Star Trek Into Darkness

Golly I think my title sums up everything I wanted to say. As far as basic plot goes, there's nothing particularly new here: a psycho super being plans to kill people and blow up things while the Enterprise is, for the millionth time, "the only ship in the quadrant". This movie is very lazily written, sort of like that homework assignment you slapped together on the bus to school but with a multi zillion dollar budget. But before you transport off this page, bear in mind the film's saving grace...

There are a ton of groan-worthy, yet very effective, references to the old Star Trek universe, making this a pretty entertaining watch even though I sound like I'm slamming it harder than a shuttle craft making Emergency Landing Plan B ("B! As in BARRICADE"). That plus a ton of dazzling special effects and nonstop action prompt me to rate this movie a definite WORTHWHILE WATCH, even though my inner Trek nerd is screaming for you to avoid it like that episode "Spock's Brain".

No, this is NOT a remake of the incomparable "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982) although it does feature the characters Khan as well as Dr. Carol Marcus.

No, Khan does not show off his bulging pecs as only the late great Ricardo Montalban could do.

YES, there is a sneaky remake of the famous radiation "you'll flood the chamber" scene which is fun to watch.

YES, Chris Pine does an admirable job of playing Captain Kirk as the charmingly arrogant young captain who doesn't like to lose.

YES, Zachary Quinto does an admirable job of playing the stoic Mr Spock, and YES there is a cameo by Leonard Nimoy as the original Spock.

YES, Dr, McCoy says "Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a ---!"

and lastly, YES, at a certain point in the movie someone does, in fact, yell: "KHAAaaAaAAAAAaaANNN!!!"

So what more needs to be said. Great popcorn flick. Fun little nods to the old Trek series. It doesn't require too many brain cells. But then again, neither does "Spock's Brain" and we still love it.

Truly spectacular, one of those rare amazing, inventive and often unpredictable blockbusters. The acting was great all round, especially Cumberbatch - wow, he was superb. The direction, cinematography and visual effects were all greatly innovative and brilliant; the screenplay fun, often humorous and has a lot of heart for all its characters which are all really well developed.

The film has some cliché moments which can't be avoided often with a film this scale however they make use of them well and still pack plenty of surprises. As well as this, despite not being a proper Trekkie myself, some moments gave me goosebumps from the awesomeness from seeing the Enterprise for the first time for example, which greatly honoured the original series. J.J. Abrams' lens flares helped create more realism in a lot of the scenes despite the fact he often overuses of them.

The villain was very interesting and the development, dialogue and motivations of his character were very convincing and inventive, Cumberbatch's fantastic acting greatly helped bring this character to life. Also the way he executed his plan showed a lot more cutting edge creativity than especially most modern blockbusters, not to say it's done nearly to the same level of genius but something I haven't felt in a villain's characterisation/acting since The Dark Knight.

Overall, a mesmerising film with nice homages to the original series, one filled with heart, grace, innovation, superb characters and acting and some impressive, clever visuals and immersive 3D, one of the only times I can say that. Up there with the 2009 one, not sure which I prefer, possibly the previous one largely due to the more clever story, despite this one having a much better villain, still not sure though. Still a very strongly recommended film, may hit my top 100 simply because how much I was impressed by it. 9/10!

We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.

In the movie theatre I heard a complaint from an old school Trekkie that the second installment of the Star Trek reboot had too many "Little Archie and Veronica" moments.

This is true and it would be OK if that were just the icing on the cake. The real problem with the movie is that it runs like a typical SciFi action plot inserted under a Star Trek banner.

This movie is missing the hallmark epiphany moments Star Trek is famous for. Mainly, it is missing the philosophical "WOW" factors that don't just blow your mind but rather expands it, making you realise that everything you thought you knew is wrong and that everything you thought the Federation had figured out is also wrong. These expansions used to pave the way for the audience to mentally and emotionally take that next step to, "Boldly go where no man has gone before..."

This movie has no epiphany. Where is the deepness that Star Trek is synonymous with? This movie gives us what? A federation struggling with internal corruption and terrorism, a la the typical disgruntled ex employee, who in this case was cryogenics frozen for 300 years, as is the plot. Big deal. These are familiar themes we've all seen in movies before. Just trade the Federation for any corrupt financial, medical, educational, government and or religious institution. Trade the "John Harrison" character for any Bond villain and you have a movie that sounds like a bunch of other movies or what the news broadcasts. Boring.

To me the Federation meant a time in the future when Humanity had finally gotten its act together and to a certain extent had rooted out all this corruption and terrorism. Unless a Klingon or Romulan shows up, things are supposed to be refreshingly illuminating. Not something that degrades into ordinary, mainstream, average caveman fist fight showdowns.

How can we boldly go where no man has gone before in the future unless we have thrown off the shackles of the past? What a sad/shamey day it is when a Star Trek movie presents a not so optimistic future just as dark as today's headlines. I can read/watch the news/The Matrix if I want that. IS THERE NO ESCAPE?!!! IS THERE NO HOPE?!!!

Obviously, Gene Roddenberry's spirit could not find a way to keep the franchise on track. Will, (Vulcan fingers crossed) Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike know the difference between the wealth of deepness and the poverty of darkness?

As someone who has grown up with the franchise, watched every show and every movie (I've watched the entire DS9 series at least twice!), suffered through characters/actors who I didn't care for (Tasha Yar, seriously?), I realize we all have opinions about what makes Gene Roddenberry's vision so lasting.

That being said? I LOVED this movie. I even capitalized it I loved it so much. The play between the characters, the more human version of Spock, the absolutely delightful "Scotty" (although his sidekick is one of those throwaway characters I dislike) as well as a much better crafted plot this time made for a completely enjoyable movie. The action is intense, the friendship deepened between the characters, the twists and turns are a bit predictable at times, but that is reminiscent of the franchise as a whole. I am already excited for the next movie. I tremendously respected and appreciated the ties in this movie to the elements that make Star Trek great - strong story line, deep connection to the characters and a philosophical element. In some of the older Star Trek episodes the moral/philosophical element can be oppressively heavy handed. No so in the new Trek movie. The ideas of friendship, family and humanity are woven through this movie with subtly and I will outright admit I more than teared up during the climactic scene in the engine room. EVEN though I had already figured out what was going to happen, I have already come to care about, respect and enjoy the new actors in their iconic roles.

So yes, ten out of ten. And let the haters, hate. Those who can not embrace change can go sit and watch old Star Trek reruns and bemoan the 'good old days' and spout off all the reasons why 'Star Trek ain't what it used to be'!!!!

I, on the other hand, will boldly go and embrace the new with a continued reverence for the old. This movie makes it possible to love both.

Abrams is merely an efficient technician, uninteresting as a man of vision. But we need guys like him, conservative and mechanical in their efficiency, who will hold down the paradigm as others more adventurous fight to shift it, who will remind us by the arbitrary limits they impose that there must be a broader space. It's always the routine and familiar that kindles dreaming.

And this is just so routine. Abrams takes the Spielberg-Lucas model of climax after climax, starting with an Indiana Jones prologue. A few simple moral dilemmas form the backbone, inherited with a wink from the Trek genealogy. The hamfisted 9/11 allegory, enforced by terrorist bombings and a final 'plane crash' in Starfleet hq, is that we may covet revenge but we are dehumanized in the process. Khan as a vengeful mujahedeen, 'trained' by the secret military which is headed by a cowboy admiral hellbent on preemptive war. (Interestingly, everything about Khan's handling here bears Nolan's influence.)

Soulless.

So it is fitting that this guy is spearheading the next generation of established cinematic imagination, taking over from Lucas who is now retired, and Spielberg who is 'respectable'. I'm sure that in 20 years time he will be making his own respectable war movies. That kids growing up on stuff like this will fondly elevate the memory. And that his idea of artistry, Welles' action camera dotted by twinkles of color, lasers and flares, will be elaborated on in essays about his aesthetics, maybe.

All of which is just a natural state of things, nothing to get up in arms about. It just means that the interesting stuff will be defined by contrast to him.