Yes it's just pure fun. Not a Star Trek fan but I loved the action, the acting and the story. Good visuals and great entertainment. Recommended, 8/10
1,311 Reviews
Good story - great fun
ThomDerd16 January 2021
I seem to be going against the trend here...
runamokprods2 February 2014
As much as I liked Abrams' 2009 re-boot of the Star Trek series, I liked this second installment better. I think that's because there was less of an obligation to fill up back-story, and more ability to go deeper both into plot, and into the emotions of these new, younger versions of the characters we now (re) know. Add to that Benedict Cumberbatch makes a complex and compelling villain, even if the character does borrow from other sources, including Rutger Hauer in "Blade Runner".
The humor is funny, the emotional scenes have a real impact, the battles are exciting, the acting is excellent, the plot twists are clever, and the more epic 'big' moments are really effective.
There are flaws; some plot twists can be seen coming a mile off, there are a few painful cheats or jumps in logic, and a handful of too-easy coincidences. But for a big summer blockbuster this has more smarts, style, punch and humanity than most.
The humor is funny, the emotional scenes have a real impact, the battles are exciting, the acting is excellent, the plot twists are clever, and the more epic 'big' moments are really effective.
There are flaws; some plot twists can be seen coming a mile off, there are a few painful cheats or jumps in logic, and a handful of too-easy coincidences. But for a big summer blockbuster this has more smarts, style, punch and humanity than most.
One fatal flaw...
Lightseven27 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The film opens with a mercy mission. Trying to stop a volcano from erupting and destroying a fledgling civilization. Instead of using thier superior intelligence and simply dropping the cold fusion device into the volcano from the air, they send Spock inside the volcano to manually set the device; nearly dying and causing the Enterprise to reveal itself to this culture, violating the prime directive. Next time, lob the device from a distance...
Lots of references to old Trek can't make up for lazy writing... Well OK maybe it can.
rooprect18 January 2021
Golly I think my title sums up everything I wanted to say. As far as basic plot goes, there's nothing particularly new here: a psycho super being plans to kill people and blow up things while the Enterprise is, for the millionth time, "the only ship in the quadrant". This movie is very lazily written, sort of like that homework assignment you slapped together on the bus to school but with a multi zillion dollar budget. But before you transport off this page, bear in mind the film's saving grace...
There are a ton of groan-worthy, yet very effective, references to the old Star Trek universe, making this a pretty entertaining watch even though I sound like I'm slamming it harder than a shuttle craft making Emergency Landing Plan B ("B! As in BARRICADE"). That plus a ton of dazzling special effects and nonstop action prompt me to rate this movie a definite WORTHWHILE WATCH, even though my inner Trek nerd is screaming for you to avoid it like that episode "Spock's Brain".
No, this is NOT a remake of the incomparable "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982) although it does feature the characters Khan as well as Dr. Carol Marcus.
No, Khan does not show off his bulging pecs as only the late great Ricardo Montalban could do.
YES, there is a sneaky remake of the famous radiation "you'll flood the chamber" scene which is fun to watch.
YES, Chris Pine does an admirable job of playing Captain Kirk as the charmingly arrogant young captain who doesn't like to lose.
YES, Zachary Quinto does an admirable job of playing the stoic Mr Spock, and YES there is a cameo by Leonard Nimoy as the original Spock.
YES, Dr, McCoy says "Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a ---!"
and lastly, YES, at a certain point in the movie someone does, in fact, yell: "KHAAaaAaAAAAAaaANNN!!!"
So what more needs to be said. Great popcorn flick. Fun little nods to the old Trek series. It doesn't require too many brain cells. But then again, neither does "Spock's Brain" and we still love it.
There are a ton of groan-worthy, yet very effective, references to the old Star Trek universe, making this a pretty entertaining watch even though I sound like I'm slamming it harder than a shuttle craft making Emergency Landing Plan B ("B! As in BARRICADE"). That plus a ton of dazzling special effects and nonstop action prompt me to rate this movie a definite WORTHWHILE WATCH, even though my inner Trek nerd is screaming for you to avoid it like that episode "Spock's Brain".
No, this is NOT a remake of the incomparable "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982) although it does feature the characters Khan as well as Dr. Carol Marcus.
No, Khan does not show off his bulging pecs as only the late great Ricardo Montalban could do.
YES, there is a sneaky remake of the famous radiation "you'll flood the chamber" scene which is fun to watch.
YES, Chris Pine does an admirable job of playing Captain Kirk as the charmingly arrogant young captain who doesn't like to lose.
YES, Zachary Quinto does an admirable job of playing the stoic Mr Spock, and YES there is a cameo by Leonard Nimoy as the original Spock.
YES, Dr, McCoy says "Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a ---!"
and lastly, YES, at a certain point in the movie someone does, in fact, yell: "KHAAaaAaAAAAAaaANNN!!!"
So what more needs to be said. Great popcorn flick. Fun little nods to the old Trek series. It doesn't require too many brain cells. But then again, neither does "Spock's Brain" and we still love it.
The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend
claudio_carvalho15 September 2013
After violating the Prime Directive of the Federation interfering with the primitive inhabitants of Planet Nibiru, saving their lives from a volcanic eruption and exposing the Enterprise to them to save Spock (Zachary Quinto), Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine) is summoned by Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and loses the command of the Enterprise.
Meanwhile, a Starfleet facility in London is bombed and the high-command has a meeting where the identity of the responsible, the former agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), is disclosed. However, Harrison attacks the commanders; kills Spike and flees to Kronos, the land of the Klingons. Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) assigns Kirk to kill Harrison and brings seventy-two torpedoes to the Enterprise to accomplish the mission. Chief Engineer Montgomery Scotty (Simon Pegg) refuses to receive the weapons and Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) is relocated to his position and Dr. Carol Wallace (Alice Eve), who is a science officer specialized in weapons, joins the Enterprise crew. When they arrive in Kronos, they are attacked by Klingons but out of the blue, Harrison kills the Klingons and surprisingly surrenders to Kirk after knowing that the torpedoes are on board of the Enterprise. Then he discloses that he is Khan, a superhuman that was awakened by Marcus from a cryogenic pod to prepare the star-ships with powerful weapons for a war against the Klingons. When the Enterprise is intercepted by a mysterious starship commanded by Admiral Marcus, Kirk asks Khan to help him to save his crew.
"Star Trek into Darkness" is a great sci-fi with a good story of Kirk and his crew and a powerful villain. The good acting and direction associated to top-notch special effects make a highly entertaining movie. Surprisingly there are bad reviews in IMDb that must be ignored by those that like this franchise. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Star Trek Além da Escuridão" ("Star Trek beyond the Darkness")
Meanwhile, a Starfleet facility in London is bombed and the high-command has a meeting where the identity of the responsible, the former agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), is disclosed. However, Harrison attacks the commanders; kills Spike and flees to Kronos, the land of the Klingons. Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) assigns Kirk to kill Harrison and brings seventy-two torpedoes to the Enterprise to accomplish the mission. Chief Engineer Montgomery Scotty (Simon Pegg) refuses to receive the weapons and Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) is relocated to his position and Dr. Carol Wallace (Alice Eve), who is a science officer specialized in weapons, joins the Enterprise crew. When they arrive in Kronos, they are attacked by Klingons but out of the blue, Harrison kills the Klingons and surprisingly surrenders to Kirk after knowing that the torpedoes are on board of the Enterprise. Then he discloses that he is Khan, a superhuman that was awakened by Marcus from a cryogenic pod to prepare the star-ships with powerful weapons for a war against the Klingons. When the Enterprise is intercepted by a mysterious starship commanded by Admiral Marcus, Kirk asks Khan to help him to save his crew.
"Star Trek into Darkness" is a great sci-fi with a good story of Kirk and his crew and a powerful villain. The good acting and direction associated to top-notch special effects make a highly entertaining movie. Surprisingly there are bad reviews in IMDb that must be ignored by those that like this franchise. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Star Trek Além da Escuridão" ("Star Trek beyond the Darkness")
Rage & Retribution...
Xstal12 March 2022
Boldly going where no man (or woman or gender fluid) has gone before, climb aboard the Enterprise and let it fly and soar, as old friends gather, reunite, off to battle and to fight, strange new worlds, civilisations to explore.
A renegade from the future rewrites his score, it's as if he wandered through another door, it's a better incarnation, riven through with lamentation, leaves Ricardo full of wrath just like before.
Embrace it or you'll lose it, change is good, just let your imagination take you away, it's only a story after all.
A renegade from the future rewrites his score, it's as if he wandered through another door, it's a better incarnation, riven through with lamentation, leaves Ricardo full of wrath just like before.
Embrace it or you'll lose it, change is good, just let your imagination take you away, it's only a story after all.
Nowhere near greatness, hardly 'Star Trek's' darkest hour either
TheLittleSongbird29 July 2017
While it was not a perfect series (William Shatner's overacting, less than great production values and an iffy Season 3), the original 'Star Trek' series was a genre landmark and hugely influential and ground-breaking, also a mostly great series in its own right especially for the characters, the relationships and Leonard Nimoy's Spock.
The films based on the original series were a mixed bag. A few great ones with 'The Wrath of Khan', 'The Voyage Home' and 'The Undiscovered Country', one in-between film with 'The Search for Spock' and disappointments with 'The Motion Picture' and particularly 'The Final Frontier'. There were ten 'Star Trek' films before this 2009 reboot, four being based on the 'Next Generation series where the only outstanding one was 'First Contact'. 'Generations to me was another in-between film and 'Insurrection' and 'Nemesis' were two other particularly problematic ones.
Don't think 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is as good as the generally positive critical reception makes out, despite some really impressive elements (more so than those who dislike the film have made out), it is a heavily flawed film and does disappoint as a 'Star Trek' film. At the same time, as a film on its own 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is pretty decent but admittedly it could have been much better. While the disappointment is understandable and personally concur with a lot of the criticisms, it is nowhere near as bad as 'Star Trek' fans who hated it have said, coming from a subjective person this is not a 1/10 film.
Visually, the film mostly looks great. The special effects are mainly fantastic and leave one in awe, while there is audacious and suitably moody cinematography and atmospheric lighting.
Michael Giacchino delivers another winner of a music score, don't remember ever being disappointed by this man. Sure it is familiar, but it fits very well with the film and its mood and is unmistakable Giacchino, a beautiful score to listen to and has a lot of atmosphere.
Where 'Star Trek Into Darkness' scores highly is in the action, it is staged in a way that generates a huge amount of thrilling excitement, tension and suspense. It's well shot too, and JJ Abrams knows how to deliver on the action and spectacle. The sound effects have a lot of authenticity.
