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: Star Trek Into Darkness

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Star Trek Into Darkness Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 13/5/2013 2:03:38 PM   
zeech1941

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 13/2/2008
From: London
I was so excited to see this film. Then I realised I saw this film in 1982 and it was called The Wrath of Khan. 1982 version loads better!

_____________________________

$10,000 for me by myself. For that you get the head, the tail, the whole damn thing.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 121
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 13/5/2013 2:05:16 PM   
ripperman


Posts: 144
Joined: 3/10/2007
Lens Flare, lens Flare, lens Flare, moment of quiet sentiment or character development, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare, lens flare, parody, nod nod wink reference to Star Trek history, lens flare, lens flare, smack people over the head with the fact that Spock doesn’t show much emotion, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare lens flare, twists, lens flare. End.

(in reply to zeech1941)
Post #: 122
RE: FLASHMAN - 13/5/2013 3:06:25 PM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA
quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Really? It was one of the few films of recent years I didn't go into knowing most of the plot already.


Unfortunately, from the shots in the trailer of Cumbebatch displaying super human strength and the hands at the glass, I knew what the major points would be and where they were taken from. I still really enjoyed it but it held no surprises and I really hoped it would.
 
I really should stop watching trailers as they really do give away so much these days.

< Message edited by pete_traynor -- 13/5/2013 3:07:57 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 123
RE: FLASHMAN - 13/5/2013 3:51:17 PM   
Skiba


Posts: 4402
Joined: 24/11/2005
From: London
This shows how fucking thick I am (or sheltered, perhaps) as I had no idea that he was going to be Khan! And I bloody love Wrath of Khan! It certainly borrows a lot from the original but there's enough in there that makes it far more than just a re-make.

Definitely going to see it again but in 2D as the IMAX 3D was just annoying and far too dark.

I was wondering why I didn't come in to the reviews section more often but then I read the majority of posts in here...just full of one post wonders, wannabe hacks and liars.

_____________________________

Have a good time, all the time.

(in reply to pete_traynor)
Post #: 124
DAZZLING SEQUEL!!!! - 13/5/2013 8:29:40 PM   
Ramone87

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 24/12/2011
Top notch Sci fi entertainment from directer J.J. Abrams!!


The pace never let's up in this thrilling sequel, without a moments notice we are thrust onto a far off world where kirk (Chris Pine) and bones (Karl Urban) are fleeing for thier lives from alien natives. After saving spock (Zachary Quinto) from near death they face a new dilemma as rougue Starfleet operative Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) goes on the rampage through 23rd century future London. Bombs go off and the Starfleet command centre is attacked, leaving Kirk and his team on a personal man hunt for Khan on a Klingon infested planet,...

The pace is fantastic throughout, the relationship between Kirk and Spock is further tested and developed, Spocks by the book, living by rules and never breaking them ethics are at odds with Kirk's belief 'in doing what's right' is a joy to behold and very funny at times thoughout the movie. All other cast members do thier parts admirably,..Scotty (Simon Pegg), Uhuru (Zoe Saldana), Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and Felicity Wren to name a few. But it's Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto who really stand out. Benedict is chilling as Khan, displaying real physical prowess and intensity as the main villian with Chris as a welcome relief in his kirk, serious but willing to take risks as a man ruled more by his emotions than enything else.

Effects are really fantastic throughout and the set pieces are breathtaking. From wonderful fisticuffs on flying vehicles to death defying stunt work to huge scale spaceship fights and the warp drive in stunning 3D,..what more visual spectacle could you ask for?! Action junkies and Sci fi nuts are in for a visual
treat! It all wraps up rather nicley at the the end and the plot twists and turns with thrilling and surprising ease,...with the added emotional punch at it's heart. Great Stuff indeed....;)


GO SEE IT!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 125
DAZZLING SEQUEL!!!! - 13/5/2013 8:29:43 PM   
Ramone87

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 24/12/2011
Top notch Sci fi entertainment from directer J.J. Abrams!!


The pace never let's up in this thrilling sequel, without a moments notice we are thrust onto a far off world where kirk (Chris Pine) and bones (Karl Urban) are fleeing for thier lives from alien natives. After saving spock (Zachary Quinto) from near death they face a new dilemma as rougue Starfleet operative Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) goes on the rampage through 23rd century future London. Bombs go off and the Starfleet command centre is attacked, leaving Kirk and his team on a personal man hunt for Khan on a Klingon infested planet,...

