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 we got our first look at the USS Vengeance did I finally gain some interest in the movie. When I saw that ship that was when I decided I wanted to see this movie. But not just for ship, remember at the time the producers were keeping the bad guy a big secret (although I knew exactly who he was always going to be) so the mysterious ship just added more mystery to the character.
The internet as always was abuzz with rumours, some stuck to their guns and said the villain was going to be Khan, due to the ship others thought it was going to be Mirror universe Kirk or Picard (Which would have been super epic and awesome). That being said I went into the theater very excited to see this movie, despite my misgivings for Abrams Trek.
Star Trek into Darkness takes place one year after the Last movie, while on a mission to study a pre warp society Kirk violates the Prime Directive to save Spocks live. Due to this he is demoted to commander and the Enterprise is Given Back to Christopher Pike.
Things soon take a turn for the worst when a Starfleet facility in London is attacked followed by a second attack on the senior command at Starfleet Headquarters. Pike is killed and the Enterprise is given back to Kirk for a Mission to bring the terrorist John Harrison to justice.
Unlike typical sequels Into Darkness doesn't leave an odd taste in your mouth once the credits roll. It was dare I say better than the first, and keep in mind that this is coming from an Abrams Trek Hater. The movie wasn't perfect though while watching there were a few scenes that i felt really didn't need to be in the film, the two most prominent are the scene where Spock contacts Spock Prime on New Vulcan (I felt it was just a cheap way to get Leonard Nimoy into the movie) and the Scene with Carol Wallace in her underwear (yes good looking chick in no cloths, but wasn't really necessary)
I also had a problem with the final act of the movie,
after Kirk ``dies`` from a radiation overdose Spock files into a mad rage to find Harrison, this then leads us through a battle in San Francisco on flying cars as they fight, meanwhile back on Enterprise Mccoy discovers away to help Kirk, but needs Harrison alive to do it. Long story short, Harrison is apprehended, Kirk comes back to life, gives a speech about the events of the movie apparently a year later (2260) then the credits roll.
I'm no Director but I felt that the last act of the movie could have handled better, it felt rushed and not very well thought out, I felt it would have been better if Mccoy discovered away to save Kirk, but needed Harrison to do it, so Spock then decides to go after him. Thats just my opinion though. Another thing I liked but ultimately though was kind of stupid was Spocks Khan scream. I'm sorry yes Kirk ``dying`` was an emotional scene but seeing Spock Khan scream made me burst out laughing, totally killed the mood. Not to mention yes the reference is cool but come on, in a scene like that especially in this day and age it really doesn't work.
(End of Spoilers......for now)
That being said there are many things I loved about the movie, as A trekkie I loved pointing out the numerous Trek references to my friends like my the Klingon Homeworlds moon was all destroyed, Why the Starfleet headquarters Building was called ``The Daystrom Building``, The NX-01 model in the Admirals quarters, What Section 31 is, the actor who plays Alexander Wallace is, what race the girls in Kirk's Apartment were, and many more. Another thing I loved about the movie was the twist on an already established story, yes if you've watched all the trek films already then technically you already know most of Into Darkness, but twists and reverses some things which make it not a total rehash. I liked that.
The Movie was genuinely fun to watch and the actors portrayed their respective characters well (though you cant beat the originals). While I still am no fan of Abrams trek, I will say again that I enjoyed the movie and chances are when it come out on DVD i will be getting my copy. Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike check out this movie you wont be dissapointed.
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
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 … 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
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
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...