Regarding the story, 'Star Trek Into Darkness' evoked mixed reactions from me. It is rich in atmosphere and has some thrilling moments and truly exciting action, while the interplay between Kirk and Spock is brilliantly written and makes one feel quite nostalgic. The casting is in crucial parts bang on with some great performances. Chris Pine has garnered mixed reactions, to me he was more relaxed here and has a charisma that commands the screen.
Zachary Quinto once again nails it as Spock, with huge shoes to fill, capturing perfectly what was so iconic about the character in the first place. Karl Urban is suitably cantankerous, Zoe Saldana is sexy and fiery and Leonard Nimoy makes a moving cameo. Best of all is Benedict Cumberbatch, who is sensational as Khan and is the best thing about the film, Khan is also the most interesting and most developed character and Cumberbatch gives him menacing intensity and sympathetic melancholy, a character who you fear but in some way understand his point of view.
'Star Trek Into Darkness' has a lot of faults though. The script has some clunky moments, has comedy that really doesn't gel and is not very funny and fails to provoke much thought or have much depth, some of it feels dumbed down. Character development, something that 'Star Trek' at its best was particularly good in, is mostly lacking, outside of Khan, most of the cast actually are criminally underused and are very bland in personality (Urban was fine but was too much in the background), Alice Eve is little more than a window dressing plot device that felt incidental to the story and Simon Pegg (who is very funny in other roles) is irritating comic relief.
Despite some good moments, the story was very problematic. That it has a lot of inconsistencies and continuity errors is just one problem, more of an issue was that some of it was in need of much more clarity because some of it is convoluted and under-explored, the big reveal is clumsy and far too obvious and the romance is shoe-horned, forced, underdeveloped and completely unnecessary.
Although most of the film was well made, a few of the techniques that distracted a lot in 'Star Trek' (2009), especially the lens flares, still distract and look cheap. Abrams does action and spectacle well, but fails on what is a large part of 'Star Trek's' appeal when at its best which is the writing and the characterisation, both problematically executed and robs the film of heart and soul. The film is all big and noisy, but the brains and heart are missing.
Overall, nowhere near greatness but hardly the franchise's darkest hour. 6/10 Bethany Cox
The films based on the original series were a mixed bag. A few great ones with 'The Wrath of Khan', 'The Voyage Home' and 'The Undiscovered Country', one in-between film with 'The Search for Spock' and disappointments with 'The Motion Picture' and particularly 'The Final Frontier'. There were ten 'Star Trek' films before this 2009 reboot, four being based on the 'Next Generation series where the only outstanding one was 'First Contact'. 'Generations to me was another in-between film and 'Insurrection' and 'Nemesis' were two other particularly problematic ones.
Don't think 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is as good as the generally positive critical reception makes out, despite some really impressive elements (more so than those who dislike the film have made out), it is a heavily flawed film and does disappoint as a 'Star Trek' film. At the same time, as a film on its own 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is pretty decent but admittedly it could have been much better. While the disappointment is understandable and personally concur with a lot of the criticisms, it is nowhere near as bad as 'Star Trek' fans who hated it have said, coming from a subjective person this is not a 1/10 film.
Visually, the film mostly looks great. The special effects are mainly fantastic and leave one in awe, while there is audacious and suitably moody cinematography and atmospheric lighting.
Michael Giacchino delivers another winner of a music score, don't remember ever being disappointed by this man. Sure it is familiar, but it fits very well with the film and its mood and is unmistakable Giacchino, a beautiful score to listen to and has a lot of atmosphere.
Where 'Star Trek Into Darkness' scores highly is in the action, it is staged in a way that generates a huge amount of thrilling excitement, tension and suspense. It's well shot too, and JJ Abrams knows how to deliver on the action and spectacle. The sound effects have a lot of authenticity.
Regarding the story, 'Star Trek Into Darkness' evoked mixed reactions from me. It is rich in atmosphere and has some thrilling moments and truly exciting action, while the interplay between Kirk and Spock is brilliantly written and makes one feel quite nostalgic. The casting is in crucial parts bang on with some great performances. Chris Pine has garnered mixed reactions, to me he was more relaxed here and has a charisma that commands the screen.
Zachary Quinto once again nails it as Spock, with huge shoes to fill, capturing perfectly what was so iconic about the character in the first place. Karl Urban is suitably cantankerous, Zoe Saldana is sexy and fiery and Leonard Nimoy makes a moving cameo. Best of all is Benedict Cumberbatch, who is sensational as Khan and is the best thing about the film, Khan is also the most interesting and most developed character and Cumberbatch gives him menacing intensity and sympathetic melancholy, a character who you fear but in some way understand his point of view.
'Star Trek Into Darkness' has a lot of faults though. The script has some clunky moments, has comedy that really doesn't gel and is not very funny and fails to provoke much thought or have much depth, some of it feels dumbed down. Character development, something that 'Star Trek' at its best was particularly good in, is mostly lacking, outside of Khan, most of the cast actually are criminally underused and are very bland in personality (Urban was fine but was too much in the background), Alice Eve is little more than a window dressing plot device that felt incidental to the story and Simon Pegg (who is very funny in other roles) is irritating comic relief.
Despite some good moments, the story was very problematic. That it has a lot of inconsistencies and continuity errors is just one problem, more of an issue was that some of it was in need of much more clarity because some of it is convoluted and under-explored, the big reveal is clumsy and far too obvious and the romance is shoe-horned, forced, underdeveloped and completely unnecessary.
Although most of the film was well made, a few of the techniques that distracted a lot in 'Star Trek' (2009), especially the lens flares, still distract and look cheap. Abrams does action and spectacle well, but fails on what is a large part of 'Star Trek's' appeal when at its best which is the writing and the characterisation, both problematically executed and robs the film of heart and soul. The film is all big and noisy, but the brains and heart are missing.
Overall, nowhere near greatness but hardly the franchise's darkest hour. 6/10 Bethany Cox
A Star Trek film that even non-Trekkies can enjoy...
Chalice_Of_Evil8 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I will say upfront that I am not a Trekkie. Nor had I really watched anything Star Trek related before the 2009 reboot. Folks running around in different coloured shirts and one dude in a chair giving others orders never interested me. Same deal with ST09. I eventually hired it on DVD out of curiosity. I found it alright, but didn't see the big deal everyone was making out of it. So what compelled me to see the sequel at the theatre? Well, for starters, after having re-watched the first film on TV again leading up to the new film's release, I came to find myself liking the film a bit more than I had originally. I still wouldn't praise it as much us everyone else seems to, but I think I was more on board with it second time around. Before this, however, I'd had no intention of seeing Star Trek Into Darkness at the theatre. However, with my newfound appreciation for the first film, not to mention the new one including actors I'm a fan of (Alice Eve and Benedict Cumberbatch), Into Darkness drew my attention where ST09 originally didn't. I know very little about the Trek franchise other than the basics, but it seems these new films have taken into account those who might not be familiar with all that has come previously, and therefore they cater to new fans and old fans alike.
Since all the introduction stuff to the universe/characters/etc was taken care of in ST09, Into Darkness is free to build upon that. Starting with Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk (or 'Captain James Tiberius Perfect-Hair', as Scotty calls him). I was put off by Captain Jerk in the first film (especially his treatment of Rachel Nichols' character. Just look at the deleted scenes on the DVD for further evidence), rolled my eyes at how easy things came to him and his overall attitude/the all-too-familiar type of character he seemed to be. While he still has some of that left in him here, he has also grown somewhat. Yes, he still breaks the rules, argues with Spock and gets into fistfights - but he has reason to (especially when it comes to not seeing eye to eye with Spock). The clash of personalities between Kirk and "Pointy" is where the heart of these movies lies. Pine and Zachary Quinto play off each other really well, and at times you can understand Kirk's frustration with the Vulcan. Quinto continues to do a good job playing Spock, even getting to show some actual emotion this time around. Actually...there's quite a LOT of emotional outpouring. Multiple characters shed a tear or two at different points in the film, verging on somewhat of a cry-fest (although most of it is warranted).
Also warranted? That scream from Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) that everyone seemed to make a big deal of when the trailer was released. She just witnessed something head-crushingly horrific, so I'd say she was justified in her reaction. The other complaint I've heard about her character is regarding the scene of her in her underwear. It lasts for about 5 seconds, people! And I don't recall anyone complaining about Kirk watching Uhura undress in the first film, so why the outcry here? Carol is more than just a blonde bombshell in a Starfleet mini- skirt. While there is clearly the beginnings of something being set up between her and Kirk here, and she doesn't go unnoticed by Bones either (who can blame him?), she also helps save Dr. McCoy, displays smarts and attempts to save everyone else as well. I liked the dynamics set up between her & Kirk, her & Spock, and her & Bones. On the whole, she's a welcome new addition to the cast.
Getting back to the villain. Cumberbatch, who most people would know from his excellent portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series, makes up for the rather lacking villain in the first movie. He lends gravity to this film with his performance. Underwritten, underdeveloped, under-motivated? I didn't think so. I found there to be enough reasoning behind his actions, considering he's the villain (more than we get for some villains, anyway). Cumberbatch is utterly captivating whenever he's on screen. Those of us who've seen him in other things would expect no less.
The rest of the characters all have their individual moments. Apart from the aforementioned dynamic with Dr. Carol Marcus, McCoy also has his amusing metaphors and constant fretting, Chekov and his accent get their moment of heroics (however hard it may be to believe), Sulu gets to sit in the chair for a brief period, and Scotty gets a serious increase in screen time from the first film. Uhura and Spock's relationship woes still hold no interest for me. And apart from fighting with him, she doesn't get to do much else. Although she does put her special knowledge of other languages to good use when she has a face-to-face chat with those of the bumpy-headed kind. She, Spock and Bones also prove pivotal near the end. Kirk, meanwhile, gets to show just how much he's grown as a person.
Lens flares are in full swing, as to be expected from J.J. Abrams (even when there's really no point to them when someone's simply standing still, talking). He knows how to shoot action, though, and the scale of the film/effects on display are quite epic. But what it all boils down to in the end is the characters. If you don't care about them, then the film falls apart. I'm happy to say that you *do* grow to care about them, if you didn't already. Throw in what I imagine to be some nods to classic Trek lore for the fans, and you've got yourself a pretty enjoyable sequel.
Since all the introduction stuff to the universe/characters/etc was taken care of in ST09, Into Darkness is free to build upon that. Starting with Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk (or 'Captain James Tiberius Perfect-Hair', as Scotty calls him). I was put off by Captain Jerk in the first film (especially his treatment of Rachel Nichols' character. Just look at the deleted scenes on the DVD for further evidence), rolled my eyes at how easy things came to him and his overall attitude/the all-too-familiar type of character he seemed to be. While he still has some of that left in him here, he has also grown somewhat. Yes, he still breaks the rules, argues with Spock and gets into fistfights - but he has reason to (especially when it comes to not seeing eye to eye with Spock). The clash of personalities between Kirk and "Pointy" is where the heart of these movies lies. Pine and Zachary Quinto play off each other really well, and at times you can understand Kirk's frustration with the Vulcan. Quinto continues to do a good job playing Spock, even getting to show some actual emotion this time around. Actually...there's quite a LOT of emotional outpouring. Multiple characters shed a tear or two at different points in the film, verging on somewhat of a cry-fest (although most of it is warranted).
Also warranted? That scream from Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) that everyone seemed to make a big deal of when the trailer was released. She just witnessed something head-crushingly horrific, so I'd say she was justified in her reaction. The other complaint I've heard about her character is regarding the scene of her in her underwear. It lasts for about 5 seconds, people! And I don't recall anyone complaining about Kirk watching Uhura undress in the first film, so why the outcry here? Carol is more than just a blonde bombshell in a Starfleet mini- skirt. While there is clearly the beginnings of something being set up between her and Kirk here, and she doesn't go unnoticed by Bones either (who can blame him?), she also helps save Dr. McCoy, displays smarts and attempts to save everyone else as well. I liked the dynamics set up between her & Kirk, her & Spock, and her & Bones. On the whole, she's a welcome new addition to the cast.
Getting back to the villain. Cumberbatch, who most people would know from his excellent portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series, makes up for the rather lacking villain in the first movie. He lends gravity to this film with his performance. Underwritten, underdeveloped, under-motivated? I didn't think so. I found there to be enough reasoning behind his actions, considering he's the villain (more than we get for some villains, anyway). Cumberbatch is utterly captivating whenever he's on screen. Those of us who've seen him in other things would expect no less.
The rest of the characters all have their individual moments. Apart from the aforementioned dynamic with Dr. Carol Marcus, McCoy also has his amusing metaphors and constant fretting, Chekov and his accent get their moment of heroics (however hard it may be to believe), Sulu gets to sit in the chair for a brief period, and Scotty gets a serious increase in screen time from the first film. Uhura and Spock's relationship woes still hold no interest for me. And apart from fighting with him, she doesn't get to do much else. Although she does put her special knowledge of other languages to good use when she has a face-to-face chat with those of the bumpy-headed kind. She, Spock and Bones also prove pivotal near the end. Kirk, meanwhile, gets to show just how much he's grown as a person.
Lens flares are in full swing, as to be expected from J.J. Abrams (even when there's really no point to them when someone's simply standing still, talking). He knows how to shoot action, though, and the scale of the film/effects on display are quite epic. But what it all boils down to in the end is the characters. If you don't care about them, then the film falls apart. I'm happy to say that you *do* grow to care about them, if you didn't already. Throw in what I imagine to be some nods to classic Trek lore for the fans, and you've got yourself a pretty enjoyable sequel.
The Enterprise is starting to travel in circles
Likes_Ninjas908 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
In 1966 Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek as a TV series and coincidentally this was the same year that director J.J. Abrams was born. The show was pitched as a space Western in the vein of Wagon Train, which was a Western mystery show set on the Frontier. Star Trek converged with the start of the Vietnam War. Roddenberry had already seen action as a fighter pilot in World War II. To counter Vietnam, his version of Earth was a society without conflict and in space there were galactic truces, race relations and a sense of unity aboard the ship the Enterprise. As with any good Western, there was moral code of ethics between men, no matter how pointy their ears might have been. Roddenberry believed in a disciplined society that could be unaffected by war or religion. Spock for example was said to be modelled on a police Chief he knew when he was part of the LAPD.
After many years as a TV show and dozens of films, someone decided Star Trek should be reinvented yet again and Abrams was hired to transform it into a glossy action film. As a filmmaker J.J. Abrams is somewhat of an enigma. One of his heroes growing up was Steven Spielberg. When he was a boy he was hired to repair some old film footage for him. Spielberg would later produce Abrams most personal film Super 8, a movie that typifies the director's career. Part of the film is a loving tribute to home movies and geek culture, while the other is a bombastic, overblown blockbuster, short of any personal imprint. He's a slick filmmaker, I enjoyed his TV show Alias until it became ridiculous, but he struggles to find the balance his idol has between action and character. Into Darkness is a better film than the messy 2009 film though. The best scenes overcome the generic, simplification of the action genre by retreating back towards the essence of the original show: a morally ambiguous grey zone, where the values of the characters and their races are tested. However, the characters are still bound by a rigid story structure, where at least ten elaborate set pieces take full precedence over the human and Vulcan drama.
The most interesting aspects of the plot are when Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirk (Chris Pine) butt heads over their different beliefs. Kirk is tasked with tracking down a rogue agent named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), who is now essentially a terrorist bomber, causing havoc in London by using desperate people to do his bidding. This leaves a chilling, lasting impression, particularly when the film adds a layer of complexity, with Spock insisting that Harrison should be captured and trialled first. He's at odds with the order of the mission and Kirk, who wants revenge for the death of a colleague. Cumberbatch is frighteningly good in the film, a massive improvement over Eric Bana's villain in the first movie. The tension he brings through his menace, his arrogance but also his ability to cast doubts in the minds of the protagonists about who the baddies really are, is a magnetic quality that is hard to prepare for prior to seeing the film. What a terrific find he's become over the last few years.
However, by ingraining itself in the structure of an action film, a lot of this ambiguity is undone. Whereas action and moral ethics fought and overlapped persistently in The Dark Knight, Into Darkness' rhythm is too discrete and foreseeable. The action is timed acutely to follow a stretch of exposition, dividing itself between moments of ideology and combat, and the emphasis on set pieces means the lines between good and evil become transparent again and remove the crucial shades of grey. Abrams also seems more interested in choreographing lavish action sequences than exploring the personal side of the drama. His imagination in the set pieces is limitless. He employs an array of frenzied techniques, including rapid cutting, tilting cameras, overhead shots and quick pans, to breeze through the action. Yet when the characters stop to face one another and talk his direction has none of the same flair or creativity. The actors sit or stand still, with the camera perched on their shoulders for dull reverse angle shots that don't heighten the tension.
Rarely do we ever see these characters in their downtime either. Without any inner life they become ciphers for voicing conflicting moral ideas, like instinct against logic or law and these conflicts are often resolved within a scene of one another. After watching Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan recently, which Into Darkness borrow from, it's also fascinating that Kirk is viewed as an ageing man who has to start thinking about death and his legacy. In this film he's more on par with Tony Stark, able to bed two alien girls with tails at once. That amplifies where they're aiming this film at, in spite of the occasionally intriguing layering of the story. For a franchise that prides itself on going where no man has gone before, the Enterprise is starting to travel in circles.
After many years as a TV show and dozens of films, someone decided Star Trek should be reinvented yet again and Abrams was hired to transform it into a glossy action film. As a filmmaker J.J. Abrams is somewhat of an enigma. One of his heroes growing up was Steven Spielberg. When he was a boy he was hired to repair some old film footage for him. Spielberg would later produce Abrams most personal film Super 8, a movie that typifies the director's career. Part of the film is a loving tribute to home movies and geek culture, while the other is a bombastic, overblown blockbuster, short of any personal imprint. He's a slick filmmaker, I enjoyed his TV show Alias until it became ridiculous, but he struggles to find the balance his idol has between action and character. Into Darkness is a better film than the messy 2009 film though. The best scenes overcome the generic, simplification of the action genre by retreating back towards the essence of the original show: a morally ambiguous grey zone, where the values of the characters and their races are tested. However, the characters are still bound by a rigid story structure, where at least ten elaborate set pieces take full precedence over the human and Vulcan drama.
The most interesting aspects of the plot are when Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirk (Chris Pine) butt heads over their different beliefs. Kirk is tasked with tracking down a rogue agent named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), who is now essentially a terrorist bomber, causing havoc in London by using desperate people to do his bidding. This leaves a chilling, lasting impression, particularly when the film adds a layer of complexity, with Spock insisting that Harrison should be captured and trialled first. He's at odds with the order of the mission and Kirk, who wants revenge for the death of a colleague. Cumberbatch is frighteningly good in the film, a massive improvement over Eric Bana's villain in the first movie. The tension he brings through his menace, his arrogance but also his ability to cast doubts in the minds of the protagonists about who the baddies really are, is a magnetic quality that is hard to prepare for prior to seeing the film. What a terrific find he's become over the last few years.
However, by ingraining itself in the structure of an action film, a lot of this ambiguity is undone. Whereas action and moral ethics fought and overlapped persistently in The Dark Knight, Into Darkness' rhythm is too discrete and foreseeable. The action is timed acutely to follow a stretch of exposition, dividing itself between moments of ideology and combat, and the emphasis on set pieces means the lines between good and evil become transparent again and remove the crucial shades of grey. Abrams also seems more interested in choreographing lavish action sequences than exploring the personal side of the drama. His imagination in the set pieces is limitless. He employs an array of frenzied techniques, including rapid cutting, tilting cameras, overhead shots and quick pans, to breeze through the action. Yet when the characters stop to face one another and talk his direction has none of the same flair or creativity. The actors sit or stand still, with the camera perched on their shoulders for dull reverse angle shots that don't heighten the tension.
Rarely do we ever see these characters in their downtime either. Without any inner life they become ciphers for voicing conflicting moral ideas, like instinct against logic or law and these conflicts are often resolved within a scene of one another. After watching Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan recently, which Into Darkness borrow from, it's also fascinating that Kirk is viewed as an ageing man who has to start thinking about death and his legacy. In this film he's more on par with Tony Stark, able to bed two alien girls with tails at once. That amplifies where they're aiming this film at, in spite of the occasionally intriguing layering of the story. For a franchise that prides itself on going where no man has gone before, the Enterprise is starting to travel in circles.
Yes! Better than the first one
dfranzen7018 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
In this second movie in the reboot of the original movies based on the old TV show, Captain James Tiberius Kirk of the Enterprise must face not only the renegade bad guy but also himself. Yes, I know, it's deep. Star Trek Into Darkness is, however, even better than its immediate predecessor, with spellbinding effects that actually look good in 3D, fleshed-out characterizations, and fine acting all around.
It's a year after the events in the first movie, and Kirk (Chris Pine) and company have been sent to a remote planet to observe and report. They discover that an active volcano is about to erupt, which would eradicate the indigenous society. Ignoring the Prime Directive, Kirk has Spock (Zachary Quinto) lowered into the volcano via shuttle and line to place and then detonate a nuclear device that would render the volcano inert. But, as they tend to do in ST films, things go wrong and Kirk has to reveal the hidden Enterprise to the society in order to rescue Spock.
