Dean Beckford
Recently released on DVD, Star Trek Into Darkness, J.J. Abram’s flashy second attempt at reworking the Star Trek mythos for modern audiences, treated viewers with much of what the first successfully delivered but rather underwhelmingly. As columnists and reviewers watched the space opera on the big screen, many expressed disappointment at the relatively poor execution of the sequel in comparison to its predecessor. An even sterner reliance on special effects and powerful CGI moments jarred reviewers expecting the moments of depth the first film delivered.
“Into Darkness has bigger and better action, but it sacrifices what little smarts the series had for popcorn-munching sci-fi that’s far from intelligent,” complained Jeremy Lebens, media analyst from We Got This Covered.
The film attempts to draw the audience in with its admittedly fantastic visuals alone; however, in the process, Abrams often excesses basic coherency for blockbuster thrill and debonair charms; the seemless transitions between emotional drama and sci-fi action present in the first film are completely absent here. As noted by Anthony Lane from The New Yorker, one might find the scene having characters erupting in a flurry of argument before thrusting the viewer into a high speed space chase.
Competing with the film’s lackluster plot and screenplay is the film’s insistence on flooding the retina with iMovie-tier special effects attempts. Christopher Orr, a media journalist from The Atlantic, labeled the screenplay “baroque” and “preposterous” while also jabbing at the script that had “plot holes big enough to drive a Constitution class cruiser through.”
Now, Into Darkness is not completely unsatisfying. One of the strong suits lie in the actors’ roles as the original Trek troupe; however, the film feebly relies on tropes, gimmicks, and successes borrowed from the previous film, denying it that crucial semblance of originality that otherwise would have kept it afloat. Lebens agreed, stating Chris Pine’s Captain J. Kirk as a strong lead protagonist whose interactions with Mr. Spock were the highlights of the film, but even those appeared contrived.
Regardless of the excessive focus impressed on the FX departments, the playful sci-fi banter uniquely characteristic of the Star Trek franchise shines as a bright spot in an otherwise faded film.
“Yet every time Star Trek Into Darkness looks as though it's about to retreat behind the wall of silly, something happens that surprises, or delights, or demonstrates the filmmaker's genuine knowledge of and affection for these characters. The film is, for whatever else it might be, one of the funniest of the Star Trek entries. The wisecracks are grounded in character, with some flashes that are welcome and unexpected, and others that are totally expected and necessary: You're not allowed to make a Star Trek movie without McCoy insisting, "I am a doctor!" at least once,” wrote Mick LaSalle, movie reviewer at SFGate.com
The nostalgic elements placed throughout the film demonstrate a competent knowledge of the source material, but some viewers believed that clever back-and-forth could not compensate the formulaic approach towards the story, an approach that the writing staff essentially copy and pasted from the first film in hopes of attracting interest. Lebens aptly described the issue as “more of a writing problem and less like a directing one.”
Ultimately, the film, while weaker than its predecessor in certain areas, still succeeds in the ultimate goal of entertainment. Disregarding the rather weak plot and reliance on CGI showmanship, the blockbuster achieves on a shallow level. It’s not at Scary Movie levels of embarrassing by any means, so I definitely encourage anybody looking for some icing to the sublime sci-fi fun that was the first movie to see it.
“I’d still take it over most blockbusters being pumped into circulation,” summarized Lebens.
Recently released on DVD, Star Trek Into Darkness, J.J. Abram’s flashy second attempt at reworking the Star Trek mythos for modern audiences, treated viewers with much of what the first successfully delivered but rather underwhelmingly. As columnists and reviewers watched the space opera on the big screen, many expressed disappointment at the relatively poor execution of the sequel in comparison to its predecessor. An even sterner reliance on special effects and powerful CGI moments jarred reviewers expecting the moments of depth the first film delivered.
“Into Darkness has bigger and better action, but it sacrifices what little smarts the series had for popcorn-munching sci-fi that’s far from intelligent,” complained Jeremy Lebens, media analyst from We Got This Covered.
The film attempts to draw the audience in with its admittedly fantastic visuals alone; however, in the process, Abrams often excesses basic coherency for blockbuster thrill and debonair charms; the seemless transitions between emotional drama and sci-fi action present in the first film are completely absent here. As noted by Anthony Lane from The New Yorker, one might find the scene having characters erupting in a flurry of argument before thrusting the viewer into a high speed space chase.
Competing with the film’s lackluster plot and screenplay is the film’s insistence on flooding the retina with iMovie-tier special effects attempts. Christopher Orr, a media journalist from The Atlantic, labeled the screenplay “baroque” and “preposterous” while also jabbing at the script that had “plot holes big enough to drive a Constitution class cruiser through.”
Now, Into Darkness is not completely unsatisfying. One of the strong suits lie in the actors’ roles as the original Trek troupe; however, the film feebly relies on tropes, gimmicks, and successes borrowed from the previous film, denying it that crucial semblance of originality that otherwise would have kept it afloat. Lebens agreed, stating Chris Pine’s Captain J. Kirk as a strong lead protagonist whose interactions with Mr. Spock were the highlights of the film, but even those appeared contrived.
Regardless of the excessive focus impressed on the FX departments, the playful sci-fi banter uniquely characteristic of the Star Trek franchise shines as a bright spot in an otherwise faded film.
“Yet every time Star Trek Into Darkness looks as though it's about to retreat behind the wall of silly, something happens that surprises, or delights, or demonstrates the filmmaker's genuine knowledge of and affection for these characters. The film is, for whatever else it might be, one of the funniest of the Star Trek entries. The wisecracks are grounded in character, with some flashes that are welcome and unexpected, and others that are totally expected and necessary: You're not allowed to make a Star Trek movie without McCoy insisting, "I am a doctor!" at least once,” wrote Mick LaSalle, movie reviewer at SFGate.com
The nostalgic elements placed throughout the film demonstrate a competent knowledge of the source material, but some viewers believed that clever back-and-forth could not compensate the formulaic approach towards the story, an approach that the writing staff essentially copy and pasted from the first film in hopes of attracting interest. Lebens aptly described the issue as “more of a writing problem and less like a directing one.”
Ultimately, the film, while weaker than its predecessor in certain areas, still succeeds in the ultimate goal of entertainment. Disregarding the rather weak plot and reliance on CGI showmanship, the blockbuster achieves on a shallow level. It’s not at Scary Movie levels of embarrassing by any means, so I definitely encourage anybody looking for some icing to the sublime sci-fi fun that was the first movie to see it.
“I’d still take it over most blockbusters being pumped into circulation,” summarized Lebens.