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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 10:27:01 PM   
Cool Breeze


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


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.


Fair enough.You are entitled to your opinion.

I loved Into Darkness and found it to be an even better movie than the last film.In fact i would rate Into Darkness my second favourite movie in the whole series now after Wrath Of Khan.

_____________________________

'' 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 #: 151
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 10:32:58 PM   
Deviation


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

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


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.


I must have seen the wrong Into Darkness, because what I saw was an antagonist who severely fails at this being intelligent thing, who is also half-baked, and a potentially fascinating villian in Weller absolutely squandered. It was like Nero times a billion with a more pretense on character and less adventure with worse results.

I mean, who on Earth thought that making a slightly smaller scale, gloomier, more character-driven Trek with some more complex ideas then the first and focus a bit on it was a good idea when the writers are Orci and Kurtzman?

Also, it's I really wished they cut some of the action scenes, they did nothing but slow the plot because OH MY GOD LOOK AT KIRK FLY AT ZERO GRAVITY AT THE DREADNOUGHT WOOO WE ALL KNOW HOW THIS WILL END THIS IS ALL INCONSEQUENTIAL SHIT GET ON WITH FUCKING IT but then I remembered that the plot, script and thematics were mediocre so such a ditraction from the plot actually developing was a good thing.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 14/5/2013 10:40:11 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

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

quote:


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

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 152
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 11:31:36 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
I have to say I'm glad that Harrison turned out to be Khan instead of some camp actor hired by Guy Pearce

_____________________________

'' 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 Deviation)
Post #: 153
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 14/5/2013 11:42:09 PM   
Deviation


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

I have to say I'm glad that Harrison turned out to be Khan instead of some camp actor hired by Guy Pearce


A camp actor hired by Guy Pearce would still be infinitely better then turning Khan into a half-written idiot and do nothing with the most interesting villian the movies have had since Undiscovered Country.



_____________________________

quote:

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

quote:


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

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 154
Better than IM3... - 15/5/2013 8:52:29 AM   
partybee

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 16/12/2009
probably not by much though. The film was solid up until they got Harrison on board the Enterprise. After that it lost its way a little. Post-big reveal it felt as if the film-makers didn't have that much interest in their chosen villain/plot after all. Like they just wanted to address the elephant in the room so they could move onto something new, in the same way SH:Game of Shadows dealt with Moriarty. For a sequel that took 4 years to get here it felt a little under-baked. Supes is still looking like he's going to steal summer,I'm pleased to say. Roll on June 14th.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 155
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 15/5/2013 10:52:32 AM   
Mr Gittes

 

Posts: 574
Joined: 3/2/2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

I have to say I'm glad that Harrison turned out to be Khan instead of some camp actor hired by Guy Pearce


A camp actor hired by Guy Pearce would still be infinitely better then turning Khan into a half-written idiot and do nothing with the most interesting villian the movies have had since Undiscovered Country.



Infinitely better? Really? I'll agree the torpedo fake-out thing was dumb, but...damn.

I left this movie with a smile on my face. I left the IM3 screening wanting to punch every person in sight. But I'm not a Trekkie, so...yeah...

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 156
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 15/5/2013 11:06:01 AM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3958
Joined: 19/10/2005
Kirk and Spock attempt to save the inhabitants of the plaent Nibiru from an imminent volcano eruption which would wipe out the civilisation. When Spockís life is jeopardized, Captain James T. Kirk breaks the Prime Directive, exposing the Enterprise to the planetís civilization during Spockís rescue. Called back to Earth, Kirk is demoted to First Officer and taken off the Enterprise, but in London, Starfleet agent John Harrison bombs a secret installation, then carries out an attack by gunship an emergency meeting of high ranking officers at Starfleet headquarters, killing many. Fleet Admiral David Marcus authorizes Kirk to hunt down Harrison, who has used transwarp beaming and fled to the Klingon homeworld of KronosÖ..

Itís Star Trek Jim, but not as we know it!

Star Trek. Iím not sure I would even call myself a casual fan: I never liked what I saw of The Next Generation, though I could see why many loved it, and I never bothered with the ones that came after, though I have fond memories of the original series [you know, the fun one] from when I was young, and every now and again Iíll watch one of the films on TV and usually get some enjoyment out of it, even if they are definitely hit and miss. The 2009 Star Trek was certainly an entertaining movie and won much praise as a film that pleased the Trekkies as well as a great many people who previously would have had little interest in something that has such an obsessive fan base that many folk who deem themselves Ďnormalí just donít want to know. Me? I enjoyed Abramsí s film, though I didnít seem very Star Trek to me. But itís a masterpiece compared to the idiotic mess that is Star Trek Into Darkness, which could be called a great many things but not a film with Star Trek in the title. I donít love Star Trek, but when I go and see a film containing those two words, thatís what I want to see, not a pumped-up, non-stop action movie that may have the Trek characters but for much of the time could have featured anybody.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, Star Trek Into Darkness didnít please this writer much at all. I wish I was willing to forget it was supposed to be Star Trek, or accept it as being a very different take on it, but it just wasnít done well enough. On one hand itís filled with familiar characters and situations and even copies a fair bit from earlier films and episodes [though I couldnít tell you the name of the episode, I distinctly remember one when he was suspended and taken off the Enterprise because he had not followed protocol], but on the other hand, itís saying none of thatís important, because itís all about constant rushing around and fights and space duels and stuff. And before you ask, yes, Iím a huge fan of action. Though action cinema is in a bad way at the moment, The Avengers was a blast and dare I say Iím already looking forward to more guilty pleasure with The Expendables 3, but those never try and sell themselves as something they are not. J.J. Abrams has said that he isnít really a Star Trek fan, so what he and his writers [more on them later] seem to have partially tried to do is make it more like Star Wars, only they havenít really succeeded in that either. Frankly, though as I have said I am not really a Star Trek fan, I would have thought any die hard Trekkie would be offended by, for instance, Kirk and crew being sent to kill someone. When on earth did they become sanctioned assassins?

This film has no Star Trek feel even while it pilfers from here and there. It may have the usual folk, albeit younger, saying and doing the things you may expect, but it all feels so forced and mechanical, as it the film was written by a computer. Maybe weíre meant to care about, for instance, the relationship between Kirk and Spock, but all I could think of how all of the emotional beats were predictable and laboured, and how ridiculously indecisive Spock was Ė the writers clearly had no understanding of the character. The whole film seems to have been mathematically worked out: action scene, character scene, a mild laugh, action scene, character scene, and so forth. It doesnít flow, and o, I forgot lens flare, yeah bloody constant lens flare, the trademark of this mediocre director, used to downright stupid extremes here. It looks like half the time they ought to all be wearing sunglasses. And then, eventually, it all turns into a remake of Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan, but without the doses of intelligence and genuine emotion that film managed to throw in to give wait to what could itself have been just a run-of-the-mill space duel.

So forgetting that itís supposed to be Star Trek, does Star Trek Into Darkness work as a simple space action film? Partially. The fast pace is certainly very well maintained and, for the most part, Abrams has left behind the stupid shakycam/hyperfast editing nonsense that he was using before, though the most potentially exciting scene, Kirk and Spock free-falling through space amidst loads of space junk, is little more than a blur and features not-so-special effects. But the film is hampered by downright shoddy storytelling, and yes I know this is coming from the same writer who is reviewing lots of Godzilla movies, but this kind of stuff should just not be the case in such an expensive, high-profile project that has taken a while to conceive and make. Now I can accept loads of plot holes, inconsistencies and silly stuff if the film they are in is tongue-in-cheek, or if I only think of them after the film, but throughout this movie I kept asking myself things like: How can a single small ship keep shooting for ages at a secret meeting and nothing intercept him? Why, if theyíve invented Trans-warping, donít both the goodies and the villain take advantage of it? What exactly is Khan trying to do? Almost every plot Ďtwistí [like, wow, Khan surrendering, oo I wonder why heís doing that?] is heavily signposted, but then why would anyone expect decent writing from those genius scribes Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof. I left the cinema feeling very worried about the fact that Abrams is directing Star Wars, but itís possible that the writers are the real villains, and that Abrams thought that the best thing he could do was to race through everything at top speed.

Of course political correctness, the thing thatís destroying freedom of speech, has meant that Khan canít be a South Asian [which is how he was written] or a Mexican [which the guy who played him was]. He has to be American or English.Itís like in Iron Man 3, where they chickened out of having the main villain as Chinese, which is how he was in the comics. What on earth is the world coming to when you canít have an Ďethnicí villain in case idiots will think that because, for instance, a film has an Asian baddie, the film is racist? Having the very English Benedict Cumberbatch playing a guy called Kahn Noonien Singh is pretty funny. This is not meant as an insult to Cumberbatch, who is really frightening, quietly simmering until he lets rip in a rather startling scene that gave me the impression the film was going to recover [it didn't]. The rest of the cast do okay and are mostly [except for the constantly uncharismatic Simon Pegg] fitting for their roles, but Chris Pine just cannot fill the shoes of the Shat, no matter how hard he tries, bless him.

There is an insidious wave of dumbing more and more things down at the moment, in an effort to make something more popular and Ďcoolí. It doesnít just exist in cinema, itís everywhere you look, from language to education. Cinema has always done this in an effort to attract the Ďmoron massesí, and is often all the more fun for it, but it seems worse than ever at the moment. Star Trek Into Darkness is a pretty major instance of it. I can often forgive stupid cinema, in fact quite often I love it. But this movie takes something which was formerly rich and unique, and then turns it into disposable trash. No, Iím no fan of Star Trek, but I respect it, and this isnít it.

Rating: 5/10

< Message edited by Dr Lenera -- 15/5/2013 11:07:21 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mr Gittes)
Post #: 157
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 15/5/2013 11:10:06 AM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 11/12/2005
Enjoyable but flawed.

In Star Trek (2009), they set out their stall with a new continuity, and had Spock Prime pass the torch to the new cast. Here, the writers shoe-horned in far too many references to the original continuity at the expense of the story, seemingly afraid to commit to the new path. Essentially they gave us Space Seed: The Movie. While they adapted it well for the new continuity (in that they didn't slavishly use the same storyline of discovering the Botany Bay, etc.), why not go with an original storyline and a new badass villain?

And the reverse Wrath of Khan was laughable: Spock's "KHAAAAAN!", whilst meant to be an emotional moment of pain, literally had us chuckling. Mrs F described it correctly as 'contrived'. Spock's death scene in WoK was the end of a deep friendship; Kirk's death scene in STID was almost slash fiction. Plus Bones telegraphing the solution with his tribble experiment...may as well be walking back and forth across the corridor with a pane of glass.

And it really shouldn't have taken 'til the third film for them to trek away from Earth.

Despite the contrivances / fanboy references to TOS - which were basically minor irritations but in large volume - it was good fun. I could do without Orci and Kurtzman writing any more films though (not just Star Trek).

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Mr Gittes)
Post #: 158
This film should've been a remake of Space Seed, not Wr... - 16/5/2013 3:44:11 PM   
Cameron1975Williams

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 5/12/2005
From: Cardiff
...and Del Toro was the only guy for the role. What a wasted opportunity.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 159
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 16/5/2013 7:38:38 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime

Enjoyable but flawed.

In Star Trek (2009), they set out their stall with a new continuity, and had Spock Prime pass the torch to the new cast. Here, the writers shoe-horned in far too many references to the original continuity at the expense of the story, seemingly afraid to commit to the new path. Essentially they gave us Space Seed: The Movie. While they adapted it well for the new continuity (in that they didn't slavishly use the same storyline of discovering the Botany Bay, etc.), why not go with an original storyline and a new badass villain?

And the reverse Wrath of Khan was laughable: Spock's "KHAAAAAN!", whilst meant to be an emotional moment of pain, literally had us chuckling. Mrs F described it correctly as 'contrived'. Spock's death scene in WoK was the end of a deep friendship; Kirk's death scene in STID was almost slash fiction. Plus Bones telegraphing the solution with his tribble experiment...may as well be walking back and forth across the corridor with a pane of glass.

And it really shouldn't have taken 'til the third film for them to trek away from Earth.

Despite the contrivances / fanboy references to TOS - which were basically minor irritations but in large volume - it was good fun. I could do without Orci and Kurtzman writing any more films though (not just Star Trek).


I cringed. It was a bit like Vader's awful "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" at the end of Revenge of the Sith.


_____________________________

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 FoximusPrime)
Post #: 160
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 16/5/2013 7:48:14 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


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.


Fair enough.You are entitled to your opinion.

I loved Into Darkness and found it to be an even better movie than the last film.In fact i would rate Into Darkness my second favourite movie in the whole series now after Wrath Of Khan.


Again it is only your opinion and mine... but I would actually rate Into Darkness as the worst Trek movie which has Original Series characters in it. Overall worst must be Nemesis.

FFS even V: The Final Frontier did have a germ of a good idea in it somewhere and we did get the comedy classic moment with Scotty and a certain doorway.

My own personal rankings of Trek would be:

1. The Motion Picture (controversial, yes, but if you've ever seen the 1983 TV movie extended version it adds so many layers to a brilliant storyline, even if it is a reworked one from 2 different episodes)

2. Wrath of Khan (a submarine movie in space with the best villain of the series)

3. The Voyage Home (funniest Trek film and a nice eco message also)

4. Star Trek (2009) Really enjoyed the reboot

5. The Undiscovered Country (Klingons and the Cold War)

6. Generations (Kirk steals the show as usual from old baldy)

7. First Contact (enjoyable romp with a class ending... when the Vulcans turn up)

8. The Search for Spock (feels like a TV episode and is workmanlike, but I still liked it)

9. The Final Frontier (daft but fun. In search of 'God' is pure old fashioned TV Trek)

10. Insurrection (do they even know what an Insurrection is? What a waste of F. Murray Abraham, though he does do a proper "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO")

11. Nemesis (Tom Hardy may now look as if he has star power, but in this he is as menacing as Graham Norton in drag)

12. Into Darkness (a switcheroo version of Wrath of Khan which veers into pardoy at times).

Okay I am battening down the hatches for this one.

_____________________________

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 #: 161
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 16/5/2013 7:59:03 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

Kirk and Spock attempt to save the inhabitants of the plaent Nibiru from an imminent volcano eruption which would wipe out the civilisation. When Spockís life is jeopardized, Captain James T. Kirk breaks the Prime Directive, exposing the Enterprise to the planetís civilization during Spockís rescue. Called back to Earth, Kirk is demoted to First Officer and taken off the Enterprise, but in London, Starfleet agent John Harrison bombs a secret installation, then carries out an attack by gunship an emergency meeting of high ranking officers at Starfleet headquarters, killing many. Fleet Admiral David Marcus authorizes Kirk to hunt down Harrison, who has used transwarp beaming and fled to the Klingon homeworld of KronosÖ..

Itís Star Trek Jim, but not as we know it!

Star Trek. Iím not sure I would even call myself a casual fan: I never liked what I saw of The Next Generation, though I could see why many loved it, and I never bothered with the ones that came after, though I have fond memories of the original series [you know, the fun one] from when I was young, and every now and again Iíll watch one of the films on TV and usually get some enjoyment out of it, even if they are definitely hit and miss. The 2009 Star Trek was certainly an entertaining movie and won much praise as a film that pleased the Trekkies as well as a great many people who previously would have had little interest in something that has such an obsessive fan base that many folk who deem themselves Ďnormalí just donít want to know. Me? I enjoyed Abramsí s film, though I didnít seem very Star Trek to me. But itís a masterpiece compared to the idiotic mess that is Star Trek Into Darkness, which could be called a great many things but not a film with Star Trek in the title. I donít love Star Trek, but when I go and see a film containing those two words, thatís what I want to see, not a pumped-up, non-stop action movie that may have the Trek characters but for much of the time could have featured anybody.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, Star Trek Into Darkness didnít please this writer much at all. I wish I was willing to forget it was supposed to be Star Trek, or accept it as being a very different take on it, but it just wasnít done well enough. On one hand itís filled with familiar characters and situations and even copies a fair bit from earlier films and episodes [though I couldnít tell you the name of the episode, I distinctly remember one when he was suspended and taken off the Enterprise because he had not followed protocol], but on the other hand, itís saying none of thatís important, because itís all about constant rushing around and fights and space duels and stuff. And before you ask, yes, Iím a huge fan of action. Though action cinema is in a bad way at the moment, The Avengers was a blast and dare I say Iím already looking forward to more guilty pleasure with The Expendables 3, but those never try and sell themselves as something they are not. J.J. Abrams has said that he isnít really a Star Trek fan, so what he and his writers [more on them later] seem to have partially tried to do is make it more like Star Wars, only they havenít really succeeded in that either. Frankly, though as I have said I am not really a Star Trek fan, I would have thought any die hard Trekkie would be offended by, for instance, Kirk and crew being sent to kill someone. When on earth did they become sanctioned assassins?

This film has no Star Trek feel even while it pilfers from here and there. It may have the usual folk, albeit younger, saying and doing the things you may expect, but it all feels so forced and mechanical, as it the film was written by a computer. Maybe weíre meant to care about, for instance, the relationship between Kirk and Spock, but all I could think of how all of the emotional beats were predictable and laboured, and how ridiculously indecisive Spock was Ė the writers clearly had no understanding of the character. The whole film seems to have been mathematically worked out: action scene, character scene, a mild laugh, action scene, character scene, and so forth. It doesnít flow, and o, I forgot lens flare, yeah bloody constant lens flare, the trademark of this mediocre director, used to downright stupid extremes here. It looks like half the time they ought to all be wearing sunglasses. And then, eventually, it all turns into a remake of Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan, but without the doses of intelligence and genuine emotion that film managed to throw in to give wait to what could itself have been just a run-of-the-mill space duel.

So forgetting that itís supposed to be Star Trek, does Star Trek Into Darkness work as a simple space action film? Partially. The fast pace is certainly very well maintained and, for the most part, Abrams has left behind the stupid shakycam/hyperfast editing nonsense that he was using before, though the most potentially exciting scene, Kirk and Spock free-falling through space amidst loads of space junk, is little more than a blur and features not-so-special effects. But the film is hampered by downright shoddy storytelling, and yes I know this is coming from the same writer who is reviewing lots of Godzilla movies, but this kind of stuff should just not be the case in such an expensive, high-profile project that has taken a while to conceive and make. Now I can accept loads of plot holes, inconsistencies and silly stuff if the film they are in is tongue-in-cheek, or if I only think of them after the film, but throughout this movie I kept asking myself things like: How can a single small ship keep shooting for ages at a secret meeting and nothing intercept him? Why, if theyíve invented Trans-warping, donít both the goodies and the villain take advantage of it? What exactly is Khan trying to do? Almost every plot Ďtwistí [like, wow, Khan surrendering, oo I wonder why heís doing that?] is heavily signposted, but then why would anyone expect decent writing from those genius scribes Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof. I left the cinema feeling very worried about the fact that Abrams is directing Star Wars, but itís possible that the writers are the real villains, and that Abrams thought that the best thing he could do was to race through everything at top speed.

Of course political correctness, the thing thatís destroying freedom of speech, has meant that Khan canít be a South Asian [which is how he was written] or a Mexican [which the guy who played him was]. He has to be American or English.Itís like in Iron Man 3, where they chickened out of having the main villain as Chinese, which is how he was in the comics. What on earth is the world coming to when you canít have an Ďethnicí villain in case idiots will think that because, for instance, a film has an Asian baddie, the film is racist? Having the very English Benedict Cumberbatch playing a guy called Kahn Noonien Singh is pretty funny. This is not meant as an insult to Cumberbatch, who is really frightening, quietly simmering until he lets rip in a rather startling scene that gave me the impression the film was going to recover [it didn't]. The rest of the cast do okay and are mostly [except for the constantly uncharismatic Simon Pegg] fitting for their roles, but Chris Pine just cannot fill the shoes of the Shat, no matter how hard he tries, bless him.

There is an insidious wave of dumbing more and more things down at the moment, in an effort to make something more popular and Ďcoolí. It doesnít just exist in cinema, itís everywhere you look, from language to education. Cinema has always done this in an effort to attract the Ďmoron massesí, and is often all the more fun for it, but it seems worse than ever at the moment. Star Trek Into Darkness is a pretty major instance of it. I can often forgive stupid cinema, in fact quite often I love it. But this movie takes something which was formerly rich and unique, and then turns it into disposable trash. No, Iím no fan of Star Trek, but I respect it, and this isnít it.

Rating: 5/10


That isn't what political correctness is matey. In fact I think you will find casting a white actor as a Sikh is deemed politically incorrect by most people.

Khan is supposed to be an Indian - not a South Asian. For that most people would think of South East Asia and Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam etc.

It is noticeable that in the new film they don't mention too much of Khan's actual back story as they did in Space Seed where we find out he is 'probably' a Sikh.

I don't know why they didn't use an actor who at least could pass for an Indian, but I am sure there was no offence intended. Also do you not think casting an Hispanic/Latino as an Indian probably offends Indian people just as much as a white person?

I would be interested to see what Indian people think of the whole scenario.


_____________________________

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 Dr Lenera)
Post #: 162
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 16/5/2013 8:10:31 PM   
Sonny Wortzik

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 16/5/2013
Had a tonne of potential Star Trek into darkness, but a lack of imagination and balls by the studio completely ruined it for me.

It was pretty solid to begin with, then once Khan entered i thought it was going to be amazing, Cumberbatch was ice cold and had a creepy way about him which was great, unfortunately he was massively underused and disapointing i felt. This was all down to the ridiculous direction the movie went to once Khan actually surrended himself, it almost became a romantic movie between Spock and Kirk after that.

The ending was dreadful, seeing a superman like Khan savaged by Spock was criminal. Would really have liked a bit more grit and maybe have Khan end victorious leading to a more suspenseful sequel.

I'd have to give this movie a 6/10 overall.

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 163
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 16/5/2013 8:28:28 PM   
Dirk Miggler


Posts: 1106
Joined: 14/1/2009
I enjoyed the film, its a breezy 2 hours of non stop entertainment. That being said I get the issues that some have with the film, but still took great enjoyment from it regardless, 3 1/2 possibly 4 stars at a push.

(in reply to Sonny Wortzik)
Post #: 164
Spectacular 'orlack' (apologies to Jaguar paw) - 17/5/2013 6:51:31 PM   
timbob

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 15/5/2006
Just seen this, and it was really good. I really enjoyed it, would recommend it for trekies and non trekies alike (though trekies will have seen it 10 times by now). Bendetict Cumberbatch I thought was the standout, although all the acting is above average. It's only major failing for me was the pace. It's probably a bit too full on - the arc in terms of screenplay is not 100% on the beat, It doesn't really build and slow to allow the audience to enjoy it fully. Too much going on. Visually amazing. The scenes with Spock and Khan, and Kirk and Khan were really enjoyable - it was just like getting into a Ferrari going 0-100 in 4.5 secs and then it's over. But brilliant. I hope he slows Star Wars down a bit so I can enjoy the scenery a bit more. It's too quick. But great. lol

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 165
RE: Spectacular 'orlack' (apologies to Jaguar paw) - 18/5/2013 4:48:32 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18173
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
there is the kernel of a good film in there somewhere. The action trots along at a fair pace and it entertains until about three quarters of the way through when it appears the writers where getting close to their deadline and had nothing else to offer so downloaded some awful fan fiction and slotted that into the plot instead.

By crikey that was a bad finale .

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to timbob)
Post #: 166
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 18/5/2013 5:28:39 PM   
Deviation


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

That isn't what political correctness is matey. In fact I think you will find casting a white actor as a Sikh is deemed politically incorrect by most people.

Khan is supposed to be an Indian - not a South Asian. For that most people would think of South East Asia and Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam etc.


But India is in South Asia alongside with Bangladesh, Pakistan Afghanistan, Nepal etc... and maybe even Iran depending on your definition. But India is definitely South Asia.

quote:


I don't know why they didn't use an actor who at least could pass for an Indian, but I am sure there was no offence intended. Also do you not think casting an Hispanic/Latino as an Indian probably offends Indian people just as much as a white person?

I would be interested to see what Indian people think of the whole scenario.



Tbh, I wouldn't mind having to choose people from that region or ethnicity that don't belong to that ethnicity (I mean you go that way then casting a Persian as a Pashtun in The Kite Runner is sickening as well), problem is you cast someone that makes sense in that sense. You can cast Montalban not because he's a Mexican and hence look similar (especially when the Indians themselves are so mixed and some of them are Anglo-Indian, well not even 0.1% but you get the point) but he can sell it. Quinn has probably played every single ethnicity on the planet and sold it. My problem with Cumberbatch is that by now, the only things that should have changed should have been the events that happen after Nero's time travel, and Cumberbatch looks so incredibly different from Montalban jars me as much and in the same way the new Klingon look does.



_____________________________

quote:

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

quote:


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

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 167
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 18/5/2013 6:56:40 PM   
Cool Breeze


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny Wortzik

Had a tonne of potential Star Trek into darkness, but a lack of imagination and balls by the studio completely ruined it for me.

It was pretty solid to begin with, then once Khan entered i thought it was going to be amazing, Cumberbatch was ice cold and had a creepy way about him which was great, unfortunately he was massively underused and disapointing i felt. This was all down to the ridiculous direction the movie went to once Khan actually surrended himself, it almost became a romantic movie between Spock and Kirk after that.

The ending was dreadful, seeing a superman like Khan savaged by Spock was criminal. Would really have liked a bit more grit and maybe have Khan end victorious leading to a more suspenseful sequel.

I'd have to give this movie a 6/10 overall.


You do know that Vulcans are much stronger than humans right? Spock was the only one who could stand a chance against Khan in a fight.And as strong as Khan is, he is not immune to a phaser on heavy stun when Uhura shoots him several times.

_____________________________

'' 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 Sonny Wortzik)
Post #: 168
Darned good fun - 18/5/2013 8:02:17 PM   
danielthompson99

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 6/5/2006
A thoroughly enjoyable romb. Beautiful, loud, funny and brazen. The interplay between the characters, as with all JJ's work is brilliant.
However, having been through the journey once before with these characters, especially the Spock / Kirk relationship, it is a little thin between the ears.
The kids will love it though.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 169
RE: Darned good fun - 18/5/2013 10:42:42 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9046
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
Really enjoyed this in Imax 3D. Awesome sci fi movie with plenty going on, good performances and amazing action and FX. Iron Man 3 was slightly better I think but I loved this movie a lot and will look forward to rewatching on blu!

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to danielthompson99)
Post #: 170
RE: Darned good fun - 18/5/2013 11:16:45 PM   
The REAL Bozz


Posts: 3285
Joined: 15/5/2007
It was good but felt like 60% of the fun from the last film had been sucked out of it. At the end of the last one they could have gone anywhere and they chose not to. I can't get over that. Honestly if they want to tread over ground already covered I'd be more than willing for a new creative team to step in. Not a bad film. Well made/acted. Main issued were with the script. Weller was boss.

_____________________________

Films I've watched
Star Trek Into Darkness ***
Iron Man 3 *****
Evil Dead (2013) ***
Bait 3D ***

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 171
RE: Darned good fun - 19/5/2013 3:20:23 AM   
Lang


Posts: 1456
Joined: 15/8/2006
From: The Wall, Aberdeenshire

I think it's unfair to compare it to Wrath of Khan as i think its building to a Return of Khan at some point down the line.....

_____________________________

#6 member of The Wire fan club. PM Dantes Inferno to join.

PS Tag Riddle_Me_This

'Winter is Coming'

(in reply to The REAL Bozz)
Post #: 172
RE: Darned good fun - 19/5/2013 11:33:30 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18173
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: The REAL Bozz

It was good but felt like 60% of the fun from the last film had been sucked out of it. At the end of the last one they could have gone anywhere and they chose not to. I can't get over that. Honestly if they want to tread over ground already covered I'd be more than willing for a new creative team to step in. Not a bad film. Well made/acted. Main issued were with the script. Weller was boss.


One of the thoughts I had. The last one was so original and different whilst this one is just dragging old ground again. Entertaining but deeply flawed.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to The REAL Bozz)
Post #: 173
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 19/5/2013 5:24:25 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

That isn't what political correctness is matey. In fact I think you will find casting a white actor as a Sikh is deemed politically incorrect by most people.

Khan is supposed to be an Indian - not a South Asian. For that most people would think of South East Asia and Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam etc.


But India is in South Asia alongside with Bangladesh, Pakistan Afghanistan, Nepal etc... and maybe even Iran depending on your definition. But India is definitely South Asia.

quote:


I don't know why they didn't use an actor who at least could pass for an Indian, but I am sure there was no offence intended. Also do you not think casting an Hispanic/Latino as an Indian probably offends Indian people just as much as a white person?

I would be interested to see what Indian people think of the whole scenario.



Tbh, I wouldn't mind having to choose people from that region or ethnicity that don't belong to that ethnicity (I mean you go that way then casting a Persian as a Pashtun in The Kite Runner is sickening as well), problem is you cast someone that makes sense in that sense. You can cast Montalban not because he's a Mexican and hence look similar (especially when the Indians themselves are so mixed and some of them are Anglo-Indian, well not even 0.1% but you get the point) but he can sell it. Quinn has probably played every single ethnicity on the planet and sold it. My problem with Cumberbatch is that by now, the only things that should have changed should have been the events that happen after Nero's time travel, and Cumberbatch looks so incredibly different from Montalban jars me as much and in the same way the new Klingon look does.




I know where India is and yes it is geographically South Asia, but let's be honest, few refer to Indian people as South Asian in the same way someone would call someone from Vietnam South East Asia. It's like calling people from Britain European. Technically correct, but I'd call myself Scottish first, and British second. European doesn't even register.

And as you know India is more likely to be referred to as a sub-continent.

Anyway, I agree with you that the likes of Montalban and Quinn can get away with playing people of different ethnicities, which may be un-PC but it could be done. Ben Kingsley is still doing it to this day I suppose.

But you are also totally correct in that India is a massive country and although I have never been there I would imagine it is like China, somewhere I have been. A massive country that is really many regions which have been cobbled together with many different languages and peoples. For example, Chinese people in different regions of China are very different looking, and the same is true of Russia.

So I would imagine that to call anyone an 'Indian' is pretty stereotypical as I am sure there are many physical differences between people who live in say Mumbai on the West coast to the people who live North on the Chinese border.

But I suppose TV and film are suckers for stereotypes and that is why it does make BC's casting a bit odd.


_____________________________

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 Deviation)
Post #: 174
RE: Darned good fun - 19/5/2013 5:25:25 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lang


I think it's unfair to compare it to Wrath of Khan as i think its building to a Return of Khan at some point down the line.....


Yes that does look likely, with Khan out for revenge. Pity he wasn't exiled again.

_____________________________

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 Lang)
Post #: 175
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 19/5/2013 8:32:14 PM   
dudeitsjackwild

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 19/5/2013
From: Rotherham/Sheffield
Star Trek Into darkness,

quicky Review: You dont have to be a Trek fan to enjoy this movie, you can go into it and enjoy it if you haven't seen the first J.J Abrams Plunge into the world of Star Trek. Into Darkness contains, action, drama, comedy and of course Sci-Fi, The movies plot revolves around a rogue Agent from Star Fleet who has committed multiple crimes and must be taken in for what he has done, but his crimes reveal an even bigger threat facing Star Fleet. if you havent seen this go see it now, the acting is brilliant, plot line amazing and the cgi was breathtaking especially in iMAX 3D. my only complaint would be i felt it went on a little long but thats just me,

_____________________________

Jack Wild

Please follow me on twitter, feel free to tweet me

twitter.com/dudeitsjackwild

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 176
RE: Darned good fun - 20/5/2013 10:04:27 AM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 11/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lang


I think it's unfair to compare it to Wrath of Khan as i think its building to a Return of Khan at some point down the line.....


Yes that does look likely, with Khan out for revenge. Pity he wasn't exiled again.


You might say Khan will be full of wrath. So that film would be about the "wrath of Khan".

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 177
Exciting and Fun but Abram is not the man... - 20/5/2013 1:53:50 PM   
neopol


Posts: 126
Joined: 9/11/2006
From: Manchester, Egland
The 2009 reboot had established the relationship between Kirk (Chris Pine) and Scotty (Simon Pegg) and then ruined it by having a stupid sequence in which Mr. Scott is sucked up into a plumbing system. This is a recurring theme with J.J. Abrams Star Trek franchise, with a lack of faith or respect showing through, time after time.

But that's not to say that Into Darkness is not a fantastic and entertaining movie, because it most defiantly is. The tone is of the sci-fi adventures of old, with action taking the lead but bolstered with the typical moral dilemmas which made Star Trek what is was. This was missing from the first feature, though I'm told that it was there...

The cast have a much better handle of their characters in this film, which is set a year after the events of the first, with some reference to that but not so many that it distracts. Pegg's Scotty is probably the best judged of the lot and is thoroughly likeble, with Karl Urban's "Bones" possibly over doing it a little with Kirk even commented on his overuse of the metaphors at one point. But this is Abrams' problem yet again. He seemed to be mocking the series, directing a character only to be have him laughed AT for playing him.

He seems to feel that Star Trek is a laughing-stock, a cult joke in which the fans are weirdos who dress up and have no lives, well it takes all sort and if he feels this way about the franchise, which he clearly does, from two outing now, he is not then right man for the job.

He sets a good tone though, with top-notch action, fast pacing which is pretty effective and a decent screenplay. All in all this was better than Star Trek (2009), building nicely on the proto-characters established there, whilst having enough to play with now to set up the five-year mission, which was a nice touch.

*** MAJOR SPOILERS!***

As were a lot of the Trek references, such as Harry Mudd, Tribbles, Gorns, the new Klingon Bird Of Preys, Section 31 and so on... But what about Khaaaaaaaaaan! The homage to Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982) was expected and the second half of the film moves clearly to that territory but actually TOO close. It was clever, with Kirk sacrificing himself instead of Spock (Zachary Quinto) and staging a reversal of the classic scene from Star Trek II, but it was hollow somehow.

In the Trek timeline, Star Trek II was set about 15 years after the events of the series, with Kirk (William Shatner) going through a mid-life crisis at 50, so when Spock (Leonard Nimoy) dies, its to old friends saying goodbye, though many would argue that they were a little more, but let's not get into that!

But here we're expected to believe that Kirk and Spock have this depth of relationship, but after a year I don't feel it. But why copy this scene so closely and get the tone so wrong. It actually felt like a pastiche rather than an homage. But what about the man who killed Captain Kirk? No, not Soran (Star Trek: Generations), but Khan Noonian Sing.

This film had three villains. The first were the Klingons, but they were only really guest stars and decent enough, whilst setting up potential sequels perhaps? The second was John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbach) who had already established himself as a terrorist and the murderer of some of Starfleet's top brass. Finally we have the "surprise" villain, Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller), who has built the U.S.S. Vengeance in order to usher in a new era of a militarised Starfleet and was using Harrison to help him achieve this.

But guess what, Harrison isn't who he appears to be. He is or course Khaaaaaaaan! Now this film makes a big deal about setting him up as the bad guy but in many ways, though he is portrayed as a brutal and evil mass murderer, it's Marcus who comes across as the most vile of the bunch. But Cumberbach does steal the show, as he is simply brilliant, if not a little hammy...

But it's not really until the last act that Khan is let loose and when he is it was worth the wait and seeing him working with Kirk is cool. I did like the threat which Khan made to starve the Enterprise of oxygen which was a nod to the original episode "Space Seed", nice touch. But I could have seen Cumberbach for the full 135 minutes, though Weller was entertaining and the plot worked, Cumberbach and Khan seemed almost wasted in a role which he had little to do in the grand scheme of things.



And what about the introduction of Carol Marcus, the future mother of Kirk's son, David? Alice Eve as good in the role but why did she have a pronounced British accent whilst her dad sounded like Robocop? Made no sense but still, it worked.

The narrative is simply a relentless selection of set-pieces, some original others lifted, poorly, from previous outings, namely the afore-mentioned Star Trek II and all of this is hung together with a decent plot, balancing some slightly complex issues but managing to do so in a very entertaining way.

But is this Star Trek? Is this substantial? It is the closest that we've come to Star Trek since Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) because even though it was dull, it was basically an episode of The Next Generation and even though I like Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), I like it because it was more theatrical than televisual, but this does seem to capture the feel of seventies sci-fi which many of us have grown up with.

The moral and ethical debates rage on, as does the bickering and the bonding between the crew, all of which is integral to Star Trek. The 3D post-conversion is okay, with some good shots, particularly one of the opening scenes in which an arrow is through directly at the audience and the new warp effect but seriously, it was unnecessary. The film looked great at it was and the 3D added nothing but an ounce of novelty to the whole experience.

In summation, J.J. Abrams and his team have done a great job with this one, producing a solid four start or 8/10 popcorn movie. Going to see Star Trek Into Darkness will entertain you whether you're a Trek fan-boy or not and there's enough to please everyone but the moment that an almost literal interpretation of Spock's death scene from Star Trek II, which is one of Trek's most famous moments, was recreated, it was a mistake which will grate on me every time that I watch the film in the future, the same way that the scene in which Scotty is swimming through a ludicrous water system on the Enterprise is still doing to this day.

Serious action can and should still be fun but taking a moment to just have some pointless fun is just damaging to your narrative. And having Zachary Quinto's Spock seem to parody the famous "Khaaaaaaaaan!" line was also a misjudgment in my opinion. The scene itself wasn't that bad but it was just too close to the original and therefore open to comparison.

But Khan's acts in the film solidify him as a classic villain, though his motives were one-dimensional as he wasn't given enough time to develop as a fully rounded character, as Ricardo Montalban was allowed to in his to two appearances in Trek. But as we leave Star Trek 12 behind, we've now come full circle, as Kirk and his crew are now embarking on their "five-year mission to explore strange new worlds" and with any luck, the next time we meet them, They will be in deep space and saving Earth will be up to someone else.

Let's see if they can actually start doing some exploring and finally give them a chance to have an exiting time doing what Star Trek was all about. This was a roller coaster ride from start to finish and I'm left wanting to see it again, which is not common for me so it definitely did something right, that's for sure. In the end, Into Darkness has exorcised many of the demons of the Star Trek (2009) but not all of them. There is at least some hope for the future. Personally, I would much rather see someone else direct the next one and finally see if they can take us beyond the final frontier...

< Message edited by neopol -- 20/5/2013 1:54:39 PM >


_____________________________

Visit my movie blog, nEoFILM @ http://neofilm.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 178
Star Trek Into Awesome! - 20/5/2013 7:03:46 PM   
luccewada


Posts: 138
Joined: 31/8/2008
From: Ireland
Gene Roddenberry would turn in his grave if he saw this film. The Star Trek creator, who died in 1991, intended his idea as a tense, politically-infused drama that just happened to be set to the backdrop of space. Over the years, the ST shows and films got more and more action-packed, and less and less intelligently written, until 2013, when Jeffrey Jacob Abrams has given us a full-blown action/sci-fi spectacular. And it’s BRILLIANT! Both long-term Trek fans and fans of Abrams’ 2009 reboot couldn’t possibly have asked for more from this sequel, which amps up the stakes from the first film more than any other sequel has before. Everything that was wrong with that film (and that’s a short list) has been fixed completely here, and all the things Abrams and his team (writers Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk and Alex Kurtzman, composer Michael Giacchino etc) got right have been brought back, for example, the timeline-hopping appearance of Master Leonard Nimoy and the super-awesome space jumps. Honestly, the space-jumping scene in Into Darkness is probably the most visually stunning scene of any film we’ve seen for a few years.
For reasons that I doubt I will ever understand, Benedict Cumberbatch has been put front and centre on all the posters (particularly outside of the US). This is odd for two reasons. Firstly, he’s not THAT AMAZING in the film. I was quite disappointed by what I had expected to be an Oscar-calibre performance from the Sherlock star, when what I got was a fantastic, don’t get me wrong, but a very Loki-in-Avengers-type performance. Scary British villain just isn’t enough any more: you have to have something more, and of all the actors working today, I thought BC would be able to bring it to Into Darkness. He doesn’t fail, he just doesn’t exceed any expectations. The second reason why I was surprised at all the publicity for his role is that, he isn’t really in the film that much. He doesnR

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 179
RE: Star Trek Into Darkness - 21/5/2013 8:42:09 PM   
Biggus


Posts: 7638
Joined: 2/10/2005
From: Not Local
Will Smith, in his fresher princier days, once said ďI think Iíve seen your picture somewhere. Oh yeah thatís right it was in the dictionary next to KERBLAM!!!Ē Well sorry Will, it seems one of your finest pick-up lines was actually way off the mark. If you pick up a dictionary and search for the aforementioned adjective, the entry will more likely read:

Kerblam: See ĎStar Trek Into Darknessí

This is how itís done. If you want to know how to construct large-scale entertainment which satisfies the summer blockbuster crowd and fanboys alike then look no further. Star Trek Into Darkness is premium quality sci-fi with lashings of humour, a heavy dollop of heart and a generous side order of geekery. J.J. Abram follows up his 2009 reinvention of the perennial franchise with an ultra-confident, supercharged ride which invites fans both existing and potential to jump aboard.

Despite there being only one previous outing for this latest Trek incarnation, the cast already wear their respective roles like a second skin. Much kudos was given to the casting decisions upon the release of 2009′s ĎStar Trekí but the individuals responsible must surely be as smug as can be following this instalment. Chris Pine once again nails Kirkís defining sense of honour/disregard for procedure dichotomy and ups his game in both the humour and the drama stakes. However the yin to his yang, Zachary Quinto as Spock, pushes one step further giving the beloved Vulcan previously uptapped levels of (emotionless) emotion. Plus itís always good to see ĎThe Artist Formerly Known As Robocopí Peter Weller return to the big screen.

There are many nods to the original series and indeed a weighty bow to one Star Trek film in particular, all of which are balanced brilliantly with a finger on todayís pulse by Abrams. Visually the film is a knockout. There is more spectacle on display here than at a Vision Express winter sale.

The summer may not be upon us meteorologically speaking but the cinematic season well and truly starts here. Everyone else will be playing catch-up. Kerblam indeed.

_____________________________

"They offered me a hundred grand. You wanna know something? When I found out I'd get my hands on you, I said I'd do it for nothing."

http://fletchsworldoffilm.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Star Trek Into Darkness Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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