We just got back from watching this, in 3D on a huge screen. I won't give anything away except to tell you that you must go and see this.
Star Trek: Into Darkness
- Thread starter Keith_W
- Start date
I was quite surprised by the movie actually. Most of the time, the trailer gives away important plot details. This one doesn't. The movie is an even greater visual spectacle than the trailer.
everything I have read says it is the best one ever. However they said the same thing about Skyfall the last Bond movie
First review is less than stellar........
By DAVID GERMAIN | Associated Press
"Star Trek Into Darkness" is like fan-boy fiction on a $185 million budget. It's reverential, it's faithful, it's steeped in "Trek" mythology.
It's also an excessively derivative what-if rehash of themes and interactions that came before, most of the characters lesser copies and even caricatures of the originals. The scenario's been hijacked and rejiggered from better "Trek" plots of decades ago, the best verbal exchanges lifted nearly verbatim from past adventures.
In short, the new chiefs of Starfleet aren't coming up with much to call their own.
They pile on the spectacle in a way that's never been seen before in "Star Trek," whose old big-screen incarnations were so notoriously underfunded they had to go back and borrow props, miniatures and visual effects from previous installments. The action in "Into Darkness" is top-notch, the visuals grand, though the movie's needless conversion to 3-D muddies the images.
But the heart is, well, halfhearted, as though the people of the 23rd century are there to mouth the standard logic-vs.-emotion, needs-of-the-many-vs.-needs-of-the-few patter of "Star Trek" to count time before the next space battle or ray-gun shootout.
Director J.J. Abrams was most definitely not a fan-boy for this franchise when he made 2009's "Star Trek," which reintroduced Kirk, Spock and the rest of the starship Enterprise gang with a time-travel twist that allowed the William Shatner-Leonard Nimoy original to coexist with an entirely different destiny for the new players.
Abrams grew up a fan of "Star Wars," the next space saga he'll be reviving with the launch of a third trilogy. But his key collaborators, screenwriters Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof, are "Trek" fan-boys to their marrow. They know this world, they love this world, and like many fans, they have a particular fixation on 1982's "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan," the best that the franchise has ever had to offer, on the big-screen or TV.
The 2009 reboot replayed and tweaked elements connected to "Wrath of Khan," and "Into Darkness" mines that vein further. Some of that revisitation is cool in an alternate-history way, but the filmmakers remain so closely in orbit around yesteryear's "Star Trek" that they wind up zigzagging fitfully through the Enterprise's greatest hits.
"Into Darkness" opens with a splashy action sequence to again show the cockiness of Capt. James Kirk (Chris Pine) — with his willingness to flaunt the rules — and the icy intellect of half-Vulcan First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto), who's willing to sacrifice his life to stick to the Starfleet playbook.
It's clear these two young'uns don't play well together, but just as the space brass is about to split them up, Starfleet is hit by savage terrorist attacks by mysterious desperado John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Kirk, Spock and their Enterprise crew are dispatched to take Harrison out with weapons that could prove the mother of all drone strikes, maintaining the usual see-how-relevant-we-are conceit of the "Trek" cosmos.
But loyalties slip and shift as the Enterprise uncovers the strange history of Harrison and his connections to a hawkish Starfleet admiral (Peter Weller).
Along the way, Spock hits some speed bumps in his romance with Zoe Saldana's beautiful and brilliant Lt. Uhura, while Kirk meets Alice Eve's beautiful and brilliant Dr. Carol Marcus ("Wrath of Khan" fans well know who she is and her importance to "Star Trek").
The rest of the gang keeps up their routines. Curmudgeonly Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) gripes and moans, helmsman Sulu (John Cho) ably steers the ship, navigator Chekov (Anton Yelchin) does his precocious shtick and engineer Scott (Simon Pegg) works his technical miracles.
Fine acting has rarely been a cornerstone of "Star Trek," but much of the "Into Darkness" cast seems to have taken ham lessons from Shatner. Urban maintains the same grouchy, stick-up-his-butt expression throughout, while Chekov with his almost incomprehensible Russian accent and Pegg with his "Shrek"-thick Scottish brogue become downright cartoonish.
Though they squabble like bratty teens early on, Pine and Quinto eventually show sparks of the Kirk-Spock fraternal love at the core of "Star Trek."
The big find here is Cumberbatch, who joins Ricardo Montalban, Christopher Plummer and Alice Krige in a fairly limited roster of great "Trek" villains. With his rumbling voice and stony stare, the star of Britain's detective update "Sherlock" is fearsome and relentless, a one-man army who truly seems like more than a match for poor Enterprise, all on his own.
As Abrams moves on to "Star Wars," it falls to some next-generation filmmaker to carry on "Star Trek" should more sequels follow. Abrams hasn't really guided the franchise into deep space, but he leaves it in a good place for successors to tell some rip-roaring sci-fi stories, without relying on reruns of old "Trek" moments.
"Star Trek Into Darkness," a Paramount release, is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence. Running time: 132 minutes. Two stars out of four.
By DAVID GERMAIN | Associated Press
"Star Trek Into Darkness" is like fan-boy fiction on a $185 million budget. It's reverential, it's faithful, it's steeped in "Trek" mythology.
It's also an excessively derivative what-if rehash of themes and interactions that came before, most of the characters lesser copies and even caricatures of the originals. The scenario's been hijacked and rejiggered from better "Trek" plots of decades ago, the best verbal exchanges lifted nearly verbatim from past adventures.
In short, the new chiefs of Starfleet aren't coming up with much to call their own.