The pace is fantastic throughout, the relationship between Kirk and Spock is further tested and developed, Spocks by the book, living by rules and never breaking them ethics are at odds with Kirk's belief 'in doing what's right' is a joy to behold and very funny at times thoughout the movie. All other cast members do thier parts admirably,..Scotty (Simon Pegg), Uhuru (Zoe Saldana), Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and Felicity Wren to name a few. But it's Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto who really stand out. Benedict is chilling as Khan, displaying real physical prowess and intensity as the main villian with Chris as a welcome relief in his kirk, serious but willing to take risks as a man ruled more by his emotions than enything else.

Effects are really fantastic throughout and the set pieces are breathtaking. From wonderful fisticuffs on flying vehicles to death defying stunt work to huge scale spaceship fights and the warp drive in stunning 3D,..what more visual spectacle could you ask for?! Action junkies and Sci fi nuts are in for a visual treat! It all wraps up rather nicley at the the end and the plot twists and turns with thrilling and surprising ease,...with the added emotional punch at it's heart. Great Stuff indeed....;)


GO SEE IT!!

< Message edited by Ramone87 -- 13/5/2013 8:33:10 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 126
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 13/5/2013 10:00:09 PM   
moviebuff73

 

Posts: 134
Joined: 7/6/2012
From: diss
Excellent movie. Action, drama, emotion, comedy. It has everything.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 127
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 13/5/2013 10:20:08 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3979
Joined: 19/10/2005
What a disappointment. Was okay until about a third of the way through when they sent Kirk to kill somebody, a complete bastardisation of Star Trek. Now I'm no Trekkie, but when something is called Star Trek that's what I expect to see.That overrated hack Abrams has dumbed it down so much it's almost unrecognisable as Star Trek. The whole thing felt constantly forced and mechanical, lacked much in the way of imagination, and then turned into a lame remake of Wrath Of Kahn towards the end. I stopped giving a damn after about an hour and a half. The cast all do well, some, but not all, of the effects are decent, and in the end it's passable as action entertainment, but no more.

I am now seriously worrried about Star Wars.

5/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to moviebuff73)
Post #: 128
RE: FLASHMAN - 13/5/2013 11:39:35 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1049
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Really? It was one of the few films of recent years I didn't go into knowing most of the plot already.


Unfortunately, from the shots in the trailer of Cumbebatch displaying super human strength and the hands at the glass, I knew what the major points would be and where they were taken from. I still really enjoyed it but it held no surprises and I really hoped it would.
 
I really should stop watching trailers as they really do give away so much these days.


As someone who hasn't watched trailers for movies that I'm really wanting to see for the last 7 years or so, I can personally testify to how much more enjoyable your first viewing of a movie is if you stop watching the trailers.

_____________________________

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 pete_traynor)
Post #: 129
Exactly how I wanted it - 14/5/2013 1:44:27 AM   
FoxDhoj


Posts: 122
Joined: 21/10/2005
From: Winchester, Hants
I went in absolutely loving the first film, but definitely wanting more. For me, Abrams has delivered it in loads. After seeing Super 8, I was confident he could step it up for the sequel. People really do get very armchair about plots don't they - I can understand the criticisms with something like The Dark Knight Rises, and if you're a Trekky you probably have something to say about these new films in general. But for someone who views Star Trek in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way (in the same way I view Doctor Who), and from a solid Star Wars fan, I enjoyed the film thoroughly. The 3D was great, and I put that down to IMAX - I haven't particularly praised a 3D film since Tron: Legacy, and this is ten times what that film was. The effects in this were breathtaking. The acting seemed comfortable and natural - Cumberbatch was a truly nasty villain. The emotional journey was great - layered, human, and intimate. The kind of emotion Marvel films try to go for but fail more often than not - I can't relate to a superhero. People can complain all they want, but you're facing tough competition when fanboys are involved - people are easily disappointed, whether it's the third and final Batman film or The Hobbit, people are going to compare it to what has come before. I believe these films have done Star Trek a huge favour, and those completists talking about clunky plot? Please, do you want to start to talk about Star Trek and clunky plots? The plot seemed straightforward and I think people were actually just uncomfortable with its apparent fluidity when pacing is involved. I'm a fan of irregular pacing, and when it goes with intense visuals, 9 times out of 10 I will love it. I loved this sequel. If you didn't, then each to your own. This was as good as Django Unchained was - fast, fun, and fantastic. The first great sci-fi of the year - now, can Pacific Rim and Elysium top it?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 130
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 10:23:41 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

I am now seriously worrried about Star Wars.

5/10


I understand why, but here's some consolation. By his own admission, JJ wasn't a Trek fan, but he always has been a Star Wars enthusiast. I don't know how much input he had into the actual script for STID, but I'm prepared to lay a lot of the blame for the inconsistencies and plotholes with Orci and Kurtzman. The writing and creative team for Star Wars 7 would seem, on paper at least, to promise the right levels of enthusiasm, knowledge and skill.

However, I would contend that JJ's directing style, while appropriate for Mission Impossible or Star Trek (ie relentless action and hyperactivity) might not be suitable for Star Wars. I know Lucas always said 'Faster, more intense', but the absolute best film is still Empire Strikes Back, a film not afraid to be slow, moody and dripping with characterisation where necessary.

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 131
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 11:49:39 AM   
Mr Gittes

 

Posts: 574
Joined: 3/2/2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman

Lens Flare, lens Flare, lens Flare, moment of quiet sentiment or character development, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare, lens flare, parody, nod nod wink reference to Star Trek history, lens flare, lens flare, smack people over the head with the fact that Spock doesn’t show much emotion, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare lens flare, twists, lens flare. End.

Is that supposed to be a review?

Let me guess, your opinion of Goodfellas = "Violence, swearing, swearing, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cheating, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cocaine, swearing, violence, swearing, cocaine, swearing, swearing, swearing. The End."

(in reply to ripperman)
Post #: 132
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 12:22:08 PM   
ripperman


Posts: 144
Joined: 3/10/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Gittes


quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman

Lens Flare, lens Flare, lens Flare, moment of quiet sentiment or character development, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare, lens flare, parody, nod nod wink reference to Star Trek history, lens flare, lens flare, smack people over the head with the fact that Spock doesn’t show much emotion, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare lens flare, twists, lens flare. End.

Is that supposed to be a review?

Let me guess, your opinion of Goodfellas = "Violence, swearing, swearing, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cheating, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cocaine, swearing, violence, swearing, cocaine, swearing, swearing, swearing. The End."





Goodfellas is a modern masterpiece. Star Trek Into Darkness is not. The violence and swearing of Goodfellas did not constantly throw me out of the film. On the contrary I always felt fully engaged with the characters and the overall story because I knew that it was part and parcel of their lives and setup. Was the infamous scene where Tommy interrogates Henry in the restaurant interrupted by a huge explosion? No. The scene is let run and we learn more of Tommy’s menace and vitriol in those few moments than in the entire movie, murders included. Does the lens suddenly flare all over the place in the long tracking shot into the Copacabana? No, because Michael Balhaus the movies talented cinematographer knew that cheap parlour tricks does not a good picture make.

In Star Trek constant lens flare and moments of character development interrupted by a loud crash, I felt continually took me out of the movie to the point of exasperation (Even the bloody interview with JJ Abrams on Film 4 has lens flare!!?). Half way through I didn’t care about the characters or the plot and felt I was watching some strange Star Trek parody that felt the need to bandwagon the modern trend of associating its plot devices with the modern war on terror. Oh and add in a character twist cliché, that’s also been done to death. There, a review, something I didn’t have the energy to write after I saw the film due to sheer boredom.

(in reply to Mr Gittes)
Post #: 133
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 12:36:52 PM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Gittes


quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman

Lens Flare, lens Flare, lens Flare, moment of quiet sentiment or character development, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare, lens flare, parody, nod nod wink reference to Star Trek history, lens flare, lens flare, smack people over the head with the fact that Spock doesn't show much emotion, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare lens flare, twists, lens flare. End.

Is that supposed to be a review?

Let me guess, your opinion of Goodfellas = "Violence, swearing, swearing, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cheating, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cocaine, swearing, violence, swearing, cocaine, swearing, swearing, swearing. The End."




_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mr Gittes)
Post #: 134
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 12:43:54 PM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA
quote:

ORIGINAL: zeech1941

I was so excited to see this film. Then I realised I saw this film in 1982 and it was called The Wrath of Khan. 1982 version loads better!


I really enjoyed it at the time (still think it’s solid fun) although I was aware of the WoK issues. But the more I think about it, I wonder how the hell it took them 4 years to come up with that script! So much is just stolen from WoK.
 
Should have just done a full on Klingon War story! In 4 years someone could have written a great villain in the shape of a Klingon captain or general… hell, Cumberbatch could still have been great casting with some make up slapped on.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to zeech1941)
Post #: 135
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 2:07:05 PM   
Mr Gittes

 

Posts: 574
Joined: 3/2/2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Gittes


quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman

Lens Flare, lens Flare, lens Flare, moment of quiet sentiment or character development, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare, lens flare, parody, nod nod wink reference to Star Trek history, lens flare, lens flare, smack people over the head with the fact that Spock doesn’t show much emotion, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare lens flare, twists, lens flare. End.

Is that supposed to be a review?

Let me guess, your opinion of Goodfellas = "Violence, swearing, swearing, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cheating, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cocaine, swearing, violence, swearing, cocaine, swearing, swearing, swearing. The End."





Goodfellas is a modern masterpiece. Star Trek Into Darkness is not. The violence and swearing of Goodfellas did not constantly throw me out of the film. On the contrary I always felt fully engaged with the characters and the overall story because I knew that it was part and parcel of their lives and setup. Was the infamous scene where Tommy interrogates Henry in the restaurant interrupted by a huge explosion? No. The scene is let run and we learn more of Tommy’s menace and vitriol in those few moments than in the entire movie, murders included. Does the lens suddenly flare all over the place in the long tracking shot into the Copacabana? No, because Michael Balhaus the movies talented cinematographer knew that cheap parlour tricks does not a good picture make.

In Star Trek constant lens flare and moments of character development interrupted by a loud crash, I felt continually took me out of the movie to the point of exasperation (Even the bloody interview with JJ Abrams on Film 4 has lens flare!!?). Half way through I didn’t care about the characters or the plot and felt I was watching some strange Star Trek parody that felt the need to bandwagon the modern trend of associating its plot devices with the modern war on terror. Oh and add in a character twist cliché, that’s also been done to death. There, a review, something I didn’t have the energy to write after I saw the film due to sheer boredom.


Now that's a little more like it.

Not that I agree; personally, I had a great time watching this movie. Aside from some ridiculous moments, lens flare has never really bothered me. But different things bug different moviegoers (personally, I utterly DESPISE excessive use of steadicam). As for the less technical things...

SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN IT

...as bad as this sounds, I'd have much preferred that they left Kirk dead. Sure, the franchise would be kinda fucked but it would make the movie stronger, and I'd love to see a blockbuster do something ballsy like that. Still, his survival didn't peeve me remotely as much as that bloody twist in Iron Man did; in other words, by no means was it a movie-breaker. It just would've been nice if they'd left him dead (fuck me, that sounds morbid as hell).

That ending, the fact that Karl Urban was underused, and that there was no point to Alice Eve's character other than to provoke erections from racist audience members who didn't find Uhura stimulating enough, were pretty much my main gripes with Star Trek Into Darkness. Otherwise, this was the first time in a while that I've had genuine fun watching a movie in the cinema.

(in reply to ripperman)
Post #: 136
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 2:33:15 PM   
ripperman


Posts: 144
Joined: 3/10/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Gittes


quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Gittes


quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman

Lens Flare, lens Flare, lens Flare, moment of quiet sentiment or character development, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare, lens flare, parody, nod nod wink reference to Star Trek history, lens flare, lens flare, smack people over the head with the fact that Spock doesn’t show much emotion, interrupted by loud bang of action, said action, lens flare lens flare, twists, lens flare. End.

Is that supposed to be a review?

Let me guess, your opinion of Goodfellas = "Violence, swearing, swearing, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cheating, swearing, swearing, violence, swearing, violence, swearing, swearing, cocaine, swearing, violence, swearing, cocaine, swearing, swearing, swearing. The End."





Goodfellas is a modern masterpiece. Star Trek Into Darkness is not. The violence and swearing of Goodfellas did not constantly throw me out of the film. On the contrary I always felt fully engaged with the characters and the overall story because I knew that it was part and parcel of their lives and setup. Was the infamous scene where Tommy interrogates Henry in the restaurant interrupted by a huge explosion? No. The scene is let run and we learn more of Tommy’s menace and vitriol in those few moments than in the entire movie, murders included. Does the lens suddenly flare all over the place in the long tracking shot into the Copacabana? No, because Michael Balhaus the movies talented cinematographer knew that cheap parlour tricks does not a good picture make.

In Star Trek constant lens flare and moments of character development interrupted by a loud crash, I felt continually took me out of the movie to the point of exasperation (Even the bloody interview with JJ Abrams on Film 4 has lens flare!!?). Half way through I didn’t care about the characters or the plot and felt I was watching some strange Star Trek parody that felt the need to bandwagon the modern trend of associating its plot devices with the modern war on terror. Oh and add in a character twist cliché, that’s also been done to death. There, a review, something I didn’t have the energy to write after I saw the film due to sheer boredom.


Now that's a little more like it.

Not that I agree; personally, I had a great time watching this movie. Aside from some ridiculous moments, lens flare has never really bothered me. But different things bug different moviegoers (personally, I utterly DESPISE excessive use of steadicam). As for the less technical things...




I hate steadicam too and I agree with you, regarding your points about Kirk, Carl Urban (best thing in the movie) and Alice Eve’s character.

(in reply to Mr Gittes)
Post #: 137
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 3:49:06 PM   
Mr Gittes

 

Posts: 574
Joined: 3/2/2013
Don't get me wrong, when it's used well stylistically I love it. For example, when it's used by the likes of Scorsese, Spielberg, De Palma, Malick, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Kubrick (although I think he went a little overboard in Eyes Wide Shut), it's often beautiful to watch.

But when it's used lazily when a dolly or even just a bloody tripod would do, I hate it. This is pretty much the reason why I'm always taken out of any of Eastwood's recently directed movies, post Unforgiven (now that movie was brilliantly made). However, the absolute worst example I've seen is the Swedish Dragon Tattoo sequels, where practically every shot is steadicam, steadicam, steadicam...and not very good steadicam at that. They were so lazily made, it makes me sick to even think about them. Ugh.

You may think I'm overreacting but I loved those books. Come on, Fincher!

Anyway, since all this is as off-topic as you could get, I've just remembered another flaw in Star Trek Into Darkness - I'm not sure whether to say a certain character's appearance towards the end was too brief or just not needed at all, either way it just didn't feel right.

(in reply to ripperman)
Post #: 138
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 5:23:05 PM   
ripperman


Posts: 144
Joined: 3/10/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Gittes

Don't get me wrong, when it's used well stylistically I love it. For example, when it's used by the likes of Scorsese, Spielberg, De Palma, Malick, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Kubrick (although I think he went a little overboard in Eyes Wide Shut), it's often beautiful to watch.

But when it's used lazily when a dolly or even just a bloody tripod would do, I hate it. This is pretty much the reason why I'm always taken out of any of Eastwood's recently directed movies, post Unforgiven (now that movie was brilliantly made). However, the absolute worst example I've seen is the Swedish Dragon Tattoo sequels, where practically every shot is steadicam, steadicam, steadicam...and not very good steadicam at that. They were so lazily made, it makes me sick to even think about them. Ugh.

You may think I'm overreacting but I loved those books. Come on, Fincher!

Anyway, since all this is as off-topic as you could get, I've just remembered another flaw in Star Trek Into Darkness - I'm not sure whether to say a certain character's appearance towards the end was too brief or just not needed at all, either way it just didn't feel right.



Yeah a lot of modern over use of it has left me cold and bitter towards it now, especially since the masters you list used it so well in the past (The goodfellas shot of the copacabana entrance that I mentioned, probably being one of the greatest, in my opinion).

On topic, yes I think that character is basically there as a source of information from here on in, if it is indeed the same character I think you're referring to.

< Message edited by ripperman -- 14/5/2013 5:31:57 PM >

(in reply to Mr Gittes)
Post #: 139
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 5:32:29 PM   
Don_a_van


Posts: 98
Joined: 30/1/2007
I went to watch this last night, I'm wouldn't classify myself as a Trekkie, but I am a sci-fi buff so have watched all the movies and a fair few of the tv episodes over the years. Bearing that in mind I thought this was a good movie but certainly not without it's faults\bad points more of which later but first I'll do what it got right.

Visuals and Sound effects - As to be expected, top notch. Stand out moments for me were whenever the Enterprise was on screen, especially the going to warp speed effect, very satisfying. The sound was top notch and I love the new theme tune. He's even managed to tone down the lens flare.

Plot - While I did have a few issues with it, on the whole it was fairly satisfying and the film was of decent length to do the story justice. Surprisingly I'd managed to stay pretty much spoiler free for this film too so the twists were a nice surprise.

Cast - As everyone else has stated already, Cumberbatch is top notch. Fantastic screen presence, oozes evil and charm in equal measure and has a voice that I suspect could snap knicker elastic at 12 paces (my OH certainly approved). What was surprising is that the rest of the cast seemed to step up too. Spock who was certainly very decent in the first was even better in this and Kirk, Uhura, Mccoy and Scottie all seemed to be more comfortable in their roles which meant they were all the better for it, especially Pegg as Scottie who I thought was horribly jarring in the first but who seems to have become much better at channeling the Scottie we know and love in this movie.

Target Audience - This is a comment on the fact the JJ has really done a great job of de-geekifying both this and the first movie. The Trek films have always had a bit of stigma attached to them, probably due to the OTT fans more than anything which was always a shame as many stayed away. My OH certainly wouldn't have dreamed of watching a Trek movie previously but she enjoyed both the first film and this second outing immensely. I see this as a good thing although I suspect die hard Trekkies might not be so approving.

On to the bad which I will put in spoilers as it necessarily discusses some of the films plot points so those of a sensitive nature look away now!

**** SPOILERS *****

Space Battles - Or lack thereof. I don't know about you but I like to watch space battles. I love the idea of these big space ships firing broadsides at each other like see fairing ships of old and the captains matching wits or trying to outdo each other. Neither this or the first film have had a really interesting space battle. I know it seems to be tradition for the Enterprise to always take a pounding but it doesn't even get a shot off in this movie, for one of the most powerful ships of the Federation I'd like to see it give a better account of itself in these new movies for once and also give the new Kirk a chance to show his ship captaining ability, he seems to spend more time out of the chair then on it! The original WoK is a classic in this respect for the fantastically tense way in which it depicts this very important aspect of the Trek universe.

Plot - Yes I know I've put this in the good bits but their are also bits I don't like. Cumberbatch was a brilliant Khan but I feel it was way too soon to introduce this character. In the original WoK the crew have been together for years so Kirk and Spock are the best of friends which makes the death scene in that movie massively powerful and very poignant. In this new version they haven't had the time to develop that bond, in fact most of the time they can barely stand each other which makes the homage scene in this and consequently Spock's show of emotion feel very tacked on IMO. In typical Hollywood style in an attempt to wow audiences, they've shot their bolt too soon when IMO they would have been better off using at least one more film to develop the characters relationships some more and save this plot for one of the later films.

Plot Holes - As mentioned by many previously I not usually a "nitpicker" and don't go out of my way to spot plot holes but there were a fair few humdingers in this one which took you out of the experience a few time.

In short if you are going to homage the best Trek film in the franchise so far (WoK), at least look at what it was that made that film so great in the first place.

So while it was certainly a very enjoyable film, it wasn't the best Star Trek movie by a long stretch, that honour still lies with Wrath of Khan so this movie gets a solid 3.5\5 from me.

(in reply to ripperman)
Post #: 140
Star Trek Into Darkness...... - 14/5/2013 5:59:23 PM   
ROTGUT

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 14/7/2008
Abrams has certainly cast his actors well and they don't disappoint. Glorious SFX from ILM and the rest of the FX bods. This film looks (quite literally) stunningly gorgeous - and most fans will recognise the all too familiar action beats ( Wrath of Khan, Avengers Assemble, Star Trek 6 etc...) but thankfully they don't derail the fun. Into Darkness starts off in top gear and doesn't let up - and if you can get past the nagging sense that you've seen it all before ( AND MOST OFYOU PROBABLY HAVE) - you'll have a blast. FOUR STARS.

< Message edited by elab49 -- 14/5/2013 10:13:02 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 141
RE: WRATH OF YOU KNOW WHO REDUX...... - 14/5/2013 7:42:44 PM   
Rgirvan44


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


Let’s lay our cards on the table. I am a lifelong Star Trek fan. I am also acutely aware that the majority of it isn’t very good. Very roughly, season 3 of the 60s series, most of the Next Generation, Voyager and Enterprise are by and large, not good.

That isn’t to say there aren’t moments in any of these shows which are worth watching. But taken as a whole, if someone came up to me and asked if I felt it would be worthwhile for them to sit and watch seven seasons of Voyager, I cannot say hand on heart claim that I would say yes.

But when Trek is good, it is great. It combines fantastic ideas, with epic visions and great character work. At times it is ambitious but flawed (the Motion Picture), other times misguided to say the least (Final Frontier) but when it hits all the right targets, it soars. I am thinking Undiscovered Country, First Contact and yes, The Wrath of Khan.

Khan really is the breaking point between one generation of Trek and the next. Before that Trek was constantly in a conflict between wanting to deliver a message of peace and hope, while also letting Kirk punch an alien or two.

The Motion Picture was the end of the idea that Trek was truly concerned about peace. Bland, beige and too in love with its own effects work, it essentially killed off Roddenberry’s claims that Trek should be about utopia (something I feel he only bought into after TOS went off the air).

The Wrath of Khan was a game changer – there was conflict, there was a cool bit of science-fiction, there were stakes, there was adventure and yes, some actual heart. Kirk and crew were allowed to get old, and they were allowed to be less than perfect and finally a balance was created. It is no coincidence that the Next Generation found its feet with the two part episode The Best of Both Worlds, which was essentially the Wrath of Khan on the small screen.

And so it is no surprise that subsequent films have knelt at the throne of Khan. However the movie series has become increasingly reliant on this template. First Contact – Picard quotes Moby Dick and is on a quest for vengeance. Insurrection – the castout from Brazil wants revenge on his family. Nemesis – Ton Hardy wants revenge on mankind and Picard for some reason the script writers never explain. And then Star Trek 09’ – Eric Bana is on a quest of vengeance against Spock.

You would think that after all these efforts, the team behind Star Trek Into Darkness might have decided to go another direction, perhaps remembering that The One with the Whales was the most successful Star Trek movie of its time. But nope. Not a chance.

Star Trek into Darkness feels like it should be this crew’s version of the Undiscovered Country. A final movie before the team disbands. But as we all know, this is only the second film for this crew. And they had years to write it. Which begs the question – is this really the best that they came up with?

There is not a moment in the film which feels earned. In the first 10 minutes Kirk is demoted from Captain. Try watching this back to back with Star Trek 09’. We are supposed to feel a sense of excitement at the end of the first movie. Kirk was now a captain. Pike had faith in him. Let’s go on an adventure! The credits come on, we flash across the galaxy!

…and then learn that he was soon demoted again, and Pike was lying at the end of the first movie.

Thankfully this silly plot point is resolved pretty quickly, showing just how unnecessary it was in the first place, as Pike gets himself killed by Cumberbatch. Cumberbatch knows where Starfleet are meeting because apparently it is common knowledge that the high command will meet in that EXACT ROOM any time there is a crisis. What sort of operation are Starfleet running here?

And so the gang shoot off to the Klingon home because you gotta have Klingons in there, right? There is an attempt to try and make the threat of war between the Federation and the Klingons significant, but since all we see is a couple of scout ships, and 20 guys, it never really feels big enough.

Cumberbatch subsequently comes abroad the Enterprise, reveals that he is Khan (faint, shock, wow) and the audience, some of whom likely don’t have parents who were born when Wrath of Khan came out, look at the screen confused, not understanding why this is supposed to be a surprise.

I am not against them using Khan, and Cumberbatch gives it his all. But they waste the character, and make him do stupid, stupid things. He says his is the superior intellect, yet falls for such an easy trick on the part of Spock that he becomes little more than a strong, but dumb brute. Like Hulk, but English.

We find out that Peter Weller is behind a massive Starfleet conspiracy to try and bring forward a war with the Klingons. There is a thread of an interesting theme here – a couple of times people ask whether the Federation should be about war. But the debate is pushed to the side so things can blow up and Spock can punch a guy.

Kirk dies saving the ship and they replay the entire death scene from Khan. Here is my problem with this. We have only got to know these two actors in these roles. There is no built history, and most of the time they are just being snarky to each other. When the original cast did that scene, it meant something. They had known each other for almost twenty years. At the time Spock really wasn’t going to come back. There was a weight and honesty to the performances.

In this movie, the actors all know Pine is coming back. They have all read the script. They attempt to make the scene about the solidification of the friendship, rather than the ending of one. But because they use pretty much the same dialogue from Wrath of Khan, and some of the same shots, that it is hard not to compare, and find Into Darkness lacking.

And then Spock says something so embarrassing that I cringed for most of the remaining run time. Just because
“KHHAAAANNNN!” is the only thing most people know about Khan in pop culture, doesn’t mean that you need to do it in the film. The point of that moment in Wrath of Khan is that Kirk knows he that has an escape plan, he is trying to make Khan feel he has the upper hand. He is deliberately being overly theatrical. In this film, Spock screams it, and it has all the impact of a kid pissed off because he lost his latest game of Call of Duty.

The film ends with them needing to recover Khan and use his blood to save Kirk…despite the Enterprise having Khan’s other crewmates, who could all supply that blood without the need to fight them (they are all frozen). Magic blood – are we sure Abrams is the right guy for Episode Seven when he is taking inspiration from the Phantom Menace?

But they do it, Khan is literally put away in a box, and Kirk and the crew are finally allowed to go on their five year mission into deep space. But given that they seem to be able to travel from Earth to just about anywhere in 20minutes, I am not sure just how far away they will be going.

Star Trek into Darkness is a mess. You can see the plot from a mile away (especially if you have seen The Undiscovered Country) – if you are hiring Peter Weller, there is only one real reason to do so. His spaceship, and bridge reminded me a lot of Hardy's ship from Nemesis. The script is lazy, and the performers feel like they are going through the motions. Alice Eve has nothing to do in this film. Bones has been reduced to only spouting one liners. And bringing back old Spock, and Tribbles just felt like overkill. They spend far too much time on Earth, and yet again San Francisco gets splashed by a big object falling from space.

With Star Trek Into Darkness it is clear that the time has come for a different approach to Trek. Just as Khan changed what Trek was in the 80s, so too have we reached a place where it needs to be remoulded into something different, fresh and not trading on past glories.

It is time for new adventures, out there, second star to the right.

_____________________________

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 ROTGUT)
Post #: 142
RE: WRATH OF YOU KNOW WHO REDUX...... - 14/5/2013 8:43:06 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10887
Joined: 30/9/2005
B-but Rgirvan ... shooting! Explosions! Non-stop CGI action! Coolness!

_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 143
RE: WRATH OF YOU KNOW WHO REDUX...... - 14/5/2013 9:35:23 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
If Rgirvan says he is a life long fan of Star Trek and then says that the majority of it is not good then it is hard to take his fandom seriously.No wonder he did not enjoy Into Darkness.

I loved the new Star Trek movie.I will be seeing it again in a week or so and cannot wait for the Blu Ray.



_____________________________

'' 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 directorscut)
Post #: 144
RE: WRATH OF YOU KNOW WHO REDUX...... - 14/5/2013 9:45:20 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

If Rgirvan says he is a life long fan of Star Trek and then says that the majority of it is not good then it is hard to take his fandom seriously.No wonder he did not enjoy Into Darkness.

I loved the new Star Trek movie.I will be seeing it again in a week or so and cannot wait for the Blu Ray.




It is great you got the point I was making.

_____________________________

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 Cool Breeze)
Post #: 145
Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 9:46:55 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Actually this raises an interesting point - are you a less of a fan if you actually have a critical look at a franchise? Is mindless love of the product all that counts?

< Message edited by elab49 -- 14/5/2013 10:13:52 PM >


_____________________________

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 Rgirvan44)
Post #: 146
Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 9:56:49 PM   
Rebel scum


Posts: 3483
Joined: 2/1/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

If Cool Breeze says he is a life long fan of James Bond and then says that the Craig films are not good then it is hard to take his fandom seriously.No wonder he did not enjoy Skyfall.





< Message edited by elab49 -- 14/5/2013 10:13:20 PM >


_____________________________

"We are not safe! A dark menace rises to the east! Duckies go quack! Cows go moo! I want ice cream. Verily, will you two hobbits join my quest?"

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 147
Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 10:13:40 PM   
Cool Breeze


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

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Actually this raises an interesting point - are you a less of a fan if you actually have a critical look at a franchise? Is mindless love of the product all that counts?



You just said in one of your earlier posts that you are a life long Star Trek fan.....but then go on to say that the majority is not good.Thats more than being critical of the franchise, it sounds like you dont like Star Trek very much.

And who says they have mindless love of a product? Are you saying that any Star Trek fan who enjoys Into Darkness has nothing but mindless love of a product? I am a big Star Trek fan but realise there are episodes of every series ( especially DS9 ) that are true stinkers.

I enjoyed the heck out of Into Darkness because it had terrific action, fx, humour, and characters.Not perfect by any means but a terrific summer blockbuster.I cant wait to see it again.

< Message edited by elab49 -- 14/5/2013 10:15:33 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 Rgirvan44)
Post #: 148
Star Trek Into Darkness... - 14/5/2013 10:15:15 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54593
Joined: 1/10/2005
Just a note folks - I've changed the title of thread posts because viewed from the main page it looked very much like a massive spoiler about the film. It's back to the film title now

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 149
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 10:21:43 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Actually this raises an interesting point - are you a less of a fan if you actually have a critical look at a franchise? Is mindless love of the product all that counts?



You just said in one of your earlier posts that you are a life long Star Trek fan.....but then go on to say that the majority is not good.Thats more than being critical of the franchise, it sounds like you dont like Star Trek very much.

And who says they have mindless love of a product? Are you saying that any Star Trek fan who enjoys Into Darkness has nothing but mindless love of a product? I am a big Star Trek fan but realise there are episodes of every series ( especially DS9 ) that are true stinkers.

I enjoyed the heck out of Into Darkness because it had terrific action, fx, humour, and characters.Not perfect by any means but a terrific summer blockbuster.I cant wait to see it again.


If you add up all the Star Trek I do love, you are still talking hundreds of hours of TV and films. I can also accept that a great deal of it isn't great.

But as I say in my review, when it is great, you realise why you are a fan of the series. I liked the last Trek film, this one was to be found wanting.

_____________________________

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 Cool Breeze)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Star Trek Into Darkness Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.125