• 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by dr_mantas (1689 posts) -

And it was freaking AMAZING. What a great movie.

There's also an unexpected twist in it, made me go OH SHIT. Could be just me, but I didn't expect it, however I tried to avoid trailers before seeing the movie.

Also, SO MANY Star Trek references. Maybe I shouldn't be too surprised about that.

#2 Edited by Bocam (3538 posts) -

Anymore time travel shit?

#3 Posted by gaminghooligan (1342 posts) -

I thought it was awesome, I still love the first Abrams movie better, but Benedict Cumberbatch and his super deep British voice stole the show.

#4 Posted by AiurFlux (899 posts) -

I saw it Wednesday night at a special early screening, then I went back home and watched the first one. Honestly, and it pains me to say this, I genuinely think I might like Into Darkness more than the original reboot. I'm probably in the minority, but whatever.

And unlike the first Khan movie when Spock screams it out it doesn't seem hammy and overacted at all. Shatner kind of fucking stinks in retrospective.

#5 Posted by Tylea002 (2291 posts) -

I think I hated it more than I've hated any film ever.

So that's something.

#6 Posted by fox01313 (5032 posts) -

Just hope the sequel is toned down with the lens flares, felt like the original Unreal game (or other older pc games) with lens flares all over the place.

#7 Edited by AiurFlux (899 posts) -

@fox01313 said:

Just hope the sequel is toned down with the lens flares, felt like the original Unreal game (or other older pc games) with lens flares all over the place.

It is, mercifully. I mean I get where they were going with all the lens flare in the first one in trying to make it look clean and futuristic, but it was overdone.

#8 Edited by Ronald_Raiden (1513 posts) -
#9 Edited by thomasnash (404 posts) -

Is it really less with the lens flare? There is a scene where a lens flare literally obscures the faces of the characters who are speaking.

I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised by it over all. I went in with very low expectations; I wasn't a fan of the first one and had heard some fairly bad reviews of this one. The main thing I'd heard was that it starts at 11 and never relents at all during the film, which I didn't really find to be true, although it certainly spends a lot of its time in a histrionically high register. I only found it to get really tiring during the last action sequence.

I dunno, it's absolutely full of holes narrative, thematic and scientific and there are times when you wish it would just dial itself back a bit and let the better film out . This is particularly true of Benedict Cummerbund's performance. He has some great moments (I really enjoyed the whole scene in which he revealed his identity, particularly when he had a go at spock's ability to break bones), but also some moments that are so over the top that I found it hard to be seduced by him in the way that some great villains do, and in the way I felt the film wanted me to be. I actually felt most drawn towards the character in the moments when it was (probably) a stunt double. The movements of his character in action sequences, as well as being badass as fuck, are just so fluid it's hard not to be fascinated by them.

#10 Edited by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -

Saw it last night and had a great time. I really liked the first one and I thought this one was better.

#11 Edited by ToxicFruit (1713 posts) -

i really liked it. Not the biggest star trek fan but i have really enjoyed the 2 new ones.

thank you dude below me

#12 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -

@tfruit said:

star treck

This is unforgivable.

#13 Edited by Quarters (1547 posts) -

I thought everything was fairly well done except for the script. Yeesh, it was just a mess of arcs. Surprised by how poor it was compared to the concise nature of the first one. Thought it was very underwhelming.

#14 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

Not a Trek fan at all but I really enjoyed the first one and I thought they did an even better job this time around! Amazing cast!

#15 Edited by Soapy86 (2597 posts) -

@mcderby4 said:

Not a Trek fan at all but I really enjoyed the first one and I thought they did an even better job this time around! Amazing cast!

I think that was the intention.

#16 Edited by Rainbowkisses (472 posts) -

Like some other people here I'm not incredibly invested in the franchise, but I thought these last two films were decent enough. The biggest problem I have with them is not being able to get invested in the characters. Kirk comes off as a generic, rebellious but good-hearted hero, and it took me a while to get used to Zachary Quinto's Spock.

#17 Posted by Skytylz (4015 posts) -
@soapy86 said:

@mcderby4 said:

Not a Trek fan at all but I really enjoyed the first one and I thought they did an even better job this time around! Amazing cast!

I think that was the intention.

Yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of all the shows and as "Star Trek" movies I think they pretty much all suck. However, they're fun as summer blockbusters.

#18 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

@skytylz said:

Yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of all the shows and as "Star Trek" movies I think they pretty much all suck. However, they're fun as summer blockbusters.

Well I think it's pretty fair to say that Abrams Star Trek is an alternate universe made solely to attract a brand new audience and breath new life into a nearly dead series. I couldn't even stand the original series but these films have both been extremely intriguing to me.

#19 Posted by Demoskinos (13833 posts) -

So im on mobile and can't properly tag spoilers so.... *****SPOILERS BELOW*******

I really think they should have let Kirk die. They actually earned that moment pretty well. Pike was in Kirk's face about how he always risked everyone's lives in stupid gambles. This would have been the perfect counterpoint of showing him growing and shrugging off his brashness and dying for his crew. But yet they couldn't just let that moment go they had to gin up some dumb reason to bring him back. The final scenes were also kind of anti climatic. Spock persues him in a chase eventually he gets double teamed and Spock knocks him out. There wasn't really any tension. I still enjoyed it a ton though.

#20 Posted by probablytuna (3441 posts) -

It was pretty disappointing, I much prefer the Abrams' first Star Trek movie.

#21 Edited by Bismarck (430 posts) -

I watched it when it premiered, it was around 20:30 and there were only 7 other people with me in the cinema :D.

I liked the movie, every few minutes i was like "yup refrence, and another reference, yup, yup ".

The chick I was with liked a lot more, she ain't a fan of the franchise, her only other experiance with Star trek was the 2009 movie, and I had to explain lots of the stuff. I liked the first one aswell, I like the Star Trek TOS, TNG, liked Voyager not that big of a fan of DS9.

In my opinion they could've expanded a bit more on the super soldier bit and even woken one or two more from the frozen dudes.

Oh and the moment Peter Weller showed up on screen I knew who would be one of the baddies ;] He always plays baddies.

#22 Posted by Fattony12000 (6350 posts) -

I get a big boner whenever a ship jumps to warp in this film. The effect was different in the first film, but still sick as fuck.

#23 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1 posts) -

I get a big boner whenever a ship jumps to warp in this film. The effect was different in the first film, but still sick as fuck.

The scene where the Enterprise is being chased by Admiral Marcus and they get knocked out of the worm hole was so damn cool.

#24 Edited by Demoskinos (13833 posts) -

@fattony12000: Those sequences in 3D were one of the few times Ive been like "Huh, this 3D thing can be okay occasionally."

#25 Posted by ssj4raditz (1125 posts) -

It was pretty cool. As a long time Trek fan, I've been satisfied with how Abrams has updated the series. It gives newcomers a chance to get into the franchise without being overwhelmed.

Plus, Karl Urban as Bones is just about the greatest thing ever.

#27 Posted by HatKing (5557 posts) -

I fucking hated it. Okay, that's harsh. But, it was bad. I'm really disappointed because I remember, mostly, enjoying the first film. At least as an entertainment piece. This didn't even really grab me in that way.

- No central arc at all. The stakes in the movie fluctuate, roughly, every fifteen minutes completely destroying any cohesion, and not building any tension for anything happening. The first film had the Romulans as a central threat, with dramatic buildup, and ultimately a climax. Here you get allusions to a major threat that is totally dropped (Klingons), and about twenty smaller threats that are addressed almost as quickly as they're introduced. CHECK OUT THIS NEW SHIP THATS TOTALLY GOING TO KICK YOUR SHIPS ASS OH WAIT YOU JUST BLEW ME UP

- Kahn is shoehorned in. Why the fuck does it matter that he's Kahn? They do literally nothing with this other than the trite "oh shit" moment. The entire film is resting on this referential pull (and it's only a reference because it's his name), and considering the first film was supposed to be for those not super familiar with Star Trek, that's quite the shift. Fuck, as far as they went with it, it might not even be the Kahn, just some other dude named Kahn.

- Kirk's arc from the first film is recreated, hastily, in the first twenty minutes of this film. YOURE A REBEL YOU WILL NEVER CAPTAIN A SHIP OH SHIT I GOT CAPTURED OR KILLED HERE CAPTAIN THIS SHIP

- No emotional stakes. Any character who dies, save for the captain toward the beginning of the film (and really this could even be argued for him), is made clear to be a villain and totally unlikable. Kirk should have just died. What the fuck was old Spock's line even supposed to allude to? "At great cost"? Well, I guess the new Star Trek dudes are totally way fucking better at their jobs than the old versions of them because it didn't cost them dick to kick Kahn's pasty ass.

- It's as though Lindelof never actually watched any of the Star Trek things he referenced in the movie. He saw a top ten best moments of Star Trek on VH1 or something, and just shoved all of that in there without narrative justification or context. THOSE FUZZY THINGS ARE IN A CLASSIC EPISODE PUT IT IN THE MOVIE

You know what? That wasn't harsh. Fuck this movie. I did hate it.

I still love Simon Pegg.

#28 Posted by Ghostiet (5153 posts) -

@aiurflux said:

And unlike the first Khan movie when Spock screams it out it doesn't seem hammy and overacted at all. Shatner kind of fucking stinks in retrospective.

Kirk milks the cow with the scream in II so Khan doesn't suspect that the Enterprise is playing a trick on him.

Sure, Shatner of that age is an overactor like no other, but in this particular case it's reasonable

#29 Edited by HatKing (5557 posts) -

I fucking hated it. Okay, that's harsh. But, it was bad. I'm really disappointed because I remember, mostly, enjoying the first film. At least as an entertainment piece. This didn't even really grab me in that way.

- No central arc at all. The stakes in the movie fluctuate, roughly, every fifteen minutes completely destroying any cohesion, and not building any tension for anything happening. The first film had the Romulans as a central threat, with dramatic buildup, and ultimately a climax. Here you get allusions to a major threat that is totally dropped (Klingons), and about twenty smaller threats that are addressed almost as quickly as they're introduced. CHECK OUT THIS NEW SHIP THATS TOTALLY GOING TO KICK YOUR SHIPS ASS OH WAIT YOU JUST BLEW ME UP

- Kahn is shoehorned in. Why the fuck does it matter that he's Kahn? They do literally nothing with this other than the trite "oh shit" moment. The entire film is resting on this referential pull (and it's only a reference because it's his name), and considering the first film was supposed to be for those not super familiar with Star Trek, that's quite the shift. Fuck, as far as they went with it, it might not even be the Kahn, just some other dude named Kahn.

- Kirk's arc from the first film is recreated, hastily, in the first twenty minutes of this film. YOURE A REBEL YOU WILL NEVER CAPTAIN A SHIP OH SHIT I GOT CAPTURED OR KILLED HERE CAPTAIN THIS SHIP

- No emotional stakes. Any character who dies, save for the captain toward the beginning of the film (and really this could even be argued for him), is made clear to be a villain and totally unlikable. Kirk should have just died. What the fuck was old Spock's line even supposed to allude to? "At great cost"? Well, I guess the new Star Trek dudes are totally way fucking better at their jobs than the old versions of them because it didn't cost them dick to kick Kahn's pasty ass.

- It's as though Lindelof never actually watched any of the Star Trek things he referenced in the movie. He saw a top ten best moments of Star Trek on VH1 or something, and just shoved all of that in there without narrative justification or context. THOSE FUZZY THINGS ARE IN A CLASSIC EPISODE PUT IT IN THE MOVIE

You know what? That wasn't harsh. Fuck this movie. I did hate it.

I still love Simon Pegg.

#30 Edited by Ghostiet (5153 posts) -

@aiurflux said:

And unlike the first Khan movie when Spock screams it out it doesn't seem hammy and overacted at all. Shatner kind of fucking stinks in retrospective.

Kirk milks the cow with the scream in II so Khan doesn't suspect that the Enterprise is playing a trick on him.

Sure, Shatner of that age is an overactor like no other, but in this particular case it's reasonable

#31 Posted by HatKing (5557 posts) -

I fucking hated it. Okay, that's harsh. But, it was bad. I'm really disappointed because I remember, mostly, enjoying the first film. At least as an entertainment piece. This didn't even really grab me in that way.

- No central arc at all. The stakes in the movie fluctuate, roughly, every fifteen minutes completely destroying any cohesion, and not building any tension for anything happening. The first film had the Romulans as a central threat, with dramatic buildup, and ultimately a climax. Here you get allusions to a major threat that is totally dropped (Klingons), and about twenty smaller threats that are addressed almost as quickly as they're introduced. CHECK OUT THIS NEW SHIP THATS TOTALLY GOING TO KICK YOUR SHIPS ASS OH WAIT YOU JUST BLEW ME UP

- Kahn is shoehorned in. Why the fuck does it matter that he's Kahn? They do literally nothing with this other than the trite "oh shit" moment. The entire film is resting on this referential pull (and it's only a reference because it's his name), and considering the first film was supposed to be for those not super familiar with Star Trek, that's quite the shift. Fuck, as far as they went with it, it might not even be the Kahn, just some other dude named Kahn.

- Kirk's arc from the first film is recreated, hastily, in the first twenty minutes of this film. YOURE A REBEL YOU WILL NEVER CAPTAIN A SHIP OH SHIT I GOT CAPTURED OR KILLED HERE CAPTAIN THIS SHIP

- No emotional stakes. Any character who dies, save for the captain toward the beginning of the film (and really this could even be argued for him), is made clear to be a villain and totally unlikable. Kirk should have just died. What the fuck was old Spock's line even supposed to allude to? "At great cost"? Well, I guess the new Star Trek dudes are totally way fucking better at their jobs than the old versions of them because it didn't cost them dick to kick Kahn's pasty ass.

- It's as though Lindelof never actually watched any of the Star Trek things he referenced in the movie. He saw a top ten best moments of Star Trek on VH1 or something, and just shoved all of that in there without narrative justification or context. THOSE FUZZY THINGS ARE IN A CLASSIC EPISODE PUT IT IN THE MOVIE

You know what? That wasn't harsh. Fuck this movie. I did hate it.

I still love Simon Pegg.

#32 Edited by Ghostiet (5153 posts) -

@aiurflux said:

And unlike the first Khan movie when Spock screams it out it doesn't seem hammy and overacted at all. Shatner kind of fucking stinks in retrospective.

Kirk milks the cow with the scream in II so Khan doesn't suspect that the Enterprise is playing a trick on him.

Sure, Shatner of that age is an overactor like no other, but in this particular case it's justified.

#33 Edited by TheSouthernDandy (3626 posts) -

@demoskinos said:

@fattony12000: Those sequences in 3D were one of the few times Ive been like "Huh, this 3D thing can be okay occasionally."

Yeah I thought the same thing, I'm not a fan of 3D but it was done really well in this movie.

Overall I loved Into Darkness, I liked it even better then the first. The cast is a lot of fun and there's some great chemistry between the characters and Khan was awesome. That dude was a bigger badass then Iron Man. I really like how they twisted some of what happened in Wrath of Khan to make things different but familiar. I will say the way the saved Kirk you could see coming miles away. Great movie though, really great.

@ssj4raditz said:

Plus, Karl Urban as Bones is just about the greatest thing ever.

Word. One of my friends I saw it with said he was the worst part of the movie and I almost pushed him into traffic.

#35 Edited by mellotronrules (1170 posts) -

it was good for a rollercoaster--summer-popcorn film. but man, it's fairly vapid. and talk about being caught in a bad bromance.

#36 Edited by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

I thought it was mediocre due to it being extremely anticlimactic. Spock calls up Spock and asks him about Kahn only to find out he is one of the most dangerous and powerful foes they ever faced, and his defeat came at great cost. Yet, Spock tricks him with one extremely obvious scheme and then fights him on a flying vehicle thing to subdue him. Also, I knew the whole time that Kirk wasn't actually going to die, so the whole sacrifice thing had absolutely no impact for me.

I thought the build up was really good, but the last half or third fell as flat as possible. It wasn't a bad movie by any means, but it could have been much better.

#37 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -

The movie was pretty dumb and all of the references were hamfistedly smooshed in there.

But it had Benedict Cumberbatch in it so I give it 7.5/10 stars.

#38 Posted by zombie2011 (4941 posts) -

I thought the ending was super dumb, Kahn is supposed be smart right? So how did he fall for that trick?

Also I've never seen the original movie, but I was disappointed when they re-hashed some of the stuff from it. I enjoyed it when I saw it and recommend it to anyone, but when I thought about it more it just made me annoyed that they didn't come up with something original.

#39 Edited by Insectecutor (1170 posts) -

@tylea002 said:

I think I hated it more than I've hated any film ever.

So that's something.

I'm with you, although perhaps you've not seen enough films. This movie came across as lazy and kind of thrown together without much thought. Even the performances lacked conviction, with everyone being handily upstaged by Cumberbatch.

It's very easy and cheap to chuck in Star Trek references. It's everything else that's hard, and it was that part that was lacking.

Btw I liked Trek '09 - it was refreshing. It's remarkable how quickly it's soured.

#40 Edited by JasonR86 (9367 posts) -

I really liked it. I vastly preferred this film to the first one. Mostly because they are turning Kirk into first season Kirk and not every other iteration of Kirk. The only thing I really didn't like was the tribble scene. The information offered in that throw away, completely out of left field conversation could have been handled much more elegantly. Also I'm not sure how much weight Kahn as a character would have had if I didn't already know about the old Kahn. I do think that, considering how hard these scripts must be to write considering how many masters need to be served, that the movie is able to be as good as it is (or polarizing for those that don't like it) is pretty impressive. I could totally see this movie just being average and really safe. That it isn't is really cool to me.

#41 Edited by casper_ (882 posts) -

I enjoyed it but I already forgot what the fuck happened.

#42 Edited by JeanLuc (3518 posts) -

The last 20 minutes was a bit ehh, but overall I really enjoyed it.

#43 Edited by EvilNiGHTS (1093 posts) -

Jonathan Frakes has lauded it on Twitter already, so I guess it's the greatest Star Trek movie ever. After all, he did direct one of the good ones. And, um... one of the not so good ones.

#44 Posted by I_Stay_Puft (2590 posts) -

Kinda stupid how they keep on questioning Kirk as a captain, and because Kirk did something stupid again they keep him as captain. Kirk's biggest enemy is delegating, learn from Jean Luc and stay in the chair.

#45 Posted by EvilNiGHTS (1093 posts) -

learn from Jean Luc and stay in the chair.

Yeah, but in A Final Unity you had to use Picard to finish the last mission. I think he knew what paperclips were for?

#46 Edited by SSully (4059 posts) -

I thought it was a really fun movie, but you have to turn your brain off a little when watching. As someone else already mentioned, they change motivations and throw "twists" constantly throughout the film, let them happen, and then kind of just leave them so they can reveal another twist. It was silly.

With that said I thought the film handled the character's interactions and growth really well. Everyone played off each other extremely well and they stuck with character issues from the start of the film and grew them in a natural way. So that is a plus.

Finally the effects and general sci fi nature of everything was best in class.

#47 Posted by Kraznor (1573 posts) -

@tylea002 said:

I think I hated it more than I've hated any film ever.

So that's something.

I wouldn't go that far, but it is perhaps the only time I've shouted at a friend of mine in a movie theater after it was over due to what can only be described as nerd rage. That final quarter undid everything I liked about it leading up to that point and then-some. The most soulless, derivative movie I've seen in awhile. Completely missed the point of what made Star Trek interesting these past 47 years.

#48 Posted by JasonR86 (9367 posts) -

@kraznor:

What do you mean? What point did they miss?

#49 Posted by Kraznor (1573 posts) -

@jasonr86: My favorite Trek moments all involve some manner of philosophical musing or thought-provoking dilemma the crew need to deal with. This was way to "straight-forward action movie with occasional Star Trek seasoning", which mostly means cheap call-outs to Star Trek II and nothing to really chew on afterwards. As someone not as enamored with the Star Trek feature films in general, I was annoyed they decided to lean so hard on those callbacks to those without delving into anything new or interesting for long-time Trek veterans or taking advantage of what makes the larger Star Trek universe so valuable, the ability to give us a glimpse of a potential future for humanity and the things we can aspire towards (in the 60s, that was racial harmony and noble scientific exploration, a thing they pay lip-service to in this film at the conclusion but don't really exhibit any real reverence for).

And pardon the weird bolding and whatnot, not sure what is going on with Giant Bomb.

#50 Edited by JasonR86 (9367 posts) -

@kraznor:

Well, none of the Star Trek movies have offered the philosophical side of Star Trek. So why is it now, with this movie, does this reaction come out? As for the references the writers are in a real hard position of writing to multiple types of Trek fans as well as a new audience. The references are their way of nodding to the hardcore fans. They were there so that the newly set up universe with a slightly tilted view of what we as fans already know happened could both feel old and new. I think it was handled well. I can understand why others wouldn't. But the vitriolic language seems nuts to me. I mean at worst I can't see someone seeing this film exactly for what it is rather than what it isn't as anything worse then average.