Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Review: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
283 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Leeper
May 22, 2013, 12:56:02 PM5/22/13
to
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: As a piece of intelligent science fiction
J. J. Abrams's new STAR TREK film is only middling, but
as an action film it is really quite good. It has some
arresting images, some very engaging character
development, and perhaps two or three too many explosive
action scenes. A saboteur apparently within the
Starfleet Command is bent on destroying it. Captain
Kirk, dishonored for his handling of a previous space
mission, nonetheless has the Enterprise restored to him
to sneak into Klingon territory and capture the culprit.
Don't like the plotline? Wait ten minutes and the story
will have transformed into something else. This film has
a complex plot that manages to balance character writing
with slam-bang action sequences. Great acting by the
intriguing Benedict Cumberbatch. Oh, and as a "Star Trek"
series film INTO DARKNESS ranks among the very best.
Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
Minor spoiler after the main body of the review.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS opens in the middle of a spectacular action
sequence involving an erupting volcano and the Starship Enterprise
doing something we never knew before that a starship could do. In
saving Spock (Zachary Quinto), Kirk (Chris Pine) must violate the
Prime Directive. Back on Earth Kirk has his command taken away
from him. But after an attack on Starfleet command by a saboteur
Kirk gets the Enterprise back for an emergency mission to go after
rogue Starfleet agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) who is
hiding out in on the Klingon home planet where just being present
is an act of war. But Kirk is in for some surprises. And so is
the audience. This is a film in which you can never be sure what
is really going on until the end credits roll.
The writing by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof
balances character drama, plot twists, and action scenes. The
latter are an embarrassment of riches. They come strong and fast
until the explosive climax. Then something else happens and we are
in a different action sequence and a different climax. Then as
things are tied up we find out something else and there is another
action sequence. The film is eventually 132 minutes with only
moments not action-packed. The writers do know how to make
effective use of material from the original series.
By placing the story in an alternate universe from the TV show and
the pre-Abrams films Abrams is able to be faithful to the original
series or surprise the audience with a major change as he wishes.
In this universe Spock can be an orphan and have a love interest,
neither of which were true in the original stories.
In the last Abram's "Star Trek" film, STAR TREK, the young actors
seemed to be doing impressions of their original counterparts. One
could hear Leonard Nimoy's voice in Zachary Quinto's lines and Carl
Urban felt like he was mimicking DeForest Kelley as Bones. By now
they are comfortable in those voice patterns and sound much more
natural. One would hope they could be their own actors and not
have to mimic their predecessors the entire series. The one
character that really did not fit his role was Simon Pegg, who
played Scotty too broadly and with a little too much unbelievable
and silly comedy. The comedy is toned down a bit and he is given a
bigger role in the new film. The result is maybe still a little
too comic, but much better.
Two actors who can each believably play intelligent and interesting
characters get to square off here. There is Zachary Quinto, the
series Spock and actor from the excellent MARGIN CALL. Opposite
him is his British equivalent Benedict Cumberbatch, TV's Sherlock.
Here he plays a character with ambiguity and complexity.
Things I could have done without include a planetoid near Jupiter
with Earth gravity, climate, and atmosphere. Starfleet Command
seems to have a meeting room based on the War Room from
DR. STRANGELOVE. There is a discussion whether the Enterprise is
for exploration or for military purposes. Hint: The Enterprise
seems to be heavily armed. Of course, it could just be that the
best defense against a bad heavily armed starship is a good heavily
armed starship.
Do not go to STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS looking to be intrigued by its
science fiction ideas. If you want to get into the characters in
the new "Star Trek" universe or if you want some high-octane
actions scenes with a strong dose of spectacular visual effects, or
if you just want to have a little fun, this film is and will
probably remain one of the best of the year. I rate STAR TREK INTO
DARKNESS a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. The film could
not be shot both 3D and IMAX. The producers chose IMAX so the 3D
was added after the shooting.
Minor spoiler:
This is the most spectacular "Star Trek" film so far. There are
some major flaws in the script. One is a sequence that is almost a
reenactment of an iconic sequence in the original film series. The
other is one that promises to make a major change in the series
only to be undone by a deus ex machina reset button. Also when you
have a major actor in a minor role, it is often a tipoff that he
will later become important to the plot.
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/combined>
What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2013 Mark R. Leeper
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: As a piece of intelligent science fiction
J. J. Abrams's new STAR TREK film is only middling, but
as an action film it is really quite good. It has some
arresting images, some very engaging character
development, and perhaps two or three too many explosive
action scenes. A saboteur apparently within the
Starfleet Command is bent on destroying it. Captain
Kirk, dishonored for his handling of a previous space
mission, nonetheless has the Enterprise restored to him
to sneak into Klingon territory and capture the culprit.
Don't like the plotline? Wait ten minutes and the story
will have transformed into something else. This film has
a complex plot that manages to balance character writing
with slam-bang action sequences. Great acting by the
intriguing Benedict Cumberbatch. Oh, and as a "Star Trek"
series film INTO DARKNESS ranks among the very best.
Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
Minor spoiler after the main body of the review.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS opens in the middle of a spectacular action
sequence involving an erupting volcano and the Starship Enterprise
doing something we never knew before that a starship could do. In
saving Spock (Zachary Quinto), Kirk (Chris Pine) must violate the
Prime Directive. Back on Earth Kirk has his command taken away
from him. But after an attack on Starfleet command by a saboteur
Kirk gets the Enterprise back for an emergency mission to go after
rogue Starfleet agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) who is
hiding out in on the Klingon home planet where just being present
is an act of war. But Kirk is in for some surprises. And so is
the audience. This is a film in which you can never be sure what
is really going on until the end credits roll.
The writing by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof
balances character drama, plot twists, and action scenes. The
latter are an embarrassment of riches. They come strong and fast
until the explosive climax. Then something else happens and we are
in a different action sequence and a different climax. Then as
things are tied up we find out something else and there is another
action sequence. The film is eventually 132 minutes with only
moments not action-packed. The writers do know how to make
effective use of material from the original series.
By placing the story in an alternate universe from the TV show and
the pre-Abrams films Abrams is able to be faithful to the original
series or surprise the audience with a major change as he wishes.
In this universe Spock can be an orphan and have a love interest,
neither of which were true in the original stories.
In the last Abram's "Star Trek" film, STAR TREK, the young actors
seemed to be doing impressions of their original counterparts. One
could hear Leonard Nimoy's voice in Zachary Quinto's lines and Carl
Urban felt like he was mimicking DeForest Kelley as Bones. By now
they are comfortable in those voice patterns and sound much more
natural. One would hope they could be their own actors and not
have to mimic their predecessors the entire series. The one
character that really did not fit his role was Simon Pegg, who
played Scotty too broadly and with a little too much unbelievable
and silly comedy. The comedy is toned down a bit and he is given a
bigger role in the new film. The result is maybe still a little
too comic, but much better.
Two actors who can each believably play intelligent and interesting
characters get to square off here. There is Zachary Quinto, the
series Spock and actor from the excellent MARGIN CALL. Opposite
him is his British equivalent Benedict Cumberbatch, TV's Sherlock.
Here he plays a character with ambiguity and complexity.
Things I could have done without include a planetoid near Jupiter
with Earth gravity, climate, and atmosphere. Starfleet Command
seems to have a meeting room based on the War Room from
DR. STRANGELOVE. There is a discussion whether the Enterprise is
for exploration or for military purposes. Hint: The Enterprise
seems to be heavily armed. Of course, it could just be that the
best defense against a bad heavily armed starship is a good heavily
armed starship.
Do not go to STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS looking to be intrigued by its
science fiction ideas. If you want to get into the characters in
the new "Star Trek" universe or if you want some high-octane
actions scenes with a strong dose of spectacular visual effects, or
if you just want to have a little fun, this film is and will
probably remain one of the best of the year. I rate STAR TREK INTO
DARKNESS a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. The film could
not be shot both 3D and IMAX. The producers chose IMAX so the 3D
was added after the shooting.
Minor spoiler:
This is the most spectacular "Star Trek" film so far. There are
some major flaws in the script. One is a sequence that is almost a
reenactment of an iconic sequence in the original film series. The
other is one that promises to make a major change in the series
only to be undone by a deus ex machina reset button. Also when you
have a major actor in a minor role, it is often a tipoff that he
will later become important to the plot.
Film Credits: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/combined>
What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2013 Mark R. Leeper
trotsky
May 22, 2013, 1:32:26 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/13 11:56 AM, Mark Leeper wrote:
> STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> CAPSULE: As a piece of intelligent science fiction
> J. J. Abrams's new STAR TREK film is only middling, but
> as an action film it is really quite good. It has some
> arresting images, some very engaging character
> development, and perhaps two or three too many explosive
> action scenes. A saboteur apparently within the
> Starfleet Command is bent on destroying it. Captain
> Kirk, dishonored for his handling of a previous space
> mission, nonetheless has the Enterprise restored to him
> to sneak into Klingon territory and capture the culprit.
> Don't like the plotline? Wait ten minutes and the story
> will have transformed into something else. This film has
> a complex plot that manages to balance character writing
> with slam-bang action sequences. Great acting by the
> intriguing Benedict Cumberbatch. Oh, and as a "Star Trek"
> series film INTO DARKNESS ranks among the very best.
> Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
I think you rank the movie slightly higher than I do, but your recap is
> STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> CAPSULE: As a piece of intelligent science fiction
> J. J. Abrams's new STAR TREK film is only middling, but
> as an action film it is really quite good. It has some
> arresting images, some very engaging character
> development, and perhaps two or three too many explosive
> action scenes. A saboteur apparently within the
> Starfleet Command is bent on destroying it. Captain
> Kirk, dishonored for his handling of a previous space
> mission, nonetheless has the Enterprise restored to him
> to sneak into Klingon territory and capture the culprit.
> Don't like the plotline? Wait ten minutes and the story
> will have transformed into something else. This film has
> a complex plot that manages to balance character writing
> with slam-bang action sequences. Great acting by the
> intriguing Benedict Cumberbatch. Oh, and as a "Star Trek"
> series film INTO DARKNESS ranks among the very best.
> Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) or 8/10
excellent.
--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
WeReo_BoY
May 22, 2013, 2:00:41 PM5/22/13
to
In article
<a2914e16-c360-400b...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
will one of yous buy me a ticket so i can go?
--
"Then I started having sex with one of the guys. He was kinda good-
looking and blond and legal age. And he had a real nice ass. There was
some play; and he liked me too and even initiated the play. I put my
finger in his ass and he shit awl over my hand." - Scott Lifshine,
June 2nd 2009
<a2914e16-c360-400b...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
--
"Then I started having sex with one of the guys. He was kinda good-
looking and blond and legal age. And he had a real nice ass. There was
some play; and he liked me too and even initiated the play. I put my
finger in his ass and he shit awl over my hand." - Scott Lifshine,
June 2nd 2009
Russell Watson
May 22, 2013, 5:19:20 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 12:56 PM, Mark Leeper wrote:
<snip for space>
out near Kronos (sp?). The thing that was near Jupiter was the drydock
that contained the other thing that won't be mentioned for spoilerish
reasons.
Starfleet Command
> seems to have a meeting room based on the War Room from
> DR. STRANGELOVE. There is a discussion whether the Enterprise is
> for exploration or for military purposes. Hint: The Enterprise
> seems to be heavily armed. Of course, it could just be that the
> best defense against a bad heavily armed starship is a good heavily
> armed starship.
<snip for space>
Given that they are exploring a galaxy with known hostile beings a
certain defensive capability makes sense. I was taken aback somewhat by
the discussion you cite though because in the original series it has
always been apparent that Star Fleet is at least a para-miltary
organization if not an outright one, based on everything from the
command structure and uniforms to the fact that all the ships are named
after modern day warships.
<snip for space>
>
> Things I could have done without include a planetoid near Jupiter
> with Earth gravity, climate, and atmosphere.
I think they were still a long way from Earth at that point, somewhere
> Things I could have done without include a planetoid near Jupiter
> with Earth gravity, climate, and atmosphere.
out near Kronos (sp?). The thing that was near Jupiter was the drydock
that contained the other thing that won't be mentioned for spoilerish
reasons.
Starfleet Command
> seems to have a meeting room based on the War Room from
> DR. STRANGELOVE. There is a discussion whether the Enterprise is
> for exploration or for military purposes. Hint: The Enterprise
> seems to be heavily armed. Of course, it could just be that the
> best defense against a bad heavily armed starship is a good heavily
> armed starship.
Given that they are exploring a galaxy with known hostile beings a
certain defensive capability makes sense. I was taken aback somewhat by
the discussion you cite though because in the original series it has
always been apparent that Star Fleet is at least a para-miltary
organization if not an outright one, based on everything from the
command structure and uniforms to the fact that all the ships are named
after modern day warships.
Message has been deleted
Tim Skirvin
May 22, 2013, 10:53:17 PM5/22/13
to
There is frustratingly little that can be written about _Star Trek
Into Darkness_ without either falling into blatant spoiler territory,
regurgitating the trailers, or just griping about the specifics. So let's
focus on one specific gripe: a blatant disregard for geography.
It is relatively common for movies to place all locations are
exactly as far away from each other as is necessary for the plot to
maintain its momentum; but it is the mark of a good script and editor that
these locations can still feel "connected", rather than just being separate
sets. A few examples of action movies that get it right: _Raiders of the
Lost Ark_ with its varied settings and maps that provide a sense of scale;
_Die Hard_, which makes its setting the most important character of the
movie; and _The Wrath of Khan_, which provides a baseline for all "good"
Star Trek movies thereafter. And the best counter-example I can think of is
the TV show 24, in which different sections of LA are always precisely a
single commercial break away.
_Star Trek Into Darkness_ falls decidedly on the latter side of
this continuum. The movie clearly cares about its large-scale locations, as
it moves from a distant star system, to London and San Francisco, and then
back to the edge of Federation space, then (somehow) the moons of Jupiter
get involved, and finally back to Earth again. But the journeys are
inconsistent - it takes days to go one direction, and then hours (minutes?)
to return. But we're still expected to take the concepts of a warp-speed
chase seriously.
Annoyingly, there was little reason for this. The majority of these
gripes could have been managed with a simple change: setting most of the
action within Earth's own solar system, or perhaps including a single
neighbor stellar system. The alien threat would be more threatening for
being so nearby, and the internal threats more logical for the immediacy of
the external danger; the lack of other Federation ships could be explained
by having them either too far away to intervene or unable to leave their
defensive posts; and the variable travel times could be explained by
specific navigation hazards. The geography could have worked in the film's
favor, rather than pulling me out of action every time I was forced to
think "err, where are we exactly?".
(On a smaller scale, the internal geography of the Enterprise was a
problem as well, I would have liked to have some spatial understanding
that, say, the brig was near to sick bay but further away from Engineering;
but at least that may be explained in a technical blueprint somewhere.)
I'll let the rest of the Internet dwell on the other problems: poor
character development, terrible and internally-inconsistent physics (often
involving transporter limitations/lack thereof), an off-putting cameo,
foolish deus ex machinas, and the standard problem of putting a crew of
cadets in command of the flagship of the entire Federation.
There are positive things to say about the movie, mind. The special
effects are pretty, if annoyingly over-committed to lens flares (more so
than the last movie); the action scenes themselves are pretty well put
together; Simon Pegg and Zachary Quinto steal the show, at least amongst
the regulars; it's amusing having both Sherlock Holmes and Robocop in a
movie; the significant-to-the-point-of-insult levels of fan service were
relatively amusing the first time; I did like the variety of background
alien races; and we will get more sequels, which I'll probably still want
to see.
But this movie will not age well. And it's only just barely better
than any Next Generation movies.
Rating: 5 (out of 10)
And, if you're curious as to my (rough) rankings:
1. _The Wrath of Khan_
2. _The Undiscovered Country_
3. _Star Trek (2009) [1]_
4. _The Voyage Home_
5. _The Search for Spock_
6. _The Motion Picture_
7. _Generations_
8. _Into Darkness_
9. _Insurrection_
10. _The Final Frontier_
11. _First Contact_
12. _Nemesis_
[1] http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies/star-trek-2009/
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews
Into Darkness_ without either falling into blatant spoiler territory,
regurgitating the trailers, or just griping about the specifics. So let's
focus on one specific gripe: a blatant disregard for geography.
It is relatively common for movies to place all locations are
exactly as far away from each other as is necessary for the plot to
maintain its momentum; but it is the mark of a good script and editor that
these locations can still feel "connected", rather than just being separate
sets. A few examples of action movies that get it right: _Raiders of the
Lost Ark_ with its varied settings and maps that provide a sense of scale;
_Die Hard_, which makes its setting the most important character of the
movie; and _The Wrath of Khan_, which provides a baseline for all "good"
Star Trek movies thereafter. And the best counter-example I can think of is
the TV show 24, in which different sections of LA are always precisely a
single commercial break away.
_Star Trek Into Darkness_ falls decidedly on the latter side of
this continuum. The movie clearly cares about its large-scale locations, as
it moves from a distant star system, to London and San Francisco, and then
back to the edge of Federation space, then (somehow) the moons of Jupiter
get involved, and finally back to Earth again. But the journeys are
inconsistent - it takes days to go one direction, and then hours (minutes?)
to return. But we're still expected to take the concepts of a warp-speed
chase seriously.
Annoyingly, there was little reason for this. The majority of these
gripes could have been managed with a simple change: setting most of the
action within Earth's own solar system, or perhaps including a single
neighbor stellar system. The alien threat would be more threatening for
being so nearby, and the internal threats more logical for the immediacy of
the external danger; the lack of other Federation ships could be explained
by having them either too far away to intervene or unable to leave their
defensive posts; and the variable travel times could be explained by
specific navigation hazards. The geography could have worked in the film's
favor, rather than pulling me out of action every time I was forced to
think "err, where are we exactly?".