They pile on the spectacle in a way that's never been seen before in "Star Trek," whose old big-screen incarnations were so notoriously underfunded they had to go back and borrow props, miniatures and visual effects from previous installments. The action in "Into Darkness" is top-notch, the visuals grand, though the movie's needless conversion to 3-D muddies the images.
But the heart is, well, halfhearted, as though the people of the 23rd century are there to mouth the standard logic-vs.-emotion, needs-of-the-many-vs.-needs-of-the-few patter of "Star Trek" to count time before the next space battle or ray-gun shootout.
Director J.J. Abrams was most definitely not a fan-boy for this franchise when he made 2009's "Star Trek," which reintroduced Kirk, Spock and the rest of the starship Enterprise gang with a time-travel twist that allowed the William Shatner-Leonard Nimoy original to coexist with an entirely different destiny for the new players.
Abrams grew up a fan of "Star Wars," the next space saga he'll be reviving with the launch of a third trilogy. But his key collaborators, screenwriters Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof, are "Trek" fan-boys to their marrow. They know this world, they love this world, and like many fans, they have a particular fixation on 1982's "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan," the best that the franchise has ever had to offer, on the big-screen or TV.
The 2009 reboot replayed and tweaked elements connected to "Wrath of Khan," and "Into Darkness" mines that vein further. Some of that revisitation is cool in an alternate-history way, but the filmmakers remain so closely in orbit around yesteryear's "Star Trek" that they wind up zigzagging fitfully through the Enterprise's greatest hits.
"Into Darkness" opens with a splashy action sequence to again show the cockiness of Capt. James Kirk (Chris Pine) — with his willingness to flaunt the rules — and the icy intellect of half-Vulcan First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto), who's willing to sacrifice his life to stick to the Starfleet playbook.
It's clear these two young'uns don't play well together, but just as the space brass is about to split them up, Starfleet is hit by savage terrorist attacks by mysterious desperado John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Kirk, Spock and their Enterprise crew are dispatched to take Harrison out with weapons that could prove the mother of all drone strikes, maintaining the usual see-how-relevant-we-are conceit of the "Trek" cosmos.
But loyalties slip and shift as the Enterprise uncovers the strange history of Harrison and his connections to a hawkish Starfleet admiral (Peter Weller).
Along the way, Spock hits some speed bumps in his romance with Zoe Saldana's beautiful and brilliant Lt. Uhura, while Kirk meets Alice Eve's beautiful and brilliant Dr. Carol Marcus ("Wrath of Khan" fans well know who she is and her importance to "Star Trek").
The rest of the gang keeps up their routines. Curmudgeonly Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) gripes and moans, helmsman Sulu (John Cho) ably steers the ship, navigator Chekov (Anton Yelchin) does his precocious shtick and engineer Scott (Simon Pegg) works his technical miracles.
Fine acting has rarely been a cornerstone of "Star Trek," but much of the "Into Darkness" cast seems to have taken ham lessons from Shatner. Urban maintains the same grouchy, stick-up-his-butt expression throughout, while Chekov with his almost incomprehensible Russian accent and Pegg with his "Shrek"-thick Scottish brogue become downright cartoonish.
Though they squabble like bratty teens early on, Pine and Quinto eventually show sparks of the Kirk-Spock fraternal love at the core of "Star Trek."
The big find here is Cumberbatch, who joins Ricardo Montalban, Christopher Plummer and Alice Krige in a fairly limited roster of great "Trek" villains. With his rumbling voice and stony stare, the star of Britain's detective update "Sherlock" is fearsome and relentless, a one-man army who truly seems like more than a match for poor Enterprise, all on his own.
As Abrams moves on to "Star Wars," it falls to some next-generation filmmaker to carry on "Star Trek" should more sequels follow. Abrams hasn't really guided the franchise into deep space, but he leaves it in a good place for successors to tell some rip-roaring sci-fi stories, without relying on reruns of old "Trek" moments.
"Star Trek Into Darkness," a Paramount release, is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence. Running time: 132 minutes. Two stars out of four.
I'm going to see it with my family tomorrow. Reading between the lines of this review it strikes me that the one stuck to the pedestaled past is the author. As a baby trekkie myself, I loved the orginal, loved next generation more. However, I've never been under any illusion that despite the lofty messages and the now iconic cast, that the original series was really campy with their travels to worlds with prohibition style gangsters, nazis and furballs.
I'll see tomorrow if this new movie is the re-imagining that the first reboot was, tougher, harder and with situations far more desperate. I hope this second intalment is because, IMO, it was a very good piece of work (despite casting Harold sans Kumar as Sulu!
).
I'll see tomorrow if this new movie is the re-imagining that the first reboot was, tougher, harder and with situations far more desperate. I hope this second intalment is because, IMO, it was a very good piece of work (despite casting Harold sans Kumar as Sulu!
).
...
I hope this second installment is because, IMO, it was a very good piece of work
(despite casting Harold sans Kumar as Sulu!
...Good one Jack! 
The personality traits, motivations, strengths and weaknesses of the key characters remain intact, unmolested by some desire to "renew" that which has become modern mythology? Something akin to moving literary references connect these new works to the best of the classical collection? The full force of modern FX and breathless action is brought to this new rendition while the soul and character of a beloved old series is preserved? This is a two-star review that reads like a rave.
I'm going.
Tim
I'm going.
Tim
I will gladly wear that mantle! Give me records and tapes and you can have all of the Star Wars and Star Trek movies. Scotty can beam up Spock's ears to Luke PieWalker and his magic beam stick.
