ajzepp Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 My review above yours, agrees with your sentiment. Looks like the audience is too (its shaping up to be a disappointment): http://www.forbes.co...ust-84-million/ "Four years ago, we all thought that Star Trek 2 was a lock for one of the bigger opening weekends on record. Today, we’re wondering if it will even top $200 million domestic." This has always been my gripe against Abrams. I never know when he will turn out genius material like the 2009 Star Trek or when he will make us groan with utter underwhelming crap like Super 8. I really think this one had the potential to be great, but he should have followed up on the groundwork he put down in 2009...I just don't get it. I have been reading some reviews and "Star Trek Into Darkness" has become a movie that audiences either love or hate. The die hard Trekkers appear to be split on this movie, but the audience Cinema Score grade was an "A", and the Rotten Tomatoes score is a strong 87%. I just came across this review, and he hits on a few points that exactly echo my sentiments. For anyone who hasn't seen the film, I suggest NOT reading this review cause it has spoilers: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62468 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAWNDO Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 He did a great job not revealing that it was Kahn until about half way through the movie. I think I knew it was Kahn, even before I saw the movie, but for fans new to the series, it was a great reveal. After seeing what he's done with both Star Treks, I have a good feeling he can return Star Wars to its former glory. I'll be interested in seeing who he casts for main roles(have heard he wants to bring back the old cast for cameos). I was never a fan of Star Trek until I saw Abrams reboot in 2009. I cannot wait to see what he does with Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I just came across this review, and he hits on a few points that exactly echo my sentiments. For anyone who hasn't seen the film, I suggest NOT reading this review cause it has spoilers: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62468 Wow. It's like someone read my mind. What I hope is that like with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," there is such outrage at it's (IMHO) horridness that they go "Wrath of Khan" for the next installment. But I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted May 20, 2013 Author Share Posted May 20, 2013 (edited) My review above yours, agrees with your sentiment. Looks like the audience is too (its shaping up to be a disappointment): http://www.forbes.co...ust-84-million/ "Four years ago, we all thought that Star Trek 2 was a lock for one of the bigger opening weekends on record. Today, we’re wondering if it will even top $200 million domestic." This has always been my gripe against Abrams. I never know when he will turn out genius material like the 2009 Star Trek or when he will make us groan with utter underwhelming crap like Super 8. I think that maybe the gap of four years might have been too long for the "new" Star Trek fans, and the hunger just was not there. Now the big Memorial Day weekend is next week, so it still can make big money as word-of-mouth is on the positive side. Let me also point out that there were a lot of Star Trek fans who bashed the 2009 film as well. Some people would refer to that movie as "Star Wars" and had some bad things to say about Abrams' direction and story telling. On a personal note, I have a totally different opinion about "Super 8". I enjoyed that movie very much. Edited May 20, 2013 by Mark Vader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I was never a fan of Star Trek until I saw Abrams reboot in 2009. I cannot wait to see what he does with Star Wars. I really thought his reboot was brilliant. He very cleverly got his story arc out from under that of the original films and gave himself a wide open universe where he could take the story. That's the main reason why I'm so disappointed...I think he totally wasted the opportunity he gave himself. I've seen the 2009 film several times, though, and enjoy it on repeat viewings. He's a huge star wars nerd...I really think the upcoming films are in very good hands. Wow. It's like someone read my mind. What I hope is that like with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture," there is such outrage at it's (IMHO) horridness that they go "Wrath of Khan" for the next installment. But I doubt it. Yep, that's how I felt when I read it. Sometimes you read reviews and can tell that they're just nitpicking for the sake of having something negative to say...but he makes some great points that mirror my own criticisms of the film, in addition to several other points that I hadn't even thought of. Overall, his review is spot on, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I really thought his reboot was brilliant. He very cleverly got his story arc out from under that of the original films and gave himself a wide open universe where he could take the story. That's the main reason why I'm so disappointed...I think he totally wasted the opportunity he gave himself. I've seen the 2009 film several times, though, and enjoy it on repeat viewings. He's a huge star wars nerd...I really think the upcoming films are in very good hands. Yep, that's how I felt when I read it. Sometimes you read reviews and can tell that they're just nitpicking for the sake of having something negative to say...but he makes some great points that mirror my own criticisms of the film, in addition to several other points that I hadn't even thought of. Overall, his review is spot on, IMO. I didn't like the reboot (either). I can only suspend disbelief to a certain extent. As for SW, the saving grace is he isn't trying to reboot the entire series. So I have some hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) Saw Star Trek on Friday but wanted to wait a day before I posted a reaction.I loved Star Trek, the TV series and think Wrath of Khan was one of the best. Also really enjoyed the 2009 re-boot/re-imagination of the entire series. The parallel universe concept and the rest of the story was very creative and riveting. Given all this, I saw the new one and came away disappointed. I will put my thoughts in the spoiler section as I don't know what counts as spoilers or not. - The acting is good throughout. Chris Pine and Weller came across as weak and not really into their roles - Action sequences are very well shot - Cumberbatch steals the show. I liked him in Sherlock and the understated role in Tinker, tailor. Here he really comes into his own and pretty much dominates the screen when he is in it. - Story has a lot of holes or at least a real stretching of the story line to the point where I couldn't buy into some aspects. Why does Harrison/Khan lead the crew to the Klignon planet ? Why do the Enterprise's sensors detect no other life form ? Why do the Klignon's do nothing despite the federation's incursion ? How does a Harrison single handedly shoot so many Klignon's when utterly exposed himself ? Several other points throughout which I could ont see beyond - So all it takes to cure any dying person is to inject that person with Khan's blood ? The Holy Grail ! Life's mystery is solved !!! - A huge point I hated was the pussifying of Spock. Tears ? Romancing ? Showing so much emotion ? Come on, Abrams !! He is only half human and mostly Vulcan. the latter dominates. if this is the way he is re-imagined in the Abram's series, I hate it. This is not a friggin' soap opera All in all, I think it was a good action movie, but not a Star Trek movie. In the effort to make it palatable to the general public, he has sold out the Trek faithful and also made a weak story for the rest. Abrams should re-watch the 2009 movie and see that he did not have to dumb down the movie to make it more broadly acceptable. The box office may prove me wrong but I think it was a poor strategy. Saw ST ID over the weekend and totally agree with your take--especially this one: - So all it takes to cure any dying person is to inject that person with Khan's blood ? The Holy Grail ! Life's mystery is solved !!! IMO, the problem lies with the demand by today's movie going public (i.e., teens and anyone older that still thinks like one) that these tent-pole franchieses be SFX extravaganzas (meaning filmmakers can't go 5-minutes without a big bang, boom, crash, fight scene etc.) It handcuffs the story telling aspects that ST (and all good sci-fi) are grounded in, which makes them simply comic books... Edited May 21, 2013 by Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 Though I've been wanting to watch this movie for a while, I don't know if a movie could capture the reality of this guy. I suggest watching the HBO documentaries before. I saw "The Iceman" and thought it was done very well. Michael Shannon is great and Winona Ryder does a fine job as well. The biggest surprise is Chris Evans, who gets a chance to show that he can do more than be a superhero. The movie has a good balance of showing Kuklinski's life with his family and what he does for "work". The cinematography is very good as well, as the film has a dark & gritty look to it, which adds to the style. I may take your suggestion and watch the documentary on this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts