 |
| "Earth will fall." |
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Rating: PG-13 Running Time: 2hr 3min
*There is no stinger after the credits
Video Release: October 2013
Critics note: I am not a historical Star Trek fan. I have never seen a full episode of any Star Trek series or any of the movies predating 2009. When I refer to the ‘first’ Star Trek, I mean Star Trek (2009).
It is very rare when sequels can hold their own against the original. There are only a handful that are not only as good as the first, but even better. While Into Darkness doesn't succeed in surpassing the first, it certainly stands on its own as a quality scifi film. Some of my all time favorite scifi movies include Star Wars, Galaxy Quest, Alien, The Terminator, The Matrix, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, and Predator.
All of these movies have a very defined universe, great writing and acting, and also push the limits of CGI--in the right way. If you haven’t heard me talk about the overuse of CGI in cinema today, feel free to see my Battleship review. J.J. Abrams penchant for lens flare notwithstanding, both of his Star Trek movies use just the right amount of visual effects and do not feel overdone. Oddly, I found The Great Gatsby to be more heavy-handed in the CG department than this scifi movie. The needless use and in some cases, the misuse of CGI is one on my biggest cinematic pet peeves. This is the reason that I fear I will not be able to stand World War Z. From the trailers, each person in the masses of mobs are CG. People are some of the most difficult things to create in a graphics system for a live action movie.
Remember this? The Matrix: Revolutions
While this snapshot doesn't do this scene justice for the horrible rubberband-man that is Keanu Reeves, you can see how bad his robe looks. Anyway. Off on a rant. Where was I? Star Trek, right. Back to the review:
Not having more than the most general knowledge of previous Star Trek stories, I went into this film a fairly blank slate. I avoided the spoilers that have leaked in previous weeks, so I was just as surprised as I assume that Abrams wanted people to be when the audience finds out the secret. I hate to speak for directors, but as Abrams is not currently relaxing on my couch and available for questions, I pull my assumptions from interviews I've read. Abrams is not a Star Trek fan. Therefore, he didn't feel any obligation to make this film for Star Trek fans, because that would be disingenuous. What he did do was consult with the producers who are Star Trek fans--Roberto Orci (Xena, Alias, Fringe), Damon Lindelof (Crossing Jordan, Lost, Prometheus), Alex Kurtzman (Alias, The Proposal, Transformers)--to link this movie to the Star Trek canon to honor it, not ignore it, and still build their own movie. Like him, a non-Trekkie, I think he absolutely succeeded in that respect. I found Into Darkness to be a very complete, well thought, and engaging scifi movie that I will most certainly add to my ever expanding collection.
After finding out some precious details from certain Star Trek fans—see below—and my own research, I can see how some people might feel the second half of the movie is a bit of a cop-out. I have certainly been in theaters and been bitterly disappointed by what happens on screen compared to its predecessors or a beloved TV show or book (Batman and Robin, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Bewitched, X-Files 2, anyone?). If you’re a Trekkie, I imagine you've already seen the movie. If by some strange twist of fate you haven't, I do strongly suggest it. Even if you end up deciding you much prefer a certain original movie from a few decades ago, you still need to see it. If you have never seen a Star Trek movie, I strongly suggest jumping on the J.J. bandwagon. These two movies aren't just good scifi movies, they are just good movies. Period. And there will likely be more coming (though maybe not with Abrams, as he's slated to be burdened with the new Star Wars movies until 2016... good luck to him). Have fun at the movies this weekend, Happy Watching!
Some thoughts from Mike & Holly, two self-proclaimed Trekkies with some very distinct opinions. Enjoy, but beware, there ARE spoilers below, so I've whited-out that text. To read, simply click and drag with your mouse and the text will appear in the highlighted section.
