STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

Both Pine and Pegg has described the action in the new film relentless. That doesn't sound good for those wanting more than mindless action.

That's why it's important to worry and prejudge movies based on what people say to the press rather than watching the movie.

That's fandom's raison d'etre, isn't it?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

How about we let the people who've already seen it contradict or expand on what the actors are saying, rather than attacking someone pointing out what they said.

How about we stop drawing conclusions that aren't in any way justified by what they said? To describe the film's action as "relentless" in no way suggests that there's nothing more to the movie than action. That's just putting the most negative and pessimistic spin on a statement that can be put on it, and that's truly sad.

If pointing that out makes you feel "attacked" - well, that's not my concern.

Another review, Stuff.nz

4.5/5

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/film-reviews/8613786/Review-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness

It is truly great to see Pine and Quinto have so much fun with it. For whole new generation these are the only actors to have played the iconic characters.

"Bones" McCoy was equally as integral to the original Star Trek, and Abrams gives our own Karl Urban plenty to do in Into Darkness but it would have been more faithful to the source to make this film about the classic triumvirate of the three characters.

Much is made, too, of Uhura's (Zoe Saldana) relationship with Spock - something only hinted at in one episode of the original series - The Man Trap.

In fact Uhura, who broke new ground in the 1960s as a black woman officer, gets plenty of action hero stuff to do in this film. Star Trek's late creator Gene Roddenberry would have approved.

Nice.

 

[section9]

James Cawley: Indepedently Wealthy Fanboi.

That was just dumb.

 

[M'Sharak]

Evidently James Cawley spoiled the Khan thing on his Facebook timeline a little while ago and there's a big fan kerfluffle over it.

Is that what prompted this short video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO1nvmDjofo

The date on the YouTube clip is from last July, so it seems unlikely.

Both Pine and Pegg has described the action in the new film relentless. That doesn't sound good for those wanting more than mindless action.

That's why it's important to worry and prejudge movies based on what people say to the press rather than watching the movie.

How about we let the people who've already seen it contradict or expand on what the actors are saying, rather than attacking someone pointing out what they said.

I see no attack here (unless your translation of "relentless" into "mindless action" was somehow intended thus) and if ever you feel you actually are being attacked, I'd prefer you use the

button on the post in question rather than making accusations in-thread.

 

[ConRefit79]

I see no attack here (unless your translation of "relentless" into "mindless action" was somehow intended thus) and if ever you feel you actually are being attacked, I'd prefer you use the

button on the post in question rather than making accusations in-thread.

No problem.

I guess attack is not the appropriate word for what I was trying to describe. I believed he was trying to say my point wasn't valid because I haven't seen the film. I simply wanted to use those quotes to tease out more spoilers.

 

[Flake]

Review, 4 out of 5:
http://www.clickonline.com/movies/review--star-trek-into-darkness/17622/

At 132 minutes there’s a lot of Into Darkness to go around and the momentum doesn’t let up for a moment. Dodgy dealings, conspiracies, new characters and intimate set pieces all provide for an efficient piece of entertainment, though perhaps one that is a little less crowd-pleasing than the 2009 effort. It’s undoubtedly a better film though, a sign of maturing skills from director JJ Abrams who is starting to find his own voice beyond wild plot twists and homage to past masters.

 

[Flake]

They are coming in fast now!

Timeout.com 4 out of 5

http://www.timeout.com/london/film/star-trek-into-darkness?intcid=leader

‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ is a brisk, no-nonsense sci-fi action sequel built around a conflict between the crew of the Starship Enterprise with a slick, slippery new villain, John Harrison (although there’s more to him than meets the eye), who’s played with relish and poise by Benedict Cumberbatch.

 

[BillJ]

Review, 4 out of 5:
http://www.clickonline.com/movies/review--star-trek-into-darkness/17622/

At 132 minutes there’s a lot of Into Darkness to go around and the momentum doesn’t let up for a moment. Dodgy dealings, conspiracies, new characters and intimate set pieces all provide for an efficient piece of entertainment, though perhaps one that is a little less crowd-pleasing than the 2009 effort. It’s undoubtedly a better film though, a sign of maturing skills from director JJ Abrams who is starting to find his own voice beyond wild plot twists and homage to past masters.

This is exactly what I want to hear.

 

[gornsky]

[That's why it's important to worry and prejudge movies based on what people say to the press rather than watching the movie.

How about we let the people who've already seen it contradict or expand on what the actors are saying, rather than attacking someone pointing out what they said.

I felt it was definitely an action-packed movie, yet somehow as well as (or in spite of) all that, it's ALL about the characters. I was also worried this movie would forsake character drama for action, but am happy to report that the action pivots around and super-charges the character journey, rather than the other way around.

 

[ConRefit79]

I felt it was definitely an action-packed movie, yet somehow as well as (or in spite of) all that, it's ALL about the characters. I was also worried this movie would forsake character drama for action, but am happy to report that the action pivots around and super-charges the character journey, rather than the other way around.

Good to know. I guess they have to emphasise the action, to sell it to the masses.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I felt it was definitely an action-packed movie, yet somehow as well as (or in spite of) all that, it's ALL about the characters. I was also worried this movie would forsake character drama for action, but am happy to report that the action pivots around and super-charges the character journey, rather than the other way around.

Good to know. I guess they have to emphasise the action, to sell it to the masses.

In every interview I've read or watched, they always talk about all the character moments & interactions in the movie and how even though it has a lot of action, it's not just about that.

 

[Garak]

That James Cawley guy sounds like a douchebag.

I looked him up on Wikipedia and it seems his major accomplishment is being an uncredited extra.

Way to go, chief.

 

[StarMan]

Another review, Stuff.nz

4.5/5

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/film-reviews/8613786/Review-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness

Spoilers in that review so beware

With Star Trek Into Darkness, which hits New Zealand cinemas on May 9

Next Thursday? You little ripper!

 

[Flake]

Den of Geek - 4 out of 5

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-trek/25445/star-trek-into-darkness-review

...a three act story bustling with characters it's fun to spent time with, unified by a director who not only knows how to shoot an action sequence, but who also continues to prove he's a damn good storyteller. The end result? An exciting, entertaining and pretty excellent blockbuster. Let the clamour for another film start right here...

 

[SalvorHardin]

It seems to be the day for reviews today. They all sound good so far.

 

[Flake]

Im seeing a lot of adverts here in UK atm, looks like they are really ramping things up.

The reviews thus far are looking very positive. Some of those websites are big players so they aren't just trying to please the studio. We are well on the way to at least an 80+ score on rotten tomatoes imo. Star Trek 09 got 95%.

 

[Flake]

Hey U Guys! - 4 out of 5

http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/star-trek-into-darkness-review/

The trip into darkness is as good as its predecessor, with some excellent nods to the fans and enough excitement to convert many a non-Trekker cinema goer. However it misses the greatness it might have achieved if it had kept to the crooked path it was leading away from its past.

Review suggests it would have been better without all the nods to the fans?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

God that's a terribly written review.

Aside from praising the movie, the reviewer has exactly one observation to make. Every single paragraph after the first one repeats his thesis, without advancing or exploring it in any way. Every single paragraph. Repeat, repeat, repeat - ten paragraphs, ten repetitions.

It's tedious and amateurish.

 

[arch101]

Dear JJ- Next time, you can save yourself a LOT of time, trouble and money with all that secrecy. I've been completely spoiled now and I'm STILL going to plunk down $$$ to see your film 2 or 3 times.

 

[Kanenas]

If the spoilers and entertainment weakly (sic) are to be believed, it seems the writers are not rewriting but just editing whole series and seasons into condensed hour movies. (taking into acount the time lost for lens flares, and oooooh aaaaaahh special effect budgets).

it is like taking the entire DS9 changling war arch and shrinking it down to shape shifters attack, federation fights back, odo makes piece wearing a tuxedo, the end. In ten minutes.

I am disappointed they just appear to have sliced and diced, again assuming the spoilers are true, it is very discouraging to pay money to see this. It is down grading it to a "whenever" on tv if ever movie. we shall see how this pans out.