Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

[MmzHrrdb]

Well, I can finally say that I've seen a 2013 release that I genuinely love. About time. Star Trek Into Darkness is crazy fun, well-crafted, and has a great story as well. It's rare to see a summer blockbuster so intelligently made, and so easily enjoyable. I haven't had this much fun at the theater since last year's Wreck-It Ralph. Into Darkness may not have the accessibility of its predecessor, but this is still a superb action flick, and maybe the best action flick I'll see all year.

James T. Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the Enterprise crew must locate terrorist John Harrison and bring him to justice. That's really all I can say without giving away any of the plot twists, as there are several. Be assured, this is a very intelligent story (especially in regards to most popcorn flicks), but there's not much that can be said without spoiling the film.

With that being said, you can probably tell that Star Trek Into Darkness is a highly unpredictable film, which is just one reason why I so enjoyed watching it. From the opening scene to the chaotic and suspenseful finale, you never know what's going to happen next, and it's a blast.

The action scenes are thrilling, the special effects are incredible, and the cinematography is beautiful. The script is great (though once again, there are a couple cringe-worthy lines), and of course; the Enterprise crew.

As was true of the predecessor, the main reason Star Trek Into Darkness is so enjoyable are the characters. Kirk is as likeable as ever, and his friendship with Spock plays out like a conversation between Han Solo and C-3PO. Dr. Bones McCoy gets his share of clever lines, Scotty is as hilarious as ever, and my personal favorite; Pavel Chekov, gets plenty of screen time as well.

Even Uhura, a character I had issues with in the first film, is made more likeable in this film. She's given more of a humorous vibe to her character, which makes her a lot more agreeable, even if she's still the weakest member of the Star Trek cast.

And then there's the villain. This is probably the area that Star Trek Into Darkness most improves upon it's predecessor. The villain in the previous film, Nero, was serviceable, but not particularly memorable. James Harrison on the other hand, the baddie of this film, is not only memorable, but unforgettable. He's menacing, he's smart, and he's responsible for a number of twists in the film. He also has a lot more depth than Nero, and his role adds a lot of psychology to the film at times.

As I've mentioned a few times, there are a lot of twists in this film. And while I did enjoy them, they also represent a possible road block for a few. The great thing about 2009's Star Trek is that it could be enjoyed without previous Star Trek knowledge. And while the same can mostly be said for Into Darkness, some of the film's biggest twists aren't going to have much of an impact on those that don't know a little Star Trek history.

The cast is great. I don't really feel like it's even necessary to go over the individual cast members; they were all fantastic. The single actor I wish to single out is Benedict Cumberbatch of BBC fame. Performing a stand-out villain, Cumberbatch perfectly portrays the many layers of the character with both elegance and sometimes shocking brutality.

The score by Michael Giacchino is not only excellent, I would say it's even better than his also-excellent score for the original. Big, grand, and with a main theme guaranteed to give you chills, this is another masterpiece from the master.

While dramatically darker in tone than it's predecessor and slightly less accessible, Star Trek Into Darkness is every bit as good as the original. Thrilling, funny, visually stunning, and unpredictable, this is the summer film to beat. I may not be a Trekkie, but I know a good film when I see one. I just hope there isn't another 4 year wait for the sequel.

Score: 8/10

[CMonster]

Are you some sort of satirist? You can't honestly have gone into watch Into Darkness and come out with the phrases "intelligent story", "highly unpredictable", and "great story". I very much enjoyed the film but what exactly was unpredictable? Was it Kirk being a hot-headed renegade learning to be a leader? Nope, happened in the first film. Was it Spock learning how to let out emotions at the right time? Nope, happened in the first film. Was it villain gets intentionally captured to advance his plan? Nope, happened basically every action movie since the Dark Knight. The script is pretty flimsy overall. None of the character's really progressed at all. They all just retreaded the same arcs from the first. Also, since we are apparently trying to avoid spoilers, I will just say the villain's plan was incredibly dumb. Like crazy dumb. Plus, it added nothing new or original to the Star Trek universe. Don't get me wrong, it was well composed and full of some great action set pieces all set to some very good (albeit very loud) music. It had a lot to offer, just not in the intelligent and original story category.

[ShogunRua]

Are you some sort of satirist? You can't honestly have gone into watch Into Darkness and come out with the phrases "intelligent story", "highly unpredictable", and "great story". I very much enjoyed the film but what exactly was unpredictable? Was it Kirk being a hot-headed renegade learning to be a leader? Nope, happened in the first film. Was it Spock learning how to let out emotions at the right time? Nope, happened in the first film. Was it villain gets intentionally captured to advance his plan? Nope, happened basically every action movie since the Dark Knight. The script is pretty flimsy overall. None of the character's really progressed at all. They all just retreaded the same arcs from the first. Also, since we are apparently trying to avoid spoilers, I will just say the villain's plan was incredibly dumb. Like crazy dumb. Plus, it added nothing new or original to the Star Trek universe. Don't get me wrong, it was well composed and full of some great action set pieces all set to some very good (albeit very loud) music. It had a lot to offer, just not in the intelligent and original story category.

