My Review of Star Trek Into The Darkness (No Spoilers)

[Yavin4]

Beautifully made. More action adventure than science fiction. Fast paced. Lacked imagination or creativity. Didn't provide inspiration.

[FredisDead]

1. My Two Cents

The Movie Was Awful

[Behind the Aegis]

2. I liked it.

I liked the references to other movies and characters. It could have used more Karl Urban.

[Roland99]

3. I didn't like a certain cheesy plot twist but overall the film was quite enjoyable

more intense than I was expecting.

[fizzgig]

4. i love me some karl urban

[Behind the Aegis]

5. I have been into him since he was "Eros" on "Xena."

And I couldn't help but check out his package when he was in that blue spandex. I even leaned over to my partner and said..."Check Karl out! Hubba-hubba!"

[fizzgig]

7. ha!

i liked him as eomer in lotr, but it was the bourne supremacy that sealed it for me. yum

[Flaxbee]

6. I developed my Karl Urban crush when I saw him in "Red" (the movie with Helen Mirren,

Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, John Malkovich... from a few years ago).



I regret that this ST franchise seems to be more action based rather than science fiction, but I'm sure we'll see it regardless...

[fizzgig]

8. i'm not much for action movies

but it was fun.

[Flaxbee]

9. I actually like action movies... but I would like sci-fi to be sci-fi, not car chases in space

Some action, sure - this is supposed to be a new frontier - but it seems that the emphasis has definitely drifted away from science fiction. And having had Arthur C. Clarke as a family friend, I feel sad on his behalf. So much story possibility, reduced to action sequences instead.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. Sorry, loved it.

[wyldwolf]

11. Great piece showing ST: Into Darkness parallels with recent US political history (SPOILERS!!)

(If you've been living in seclusion the last few months and don't want to know the plot lines of ST: Into Darkness, stop now...)



spoiler space






spoiler space




spoiler space



spoiler space

|
V

|
V


















Now – is this Starfleet still based on the idealism of the 1960’s America? No. With STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, the Darkness of the film isn’t Khan. It isn’t the Klingons or the Romulans, it’s the Darkness that has infected policy in STARFLEET. In other words, this is a metaphor for a Post-9/11 America. In JJ’s Verse, he has a Kirk that doesn’t yet value the core beliefs of STARFLEET… Meanwhile, the rest of his crew… good souls like Spock and Scotty… They raise these issues with Kirk, but Kirk doesn’t want to hear it. He’s us. Kirk has always been us. But just like Kirk, we’ve changed.

Vengeance has become something our Country seeks. Since 9/11 – we have adjusted our core beliefs and laws to make things more convenient for a government that has been given a license to seek vengeance and protect us at all costs.

This STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is about the very basis of what a democracy should be built upon. To serve as a reminder of what STAR TREK really meant, what we’re supposed to be not on our BEST day but on our WORST.

How far STARFLEET has gone is so far, that for a bit… Khan and Kirk are united in a fight against a monster of a ship called VENGEANCE helmed by Peter Weller’s Admiral Marcus – the man in charge of Starfleet – whose personal fear has hijacked this great institution. The invention of stealth, long-range photon torpedoes that can be fired from a great distance… sounds like DRONE technology. And when Spock and Scotty speak out against the use of that tech, that’s a conversation that we as a people are currently having.

We as a people are better than who we are right now, if we stop and think about the toll our post-9/11 policies have taken upon the character of our great nation. Remember, Shatner’s Kirk… at the end of SPACE SEED, set Khan and his people to live upon a planet where they would have a chance to live their dream.

In this post-Vulcan Starfleet, Khan was found. The rest of his crew were kept on ICE and he was evaluated and used to nefarious ends by a perversion of our Government. You could go so far as to say Khan is Bin Laden, an enemy that we once used for our own purposes against a common enemy, the Russians/Klingons here. When that partnership ended, and suddenly Starfleet comes under attack, he’s quickly assigned blame and eventually a mission is drawn up to assassinate him so he won’t talk. What KHAN has to say is something that Peter Weller’s Admiral can not allow to happen, because that story is a story that the people can’t be allowed to hear.

This is a very political film. Moreso than I ever anticipated going in.

More.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62477

[irisblue]

12. :::SPOILER COMMENT::::

and I am so glad someone else saw what I saw...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SPOILERS BELOW

Admiral Marcus=Dick Cheney (who is the dark lord of the sith anyway)
Scotty refusing to sign off on the torpedoes=concerns about using drones
Carol Marcus undressing and posing=misogynist claptrap to generate DVD sales. (this made me feel like fish slapping around the writers and producers, it was not necessary for the plot or character I feel).
Thanks wyldwolf, for your post.