Thanks for respectfully disagreeing.
Hey, thanks for not considering me a mindless automaton for simply enjoying the movie. I've been seeing that on movie sites when I mention that I like
STiD. It gets depressing.
No, you're not. And that is something I seriously wish to address:
Last time I was on this board, discussing the 2009 film and "The Motion Picture", I got a little supercilious in my manner toward people with an opposing opinion. That was wrong of me.
People are free to enjoy the movies they will -- without condescension, without animosity. Of course, I may still get a little strident in expressing myself, and I don't so much apologize for that. But I'd hate for anyone to feel insulted or demeaned when I'm simply giving the measure of my own feelings.
We're cool, J. Allen.
BC didn't do a terrible job with what he had, in my opinion. There was a cool, cold, and yes, somewhat enigmatic quality, that I think he conveyed well.
But Khan, to me, is much more than just that. BC's Khan wasn't hugely menacing, in my view, and I found that Montalban could be empathetic, even when he was turned into more of a B-movie heavy in TWOK.
Oh, you mean world class ham. In that case, Montalban has Cumberbatch beat. No one hammed it up like he did when playing Khan in TWOK, and I do mean that as a compliment.
Cumberbatch definitely played Khan as a cold calculator, one who really has no care whether you live or die, as long as you suit his purposes. Montalban's Khan was much more over the top in terms of villainy.
Two totally different styles from two totally different actors. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, I feel.
Montalban was more OTT, but that was a lot more fitting and enjoyable, to me.
Trek used to be theatrical and introspective in a pretty balanced way, in my opinion -- it was one of the delights of watching it. Now, under J.J. Abrams, it's more lively, but less engaging; more energetic, but less animating. If that makes any sense. It doesn't have the same push-pull tension; the same dynamic, the same texture. They've tried to appeal to the zeitgeist with the last two movies, and in the process much has been sacrificed. Again, IMO.
We can go the "NOMA" (Non Overlapping MAgisteria) route if you like, but I don't think the two performances are equally different or non-interfering. This movie's depiction was a very "blunt force" approach to Khan; and that seems to be J.J. Abrams' approach to, well, everything. It's less artistic, to me, and more simply matter-of-fact and throw-away: fast-food theatrics. I think a lot more could have been done to distance Cumberbatch's Khan and make him arresting and alluring in his own right; but, to me, it wasn't, and it doesn't seem to be part of Abrams' vocabulary to even try.
I'll have to check "Sherlock" out. I've been meaning to see what all the fuss is about for a while. But in that sense, I had no preconceptions about BC's performance. I took it for what it was; and it didn't really do a lot for me.
If you can, please do. I've seen dozens of Sherlock Holmes iterations, and this one is my favorite of them all. Benedict Cumberbatch's Holmes is a rather eccentric, genius, self described "consulting detective," and is ably played to the hilt. It also helps that Martin Freeman is a very versatile actor and does a splendid job playing the role of Dr. John Watson.
I saw some clips yesterday. I have to say that he seems pretty glib in "Sherlock" in a way that he isn't in STID. The writing in the BBC series seems sharper, funnier. There, Cumberbatch's portrayal is ably backed by solid screenplays that allow his character to fan his misanthropic feathers in some pretty colourful and amusing ways (it also helps that he has Martin Freeman as Watson to play off against). In STID, however, he seems divested of his acid cynicism, and merely comes across as po-faced, rigid, and cold: a morose antagonist spewing dialogue. His black humour peters out at "No ship should go down without her captain", which hardly sets my world on fire -- compare the way, say, Christopher Lee brought a refined, wheels-within-wheels elocution to George Lucas' dialogue in "Attack Of The Clones" (and the two or three minutes he appeared in "Revenge Of The Sith"), and here, Benedict Cumberbatch seems so lacking. I think Abrams and his writers were hoping to transplant what Cumberbatch has brought to the "Sherlock" role; but, in my eyes, they failed.