Mike: As a lifelong Trekkie I'm used to disappointment. After being subjected to travesties like Star Trek: Nemesis and the blandness of spin-offs like Voyager and Enterprise, I wasn't expecting much from J.J. Abrams' reboot. However, after seeing his 2009 film, I found that he really captured the emotional core of Star Trek, even if the plot seemed a little rushed, contrived, and somewhat lacking in believability, even by Star Trek standards. After this, I was very excited about Into Darkness, as I thought it would give the new crew a chance to grow and finally explore the strange new worlds that Star Trek's all about. Well, in that respect, I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed. The first half of the film was very promising, and the interaction between the characters I knew and loved seemed spot on. The acting, especially from the villain Benedict Cumberbatch, was superb. However, the predictable rebooting of another Star Trek character and plot (I won't give details to avoid spoilers), immediately deflated me. So much promise was swept under the rug, replaced by a "homage" (rehashing) that just didn't ring true, in my opinion. They took the easy way out. The film was beautifully shot, the actors were great, and the dialog was wonderful, at least until the third act of the film. I think the writers just got lazy and thought the Trekkies would appreciate the familiar. Bad idea. What could have been an amazing, thrilling adventure got spoiled by boldly going where several films have already gone. I just hope that Abrams' third trek into the Enterprise's five year mission will finally yield some original ideas.
Holly: This one is impossible to review objectively, as I have been subjected to the canon which this movie is *sort of* based on. I will save any spoilers for the end so you can stop reading if you want. It was a wild ride. I appreciated the actors, just as good as they were in the first. The dialogue was a good balance of witty and campy in that ST sort of way. Way overdone on the CGI in my opinion, but you can't see a modern Hollywood space based movie anymore without it. And...here comes the critical part:**SPOILERS**
If you've seen TOS Space Seed episode and/or the second original movie Wrath of Khan, I think you will feel let down by this movie. Wrath of Khan was based on canon which originated in Space Seed. It was great. Khan hated Kirk, for good reason... also because he was totally an evil egomaniac. Spock sacrificed the good of the one for the good of the many, like a good Vulcan would do and died a poignant and meaningful death. Star Trek fans were ready for a new story, to go somewhere they have not gone before...sadly, Abrams was unable to deliver. He ripped off the villain from Khan but was unable to provide the backup plot to give it the strength of the first telling. Unoriginal, disappointing; although the writing was good in terms of dialogue and suspense, the plot sucked once you realized John Harrison was Khan in their alternate butterfly effect timeline. This seems not to bother those who are unfamiliar with the older story line, who can enjoy it for the scifi action wild ride on the big screen, but for old fans I think they were expecting more.
RottenTomatoes: 87% My Rating: 4/5
Critics note: I am not a historical Star Trek fan. I have never seen a full episode of any Star Trek series or any of the movies predating 2009. When I refer to the ‘first’ Star Trek, I mean Star Trek (2009).
It is very rare when sequels can hold their own against the original. There are only a handful that are not only as good as the first, but even better. While Into Darkness doesn't succeed in surpassing the first, it certainly stands on its own as a quality scifi film. Some of my all time favorite scifi movies include Star Wars, Galaxy Quest, Alien, The Terminator, The Matrix, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, and Predator.
 |
| Lens flare is caused by light reacting to the camera lens from an off-angle. If you've seen any Transformers movie, you've seen plenty of lens flare. Abrams and Bay both have degrees in LensFlare-ology. |
Remember this? The Matrix: Revolutions
Not having more than the most general knowledge of previous Star Trek stories, I went into this film a fairly blank slate. I avoided the spoilers that have leaked in previous weeks, so I was just as surprised as I assume that Abrams wanted people to be when the audience finds out the secret. I hate to speak for directors, but as Abrams is not currently relaxing on my couch and available for questions, I pull my assumptions from interviews I've read. Abrams is not a Star Trek fan. Therefore, he didn't feel any obligation to make this film for Star Trek fans, because that would be disingenuous. What he did do was consult with the producers who are Star Trek fans--Roberto Orci (Xena, Alias, Fringe), Damon Lindelof (Crossing Jordan, Lost, Prometheus), Alex Kurtzman (Alias, The Proposal, Transformers)--to link this movie to the Star Trek canon to honor it, not ignore it, and still build their own movie. Like him, a non-Trekkie, I think he absolutely succeeded in that respect. I found Into Darkness to be a very complete, well thought, and engaging scifi movie that I will most certainly add to my ever expanding collection.
After finding out some precious details from certain Star Trek fans—see below—and my own research, I can see how some people might feel the second half of the movie is a bit of a cop-out. I have certainly been in theaters and been bitterly disappointed by what happens on screen compared to its predecessors or a beloved TV show or book (Batman and Robin, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Bewitched, X-Files 2, anyone?). If you’re a Trekkie, I imagine you've already seen the movie. If by some strange twist of fate you haven't, I do strongly suggest it. Even if you end up deciding you much prefer a certain original movie from a few decades ago, you still need to see it. If you have never seen a Star Trek movie, I strongly suggest jumping on the J.J. bandwagon. These two movies aren't just good scifi movies, they are just good movies. Period. And there will likely be more coming (though maybe not with Abrams, as he's slated to be burdened with the new Star Wars movies until 2016... good luck to him). Have fun at the movies this weekend, Happy Watching!
Some thoughts from Mike & Holly, two self-proclaimed Trekkies with some very distinct opinions. Enjoy, but beware, there ARE spoilers below, so I've whited-out that text. To read, simply click and drag with your mouse and the text will appear in the highlighted section.
Mike: As a lifelong Trekkie I'm used to disappointment. After being subjected to travesties like Star Trek: Nemesis and the blandness of spin-offs like Voyager and Enterprise, I wasn't expecting much from J.J. Abrams' reboot. However, after seeing his 2009 film, I found that he really captured the emotional core of Star Trek, even if the plot seemed a little rushed, contrived, and somewhat lacking in believability, even by Star Trek standards. After this, I was very excited about Into Darkness, as I thought it would give the new crew a chance to grow and finally explore the strange new worlds that Star Trek's all about. Well, in that respect, I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed. The first half of the film was very promising, and the interaction between the characters I knew and loved seemed spot on. The acting, especially from the villain Benedict Cumberbatch, was superb. However, the predictable rebooting of another Star Trek character and plot (I won't give details to avoid spoilers), immediately deflated me. So much promise was swept under the rug, replaced by a "homage" (rehashing) that just didn't ring true, in my opinion. They took the easy way out. The film was beautifully shot, the actors were great, and the dialog was wonderful, at least until the third act of the film. I think the writers just got lazy and thought the Trekkies would appreciate the familiar. Bad idea. What could have been an amazing, thrilling adventure got spoiled by boldly going where several films have already gone. I just hope that Abrams' third trek into the Enterprise's five year mission will finally yield some original ideas.
Holly: This one is impossible to review objectively, as I have been subjected to the canon which this movie is *sort of* based on. I will save any spoilers for the end so you can stop reading if you want. It was a wild ride. I appreciated the actors, just as good as they were in the first. The dialogue was a good balance of witty and campy in that ST sort of way. Way overdone on the CGI in my opinion, but you can't see a modern Hollywood space based movie anymore without it. And...here comes the critical part:**SPOILERS**
If you've seen TOS Space Seed episode and/or the second original movie Wrath of Khan, I think you will feel let down by this movie. Wrath of Khan was based on canon which originated in Space Seed. It was great. Khan hated Kirk, for good reason... also because he was totally an evil egomaniac. Spock sacrificed the good of the one for the good of the many, like a good Vulcan would do and died a poignant and meaningful death. Star Trek fans were ready for a new story, to go somewhere they have not gone before...sadly, Abrams was unable to deliver. He ripped off the villain from Khan but was unable to provide the backup plot to give it the strength of the first telling. Unoriginal, disappointing; although the writing was good in terms of dialogue and suspense, the plot sucked once you realized John Harrison was Khan in their alternate butterfly effect timeline. This seems not to bother those who are unfamiliar with the older story line, who can enjoy it for the scifi action wild ride on the big screen, but for old fans I think they were expecting more.