That's just the leadup. At Starfleet HQ, Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood) is livid. You see, Kirk's report terms the trip as "uneventful"; Spock's, however, details everything. The insubordination, the unwillingness to follow the rules, the hubris, and the lack of humility, all add up to Kirk's being stripped of command and demoted, with Spock to be transferred. However, an emergency meeting of top Starfleet brass is convened to discuss the recent bombing of a Starfleet building that housed archives. The meeting itself is attacked by a former Starfleet agent named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), who then flees to an uninhabited part of the distant Klingon homeworld of Kronos. The Enterprise, with Kirk at the helm - but minus Scotty - takes off after Harrison, armed with 72 long-range missiles; the idea is to park just outside Klingon space, aim the torpedoes at Harrison, and fire away. But things...well, you know the drill. Things ain't what they seem to be.
There are plot revelations in this movie in almost every other scene, and certainly I won't go into them here. They all made sense (save for one, which seemed more like a red herring than anything else). But one point you should know going into this movie: a man without peace may desire war, the best way to gain power.
Elements of some of the original films are in play here. I think this rebooting is better than, say, redoing the Batman or Superman sagas every so often, because director J.J. Abrams simply grabs some plot points from various iterations of the series and inserts them at rational points. There is a feeling of real progression, that the crew grows with each mission, especially Kirk himself. Their transformations are sometimes excellent foreshadowing and sometimes elegant and subtle.
I also feel that the actors playing the crew members are growing into their roles, growing together as a cohesive unit. We no longer see one person doing one job, incapable of helping; they are a team much more like the The Next Generation gang was, less like The Original Series.
The acting ranges from adequate to fantastic. Loved Pine and Quinto, who have several difficult, emotional scenes; loved Zoe Saldana as Lt. Uhura, Anton Yelchin as Ensign Chekov, Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, John Cho as Lt. Sulu, and especially Simon Pegg as Lt. Cmdr. Scotty. None is a liability; all seem well cast and developed. In fact, we o get to know a little more about Uhura, Spock, and Scotty, and I suspect in future ST films we'll get more backstory as needed.
Star Trek Into Darkness does contain quite a bit of dazzling effects, and it might be best seen in 3D. Even in 2D, it would be a spectacle to watch. It's one of those rare films that combines visual wizardry with an actual compelling plot and multidimensional characters.
It is possible that real Trek fans will be displeased with the movie. Some may have wanted a replica of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some may have wanted a completely original story. The writers and director knew very well that they couldn't possibly please all mega fans, so they boldly chose a third path. The movie is, above all, a believable entry that is both faithful and original to the Trek universe.
It's a year after the events in the first movie, and Kirk (Chris Pine) and company have been sent to a remote planet to observe and report. They discover that an active volcano is about to erupt, which would eradicate the indigenous society. Ignoring the Prime Directive, Kirk has Spock (Zachary Quinto) lowered into the volcano via shuttle and line to place and then detonate a nuclear device that would render the volcano inert. But, as they tend to do in ST films, things go wrong and Kirk has to reveal the hidden Enterprise to the society in order to rescue Spock.
That's just the leadup. At Starfleet HQ, Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood) is livid. You see, Kirk's report terms the trip as "uneventful"; Spock's, however, details everything. The insubordination, the unwillingness to follow the rules, the hubris, and the lack of humility, all add up to Kirk's being stripped of command and demoted, with Spock to be transferred. However, an emergency meeting of top Starfleet brass is convened to discuss the recent bombing of a Starfleet building that housed archives. The meeting itself is attacked by a former Starfleet agent named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), who then flees to an uninhabited part of the distant Klingon homeworld of Kronos. The Enterprise, with Kirk at the helm - but minus Scotty - takes off after Harrison, armed with 72 long-range missiles; the idea is to park just outside Klingon space, aim the torpedoes at Harrison, and fire away. But things...well, you know the drill. Things ain't what they seem to be.
There are plot revelations in this movie in almost every other scene, and certainly I won't go into them here. They all made sense (save for one, which seemed more like a red herring than anything else). But one point you should know going into this movie: a man without peace may desire war, the best way to gain power.
Elements of some of the original films are in play here. I think this rebooting is better than, say, redoing the Batman or Superman sagas every so often, because director J.J. Abrams simply grabs some plot points from various iterations of the series and inserts them at rational points. There is a feeling of real progression, that the crew grows with each mission, especially Kirk himself. Their transformations are sometimes excellent foreshadowing and sometimes elegant and subtle.
I also feel that the actors playing the crew members are growing into their roles, growing together as a cohesive unit. We no longer see one person doing one job, incapable of helping; they are a team much more like the The Next Generation gang was, less like The Original Series.
The acting ranges from adequate to fantastic. Loved Pine and Quinto, who have several difficult, emotional scenes; loved Zoe Saldana as Lt. Uhura, Anton Yelchin as Ensign Chekov, Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, John Cho as Lt. Sulu, and especially Simon Pegg as Lt. Cmdr. Scotty. None is a liability; all seem well cast and developed. In fact, we o get to know a little more about Uhura, Spock, and Scotty, and I suspect in future ST films we'll get more backstory as needed.
Star Trek Into Darkness does contain quite a bit of dazzling effects, and it might be best seen in 3D. Even in 2D, it would be a spectacle to watch. It's one of those rare films that combines visual wizardry with an actual compelling plot and multidimensional characters.
It is possible that real Trek fans will be displeased with the movie. Some may have wanted a replica of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some may have wanted a completely original story. The writers and director knew very well that they couldn't possibly please all mega fans, so they boldly chose a third path. The movie is, above all, a believable entry that is both faithful and original to the Trek universe.
Khan has returned
bkoganbing24 June 2013
Zachary Quinto as Mr. Spock shows more emotion in Star Trek Into Darkness than Leonard Nimoy did during the entire run of the series and the various big screen incarnations. Considering the stress that he and Chris Pine as Captain Kirk are under in this one it is understandable.
It's hard to tell who the enemy is in this one. We've got a Star Fleet Admiral played by Peter Weller who is sending the Enterprise on one dangerous mission and it seems more and more like its real purpose was to provoke the Klingons into an all out war.
Their mission was to essentially assassinate a man named John Harrison who has defected to the Klingon Empire. But the last time such an assassination was ordered it was for either Admiral Yamamoto and for Osama Bin Laden. And the people carrying those missions out did not have the weaponry of the Enterprise.
Instead Kirk takes Harrison alive which fouls up the plans of a lot of people. And Harrison whose real name is Khan and is played by Benedict Cumberbatch has really got an agenda all his own.
By the name you'll recognize this as kind of a remake of the classic Star Trek, The Wrath Of Khan. But if you think you know then as a good Trekkie what's coming then you're in for a surprise. Important variations are made to the plot.
The high standard of good science fiction and characters of idealism and fortitude that all the incarnations of the Enterprise have shown are faithfully retained here. This is truly the next generation of Star Trek.
It's hard to tell who the enemy is in this one. We've got a Star Fleet Admiral played by Peter Weller who is sending the Enterprise on one dangerous mission and it seems more and more like its real purpose was to provoke the Klingons into an all out war.
Their mission was to essentially assassinate a man named John Harrison who has defected to the Klingon Empire. But the last time such an assassination was ordered it was for either Admiral Yamamoto and for Osama Bin Laden. And the people carrying those missions out did not have the weaponry of the Enterprise.
Instead Kirk takes Harrison alive which fouls up the plans of a lot of people. And Harrison whose real name is Khan and is played by Benedict Cumberbatch has really got an agenda all his own.
By the name you'll recognize this as kind of a remake of the classic Star Trek, The Wrath Of Khan. But if you think you know then as a good Trekkie what's coming then you're in for a surprise. Important variations are made to the plot.
The high standard of good science fiction and characters of idealism and fortitude that all the incarnations of the Enterprise have shown are faithfully retained here. This is truly the next generation of Star Trek.
A Solid, Exciting Second Adventure; Cumberbatch is Awesome
brando64722 November 2013
It seems 2013 is the year of fan rage, as it seems pretty much every major summer blockbuster became the object of their unmitigated anger. While the others seemed to infuriate fans for changing details, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS appears to fall on the opposite end of the spectrum. People seem aggravated that the filmmakers were too eager to reference the source material (while at the same time, simplifying it for a wider audience). In the case of just about every major movie released this summer, I feel like I'm in the minority of people who actually enjoyed them, and that includes our second adventure in the new STAR TREK universe. It wasn't as good as the first film but it was a solid, exciting film and one of the best we're bound to get. It begins about a year after the events of the first film with Captain Kirk using his command of the U.S.S. Enterprise to violate just about every rule in Starfleet. When an unsanctioned mission to save a primitive race from extinction brings the wrath of his superiors and puts him at odds with Spock, Kirk nearly loses his command position before it every truly gets started, but a terrorist attack on a Starfleet facility in London leaves him with no time to dwell on it. After suffering a personal loss, Kirk makes it his mission to hunt down this terrorist, a man going by the name John Harrison, and bring him to justice. Pursuing the man deep into enemy territory, Kirk finally confronts him to discover that he's more than he appears to be and he might not be the largest threat on the horizon.
I really enjoyed INTO DARKNESS. It's not quite as fun on repeat viewings but there's still a lot I loved about this movie. For better or worse, our new STAR TREK is a more action-oriented franchise and the action is always bigger than life. I swear, J.J. Abrams primary mission in these movies is to put the Enterprise through as much pain and suffering as he can to get the money shots that'll put audiences in the seats. We get the Enterprise falling through an atmosphere, rising out of an ocean, rising above clouds, rocketing out of warp speed every conceivably cool shot he can imagine, he'll find a way to fit it into the movie. And I can't complain because, frankly, the effects in this movie are so awesome that these shots look absolutely amazing. Of course, there are also plenty of brutal hand-to-hand combat and phaser battles because our new TREK isn't a mission of peace. Once relegated to the occasional away mission, action is the name of the game now. The production design, makeup effects, and visual effects are all top notch as you'd expect from a nearly $200 million budget. No one can argue that this movie doesn't look fantastic. It's one of my favorite things about the new franchise; we get an updated, modernized interpretation of a classic universe. Speaking of classic, this movie manages to shoehorn in Klingons, tribbles, and casual references to Harry Mudd and Nurse Chapel.
And here is where it seemed to get a lot of negative chatter. The writers and director have been accused of straight-up ripping off STAR TREK II because (and I refuse to consider this a spoiler seeing as how Benedict Cumberbatch is credited as the character on just about any cast list you find) Khan Noonien Singh returns and the movie makes more than a few loving references to THE WRATH OF KHAN. To give my opinion, no, I am not outraged about all the little homages scattered throughout the movie and I believed the plot was different enough from anything done in WRATH OF KHAN to avoid accusations of laziness. Aside from a major sequence near the end of the film (now THAT is a spoiler and I won't ruin it) that felt a little too on-the-nose and was resolved way, way too simply, I had no complaints in that regard. In fact, I thought Cumberbatch was an awesome Khan. He was sinister, intelligent, and an intimidating presence with his cold, calculating demeanor. He gave the constant impression that Khan was a powerful man and always in control of the situation, even when he shouldn't be. He was not as eccentric in the role as Ricardo Montalban in STAR TREK II, but I think he gives an equally powerful performance. You believe this man would slaughter every man and woman in his path to achieve his goals. Alice Eve is another addition to the cast as a weapons expert who invites herself aboard the Enterprise on its manhunt while hiding her own agenda (dodging some more minor spoilers here), but she doesn't do much. I don't know, maybe next time, I guess.
If fans want something to complain about, there're better things to complain about. Despite not having watched any of the series regularly in years, I'm pretty sure the Enterprise isn't capable of flying within an atmosphere (which it does twice here), much less landing and taking off. How does the Enterprise go from Earth orbit to the heart of Klingon space in ridiculously fast time? How did Khan teleport across so many systems? Was another high- speed space jump sequence really necessary? I guess it must've been so popular in the first film they felt the need to do it again and up the ante. How was the construction of a warship kept secret in the middle of a bustling stat system? Why was the Klingon moon already destroyed despite not occurring until STAR TREK VI? Although I guess that last one could be copped up to the whole reimagined timeline bit. Regardless, the new franchise is one of mass appeal and, understanding that we probably won't see a STAR TREK film like the old days, this one's pretty good for what it is.
I really enjoyed INTO DARKNESS. It's not quite as fun on repeat viewings but there's still a lot I loved about this movie. For better or worse, our new STAR TREK is a more action-oriented franchise and the action is always bigger than life. I swear, J.J. Abrams primary mission in these movies is to put the Enterprise through as much pain and suffering as he can to get the money shots that'll put audiences in the seats. We get the Enterprise falling through an atmosphere, rising out of an ocean, rising above clouds, rocketing out of warp speed every conceivably cool shot he can imagine, he'll find a way to fit it into the movie. And I can't complain because, frankly, the effects in this movie are so awesome that these shots look absolutely amazing. Of course, there are also plenty of brutal hand-to-hand combat and phaser battles because our new TREK isn't a mission of peace. Once relegated to the occasional away mission, action is the name of the game now. The production design, makeup effects, and visual effects are all top notch as you'd expect from a nearly $200 million budget. No one can argue that this movie doesn't look fantastic. It's one of my favorite things about the new franchise; we get an updated, modernized interpretation of a classic universe. Speaking of classic, this movie manages to shoehorn in Klingons, tribbles, and casual references to Harry Mudd and Nurse Chapel.
And here is where it seemed to get a lot of negative chatter. The writers and director have been accused of straight-up ripping off STAR TREK II because (and I refuse to consider this a spoiler seeing as how Benedict Cumberbatch is credited as the character on just about any cast list you find) Khan Noonien Singh returns and the movie makes more than a few loving references to THE WRATH OF KHAN. To give my opinion, no, I am not outraged about all the little homages scattered throughout the movie and I believed the plot was different enough from anything done in WRATH OF KHAN to avoid accusations of laziness. Aside from a major sequence near the end of the film (now THAT is a spoiler and I won't ruin it) that felt a little too on-the-nose and was resolved way, way too simply, I had no complaints in that regard. In fact, I thought Cumberbatch was an awesome Khan. He was sinister, intelligent, and an intimidating presence with his cold, calculating demeanor. He gave the constant impression that Khan was a powerful man and always in control of the situation, even when he shouldn't be. He was not as eccentric in the role as Ricardo Montalban in STAR TREK II, but I think he gives an equally powerful performance. You believe this man would slaughter every man and woman in his path to achieve his goals. Alice Eve is another addition to the cast as a weapons expert who invites herself aboard the Enterprise on its manhunt while hiding her own agenda (dodging some more minor spoilers here), but she doesn't do much. I don't know, maybe next time, I guess.
If fans want something to complain about, there're better things to complain about. Despite not having watched any of the series regularly in years, I'm pretty sure the Enterprise isn't capable of flying within an atmosphere (which it does twice here), much less landing and taking off. How does the Enterprise go from Earth orbit to the heart of Klingon space in ridiculously fast time? How did Khan teleport across so many systems? Was another high- speed space jump sequence really necessary? I guess it must've been so popular in the first film they felt the need to do it again and up the ante. How was the construction of a warship kept secret in the middle of a bustling stat system? Why was the Klingon moon already destroyed despite not occurring until STAR TREK VI? Although I guess that last one could be copped up to the whole reimagined timeline bit. Regardless, the new franchise is one of mass appeal and, understanding that we probably won't see a STAR TREK film like the old days, this one's pretty good for what it is.
Dumb
begob6 June 2017
A reckless young battleship commander hunts down the assassin of his mentor, but needs the assassin's help to counter a threat from within.
Flashy action story with a confused concept. The opening sequence addresses the clash between the ethics of the organisation and the swashbucklng of our hero, but it makes a mockery of the thoughtful side of Star Trek and doesn't tie in with the rest of the plot. After that we're left with something like Top Gun - a barely disguised homage to American military might without any insight on the responsibilities of power or the potential of human collaboration. There is nothing to explain how the organisation could become so corrupted that it promotes war, and the threat from the villain seems to come from nowhere - I don't know much about the Star Trek universe, so I'm just commenting on the internal logic of the story, but the year 1945 seems to have significance.
The drama is limited, with simple-minded relationships, and the actors don't need to do much. Best performances are from the villain, with the usual icy British superiority, and a bit of steam rising from Uhuru's passion.
The director fits the pieces together fairly tight and throws in plenty of punch-ups, but there's not much of interest.
Overall: nothing to distinguish this from a dumb action movie.
Flashy action story with a confused concept. The opening sequence addresses the clash between the ethics of the organisation and the swashbucklng of our hero, but it makes a mockery of the thoughtful side of Star Trek and doesn't tie in with the rest of the plot. After that we're left with something like Top Gun - a barely disguised homage to American military might without any insight on the responsibilities of power or the potential of human collaboration. There is nothing to explain how the organisation could become so corrupted that it promotes war, and the threat from the villain seems to come from nowhere - I don't know much about the Star Trek universe, so I'm just commenting on the internal logic of the story, but the year 1945 seems to have significance.
The drama is limited, with simple-minded relationships, and the actors don't need to do much. Best performances are from the villain, with the usual icy British superiority, and a bit of steam rising from Uhuru's passion.
The director fits the pieces together fairly tight and throws in plenty of punch-ups, but there's not much of interest.
Overall: nothing to distinguish this from a dumb action movie.
I really wanted to like it, but....
vandykeu11 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I really wanted to like "into darkness". I'm not a die-hard trekkie, but I like original series/movies well enough, and I really enjoyed the entire original Khan storyline. As soon as I heard the Khan rumors, I was both excited and anxious. Unfortunately, I think the anxious side won out.
Don't get me wrong. It's a solid action flick, and the acting by pretty much everyone is fine, and Cumberbatch is amazing. But it's not star trek, and it especially is not wrath of khan, no matter how much it wants to be. Other reviews have focused on the good, so I'm going to focus on the bad (as I see it).
First, in the originals, Khan is from central Asia and was played by a Mexican. In this movie, Khan is as English as the queen herself. Cumberbatch's excellent performance notwithstanding, why is he called "Khan Noonien Singh" if he's Engilish? The time travel event in the first movie would not have caused a fundamental change in Khan's race, accent, etc. It's a minor point, I know, but it really dragged me out of the movie.
Second, key parts of the plot are uncomfortably repetitive of the original, with special effects added for the sake of hyperbole and all of the thoughtfulness of the original removed for simplicity. Though Kirk's journey into maturity is obviously meant to be introspective, it couldn't have been less subtle with a sledgehammer, particularly at certain key points in the plot. Parts of London and San Francisco are destroyed just to make the effects and reinforce what a bad guy Khan is, but the consequences of the horror go unrealized. Khan himself is the mechanism of a really cheesy reincarnation that follows a really cheesy exploitation of the original film.
Third, although the acting by the crew is fine, the dialogue is sophomoric and obvious. McCoy is meant to be the conscience of the crew, the thoughtful one holding everyone back from rash decisions. Here, Karl Urban is given nothing but shoddy one-liners. Simon Pegg and Anton Yelchin are similarly disused.
Abrams thankfully doesn't use as much camera shake as last time, but there are still plenty of lens flares, fast zooms, and weird angles, as well as nods to star wars. They're cheap, hack, and do nothing to advance the story. As a fan of both franchises, I hate that they will all soon suffer from these faults. Cut the redundancy and hack cinematography and try to come up with some creative original plots, JJ!
Don't get me wrong. It's a solid action flick, and the acting by pretty much everyone is fine, and Cumberbatch is amazing. But it's not star trek, and it especially is not wrath of khan, no matter how much it wants to be. Other reviews have focused on the good, so I'm going to focus on the bad (as I see it).
First, in the originals, Khan is from central Asia and was played by a Mexican. In this movie, Khan is as English as the queen herself. Cumberbatch's excellent performance notwithstanding, why is he called "Khan Noonien Singh" if he's Engilish? The time travel event in the first movie would not have caused a fundamental change in Khan's race, accent, etc. It's a minor point, I know, but it really dragged me out of the movie.
Second, key parts of the plot are uncomfortably repetitive of the original, with special effects added for the sake of hyperbole and all of the thoughtfulness of the original removed for simplicity. Though Kirk's journey into maturity is obviously meant to be introspective, it couldn't have been less subtle with a sledgehammer, particularly at certain key points in the plot. Parts of London and San Francisco are destroyed just to make the effects and reinforce what a bad guy Khan is, but the consequences of the horror go unrealized. Khan himself is the mechanism of a really cheesy reincarnation that follows a really cheesy exploitation of the original film.
Third, although the acting by the crew is fine, the dialogue is sophomoric and obvious. McCoy is meant to be the conscience of the crew, the thoughtful one holding everyone back from rash decisions. Here, Karl Urban is given nothing but shoddy one-liners. Simon Pegg and Anton Yelchin are similarly disused.
Abrams thankfully doesn't use as much camera shake as last time, but there are still plenty of lens flares, fast zooms, and weird angles, as well as nods to star wars. They're cheap, hack, and do nothing to advance the story. As a fan of both franchises, I hate that they will all soon suffer from these faults. Cut the redundancy and hack cinematography and try to come up with some creative original plots, JJ!
To boldly make more noise than anyone before
chaos-rampant20 August 2013
Abrams is merely an efficient technician, uninteresting as a man of vision. But we need guys like him, conservative and mechanical in their efficiency, who will hold down the paradigm as others more adventurous fight to shift it, who will remind us by the arbitrary limits they impose that there must be a broader space. It's always the routine and familiar that kindles dreaming.
And this is just so routine. Abrams takes the Spielberg-Lucas model of climax after climax, starting with an Indiana Jones prologue. A few simple moral dilemmas form the backbone, inherited with a wink from the Trek genealogy. The hamfisted 9/11 allegory, enforced by terrorist bombings and a final 'plane crash' in Starfleet hq, is that we may covet revenge but we are dehumanized in the process. Khan as a vengeful mujahedeen, 'trained' by the secret military which is headed by a cowboy admiral hellbent on preemptive war. (Interestingly, everything about Khan's handling here bears Nolan's influence.)
Soulless.
So it is fitting that this guy is spearheading the next generation of established cinematic imagination, taking over from Lucas who is now retired, and Spielberg who is 'respectable'. I'm sure that in 20 years time he will be making his own respectable war movies. That kids growing up on stuff like this will fondly elevate the memory. And that his idea of artistry, Welles' action camera dotted by twinkles of color, lasers and flares, will be elaborated on in essays about his aesthetics, maybe.
All of which is just a natural state of things, nothing to get up in arms about. It just means that the interesting stuff will be defined by contrast to him.
And this is just so routine. Abrams takes the Spielberg-Lucas model of climax after climax, starting with an Indiana Jones prologue. A few simple moral dilemmas form the backbone, inherited with a wink from the Trek genealogy. The hamfisted 9/11 allegory, enforced by terrorist bombings and a final 'plane crash' in Starfleet hq, is that we may covet revenge but we are dehumanized in the process. Khan as a vengeful mujahedeen, 'trained' by the secret military which is headed by a cowboy admiral hellbent on preemptive war. (Interestingly, everything about Khan's handling here bears Nolan's influence.)
Soulless.
So it is fitting that this guy is spearheading the next generation of established cinematic imagination, taking over from Lucas who is now retired, and Spielberg who is 'respectable'. I'm sure that in 20 years time he will be making his own respectable war movies. That kids growing up on stuff like this will fondly elevate the memory. And that his idea of artistry, Welles' action camera dotted by twinkles of color, lasers and flares, will be elaborated on in essays about his aesthetics, maybe.
All of which is just a natural state of things, nothing to get up in arms about. It just means that the interesting stuff will be defined by contrast to him.
Watch it and ignore the critics!
alison-465-6847689 May 2013
We watched ' Star Trek - Into the Darkness this afternoon (May 9th 2013).
I am not going to reveal specific details because this film is so new that I am aware that many people still have not had the opportunity to watch it, and I do not wish to ruin their experience.
Having read the points raised in the 'maddog' review I just wanted to say that we found it to be a truly absorbing and brilliant film, and our views are so diametrically opposed to 'maddog' that I genuinely wonder if he/or she actually watched the same film - or slept through it and took a wild guess as to its quality.
Star Trek - Into the Darkness is mainly a fast paced action film interspersed with scenes of human interest which facilitates the deeper development of the main characters and their inter-relationships. The phrase 'bonding under fire seems appropriate.
I would urge people not to be dissuaded from watching this film because a reviewer cannot see the link between Gene Roddenberry's much vaunted ideals and therefore trashes J.J. Abrams work. Let me just say that as I am in my 66th year, I have watched ALL the Star Trek series and films and can advise that this film combines a serious reflection of William Shatner's portrayal of James T. Kirk but also matures Chris Pine as the film progresses. As Roddenberry was closely involved with original Star Trek series I therefore believe that he would approve the direction that Abrams is taking the latest incarnation of Star Trek.
Star Trek - Into the Darkness is aptly named. It is rich in plot detail and exciting to watch. It will have many people sitting on the edge of their seats, willing those embroiled in battle to succeed. Even the villain (stunningly portrayed by Benedict Cumberpatch) warrants a certain amount of sympathy from all fair minded people.
My advice - Go, Watch - and be thrilled by a brilliant film. We will go and see it again!!
Our thanks to all those involved in bringing this to our screen - great job!
I am not going to reveal specific details because this film is so new that I am aware that many people still have not had the opportunity to watch it, and I do not wish to ruin their experience.
Having read the points raised in the 'maddog' review I just wanted to say that we found it to be a truly absorbing and brilliant film, and our views are so diametrically opposed to 'maddog' that I genuinely wonder if he/or she actually watched the same film - or slept through it and took a wild guess as to its quality.
Star Trek - Into the Darkness is mainly a fast paced action film interspersed with scenes of human interest which facilitates the deeper development of the main characters and their inter-relationships. The phrase 'bonding under fire seems appropriate.
I would urge people not to be dissuaded from watching this film because a reviewer cannot see the link between Gene Roddenberry's much vaunted ideals and therefore trashes J.J. Abrams work. Let me just say that as I am in my 66th year, I have watched ALL the Star Trek series and films and can advise that this film combines a serious reflection of William Shatner's portrayal of James T. Kirk but also matures Chris Pine as the film progresses. As Roddenberry was closely involved with original Star Trek series I therefore believe that he would approve the direction that Abrams is taking the latest incarnation of Star Trek.
Star Trek - Into the Darkness is aptly named. It is rich in plot detail and exciting to watch. It will have many people sitting on the edge of their seats, willing those embroiled in battle to succeed. Even the villain (stunningly portrayed by Benedict Cumberpatch) warrants a certain amount of sympathy from all fair minded people.
My advice - Go, Watch - and be thrilled by a brilliant film. We will go and see it again!!
Our thanks to all those involved in bringing this to our screen - great job!
Better than the first one
grumpy-34 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Well its been 4 years, and here it is, saw it last night, with much anticipation, because of the title i really thought that this was going to be Nolanised, and disappoint me as the two dark knight films had. silly title really as its not dark at all. the breezy humour between the characters is still there, JJ signature len's flare is still there and it rattles along at 300 miles an hour. the two hour plus running time just flew by, and no sooner had we sat down, the film had come to a brilliant, moving and satisfying end. i am not going to disclose any of the plot or who is who, just to say that they have certainly built on and taken the characters further, they have also brilliantly referenced star trek lore, bridging the past with this great new time line. the 3d once again was utterly pointless i will be hoping to see it again if i can find a big screen that will be showing it in 2d, they have got to stop this 3d nonsense, if you are going to use 3d them make the 3d count and give us scenes of things coming at you. 3D MAKES THE SCREEN AND EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING IN IT SMALLER. NOTE TO ALL FUTURE SPECTATORS TAKE YOUR GLASSES OFF Occasionally AND YOU WILL SEE THE DIFFERENCE. anyway still did not ruin a great film and a great time.
Not really a Star Trek film
Caps Fan11 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As a Star Trek fan of long standing, I went to see the 2009 reboot of the film franchise with some trepidation. But in fact I thoroughly enjoyed it, partly because it held a surprise and had the guts to stick with it.
And so, to this year's effort. There are many things to like about it. The performances are mostly good. Benedict Cumberbatch is a striking villain, while Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto do a good job of the reversed Spock/Kirk death scene. It is not slow or boring, and the script has some fun moments.
Special effects were good, but that's a given these days. I saw it in 3D, but that didn't seem to add much.
I don't remember much about the music, so it was presumably neither good nor bad.
But the film just isn't Star Trek, when all is said and done. It is, rather, an action film a la Total Recall with some Star Trek characters and overtones bolted on. It would have been just as possible to make this film with a wholly non-ST cast and a different spaceship.
I enjoyed it on that action-film level, but, as a Star Trek film, it is a disappointment.
Rating: 6/10.
And so, to this year's effort. There are many things to like about it. The performances are mostly good. Benedict Cumberbatch is a striking villain, while Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto do a good job of the reversed Spock/Kirk death scene. It is not slow or boring, and the script has some fun moments.
Special effects were good, but that's a given these days. I saw it in 3D, but that didn't seem to add much.
I don't remember much about the music, so it was presumably neither good nor bad.
But the film just isn't Star Trek, when all is said and done. It is, rather, an action film a la Total Recall with some Star Trek characters and overtones bolted on. It would have been just as possible to make this film with a wholly non-ST cast and a different spaceship.
I enjoyed it on that action-film level, but, as a Star Trek film, it is a disappointment.
Rating: 6/10.
I can boldly embrace both
kitzkats19 May 2013
As someone who has grown up with the franchise, watched every show and every movie (I've watched the entire DS9 series at least twice!), suffered through characters/actors who I didn't care for (Tasha Yar, seriously?), I realize we all have opinions about what makes Gene Roddenberry's vision so lasting.
That being said? I LOVED this movie. I even capitalized it I loved it so much. The play between the characters, the more human version of Spock, the absolutely delightful "Scotty" (although his sidekick is one of those throwaway characters I dislike) as well as a much better crafted plot this time made for a completely enjoyable movie. The action is intense, the friendship deepened between the characters, the twists and turns are a bit predictable at times, but that is reminiscent of the franchise as a whole. I am already excited for the next movie. I tremendously respected and appreciated the ties in this movie to the elements that make Star Trek great - strong story line, deep connection to the characters and a philosophical element. In some of the older Star Trek episodes the moral/philosophical element can be oppressively heavy handed. No so in the new Trek movie. The ideas of friendship, family and humanity are woven through this movie with subtly and I will outright admit I more than teared up during the climactic scene in the engine room. EVEN though I had already figured out what was going to happen, I have already come to care about, respect and enjoy the new actors in their iconic roles.
So yes, ten out of ten. And let the haters, hate. Those who can not embrace change can go sit and watch old Star Trek reruns and bemoan the 'good old days' and spout off all the reasons why 'Star Trek ain't what it used to be'!!!!
I, on the other hand, will boldly go and embrace the new with a continued reverence for the old. This movie makes it possible to love both.
