web
counter


Star Trek Into Darkness: A Fantastic Space Action Film, and an Excellent Star Trek Film

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Film Reviews | May 17, 2013 | Comments ()


startrekprisoner.jpg

I've grown up with Star Trek, in its various incarnations. Reruns of the old original series as a kid, and then "Next Generation" when it started its run. For the best part of my childhood, there was a new Star Trek movie every three years or so. And then there was "Deep Space Nine," bringing a darkness to that universe just as I was entering high school. It felt, with the conceit that makes us all feel stories are our own, that the series was growing up with me.

The sheer longevity of the series, combined with a dedication to treat all previous series and films as canon, made it something truly special. New generations of writers came and went, not retelling the same story, but building onto it, creating this magnificent and complex universe that is only potentially matched in popular culture, though in different dimensions, by Star Wars and "Doctor Who."

That has made JJ Abrams' take on the Star Trek universe a challenge for me. For the first time, we are retreading ground, returning to old characters and old times and stories. The first film was not a reboot by virtue of time travel creating an alternate time line, a tool I appreciate since it keeps all of the old material canon even while allowing a revisiting of the original series.

Yet it would almost be easier to watch these new films if that wasn't the case, because every characterization invites comparison to the old versions of those characters. When Spock's character simply acts differently than Nimoy's Spock would have, it's a fair criticism to note, because the story itself has been written so that this is supposed to be the same character, not an updated version. But that is a particular frustration that us hardcore fans must endure.

Star Trek Into Darkness is both a fantastic space action film, and an excellent Star Trek film. The two are not necessarily coterminous, and they could easily be mutually exclusive. There are battles, a mystery to be unravelled, Benedict Cumberbatch utterly nailing the role of both villain and sympathetic foil to Kirk, a scattering of comic relief, and repeated call backs to the previous films of the franchise. And those call backs work most deeply because they are not simply references but partial reconstructions of scenes such that the new and old resonate like tines of a tuning fork.

There are problems that I really wish that Abrams would shore up in future films, because they drive insane anyone with the most basic understanding of the universe. Over the course of the film it becomes apparent that the Klingon home world is approximately a ten minute flight from Earth. And that the edge of the neutral zone is actually within human-eye view of the Klingon home world. One of the most fantastic things about space is that it is so monumentally large that it dwarfs every comparison we can comprehend. And yet according to the film, the writing staff apparently think it's about the size of a Chile's parking lot. I'm not sure why the Enterprise would need 5 years to seek out new life and new civilizations, given the apparent physical size of this universe, they should wrap up a complete exploration of the cosmos before lunch.

This isn't just over-educated hairsplitting. It's a film opting for unimpressive and mundane fiction in the face of staggeringly impressive reality, for no reason other than ignorance. Do everyone a favor and just have Neil deGrasse Tyson read over the next script and make his changes. It will require you to change nothing of substance in your story, while making its universe ever so much more amazing.

And yet for all that, this second film in particular gets at precisely what a true fan's complaint has been about nearly all the films, even dating back to Shatner and company. There's an old geek observation that something catastrophic happened in the Federation between Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan. The uniforms are no longer jumpsuits, the ships no longer primarily scientific, the missions no long exploratory. Between those two films, the Star Trek universe militarized. The Captain who once led the longest mission of space exploration in history is instead distrusted by scientists and his own son as being part of the military industrial complex. The source of the answer of course is in our world, not the world of the story.

Star Trek has always shifted to reflect our culture, in ways not always clear until clarified by hindsight. In the 1960s it was a beacon in some of the darkest times of the Cold War, when the very idea of a story about a future in which we don't destroy ourselves was the most daring one could tell. And Star Trek Into Darkness gets that, and tries to make its own contribution. It gives us terrorism and the threat of war, it brings the space combat that the audiences pay to see, but it wraps it up in a rejection of letting that violence define us. The repeated refrain, from character after character, is that they are scientists, not soldiers. That this fleet is one of exploration, not of war. And for all of Abrams' attention-grabbing claims that he never watched "Star Trek," or the criticisms that this is just a Star Wars movie with phasers, that framing of the story demonstrates that Abrams intuits the spirit that Roddenberry invested in his creation.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here and order his novel here.



Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web


Damnit Jerry! Who Says Fat People Can't Wear Abercrombie & Fitch? | "The Office" Finale: One Last Good Prank





Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned


  • DarthCorleone

    Three words for this movie. Sacrilegious. Lazy. Unearned.

    But, sure, I guess it was cute and fun. Whatever.

  • Dr. Merkwurdigliebe

    It was half of a great movie. Great cast, nice action, but a script that absolutely failed them, and an insult to Star Trek 2 The Wrath of Khan fans the world over. I like a lot of the film, but Cumberbatch as Khan was bullshit, replaying and role reversing one of the most iconic scenes in Star Trek history was bullshit. Come on, where's the scathing and the bitchiness? This film deserves some of that I would say.

  • DarthCorleone

    Right on.

  • BobbFrapples

    I really liked it. I was too young when the first Star Trek movies happened, and these movies are totally bringing me in deeper into my enjoyment of the Star Trek universe.

  • What you detail in the first part of your review is my issue with Abrams' Star Trek. As a longtime fan, I wonder why someone doesn't march on, as Star Trek always has (with a new series and/or films, new characters) instead of trying to have us accept copies. I enjoyed most of the film as entertainment, but I don't think I'll ever accept Abrams' Star Treks into canon. It feels too much a cheap copy--and that's not a shot at the actors, most of whom do a decent job. The third quarter veered off into silliness, corniness, superhuman b.s. and "brilliant" Spock forgetting about the magic blood (though the audience never does). The characters have settled in a little bit more, but I still went to see this primarily for the Cumberbatch. So overall, an fun film to watch...but not really Star Trek (for me).

  • Dr. Merkwurdigliebe

    Khan having "magic blood" was bullshit.

  • BlackRabbit

    Spoiler-ish.

    Was Spock even aware of the magic blood? That aside, why not just defreeze one of the other jiffypops and use their blood while keeping them in a coma? And of course it opens up what Star Trek is infamous for-the amazing device or technology that's never mentioned again. Also also, there must have been one HELL of a cover-up at the end with Khan's ship.

  • Into Londerland

    *delurks*

    Agreed. Personally I enjoyed the first film and thought it was a pretty cute way to give the filmmakers carte blanche to play in the Trek universe without offending the hardcore faithful (the whole new-timeline thing). I assumed they'd take that freedom and run with it.

    It's massively disappointing then that they've chosen to do what amounts to Trek Karaoke, to the extent that the whole last third of the film just comes across as enthusiastic fanfic riffing off past glories...

    ***SPOILERS sort of***

    ****okay, no, definitely spoilers****

    ...right down to Spock's anguished yell through the radiation shield, which tipped the scales for me right from "respective callback" to "okay, now I know you're ripping the piss". The ever-increasing references to That Other Trek Film amount to nothing more than creative cannibalism - a weak script relying on a better film to provide all its emotional weight.

    It even goes so far as to have Nu-Spock ring up Classic Spock to gauge the threat level - a fairly glaring admission on the part of the filmmakers that they have nothing to offer the audience but second-hand goods. "Motivations unclear? Plot tenuous? Well, here for your edification is Leonard Nimoy to provide a little gravitas by reminding you of a thirty-year-old film depicting events (that actually haven't even happened in this timeline), so you remember that taut, emotional battle of wills while we blow millions of dollars watching two super-genius characters resolve the issue with a fistfight on a moving space-car-thing."

    Basically it's the same problem as Prometheus had - so much pretty, so much potential, so much talent, so, so dumb.

    *Relurks. Sorry but I had to rant somewhere.*

    ETA - On the plus side, there is a fabulously high bangability quotient among the cast, so it all evens out. Apparently bits of me are more easily pleased than others.

  • alacrify

    That's a really well written commentary, but you didn't review the movie. If that's the intent, then fine, but could you also review the content, not the dichotomy?

  • idiosynchronic

    It was all, like, peww!

    peww! pew-pew-pew-pew!!

    And then he was YARRRGH!

    And then the bad guys were yarglebargle, and then the guy went pew, pew-pew-pew, BOOM, pew-pew-pew- pew BOOM! 'n' shit.

    And then he was like oh yeah?

    PEW_PEW_PEW_PEW_PEW!!

    SERVED!

    And MEAG ABOOMMM!!!

    And AGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH! and tears

    And then he got his ass kicked!

    I feel like a need a cigarette now.

  • TheOriginalMRod

    Dude... that was awesome.

    Are Chris Pines eyes really that blue!?! Holy moly...

  • Meenakshi Arunachalana

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but Pine is wearing coloured contact lenses. In a couple of movie stills you can actually see his coloured contact lenses.

  • Are you sure about that? I've seen in plenty of non Star Trek related photos with blue eyes. Maybe they're just regular contacts

  • Malin

    The husband (a Trek fan since he was a kid) and I (basically a fan since the 2009 film) saw it again yesterday. It really is incredibly entertaining. Also, I want to touch Benedict Cumberbatch in his pants. Even more so now than after seeing season 2 of Sherlock.

  • Rooks

    ... not a word about the lens flares? Because, people... lens flares. Take your sunglasses to the theatres with you.

    But yes, a really solid and highly entertaining movie - whatever that assessment means coming from someone who emphatically didn't grow up with the franchise and hasn't seen two episodes of it, ever.

  • Tinkerville

    I loved the hell out of it. Yes, there were a variety of plot holes here and there but honestly it was such a blast that I didn't even care. While I agree that it would've been nice for them to strike out on their own a bit more instead of using plotlines/continuous references to the previous movies, in the end they were clearly having so much fun with it that I didn't mind one bit. Great action, great fun, and a great examination of the themes of Star Trek and the various moral dilemmas they have to contend with.

  • Nope, not going to support whitewashing. JJ can go fuck himself.

  • Which character got whitewashed? I'm not very familiar with Star Trek other than the 2009 film and the occasional Next Generation episode I caught back in the day.

  • idiosynchronic

    Can't discuss without spoilerific consequences.

    However, I will say that the original did some serious bleaching on its own, honey.

  • Yes the original did as well. but the original was in 1967. You know, like almost FIFTY YEARS AGO when no one gave a shit about that stuff.

  • Nyltiak

    If you're referencing who I think you're referencing, I'll point out that the original actor was of Spanish heritage, and Spaniards are generally considered white. Moreover, he as playing a character with a completely different ethnic background from his own. It seems a little odd to complain about whitewashing when the original character was played by a white dude playing a non-white dude, while COMPLETELY NOT EVEN PRETENDING he wasn't his original ethnic background. It was Sean Connery in Hunt for Red October-esque.

  • It seems odd to complain about whitewashing in 2013? If they remade Breakfast at Tiffany's today would it be totally cool to have a white guy play Mr. Yunioshi because white guy Mickey Rooney played him in the 60s version?

    And in the original they slathered Montalban in makeup to make him appear darker, as his heritage called for.

  • Nyltiak

    Aside from one line where a throwaway character refers to his probably origin, there is NOTHING about the original to suggest an ethnic origin other than Latino. He just looks like he has a good hair and a bad wig, an even worse wig in the movie. Mr Yunioshi is clearly depicted to be Asian. It's an offensive portrayal and a caricature of Asian stereotypes of the time, but it's a portrayal that is clearly Asian nevertheless. The portrayal of the Star Trek character, on the other hand, is nothing like that. If you missed the line at the beginning of the episode, or just watched the movie, you'd just wonder why the Latino guy has a non-latino name.