Dude, you have to understand, this is the average theater-goer's mentality nowadays. They don't read books. They are poorly educated. The movies they watch are predominantly Hollywood blockbusters of the last 20 years, with a heavy emphasis on animated children's fare.

So that means only a few movies before 1990, virtually no foreign films, and nothing that can't be fully appreciated by a child of 8. Instead it's the modern Hollywood blockbuster. A movie made to appeal to as many people as possible. "Hitting all four quadrants" in movie finance lingo. If an eight year old can't make complete sense of it, it needs to be dumbed down, with an extra helping of generic.

And in the absence of knowing what the hell a good, complex story is (either through education, books, or even other movies), it's little surprise people believe "Star Trek Into Darkness" is it.

By the way, the above was a general rant about the movie-going public nowadays, not anyone specific. It's something I find really irritating, and has gnawed at me for a long time.

This piece says it way better than I ever can;

http://www.filthycritic.com/index.php/o ... ron-legacy

[Stewball]

For the most part I agree, but could you shift the focus of your rant away from blockbusters and toward crap, of any degree. There have been excellent blockbusters, and you could say that anything rated R is sacrificing a shotgun approach to box-office for a more thoughtful production. Obviously not always though. My approach is to see everything that presents even a glimmer of hope, which eliminates the horror and teen crap, so I don't miss anything.

BTW, a lot of people do still read books, but unfortunately, like movies, they tend to gravitate to the crap.

BTW, BTW, what is a blockbuster?

[ShogunRua]

For the most part I agree, but could you shift the focus of your rant away from blockbusters and toward crap, of any degree. There have been excellent blockbusters, and you could say that anything rated R is sacrificing a shotgun approach to box-office for a more thoughtful production. Obviously not always though. My approach is to see everything that presents even a glimmer of hope, which eliminates the horror and teen crap, so I don't miss anything.

Excellent blockbusters fall under the same intellectual description as shitty blockbusters, only they're more entertaining.

Just like CMonster is disturbed by the remake of Star Trek 2 being called "unexpected" or a "smart, great story", I was equally shocked by everyone proclaiming Inception to be so damn intelligent and even "confusing".

And I fucking LOVED Inception, just like CMonster enjoyed the remake of Star Trek 2. For me, Inception was the ultimate exciting brainless summer blockbuster popcorn film. But "deep"? "Smart"? It's a dumbed-down version of "Paprika"! (Which Nolan admitted was his inspiration)

BTW, a lot of people do still read books, but unfortunately, like movies, they tend to gravitate to the crap.

Wrong. Statistics show vastly fewer people read nowadays than in earlier decades, and the average reader consumes far less books.

BTW, BTW, what is a blockbuster?

A movie made for lots of money, with saturation press and advertisement, designated to appeal to as broad a group of people as possible.

The first two blockbusters were "Star Wars" and "Jaws". Both were excellent films. The pictures that have followed from that tradition for the last 40-odd years have mostly been shit.

[Stewball]

A movie made for lots of money, with saturation press and advertisement, designated to appeal to as broad a group of people as possible.

The first two blockbusters were "Star Wars" and "Jaws". Both were excellent films. The pictures that have followed from that tradition for the last 40-odd years have mostly been shit.

So, haha (to quote Ben Rumson), MOSTLY shit! It doesn't disqualify if it's happens to be also "deep" or "smart"--or even make you think. Did Inception not make you think? And are you saying that brilliance is never inspired by previous examples of brilliance in the same vein? I'm sure Einstein would beg to differ.....as would I.

[Filligan]

Every thread on this site devolves into a pseudo-intellectual debate with ShogunRua. Every. Fucking. Thread.

[ShogunRua]

Did Inception not make you think?

To a shallow and limited extent, yes. I "think" whenever I watch any movie or the trashiest and most generic detective work. However, it's still something that can be fully appreciated by an 8 year-old.

Every thread on this site devolves into a pseudo-intellectual debate with ShogunRua. Every. Fucking. Thread.

I wish! At least this debate is concerned with films, and touches upon the movie in the subject title.

Besides, what else would you like us to talk about in this thread? "OOH, COOL EXPLOSIONS!!!" or a nuanced discussion of the staggering originality and genius that is the plot and characterization of the remake of Star Trek 2? Was Filligan deeply disappointed he didn't get either of those?

[CMonster]

Did Inception not make you think?

OMG! The totem wobbled! Ambiguous ending to make you question reality! I wasn't thinking...cause my mind was blown.

[Stewball]

Did Inception not make you think?

OMG! The totem wobbled! Ambiguous ending to make you question reality! I wasn't thinking...cause my mind was blown.

What ambiguous? Yes, there is ambiguity, but not about the top is toppling at the end. Check this excerpt from an interview with Nolan:

Wired: Either way, [Cobb] has found a reality where he got what he needed. I know that you’re not going to tell me, but I would have guessed that really, because the audience fills in the gaps, you yourself would say, “I don’t have an answer.”

Nolan: Oh no, I’ve got an answer.

Wired: You do?!

Nolan: Oh yeah. I’ve always believed that if you make a film with ambiguity, it needs to be based on a sincere interpretation. If it’s not, then it will contradict itself, or it will be somehow insubstantial and end up making the audience feel cheated.