Star Trek Into Darkness continues the J. J. Abrams “reboot” of the classic SF series. In the first new Star Trek movie, Abrams played around with that universe and came up with an innovative solution to making the series “new.” Now, in the second movie, the crew of the Enterprise battles an old enemy (at least in Star Trek universe terms). Frankly, I thought Star Trek Into Darkness is inferior to the first film. There are some glaring problems. Are there only two Star Fleet starships? That’s all we see. Where are Earth’s defenses? . Benedict Cumberbatch, the villain, needed a bigger part. I’m hoping he returns in a future Star Trek movie. Star Trek Into Darkness is what it is: a noisy, action-packed Summer blockbuster. GRADE: B+
I’m with you here George. I did enjoy all the various set-pieces and the performances and thought that the 9/11 subtext was an interesting approach. But it was too close (without getting spoilery) to previous stories in the previous TV and movie series in my view – this seems to vitiate the whole point of an alternative reality reboot. Good fun but too beholden to the past of the show in my view. Still feels like they are setting up the premise before launching their own actual series – I fear they may have miscalculated in this regard as the slightly disappointing box office figures would seem to attest to.
You’re right on the money, Sergio! This movie was too rooted in the Past.
I missed this film in the theatres. I liked the first film, too, and my wife and I were amazed at the resemblance between the new and the old Spock. It looked as if someone had waved a magic wand to make Leonard Nimoy look years younger for the role! A point of view: am I the only one who thinks that it’s Spock and not Kirk who carries the series/films through. No complaints about Chris Pine, though.
Prashant, I’m with you on Spock. Zachery Quinto is astonishing in that role.
That’s too bad, but maybe the lag time between the first one and the sequel should have been a hint that all was not well in the Star Trek universe. Of course Jackie wants to see this on the big screen anyway but let’s hope for better next time.
Jeff, it’s worth seeing but set the bar low.
I liked it a little bit better than you did, I suspect, although I still think the first one was much better. I don’t mind the fact that they spent another film rooting around in the sandbox of older material. They are obviously trying to cater to long time fans with the nostalgia angle while also trying to build an entirely new fan base. And this villain is among the all-time favorites so it makes sense they would visit him early on and perhaps bring him, or his crew, back again at a later time. I’m not sure box office has as much to do with this film per se as it does with the variety of May movies that are pulling for the viewers’ dollar. Might have been better to get it in before Oblivion came out or sometime in the later summer. People don’t have as much discretionary income in this economy and that plus increased prices for so many 3-D versions mean a family who might have seen all the big movies in May are only making a choice to see one or two. Makes it hard for a SF film, even with Trek’s cache, to keep up. Barring the ridiculous implausibilities that I believe have always been a part of this franchise (and that I barely register anymore) I thought this one was a lot of fun and, like the first, did a good job of paying homage to the characters as established by the previous actors.
Carl, I suspect a lot of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS was a set-up for future films.
Oh I agree. Most especially the Klingons.
Carl, the Klingons and the Romulans were my favorites on the original STAR TREK. The “reboot” has plenty of material to play with!