Star Trek Inside Darkness

As usual, I'm behind in cataloging the films I've seen.  In May, I saw 44 films.  One of them was Star Trek Inside Darkness.

Star Trek Inside Darkness; directed by J.J. Abrams; (2013) - Official Website

I didn't list the stars of the film because it is an ensemble piece.  First among equals are Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock.  The rest of the crew is Zoe Saldana as Uhura, John Cho as Sulu, Simon Pegg as Scotty, Karl Urban as McCoy and Anton Yelchin as Chekov.  Benedict Cumberbatch is the villain Khan.

When I wrote about the first Star Trek film in the reboot, I gave it a paragraph.  It's hard to believe that was four years ago.  My recollection is that I enjoyed that film although I was a little put off by the alternate timeline plot device.  Although not a Trekkie (or Trekker), I was a fan of the original series and Star Trek The Next Generation.  It seems as though they are messing with the natural order of things when they made this contrived alternate timeline.  However, contrivances are part of Star Trek so I just accepted it. As the title of the post reflects, Spock's character undergoes some major reworking in the reboot.  Star Trek Inside Darkness only continues that trend.

I didn't like Star Trek Inside Darkness.  They are getting a little too cute with the alternate timelines.  Inside Darkness essentially presages & parallels the events in The Wrath of Khan.  I don't want to recount the plot of either Inside Darkness or Wrath of Khan but will say that director J.J. Abrams is trying to have it both ways - an action movie for people unfamiliar with Star Trek canon and some clever plot devices for people familiar with the series & films.  I saw this film with a friend who describes herself as fan of Star Trek but missed many of the references.  For example, when Spock screams "Khan!" in Inside Darkness, he is essentially echoing Shatner's famous scene in Wrath of Khan.

Abrams must have a difficult time with Star Trek.  He wants to do something fresh but is bound by the fanboys' expectations.  Pegg & Urban are essentially mimicking Doohan & Kelley's Scotty & McCoy.  Sulu & Uhura (the two minorities) get remade as more self-assured characters.  Oddly, Chekov seems to have turned into a wunderkind geek.  Kirk seems true to his original character although younger & more brash.  However, Spock becomes something unrecognizable despite Quinto's resemblance to Nimoy and his skill in getting the voice inflections similar to Nimoy's portrayal.

Spock gets pretty damn emotional at times and the "bromance" between Kirk & Spock becomes ridiculous by the end.  The friendship between Spock & Kirk, as portrayed by Nimoy & Shatner, was the core of the series but Quinto's Spock's too frequent displays of human emotion lessen the humor and poignancy of the relationship in Inside Darkness.

Maybe I'm just a crabby, closeted Trekkie who doesn't like the liberties being taken by Abrams, et al. with this reboot.  I have to admit that when one character was revealed to be Carol Mosely, I immediately  recognized the character's name from Wrath of Khan even though I have not seen that film in many years.  However, that is the risk that the makers of the Star Trek took when they rebooted the series with original characters.  They wanted the built in familiarity and development of the characters and were willing to risk some fans' ire by revising certain aspects of the characters.

Getting back to why I didn't like the film, I thought too much emphasis was placed on action scenes & CGI and not enough on the characters.  That could be said of many films so perhaps Inside Darkness is no worse than any other big budget Hollywood action film.  We had originally planned to see Iron Man 3 but my friend was late so we went with Star Trek.  In hindsight, I wish we would have entered the Iron Man 3 screening late.

Spock's Jungle, Terran and Oedipal Fever

The Oshima and Karlson retrospectives are in full swing at the PFA. Another Hole in the Head is entering its second week at the Roxie.

However, I've been busy with other films.

Star Trek directed by J.J. Abrams; (2009) - Official Website
Easy Virtue starring Jessica Biel, Kristin Scott Thomas & Colin Firth; (2008) - Official Website
Inglorious Bastards starring Bo Svenson and Fred Williamson; (1978)
Psych-Out starring Jack Nicholson, Dean Stockwell, Susan Strasberg and Bruce Dern; (1968)

I was all over the City. Star Trek at the Balboa, Easy Virtue at the Landmark Embarcadero, Inglorious Bastards at the YBCA and Psych-Out at the Red Vic.

Star Trek is a major hit so I don't need to add much to the chorus. I enjoyed it but am a little disappointed that they rendered the original TV and movie series an alternate reality. Damn time travel; it's Star Trek writers' cocaine. How many times has the crew of the Starship Enterprise gone back in time? Some parts of the plot were silly but they did some interesting reinterpretations of the old familiars. Uhura is more accomplished and self-confident and Sulu is more masculine or de-Asianified (i.e. not hewing to the Asian male stereotype). Zach Quinto plays Spock half and half. He captures a lot of Nimoy's mannerisms but his Spock embraces his human side (as well as Uhura's human side) more openly. Come to think of it, Spock is quite the hypocrite; he hauls Kirk before the disciplinary board for "cheating" on the Kobayashi Maru exam but he's a Starfleet instructor having a relationship with his student.



Easy Virtue screened at the 2009 San Francisco International Film Festival and the Mostly British Film Series at the Vogue. I had been looking forward to it for a few months. Based on a Noël Coward play set in the 1920's, the film is ostensibly a cutting satire on elitism and sexism in post-WWI British society. Viewed through the 21st century commercial cinematic prism, the film is primarily a vehicle for Jessica Biel and Kristin Scott Thomas to trade barbs and match wits. Biel holds the moral high ground especially given modern attitudes but I thought Scott Thomas gave the stronger performance. The film was uproariously funny for the first 3/4 but tacks on a serious ending that seems out of place. Kris Marshall as Furber adds to the pantheon of great deadpan performances by actors playing the butler. Kimberley Nixon as Biel's childish, cruel and morbid sister-in-law also stood out.



I don't have much to say about Inglorious Bastards. I wasn't too impressed and wonder what Tarantino sees that I don't. I thought the film looked like a cheesy 70's action film. The special effects reminded me of a cross between an episode of The A-Team and those 1960/70's horrorfests that used squib bullets with unrealistically pink blood.

Psych-Out wasn't very good either but as a Hippie era touchstone, it was fascinating. Jack Nicholson wears a ponytail and Bruce Dern looks like Jesus. Susan Strasberg looks like she is 35 years old (she was 29 at the time of the filming) but is playing a 17 year old runaway; Nicholson looks like he's 40 (he was 31). Stockwell looks pretty much the same. Anyway, the plot involves Strasberg looking for her brother in San Francisco (Haight-Ashbury to be specific). Seeing the film in the same area where it was filmed added to the experience (like seeing Milk at the Castro Theater). The plot is just an excuse to film some exterior shots of San Francisco, espouse Hippie credo and for Stockwell to point out the shortcomings in Nicholson's character (and by extension the whole "turn on, tune in and drop out" lifestyle). I found it interesting that Nicholson beds the underage Strasberg and nothing is made of the statutory rape. Stockwell only criticizes Nicholson's promiscuous ways not his choice of underage sex partners. Of course, Stockwell later drops acid with Strasberg so he wasn't in a position to criticize. Incense and Peppermints (one of my favorite songs from the era) was on the soundtrack.