Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Meh Trek!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Meh Trek! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Meh Trek! - 7/5/2013 5:06:50 PM   
J_BUltimatum

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 20/1/2007
From: Edinburgh
I was saying for non-Trekkie's that if you were to go and watch this it wouldn't offer anything more enjoyable than the films out at the moment. Obviously Trek fans will something more but I just don't see it.

I doubt any Trekkie wants Olympus Has Fallen in Trek clothing.
[/quote]

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 31
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 7/5/2013 9:51:12 PM   
ukacidman


Posts: 587
Joined: 4/10/2005
From: From beyond the the 7TH WAVE
Just got back from watching a preview screening tonight.

all im gona say is WOW!!! what a thrill ride... I'm a fully fledged trekkie and I thought it was aresome..

_____________________________

" WAKE UP TIME TO DIE
"
last 5 cinema visits 2013
The Great Gatsby 7/10
Star Trek into darkness - 8/10
Iron Man 3 ( 8/10)
Good Vibrations 8/10
Cloude Atlas 7/10





(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 32
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 9/5/2013 3:25:42 AM   
SWOTBM


Posts: 1998
Joined: 6/5/2007
Managed to catch the midnight showing and, whilst I'm not the biggest fan of 3D, I thought it was pretty good. I agree with the review that there should have been more screen time with Kirk/Harrison together, but with the way the plot panned out I can understand why it was fairly limited. Abrams' style is slick and shiny, plus it was good to see most of the crew getting some good scenes; although I thought the Uhura/Spock relationship could have been developed some more.

Definitely going to see it again next Tuesday in 2D when I think I'll enjoy it more.

Solid 3.5/5


_____________________________

PSN: light_brigade
Gamertag: chauders

(in reply to ukacidman)
Post #: 33
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 9/5/2013 10:40:44 AM   
a_man_and_his_monkey

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 1/4/2006
Seen it last night and thought it was a good show. 4 stars just about right. Cumberbatch delivered a great performance and the action was good. Just 1 thing though...

****POSSIBLE SPOILER****

I didn't get the significance of new Spock speaking to old Spock? Did he even give him worthwhile advice?

_____________________________

Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 34
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 9/5/2013 3:13:37 PM   
the_equalizer


Posts: 89
Joined: 27/6/2006
I've just come back from the first showing at Kingston Imax. I'm not a film critic anymore, but I am a Star Trek fan.

All I have to say about this film is:

It's good. it's really really f**king good.

Can't wait to see it again very soon!

_____________________________

"I don't care what you smell, get in there you big furry oaf"

(in reply to a_man_and_his_monkey)
Post #: 35
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 9/5/2013 4:42:10 PM   
anna z

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 17/4/2013
I wasn't going to see this film at the cinema, as the first one was O.K, but not great. Then I heard that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing the villain, and I instantly pictured an evil Sherlock and got excited about it, but I was disappointed. It's all well and good John Harrison declaring that he's clever but I never felt like they showed him as such. He could've been a great villain, but not much time was devoted to him, in favour of the regular characters. It was O.K. but it could've been great if they expanded scenes like his villainess activities at the beginning- that could've been great Moriarty type games.

I went in with high expectations of a bad guy for whom words are his weapon, and I was disappointed. John Harrison was only marginally a step up from Nero.

Was I the only one who couldn't help but laugh at how stereotypically villainess his coat was with the large collar. It was daft!

Overall though the film was as good as the first one. I went in with high expectations which the film didn't live up to, which is why I' so critical of it.

(in reply to the_equalizer)
Post #: 36
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 9/5/2013 4:53:41 PM   
squeezyrider

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 1/5/2006
I thought it was awesome. Just the right amount of callbacks without simply rehashing the original stories. I also wasn't sure about the point of the ***Possible minor spoilers*** Spock cameo*** Spoilers end***.


_____________________________

Yorkshire is a place...

Yorkshire is a state of mind.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 37
Into Very Little - 9/5/2013 5:44:06 PM   
thechair

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 28/7/2006
From the writers that brought you Prometheus and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen comes an all new...Nope, wait, it's just bits of old story plus some hackneyed ideas. Incredible lack of imagination on show here, not that I could see much beyond the flares going off (Seriously, no one would be able to work on that bridge without sunnies). Perhaps either Spock could explain the logic of ripping off scenes that fans adore and will be annoyed by, just to show the same things to a bunch of people who couldn't care less? Certain storylines work because they are handled with care and because audiences have invested time in the characters. This crew, as yet, mean nothing to me. I've never had a chance to care for them because they spend most of the time running or jumping long distances. It only works if you think back to the original films and that bridge is too wide. You can't tear up what went before and then expect to trade on the pieces. And just how crap was the Peter Weller character? He might as well have started talking in slang. 4 stars is generous when the writing is this weak. I give 2: one for the special effects and one for the cast giving it a fair go. Unfortunately, this rating is in line with the recent JJ issue. Spielberg he is not, and - forgive me, beloved Empire - 70 pages of people saying how great someone is does not good journalism make. P.S. Don't be surprised to find out Chewbacca is a wookiesexual and 3PO turns out to have been infused with the Emporer's DNA in Ep. 7. It's the right style for this guy (as his early Superman treatment confirms)...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 38
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 9/5/2013 5:49:10 PM   
R W

 

Posts: 335
Joined: 23/6/2006
Four years ago, Lost/Fringe co-creator J.J. Abrams rebooted Gene Roddenberry’s forty-seven year old sci-fi franchise which started with the adventures of the USS Enterprise in its five-year voyage, exploring strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. What Star Trek XI achieved was brilliantly presenting an alternate timeline as an effort to free the film and the franchise from established continuity constraints while simultaneously preserving original story elements. Two years after his Spielberg-inspired Super 8, Abrams returns to the Trek universe which apparently, based on the title, has been plunged into darkness.

While James Kirk (Chris Pine) is on a rocky path being the captain of the Enterprise, Starfleet agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) wages on a one-man war against the Federation. Following an attack at Headquarters, Kirk is authorised to hunt down Harrison, causing friction between the crew of the Enterprise.

Following the first instalment which was an origin story of how the original crew came to be, not least the forming of the central friendship between Kirk and his half-human/half-Vulcan first officer Spock (Zachary Quinto), Into Darkness jumps right into the action, opening in a very Raiders of the Lost Ark fashion, showing the climax of the mini-adventure before starting the main adventure. While this is more Trek-y than its predecessor with the Enterprise adventuring through new worlds, most notably the Klingons’ home planet (yes, the Klingons are in this one and they’re bad ass), the story isn’t the five-year mission of the original series as it’s really about the manhunt for a one man weapon of mass destruction.

Audiences will walk away from this, talking about the new villain who becomes the key motivation for the Enterprise with its crew individually tackling their own issues, from Kirk’s role as captain to even Scotty’s reluctance of the mission at hand. Continuing a long line-up of Brits dominating the villainy in Hollywood blockbusters, the always great Benedict Cumberbatch is a truly menacing figure. Unlike the raving lunatic performance of Eric Bana’s Nero, the quiet sombre voice of Harrison gives him a terrifying presence, as well as having the physicality of a superhuman. My only criticism to this character is that the villain’s plot is a little bit puzzling.

Although Cumberbatch pretty much steals the show, the rest of the cast manages to stand up on their own feet. The biggest improvement out of the actors, who stepped into the iconic roles in the previous film, Chris Pine (who was like a Luke Skywalker with a Han Solo attitude) shows a more dramatic side to Captain Kirk who is a more vengeful and vulnerable protagonist. Zachary Quinto’s Spock remains as the most fascinating character of the series as he still struggles with his Vulcan logic and human feelings, whilst in a bickering relationship with Zoe Saldana’s Uhura. While the rest of the crew continue to shine such as Karl Urban’s Bones and Simon Pegg’s Scotty (who has a small but funny subplot), newcomer Alice Eve as new science officer Carol Marcus is fairly underdeveloped as a potential love interest for Kirk.