  • So then why would they keep the name at all? The fact that he is who is he is COMPLETELY POINTLESS. Yet they did it anyway. Before Benewaffle Cumberbuns was cast they were only looking at Latino actors, which is doubly offensive.

    Are you white?

  • Into Londerland

    (Sidenote: It's true that it really is pretty pointless who Cumberbatch's character actually is. I mean, he's just a bog-standard supervillain in this. There's a potentially fascinating story going on in the interactions between his character and Admiral Marcus but all that happens before the film starts and is dispensed with in a few lines of exposition, and then stuff blows up real good...)

    I guess one could try to fanwank the situation to say that there's no reason a white man (or a Latino for that matter) couldn't have Indian ancestry and name, and that's great, but I'm pretty sure in the character's original appearance, it's stated that he's a prince who ruled most of Asia, which does tend to suggest that he should be, um, Asian, as opposed to (f'rinstance) an Englishman with distant Indian parentage.

    So yeah, it would have been a real bonus if they'd gone for an ethnically appropriate casting choice, and it's just amazingly disappointing and retrograde that they didn't even bother. Then again I daresay Cumberbatch was probably cast as the bad guy before the script was even written...before they even considered who the villain would be.

  • firedmyass

    Gosh, what a reasonable and well-adjusted stance.

  • Yes, I know, how reasonable of me to be mad that they replaced one of the most iconic meant-to-be-not-white characters in sci-fi with Whitey McWhiteface.

  • firedmyass

    Okay... now I know to whom you refer. I was wrong to imply that you were not reasonable or well-adjusted. It it clear now that you are simply a nitwit. My apologies.

  • firedmyass

    What character are we talking about? Not being snarky, I am genuinely asking.

  • Just saw a Star Trek double feature last night and this movie was so damned good. Abrams does such a good job of being loyal to the spirit of the original show but also making it his own. It was funny and endearing and sad all at once. This movie is what Prometheus wishes it had been.

  • Jakesalterego

    He makes it his own by aping the last third of the movie from a previous film.

  • stardust

    I'm so relieved to read this review. To be honest, I've been excited about this film mostly because of Cumberbatch, but reserving skepticism in the back of my mind since I DID NOT like the first film. My husband and I are going to see it tomorrow, so I'm going into it judgement-free so my hate of the first one doesn't cloud this one. I'm a Trekkie 4 Lyfe, so I want to enjoy this new series of films.

  • Dr. Merkwurdigliebe

    Ohhh. If you didn't like the first one, this one won't change your mind

  • Sara_Tonin00

    You changed the header, you sneaky bugger. It makes me laugh because the local free paper used the "good of the many" as its approach to the Star Trek review (as in, suck it old-school Star Trek fans).

    I tried to rewatch the 2009 movie the other day, but I kept feeling stabbed in the eyes. Don't know that I'll be making it to the theater for this one...

  • MDH23

    attended the midnight show Wednesday and loved it. The cast has won me over - they've all done a great job of making those characters their own - and as a result, their ST universe has its own charm and coherence. JJ has done a great job paying homage to the canon without being limited by it. i wasn't enamored with the choice to simply reverse the Kirk/Spock roles in the scene near the end (no need to disclose spoilers, those who saw the original movies know what i'm referring to), but that didn't diminish the overall level of fun i had. With two movies now, this has become a franchise under Abrams that consistently delivers. And Cumberbatch was a perfect villain - i actually left the theater thinking they set it up nicely for his return.

  • llp

    I haven't seen the new movie, but because I have seen the original movies, I now do have an inkling of the plot. So, yes, SPOILERS ALERT, dammit, mild though they might be.

  • Yea I'm not sure of the reversal either but I love whenever they show Spock kicking some ass so I was happy with it. Is it weird that my favorite character is still Bones? Lol

  • SpaceAge Paige

    Interesting that the io9 reviewer skewered the film.
    Called it Star Trek into Dumbness.
    Psht.

  • I've read a lot of reviews that have called it dumb and simplistic with giant gaping plotholes. Or at least leaps of logic.

  • TotesMcGotes

    It only gets in theaters here next month...wonderful,a whole month of evading spoilers.

  • Why is Cumberbatch in the SHIELD cage built for the Hulk?

  • firedmyass

    um... profit?

  • csb

    This is the first positive review of STID I've read so far. I'm still really not sold on it at all.

  • EthanLutske

    It has an 88% on RT, and this is the first positive review you've found? Are you actively looking for negative reviews?

  • csb

    I'm not actively looking for any reviews. (Pajiba's the only movie review site I visit regularly.) But any reviews I've come across on the sites I do visit haven't given the film a warm reception.

  • Pajiba_Pragmatist

    Really mundane question - If your 7 year old was a big fan of the first, is there anything in this one that pushes the boundaries of the PG-13 barrier? Not the clothing, but violence/dismemberment type stuff.

    To go a little further, my kid loved the first Iron Man, is mixed on the second (she has some taste), but when we went to the third, both my wife and I felt like several scenes were far 'darker' and a bit harder to comprehend for younger minds. I think ultimately the way the Mandarin storyline resolved made it less sticky for a 7 year old, but still.

    It's clear that PG-13 means radically different things today. Avengers had lots of things going "boom" but not really anything that didn't resolve neatly or in a way that was fathomable for people much younger than 13. By the same token, my wife and I did NOT take our kid to any of the new Batman movies. Even though the movie was good, the idea of trying to explain the Joker's underlying philosophy and drive was challenging even for adults, and my kid lacks the context to really grasp it (thank goodness).

  • idiosynchronic

    I gotta rebut the other opinions. My wife and I were of the opinion that our 8 year-old daughter wasn't old enough for this Trek film - it's not something I can articulate as to why. She loves The Avengers, but there's an edge of scariness in this that's absent in Avengers.

  • One of the deeply troubling things about the Colorado shooting, besides the violence itself, was how many small children were in that theater watching a movie that their age group had no business seeing. Times, they are a changing, and what was once considered rated X about 30 years ago is now called network television.

  • Pajiba_Pragmatist

    I agree; it's a parent's choice, but personally I'm with you. Sex, Nudity, Violence are all part of life, but the senselessness of violence is often very hard to understand and explain. For a kid, violence that happens as part of a clear "morality tale" isn't necessarily good, but at least it is fathomable. As a parent you can explain it, and even use it to talk about it if your kid freaks out because of it.

    But senseless violence is... well senseless. Young kids are basically wandering around trying to make sense of everything. In fact you might argue that's ALL they really do at a young age. So when you pop them into a truly senseless situation that doesn't involve "acts of God" like earthquakes or volcanoes, it's pretty hard on them.

    I listen to NPR with my kid in the morning on the way to school. When Sandy Hook happened, I'll admit I turned the radio off for several days, because I just didn't have the words or tools to explain the senselessness of the act. I'm usually a big believer in not talking down to your kids or lying to them about the real world. But this was one time where I went into pure avoidance mode.

  • MikeRoorda

    I saw it at the midnight showing and I'm struggling to think of anything particularly violent that occurred. There's a bit of "hole in the ship and people scream while they fly against bulkheads and whatnot" but they did that in the last one too. Cumberbatch's villain is also easily explained. He considers himself better than everyone else, and anyone inferior must be conquered or be killed. Pretty straight forward.

    Most of the violence probably happens when a big portion of the city gets leveled. If your kiddo could handle watching NYC take a beating, a futuristic San Francisco shouldn't be too tough to stomach. There's a fair bit of shooting, but they're all phasers and energy weapons. Lots of pew-pew-pew but very little blood.

    I would say if the munchkin can handle the action in The Avengers, they'll likely enjoy this as well.

  • Pajiba_Pragmatist

    Thanks Mike; she's a mentally well put together kid (so far). The best way to illustrate was something that happened when she was five. Her Montessori school has older kids, and they put on a (truncated) performance of Hamlet for the whole school. After it was over, other kids in her class talked about how people looked in costumes, etc. My daughter evidently went up to her teacher afterwards and said "Ms. Rachel, it sure seemed like a lot of people died in that play".

    We steer clear of gratuitous violence, because it doesn't add value or context, and we keep an eye (or ear) toward language because there are lots of other words to use, and at this age the urge to model and repeat is strong, so why give her examples to model.

    But she's been pretty good with big themes and able to contexualize them for some time now. We are hopeful she continues to grow in that manner.

  • M

    Sounds like a great, intuitive, sensitive little girl. Kudos for steering her away from gratuitous violence. I appreciate your posting. I'm a Trekkie from the 60's TOS but I'm wondering about taking my 7 year old son - he sounds similar to your daughter, sensitive, kind, innocent. Maybe too early to darken his world. Gotta think more on it.

    M

  • Cumberbatch does kill someone with his bare hands. I was bit squeamish during that part. But you could easily shield his eyes.

  • Haha yea they didn't show anything but it the sounds made me squeamish!

  • EthanLutske

    There's nothing really to shield your eyes from - the disgusting part happens off screen. The gruesomeness all comes from your mind and the sound effects.

  • Ah, I looked away from screen...so guess cover his ears!

  • No, I don't think so. The destruction on Earth is rough, but it's mostly distant, and there is no gore. Plenty of punching and gunfire, though.

  • Carrie/Teabelly

    "When Spock’s character simply acts differently than Nimoy’s Spock would
    have, it’s a fair criticism to note, because the story itself has been
    written so that this is supposed to be the same character, not an
    updated version."

    Hmm, it's the same character to a point, and then their experiences diverge, so doesn't that explain it?

  • DarthCorleone

    In my opinion, he's far too different from Nimoy's Spock. This Spock was dating Uhura before Vulcan was destroyed. Although I think Quinto does a fine job, and I actually enjoy the little Spock-Uhura dynamic, it's still character assassination in my mind.

  • minxy

    That header picture makes me wish I could buy a Cumberpod so I could have my own Cumberbatch at home.

  • BWeaves

    OK, when you say Cumberpod, are you referring to a body part or that thing from the old Disney World Space Mountain ride that they are keeping him in?

  • minxy

    The Disney World Space Mountain thing. It looks like it's keeping him fresh...you know...for later.

  • Cumberthwaight

    I was thinking more like a seed pod. Like you'd grow your own Cumberbunny in your Cumberpatch.

  • lowercase_see

    See it drunk. It's awesome drunk.

    Plus, Chris Pine? 5 of 5. Would bang.

  • His eyes are incredible.

  • Those eyes!!!

  • Lee

    I'm not a follower of the Trekkie universe, so was not savvy to the internal references within the film. The CG was impressive, but I found the plotlines quite unimaginative, and there were far too many emotional scenes that lacked any emotional resonance for me. Cumberbatch was suitably scenery chewing as the cartoon villain, but not scary - probably more due to the script than Cumberbatche's performance. I found myself frequently yawning and wishing it would hurry up and finish - particularly in the second half.

  • Peeg

    I thought the initial encounter after they went to get him was off. Too many cool posings with gunz way out in the open and junk. It got better though.

  • Agree completely.
    This movie made me damn furious. The typewriter chimps could've written a better script than Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof in about 5 minutes.

  • I've seen all the originals and the last one. I'm looking forward to this one as well. I am curious how this film references the originals. These new movies are prequels, so how does that work? Don't reply if there are spoilers, but it leaves me wondering. Also, to the reviewer, why would young Spock act the same as old Spock? Perhaps old Spock acts the way he does, based upon what young Spock learned?

  • Carrie/Teabelly

    They're prequels but not prequels in the truest sense, given what happened in the last film. This impacts the old Spock/young Spock issue as well, as it doesn't work the way you suggest. I sort of can't say much more without spoilers, and though you say you've seen last one I'm not sure how much to give away.

  • Carrie/Teabelly

    Actually they talk about the timeline shift in the review, so I probably don't need to be that delicate...

  • I kind of forgot the whole "old spock" thing in the last one. If I start to think about it too much my head will probably explode. Good point though, thanks.

  • southworth

    WHEW

  • Fabius_Maximus

    I wanted to go and watch it this week, but I'll have to wait for the disc release again, as the English version is shown only in 3D here. It seems my cinema going days are over for good.

  • I enjoyed it, but the constant reference to the old films started to bug me. I was hoping STID would strike out on its own with a fresh timeline. As you mentioned, it's great as they can still bring in the canon, but I was hoping for something totally fresh. And that's not Abrams delivered - instead a twist on the old films.

    Of course, if you haven't seen the old films. this probably won't change your enjoyment of the film. It's a great action film as long as you don't think too hard about the plot.

    Just my opinion.

  • kildarepaul

    Really enjoyed this, brought my fiancé who has only ever seen the 2009 movie and she loved it too. Looking back afterward I can pick holes in it but you simply don't have a chance during the film. It starts at 100mph and keeps that pace right through. Each crew member gets their moment but most are relegated to the background which I can appreciate the logistics of.

    I went to a 3d IMAX screening and the 3d was decent especially the exterior space sequences.

  • koko temur

    im so relieved!! Something in the marketing of it had me worried lately, glad that my initial feeling of "it has cumberbatch, it cant possibly be bad" was the right one. i'll watch as soon as it opens over here.

  • Carrie/Teabelly

    I enjoyed this a lot. It took a bit to warm up but it definitely got me in the end (same can be said for this reboot as a whole. I was so against it in the beginning and then the last film won me over). I just like the tone, and the films are beautiful to look at. I like that they refer to the 'original' Trek, even if I don't always get the references, I get enough, so I feel like I'm in on it, and that they're being done in a loving way rather than poking fun. (I watched the Star Trek films as a kid, and the series that followed.)

    I think all the cast do really well with their roles, though I am not a fan of Quinto. He does ok but something about his Spock niggles at me. There's a lot going on in this film so some of the characters are sidelined a bit. Bones is basically a one-liner machine, but I'll take Urban anyway I can get.

    And of course...Cumberbatch. I've been immune to his charms through Sherlock and his films and now I have fallen hard. Clearly sci-fi and tight jumpsuits do it for me. :)

    I do worry a bit about them continuing as they are if they make more films. Though I like the references I think it could become a bit too easy to do. If there's a next film it would be good to do something unique within this universe/timeline, otherwise it could get stale.

    Short version: this is great fun! Bonkers but in the best way.

  • іf y○υ tһіոκ сһrіs`s st○ry іs υոbеlіеvаblе..., lаst раy-сһеqυе my sіstеr bаsісаlly еаrոt $9886 w○rκіոg twеlvе һ○υr's а wееκ  fr○m tһеrе һ○υsе аոd tһеrе frіеոd's  m○m`s ոеіgһb○υr wаs d○іոg tһіs  f○r  f○υr m○ոtһs аոd mаdе ○vеr  $9886 раrt-tіmе аt tһеrе lаbt○р. υsе tһе  gυіdе аvаіlаblе ○ո tһіs раgе. ..Fox83.com

  • Mrs. Julien

    I think Chris's story is perfectly believable, so I don't know what the hell you are talking about, although I do appreciate the non-American spelling of "neighbour".

blog comments powered by Disqus





Follow Us





Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation

Cosmos

Hannibal

30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins