Star Trek into Darkness

I stared wide-eyed for two hours as if I were fifteen again. Nevertheless, I have two major criticisms to air. Abrams dragged on the concept of the first film without any significant innovation (the timing of the action scenes fits more or less one-to-one within the runtime) and, most importantly, he hardly works with the villain (and Cumberbatch provides him with what few others can). When I watch it the second time is when I'll decide if it was all on purpose and it's still all about the fire of catchphrases, perfect characters, and "absolute" moments like falling from space, or if J.J. is already on the other side of the galaxy with his thoughts. (11/06/2013)

Star Trek shattered the traditional concept of space opera with all its naivety and old rituals and boldly stepped toward the younger generation and those who had remained outside the world created by Gene Roddenberry. It resulted in an entertaining blockbuster that is modern, dynamic, and full of action, battles, memorable lines, and tension - simply a likable popcorn movie for mass audiences. The sequel follows a similar spirit, although it reduced the number of memorable lines and humor, replacing them with pathos and, in some cases, pure sentiment (yes, brave space heroes are not ashamed of shedding tears), and overall the film slightly lost the lightness of its predecessor. On the other hand, it is by no means a failure; many sequels struggle to even come close to the original film's quality (Guy Ritchie could tell you all about that). The film's generous production, breathtaking special effects scenes, the action following one after another, and the fast pace prevent viewers from noticing the gaps in logic and the simplicity of the story. This type of blockbuster is not meant for contemplation or reflection, but for quick consumption, and it fulfills this role more than adequately. Overall impression: 80%. (09/07/2013)

The screenwriters couldn’t resist. Honestly, it was just too enticing, but hats off to Abrams for saving fans from themselves (clever differences in the trailers) because he knows the value of a good secret. The story of Into Darkness is a solid political sci-fi thriller, working perfectly with the main characters and visually provokes nothing less that amazement. Both Kirk and Spock are given equal space. The divergence from the primary story line, caused by Nero’s intervention completely turns around some events and changes the context of certain events to a chilling extent. I’m afraid the creators just can’t afford to do this next time. The so acclaimed bad guy with a mug like Benedict Cumberbatch lives up to his reputation both mentally and physically (his hands are like skull-crackers). And Peter Weller is cool! - If Spock were here, and I were there, what would he do? - He’d let you die. (10/06/2013)

Massive disappointment from J.J. Abrams, the first time ever. Effective eye candy, but it didn’t bring me any pleasure at all. The story is told so sloppily that I actually don’t know what it was about. Everything is ancillary to the glossiness and the pace – before the dust can settle after a twist, there comes another twist, and everything is now different; the movie won’t allow you to understand that turn of events because the plot never goes very deep. Important decisions that would need hours if not days of pondering here are made in a few microseconds. Just whoosh here, whoosh there, it doesn’t matter after all. At its most basic, from one scene to the next, it does work (you can follow the short-term motivations of the characters), but who wanted to do what long-term is something that I’m unable to put together and I fear it simply doesn’t make any sense; not even a bit. The fact that everyone speaks in dull one-liners doesn’t help either. The second Star Trek cheered me up a little only by the end, when it managed to arouse some emotions (I loved the first one, though), but it took me only a few seconds to realise that nothing had really happened, and I guessed exactly the gimmick the movie will use next to reach its nonconflicting goal. So, overall, I'm quite bitter. A film with a very charismatic villain played very charismatically by a very charismatic actor until you realise you don’t know anything about him and you only remember a couple of psychopathic grimaces doesn’t deserve a higher rating. (06/06/2013)

Stay true to your geek enthusiast soul, making Trekkies happy with allusions and references, or pander to the demands of the blockbuster market? That is the question to which this time Abrams didn’t find a satisfying answer to. And so sways between these two approaches, a while this way, a while the other. The instability here rears its head in all aspects. On the one hand a seriously conceived (and criminally underused) villain with incredible motivation played by a charismatic actor and opposite him a comically fresh-faced crew full of puppets to make up the numbers. Although it’s Spock-style emotionally cold, more tears are shed here than at Kim Jong-il’s funeral. It pretends to be a popcorn movie where you don’t have to switch your brain off, but they start coming out with over-combined plans that would seem idiotic even in much dumber pastiches. We get tongue-in-cheek Indian Jones-style escapades and attempts at dark, fateful monumentality topped off with a convolutedly grafted on compulsory deus ex machina-style cameo, incessantly recycled music, unwanted, ridiculous metavariations (the worst being that awful scene “behind the glass) and the rather sudden ending which, rather than being a climax involving the inevitability of fate, looks more like the budget ran out and so the movie didn’t end as it was originally meant to... Simply a messy (and confusing due to the frenetic work in the cutting room) result where the biggest surprise is that Abrams had no problem with exactly the same things in part one. (07/06/2013)