With the inclusion of Carol Marcus and other referential elements which I won’t spoil, this sequel continues to acknowledge the Trek universe from the past which at times can be clunky, but the alternate reality allows present classic Trek moments in a new and spectacular way. Speaking of spectacle (which has to be seen in IMAX 3D), Abrams direct some truly impressive action sequences such as the literally volcanic prologue, whilst applying moments of humour. Moving at such a quick pace, the film does suffer like its predecessor with a rushed third act that doesn’t quite come together, given the emotional punch of one major plot point.

While lacking the novelty of the first (or eleventh) instalment and suffers from a plot that has its convoluted moments, J.J. Abrams continues to put the USS Enterprise through spectacular adventures. Whether or not he’ll tackle a third Trek outing, his work here creates enough excitement for what he’s going to do with Star Wars Episode VII.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 39
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 9/5/2013 9:13:49 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2610
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield
Caught it this afternoon. Loved it.

I'd had the reveal spoiled for me, and had started to hear very mixed reactions and was steadying myself for another Iron Man 3 style dissapointment - a fun, well made, entertaining couple of hours, but seriously missing the potential it showed early on. I had real fun with JJ's Star Trek, and I thought that he nailed the tone just right to make Trek work for the general public on the big screen. Yes it was missing the more cerebral approach of classic Trek, but it didn't feel like a chore to watch as some latter day Trek has a tendancy to feel. I know people had issue with some elements of how some characters were approched - Kirk in particular - but I thought the cast did a good job and managed to hit more than miss.

Into Darkness promised more spectacle and one worry I had was that JJ would try too hard to make things 'Dark' and it would loose the charm and to e established in 2009. No such worries though, as the quick, bouncy, fun tone remains (for the most part) and the look and feel of the first film stays intact. It feels like each character just picks up where thy left off, with each role seemingly second nature to the cast now. Yea, some of Kirks actions feel a little off, but more often than not it feels like a younger version of the established character.

The majority of grumbles I'd heard were all aimed at the overall story, the 'Harrison' reveal and how the movie wraps up. I'll say now, I had no issue with how they handled Khan. In fact, I thought it was a decent reworking of the character - the alternative time line allowed him to keep his back story from the Eugenics War thing touched on in Space Seed, but use the alt timeline to wake him up and show us what he can really do as a 'super' human. Ive no issue with the seeming switch of ethnicity, and I genuinely loved Cumberbatch's work in the role, specifically impressed just how convincing he was when beating the shit out of people. Yea, things suffer a little in that last 20/30 minutes once Marus is dealt with, it feels like JJ and co couldnt think of a way to make Marcus a bigger villain so just sat back and relied on Khan and the audience's prior knowledge of Wrath of Khan to wrap things up, it's like they thought

'okay, our story is kinda ended, hos do we close up?'
'well, lets do a reverse Kirk/Spock radiation death and put Khan alseep to come back later...'

It all felt a little rushed, but thats not to say I didnt enjoy that finale, but it was a little too nudge nudge wink wink. I certainly dont have issue with the blood bringing Kirk back etc as some have. But yea, a bit of a cop out in my opinion. Still, at least thy had the sense to no kill off Khan, as he could certainly be used to better effect in future.

Really, really enjoyed it overall though, and never felt myself pulled out of the entertainment as frequently happened with the other big release of the year (IM3) and never had issue with the crew getting limited screen time, which was another common complaint. The only crew member I feel was short changed was Chekov. Oh, and i couldve done with out the Spock/Uhura relationship troubles (boring, boring, boring) and the shoe horned in appearence of Spock Prime. The use of 3D and IMAX was pretty good too, again the 3D felt much better utilised than IM3, and actually added to a number of scenes rather than going by un-noticed. Great score, great effects, big exciting action, good performances, well paced for the most part and just a really enjoyable time at the movies. Well worth anyones time and money I reckon.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to R W)
Post #: 40
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 9/5/2013 11:21:05 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
Seen this tonight; really REALLY enjoyed it.

Don't want to say too much in respect of those sensitive to spoilers. What I will say though is that the pace never slows down, the Trekkie banter is great & Cumberbatch is fantastic.

Wasn't expecting Mickey to show up. Luckily though he only had the two lines.

4/5

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 41
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:02:01 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I much preferred Peter Weller over Cumberbatch.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 42
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:04:22 AM   
TheMightyBlackout


Posts: 227
Joined: 28/4/2012
From: Oxford, UK
I did enjoy Star Trek Into Darkness, it just didn't resonate with me as its predecessor did. And as visually/audibly stunning as it was, it left me thinking about the things I didn't like, rather than the ones I did.

The frequent references/homages to other parts of the canon felt a little forced to me as a 'civilian', so I've no idea how the hardcore fans feel about them...

_____________________________

More reviews and rambling like that ^^^ at: >>>WorldOfBlackout.co.uk <<<

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 43
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:07:28 AM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1045
Joined: 30/9/2005
I thought it was pretty bloody brilliant. Great pacing, acting, and effects work, and the action was beautifully punctuated by some good humour and genuinely emotional scenes. Some neat twists on classic Trek lore, and (providing Lucas doesn't interfere too much) I think this bodes very well for Abram's work on the upcoming SW films.

< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 10/5/2013 12:08:27 AM >


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 44
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:22:47 AM   
musht


Posts: 1860
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland
Enjoyed this a lot however one issue in particular annoyed me

***SPOILERS****

I find Spock to be quite an inconsistent character when it comes to his beliefs and personality. In this he persuades Kirk not to kill Harrison in order for him to have a fair trial but he had no such qualms in the first one when it came to Nero. And then he's such a stickler for rules as demonstrated in the first ten minutes of Into Darkness and yet when he discovers what is essentially a stowaway on board the Enterprise later he feels no desire to bring it to anybody's attention. It's not something that ruined the movie for me but I feel his character isn't well established and rather inconsistent.

A solid entertaining romp, Cumberbatch is great but let's not kid ourselves into thinking he deserves an Oscar


_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 45
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:48:07 AM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005
Saw this IMAX 3D tonight at the Glasgow Science Centre where there were a few Trekkies or geeks as we call them in full Starfleet uniform!

Anyway, I thought it started brilliantly and looked to be heading in an excellent direction but I do think it ran out of steam and became a bit repetitive and predictable. I won't spoil it, but the big thing at the end I knew how the problem was going to be solved too easy thanks to foreshadowing (or a plant) that was far too obvious.

I also think the theme of the movie should have been more about John Harrison and his capabilities, which could have thrown us into old/new turf.

The effects were superb and Alice Eve is a welcome addition to the regular cast. I do think McCoy was underused in this movie. In fact of all the Star Trek films (not counting TNG) this must be the one that McCoy has had the least airtime and least dialogue. Star Trek at its best is Kirk - Spock - McCoy, not just Kirk and Spock.

Plus I agree about the inconsistencies with Spock. And I want to see Spock being clever, not being Rambo. I also object to Kirk's reputation for being dumb. Captain James Tiberius Kirk may be many things, kiddo, but he was never dumb. He is clever, brave, and has integrity. Just like Horatio Hornblower on whom he is partly based.

And I do think Simon Pegg is funny but Scotty shouldn't be the comic relief. Scotty is the second cleverest person aboard the Enterprise!

Another thing that annoyed me was too much referencing another Star Trek movie. If this is a new timeline and new adventures, then go for it. Don't look back. It just annoys fans.

I think the name could actually be Star Trek Into Parody as there were points it did go into self-parody and a total cheesefest. As much as I like Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto (I can't think of anyone better to play those roles) they are not as talented actors as Shatner and Nimoy and certainly no-one comes close to the charisma of The Shat. But then again, who does?

Overall I give this film - and it breaks my heart to do this - **

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to musht)
Post #: 46
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 1:23:53 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
I pretty much predicted this entire films plot elsewhere on the forum months ago.

As I said on twitter - Star Trek Into Darkness feels like the final film of a six episode series where the cast are all tried, and bored, and the writers have got lazy

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 47
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 1:29:01 AM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I pretty much predicted this entire films plot elsewhere on the forum months ago.

As I said on twitter - Star Trek Into Darkness feels like the final film of a six episode series where the cast are all tried, and bored, and the writers have got lazy


Yep, can't believe that's the best they can come up with after 4 years.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 48
Fantastic - 10/5/2013 1:56:54 AM   
sjmlondon

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 19/9/2006
Thoroughly entertaining from beginnng to end. Great humour, great action and clever twists and references to what has gone before.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 49
RE: Fantastic - 10/5/2013 4:35:45 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2377
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
It was great, and it was was good. It was fun, there was nothing wrong with it, and it was all those things promised in the trailer.


I should be happy, it was all those things, but really.... it was forgettable.

4/5



(in reply to sjmlondon)
Post #: 50
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 4:51:55 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2377
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

Seen this tonight; really REALLY enjoyed it.

Don't want to say too much in respect of those sensitive to spoilers. What I will say though is that the pace never slows down, the Trekkie banter is great & Cumberbatch is fantastic.

Wasn't expecting Mickey to show up. Luckily though he only had the two lines.

4/5


Mickey!

Didn't know you were Doctor Who fan Qwerty!

OFF TOPIC: also like the fact that Zero Dark Thirty is your current favourite film of 2013...mine too. And I'm a as left as left gets.

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 51
An already tired franchise reboot - 10/5/2013 7:02:22 AM   
MOnkeyboy1138

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 16/1/2006
I want to get this know straight off the bat, I'm not a Trekkie. Also, my comments are going to be ****SPOILER HEAVY****
SERIOUSLY THERE ARE GOING TO BE A LOT OF SPOILERS HERE, DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS
After watching the movie, the only things that I came away with are that at no point throughout did I feel any peril for a single character, even when Kirk dies you know he's going to come back (they showed the Kahn blood being injected into a dead tribble). And this is the problem, a director and writing team that once were known for their shocking and unexpected twists and turns have now fallen into a rut of heavily signposting exactly what is going to happen next.
'Hmmm we need to get someone who understands mechanics onto the enemy ship, what do we do?'
'So basically we need Scotty on there'
'yeah, we'll make him resign his post because Kirk won't follow orders about something that effects hims'
'yeah, then later on he can steal a ship and head out to mysterious coordinates (you know, not following orders), and sneak on to a ship that must have no security at all, as he runs around the corridors shouting into his comm with gay abandon'
Then, there was the worst kept secret in this movie Kaaaahhhhhnnnnn, yes, he was played excelently by Benedict Cumberbatch, and was throughout the only character that was nuanced enough that Iever really cared for (except maybe Noel Clarke's silently desperate parent, in probably one of the best scenes in the enitre film). I want to point out that during the Kirk is dead/lets chase down Kahn but keep him alive so he can bring Kirk back to life scene......ummm doesn't the Enterprise have a sick bay with 72 other Kahn type supermen aboard?
I did like the opening sting, but visually it just really badly clashed with the style of the rest of the movie, and later on the Klingons just looked like crap, even by Doctor Who standards.
I felt for poor Zoe Saldana, great actress, reduced to whinny girlfriend, just s

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 52
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 7:46:43 AM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3971
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner


Mickey!

Didn't know you were Doctor Who fan Qwerty!



I am! Although I leave the more informed folk like yourself to comment in the thread.


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

OFF TOPIC: also like the fact that Zero Dark Thirty is your current favourite film of 2013...mine too. And I'm a as left as left gets.


Likewise...and that's because you have good taste sir.


....most of the time.

