MrMaestro
Since: Jun, 2011
05/21/2013 00:00:00
I thought the "War on Terror" overtones were too blunt and some of the action scenes went on too long, but otherwise I agree with this review. As for Khan, I just that he was given some kind of space-age appearance overhaul so that no historians would recognize him. At any rate, it was worth it just to see Cumberbatch's powerhouse performance.
I'd like to be the first man on the moon.
Wackd
Since: May, 2009
05/21/2013 00:00:00
I don't care that it's not actiony, but I would've preferred to know this was a remake before I went to see it
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
Wackd
Since: May, 2009
terlwyth
Since: Oct, 2010
05/21/2013 00:00:00
Enh the real question is why Brit Cumberbatch was casted instead of someone who actually looked like Montalban,himself didn't look or sound Sikh.
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter
Ayasugi
Since: Oct, 2010
05/22/2013 00:00:00
@terlwyth
Not necessarily. The real question could also be why they felt the need to have the villain be Khan at all.
Leave a Comment:
Ignore the Unpleasable Fanbase, it's great
Note: this review contains some general spoilers about the plot.
Star Trek Into Darkness is an all-around excellent action movie with a classic Trek emphasis on character development and the staple moral subtext for contemporary audiences. The narrative pace is a substantial improvement over the 2009 film, which attempted to cram several character origin stories, a save-the-world plot and (re)establish an entire sci-fi universe in the space of two hours. Freed from the constraints of having to introduce the audience to the quasi-rebooted world of Trek, STID lavishes attention on a taut, coherent (if somewhat derivative) plot and excellent character interactions which show how the main crew of the Enterprise are growing into the beloved tight-knit team from TOS. The action sequences are fast-paced but never gratuitous, and you won't mistake Kirk, Spock etc. for phaser-toting space marines. All of the actors turn in excellent performances and are believable in their roles. The "War on Terror" allegory which forms the crux of the plot is as relevant and meaningful as anything Trek ever produced.
Of course STID has attracted the typical array of Trekkie naysayers who automatically deride it as simplistic action garbage. Unfortunately there is little Abrams (or any director) could have done to appease such "fans". None of the more "philosophical" (read: self-important and plodding)Trek episodes would ever translate well to a feature-length film, plus they were largely contained to the TNG era anyway. In fact, Trek has rarely if ever been so profound as many of its long-time nostalgia-filled fans seem to believe. For every Twilight Zone-worthy plot was a "Spock's Brain". This is not to say by any means that the TOS was bad; it simply wasn't a perfect art.
The controversial casting decision for Khan is more deserving of criticism. Cumberbatch turns in such an amazing performance that it's almost impossible not to overlook it when you watch the movie, but it is strange that STID never even attempts an explanation for why a white, British man appears to have replaced a Sikh Indian warlord. Has he genetically-modified his appearance to better blend in? Is "Khan" merely a codename? Who knows. That noted, it's not worth letting it ruin the film for you.