(On a smaller scale, the internal geography of the Enterprise was a
problem as well, I would have liked to have some spatial understanding
that, say, the brig was near to sick bay but further away from Engineering;
but at least that may be explained in a technical blueprint somewhere.)
I'll let the rest of the Internet dwell on the other problems: poor
character development, terrible and internally-inconsistent physics (often
involving transporter limitations/lack thereof), an off-putting cameo,
foolish deus ex machinas, and the standard problem of putting a crew of
cadets in command of the flagship of the entire Federation.
There are positive things to say about the movie, mind. The special
effects are pretty, if annoyingly over-committed to lens flares (more so
than the last movie); the action scenes themselves are pretty well put
together; Simon Pegg and Zachary Quinto steal the show, at least amongst
the regulars; it's amusing having both Sherlock Holmes and Robocop in a
movie; the significant-to-the-point-of-insult levels of fan service were
relatively amusing the first time; I did like the variety of background
alien races; and we will get more sequels, which I'll probably still want
to see.
But this movie will not age well. And it's only just barely better
than any Next Generation movies.
Rating: 5 (out of 10)
And, if you're curious as to my (rough) rankings:
1. _The Wrath of Khan_
2. _The Undiscovered Country_
3. _Star Trek (2009) [1]_
4. _The Voyage Home_
5. _The Search for Spock_
6. _The Motion Picture_
7. _Generations_
8. _Into Darkness_
9. _Insurrection_
10. _The Final Frontier_
11. _First Contact_
12. _Nemesis_
[1] http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies/star-trek-2009/
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://wiki.killfile.org/reviews/movies Skirv's Movie Reviews
BTR1701
May 23, 2013, 10:21:33 AM5/23/13
to
In article <knjch3$1f2$1...@dont-email.me>,
following the film too closely.
Russell Watson <russell...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 12:56 PM, Mark Leeper wrote:
> <snip for space>
> >
> > Things I could have done without include a planetoid near Jupiter
> > with Earth gravity, climate, and atmosphere.
>
> I think they were still a long way from Earth at that point, somewhere
> out near Kronos (sp?).
I was wondering what the author was talking about. He obviously wasn't
> On 5/22/2013 12:56 PM, Mark Leeper wrote:
> <snip for space>
> >
> > Things I could have done without include a planetoid near Jupiter
> > with Earth gravity, climate, and atmosphere.
>
> I think they were still a long way from Earth at that point, somewhere
> out near Kronos (sp?).
following the film too closely.
Mark Leeper
May 24, 2013, 7:19:45 AM5/24/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:21:33 AM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <knjch3$1f2$1...@dont-email.me>,
I saw the film once and was reconstructing it from memory several hours later. The problems I pointed out still apply.
> In article <knjch3$1f2$1...@dont-email.me>,
>
> > I think they were still a long way from Earth at that point, somewhere
>
> > out near Kronos (sp?).
>
>
>
> I was wondering what the author was talking about. He obviously wasn't
>
> following the film too closely.
Sorry.
> > I think they were still a long way from Earth at that point, somewhere
>
> > out near Kronos (sp?).
>
>
>
> I was wondering what the author was talking about. He obviously wasn't
>
> following the film too closely.
I saw the film once and was reconstructing it from memory several hours later. The problems I pointed out still apply.
trotsky
May 24, 2013, 7:23:28 AM5/24/13
to
On 5/22/13 9:19 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <ANOdnd4RDMG3nADM...@mchsi.com>
> I put it right up there with Star Trek II and Galaxy Quest as the best
> Star Trek movies. Cumberbatch is simply amazing (but us fans of Sherlock
> already knew that).
Well, as I am wont to say, "he was in a different movie". His
performance had so much gravitas it prevents you from dismissing the
movie as pure fluff.
> In message <ANOdnd4RDMG3nADM...@mchsi.com>
> Star Trek movies. Cumberbatch is simply amazing (but us fans of Sherlock
> already knew that).
Well, as I am wont to say, "he was in a different movie". His
performance had so much gravitas it prevents you from dismissing the
movie as pure fluff.
Ronald O. Christian
Jun 8, 2013, 1:55:30 PM6/8/13
to
degenerated into a silly action film with someone else in the role.
His icy calm was a big improvement over the previous film's emotive
Nero.
I also agree with previous poster that Galaxy Quest was one of the
best Trek films. :-)
Ron
-
2003 FLHTCUI "Noisy Glide"
http://www.christianfamilywebsite.com
http://www.ronaldchristian.com
0 new messages