'Star Trek Into Darkness' is a satisfying sequel

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Star Trek Into Darkness,' a movie which is a sci-fi blowout with overtones of the real world, would probably be met with approval by series creator Gene Roddenberry.

Zade Rosenthal/Paramount Pictures/AP
'Star Trek Into Darkness' stars Zachary Quinto (l.) and Chris Pine (r.).

J.J. Abrams’s “Star Trek Into Darkness,” the sequel to his prequel, delivers the goods, even if some of the goods are less than fresh. Since Disney has also entrusted him with the “Star Wars” franchise, I guess he’s officially Hollywood’s anointed one for all things outer space.

Capt. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) are the emotional core – such as it is – of this space odyssey. After Kirk disobeys a Starfleet dictum and rescues Spock from a bubbling volcano on a prehistoric planet, heads roll. Kirk feels unloved by the man he rescued, but, hey, the guy is only half human. (I’ve often wondered if the Vulcan half is actually the emotional half.) Their rapprochement is the film’s true climax, even more than the battle royal between the Enterprise and a very bad, cyborg-like guy whose name is John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) but who actually inhabits an identity hallowed in the annals of Trekkiedom.

Since 9/11-style terrorism is very much on display here, I suppose it’s fair to say that “Star Trek Into Darkness” is a sci-fi blow-out with overtones of the real. Series founder Gene Roddenberry would, I think, approve. Grade: B (Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.