That being said? I LOVED this movie. I even capitalized it I loved it so much. The play between the characters, the more human version of Spock, the absolutely delightful "Scotty" (although his sidekick is one of those throwaway characters I dislike) as well as a much better crafted plot this time made for a completely enjoyable movie. The action is intense, the friendship deepened between the characters, the twists and turns are a bit predictable at times, but that is reminiscent of the franchise as a whole. I am already excited for the next movie. I tremendously respected and appreciated the ties in this movie to the elements that make Star Trek great - strong story line, deep connection to the characters and a philosophical element. In some of the older Star Trek episodes the moral/philosophical element can be oppressively heavy handed. No so in the new Trek movie. The ideas of friendship, family and humanity are woven through this movie with subtly and I will outright admit I more than teared up during the climactic scene in the engine room. EVEN though I had already figured out what was going to happen, I have already come to care about, respect and enjoy the new actors in their iconic roles.
So yes, ten out of ten. And let the haters, hate. Those who can not embrace change can go sit and watch old Star Trek reruns and bemoan the 'good old days' and spout off all the reasons why 'Star Trek ain't what it used to be'!!!!
I, on the other hand, will boldly go and embrace the new with a continued reverence for the old. This movie makes it possible to love both.
A Prequel back to the Original Space Fantasy
in198423 August 2013
7.25 of 10. This is more of a Star Trek for the hardcore fans of the old series. Unfortunately, it holds on to some of the elements too much, not upgrading the science and technology. It's disappointing in that it doesn't boldly go to an entirely new crew, planets, and aliens. Fortunately, it feels like a 1-time step back to explore some of the unanswered mysteries of the story's origins. I'll be disappointed if it tries to become a series.
It does boldly explore the pre-mission lives of the original Star Trek characters, giving them new dimension and a solid foundation. It makes you want to watch the old series from the start, but not a sequel.
There are also some exceptional story and plot developments to make this unique and a good story in itself, villains that are much more complex than the simple alien adversaries of past stories. About the only place for this to go is a prequel of the prequel.
It does boldly explore the pre-mission lives of the original Star Trek characters, giving them new dimension and a solid foundation. It makes you want to watch the old series from the start, but not a sequel.
There are also some exceptional story and plot developments to make this unique and a good story in itself, villains that are much more complex than the simple alien adversaries of past stories. About the only place for this to go is a prequel of the prequel.
You can't go wrong in seeing "Star Trek Into Darkness."
jdkraus9 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
J.J. Abrams's first Star Trek picture managed to take the familiar characters that die hard fans have relished for decades and bring them back to life with greatness, as well as present a new twist in the Star Trek universe. With "Star Trek Into Darkness," can Abrams and his team of writers make a sequel that is as good, perhaps even better than its predecessor? The answer is yes. This success is not necessarily just from the reappearance of all the characters from the previous film. Nor is it even from the photo-realistic visual effects and action sequences. Rather, it is revealed from its clever story and one of the best Star Trek villains ever brought back to the big screen...Kahn.
The film picks up a year after the events from the prequel. Kirk has botched a mission and is demoted from his position as captain. When a series of events follow suit, including mass destruction and a death of a close friend, Kirk is put back in the captain's chair and sent on a mission to capture Kahn, the man responsible. But like with all J.J. Abram films and TV shows, there is more to it than you would ever anticipate. What is so good about this Stark Trek, is that it is quite unpredictable. Characters die sudden and unexpectedly. The story makes twist and turns, elements that are enough to put me on the edge of my seat at times. There is never a dull moment in this film. What is also so good is the amount of references tied in from other Stark Trek films. Not trying to give much away, but there is a scene re-adapted more or less from "Wrath of Kahn." It is a beautiful and poignant scene that many past Star Trek fans will find amusing and touching.
English actor Benedict Cumberbatch takes the mantle as Kahn. For those of you who remember Ricardo Montalban in Wrath of Kahn, an old man with bad make up and a fake chest and biceps, well, Kahn is not like this anymore. His intelligence and strength are strong enough to make him more than a formidable enemy for Kirk and the Starship Enterprise's crew. His performance, loaded with blank facial expressions and lifeless eyes almost remind me of a young Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lector. It would be interesting to see the two play a game of chess.
J.J. Abrams has out done himself again with his new installment of his Star Trek series. It is blockbuster success in terms of fun, entertainment, action, humor, story, and above all a great villain. You can't go wrong in seeing "Star Trek Into Darkness."
The film picks up a year after the events from the prequel. Kirk has botched a mission and is demoted from his position as captain. When a series of events follow suit, including mass destruction and a death of a close friend, Kirk is put back in the captain's chair and sent on a mission to capture Kahn, the man responsible. But like with all J.J. Abram films and TV shows, there is more to it than you would ever anticipate. What is so good about this Stark Trek, is that it is quite unpredictable. Characters die sudden and unexpectedly. The story makes twist and turns, elements that are enough to put me on the edge of my seat at times. There is never a dull moment in this film. What is also so good is the amount of references tied in from other Stark Trek films. Not trying to give much away, but there is a scene re-adapted more or less from "Wrath of Kahn." It is a beautiful and poignant scene that many past Star Trek fans will find amusing and touching.
English actor Benedict Cumberbatch takes the mantle as Kahn. For those of you who remember Ricardo Montalban in Wrath of Kahn, an old man with bad make up and a fake chest and biceps, well, Kahn is not like this anymore. His intelligence and strength are strong enough to make him more than a formidable enemy for Kirk and the Starship Enterprise's crew. His performance, loaded with blank facial expressions and lifeless eyes almost remind me of a young Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lector. It would be interesting to see the two play a game of chess.
J.J. Abrams has out done himself again with his new installment of his Star Trek series. It is blockbuster success in terms of fun, entertainment, action, humor, story, and above all a great villain. You can't go wrong in seeing "Star Trek Into Darkness."
Admirable Follow Up
jace_the_film_guy4 November 2022
An admirable follow up to 2009's Star Trek, this film checks the boxes without taking many risks. While I enjoyed seeing the characters struggle with their responsibilities, there were far too many "start over" moments. That being said, each of those moments were short lived and I would have liked more in-depth storytelling.
The cast is fantastic (just like the first movie) and Benedict Cumberbatch's Khan is a welcome addition. I especially enjoyed the moments which showed why Kirk is the youngest captain in Star Fleet (The "gather in this room according to protocol" scene is a great example).
While the action was over-the-top just like its predecessor, there were also some clever scenarios that I enjoyed diving into. The interpersonal relationships were deepened and the lore was broadened (love the Mudd reference), it just fell short of the first film.
Best Character: Chekov Best Scene: Hand on the glass Best Quote: "It's going to be okay, son." - Pike Best Piece of Score: London Calling.
The cast is fantastic (just like the first movie) and Benedict Cumberbatch's Khan is a welcome addition. I especially enjoyed the moments which showed why Kirk is the youngest captain in Star Fleet (The "gather in this room according to protocol" scene is a great example).
While the action was over-the-top just like its predecessor, there were also some clever scenarios that I enjoyed diving into. The interpersonal relationships were deepened and the lore was broadened (love the Mudd reference), it just fell short of the first film.
Best Character: Chekov Best Scene: Hand on the glass Best Quote: "It's going to be okay, son." - Pike Best Piece of Score: London Calling.
Abrams' Trek Journeys Into Greatness
jeddjong7 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
With 2009's Star Trek, director J. J. Abrams had set a course for the future of the series with a film that thoroughly invigorated what was, up to that point, largely seen as a flagging franchise. Love it or hate it, Star Trek '09 made the series accessible to the masses and perhaps the sexy young cast, the action sequences and the lens flares were just a way of helping the movie-going public at large let down their collective guards and learn to appreciate this cornerstone of science fiction through new eyes.
Following a misadventurous opening sequence set on the planet Nibiru, Kirk and company return to Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco, where the higher-ups are none too happy about the recklessness they displayed on Nibiru. This is interrupted by a new threat: an unstoppable one-man terror cell who goes by the name of "John Harrison" (Cumberbatch). Kirk leads the crew of the Enterprise in pursuit of Harrison, armed with 72 photon torpedoes and with newbie Dr Carol Marcus (Eve), daughter of Starfleet head Admiral Marcus (Weller), on board. Chief Engineer Scotty (Pegg) is suspicious of the contents of said weapons but his concern is initially unheeded. What follows is a dangerous quest that takes our heroes to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, leading them to the discovery of the torpedoes' secret payload and the truth behind John Harrison's beef with Starfleet.
Now, this is how you make a summer blockbuster. A tentpole sci- fi action flick doesn't have to be two hours of mind-numbing, cacophonous dross. Abrams, along with writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and the countless others involved have brought us a film that is fresh, relentlessly exciting and overflowing with white-knuckle action, and none of this at the expense of a compelling story or well-drawn characters. From the very first minute, this reviewer was yanked right into this fantastical world. Abrams all but announces "buckle up, because it's going to be one hell of a ride" – and what a ride Star Trek Into Darkness is.
The Star Trek series has a magnificent legacy and has had an immeasurable impact on the genre, and to chuck all that away for all flash and no substance would be something of a crime. That's not the case here. Sure, there seems to be barely a minute to stop and catch one's breath, but that's probably preferable to a film that drags on and on any day of the week. The film has no shortage of pizazz in the form of stunning visual effects work, witty banter and edge-of-your seat near misses galore. Despite having "darkness" in its title, this flick is far from dour or depressing. References, homages and shout-outs are skilfully weaved into the fabric of the story and some may disagree, but this reviewer feels this iteration of Trek actually is very respectful of what went before – just not slavishly so.
In this movie, Captain Kirk truly comes into his own as leader of a starship crew and father to his men, Pine further proving there's more to him than just his handsome mug. Sure, Kirk's still the brash, womanising guy we all love (we catch him in bed with two be-tailed alien sisters) but there is character growth to be had. The ever-uneasy friendship between Kirk and Spock also gets a fair amount of play, and there are some great moments between the two, ranging from casual brickbats to a pretty dramatic bit near the end of the film. Quinto conveys Spock's struggle to get in touch with his human side, his resistance to emotion driving a wedge between him and Uhura, but never hits us over the head with this.
Just as in the earlier film, everyone gets a chance to strut his or her stuff – for example, Sulu even gets to be acting captain. Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as Bones in particular stand out in this one, both bringing different brands of comic relief to the proceedings while functioning as far more than merely "the funny guys". Bones mentions that he once performed a Caesarean on a Gorn and delivered octuplets. It's a funny bit that's also a nice nod to the original series. Speaking of alien species, there's a tribble which turns out to be integral to the plot. This is also brilliant.
Of course, the attention is square on Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain of the piece. Suffice it to say that fangirls of his will not be disappointed. The guy is a riveting actor, one who knows when to chew just the right amount of scenery in order to not come off as silly. There has been a spate of more "intellectual" villains in blockbuster movies as of late, but Cumberbatch does enough to differentiate himself from the bunch and Harrison isn't just all brains and no brawn – he single-handedly takes on a Klingon patrol in one action sequence.
Star Trek Into Darkness is such a thrill that this reviewer left the theatre kind of breathless, but also really pumped. It's a big, big movie, but not the kind that's an extravagant insult to the intellects of audiences everywhere. Abrams has crafted a sequel that ups the game and elicits cheers, laughter, goosebumps, excited fist-pumping and even a tear or two at all the right moments. And isn't that warp effect just so sparklingly beautiful?
Written for F*** Magazine
Following a misadventurous opening sequence set on the planet Nibiru, Kirk and company return to Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco, where the higher-ups are none too happy about the recklessness they displayed on Nibiru. This is interrupted by a new threat: an unstoppable one-man terror cell who goes by the name of "John Harrison" (Cumberbatch). Kirk leads the crew of the Enterprise in pursuit of Harrison, armed with 72 photon torpedoes and with newbie Dr Carol Marcus (Eve), daughter of Starfleet head Admiral Marcus (Weller), on board. Chief Engineer Scotty (Pegg) is suspicious of the contents of said weapons but his concern is initially unheeded. What follows is a dangerous quest that takes our heroes to the Klingon homeworld of Kronos, leading them to the discovery of the torpedoes' secret payload and the truth behind John Harrison's beef with Starfleet.
Now, this is how you make a summer blockbuster. A tentpole sci- fi action flick doesn't have to be two hours of mind-numbing, cacophonous dross. Abrams, along with writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and the countless others involved have brought us a film that is fresh, relentlessly exciting and overflowing with white-knuckle action, and none of this at the expense of a compelling story or well-drawn characters. From the very first minute, this reviewer was yanked right into this fantastical world. Abrams all but announces "buckle up, because it's going to be one hell of a ride" – and what a ride Star Trek Into Darkness is.
The Star Trek series has a magnificent legacy and has had an immeasurable impact on the genre, and to chuck all that away for all flash and no substance would be something of a crime. That's not the case here. Sure, there seems to be barely a minute to stop and catch one's breath, but that's probably preferable to a film that drags on and on any day of the week. The film has no shortage of pizazz in the form of stunning visual effects work, witty banter and edge-of-your seat near misses galore. Despite having "darkness" in its title, this flick is far from dour or depressing. References, homages and shout-outs are skilfully weaved into the fabric of the story and some may disagree, but this reviewer feels this iteration of Trek actually is very respectful of what went before – just not slavishly so.
In this movie, Captain Kirk truly comes into his own as leader of a starship crew and father to his men, Pine further proving there's more to him than just his handsome mug. Sure, Kirk's still the brash, womanising guy we all love (we catch him in bed with two be-tailed alien sisters) but there is character growth to be had. The ever-uneasy friendship between Kirk and Spock also gets a fair amount of play, and there are some great moments between the two, ranging from casual brickbats to a pretty dramatic bit near the end of the film. Quinto conveys Spock's struggle to get in touch with his human side, his resistance to emotion driving a wedge between him and Uhura, but never hits us over the head with this.
Just as in the earlier film, everyone gets a chance to strut his or her stuff – for example, Sulu even gets to be acting captain. Simon Pegg as Scotty and Karl Urban as Bones in particular stand out in this one, both bringing different brands of comic relief to the proceedings while functioning as far more than merely "the funny guys". Bones mentions that he once performed a Caesarean on a Gorn and delivered octuplets. It's a funny bit that's also a nice nod to the original series. Speaking of alien species, there's a tribble which turns out to be integral to the plot. This is also brilliant.
Of course, the attention is square on Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain of the piece. Suffice it to say that fangirls of his will not be disappointed. The guy is a riveting actor, one who knows when to chew just the right amount of scenery in order to not come off as silly. There has been a spate of more "intellectual" villains in blockbuster movies as of late, but Cumberbatch does enough to differentiate himself from the bunch and Harrison isn't just all brains and no brawn – he single-handedly takes on a Klingon patrol in one action sequence.
Star Trek Into Darkness is such a thrill that this reviewer left the theatre kind of breathless, but also really pumped. It's a big, big movie, but not the kind that's an extravagant insult to the intellects of audiences everywhere. Abrams has crafted a sequel that ups the game and elicits cheers, laughter, goosebumps, excited fist-pumping and even a tear or two at all the right moments. And isn't that warp effect just so sparklingly beautiful?
Written for F*** Magazine
The 12th feature film in the Star Trek franchise and the second of J.J. Abrams results to be an exciting and thrilling roller-coaster
ma-cortes31 July 2014
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction . His behavior compromises a mission and turning back to his mentor Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) , Kirk is demoted . But when an evil force led by Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch , though Mickey Rourke was considered for the role of Khan Noonien Singh) attacks Starfleet HQ and Admiral Pike in the process, Kirk along with his crew (Zachary Quinto : Spock , Zoe Saldana : Uhura , Karl Urban : Bones , Simon Pegg : Scotty , John Cho : Sulu , Anton Yelchin : Chekov and newcomer Alice Eva : Carol) takes command and takes the Enterprise deep into the "forbidden zone" and the Klingon (they were given a new look for the film) homeworld . Our heroes find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization and go out to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction .
This epic story is concentrated on characters as well as thrill-packed action and special effects although there're numerous of that too . The movie has thrills , tension , emotion, suspense and sensational spacial scenarios like is customary development of the franchise . Spectacular, exciting , fast-paced , thrilling this is the description of this new outing of Star Trek , film that reinvents the saga through a perfect pulse narrative that does not give a second of rest to the spectator who is trapped for two hours approx. in a genuine visual spectacle . Idealism ,humor , humanity , several agreeable characters and trademark effects abound and will please the enthusiasts such as the neophyte . As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew. The nice acting convinces , especially the avenger Benedict Cumberbatch in a super-villain role , Zachary Quinto, and the sympathetic Simon Pegg , while other players also make a fine work . And of course , special appearance of Leonard Nimoy in an emotive and enjoyable intervention. Stirring final amazing the spectator , in which the moving and spectacular scenes create a perfect union that terminates with an ending that leaves you stuck in the armchair facing the formidable spectacle as a privileged witness . Interesting screenplay , as screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman explained that the dilemma for the sequel was whether to pit the crew against another villain like in Star Trek (2009), or to have an "exploration sci-fi plot where the unknown and nature itself is somehow an adversary", like on Star Trek , the original series (1966).
Breathtaking soundtrack by Michael Giacchino , he composes an impressive musical accompaniment to the film . This marks the first time a Star Trek film has shot outside the United States, with shooting in Iceland for special effects sequences. Furthermore , a colorful and evocative cinematography by Daniel Mindel . Paramount Pictures requested that director J.J. Abrams make the film in 3D ; however, Abrams wanted to shoot the two-dimensionally on film using IMAX cameras ; the two compromised, making this the first feature film to be shot in IMAX and converted to 3D in post-production . Suitable for family viewing , it's an entertaining adventure which young and old men will enjoy . Fans of the series will find very amusing and fun . It is fun to watch and Trekkies are sure to love it , resulting to be one of the best science-fiction sequels of all time and the highest grossing film of all the Star Trek movies.
This epic story is concentrated on characters as well as thrill-packed action and special effects although there're numerous of that too . The movie has thrills , tension , emotion, suspense and sensational spacial scenarios like is customary development of the franchise . Spectacular, exciting , fast-paced , thrilling this is the description of this new outing of Star Trek , film that reinvents the saga through a perfect pulse narrative that does not give a second of rest to the spectator who is trapped for two hours approx. in a genuine visual spectacle . Idealism ,humor , humanity , several agreeable characters and trademark effects abound and will please the enthusiasts such as the neophyte . As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew. The nice acting convinces , especially the avenger Benedict Cumberbatch in a super-villain role , Zachary Quinto, and the sympathetic Simon Pegg , while other players also make a fine work . And of course , special appearance of Leonard Nimoy in an emotive and enjoyable intervention. Stirring final amazing the spectator , in which the moving and spectacular scenes create a perfect union that terminates with an ending that leaves you stuck in the armchair facing the formidable spectacle as a privileged witness . Interesting screenplay , as screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman explained that the dilemma for the sequel was whether to pit the crew against another villain like in Star Trek (2009), or to have an "exploration sci-fi plot where the unknown and nature itself is somehow an adversary", like on Star Trek , the original series (1966).
Breathtaking soundtrack by Michael Giacchino , he composes an impressive musical accompaniment to the film . This marks the first time a Star Trek film has shot outside the United States, with shooting in Iceland for special effects sequences. Furthermore , a colorful and evocative cinematography by Daniel Mindel . Paramount Pictures requested that director J.J. Abrams make the film in 3D ; however, Abrams wanted to shoot the two-dimensionally on film using IMAX cameras ; the two compromised, making this the first feature film to be shot in IMAX and converted to 3D in post-production . Suitable for family viewing , it's an entertaining adventure which young and old men will enjoy . Fans of the series will find very amusing and fun . It is fun to watch and Trekkies are sure to love it , resulting to be one of the best science-fiction sequels of all time and the highest grossing film of all the Star Trek movies.
"star trek for people who hate Star Trek"
Rob-O-Cop31 August 2013
If you love the star trek franchise because it consistently delivers thought provoking interesting stories without the brutality and violence that Hollywood seems hooked on, you're going to be as disappointed as I was with this movie.
It looked big, the acting was really good, but JJ Abrams for some unknown reason decided it was necessary to remove the essence of what makes Star Trek different and replace it with some Michael Bay antics. At times it was like watching someone play a video game.
It was a really well made waste of time. No insight into the human condition, no thinking necessary, just eye candy and forgettable events.
And that's a shame, cos there was some great acting going on here. all the cast delivered well especially Cumberbatch and Quinto, some great looking effects, but why bother? When interviewed on the daily show Abrams actually said he wanted to make this movie for all the people who didn't like Star Trek. Isn't that just the stupidest thing you've ever heard?
It looked big, the acting was really good, but JJ Abrams for some unknown reason decided it was necessary to remove the essence of what makes Star Trek different and replace it with some Michael Bay antics. At times it was like watching someone play a video game.
It was a really well made waste of time. No insight into the human condition, no thinking necessary, just eye candy and forgettable events.
And that's a shame, cos there was some great acting going on here. all the cast delivered well especially Cumberbatch and Quinto, some great looking effects, but why bother? When interviewed on the daily show Abrams actually said he wanted to make this movie for all the people who didn't like Star Trek. Isn't that just the stupidest thing you've ever heard?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