'Star Trek Into Darkness' review: Thrilling sequel balances fun with a post-9/11 sensibility
SPOILER ALERT.Don't read unless you want to know
By Alonso Duralde | Reuters
LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - The original "Star Trek" series (and its various successors) used science fiction as a way to make observations about contemporary world issues like racism, war, etc., so it's no surprise that J.J. Abrams' "Trek" reboot, now in its second installment, puts 9/11 into the mix.
If there was any sort of grace period where mainstream action movies thought that audiences weren't ready to look at terrorism redressed as entertainment, that moment has officially passed; "Star Trek Into Darkness" fulfills its title right here on Earth, with the destruction of a building in London and attacks on skyscrapers in San Francisco.
Those are only a few of the massive set pieces in the film, and the movie is by no means a dreary and mournful examination of the effects of terror in the homeland. But they happen, and they're key to the story that Abrams and his writers are telling.
It's a sign of Abrams' skill as a filmmaker that the movie can travel to such dark places and still feel like an upbeat, energizing and often very funny adventure.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" begins with Capt. Kirk (Chris Pine) getting demoted to First Officer under Capt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood) after violating the Prime Directive in order to rescue Spock (Zachary Quinto) from a volcano. (Spock, of course, is such a stickler for the rules that he tells all in his report, which contradicts Kirk's whitewashing of the situation.)
But all that changes when former Starfleet higher-up John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) blows up a building in London that's allegedly an archive but actually hides a top-secret facility. Starfleet protocol demands that captains and first officers meet with their admirals after such a breach, and Harrison opens fire on Kirk and company as they strategize with Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) before teleporting himself onto a Klingon planet.
Marcus sends a furious, vendetta-hungry Kirk on a mission of revenge that will involve firing the experimental new photon torpedoes at Harrison's hiding place from the edge of Starfleet-controlled space. Spock, of course, counsels Kirk not to do anything that might start a war with the Klingons, a war that Marcus thinks is inevitable no matter what happens.
Everything past this point goes into spoiler territory, but suffice it to say that the ensemble -- which also includes Zoë Saldana (Lt. Uhura), Karl Urban (Dr. McCoy), John Cho (Mr. Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Mr. Chekov) and Simon Pegg (Scotty) -- clicks just as well as they did last time, with the addition of Alice Eve as Carol, a science offer who may have an agenda of her own.
Cumberbatch makes a compelling villain, and not only because the layers of his plan take a while to reveal themselves. The filmmakers are clearly going for something Hannibal Lecter-ish here - he even plays mindgames with Kirk from inside a glass box - and while Cumberbatch may not reach those heights of infamy, he's enough of a threat to put real life-and-death consequences into play.
One of the general strengths of "Star Trek Into Darkness," in fact, is the feeling of high stakes and genuine threat, which is exceedingly hard to pull off in any long-running franchise.
As with the previous "Trek" incarnations, it's the chemistry of the team that goes a long way in making these movies work, providing both the funniest moments (when they banter and disagree) and the most moving ones (when sacrifices are made).
Abrams makes the movie look great (he obviously doesn't care if people make fun of his penchant for lens flares, apparently), making this a film worth the extra bucks for 3D and IMAX. Granted, the stereoscopic vision works best in the action sequences or in the vertiginous overhead shots of the city skyline of future San Francisco; it's a little less appealing when he's shooting a conversation close up, and a random nose pops in and out of the left side of the screen.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" continues Abrams' gambit of retelling the "Star Trek" saga, only slightly backward and upside down, and some of his tampering with canon will no doubt solicit yowls from the usual corners of the internet. (Admittedly, I felt a little cheated by writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof indulging in a cake-and-eat-it ending, but it's not a deal-breaker.)
The movie may not offer the jolts of surprise that its predecessor did - no sequel can, really - but this new Enterprise remains exciting and compelling enough to make me want to follow it on any number of five-year missions.
SPOILER ALERT.Don't read unless you want to know
By Alonso Duralde | Reuters
LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - The original "Star Trek" series (and its various successors) used science fiction as a way to make observations about contemporary world issues like racism, war, etc., so it's no surprise that J.J. Abrams' "Trek" reboot, now in its second installment, puts 9/11 into the mix.
If there was any sort of grace period where mainstream action movies thought that audiences weren't ready to look at terrorism redressed as entertainment, that moment has officially passed; "Star Trek Into Darkness" fulfills its title right here on Earth, with the destruction of a building in London and attacks on skyscrapers in San Francisco.
Those are only a few of the massive set pieces in the film, and the movie is by no means a dreary and mournful examination of the effects of terror in the homeland. But they happen, and they're key to the story that Abrams and his writers are telling.
It's a sign of Abrams' skill as a filmmaker that the movie can travel to such dark places and still feel like an upbeat, energizing and often very funny adventure.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" begins with Capt. Kirk (Chris Pine) getting demoted to First Officer under Capt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood) after violating the Prime Directive in order to rescue Spock (Zachary Quinto) from a volcano. (Spock, of course, is such a stickler for the rules that he tells all in his report, which contradicts Kirk's whitewashing of the situation.)
But all that changes when former Starfleet higher-up John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) blows up a building in London that's allegedly an archive but actually hides a top-secret facility. Starfleet protocol demands that captains and first officers meet with their admirals after such a breach, and Harrison opens fire on Kirk and company as they strategize with Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) before teleporting himself onto a Klingon planet.
Marcus sends a furious, vendetta-hungry Kirk on a mission of revenge that will involve firing the experimental new photon torpedoes at Harrison's hiding place from the edge of Starfleet-controlled space. Spock, of course, counsels Kirk not to do anything that might start a war with the Klingons, a war that Marcus thinks is inevitable no matter what happens.
Everything past this point goes into spoiler territory, but suffice it to say that the ensemble -- which also includes Zoë Saldana (Lt. Uhura), Karl Urban (Dr. McCoy), John Cho (Mr. Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Mr. Chekov) and Simon Pegg (Scotty) -- clicks just as well as they did last time, with the addition of Alice Eve as Carol, a science offer who may have an agenda of her own.
Cumberbatch makes a compelling villain, and not only because the layers of his plan take a while to reveal themselves. The filmmakers are clearly going for something Hannibal Lecter-ish here - he even plays mindgames with Kirk from inside a glass box - and while Cumberbatch may not reach those heights of infamy, he's enough of a threat to put real life-and-death consequences into play.
One of the general strengths of "Star Trek Into Darkness," in fact, is the feeling of high stakes and genuine threat, which is exceedingly hard to pull off in any long-running franchise.
As with the previous "Trek" incarnations, it's the chemistry of the team that goes a long way in making these movies work, providing both the funniest moments (when they banter and disagree) and the most moving ones (when sacrifices are made).
Abrams makes the movie look great (he obviously doesn't care if people make fun of his penchant for lens flares, apparently), making this a film worth the extra bucks for 3D and IMAX. Granted, the stereoscopic vision works best in the action sequences or in the vertiginous overhead shots of the city skyline of future San Francisco; it's a little less appealing when he's shooting a conversation close up, and a random nose pops in and out of the left side of the screen.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" continues Abrams' gambit of retelling the "Star Trek" saga, only slightly backward and upside down, and some of his tampering with canon will no doubt solicit yowls from the usual corners of the internet. (Admittedly, I felt a little cheated by writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof indulging in a cake-and-eat-it ending, but it's not a deal-breaker.)
The movie may not offer the jolts of surprise that its predecessor did - no sequel can, really - but this new Enterprise remains exciting and compelling enough to make me want to follow it on any number of five-year missions.
Review: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Upholds The 'Even/Odd' Rule
Scott Mendelson, Contributor, Forbes
I’m not entirely sure whether Star Trek Into Darkness is an objectively better film than the 2009 Star Trek reboot. It is arguably no better written than the last time around, with the film again coasting on its technical aspects and sheer chemistry of its cast over a story that makes little sense and feels rushed. And the picture is hobbled, especially in its second half, by an inexplicable choice to chain itself to the original mythology to its disservice as a new story. But it fixes a key flaw of the first film while telling a politically and socially relevant adventure tale that excites and amuses throughout. It may offend classic Star Trek purists, but it is mostly an entertaining and visually dazzling picture. If only it had the courage to truly chart its own course.
J.J. Abrams has been explicit about keeping the film’s twists and turns secret, even to the point of hiding plot points that have little bearing on the story. The picture’s biggest twist is sadly the one involving the identity of a secondary character. Since pretty much everyone has known the scoop for two years, I was hoping that this was an Iron Man 3-style diversion, something painfully obvious to keep the fans off the scent of the film’s true secrets. But like Super 8, there are no real mysteries to be solved or jaw-dropping twists to be had in Abrams’s “mystery box”, only a relatively generic action-adventure buoyed by superb casting and quality set pieces. It is hardly fair to discuss a film’s marketing when discussing the final product, but the picture is pretty much as generic as its ‘dark sequel’ marketing implied, albeit with a lot less darkness. To the film’s benefit, the tone is perfectly balanced throughout, with humor and gravity dispersed where respectively appropriate.
So while Star Trek Into Darkness is pretty much a standard second-go around, it’s an awfully entertaining one. Like the initial 2009 entry, the film unfolds in non-stop movement, even during most of the ‘people talking to each other’ moments. The sheer momentum once again allows us to temporarily gloss over the plot issues at least until after the credits roll, although careful viewers will find much to nitpick as the film unspools (certain climactic develops severely undercut the potential for peril in any future installments). The basic outline involves Kirk and his crew and their response to a terrorist campaign waged by Starfleet Officer John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Right off the bat, you’ll notice that the sense of cocky entitlement that harmed Pine’s take on Kirk has been severely softened, which by itself makes for a much more enjoyable movie this time.
Also helping is a heaping helping of political subtext, as the film doesn’t just go for generic post-9/11 politics but specifically the morality of extra-judicial executions and preemptive warfare in the wake of high-casualty terrorist attacks (torpedoes = drones). The film doesn’t dwell on its subtext, but it’s there for anyone looking for it. The debates over militarizing the Enterprise and how to deal with new potential threats works both for its political content and as a parable for the push-pull over keeping Star Trek as it once was versus the desire to turn it into a more general audiences-pleasing and/or conventional hard-action science fiction franchise. For what it’s worth, the film does still mostly take place in deep space and the ambivalence of this ‘good guys versus bad guys’ approach is shared by several major characters.
The murderous John Harrison is actually a pretty thin character, even when you learn his background, but Cumberbatch is such a dynamic performer that he is able to sell his ‘villain monologue 101? boilerplate dialogue. So poorly defined is he that a supporting character actually chimes in late in the game to explain that he really is a bad-ass after all. The rest of the Enterprise crew shines per usual, although some have more to do than others. Everybody gets at least one shining moment (John Cho has a great bit of intimidation), although the focus is for the most part on Kirk, Spock, and Uhura. Urban gets somewhat shafted this go-around, as his Bones is basically comic relief. Alice Eve shows up as a seemingly peripheral character and exist only for a gratuitous T&A shot and for a pointless tie to the old continuity.
Ah, here we get to the film’s Achilles’ heel. While the first film basically created a kind of alternate universe to allow these new films to embark on their own missions unencumbered by decades of continuity, this second chapter feels the need to feel a part of not just the old-school Star Trek universe but specifically the portions of said universe that the most casual viewers would be familiar with (a tribble makes a cameo appearance). The intentional straight-jacketing on display will, especially in the film’s botched finale, remind people of Superman Returns in how it traps itself by pointlessly rehashing the most well-known portions of its most well-known adventures. What’s weirdest about the film’s callbacks is (aside from how botched they are) how they are arguably aimed at the very hardcore Star Trek fans who would be most put off by the film’s ‘stronger-faster-louder’ approach in the first place.
Up until that final reel or two, the film mostly works, getting away with some poor characterization and iffy scripting via the sheer chemistry of its cast and the inventiveness of its action. Abrams shot portions of this on IMAX film, and those sequences are glorious to behold. The prologue is a delight, a bright and colorful mini-episode that both plays around with the Prime Directive problem as well as highlighting our heroes actually helping people in peril. There are a few too many action sequences, including a second act fist-fight/shoot-out that undermines what should be Saldana’s big moment, but Abrams again proves himself an accomplished director of big-scale action, and the 3D is good enough to allow me to recommend the IMAX version without hesitation.
Taken as merely a big-scale summer blockbuster viewed by audiences with little emotional attachment to the world of Star Trek, it is pretty much a success and a more enjoyable film that the last go-around. The finale nearly kills the film, but there is enough to enjoy prior to those final beats to allow a recommendation.Since J.J. Abrams is now off doing Star Wars Episode VII, we have little clue of where the series will go from here. To Abrams’s credit, he leaves the door wide open to either continue in the “Star Trek to the Extreme!“ approach or dial it back a bit and return to stories of space exploration and what-have-you.
But if the series is truly to survive, it needs to find its courage to truly seek out uncharted territories and/or undiscovered countries unchained to its prior mythology. From here on out, the stage is set for this new variation on Star Trek to truly and finally ‘boldly go where no one has gone before’.
Box Office Take:
The film has already opened to $31 million in seven territories, which amounts to a 70% uptick compared to those markets’ respective openings for the first Star Trek. The focus this time around has been in pulling in non-Trekkies from foreign markets, as the last film earned just $128 million overseas despite a massive (especially for this series) $255 million domestic. The film cost $185 million, not that much more than the last film’s alleged $150 million budget, so it doesn’t have to ‘pull a Dark Knight‘ to be profitable. Oddly enough, the domestic buzz is relatively cool compared to just after the first film opened four years ago, when pundits like me were predicting a huge opening weekend jump for the sequel due to audience goodwill.
The tracking is around $95 million, which is pretty much the first film’s opening weekend of $79.5 million adjusted for inflation and the 3D price bump. The marketing has been painfully generic, trying desperately to sell the film as a ‘dark sequel’ along the lines of The Dark Knight or Skyfall. But in the end, the marketing is basically just offering ‘more of the same, but with a scary villain played by an actor who is only worshiped in the geek community’.
This is similar to the marketing of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (which also only saw a token budget increase from $90 million to $120 million), which basically sold “more of the same, but with Jared Harris as Moriarty!” That film actually opened to far less than the first entry ($40 million vs. $62 million) and ended up making just $186 million in the US versus $209 million gross of Sherlock Holmes. But overseas made up the difference, and A Game of Shadows wound up eclipsing Sherlock Holmes worldwide.
So while I no longer see Star Trek Into Darkness being the breakout sequel that we thought we were looking at a few years ago, a moderate uptick in overseas business should make up for any domestic slow-down, giving the film an overall upsurge in total worldwide box office.
Scott Mendelson, Contributor, Forbes
I’m not entirely sure whether Star Trek Into Darkness is an objectively better film than the 2009 Star Trek reboot. It is arguably no better written than the last time around, with the film again coasting on its technical aspects and sheer chemistry of its cast over a story that makes little sense and feels rushed. And the picture is hobbled, especially in its second half, by an inexplicable choice to chain itself to the original mythology to its disservice as a new story. But it fixes a key flaw of the first film while telling a politically and socially relevant adventure tale that excites and amuses throughout. It may offend classic Star Trek purists, but it is mostly an entertaining and visually dazzling picture. If only it had the courage to truly chart its own course.
J.J. Abrams has been explicit about keeping the film’s twists and turns secret, even to the point of hiding plot points that have little bearing on the story. The picture’s biggest twist is sadly the one involving the identity of a secondary character. Since pretty much everyone has known the scoop for two years, I was hoping that this was an Iron Man 3-style diversion, something painfully obvious to keep the fans off the scent of the film’s true secrets. But like Super 8, there are no real mysteries to be solved or jaw-dropping twists to be had in Abrams’s “mystery box”, only a relatively generic action-adventure buoyed by superb casting and quality set pieces. It is hardly fair to discuss a film’s marketing when discussing the final product, but the picture is pretty much as generic as its ‘dark sequel’ marketing implied, albeit with a lot less darkness. To the film’s benefit, the tone is perfectly balanced throughout, with humor and gravity dispersed where respectively appropriate.
So while Star Trek Into Darkness is pretty much a standard second-go around, it’s an awfully entertaining one. Like the initial 2009 entry, the film unfolds in non-stop movement, even during most of the ‘people talking to each other’ moments. The sheer momentum once again allows us to temporarily gloss over the plot issues at least until after the credits roll, although careful viewers will find much to nitpick as the film unspools (certain climactic develops severely undercut the potential for peril in any future installments). The basic outline involves Kirk and his crew and their response to a terrorist campaign waged by Starfleet Officer John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Right off the bat, you’ll notice that the sense of cocky entitlement that harmed Pine’s take on Kirk has been severely softened, which by itself makes for a much more enjoyable movie this time.
Also helping is a heaping helping of political subtext, as the film doesn’t just go for generic post-9/11 politics but specifically the morality of extra-judicial executions and preemptive warfare in the wake of high-casualty terrorist attacks (torpedoes = drones). The film doesn’t dwell on its subtext, but it’s there for anyone looking for it. The debates over militarizing the Enterprise and how to deal with new potential threats works both for its political content and as a parable for the push-pull over keeping Star Trek as it once was versus the desire to turn it into a more general audiences-pleasing and/or conventional hard-action science fiction franchise. For what it’s worth, the film does still mostly take place in deep space and the ambivalence of this ‘good guys versus bad guys’ approach is shared by several major characters.
The murderous John Harrison is actually a pretty thin character, even when you learn his background, but Cumberbatch is such a dynamic performer that he is able to sell his ‘villain monologue 101? boilerplate dialogue. So poorly defined is he that a supporting character actually chimes in late in the game to explain that he really is a bad-ass after all. The rest of the Enterprise crew shines per usual, although some have more to do than others. Everybody gets at least one shining moment (John Cho has a great bit of intimidation), although the focus is for the most part on Kirk, Spock, and Uhura. Urban gets somewhat shafted this go-around, as his Bones is basically comic relief. Alice Eve shows up as a seemingly peripheral character and exist only for a gratuitous T&A shot and for a pointless tie to the old continuity.
Ah, here we get to the film’s Achilles’ heel. While the first film basically created a kind of alternate universe to allow these new films to embark on their own missions unencumbered by decades of continuity, this second chapter feels the need to feel a part of not just the old-school Star Trek universe but specifically the portions of said universe that the most casual viewers would be familiar with (a tribble makes a cameo appearance). The intentional straight-jacketing on display will, especially in the film’s botched finale, remind people of Superman Returns in how it traps itself by pointlessly rehashing the most well-known portions of its most well-known adventures. What’s weirdest about the film’s callbacks is (aside from how botched they are) how they are arguably aimed at the very hardcore Star Trek fans who would be most put off by the film’s ‘stronger-faster-louder’ approach in the first place.
Up until that final reel or two, the film mostly works, getting away with some poor characterization and iffy scripting via the sheer chemistry of its cast and the inventiveness of its action. Abrams shot portions of this on IMAX film, and those sequences are glorious to behold. The prologue is a delight, a bright and colorful mini-episode that both plays around with the Prime Directive problem as well as highlighting our heroes actually helping people in peril. There are a few too many action sequences, including a second act fist-fight/shoot-out that undermines what should be Saldana’s big moment, but Abrams again proves himself an accomplished director of big-scale action, and the 3D is good enough to allow me to recommend the IMAX version without hesitation.
Taken as merely a big-scale summer blockbuster viewed by audiences with little emotional attachment to the world of Star Trek, it is pretty much a success and a more enjoyable film that the last go-around. The finale nearly kills the film, but there is enough to enjoy prior to those final beats to allow a recommendation.Since J.J. Abrams is now off doing Star Wars Episode VII, we have little clue of where the series will go from here. To Abrams’s credit, he leaves the door wide open to either continue in the “Star Trek to the Extreme!“ approach or dial it back a bit and return to stories of space exploration and what-have-you.
But if the series is truly to survive, it needs to find its courage to truly seek out uncharted territories and/or undiscovered countries unchained to its prior mythology. From here on out, the stage is set for this new variation on Star Trek to truly and finally ‘boldly go where no one has gone before’.
Box Office Take:
The film has already opened to $31 million in seven territories, which amounts to a 70% uptick compared to those markets’ respective openings for the first Star Trek. The focus this time around has been in pulling in non-Trekkies from foreign markets, as the last film earned just $128 million overseas despite a massive (especially for this series) $255 million domestic. The film cost $185 million, not that much more than the last film’s alleged $150 million budget, so it doesn’t have to ‘pull a Dark Knight‘ to be profitable. Oddly enough, the domestic buzz is relatively cool compared to just after the first film opened four years ago, when pundits like me were predicting a huge opening weekend jump for the sequel due to audience goodwill.
The tracking is around $95 million, which is pretty much the first film’s opening weekend of $79.5 million adjusted for inflation and the 3D price bump. The marketing has been painfully generic, trying desperately to sell the film as a ‘dark sequel’ along the lines of The Dark Knight or Skyfall. But in the end, the marketing is basically just offering ‘more of the same, but with a scary villain played by an actor who is only worshiped in the geek community’.
This is similar to the marketing of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (which also only saw a token budget increase from $90 million to $120 million), which basically sold “more of the same, but with Jared Harris as Moriarty!” That film actually opened to far less than the first entry ($40 million vs. $62 million) and ended up making just $186 million in the US versus $209 million gross of Sherlock Holmes. But overseas made up the difference, and A Game of Shadows wound up eclipsing Sherlock Holmes worldwide.
So while I no longer see Star Trek Into Darkness being the breakout sequel that we thought we were looking at a few years ago, a moderate uptick in overseas business should make up for any domestic slow-down, giving the film an overall upsurge in total worldwide box office.
Well Jack, how about this one?????
Movie Review: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Doesn't Feel Like 'Star Trek'
David Blaustein | ABC News Blogs
J.J. Abrams is a genius, and it's not because "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a great movie. It is not.