< Message edited by Qwerty Norris -- 10/5/2013 7:47:30 AM >


_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 53
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 8:56:24 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
SPOILERS








Why did they need to chase down Khan for his blood? There were 72 other superhumans right there on board the Enterprise. I am pretty sure they could have taken their blood and used it on Kirk.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 54
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 9:45:47 AM   
MOnkeyboy1138

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 16/1/2006
SPOILERS











Also, can anybody tell me why Kahn is a white English man, when the original was Hispanic? The whole new timeline thing from the first movie wouldn't have effected 300 years prior would it? And would 300 years ago have made Kahn being made super human in the mid 1950's? (the star date is something like 2259 or something).

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 55
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 10:53:48 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
SPOILERS SPOILERS ALL OVER THE POST


quote:

ORIGINAL: MOnkeyboy1138

Also, can anybody tell me why Kahn is a white English man, when the original was Hispanic?


The original was a South Asian (hint: his name is KHAN Noonien SINGH), but played by a Mexican. If you're worried about the ethinicity of the guy, you should also criticize the casting of Montalban in such a role in the first place.

Also, I'm going to be daft here, but what did Khan exactly want to do? Get his 72 superhuman mates and kill a lot of people on Earth or escape to somewhere else? What did Marcus want with Khan exactly? I think I got the motivations but they strike me as profoundly simple and bland.

And why did this film cocktease me with an all-out Klingon-Federation war only to be completely forgotten once Marcus dies? That was cruel, I wanted more Klingons and wars especially when the thing keeps mentioning me Klingons and wars for like two-thirds of it.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 10/5/2013 10:57:48 AM >

(in reply to MOnkeyboy1138)
Post #: 56
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 11:06:44 AM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4312
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
I enjoyed the heck of of this. It was great fun, brimming with energy, humour and excitement. It was however a little lacking in surprises with a big reveal basically amounting to "yup, thought so" rather than "never would have seen that coming". It's still kinda satisfying though and there are some nice refernces to - and reversals of previous adventures. 

The cast are all great with Pine, Quinto and Cumberbatch all turning it up to 11. The others are given less to do - as with the 2009 film - but do it well. Alice Eve is a little under-served though and her underwear scene is brazenly gratuitous (not complaining though) There are a few other niggles - I didn't like the redesigned Klingon makeup and Spock's conversation with a certain character really didn't need to be there at all.

I gave the '09 film 5 stars. I enjoyed this as much but because my anticipation was so high I think I'll give this one 4 but not because it's not as good only because it isn't any better

Still I will be seeing it again on Monday with added 3D and Imaxness and am looking to forward to it immensely

edit. Whilst the IMAX certainly adds scale the 3D doesn't really do much. Enjoyed it as much second time (though probably liked the new look Klingons less)

< Message edited by Scruffybobby -- 13/5/2013 6:41:14 PM >


_____________________________

I want to taste you like yogurt.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 57
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 11:47:34 AM   
No Diggity

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 16/1/2013
OK, there's nothing very groundbreaking or new in this,,,but alot of the criticism is nit picking....its very enjoyable....much more fun & less flawed than IM3... it'll be hard to top as the most entertaining film of 2013

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 58
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:02:43 PM   
musht


Posts: 1860
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

SPOILERS








Why did they need to chase down Khan for his blood? There were 72 other superhumans right there on board the Enterprise. I am pretty sure they could have taken their blood and used it on Kirk.

Wouldn't they have to wake one up to do so? That's what I thought and what with Khan being already wake it makes sense to capture him and save Kirk rather then trying to find a second stone.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 59
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 10/5/2013 12:08:08 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
SPOILERS

I think it also presented a risk to wake one up as it could kill the sleeping guy and Kirk was almost dead so not many risks had to be taken.

I had more troubles in trying to decipher what Khan and Marcus exactly wanted for themselves and each other.

And on a nitpicky note, Khan changing appearance after some 300 years in cryosleep, going from looking like a Mexican to looking like the poshiest of poshiness of Englishmen.



_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to musht)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Meh Trek! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094