Escape to the Movies: Star Trek: Into Darkness

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

I'm going to respond to this review in a minute-by-minute way, because it's going to help me focus my thoughts on why I generally disagree with Bob.

1. There is decidedly too much time spent on complaining about how the movie is advertised and/or "teased" -- i.e. as a film with mysteries, twists, etc. Having seen the TV advert for this film several times before the movie was released, I never got that impression. Bob seems kind of convinced that the "mystery box" aspect was being played up, and that that is something to apparently fault the movie for. It didn't live up to its supposed twists. OK. I never felt liked I was promised wowing plot twists. The ad didn't come off that way, to me, and it seems weird to harp on that point.

2. The claim that relying overmuch on callbacks is a deathblow to the film. It's not. Some people haven't seen Wrath of Khan. Quite a few people haven't seen Wrath of Khan. Maybe I would have a lesser opinion of this movie if I had seen Wrath of Khan myself, but making reference to Wrath of Khan or even paralleling it in various aspects should not be a damning move even if it's done in a ham-fisted way. Bob claims that the Khan thing is the "hook of the whole movie." It's not. I wouldn't have cared either way if the character's name was Khan or if he was some other random dude. I didn't think the character was some sort of remarkable movie villain -- like one for the ages -- but I thought his backstory and motivation was good enough. What's most interesting about him in the film is how he relates to Kirk, and in turn, how he relates to the actual main theme which Bob either misses or ignores (which is weird, because it's not like it's subtle or anything). It ties into my third point, which is:

3. The warmongering admiral is pretty obviously a Dick Cheney type, but that doesn't mean the film is completely devoid of decent moral ambiguity. The main theme of the film centers around the willingness, or unwillingness, to disregard rules/morals to achieve some sort of end. Khan, like Kirk, wants to save and protect his "family," but he is deranged and willing to kill and do whatever is necessary to do so. Kirk more or less shares this frame of mind at the beginning of the film, but eventually comes to the conclusion that a certain level of aggression and violence is unacceptable, regardless of the situation. Bob brings up the daddy issues aspect of Kirk's personality, which he claims is retrod during this movie, but the stuff that I've touched upon in this paragraph is not even remotely related to that. Again, it's more about the parallels between Khan and Kirk. That and the character of the war hawking admiral goes a bit beyond the obvious: it at least brushes upon the idea that the admiral is trying to exploit this supposed evil rather than destroying it outright, which is actually rather apt when you consider how the U.S. handled its recent war(s) with the Middle East. I'm not even arguing that the themes and allusions are overly deep or thoughtful; they aren't, really, but I think it's inaccurate to claim that they a) fall completely flat or b) that they're a point-for-point retread of the '09 film.

4. There's also a pretty obvious character arc for Spock beyond the dual nature aspect that Bob mentions -- and even if it's kind of token -- it's his willingness to be deceptive. He tricks Khan and ends up blowing him up. Beyond that, I think the additional scenes that do focus of his dual nature are well handled, and they focus more on specific compassion versus general compassion. Bones tells Kirk at the beginning of the movie that Spock would have let him die in that volcano, but do you think by the end of the movie that Spock would have made the same decision?

To me, it seems like this review does focus too much on the supposedly mishandled fan service. To someone -- like me -- who isn't a big a Star Trek fan, it doesn't seem to be a grievous flaw. Even if I was a big fan, I believe this film does enough to make it effective on its own. I didn't think the film was amazing or even great by any stretch, but I did think it was a good, well made action flick.

I hate to say it Bob, I usually trust your reviews and you usually have good points, but this is just the end of it for me. It just disturbs me as to why you'd attack a movie so hard just because you don't like the director, that's not the point of reviewing, the point is to review the subject on it's own, not degrade it because, again, you don't like the director.

It perplexes me as to why a man like you abhors this movie just because of J.J. Abrams when Red Letter Media's Mike Stoklasa(who's clearly a bigger Star Trek/Star Wars geek) knows where it's at, it just really bothers me.

It saddens me but you've just lost a subscriber at this point, sad since I used to see you at the same pantheon as Yahtzee & Jim.

I hope Abrams doesn't go the route of Shyamalan. That of a young director who launches off into success only to run out of fuel & crash. The fact that he currently has control of Star Wars worries me all the more.

He pulled the same shit with Amazing Spider-man. A perfectly decent if not highly enjoyable film he had a grudge against due to its production origins. In all these scenarios he would have been better served by just pointing out the legitimate flaws in these movies. This personal vendetta stuff needs to take a backseat.

Considering almost every other reviewer on the planet liked this movie I think I'm gonna go with them.

I don't know about you guys, but I pretty much squee'd audibly when I found out who the main villain was. Does this make me a bad trekkie? I've got all the usual credentials, started watching with TOS but became firmly rooted in the Picard camp with TNG. I just got finished watching Voyager from start to finish, which I keep in its entirety on my iPod. I even played STO all the way to Vice Admiral, not that it proves anything other than my tolerance for MMO grind.

I actually rather like the reboot so far, and I thought that Into Darkness surpassed its predecessor quite a bit. This one wasn't so focused on being an origin story, we got to see the characters in their element as the legitimate crew of the Enterprise and it had plenty of fun action stuff to boot. And while the references to the original were a little over the top I'm glad they were in there, and it fits into the theme of fate/the space-time continuum bringing these people and events together in some way. At least, that's how I always interpret the little plot conveniences. Call it an excuse for bad writing if you want, but it just makes sense to me personally.

Blood Brain Barrier:

I'm not antisemitic, nor was my comment. I like Arabs, Babylonians, Akkadians, Hebrews and their associated language and proto-language groups. The fact that I'm jumped upon the moment I make a sarcastic reference to a well-known historical stereotype of an ethic group says more about you guys than it does about me. Such eagerness to defend something we moderns regard as totally superficial indicates some rather deep insecurity, no?

Indeed, "no". You might not be antisemitic, but that comment was. Being sarcastic is fine, as long as it has a purpose. But all you achieved with that comment was perpetuate a narrative in which that stereotype survives to be used as a weapon.
And the fact that you seem to think you know better than a larger group says quite a lot about your superiority complex as well - a group might I add, which has come to the conclusion, through Social Darwinism, to shun discriminatory language to the benefit of cohesive social qualities. Why do you think you know better than an organic social construct?

ShadowHamster:

trty00:

Magog1:
wow bob whined about the fan service girl....

he must really have missed recardo's open shirt look after all.

Because why make genuine arguments when you can just make gay jokes, right?!

I...didn't take this as a gay joke, but rather as a reference to just HOW freaking cheesy the original Kahn was. He was in fact extremely manly, and not affeminate, but he also wore a wardrobe fitting of, like, Neil Diamond or something.

Maybe, but Khan was still a fantastic character, so it's forgivable.

Phindin:
...I generally disagree with Bob...this film does enough to make it effective on its own.

I couldn't agree more. Well written. (only copied your ultimate statement as others can read your point by point above).

The point is, and I think you'd agree, Bob should have focused on the movie he was given, rather than the one maybe he wanted, along with other matters including marketing.

The movie itself was a blast. Sure I could quibble (Bob objected to gorgeous girl in underwear?) but didn't we see a film that more or less made narrative sense with great casting, acting, special effects that rose to an enormous challenge (make a great Star Trek movie)? I think so, so much that I will definitely buy this on bluray.

Saviordd1:
Considering almost every other reviewer on the planet liked this movie I think I'm gonna go with them.

My advice? You should. This review was so bad it may have cost Bob a fan in me. Sure, I hated when he hated on Expendables 1. I hated that he loved Scott Pilgrim so much (it was a B- movie). But his hate for this movie? A fanboy scorned. It was pretty terrific. Entertainment Weekly, for instance, gave it a solid A. I think a rank near that is justified.

I hope you get extra butter on your popcorn so I can live vicariously (dieting... that is die with a T at the end.)

trty00:
Khan was still a fantastic character.

He really was, though, they got an unintentional laugh from me when Kirk punched him. And I got to see the Super Fight I always wanted but never thought I'd get!

ITMT: here is how a fight originally turned out:

BTW: For what its worth, Pines is 32. Shatner was 36 in this scene.

Farther than stars:
Indeed, "no". You might not be antisemitic, but that comment was. Being sarcastic is fine, as long as it has a purpose. But all you achieved with that comment was perpetuate a narrative in which that stereotype survives to be used as a weapon.
And the fact that you seem to think you know better than a larger group says quite a lot about your superiority complex as well - a group might I add, which has come to the conclusion, through Social Darwinism, to shun discriminatory language to the benefit of cohesive social qualities. Why do you think you know better than an organic social construct?

I'm not sure what you're saying - that the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob?

I have no problem with wanting to shun discriminatory language, if that's your choice. So why do you shun my choice to discriminate?

I'm with Bob on this one. I liked the first one as a sort of clumsy-but-endearing push to revitalize Trek. It was cute, and I appreciate what it did. However, after the second one, I get the feeling that, for all the "bringing Trek into the new age"-speech, the reboot universe is quickly being revealed as meaningless, generic, and irrelevant.

There is nothing inside these movies that doesn't just slide right off the brain once you watch some other summer blockbuster; nothing to hook you in except maybe the new music and visual style (and the latter is more abrasive than I'd like). It hasn't invented anything new, it's just playing with Trek's old elements, or worse, treating them as gimmicks.

And I have to mention how tired I am of the deceitful chessmaster supervillain shtick. It's been pounded into the ground by dozens of movies this decade. WE GET IT, the American mass subconscious is pissing its pants at the thought of an evil marginalized hermit-genius with hopes of social upheaval and mass murder of civilians; Iron Man 3's entire twist hung on the public's obsession with such villains. Can we just get a movie where the villain isn't Shmosama Shbin Shmladen?

Blood Brain Barrier:

Farther than stars:
Indeed, "no". You might not be antisemitic, but that comment was. Being sarcastic is fine, as long as it has a purpose. But all you achieved with that comment was perpetuate a narrative in which that stereotype survives to be used as a weapon.
And the fact that you seem to think you know better than a larger group says quite a lot about your superiority complex as well - a group might I add, which has come to the conclusion, through Social Darwinism, to shun discriminatory language to the benefit of cohesive social qualities. Why do you think you know better than an organic social construct?

I'm not sure what you're saying - that the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob?

I have no problem with wanting to shun discriminatory language, if that's your choice. So why do you shun my choice to discriminate?

Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

Farther than stars:
[quote="Blood Brain Barrier" post="6.408263.17058865"][quote="Farther than stars" post="6.408263.17058763"]Because if I am to discourage the existence of discriminatory language, I must then shun the people who use that language and thus perpetuate its existence and the associated stereotypes. Choice doesn't really come into it.
And I'm not saying the mob always knows more than the individual simply because it's a mob. But it does have more credibility in that absence of valid arguments on the side of the individual. Nothing about that comment was productive and its only possible result was alienation and division, both of which should be discouraged in order to maintain a stable society.

A stable society would not exist without alienation and division. That's how it encourages people not to stray outside its boundaries. So I don't see why making visible what is already there should be discouraged. Stability is also no concern of mine: I'm interested in making things better not preserving the status quo, and that goal isn't served by censorship.

I am a big fan of the original Star Trek franchise, and This movie sounds like it is exactly what I expected it would be. And that is why I actively refuse to watch it.

FargoDog:
Oh no, Star Trek Into Darkness has a hamfisted political message which makes it bad and it doesn't quite live up to the best Star Trek movie ever. And yet, Bob will fellate the hell out of The Avengers which is about as politically minded as a six year old knocking over lego and lives up to its premise only by not being absolutely terrible.

I think I'm done with this show.

I would agree. Bob has openly raged because God-Emperor-Greatest-Directorintheworld-Joss-Whedon wasn't chosen as Star Wars director, so now he has an obviously hateful bias against against anyone (not just JJ Abrams) who would take over Star Wars.

Star Wars may end up being a damn good film, but Bob WILL hate it. Bob WILL pick it apart and find every flaw he can.
I bet Bob has already written and recorded his Star Wars review, long before it's even released.

His recent hypocrisy (loving one film for one reason and then hating another for the exact same reason) is leading me to believe that he is really not a very good film critic.
I'm sticking to Mark Kermode; he manages to avoid the nerd rage which has consumed Bob.

Oh yeah; I watched the film yesterday and enjoyed it. It's not amazing (If I had to score it, I'd give it a 7/10) and the lenseflare needs to calm the fuck down, but it's nowhere near as bad as Bob claims it to be.

SonOfVoorhees:
Im not a star trek fan, but what is stupid is JJ had the whole ST universe of characters, aliens etc and all he could come up with is "This just redo film 2". Thats just lazy and a lack of imagination. Is this what he will do with the Star Wars, make episode 7, which will just be a remake of 4 but about a kid called Lance Skillwacker learning the force and fight Darth Verder who will be a clone.

Lazy JJ, very, very lazy.

I'm sorry to say, but your post shows very clearly that you only saw the review and not the movie. And because of that, the post comes off very reckless.

I don't agree it was lazy or lack of imagination. Out of all the scripts that were drafted, the timing of this script had to be, and coincidentally be the place of the 2nd movie. The movie was clearly an homage piece if there ever was one, and what better way to show it as the 2nd movie? I actually went to see it, and thought it was pretty well made for a summer audience. It didn't awe me as the last movie, but I don't think it deserved the harsh review that Bob gave it. But please...see the movie time before you comment on its review thread...At least Bob did.

Hmmm Bob says he didn't like the movie, but it seemed to be coming from the perspective of someone who actually KNOWS and CARES a LOT about the Star Trek universe.

But what about the audience who have no clue about the Star Trek universe (yes, such people exist, scary I know) and haven't seen anything other than the 2009 Star Trek movie?

Well I'm one of those people (el gasp!). I have no goddamn clue who Khan is, memes floating around the internet are about as much as I know about the character (i.e. jack all).
I don't know who Captain Kirk is other than the one played by Chris Pine, I don't know who Spock is other than the one played by Zachary Quinto.

The attempts at fanservice won't even register on me because I was never a fan, but I still genuinely enjoyed the 2009 movie because I love any movie which has great characters, acting, story, action scenes, etc and I felt I "understood" that movie just fine without being a fan of the series.

...So purely from a non-fan standpoint and using only the 2009 movie as a reference, will I like Star Trek - Into Darkness? Does it hold up as a good movie on it's own?

That's what I wanted to know, Bob.

Yuuki:
Hmmm Bob says he didn't like the movie, but it seemed to be coming from the perspective of someone who actually KNOWS and CARES a LOT about the Star Trek universe.

But what about the audience who have no clue about the Star Trek universe (yes, such people exist, scary I know) and haven't seen anything other than the 2009 Star Trek movie?

Well I'm one of those people (el gasp!). I have no goddamn clue who Khan is, memes floating around the internet are about as much as I know about the character (i.e. jack all).
I don't know who Captain Kirk is other than the one played by Chris Pine, I don't know who Spock is other than the one played by Zachary Quinto.

The attempts at fanservice won't even register on me because I was never a fan, but I still genuinely enjoyed the 2009 movie because I love any movie which has great characters, acting, story, action scenes, etc and I felt I "understood" that movie just fine without being a fan of the series.

...So purely from a non-fan standpoint and using only the 2009 movie as a reference, will I like Star Trek - Into Darkness? Does it hold up as a good movie on it's own?

That's what I wanted to know, Bob.

I've seen reviews of it saying it's a pretty soulless, mediocre action flick from an outsider's perspective; if it wasn't Star Trek it would probably be largely ignored.

Vinculi:
I don't get it, I haven't even seen the original series or Wrath of Khan, but I knew that character was Khan. I didn't even foresee it as a twist, I just assumed that we were supposed to know that, didn't even realise the character would have some other name. Who was going to be surprised be this?

Eh, maybe I'll just watch Wrath of Khan instead.

JEsus God don't cheat yourself like this.

Don't get lured away by movie bobs heavy handed bro mance with the old days and eating up his delusion that older is better.

watch the new one.

trty00:

Magog1:
wow bob whined about the fan service girl....

he must really have missed recardo's open shirt look after all.

Because why make genuine arguments when you can just make gay jokes, right?!

I saw the movies twice.
friday and saturday.

I got pop corn both times.
I had a good time both times.

I'm prepared to go in front of a death squad of turbo nerds who will want to verbally dis embowl me for saying the movie was the cats pjs.

I loved this movie.
If that makes me a moron I'm fine with that.

and who ever said was the moral high ground?

MOvie bob role model right down to his video cut aways is jay sherman. so yes I'm proud say i made a gay joke.

I'm happy and exstactic to say I went to the lowest common denominator.

I think anyone who skips this movie because of bob deserves to be warned about bobs competency to go "not gonna like it.. not gonna like " going into a movie...

and he did. tell me i'm lying.

he has a bug up his ass about Abrums and he made no bones about it.

Markunator:

FargoDog:
Oh no, Star Trek Into Darkness has a hamfisted political message which makes it bad and it doesn't quite live up to the best Star Trek movie ever. And yet, Bob will fellate the hell out of The Avengers which is about as politically minded as a six year old knocking over lego and lives up to its premise only by not being absolutely terrible.

I think I'm done with this show.

Why would you even compare this to The Avengers? They're two completely different franchises!

He's not focusing on this franchises but bobs and that went right over over your head. (breaths, sorry).

Bob seems like it's his quest no unlike Ben yahtzee to discourage people from watching (play respectively) what they consider crap.

and honestly more than 90 percent of the time bob literally has no idea what he was talking about.

the one time i agreed with bob was about Iron man.. a serious i had no idea what i was talking about.. so what's that tell you?

Blood Brain Barrier:

K_Dub:

Blood Brain Barrier:

Ya well, if Shakespeare and South Park can do it then so can I. Historical stereotyping is great.

Yeah, but where Shakespeare and South Park use stereotyping in a comedic or dramatic sense, often to deliver a political point of some kind, you're just being mean and hateful with your comment.

Don't you dare attempt to justify your statement by comparing yourself to arguably history's greatest writers. Your comment wasn't funny, didn't feature any political satire that I could pick up on, and didn't add any weight to your overall opinion of the film.

It was a hateful remark, pure and simple. And as far as I'm concerned, you're a lesser human being for ever thinking it.

You're kidding, right? Hateful? Am I hateful for thinking black people are better at sprinting? Because they generally are. It's a stereotype but that doesn't make it wrong and it certainly doesn't make it hateful. People with jewish heritage are known for their business acumen. It's a cultural and familial trait that stretches back to biblical times.

I'm aware of what a stereotype is and how it works. I'm also aware that a stereotype is not an absolute fact. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm referring to your use of the stereotype in your comment.

You spent the first 3/4 of your comment discussing who could enjoy the movie, and began to explain why, then added "Abrams is a Jew after all." There was no lead up to this, and no legitimately valid behind its use. Again, as I stated before, it adds nothing to your overall opinion of the film or to the beginning of your comment. It's an out of place proclamation that has NOTHING to do with this particular forum discussion on the whole.

Now, perhaps you're not a bigot, racist, or hateful person in general. But the way you phrased your comment and used an unnecessary stereotype in a comment thread that doesn't deal with stereotypes, well, you'll have to excuse me for thinking otherwise of you.

If you are going to use a stereotype in a discussion, make sure it's relevant (and preferably funny). To blindly throw around stereotypes with no regard for the consequences will make you seem like an unpleasant individual.

In Search of Username:
I've seen reviews of it saying it's a pretty soulless, mediocre action flick from an outsider's perspective; if it wasn't Star Trek it would probably be largely ignored.

This is not true at all. The people that are complaining most about this movie seem to be die hard Star Trek fans. The fact that it doesn't "live up" to what Star Trek is supposed to be is what is holding this movie back in their eyes. If it hadn't been affiliated with Star Trek, I bet these same people would like the movie. I don't think a 190 million dollar movie is ever going to be "largely ignored".

And I think that a lot of people ruined the movie for themselves by actively searching for information about the villain. I only saw a few trailers and never really got the impression that there was going to be a big twist concerning the villain's identity. Conversely, I surmised from the trailer of Iron Man 3 that Guy Pierce would be the real villain in that movie. Comic book fans had their expectations played with in IM3 while the rest of us saw that "twist" coming from a mile away.

I agree with almost everything Bob had to say. The acting was great (I disagree about Pine), but the plot was just a mess. I loved the 2009 movie, so I was hoping that I would enjoy this one despite the warning signs.

When I heard they were letting Damon Lindelof actually write this time around I had a feeling the whole thing would end up being terrible. It's crazy because I loved Lost (well, except half the last season), but everything that guy has written since then has sucked. And listening to JJ give interviews was painful. I hope they don't let either of them near the next Star Trek.

Curious, this is the first time I've seen your opinion go absolutely against all the newspaper reviews who insist it to be the best one since... yeah, Wrath of Khan, four stars minimum. I'm not a big Trek guy, having mainly watched Voyager and some TNG when I'm bored, but I must agree throwing the name of a franchise's ultimate most popular villain ever into a reboot without any of their context besides the name sounds rather lame.

I dunno, after both action-y reboot and fanservice-y reboot fails it feels like any attempt to stay even more true to a franchise this old would limit its appeal only to the truly hardcore fans. Do you feel that any future Trek movies/series should try and stick to the 'journey to strange worlds in a starship' format (most of Into Darkness looks to be set on Earth) that made it so ground breaking in the first place? Or after Enterprise do you feel even that would fall flat?

Hahahaha, oh wow. This is the second film that was good to ok that Bob hated in the span of a year. First he hated Amazing Spider-Man for being to "DARK", "EDGY", and "TOO SERIOUS!" But he'll say that the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon is good and that he thinks Superior Spider-Man is interesting despite Superior trying much harder to be dark and edgy than ASM ever did. Now he hates this. What's next, Bob? If they make an equally terribly Star Trek cartoon, you'll praise that?

Wasn't the whole Khan thing announced long beforehand? I very clearly remember hearing to stated that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing Khan. I had no idea it was supposed to be a twist.

Anyway, I thought it was a really good movie. Bob continues to manifest the baseless fanboy rage of the internet. Calling the movie "sacrilegious" is the hyperbolic bullshit I've come to expect from him.

Phindin:
snip

I'm going to pretty much agree with this, especially the first point. Honestly, I was never a huge fan of Movie Bob to begin with, but between his specific Mystery Box video, and this review lambasting the movie for something that I completely agree, was not actually presented in the marketing materials the way he seems to think it was, I've got to say I'm done watching Bob's stuff. It's frankly painful to see him look so hard for reasons to tear into films like this and Amazing Spider-Man, either because of his own warped expectations or because he doesn't like the director, or he's simply too close to the source material to not go in jaded, or any other reason that he falls victim to.

I hate to reiterate it again, but I think it needs to be said simply because it proves a point about him: there was no mystery box in the marketing materials. This film was never presented as having some top secret twist relating to John Harrison or any other character. It was inferred by people like Bob, and sure, they may have been right, but that does not mean they were selling the movie on it, nor does become a valid point of complaint about the movie.

Frankly, Bob is a terrible film critic. Not because he isn't even remotely objective (he's not, but that isn't really a requirement of the job to be fair), but because in cases like this he's not actually criticizing the movie. He's criticizing what he thought the movie was going to be, and trying to pretend he's bringing up some glorious all revealing insight in the process.

Sorry Bob, but that's just ridiculous, and you should really be ashamed of how poorthis review is.

Calibanbutcher:
I wouldn't call this a movie "good" either...

This movie is GREAT and I wholeheartedly recommend you go see it now, screw whatever bob says and go watch it.

Why? Because it's fun without being stupid.

It's better than Iron Man 3 in every single way, the action is better, the cinematography is nicer, the climax is better the "twist" is better and if it wasn't for RDJ, this movie would blow Iron Man 3 so far out of the water that Greenpeace would have to bring a semi-truck to get it back in. THis is of course my opinion, so feel free to scream at your screen now about how I am wrong etc.

It's better than Wrath of Khan, it's damn well better than every Star Trek movie that came before it (in MY OPINION, bear in mind, I am not a Star Trek fan, nor did I never watch an episode of the Star Trek series).

Hell, I liked it better than most of the Marvel movies that came before it, including The Avengers (yeah yeah, I said Jehova, get your beards ready now). (I never read Marvel/DC comics either).

This movie was everything I wanted it to be.
A fun science-fiction action-romp with a likeable cast, great cinematography, a great score, good performances all-around, some throwbacks to the "original" even complete and utter dolts like me can understand and a good plot. Of course, this is far from being on-par with science-fiction classics, such as Moon and "2001", but then again this movie doesn't try to go that route.

(Also, why did Bob need to "critique" this movie and feels that revealing the "twist" is something he has to do, when in his Iron Man 3 review, he tiptoed around it, telling us how great the twist was, when, in all honesty, the "Iron Man Twist" is just as bad, if not worse than this movie's "twist".)

Well I am a big Star Trek fan. I was the only one in the theater laughing at the guy being from Section 31 (something from Deep Space Nine), and many other references. With those credentials established, let me say I agree with you on so many points.

This movie did references right, unlike Iron Man 3. I'm going to spoiler tag the rest, but know this contains spoilers for both Iron Man 3 and the Star Trek

In short, highly recommended.

Akichi Daikashima:
Yeah, I was a bit lukewarm about the reboot(the 1st movie) too.
I never really had any investment into the series, as I never watched it, but I can't imagine how painful it would be for me if I had.

As I am in this situation as well, I was surprised when I saw that this movie - ON IT'S OWN - is quite thrilling and enjoyable. I watched the spoiler half of this review, as I was curious to see what Bob hates about this movie.

I was ready to complain that "I now find Bob's opinion not worth listening to." Now, I say, that he should have mentioned that this movie is a big letdown IF you've seen the Star Trek television episodes and Wrath of Khan.

invadergir:

Mahoshonen:
I hardly paid attention to any of the news, and I still figured out what the surprise was once I learned that there is, indeed, a surprise.

Going to see it tonight, but I have a feeling Mr. Plinkett will have afield day with this movie.

Bet you anything Mike really liked this movie. He already gave a very positive review of the first JJ Abrams reboot. So no, Plinkett won't be reviewing Into Darkness.

I thought the Plinkett review of the reboot Star Trek was one of the best he's put together. For him, the movie was a net positive, but not unless one views it as a 'guilty pleasure' and divorces it completely from any love for the previous Star Trek canon.

I also quite enjoyed his first 'mini-review' of the movie, where a woman gets abducted and raped in an alleyway by the movie only to ultimately walk off (beaten and bruised) saying, 'ehh, that wasn't so terrible.'

MovieBob:
Star Trek: Into Darkness

MovieBob gives us a frank and spoiler filled review of the latest Star Trek film.

Watch Video

Holy fuck movie bob...are minds must have Vulcan mind melded because i thought the same exact thing when i saw this movie.

Spoiler Warning!!!!!

When the revealed Khan was actually Khan i about walked the fuck out. It was stupid, it was wasted, and worst of all....THEY DIDN'T GET KHAN RIGHT!!!!

Khan is supposed to be of Latino decent with a tad bit of European, as opposed to a fucking Brit.
Now don't get me wrong, the guy who played him acted the living hell out of that part, and i'd love to see his work again, but at the same time, no backstory on Khan, not even the fact he was a fucking dictator who owned a third of earth at one point and killed thousands of people.

His battle scenes are pathetic and don't hold as much tension, the two other bits from wrath of Khan were just shoe horned in and pissed on, and worst of all.....NOTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Now the klingons were cool, and the klingon fight scene was awesome, but at the same time, it just opened plot holes.

the Admirals plan makes no fucking sense. too many redundancies and stupid shit.
Its obvious on what shit is going to happen and why.

I don't hate this movie, but i'm disappointed with it.

And im convinced Abrams may not understand sci-fi at all and im worried about what will happen with star wars.

Having seen the movie, I can say it was just more of the same as the last movie, except of lesser quality. Aside from the horrible plot and hamfisted war on terror plot, there were far too many action scenes that seemed almost 'video game' in character, and there is such *volume* of action scenes that they just blend together after a while and lose all tension- it's all just one big slog to get through for me.

And when it's all said and done? There was almost zero character development. The ridiculous manner in which Kirk was promoted in the first movie is repeated again-in even less time-he goes fro m captain,to cadet, to first officer to captain again in the space of minutes adn the status quo is maintained, and the whole subplot about Kirk beign an inexperienced and arrogant pain in the butt who will get everyone killed is essentially brushed off. The only real character development to speak of is that Kirk and Spock are finally set up as friends-it only took two movies to do so!.

The fanservice was really thick in places, and it really went past homages to other movies into straight up retreads of previous material.

I can't really reconmend it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here