Director Abrams and his team are clearly passionate about the original "Star Trek" and the early "Star Trek" movies. His 2009 big-screen reboot was simply fantastic, and while he's said that film was directed at "Star Trek" fans, "Star Trek Into Darkness," he says, was made with the general movie-going public in mind, which sounds like code for, "We dumbed it down."
Somewhere in the back of Abrams's mind, he must feel like James T. Kirk when he beat the Kobayashi Maru. For those who don't know, in "Star Trek" mythology the Kobayashi Maru is an unbeatable test given to Starfleet cadets to judge how they handle themselves in a no-win situation. Kirk is the only cadet who's ever beaten it, and that's because he cheated. With their intention of making a "Star Trek" movie more appealing to the mainstream, Abrams and his team of writers were creating their own no-win situation with die-hard "Star Trek" fans and, you would think, discerning moviegoers. The question is, did he get away with it? Well, yes - but only because he cheated.
From the opening scene of "Star Trek Into Darkness," Abrams treats us to an absolutely stunning, IMAX 3D experience. Visually, it's one of the best uses of this technology thus far.
On a distant planet, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban) are running through a lush, vivid red field that's so pleasing to look at, you may experience multiple eyegasms. Chasing them are the planet's primitive denizens, who have no idea that they're not alone in the universe. Turns out, Kirk and friends are trying to save the planet by dropping Spock (Zachary Quinto) into a volcano, where he'll deposit a device that will kill the volcano and save the planet. Only something goes wrong and puts Spock in danger. In order to save him, Kirk will have to reveal the Enterprise to the natives, in violation of Starfleet's Prime Directive, which is to never interfere with a developing culture.
Guess who's willing to die rather than break the Prime Directive? Spock! Guess who's going to break rules to save his friend? James T. Kirk! Back on Earth, Kirk's violation gets him stripped of his command of the Enterprise, and the captain's chair is returned to Kirk's mentor, Captain Pike.
In the meantime, this dude John Harrison - played by Jeremy Irons' younger and better-looking clone, Benedict Cumberbatch - has convinced a Starfleet member to suicide-bomb an important Starfleet building. That act of terrorism forces the highest-ranking members of Starfleet to gather in a completely unsecure room high above Starfleet headquarters, a room that's curiously susceptible to outside attack. Which Harrison provides, ultimately resulting in Kirk getting the Enterprise back, with the mission of going after Harrison.
Cumberbatch's character has been the subject of much debate. Is he Khan, the genetic superman from the original series? Sorry to disappoint you, fans: he's actually Guinan, the bartender played by Whoopi Goldberg in "Star Trek: The Next Generation.: Ok, fine, he's Khan. It's out there. It's on IMDB. I'm not telling you anything most people who care don't already know.
Most "Star Trek" fans will be thrilled when Harrison reveals his real name, and they'll be thrilled to hear and see the many other references to the original "Star Trek" series. It's familiar territory, and that's one of the reasons we so readily consume properties that have already been done, and done successfully. And this is the cheating I mentioned earlier. By serving "Star Trek" fans familiar series touchstones set against an extraordinary visual palate that was unimaginable even 10 years ago, Abrams will win over less discerning fans. It's an extraordinary illusion, executed with cunning direction and mostly excellent acting.
It is easy to see why Cumberbatch has developed a dedicated following from his work as the title character on the British series "Sherlock." He's a walking spectacle. If I was an actor with an ego, I would not want to share screen time with this man. Unless you're there to be comic relief, Cumberbatch is going to make you look like a dinner theater actor . Which brings me to Pine, who really is an excellent actor. However, while his angst and rebellious attitude was perfect for Kirk in the 2009 reboot, it doesn't work here. When he gets angry, he sounds like a bratty child, similar to Luke Skywalker in "Star Wars" before he took his hero's journey. In this movie, Pine has a moment when Kirk makes a decision that harkens back to "Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn." It seems so forced and nonsensical, watching House Speaker John Boehner hold hands with Sen. Al Franken and sing campfire songs would seem less forced and more, well, logical.
As Abrams said, "Star Trek Into Darkness" was designed to appeal to a mass audience. From my perspective, that was a huge mistake. Whether you're a serious "Star Trek" fan or merely a discerning movie fan, you're likely going to find yourself annoyed by this sell-out philosophy and how it affects the film. At the same time, Spock, Bones and Scotty (Simon Pegg) will make you laugh, and the visuals will impress. In the case of James T. Kirk and J.J. Abrams, cheaters do indeed win. At least, they do at the box office.
Two-and-a-half out of five stars.
Movie Review: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Doesn't Feel Like 'Star Trek'
David Blaustein | ABC News Blogs
J.J. Abrams is a genius, and it's not because "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a great movie. It is not.
Director Abrams and his team are clearly passionate about the original "Star Trek" and the early "Star Trek" movies. His 2009 big-screen reboot was simply fantastic, and while he's said that film was directed at "Star Trek" fans, "Star Trek Into Darkness," he says, was made with the general movie-going public in mind, which sounds like code for, "We dumbed it down."
Somewhere in the back of Abrams's mind, he must feel like James T. Kirk when he beat the Kobayashi Maru. For those who don't know, in "Star Trek" mythology the Kobayashi Maru is an unbeatable test given to Starfleet cadets to judge how they handle themselves in a no-win situation. Kirk is the only cadet who's ever beaten it, and that's because he cheated. With their intention of making a "Star Trek" movie more appealing to the mainstream, Abrams and his team of writers were creating their own no-win situation with die-hard "Star Trek" fans and, you would think, discerning moviegoers. The question is, did he get away with it? Well, yes - but only because he cheated.
