that Cumberbatch was cast more for his marketability than fitting the role, even though he is a fine actor and does a good job here. Still, I don't know why somebody like Faran Tahir couldn't have played the part. Besides fitting the ethnicity of Khan, he is not unknown to audiences as was in Iron Man and even very briefly at the beginning of '09 Trek. I doubt that most viewers would've remembered him from the last film, and casting the same actor in different subsequent roles is nothing new for Star Trek. But what I really don't understand is why the marketing and movie go out of their way to make the reveal of Khan (who is referred to as "John Harrison" for half the film) a surprise. Maybe they were afraid of the fanboy backlash but if that was the case then why do it at all? I think this is just J.J. Abrams' mystery box at play but after all the buildup whatever is in the "box" will seem underwhelming no matter what.

I felt that Into Darkness was an improvement over the last one and had fun with it. But like '09 Trek it wasn't as memorable as other Star Trek movies, partially because it plays off of Wrath of Khan more than it tells a brand new story. I didn't have a problem with the callbacks as they usually changed things up from Wrath of Khan or other episodes/movies, but would've rather had something completely different than anything done before. I'm surprised that many Star Trek fans hated Into Darkness yet had no problems with '09 Trek as the tone, style, and characters aren't much different. If you couldn't accept Star Trek as a popcorn movie the first time around then Into Darkness won't win you over. However, if you liked '09 Trek I think you will enjoy this one as well. I liked Into Darkness as a sci-fi action blockbuster. But as a Star Trek movie, like '09 Trek, it still misses the mark.

While there have been some very good Star Trek movies it really works best as a TV show and I hope to see it return to that medium at some point. In the meantime I just hope that the next Star Trek movie more evenly balances ideas and exploration with the action and villains. Many recent movies have tried to copy how The Dark Knight accomplished this but in the wrong ways ("dark" in the title, focus on the villain, etc.) instead of doing so in a unique and organic fashion like TDK did.
Fun Fact: Two actors in this movie have voiced Batman (Bruce Greenwood and Peter Weller). We also have Robocop (Peter Weller), and Judge Dredd (Karl Urban).
7/10

Underrated Sequels

Today is Saturday, which means its time for another general film post. This weeks topic is underrated sequels.

This post is not about the best sequels. Instead I am going to write about sequels I like that have been forgotten about or were critical/financial disappointments.

Escape from L.A. (1996)
I love Escape from New York and like the sequel, which was also directed by John Carpenter. I re-watched this couple of months ago and it is still a lot of fun, although the CGI is noticeably dated. One of the reasons I liked the first one was because it featured many famous and recognizable actors such as Donald Pleasence, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, and Isaac Hayes. The sequel keeps up with this tradition as we have Cliff Robertson, Pam Grier, Steve Buscemi, and Bruce Campbell! This is more of a spoof than the original which turned off some fans, but I still find it to be a fun ride. There is an old rumor that Carpenter would make another movie in the series called Escape from Earth, but since its been 15 years since the last one and Kurt Russell isn't getting any younger, I doubt it will happen now. I just wish that Escape from New York had a true sequel (Escape from Cleveland?!) back in the 80s. It did surprisingly well at the box office when originally released so I'm kinda surprised it took 15 years to make a sequel. Nowadays its not uncommon to get long overdue sequels (Tron: Legacy, Predators, etc.) but at the time EFLA came out it was a bit unusual.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
While I agree with the consensus that Temple of Doom is the weakest of the first three Indiana Jones movies, I still really like it. Of the original three Indiana Jones movies Temple of Doom is probably most like the serials of the 1930s and 40s. I think that its stock has risen since Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has come out. I liked how this one tried to do something different by having an old school horror influence. Sure its pretty dark, probably too dark, but at least its not a rehash. I know that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull tried to do the same thing but with 50s sci-fi, but I feel it didn't work as well for a variety of reasons. Kali Ma!

Predator 2 (1990)
I really like the first Predator but the sequel is surprisingly good. I liked how Predator 2 didn't try to rehash the first film and instead opted for the urban jungle setting of late 80s/early 90s Los Angeles.  Danny Glover is a lot of fun and Gary Busey is crazy as usual. I also liked how this movie gave us more information on the Predators. The alien (Xenomorph from the Alien series) skull in the Predator ship at the end is one of the best Easter eggs in all of cinema!

Robocop 2 (1990)
Irvin Kershner, most known for directing The Empire Strikes Back, directs yet another very good sequel in Robocop 2! The movie has one of my favorite Robocop lines, "Thank you for not smoking!" Another cool thing about this movie is that the title "Robocop 2" doesn't just refer to the fact that this movie is a sequel, but also the the next generation robocop called Robocop 2! I know not all sequels with a number can do something like this but I thought it was clever. A lot of people didn't like the kid Hob, but it made sense to me since Robocop could not harm children. While Robocop 2 doesn't try to rehash the original, it still does a good job of keeping in line with what was set-up in the original even though its not as good. Unfortunately Robocop 3 did not do this, probably due in part to its PG-13 rating. If you've only seen the first Robocop check out Robocop 2 but stay far away from Robocop 3!

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is not only my favorite Star Trek movie, but also one of my favorite movies period. That is a tough act to follow, but as a direct sequel to that film The Search for Spock is a worthy successor.  There is an old wives tale that all the odd numbered treks suck and all the even numbered treks are great. Although this was rule was somewhat true at one point, it has now completely fallen apart since Nemesis was bad and Star Trek (2009) was good. Although Star Trek III got overshadowed by its better and more popular prequel and sequel, it is still a very good movie in its own right. Christopher Lloyd plays the villian, the Klingon captain Krudge. Lloyd is great as always, but his role was very important to the Star Trek universe as it was the first time (other than a brief appearance in the first Star Trek film) that we got to see the new look and style of the Klingons. Lloyd and the other Klingons in this movie created the model for how actors would play Klingons for the next twenty years. Star Trek III does something many good sequels do, which is to inverse the message of the original. For example, in the first Terminator you are a slave to your fate. However in T2 you can change your fate and create your own destiny. In Star Trek II the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. However in Star Trek III Kirk and his crew risk their careers and lives and make several sacrifices all for the sake of one man, their friend Spock.

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
The biggest complaint with this movie is that it feels like a long Next Generation episode. While this is kinda true, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Star Trek First Contact was better, but at least this one tries to be different. The basic plot is shockingly similar to Avatar: a planet contains resources that could help all life across the universe, but to do so the native population would have to be moved and they don't want to leave their home. Another thing I like about Insurrection is that the characters make the film. If Kirk and his crew were in the same situation they would have helped the Federation evict the aliens on the planet because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few! Picard and his crew obviously take a different approach. Insurrection is my second favorite Next Gen film, ahead of Generations and Nemesis.

Fright Night Part 2 (1988)
I've written about this one in Part three of my summer round-up so check out that post for a full review. The main reason I feel this is underrated is simply that nobody knows about it, even fans of the first movie. The main reason for this is that the DVD is currently out of print. Hopefully it will get a re-release to coincide with the Fright Night remake.

Tremors II: Aftershocks (1996)
This is the best direct to video movie I have ever seen although that is not saying much. It's nowhere near as good as the first, but still enjoyable. Kevin Bacon doesn't come back but we still have Fred Ward and Michael Gross. If you loved the first like I did, check this out Tremors II. The third one wasn't good and I haven't seen the fourth yet or the short lived TV show.

Cube 2: Hypercube (2002) and Cube Zero (2004)
Cube is a great movie, so I was pleasantly surprised that the sequels (actually a sequel and a prequel) were actually decent. The second Cube movie has a similar premise to the first in that it is about some people trapped in the cube with no idea how they got there who try to escape. Of course this time we have different people and a different cube with new traps. Cube 2 isn't as good as the first, but the concept is so good that doing it again with different types of people in a new setting works. I liked Cube 2 better than Cube Zero. Cube Zero is a prequel, which is a bit disappointing as I was expecting Cube Cubed! Anyway, Cube Zero was not a bad movie, but it actually shows what is going on outside the cube. I liked how the first two films gave some hints, but left the details up to the imagination. The explanation contradicts some things said in the first one about the origin of the cube, which I didn't care for. However, I really like the character of Jax and the idea of a character from the outside actually choosing to go inside the cube. Sure the sequels were unnecessary, but I still liked them and they could have been a lot worse.

The Karate Kid, Part II (1986)
I liked The Karate Kid, but didn't love it like a lot of people. Other than a great Oscar nominated performance by Pat Morita as Mr. Miyagi, its basically Rocky for kids. I liked the second movie in this series because it doesn't rehash the first one. Miyagi goes back to Japan because his father is dying, and Daniel comes with him to continue his training. The different setting and lack of a tournament changed things up, but it works. I liked the subplot about Miyagi's former best friend who is now his rival and wants to fight him. The Karate Kid, Part II is not as good as the original, but not a bad movie at all. On the other hand, The Karate Kid, Part III sucks. I've only seen the Nostalgia Critic's review of The Next Karate Kid and that is all I need to see! I haven't seen the new The Karate Kid with Jackie Chan and don't really plan on it.

I'm not sure what my topic will be for next week, but I think I'll want to get away from remakes and sequels. Come back tomorrow (Sunday) for the weekly round-up.