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

This film is what the Cinema is for.

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> This film is what the Cinema is for. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
This film is what the Cinema is for. - 12/5/2013 12:54:26 PM   
drico

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 1/10/2005
A rarity, to have so much in one film. I didn't want it to end and confirmed for me that Abrams is this generations Spielberg.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 91
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 1:13:18 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy
- I'm not a fan of Michael Giacchino's Star Trek music. In comparison with the high standards set in earlier films by Goldsmith, Horner and even Cliff Eidelman, Giacchino's work is - IMO, of course - neither special nor memorable. However, STID features a brief piano-led piece for a Noel Clarke scene early in the film. It's called 'London Calling' on the OST tracklisting, and is utterly gorgeous because it's pretty much the opposite of the rest of the film's music, as it's subtle, sparse and melodic.


Giacchino is bloody great at that sort of stuff, though. I'd say he's better at that than the action stuff actually but I love his score to Lost as it is a great mix of both. His big screen action scores, The Incredibles aside, have never been that memorable.

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 92
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 2:04:03 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT POST

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulyboy
it riffs so directly from The Wrath Of Khan at times, I'm all for the odd homage here and there, but remaking entire scenes (albeit with a role reversal) seems a bit contrary to a reboot in a sense, I'd much rather they did their own thing.


This is exactly my problem with the film. I was enjoying it until that final half hour, as soon as Kirk knocked out Scotty, I started to cringe. They went an entire film and most of another without replicating any scenes from any of the other movies so why do this one? It seemed oddly out of place and Spock yelling Khan's name made it seem like a parody. I should have been moved but I remembered the magic blood and knew Kirk would be ok rendering it pointless. Really, really annoyed at that last act and I was genuinely loving it up until then.



My sentiments exactly. As I said it was almost Star Trek Into Parody.

Why use an ingenious setup of the new timeline to free yourself from all the continuity etc and then do things we've seen before or echo on them. I understand this idea that there will be variations on a theme as if some people are destined to have fate do the same thing to them over and over (ie Pike at the end of the first film looked like he was going to be wheelchair bound the same way he ended up in The Menagerie - thought it turned out he was ok).

Go have fun with your new playground and let us see new things, not rehash old stories even with different slants on it. By all means give us The Klingons and Romulans, but surely the Enterprise's 5 year mission will be totally different to the original one. If space is so big and infinite then the chances of meeting the same species and situations have to be very, very unlikely.

I do think Star Trek rebbot part III will be a Klingon based story.

_____________________________

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 Shifty Bench)
Post #: 93
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 2:11:50 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy
- I'm not a fan of Michael Giacchino's Star Trek music. In comparison with the high standards set in earlier films by Goldsmith, Horner and even Cliff Eidelman, Giacchino's work is - IMO, of course - neither special nor memorable. However, STID features a brief piano-led piece for a Noel Clarke scene early in the film. It's called 'London Calling' on the OST tracklisting, and is utterly gorgeous because it's pretty much the opposite of the rest of the film's music, as it's subtle, sparse and melodic.


Giacchino is bloody great at that sort of stuff, though. I'd say he's better at that than the action stuff actually but I love his score to Lost as it is a great mix of both. His big screen action scores, The Incredibles aside, have never been that memorable.


I think Giacchino is one of the best composers around at the moment. I loved his scores for Star Trek (2009), Super 8 and John Carter.

James Horner's scores for II & III are arguably the best stuff he's ever written (he even copied some of it for Aliens on James Cameron's request).

But please, please, please do not give anyone a hard time for not being up to Jerry Goldsmith. His V was okay but Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of the best scores in movie history, not just Star Trek or sci-fi. Again I think it is Goldsmith's best ever and how he didn't win an Oscar for it is a travesty.

I actually own all of the Star Trek scores except IV which I couldn't find and to be honest I thought it was the weakest of the original 6 scores, but one of the best films!

So I think critics of Giacchino are a tad unfair. I think his new Star Trek theme "Enterprising Young Men" is pretty brilliant. And he even throws in the classic TV theme just to keep us all happy.


_____________________________

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 Shifty Bench)
Post #: 94
RE: This film is what the Cinema is for. - 12/5/2013 2:20:03 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: drico

A rarity, to have so much in one film. I didn't want it to end and confirmed for me that Abrams is this generations Spielberg.


I really like Abrams but he has a long way to go to be considered close to Spielberg - well at least the one that used to make brilliant movies until he was replaced by the pod people. Somewhere along the way Spielberg stuck his head up his arse and stopped making movies that were fun and for families, which is a shame. Thankfully, James Cameron came along and took up his mantle, although it was aimed at an older audience (though with Avatar he has moved back into that family audience arena).

Has Abrams gave us anything that can match Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, ET or Jurassic Park?

All six of those films I would argue are bona fide five star classics, and not a sequel among them.

Schindler's List, Temple of Doom and Last Crusade would also be up there, though unsure if Temple of Doom would be a five star movie - though great fun.

Abrams has given us some good films. I liked MI:3, Super 8, and I loved Star Trek (2009). Don't think any of them are 5 star classics, though they are very good films and do indicate that Abrams is one of the best filmmakers around.

But to suggest that he is the next Spielberg is plain wrong. It does a massive disservice to Spielberg.

_____________________________

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 drico)
Post #: 95
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 2:25:12 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulyboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

I thought transporters only had a short range (ie from a starship in orbit to a planet). They have messed up the logic of this movie and that does annoy me.



**Spoilers!**

Scotty does make mention of his trans-warp equation (from the first film) being "stolen" by Harrison after Starfleet made him ditch it or some such tomfoolery. I agree it's a bit of a mess though, I have a feeling they'll continue to wheel this old chestnut out when it's narratively convenient for them to do so, in fact the transporters seem to work and not work at will when it suits the writers.

I enjoyed the film overall, it's a decent enough romp, but my two main problems were how loose and fast they seem to be playing with the rules of all the technology (again, when it's convenient) and the fact it riffs so directly from The Wrath Of Khan at times, I'm all for the odd homage here and there, but remaking entire scenes (albeit with a role reversal) seems a bit contrary to a reboot in a sense, I'd much rather they did their own thing.

An enjoyable ride none the less.

3/5


I did hear that bit too. But it just throws the whole thing into chaos. If Harrison has the capability to 'trans-warp' then why not just keep hopping about?

Also if Scotty invented transwarp, then why bother sending a ship of 500 people (or whatever it holds) for such a mission and put them all in danger? Why not get 50 crack troops and transwarp them to Kronos?

The script was full of logic holes.

As some people have mentioned:

The Communications issue yet new Spock can speak to Spock (not calling him Spock Prime - that is just fanboy w@nk)...

The whole blood thing... why not get it from another superman?

The transporter chaos...

oh I can't bother going on.

Let's make a list of things that were contradictory or products of lazy writing. That's what I used to love about Star Trek is that it was on the whole quite sensible, even when it got daft (if you know what I mean --Spock's Brain anyone?).

I will watch it again on DVD and hopefully I can give it one more star.



Sorry but that bit in bold made me laugh.Star Trek in all its incarnations makes very little sense if you really examine it too closely.Entire books have been dedicated to nitpicking all the series and movies.I recommend the nitpickers guides by Phil Farrand. The are a great read.Even the greatest Trek movie of all, The Wrath of Khan, is littered with plot holes.

Regarding the '' why didnt Mcoy wake up another superman? '' thing though, time was of the essence because Kirk would soon be brain dead and taking the time to defrost another augment and use a blood sample would preumably take too long.They needed Khans right away because he was the only Augment that was up and about.

( The supermen are called Augments in a fourth season storyline from Star Trek:Enterprise for all you non Trekkies)


_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 96
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 2:34:47 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

Whilst some folk here have made valid points over the plotholes, I personally feel that if you try to pick the thing to pieces you'll end up bypassing what it does really well- i.e. being a witty, disposable, escapist fun blockbuster with great spectacle but not without a bit of substance thrown into the bargain.

I was conscious of the many issues too, but I couldn't really care less as I had a riot with it...and sometimes that's crucial to the success of something rather than if it all adds up.


Sorry but I totally disagree. There is a difference with injecting a bit of preposterousness and dramatic licence into a movie (ie James Bond films and his derring-do or enjoyable nonsense like Air Force One etc) which makes it entertaining.

But to contradict the very logic your script goes out of its way to set up just insults the audience, with the concept that The Enterprise is on its own but can communicate with New Vulcan being a prime case in point. This is akin to moving the goalposts and just pisses people off.

It actually removes tension and conflict from a movie as you then start to think that if the rules of the film's own internal logic is going to be ignored by its own writers then why shouldn't we?

That is another element in the movie that made me think it was lurching (ro should that be warping) towards parody.

For example, another daft movie is Olympus Has Fallen. It is stupidly daft and preposterous - however it remains largely true to its own logic. No-one does anything really crazily stupid and there is no "we can't do this but then somehow we can" bit in it. It asks us to suspend disbelief like all movies do but if we buy into the central premise then we get to enjoy it for the silly but fun popcorn movie that it is.

Star Trek Into Darkness gets itself into a whole lot of contradictory situations. One reason for this could be massive rewrites. Other writers may have come in and added bits or redrafted it and somehow missed the consistent logic that is needed even in the dumbest of movies (which STID is not a dumb movie).

They had 4 years to get it right and yet people are picking plot holes all over the shop. That does annoy me.

One of the most controversial plot holes comes at the end of LOTR trilogy... why not fly the big eagles to Mount Doom right from the start and save yourself a helluva lot of time and danger!

_____________________________

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 Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 97
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 2:38:09 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

Whilst some folk here have made valid points over the plotholes, I personally feel that if you try to pick the thing to pieces you'll end up bypassing what it does really well- i.e. being a witty, disposable, escapist fun blockbuster with great spectacle but not without a bit of substance thrown into the bargain.

I was conscious of the many issues too, but I couldn't really care less as I had a riot with it...and sometimes that's crucial to the success of something rather than if it all adds up.


I think sometimes you can start to forgive really lazy plotting if you head in the direction too far.

The last Star Trek is the sort of thing you are talking about, and which I agree
. There were problems with that movie as well, but it managed to overcome them with grand adventure.

This one however, just become utterly perplexing at certain points. Communications are blocked, yet Spock can speak to New Vulcan? That is really really shoddy writing, and not one nit pick. They set up the scene to be that the Enterprise is cut off, and yet the very next scene, we see that they aren't.


I agree with this. Star Trek (2009) has some logic problems but they weren't crucial to the plot or so obvious for people to get really annoyed at. The location of Delta Vega is one such item, but only true Trekkies or fans of TOS would get pissed at that.

So 99 times out of 100 most plot holes or jumps in movie logic are forgiven if they are minor.

Anyway as I have said I will watch it again on DVD and probably enjoy it a bit more, but I did get that AOTC feeling while watching it. It had a lot going on but nothing really happening, if you know what I mean by that.

_____________________________

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 #: 98
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 2:51:23 PM   
Qwerty Norris


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson



Sorry but I totally disagree. There is a difference with injecting a bit of preposterousness and dramatic licence into a movie (ie James Bond films and his derring-do or enjoyable nonsense like Air Force One etc) which makes it entertaining.

But to contradict the very logic your script goes out of its way to set up just insults the audience, with the concept that The Enterprise is on its own but can communicate with New Vulcan being a prime case in point. This is akin to moving the goalposts and just pisses people off.


True, but again it's 1 minute out of 130. Does that really dilute the merits of everything else?

For me, that's nitpicking.

For the record the plotting is wobbly in places, but not to the extent that everything falls apart.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

For example, another daft movie is Olympus Has Fallen. It is stupidly daft and preposterous - however it remains largely true to its own logic. No-one does anything really crazily stupid and there is no "we can't do this but then somehow we can" bit in it. It asks us to suspend disbelief like all movies do but if we buy into the central premise then we get to enjoy it for the silly but fun popcorn movie that it is.


Now that I strongly disagree with. President Eckhart abandons America's we do not negotiate with terrorists stance & invites nuclear Armageddon because they start roughing up a couple of members of his administration. Given what's at strake, that's crazily stupid & only exists to serve a ticking timebomb finale.

_____________________________

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 Private Hudson)
Post #: 99
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 2:53:42 PM   
Qwerty Norris


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris


Given what's at strake


stake


_____________________________

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 Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 100
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 3:10:49 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
A list of plot holes from The Wrath Of Khan...

Khan recognises Chekov from the Enterprise...except Chekov wasnt part of the series at that point.

Khans followers from fifteen years prior to Star Trek 2 seemed to mostly be in their early to mid thirties, all of a sudden in Wrath they seem to be quite young, early to mid twenties.

Khan, a dictator from the 1990s, remembers that he once ruled on earth '' 200 years ago ''.This film is set in the 23rd century.His estimate is off by at least a hundred years.

The crew of The Reliant mistake planet Ceti Alpha 5 for Ceti Alpha 6.They didnt detect that the latter hadnt exploded? Its a planet for crying out loud!

How were the entire crew of the Reliant overwhelmed and captured by Khan and his men? Did the transporter chief not realsie he was beaming up more than Chekov and Captain Terrell?

Why does Scotty carry his critcally injured nephew in a turbolift to the bridge? Shouldnt he have gone to...i dont know..sickbay?

Khan seems to give Kirk more than the sixty seconds he demanded for Kirk to call up the Genesis data from the Enterprise computers.

Why did Mcoys medical scans miss that Chekov and Terrell had bloody big MIND SUCKING WORMS in their heads?

Why cant Scotty not go into the warp core to repair the breach.Dont they have radiation suits?

Why does Kirk shoot Spocks body onto the Genesis planet instead of putting him on ice until he can be buried on Vulcan? ( Even Sarek chews out Kirk for this in the next movie ).


But you know what? I dont really care cos Wrath of Khan is a great movie ! And i loved Into Darkness too cos it was a heck of a lot of fun.It could have easily gone down into a beat for beat repeat of Star trek 2, but what has been established in this new reality is that certain events from the original timeline are going to play out here but in different ways and i think thats exciting.

The film even dealt with an issue that i had from the last movie.If NimoySpock is here in this new timeline, cant he warn Starfleet of impending crisis like V'ger, the Whale probe,and even The Borg? But in this new film it is established that he cant play god and that events need to play out in its own way.Really was great to see Nimoy in a cameo again by the way.

Roll on the next movie.Hope to see all out war break out with the Klingons and maybe Dr Marcus to start playing around with devices that can make or destroy planets....

< Message edited by Cool Breeze -- 12/5/2013 3:11:53 PM >


_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 101
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 3:37:43 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 569
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

The film even dealt with an issue that i had from the last movie.If NimoySpock is here in this new timeline, cant he warn Starfleet of impending crisis like V'ger, the Whale probe,and even The Borg? But in this new film it is established that he cant play god and that events need to play out in its own way.Really was great to see Nimoy in a cameo again by the way.



But if this incarnation of Trek is following the 'multiple universes' concept of time travel, why should any of the things you mention happen in the 'new' timeline? NimoySpock only knows what happened in his past, but why should any of his experiences and knowledge have any validity in the QuintoSpock universe? For all they know, Cumberbatch and Montalban's versions of Khan are the same in name only, not motivation, actions, even abilities. (I know, we could debate this from now until the end of time!) However, since Orci and Kurtzman aren't the most original of writers, I imagine they will bring back the Borg, Klingons, and other obvious touchstones of classic Trek, if given the opportunities in future. Why bother thinking up new friends and foes when someone else has already done the hard work for you? (Loved the design of the new Klingon ship though - very 'bird of prey' in attitude).

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 102
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 3:59:20 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 569
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy
- I'm not a fan of Michael Giacchino's Star Trek music. In comparison with the high standards set in earlier films by Goldsmith, Horner and even Cliff Eidelman, Giacchino's work is - IMO, of course - neither special nor memorable. However, STID features a brief piano-led piece for a Noel Clarke scene early in the film. It's called 'London Calling' on the OST tracklisting, and is utterly gorgeous because it's pretty much the opposite of the rest of the film's music, as it's subtle, sparse and melodic.


Giacchino is bloody great at that sort of stuff, though. I'd say he's better at that than the action stuff actually but I love his score to Lost as it is a great mix of both. His big screen action scores, The Incredibles aside, have never been that memorable.


I think Giacchino is one of the best composers around at the moment. I loved his scores for Star Trek (2009), Super 8 and John Carter.

James Horner's scores for II & III are arguably the best stuff he's ever written (he even copied some of it for Aliens on James Cameron's request).

But please, please, please do not give anyone a hard time for not being up to Jerry Goldsmith. His V was okay but Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of the best scores in movie history, not just Star Trek or sci-fi. Again I think it is Goldsmith's best ever and how he didn't win an Oscar for it is a travesty.

I actually own all of the Star Trek scores except IV which I couldn't find and to be honest I thought it was the weakest of the original 6 scores, but one of the best films!

So I think critics of Giacchino are a tad unfair. I think his new Star Trek theme "Enterprising Young Men" is pretty brilliant. And he even throws in the classic TV theme just to keep us all happy.



Apologies for going a bit off-topic:

Why shouldn't we compare Giacchino to his predecessors? He's an Oscar winner with a long and varied career already, not an up-and-coming guy who's cut a break! I appreciate that lots of people love his Star Trek music, but I don't think it's anything special. There's no memorable main theme, which is essential for such a score - yes, Goldsmith's and Horner's were both superb, but I personally find Giacchino's completely forgettable. Using a bit of the TOS theme is hardly a reason to praise anyone either - Trek composers are virtually obliged to do this and I'm pretty sure everyone else used Alexander Courage's theme in some shape or form (Horner especially). In the interests of objectivity, I agree with Shifty Bench's point, and would add that Giacchino's 'quiet' themes are better - the Vulcan theme from the 2009 film, and the beautiful 'London Calling' from STID. I haven't listened to the entire STID score yet, so based on the cinema viewing, I think that some of the action music was OK, but since the sound mix was so loud and biased to effects and dialogue, it's hard to be sure!

I'm not beating up on Giacchino - I love his scores for Up, Incredibles, and Lost. I also appreciate that, when faced with the shadows of Goldsmith and Horner in particular, his approach to Star Trek was probably deliberately far removed from what's come before. The question of 'good' and 'bad' therefore comes down to personal opinion. I'm not a fan, plenty are, that's fair enough.

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 103
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 4:52:45 PM   
Doubledown1138

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 19/11/2012
My Star Trek Into Darkness review.

http://www.theeffect.net/2013/05/08/star-trek-into-darkness-review/


(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 104
Slightly disappointing - 12/5/2013 6:08:01 PM   
The Fella

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 23/10/2005
**Spoilers throughout**

Being a massive Star Trek fan, and loving the reboot in 2009, I was really looking forward to ST Into Darkness. Unfortunately I came away feeling decidedly underwhelmed.

I think the main reason for me was despite loving Benedict Cumberbatch, and his performance, I felt it would have been better had he not actually been Khan, but possibly one of the other genetically engineered 'supermen' from the Eugenics Wars. This might have been a nice twist, explained away his radically different appearance (all the other crew members do look similar to their original namesakes), and could have led to a nice twist involving the real Khan being in one of the other cryotubes. Despite his brilliant acting, I also thought Cumberbatch simply didn't have enough screen time to develop in the way Ricardo Montalban did in the (in my opinion) far superior Wrath of Khan.

This leads me onto my next criticism - I thought the parodying of the Spock death scene from Wrath was a big mistake. Not only was it a step to far, but the fact we haven't yet grow to love these characters in the same way as the original crew, good as they are, massively reduced the impact of this scene. Rather than moving and sad, I just found it a tad embarrassing.

The final solution to reviving Kirk and the end of the film also seemed extremely rushed and again lacking in any real emotional impact. It was almost as if JJ had thought to himself, 'lets do a neat reversal of the end of Wrath of Khan, but have Kirk die, and then bring him back to life somehow, but without giving this bit too much thought'. At least When Spock was finally revived at the end of Search, we had a great scene with him asking whether the ship was out of danger, and then recognising Kirk with the goose bump inducing 'Jim... Your name is Jim'.

It may seem I am being overly critical, but after the reboot, this just felt too rushed and too corny. Even the Klingons felt like they had been shoe-horned in just f

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 105
RE: Slightly disappointing - 12/5/2013 7:21:38 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Fella

**Spoilers throughout**

Being a massive Star Trek fan, and loving the reboot in 2009, I was really looking forward to ST Into Darkness. Unfortunately I came away feeling decidedly underwhelmed.

I think the main reason for me was despite loving Benedict Cumberbatch, and his performance, I felt it would have been better had he not actually been Khan, but possibly one of the other genetically engineered 'supermen' from the Eugenics Wars. This might have been a nice twist, explained away his radically different appearance (all the other crew members do look similar to their original namesakes), and could have led to a nice twist involving the real Khan being in one of the other cryotubes. Despite his brilliant acting, I also thought Cumberbatch simply didn't have enough screen time to develop in the way Ricardo Montalban did in the (in my opinion) far superior Wrath of Khan.

This leads me onto my next criticism - I thought the parodying of the Spock death scene from Wrath was a big mistake. Not only was it a step to far, but the fact we haven't yet grow to love these characters in the same way as the original crew, good as they are, massively reduced the impact of this scene. Rather than moving and sad, I just found it a tad embarrassing.

The final solution to reviving Kirk and the end of the film also seemed extremely rushed and again lacking in any real emotional impact. It was almost as if JJ had thought to himself, 'lets do a neat reversal of the end of Wrath of Khan, but have Kirk die, and then bring him back to life somehow, but without giving this bit too much thought'. At least When Spock was finally revived at the end of Search, we had a great scene with him asking whether the ship was out of danger, and then recognising Kirk with the goose bump inducing 'Jim... Your name is Jim'.

It may seem I am being overly critical, but after the reboot, this just felt too rushed and too corny. Even the Klingons felt like they had been shoe-horned in just f


Agree 100%.

I often thought that maybe there was gonna be a twist and that BC was in fact one of the supermen but not actually Khan himself. I think that would have been better and as you say they could have left a little hint with at the end we see a tube with the nameplate "Khan" on it.

_____________________________

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 The Fella)
Post #: 106
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 7:23:38 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

The film even dealt with an issue that i had from the last movie.If NimoySpock is here in this new timeline, cant he warn Starfleet of impending crisis like V'ger, the Whale probe,and even The Borg? But in this new film it is established that he cant play god and that events need to play out in its own way.Really was great to see Nimoy in a cameo again by the way.



But if this incarnation of Trek is following the 'multiple universes' concept of time travel, why should any of the things you mention happen in the 'new' timeline? NimoySpock only knows what happened in his past, but why should any of his experiences and knowledge have any validity in the QuintoSpock universe? For all they know, Cumberbatch and Montalban's versions of Khan are the same in name only, not motivation, actions, even abilities. (I know, we could debate this from now until the end of time!) However, since Orci and Kurtzman aren't the most original of writers, I imagine they will bring back the Borg, Klingons, and other obvious touchstones of classic Trek, if given the opportunities in future. Why bother thinking up new friends and foes when someone else has already done the hard work for you? (Loved the design of the new Klingon ship though - very 'bird of prey' in attitude).


Yes I think we are in for a rather dull series of movies if we are going to see V'Ger and The Whale Probe in the next few movies. Yes they are still out there and coming, but not for a good ten years or so in the continuity timeline and surely can just be referenced in throwaway dialogue if at all.


_____________________________

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 BelfastBoy)
Post #: 107
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 7:26:03 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy
- I'm not a fan of Michael Giacchino's Star Trek music. In comparison with the high standards set in earlier films by Goldsmith, Horner and even Cliff Eidelman, Giacchino's work is - IMO, of course - neither special nor memorable. However, STID features a brief piano-led piece for a Noel Clarke scene early in the film. It's called 'London Calling' on the OST tracklisting, and is utterly gorgeous because it's pretty much the opposite of the rest of the film's music, as it's subtle, sparse and melodic.


Giacchino is bloody great at that sort of stuff, though. I'd say he's better at that than the action stuff actually but I love his score to Lost as it is a great mix of both. His big screen action scores, The Incredibles aside, have never been that memorable.


I think Giacchino is one of the best composers around at the moment. I loved his scores for Star Trek (2009), Super 8 and John Carter.

James Horner's scores for II & III are arguably the best stuff he's ever written (he even copied some of it for Aliens on James Cameron's request).

But please, please, please do not give anyone a hard time for not being up to Jerry Goldsmith. His V was okay but Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of the best scores in movie history, not just Star Trek or sci-fi. Again I think it is Goldsmith's best ever and how he didn't win an Oscar for it is a travesty.

I actually own all of the Star Trek scores except IV which I couldn't find and to be honest I thought it was the weakest of the original 6 scores, but one of the best films!

So I think critics of Giacchino are a tad unfair. I think his new Star Trek theme "Enterprising Young Men" is pretty brilliant. And he even throws in the classic TV theme just to keep us all happy.



Apologies for going a bit off-topic:

Why shouldn't we compare Giacchino to his predecessors? He's an Oscar winner with a long and varied career already, not an up-and-coming guy who's cut a break! I appreciate that lots of people love his Star Trek music, but I don't think it's anything special. There's no memorable main theme, which is essential for such a score - yes, Goldsmith's and Horner's were both superb, but I personally find Giacchino's completely forgettable. Using a bit of the TOS theme is hardly a reason to praise anyone either - Trek composers are virtually obliged to do this and I'm pretty sure everyone else used Alexander Courage's theme in some shape or form (Horner especially). In the interests of objectivity, I agree with Shifty Bench's point, and would add that Giacchino's 'quiet' themes are better - the Vulcan theme from the 2009 film, and the beautiful 'London Calling' from STID. I haven't listened to the entire STID score yet, so based on the cinema viewing, I think that some of the action music was OK, but since the sound mix was so loud and biased to effects and dialogue, it's hard to be sure!

I'm not beating up on Giacchino - I love his scores for Up, Incredibles, and Lost. I also appreciate that, when faced with the shadows of Goldsmith and Horner in particular, his approach to Star Trek was probably deliberately far removed from what's come before. The question of 'good' and 'bad' therefore comes down to personal opinion. I'm not a fan, plenty are, that's fair enough.


If you re-read my post I think to expect (perhaps that is the better word) Giacchino to top Horner let alone Goldsmith's superlative 1979 score is unrealistic.

However if you compare him to Cliff Eidelman, Leonard Rosenman and even David Carson then I think he does come out favourably.

But music, just like movies are all about personal opinion.

_____________________________

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 BelfastBoy)
Post #: 108
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 7:35:14 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

A list of plot holes from The Wrath Of Khan...

Khan recognises Chekov from the Enterprise...except Chekov wasnt part of the series at that point.

Khans followers from fifteen years prior to Star Trek 2 seemed to mostly be in their early to mid thirties, all of a sudden in Wrath they seem to be quite young, early to mid twenties.

Khan, a dictator from the 1990s, remembers that he once ruled on earth '' 200 years ago ''.This film is set in the 23rd century.His estimate is off by at least a hundred years.

The crew of The Reliant mistake planet Ceti Alpha 5 for Ceti Alpha 6.They didnt detect that the latter hadnt exploded? Its a planet for crying out loud!

How were the entire crew of the Reliant overwhelmed and captured by Khan and his men? Did the transporter chief not realsie he was beaming up more than Chekov and Captain Terrell?

Why does Scotty carry his critcally injured nephew in a turbolift to the bridge? Shouldnt he have gone to...i dont know..sickbay?

Khan seems to give Kirk more than the sixty seconds he demanded for Kirk to call up the Genesis data from the Enterprise computers.

Why did Mcoys medical scans miss that Chekov and Terrell had bloody big MIND SUCKING WORMS in their heads?

Why cant Scotty not go into the warp core to repair the breach.Dont they have radiation suits?

Why does Kirk shoot Spocks body onto the Genesis planet instead of putting him on ice until he can be buried on Vulcan? ( Even Sarek chews out Kirk for this in the next movie ).


But you know what? I dont really care cos Wrath of Khan is a great movie ! And i loved Into Darkness too cos it was a heck of a lot of fun.It could have easily gone down into a beat for beat repeat of Star trek 2, but what has been established in this new reality is that certain events from the original timeline are going to play out here but in different ways and i think thats exciting.

The film even dealt with an issue that i had from the last movie.If NimoySpock is here in this new timeline, cant he warn Starfleet of impending crisis like V'ger, the Whale probe,and even The Borg? But in this new film it is established that he cant play god and that events need to play out in its own way.Really was great to see Nimoy in a cameo again by the way.

Roll on the next movie.Hope to see all out war break out with the Klingons and maybe Dr Marcus to start playing around with devices that can make or destroy planets....


Yes but he could have easily have been on the ship. There is nothing to say he wasn't.

Khan and the 60 seconds... that is movie time. I think that is a pretty lame one!

Scotty brought up his nephew for dramatic licence.

And for goodness sake, if you don't know why Kirk 'buries' Spock on the new world, the answer is given in Kirk's final speech. He says that he must return to the Genesis world, clearly hoping that something may happen. Plus it is the naval tradition to buy people at sea, so to speak. Kirk was not aware of the Vulcan rituals as mentioned in III.

Radiation suits? I think time was of the essence. Again I think this one smacks of desperation!

The one I will give you is the exploding planet. That has always bothered me. The other ones are mistakes (like Kirk not being able to count) but they are not major plot changing events. They are either mistakes or dramatic license which is fine.

Put it this way, I can't recall anyone watching TWOK and really being bothered too much about any such minor errors because the film was excellent and engaging.

I think you are missing the point. The things you have pointed out are minor in the grand scheme of things.

Being able to warp between planets from distance just about makes starships obsolete, don't you think? That, for me, is a major issue that they will have to sort out.


_____________________________

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 Cool Breeze)
Post #: 109
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 7:38:12 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1832
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson



Sorry but I totally disagree. There is a difference with injecting a bit of preposterousness and dramatic licence into a movie (ie James Bond films and his derring-do or enjoyable nonsense like Air Force One etc) which makes it entertaining.

But to contradict the very logic your script goes out of its way to set up just insults the audience, with the concept that The Enterprise is on its own but can communicate with New Vulcan being a prime case in point. This is akin to moving the goalposts and just pisses people off.


True, but again it's 1 minute out of 130. Does that really dilute the merits of everything else?

For me, that's nitpicking.

For the record the plotting is wobbly in places, but not to the extent that everything falls apart.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

For example, another daft movie is Olympus Has Fallen. It is stupidly daft and preposterous - however it remains largely true to its own logic. No-one does anything really crazily stupid and there is no "we can't do this but then somehow we can" bit in it. It asks us to suspend disbelief like all movies do but if we buy into the central premise then we get to enjoy it for the silly but fun popcorn movie that it is.


Now that I strongly disagree with. President Eckhart abandons America's we do not negotiate with terrorists stance & invites nuclear Armageddon because they start roughing up a couple of members of his administration. Given what's at strake, that's crazily stupid & only exists to serve a ticking timebomb finale.


I only gave the communication thing as an example of lazy plotting. However the issue of transwarp is franchise changing.

And as for Eckhart... they were holding a gun to his head. Though I do agree that in reality they would just say "tough" and the next in line (The Speaker) would be the Prez. I actually think the stupidest part of that movie was the fleet standing down. That was stupid. Agreed.

But c'mon, Star Trek should be above such nonsense and be cleverer.

_____________________________

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 Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 110
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 8:36:38 PM   
GCH

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 25/8/2007
This felt like a solid three stars for me. Fantastic special effects, clunky script, predictable.twists and urns, wild overacting from Simon Peggy, all just like an extended TV show.
I would recommend it for a fun night out, as long as you ignore the crap trailers hat come with it.

_____________________________

If you can dodge traffic, you can dodge a ball

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 111
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 11:30:54 PM   
Qwerty Norris


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson



I only gave the communication thing as an example of lazy plotting. However the issue of transwarp is franchise changing.




But isn't this whole Abrams re-imagining franchise changing anyway?

_____________________________

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 Private Hudson)
Post #: 112
Into Darkness - 12/5/2013 11:55:01 PM   
marcus1962

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 12/5/2013
Its taken a while for this movie to come along but it was worth the wait. I found the action to be well paced, classic Trek opening and just the right mix for the cast. There are always plot holes no matter what someone does, its how you get over them thats key.
Here is my full review http://drawnonwords.co.uk/2013/05/12/star-trek-into-darkness/

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 113
RE: Into Darkness - 13/5/2013 9:59:38 AM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
The previous movie is amongst my favourite of all time, but this is even better! I'll probably write a longer review at some point, but Spock's a badass, some of the tribute/role reversal stuff from a previous movie is extremely touching, and literally everything from the original movie has been improved upon for the sequel. I love that for once the entire crew are given something to do (even if it's just to sound threatening).

(in reply to marcus1962)
Post #: 114
RE: This film is what the Cinema is for. - 13/5/2013 10:37:44 AM   
Mr Gittes

 

Posts: 567
Joined: 3/2/2013
quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: drico

A rarity, to have so much in one film. I didn't want it to end and confirmed for me that Abrams is this generations Spielberg.


I really like Abrams but he has a long way to go to be considered close to Spielberg - well at least the one that used to make brilliant movies until he was replaced by the pod people. Somewhere along the way Spielberg stuck his head up his arse and stopped making movies that were fun and for families, which is a shame. Thankfully, James Cameron came along and took up his mantle, although it was aimed at an older audience (though with Avatar he has moved back into that family audience arena).

Has Abrams gave us anything that can match Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, ET or Jurassic Park?

All six of those films I would argue are bona fide five star classics, and not a sequel among them.

Schindler's List, Temple of Doom and Last Crusade would also be up there, though unsure if Temple of Doom would be a five star movie - though great fun.

Abrams has given us some good films. I liked MI:3, Super 8, and I loved Star Trek (2009). Don't think any of them are 5 star classics, though they are very good films and do indicate that Abrams is one of the best filmmakers around.

But to suggest that he is the next Spielberg is plain wrong. It does a massive disservice to Spielberg.

Completely off topic here, but concerning your comments about Spielberg, what's wrong with not making fun family movies? It's good to show versatility. I love that he's trying new things. It's like saying Scorsese has disappeared up his own arse because he doesn't really make gangster movies any more.

Regardless, as much as I love Minority Report and Munich, he showed that he can still make fun movies with Tintin and Catch Me If You Can. Whether or not you liked those movies, you can't deny that he intended to make them fun, family popcorn movies, and he had a whale of a time making them as well.

Anyway, back on topic, I had a blast watching Star Trek Into Darkness. It more than made up for my last two big-screen outings (Olympus Has Fallen and Iron Man 3...ugh), since it's precisely the sort of movie that you go to the cinema for; it takes you to another world with characters you care about, it exhilarates you, makes you grip your armrests, and just gives you a damn good time. It was the first time at the cinema where I felt like I was watching classic Star Wars. All it was missing was lightsabers.

So, needless to say, this makes me even happier that JJ is behind the wheel on Episode 7

< Message edited by Mr Gittes -- 13/5/2013 10:39:25 AM >

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 115
FLASHMAN - 13/5/2013 10:42:57 AM   
Frank Comiskey

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 16/1/2008
I must be missing something here; this is one of the greatest film sequels of all time; in the box with Godfather 2, Superman 2, Lethal Weapon 2, Terminator 2, Aliens and Carry on Camping; the writers must have taken about 10 years off their brilliant lives coming up with the goods; anybody expecting the same film as the previous one is bound to lob off a star, as wil these idiots who agonize over the internal narrative logic as though it were sacred scripture - no question, it is a masterpiece, and with further luck, timing and good advisement Chris Pine will have a career in the vein of Mr Gable, Mr Wayne, Mr Heston, Mr Ford & Mr Cruise.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 116
RE: FLASHMAN - 13/5/2013 11:05:53 AM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOLIERS!!! BUT IF YOU'VE NOT SEEN IT YET WHY ARE YOU IN THIS THREAD ANYWAY.
 
Some details whited out just in case  But don't read if you've not seen it.
 
The big reveal of Khan just wasn't a shock in the slightest. One guy in the BFI IMAX gasped… one! I mean who else could that have been and everyone guessed it from the trailer anyway.
 
But that was my main gripe with the film, this is a new take… do something new! Some of it was just a little too familiar with the events portrayed in Wrath of Khan. The character, plot points involving torpedoes, the one on one starship face off and of course the radiation death scene. They have free rein to do whatever they want now, so reusing so much familiar material when they had 4 years is a little lazy.
 
But it had a lot of heart, a zippy pace and some stunning spectacle. So I did enjoy it very much… but I wanted to be surprised! And having Cumberbatch actually turn out to be who we all thought he was last December was underwhelming.
 
Khan's super beings all out of cryo and the proper beginnings of the Klingon War might have been a better route, if they were determined to use Khan. the Klingons were aces though! Cool ships... if a little Killzone.
 
But still… cracking fun for 2 hours!
 
3.5

< Message edited by pete_traynor -- 13/5/2013 11:08:35 AM >


_____________________________

EXTREMELY LIMITED 1/1 FILM DIRECTOR HAND DRAWN ORIGINALS COMING SOON - http://lomierart.blogspot.co.uk/

(in reply to Frank Comiskey)
Post #: 117
RE: FLASHMAN - 13/5/2013 11:21:43 AM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
Regarding the character twist... With the reveals of Talia al Ghul, Moneypenny and now Khan ruined before the movies were even done filming, followed by months and months of unconvincing denials that turn out to be outright lies, I'd say it's time for people to either give up with the "tell everyone they're this character, but have them really be someone else from the franchises lore entirely" technique, or you know... just get better security around the script/filming to make sure no asshole leaks the details.

Still, my complete lack of surprise did nothing to affect my overall enjoyment of an incredible movie.

(in reply to pete_traynor)
Post #: 118
RE: FLASHMAN - 13/5/2013 1:09:57 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 569
Joined: 30/11/2005
Something else I forgot to mention in earlier posts:

With the huge amount of trailers, tv spots etc for STID, it felt like half the film was already out there before the release. However, am I right in thinking that there were some shots in the trailers that weren't in the final film? I'm at work and so can't check, but I was expecting a shot of flag-draped coffins that I don't remember seeing in the cinema.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 119
RE: FLASHMAN - 13/5/2013 1:18:42 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
Really? It was one of the few films of recent years I didn't go into knowing most of the plot already.

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> This film is what the Cinema is for. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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