[Movies]
[movies] Star Trek Into Darkness
Yesterday, Lisa Costello and I went to see Star Trek Into Darkness [ imdb ].
How you can make such a terribly bad movie with Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban and Benedict Cumberbatch is beyond me. It wasn’t just bad. It was gratuitously bad. Stupidly bad. Intellectually offensively bad. Sort of like that recent movie that someone who stole Ridley Scott’s name claimed to have made. $190,000,000 spent on this dog and they couldn’t get a scriptwriter with minimal competence at science, science fiction, plot, suspense or dialog? I could have written a better script. Drunk.
Lisa’s first flying snowman came six or seven minutes in. I think I lasted ten minutes before my first flying snowman. After a while, I lost count. I eventually wanted to retitle the movie Star Trek: Lens Flares vs Flying Snowmen. If nothing else, that would have been truth in advertising.
I’ll admit this much: it was kind of fun. Stupid, boring, annoying fun, but kind of fun. Seriously, though. Wait for the DVD release. Or Netflix. Or a junior college interpretive dance performance of the script. At a minimum, watch it at home with the sound turned off while listening to old Cheech and Chong routines.
And this movie was made by the man who will make the next Star Wars films? Based on what J.J. Abrams did to Star Trek Into Darkness, I predict an all-Jar Jar cast in a Busby Berkeley style musical about political infighting in the Imperial Senate.
Related Posts
Posted: 5:09 am Sat June 01 2013 |
Comments
« [photos] Your Saturday moment of zen | [travel] And we are away to Omaha »
.
Love the actors, hate the blow-em-up direction.
Had the same reaction. So much talent wasted.
Can’t wait for that all Jar-Jar cast you predicted, Jay. We’z agoin’ home.
Jay don’t hold back, it isn’t healthy. Let it out….
It was Abrams doing The Bourne Federation, and not that well, either. Major disappointment.
Too many homages after an original opening movie – I had expected so much more… grrrr….
JJAbrams? Who told him he can tell a good story?
I was hoping for more originality since they literally revamped the ST universe with the first movie. Then to have a rehash of another ST movie was kind of boring. I still liked all the characters and it was fun, but yeah, it could have used something new.
I vomited my displeasure all over your Facebook thread last night, so I’ll not repeat here. I’ll just say “yes. all the things up there…yes.”
My favorite part – seeing my son’s name in the credits! (He worked on the 3D at Stereo D.)
Wow, we didn’t see the same movie.
The most cutting movie review of Star Trek ID comes from author @jay_lake http://t.co/2XlxeSkU3P ( & no I haven’t seen it)
@Mari_Kurisato @jay_lake hmm, didn’t seem to like it much, eh? Ultimately the more expensive the “blockbuster”, the more it’s like gray goo.
If you must see this, don’t pay the studio for it. Your local library will have a copy soon enough. Check it out and watch it. If you find afterwards that you simply must own it, Your local library will probably have bought a considerable number of copies to handle the initial demand, and then will sell off the extras. Buy those. But the Remake/Reboot Beast of Hollywood must be strangled. We must so starve them of money that they beg to be allowed to be creative again and adjust IP law to a reasonable design again.
I think you’re being too kind to the movie. The lens flares appeared on screen so often they should have SAG membership. The plot holes were so deep I saw tiny universes in their depths. The acting was so vaudevillian these guys should be booked in Vegas. The fisticuffs scene at the end was so ludicrous (and oh! Uhura helps her boyfriend by bonking the bad guy on the head, not stopping him mind you, just giving Spock enough time to heroically complete his fight) that… well. AWFUL movie.
Have you seen ANY of the old star trek movies? They are ALL like that. Terrible acting for the most part, plenty of plot holes, and special effects. You don’t watch them expecting academy aware performances. You watch them for the special effects and the entertainment value. They aren’t broadway shows. They’re popcorn flicks. Personally, I liked it. I think they did a good job paying homage to “The Wrath of Kahn” and justified the differences (as they did in the first one) via the alternate timeline
I found the movie just really forgettable. Maybe the difference is that I knew the characters and actors so well in the previous movies, but I just don’t know these characters and the writing didn’t help me get to know them- very little character development. So, it was just a series of scenes and way too many explosions happening to people I did not care about. These Trek movies are tricky – only 1/2 of them are any good, and of those only 2 or 3 really good. That rare special effect -good writing- is what makes all the difference!
100% disagree. The movie is pure star trek and well done. Star trek is science fantasy and is not meant to make perfect scientific sense. The original 60’s TV version rarely made much scientific sense so why do we suddenly expect it to now? It’s adventure set in an SF fantasy universe. JJ Abrams delivered what I as a Star trek fan for over fifty years expected.
[…] [movies] Star Trek Into Darkness (jlake.com) […]
Star Trek is its own universe, and yes it includes flaws. I adore it.
I have never understood why so many people were thrilled at the news that J.J. Abrams gets to ruin Star Wars after having already ruined Star Trek. I’ll never understand why Abrams keeps having popular media properties handed to him, considering hiw own TV shows (Fringe, Alias, Lost) were mostly crap which ceased making sense after approx. 2 seasons, if they ever made sense in the first place.
[…] on [movies] Star Trek Into Darkness at 5:09 am, June 2, […]
[…] [movies] Star Trek Into Darkness (jlake.com) […]
I loved this movie but can see why some might not have. Not sure this is a fair “review” of it but sorry you diliked it so much.