Star Trek (2009) re-ignited the Trek world and set it on fire. Loved it or hated it, no one can deny what a reboot and shot in the arm it was for what was a tired series. The worst thing that it could be said about it was that it lacked the feeling of mankinds place in the galaxy which the older Treks at least attempted and that film was just a colorful action blast.
Star Trek Into Darkness which is the follow up is certainly a sequel with characters shouting over each other, flashy effects, the textured uniforms, lens flares and it cranks up the action at the cost of even more of the film smarts and elements that made the first movie more memorable. These two movies are very much akin to the new Robert Downey Jr Sherlock Holmes movies. The first is fun and inventive, the second one more action and not quite the adventure and even worse the second film is not going to win over people who didn't like the first film.
The movie has Kirk and company interfering with a planets activities-interfering in a way that saved millions of lives on the planet but could affect the way the inhabitants will grow now knowing about the existence of other species in the galaxy. Right away this movie starts on a wrong foot with the Prime Directive argument. I have no idea why Star Trek started to make it sound like allowing mass murder was okay. "You had no right to save all those people, this is what was intended for them, to die horribly!"
ANYWAY, the incident gets Kirk in hot water with Admiral Pike who lectures Kirk about humility and integrity as far as following the rules goes. At this time, a mysterious man has just destroyed an archive and later an attack is led on Starfleet HQ which leaves several Officers dead. Kirk is enraged and volunteers to apprehend the man responsible who has escaped into Klingon space. Admiral Marcus agrees, but not before giving Kirk some questionable orders to follow once he gets there. En Route and with time to think Kirk realizes that more and more of what is going on is suspect. Getting his hands on the man responsible for the crimes on Earth, we learn that the man is more then Kirk realized and everything is just as suspect as Kirk thought.
NOW. A SPOILER: For the story and I do not want to give much away but Benedict Cumberbatch is the villain and he is reprising Khan and captures the passion of the character well. What doesn't mesh well is that Kirk and he work together, then apart, then again and apart. Kirk and Khan working together just felt SO wrong, alternate storylines or not. That however pales in comparison to what is absolutely shameless homages done with the favorite Wrath of Khan film. Nothing subtle at ALL. Kirk and Spock are seperated in one key scene, a countdown to doom, villian with his own ship, Enterprise attacked and in trouble and oh yes a famous yell in a scene I could only facepalm at.
Where the homages stop though, the most stupid moments happen in the film. Kirk is the only one who can pick up a rifle and fight back during the attack on Starfleet HQ no matter how many security men show up and there are no other Starfleet shuttles or fighters to help. The biggest one has to be Kirk facing down an enemy Dreadnaught with a faulty warp drive and Kirk decides to run away. Sure enough it doesn't work too well. You can say it plays into Kirks impulsive seat of his pants style, and I'll say it's still stupid. Very rarely am I able to pick apart a movie AS I'M watching it rather then take it in and have fun, but this movie wasn't enough fun and let me think too long. Holy hell a good chunk of the film is taken from the Wing Commander IV PC game, and that had Mark Hamill in it.
Highly illogical to remake The Wrath of Khan, especially considering Star Trek tried a similar approach with Nemesis 10 years ago and that movie wasn't quite as shameless. Oh and Leonard Nimoy alert, he makes another appearance to kill a moment of the movie when the action is already rolling and is really lame and I can't believe I'm putting down a Leonard Nimoy appearance.
The good is the actors all came back and are still playing they're roles well and Benedict Cumberbatch has the most hissably evil voice for Khan. His job is to make Khan devious and a threat without parroting Ricardo Montalban's performance. Peter Weller is fine as a warmongering Admiral but he telegraphs being up to no good a lightyear away. I'll chock that one up to lame writing. Production is great and while the ship still looks like the iPod store, the lens flares are toned down and the beer brewery sets are mostly changed with more sets that would look like a spaceship.
Star Trek Into Darkness is a big buildup to a movie that we were already familiar with and have seen a better version of before. Sure it's flashy and fun but you've seen it before and not as stupid or illogical.
J.J. Abrams made quite a splash when he released 2009’s “Star Trek”. I suppose it was the right approach to revitalize the franchise, by creating a re-boot that gave him all the needed loop holes to do such things. His first “Star Trek“ flick left the ‘space opera‘ feeling and instead went for something that feels more like an action-adventure which was arguably needed. It was a fun, energetic visual feast that moved fast that it never lost its forward momentum. … more
I don't know what the critics were saying in their preliminary reviews. I loved this film from start to finish and am looking forward to the next installment. As the whole universe changed when Nero attacked Kirk's father's ship in the first film and that Vulcan was wiped out, one cannot expect that these movies should follow anything that the original series and movies did. And because of the way Spock felt his race die, he will certainly have more "human" … more
I'm taking a risk in saying I actually liked Star Trek into Darkness. On a website such as Lunch.com where liking just about any damn mainstream movie (let alone J.J. Abrams) is considered not so good, it's a wonder how much I've come to embrace things. And while I understand liking Mainstream movies or even praising them is not particularly "cool" with the Lunch.com crowd, I'll take my chances anyway. See, I've always believed that there is an art … more
Don't be mislead by the Headline, oh and this review WILL contain spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie yet I suggest you finish off this paragraph then go see it. Again this review contains spoilers so if you haven't seen the movie yet STOP READING, although the Headline itself is a big giveaway,. Anyways on to the review. Star Trek Into Darkness, it wasn't until the third trailer when … more
I might be the only person on Earth who liked this movie more than I liked Abrams' Star Trek 2009. Unfortunately, that's partly because I disliked the 2009 Star Trek. But Into Darkness does have stunning visuals, some fun moments, and a much more compelling villain. It seems overall that viewers who don't know much about Star Trek seem to enjoy this movie and Abrams' larger take on Trek, whereas many viewers who do know Trek despise this movie. I'm more of the latter category … more
It has been quite awhile since I've reviewed anything here on Lunch. I've been extremely busy with life and job duties. Those responsibilities have also limited a lot of my filmgoing experiences and I've pretty much been anchored to my house and/or work enviroment. With that said, I decided I would return to Lunch with a loud bang by reviewing Star Trek Into Darkness. I will probably insult a few people in this review, horrify others, and hopefully … more
Born in Wausau Wisconsin. Move at an early age to Ventura California and lived for 8 years. Growing up in a big city landscape didn't prepare me for my next move: Archbold Ohio with a population of … more
Consider the Source
Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.
A good portion of Trekkies (or Trekkers, depending on one's level ofStar Trekobsession) have special affection for episodes of the original TV series that related to Earth and other-Earth cultures visited by the crew of theEnterprise, version 1.0. Some of the shows unfolded in distorted forms of the past, some in the present day ofStar Trek's future reality. Director J.J. Abrams recognized the importance of this relationship in his origin-story reboot of the franchise in 2009, and inStar Trek Into Darknesshe has made it an even greater touchstone to the roots ofStar Trekcreator Gene Roddenberry's defining philosophy from nearly 50 years ago. The human home world is key to the plot of this spectacularly bold leap intoStar Treklore, which cleverly continues along the alternate path that was established as separate from the "original"Star Trekuniverse in Abrams's first whiz-bang crack at advancing the mythology. But it's not just Earth that is cool and imperiled in this rendering of adventure in the 23rd century;Into Darknessalso plays with the original conceit that Earthlings were member to a multi-species United Federation of Planets ruled by a "Prime Directive" of noninterference with other civilizations. The conflict comes when rogue elements in the Earth-based Starfleet Command hunger to shift focus from peaceful exploration to militarization, a concept that is anathema to the crew of theEnterpriseand her ongoing mission. The new cast...