ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

A Look At "Star Trek Into Darkness"

Updated on June 23, 2014

Star Trek Movie Poster

Source

Star Trek Into Darkness Rating

3 stars for Star Trek Into Darkness

Quote

The good things about this movie are sadly not used or seen as much as the bad things. Bones (Karl Urban) is one of the best characters from this newer Star Trek reboot and his only part in this movie is to say an occasional one liner for comic relief. I loved him in "Star Trek" (2009) so I don't know why he wasn't given more scenes in this movie. Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) is another good thing in this movie. He isn't an overly made up villain, as many Star Trek villains are, and because of this he looks like anyone else only much more advanced which makes him a little more scary than if he had a major makeup job to look like a villain. His voice is impressive and he's believably evil. His voice is what sells his characters. I said this same thing about his voice in "Desolation of Smaug".

To boldly go where no man has gone before...

...or not. Sorry J.J. but this directorial effort didn't wow me. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed "Star Trek" (2009) but "Star Trek Into Darkness" was a little word I call: meh. It's not really great or bad. It's just stuck in the middle. It had the ability to have been a great sci-fi movie, yet it just kept hitting below that mark. The plot is the crew of the Enterprise returns to Earth and a force begins to destroy Starfleet and the peace of Earth. The crew is forced to chase after the individual who is terrorizing Earth after they flee the planet to begin stirring up anger among the Klingons toward the people of Earth.

The good things about this movie are sadly not used or seen as much as the bad things. Bones (Karl Urban) is one of the best characters from this newer Star Trek reboot and his only part in this movie is to say an occasional one liner for comic relief. I loved him in "Star Trek" (2009) so I don't know why he wasn't given more scenes in this movie. Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) is another good thing in this movie. He isn't an overly made up villain, as many Star Trek villains are, and because of this he looks like anyone else only much more advanced which makes him a little more scary than if he had a major makeup job to look like a villain. His voice is impressive and he's believably evil. His voice is what sells his characters. I said this same thing about his voice in "Desolation of Smaug". The action scenes are alright. I like the other planet scene in the beginning and many of the action sequences/battles. The CGI is pretty good and makes the special effects from the old show look unbearable to even watch once. I did watch a few episodes of the old show on tv one night out of curiosity about it after seeing the "Next Generation" shows and these new reboot movies. It was so cheesy I could have made macaroni out of it.

The bad things in this movie include issues with plot, lack of character development, and annoying "romance" moments. The plot is stupid at times. It's confusing and jumbled and full of annoying things to give it some meat. The romance moments between the characters are really a low point. I liked Uhura and Spock's relationship in "Star Trek", yet here it felt like they were annoying at times. They argued about their relationship while on a life threatening mission, which seems out of character for both of them. They could have done the scene elsewhere and made it work out much better. Uhura seems like she's smart enough not to argue about their relationship on a mission so it seems weird of her to do so. Their relationship is also a little unexplained. They could have thrown in a flashback scene of their meeting somewhere like how there were past scenes of Kirk and Spock's lives while they were children. I suppose male audiences wouldn't appreciate a scene like that, yet it seems like it would be an interesting addition to these newer movies rather than only sticking to scenes of Kirk sleeping around with alien chicks for the relationship scenes. Now Kirk's relationships in this were also a little pointless. I'm not sure why they were kind of angling him towards being with Carol. Why bother? It makes more sense to just keep his character as a womanizer. Having him only kind of into Carol on the ship was stupid. He could have continued to flirt with Uhura or other female crew members and Carol to stay true to his womanizing. The other thing about Carol that's annoying is for the only reason of marketing to male audiences the crew wrote in that Carol had to have an underwear scene. This is almost exactly like how Uhura had an underwear scene in "Star Trek" where Kirk watched her undress while hiding under her roommate's bed. Both of these women characters are really smart, opinionated, and educated yet they get reduced to underwear scenes just to appease hormonal male audiences? It's just bad. Like Michael Bay level bad. The characters in this never get to develop or show any signs of change or growth either. They're just woodenly running around and you don't have any time to care about them or any real personal battles going on with them that you hope they overcome. There seemed like there was plenty of time given just for character development in "Star Trek" (2009), so why did they decide against giving any back story flashbacks or actual dialogue between characters that didn't have to happen during a life or death situation? There could have easily been ten minutes set aside for a little more character in the movie so audiences could care more about the characters. This is another Michael Bay level bad that this movie fell victim to. "Transformers" the first movie wasn't that good, yet it tried to give some character development so you actually want them to be alright. In the second one I didn't give a fruit about any of the characters. Towards the end I just wanted them to die and for the Earth to blow up because the inhabitants they were giving as examples of that needed saving weren't worth saving. They were pathetic. Every time Optimus Prime was like: we are here to protect! I was like: why bother protecting these losers? Let them die Optimus! You have better things to do with your time! I borderline felt this way while watching this movie. I didn't really see why I should care about Kirk because he didn't have enough scenes to make him likable and the rest of the crew wasn't given the time to make you concerned for their well being. I was moved to near tears in "Star Trek" in the opening scene where Kirk's parents are shown and his dad selflessly gives his life to save the crew. His dad had barely any time to show his character yet he was way more likable than Kirk after two movies. I did like Kirk in the first movie, yet in the sequel I just felt he wasn't as likable. I liked a few of his jokes and that was it.

I highly recommend "Star Trek" and if you want to see the same characters again watch this one. Like I said it does have good parts! It really does and it was entertaining. It just isn't as good as the first one J.J. did.

Star Trek Into Darkness Movie Poster

Source

What is your favorite "Star Trek" character?

What is your favorite "Star Trek" character?

See results

Star Trek Into Darkness Movie Poster

Source

Movie Quotables

James T. Kirk: "If Spock were here, and I were there, what would he do?"

Bones: "He'd let you die."

Where to find "Star Trek Into Darkness"

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Titen-Sxull profile image

      Titen-Sxull 2 years ago from back in the lab again

      This is one of those movies that I sort of re-evalutated. I really liked it when I saw it in the theater but the more I thought about it, and then upon further viewings, the less I liked it. It feels like they took the same character arcs from 2009 and re-animated a few plot points from old Trek and slapped it together in an exciting colorful package and said "here's your damn adventure movie, that'll be 11.50"

      I have to agree with you, its kinda in the middle. On the one hand its fast-paced, funny and has some emotional bonding with the characters that really works (I was so rooting for Spock to kick Khan's ass at the end). On the other hand our character arcs are rehashed (Kirk has to act more like Spock, Spock like Kirk) and of course the risk of upsetting the die hard nerds by even re-treading Wrath of Khan.

      And of course, as you said, they haven't found a real place for Bones, he's meant to be right in there balancing Kirk out with the help of Spock.

    • Nicole Hering profile image
      Author

      Nicole Kristine 2 years ago from MN

      Thanks for reading and for the comment!

    Click to Rate This Article