From the opening scene of "Star Trek Into Darkness," Abrams treats us to an absolutely stunning, IMAX 3D experience. Visually, it's one of the best uses of this technology thus far.
On a distant planet, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban) are running through a lush, vivid red field that's so pleasing to look at, you may experience multiple eyegasms. Chasing them are the planet's primitive denizens, who have no idea that they're not alone in the universe. Turns out, Kirk and friends are trying to save the planet by dropping Spock (Zachary Quinto) into a volcano, where he'll deposit a device that will kill the volcano and save the planet. Only something goes wrong and puts Spock in danger. In order to save him, Kirk will have to reveal the Enterprise to the natives, in violation of Starfleet's Prime Directive, which is to never interfere with a developing culture.
Guess who's willing to die rather than break the Prime Directive? Spock! Guess who's going to break rules to save his friend? James T. Kirk! Back on Earth, Kirk's violation gets him stripped of his command of the Enterprise, and the captain's chair is returned to Kirk's mentor, Captain Pike.
In the meantime, this dude John Harrison - played by Jeremy Irons' younger and better-looking clone, Benedict Cumberbatch - has convinced a Starfleet member to suicide-bomb an important Starfleet building. That act of terrorism forces the highest-ranking members of Starfleet to gather in a completely unsecure room high above Starfleet headquarters, a room that's curiously susceptible to outside attack. Which Harrison provides, ultimately resulting in Kirk getting the Enterprise back, with the mission of going after Harrison.
Cumberbatch's character has been the subject of much debate. Is he Khan, the genetic superman from the original series? Sorry to disappoint you, fans: he's actually Guinan, the bartender played by Whoopi Goldberg in "Star Trek: The Next Generation.: Ok, fine, he's Khan. It's out there. It's on IMDB. I'm not telling you anything most people who care don't already know.
Most "Star Trek" fans will be thrilled when Harrison reveals his real name, and they'll be thrilled to hear and see the many other references to the original "Star Trek" series. It's familiar territory, and that's one of the reasons we so readily consume properties that have already been done, and done successfully. And this is the cheating I mentioned earlier. By serving "Star Trek" fans familiar series touchstones set against an extraordinary visual palate that was unimaginable even 10 years ago, Abrams will win over less discerning fans. It's an extraordinary illusion, executed with cunning direction and mostly excellent acting.
It is easy to see why Cumberbatch has developed a dedicated following from his work as the title character on the British series "Sherlock." He's a walking spectacle. If I was an actor with an ego, I would not want to share screen time with this man. Unless you're there to be comic relief, Cumberbatch is going to make you look like a dinner theater actor . Which brings me to Pine, who really is an excellent actor. However, while his angst and rebellious attitude was perfect for Kirk in the 2009 reboot, it doesn't work here. When he gets angry, he sounds like a bratty child, similar to Luke Skywalker in "Star Wars" before he took his hero's journey. In this movie, Pine has a moment when Kirk makes a decision that harkens back to "Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn." It seems so forced and nonsensical, watching House Speaker John Boehner hold hands with Sen. Al Franken and sing campfire songs would seem less forced and more, well, logical.
As Abrams said, "Star Trek Into Darkness" was designed to appeal to a mass audience. From my perspective, that was a huge mistake. Whether you're a serious "Star Trek" fan or merely a discerning movie fan, you're likely going to find yourself annoyed by this sell-out philosophy and how it affects the film. At the same time, Spock, Bones and Scotty (Simon Pegg) will make you laugh, and the visuals will impress. In the case of James T. Kirk and J.J. Abrams, cheaters do indeed win. At least, they do at the box office.
Two-and-a-half out of five stars.
Roddenberry was a combat bomber pilot and later a cop. I'd think he would have been no stranger to the moral dilemma's his characters go through now and in versions past. If the originals weren't graphic in their violence or spectacular in terms of production values, we know it was due to the social limitations of those times as well as the practical budgetary constraints they faced for FX. I happened to think that the new versions are less portrayed as caricatures than the original. In other words I think Roddenberry would have been pleased. After all the "die hard" approach serves to better illustrate the Federation's, Gene's proxy, utopian aspirations by providing starker contrast. Just my opinion. If you are going to reboot a franchise for a new generation, do it, but to sever all ties, to neglect to mine the mythos, would be as foolish as Lucas taking away the mystery and wonder of "The Force" by introducing midi-chlorians.
Abrams in my opinion did a fine job balancing both.
Abrams in my opinion did a fine job balancing both.
Saw the film last evening. Definitely a blast to see. The interaction of all of the original characters aboard the Enterprise always seems fun and the non stop action sequences from beginning to end were beyond typical Star Trek. I must admit that I was juiced to see it
Is it a great movie? NO
Is it worth seeing...Definitely, especially if you are an old fan
Definitely a summer block buster
My rating 2 1/2-3 stars (at most)
I was fascinated as to how many planets they set foot in yesterday in the film that must have had earth like atmospheres as they never seemed to wear spacesuits to protect.
I thought that the way they had Harrison imprisoned in a cell behind the glass wall had eerie reminders of Hannibal Lechter in Silence Of The Lambs
If I see it again it will be in Imax 3D
Is it a great movie? NO
Is it worth seeing...Definitely, especially if you are an old fan
Definitely a summer block buster
My rating 2 1/2-3 stars (at most)
I was fascinated as to how many planets they set foot in yesterday in the film that must have had earth like atmospheres as they never seemed to wear spacesuits to protect.
I thought that the way they had Harrison imprisoned in a cell behind the glass wall had eerie reminders of Hannibal Lechter in Silence Of The Lambs
If I see it again it will be in Imax 3D
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |