User Reviews

The film opens with a mercy mission. Trying to stop a volcano from erupting and destroying a fledgling civilization. Instead of using thier superior intelligence and simply dropping the cold fusion device into the volcano from the air, they send Spock inside the volcano to manually set the device; nearly dying and causing the Enterprise to reveal itself to this culture, violating the prime directive. Next time, lob the device from a distance...

I consider myself a bit of a trekkie. Not one that speaks Klingon or Vulcan, but one who loves the show (original and new generation), and has watched most of the movies. In fact, only this morning I watched an episode of new generation to accompany my breakfast. And I was thrilled to finally find the time to watch this movie later in the day, especially since it's garnered such favourable reviews. Turns out, of the two, I immensely preferred today's show to today's movie.

In ascending order, here are my reasons:

3. Spock's portrayal as being the constant nag, who is constantly ignored by kid Kirk. Whatever happened to the great chemistry shared between these characters, and Spock being Kirk's most trusted aide. Sure the movie shows that they're willing to risk all for each other, but it completely fails to show why. Spock for me comes across as more of a machine, with no real wisdom, and his triumph over Khan is only achieved after receiving much needed advice from his older, better and future self. And when he does show emotion after Kirk's death, its a bit too much, especially when he goes ballistic (aka Kirklike) on Khan. And Kirk, instead of having grown and matured since the 1st movie, seems to have regressed into a bar fighter. The Kirk I know might have broken all rules to save his best friend, but he wouldn't lie about it later.

2. Why the reinvention of an old Star Trek movie? There is so much new ground that can be explored. Is Hollywood so completely out of ideas? And when you re-do key scenes (of course I'm referring to the radiation room death), its sweet in a way because its a little tribute to the original. But you know what, given this is a Star Trek movie, you don't need to provide tributes in this form. The fact that you're making a Star Trek movie, with the same characters as Gene Rodenberry's creation, is enough of a tribute. Simple fact is, if I wanted to watch Wrath of Khan, I'd go to NetFlix. But when I go to the movie cinema to watch a new Star Trek movie, I'd like to see a new Star Trek movie.

1. Star Trek isn't just about action set in space. Nor is it just about humans betraying and killing other humans. Star Trek is about cultural and scientific exploration. The fact that the sole premise of this movie is just about a manhunt (even Wrath of Khan had the important side story about the Genesis project), and war mongering between the federation and the Klingon empire makes this feel not like a Star Trek movie, but just any other summer action blockbuster. Which isn't what I at least wanted.

So all in all....if you just want an entertaining action movie, go see this movie. But if you're looking for an original story, and a Star Trek movie, you'll be better off looking elsewhere

In 1966 Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek as a TV series and coincidentally this was the same year that director J.J. Abrams was born. The show was pitched as a space Western in the vein of Wagon Train, which was a Western mystery show set on the Frontier. Star Trek converged with the start of the Vietnam War. Roddenberry had already seen action as a fighter pilot in World War II. To counter Vietnam, his version of Earth was a society without conflict and in space there were galactic truces, race relations and a sense of unity aboard the ship the Enterprise. As with any good Western, there was moral code of ethics between men, no matter how pointy their ears might have been. Roddenberry believed in a disciplined society that could be unaffected by war or religion. Spock for example was said to be modelled on a police Chief he knew when he was part of the LAPD.

After many years as a TV show and dozens of films, someone decided Star Trek should be reinvented yet again and Abrams was hired to transform it into a glossy action film. As a filmmaker J.J. Abrams is somewhat of an enigma. One of his heroes growing up was Steven Spielberg. When he was a boy he was hired to repair some old film footage for him. Spielberg would later produce Abrams most personal film Super 8, a movie that typifies the director's career. Part of the film is a loving tribute to home movies and geek culture, while the other is a bombastic, overblown blockbuster, short of any personal imprint. He's a slick filmmaker, I enjoyed his TV show Alias until it became ridiculous, but he struggles to find the balance his idol has between action and character. Into Darkness is a better film than the messy 2009 film though. The best scenes overcome the generic, simplification of the action genre by retreating back towards the essence of the original show: a morally ambiguous grey zone, where the values of the characters and their races are tested. However, the characters are still bound by a rigid story structure, where at least ten elaborate set pieces take full precedence over the human and Vulcan drama.

The most interesting aspects of the plot are when Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirk (Chris Pine) butt heads over their different beliefs. Kirk is tasked with tracking down a rogue agent named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), who is now essentially a terrorist bomber, causing havoc in London by using desperate people to do his bidding. This leaves a chilling, lasting impression, particularly when the film adds a layer of complexity, with Spock insisting that Harrison should be captured and trialled first. He's at odds with the order of the mission and Kirk, who wants revenge for the death of a colleague. Cumberbatch is frighteningly good in the film, a massive improvement over Eric Bana's villain in the first movie. The tension he brings through his menace, his arrogance but also his ability to cast doubts in the minds of the protagonists about who the baddies really are, is a magnetic quality that is hard to prepare for prior to seeing the film. What a terrific find he's become over the last few years.

However, by ingraining itself in the structure of an action film, a lot of this ambiguity is undone. Whereas action and moral ethics fought and overlapped persistently in The Dark Knight, Into Darkness' rhythm is too discrete and foreseeable. The action is timed acutely to follow a stretch of exposition, dividing itself between moments of ideology and combat, and the emphasis on set pieces means the lines between good and evil become transparent again and remove the crucial shades of grey. Abrams also seems more interested in choreographing lavish action sequences than exploring the personal side of the drama. His imagination in the set pieces is limitless. He employs an array of frenzied techniques, including rapid cutting, tilting cameras, overhead shots and quick pans, to breeze through the action. Yet when the characters stop to face one another and talk his direction has none of the same flair or creativity. The actors sit or stand still, with the camera perched on their shoulders for dull reverse angle shots that don't heighten the tension.

Rarely do we ever see these characters in their downtime either. Without any inner life they become ciphers for voicing conflicting moral ideas, like instinct against logic or law and these conflicts are often resolved within a scene of one another. After watching Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan recently, which Into Darkness borrow from, it's also fascinating that Kirk is viewed as an ageing man who has to start thinking about death and his legacy. In this film he's more on par with Tony Stark, able to bed two alien girls with tails at once. That amplifies where they're aiming this film at, in spite of the occasionally intriguing layering of the story. For a franchise that prides itself on going where no man has gone before, the Enterprise is starting to travel in circles.

Star Trek Into Darkness should be renamed Star Trek In Name Only. What has always distinguished Star Trek from other sci-fi is the thoughtful and nuanced way that philosophical and sociological commentary was woven into the stories. Star Trek is not just a lot of sci-fi nonsense but a meaningful exploration of what it means to be human. In the past, Star Trek has been intelligent and character driven. Now it is all fancy CGI and snappy one-liners. Abram's Star Trek is an action-for-action's sake Kirk and Spock buddy flick. The "surprises" Abrams plants aren't surprises if you're familiar with the Star Trek universe. His preference for violence and political intrigue makes Abrams' vision more Star Wars than Star Trek.

The fill-in-the-blanks plot is a repetitive onslaught of video-game like CGI sequences separated by brief breaks used to set up the next CGI spectacle. The first half begins with a scene taken from Raiders of the Lost Ark and quickly moves to The Return of the King's Mount Doom. Cumberbatch's attack on Starfleet HQ is a scene stolen from Godfather 3. When Cumberbatch is captured, he and Pine briefly become caricatures of Hannibal Lecter and Agent Starling from Silence of the Lambs. The second half attempts to remake The Wrath of Khan but is backwards and upside down. Instead it is practically a beat-for-beat repeat of the identically plotted Star Trek Nemesis.

The cast was the best thing about the last movie but not this time. The other familiar crew members each get a brief moment in the spotlight but for the most part they fixate on comedic asides. The romance between Uhura and Spock is unnecessary and actually diminishes Uhura's character. Alice Eve is little more than eye candy. Peter Weller's Admiral Marcus is a disappointment. Karl Urban was eerily good as McCoy last time but stays in the background this time, a third wheel on the Kirk/Spock bicycle. Pine's beefy frat-boy Kirk is an exaggeration of Shatner's Kirk. When he is angry he sounds like a bratty child. Cuberbatch's performance is the best thing this time and overshadows everyone else.

I left the theater thinking that my free passes were over-priced.

I will say upfront that I am not a Trekkie. Nor had I really watched anything Star Trek related before the 2009 reboot. Folks running around in different coloured shirts and one dude in a chair giving others orders never interested me. Same deal with ST09. I eventually hired it on DVD out of curiosity. I found it alright, but didn't see the big deal everyone was making out of it. So what compelled me to see the sequel at the theatre? Well, for starters, after having re-watched the first film on TV again leading up to the new film's release, I came to find myself liking the film a bit more than I had originally. I still wouldn't praise it as much us everyone else seems to, but I think I was more on board with it second time around. Before this, however, I'd had no intention of seeing Star Trek Into Darkness at the theatre. However, with my newfound appreciation for the first film, not to mention the new one including actors I'm a fan of (Alice Eve and Benedict Cumberbatch), Into Darkness drew my attention where ST09 originally didn't. I know very little about the Trek franchise other than the basics, but it seems these new films have taken into account those who might not be familiar with all that has come previously, and therefore they cater to new fans and old fans alike.

Since all the introduction stuff to the universe/characters/etc was taken care of in ST09, Into Darkness is free to build upon that. Starting with Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk (or 'Captain James Tiberius Perfect-Hair', as Scotty calls him). I was put off by Captain Jerk in the first film (especially his treatment of Rachel Nichols' character. Just look at the deleted scenes on the DVD for further evidence), rolled my eyes at how easy things came to him and his overall attitude/the all-too-familiar type of character he seemed to be. While he still has some of that left in him here, he has also grown somewhat. Yes, he still breaks the rules, argues with Spock and gets into fistfights - but he has reason to (especially when it comes to not seeing eye to eye with Spock). The clash of personalities between Kirk and "Pointy" is where the heart of these movies lies. Pine and Zachary Quinto play off each other really well, and at times you can understand Kirk's frustration with the Vulcan. Quinto continues to do a good job playing Spock, even getting to show some actual emotion this time around. Actually...there's quite a LOT of emotional outpouring. Multiple characters shed a tear or two at different points in the film, verging on somewhat of a cry-fest (although most of it is warranted).

Also warranted? That scream from Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) that everyone seemed to make a big deal of when the trailer was released. She just witnessed something head-crushingly horrific, so I'd say she was justified in her reaction. The other complaint I've heard about her character is regarding the scene of her in her underwear. It lasts for about 5 seconds, people! And I don't recall anyone complaining about Kirk watching Uhura undress in the first film, so why the outcry here? Carol is more than just a blonde bombshell in a Starfleet mini- skirt. While there is clearly the beginnings of something being set up between her and Kirk here, and she doesn't go unnoticed by Bones either (who can blame him?), she also helps save Dr. McCoy, displays smarts and attempts to save everyone else as well. I liked the dynamics set up between her & Kirk, her & Spock, and her & Bones. On the whole, she's a welcome new addition to the cast.

Getting back to the villain. Cumberbatch, who most people would know from his excellent portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series, makes up for the rather lacking villain in the first movie. He lends gravity to this film with his performance. Underwritten, underdeveloped, under-motivated? I didn't think so. I found there to be enough reasoning behind his actions, considering he's the villain (more than we get for some villains, anyway). Cumberbatch is utterly captivating whenever he's on screen. Those of us who've seen him in other things would expect no less.

The rest of the characters all have their individual moments. Apart from the aforementioned dynamic with Dr. Carol Marcus, McCoy also has his amusing metaphors and constant fretting, Chekov and his accent get their moment of heroics (however hard it may be to believe), Sulu gets to sit in the chair for a brief period, and Scotty gets a serious increase in screen time from the first film. Uhura and Spock's relationship woes still hold no interest for me. And apart from fighting with him, she doesn't get to do much else. Although she does put her special knowledge of other languages to good use when she has a face-to-face chat with those of the bumpy-headed kind. She, Spock and Bones also prove pivotal near the end. Kirk, meanwhile, gets to show just how much he's grown as a person.

Lens flares are in full swing, as to be expected from J.J. Abrams (even when there's really no point to them when someone's simply standing still, talking). He knows how to shoot action, though, and the scale of the film/effects on display are quite epic. But what it all boils down to in the end is the characters. If you don't care about them, then the film falls apart. I'm happy to say that you *do* grow to care about them, if you didn't already. Throw in what I imagine to be some nods to classic Trek lore for the fans, and you've got yourself a pretty enjoyable sequel.

As a Star Trek fan of long standing, I went to see the 2009 reboot of the film franchise with some trepidation. But in fact I thoroughly enjoyed it, partly because it held a surprise and had the guts to stick with it.

And so, to this year's effort. There are many things to like about it. The performances are mostly good. Benedict Cumberbatch is a striking villain, while Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto do a good job of the reversed Spock/Kirk death scene. It is not slow or boring, and the script has some fun moments.

Special effects were good, but that's a given these days. I saw it in 3D, but that didn't seem to add much.

I don't remember much about the music, so it was presumably neither good nor bad.

But the film just isn't Star Trek, when all is said and done. It is, rather, an action film a la Total Recall with some Star Trek characters and overtones bolted on. It would have been just as possible to make this film with a wholly non-ST cast and a different spaceship.

I enjoyed it on that action-film level, but, as a Star Trek film, it is a disappointment.

Rating: 6/10.

That was the first Star Trek movie that I was not in a hurry to watch and that's because of the previous Star Trek (2009), where the whole franchise got a completely different way down the road, following the trend of doing movies for kids and youths. OK, I understand there might be a large market in this category (kids and youths) but in any case I just don't like it. Besides this, Into Darkness is a decent movie. Not deep, but with a lot of action and thus comparable to other action movies like Iron Man, Superman, etc. OK, you got it, this is an insult for a Star Trek, but it's not my fault.

All in all, the best thing about this movie is that kids acting are older than how they were in Star Trek (2009) and maybe, if producers postpone the next movie for a decade, we get to have adult actors in our beloved space franchise.

PS. It's not only the age of the actors. It's that they don't seem to be able to act like adults. They lack the maturity that a good actor has, no matter how old is he.

Where do I start?

I'm a huge fan of the original movies and I admit, I enjoyed the 2009 film. Why? Because the well got dry and it seemed there wasn't anywhere left to go with the franchise. So, seeing as Abrams alluded to everyone that by taking the franchise back to where it all began and altering the time line, it was his intention to re-tell stories from the original "series" and breathe new life into them. Naturally, I thought he was talking about the original "TV series" from the 60's. Fine by me, because the original TV series was cool, but it's pretty much outdated.

This latest movie has shown me that it's obvious he just wants to do the "films" of the 80's and 90's all over again, but in his own image, which is... an abundance of lens flares and people who are only good at looking pretty on screen. And that, in my opinion, is not what Star Trek is about. He even stated in an interview with Jon Stewart recently on The Daily Show, that he never was a fan of Star Trek as a child because he didn't get "the philosophy" of Star Trek. This movie is proof that he still doesn't get it. If he wants to make flashy sci-fi movies with no depth or substance, fine, there are plenty of scripts out there for him to make this kind of bland movie that attracts dimwitted people. So please Mr. Abrams, leave Star Trek alone, you are only making it worse.

Abrams might be trying to get "non-Trekkers" to enjoy the franchise, but in order to do so, he is replacing everything that made Star Trek what it was in the first place. I'd love for more people to get into Star Trek, but not at the expense of my enjoyment of it. This movie has nothing more to offer than Transformers did, snazzy special effects and a story line riddled with plot holes and love/hate relationships between the characters that seem forced and unauthentic.

Which brings me to my next point. Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. Where did these men learn to write? They use the technology of Star Trek only to advance the plot or create tension when needed. For instance, a transporter that the enemy uses can transport him light years to another planet, but the transporters on the Enterprise have a hard job locking onto a person on the planet they are orbiting, a hand-held communicator that can call someone in a bar on Earth from the Klingon home world light years away, infiltrating a top secret military base with a shuttle craft without being spotted by sensors, and the list goes on.

The last part of the movie they just got so lazy that they re-created the whole death scene at the end of Wrath of Khan, but mirrored it by reversing the roles. And if that's not enough, the writers blatantly do a copy/paste of most of the dialogue like "If we go in there we'll die, the radiation will kill us" and "The decontamination process is not complete, you'll flood the whole compartment."

Later on they even forget that the attributes that makes Khan's blood special, and which is needed to revive Kirk, also flows through the veins of the other 72 augments sitting in cryogenic tubes in McCoy's sick bay, the same cryogenic tubes that McCoy himself says earlier in the movie he could not risk opening without possibly killing the person inside, which could have been a solid reason to send Spock chasing after Khan in a foot- chase through downtown San-Francisco to retrieve a sample of Khan's blood, but instead, they have McCoy open a cryogenic tube and remove it's occupant in order to freeze Kirk so he can preserve his brain functions, I believe his exact words were "Get this guy out of the cryo-tube, keep him in an induced coma." but still, poor McCoy doesn't realize he could use that person's blood to revive Kirk. So now we are led to believe that McCoy, the same McCoy who based most of his arguments on ethics throughout the series and movies, is perfectly capable of opening one of the tubes, risking another being's life in the process, all to save another man? A little unethical if you ask me. These guys obviously don't know what the hell they are doing when it comes to writing Star Trek movies.

This movie is, in my opinion, the worst in the entire series. Yes even "The Final Frontier", because at least Shatner had the guts to go where no other writer or director had gone before or since with that movie, by doing a story about God.