Comic Vine Review

Comments

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

4

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Let me begin by saying I'm not a Star Trek guy. Prior to J.J. Abrams' fantastic 2009 reboot, I only saw one of the older films when I was a wee lad and I don't even recall what happened or which one it was. So, if you're curious about how this film handles the franchise's extensive history, you're not going to find the answer in this review. However, if you also loved the reboot and have basically no expanded Star Trek knowledge -- and I suspect that applies to many of you -- then rest assured, you're probably going to really dig this one, too. The handling of the plot is kind of a mess compared to the first, but you'll be having so much fun that you probably won't care all that much about many of the smaller details.

We begin with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and his crew attempting to save an alien planet from destruction. One excellent transition later and his rash actions and blatant disregard for the rules have once again placed him in the hot seat (isn't that what the first one was about, though?). Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) aims to demote him but that's all interrupted when the fleet is struck by a terrorist attack. Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) gives Kirk and Spock (Zachary Quinto) the go-ahead to hunt down and eliminate this new foe (Benedict Cumberbatch) with excessive force. And by "excessive force," I mean 72 brand new torpedoes.

Star Trek Into Darkness succeeds because of two elements: the terrific cast and Abrams' direction. Some characters don't get a moment to shine (Anton Yelchin), feel kind of pointless (Alice Eve) or are essentially reduced to comedic relief (Karl Urban), but despite that, there isn't a lackluster performance in the bunch. Simon Pegg once again gets a little more of the spotlight and, while he doesn't get much focus this time around, John Cho has a totally unexpected and completely badass moment. Pine's character is missing the charm that made him so appealing the first time around (he's slightly unlikable at times... or at least I thought so), but he still does a commendable job with his role, especially in the more emotionally demanding moments. Zachary Quinto is superb once again. Unfortunately, he's forced into a line which made me spit my coffee (luckily I saw it early and the theater was empty), but the blame certainly isn't on him for that moment. If I thought that single line was cheesy and unnecessary, I can only imagine how die-hard fans will react to it. I have some small gripes with Benedict Cumberbatch's character, but regardless, the actor still manages to give a topnotch performance and has an engaging scene (even if it is totally forced exposition). Somewhat off-topic: please tell me I'm not the only one who sometime envisioned Bones wearing Judge Dredd's helmet?

Abrams successfully moves this film from one hugely entertaining and massive set piece to the next and never really slows down the pace. You're constantly living in the moment and almost always engaged in a rather thrilling scene. Yes, the lens flare distracts from time to time, but it's really not a big deal and is just a small element which helps define this flashy new look for the franchise. During the enthralling firefights and exciting space sequences, I couldn't help but think about how J.J. is a freaking fantastic choice for bringing Star Wars back.

The plot doesn't feel as polished as 2009's film, and while I wouldn't necessarily call them plot holes, there are a fair amount of questionable decisions and smaller moments which made a question mark pop over my head. Apparently, communicators can make a call just fine across the galaxy? It's a totally minor point, but moments like that stand out to me and slightly take me out of the moment -- and there were quite a few of them. There's a huge discovery made and because of this, it really detracts from what should be an emotionally gripping moment. This new factor makes the outcome predictable and takes away from the tension. Additionally, it creates a lot of questions about the franchise's future, but we'll just have to see how that's handled in due time. Also, the movie has a lot of truly exciting action scenes, so ending it on a somewhat generic chase scene and melee felt like an odd choice.

Star Trek Into Darkness is pretty much your traditional crowd-pleasing summer blockbuster. It's big, super fun and looks phenomenal. If you're cool with not sweating the small stuff, then odds are you're going to have a blast.

Gregg Katzman is a freelance writer for Comic Vine and IGN Entertainment. This is the part where he shamelessly plugs his Google+ and Twitter page in hopes of getting a new follower or two.

78 Comments
  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by StMichalofWilson

I liked this movie! The acting was impressive the space battles were good, and there were moments of nostalgia, laugher, and excitement.

It's really nice to enjoy another good movie right after Iron Man 3, and that movie was good too. Star Trek: Into Darkness is the best movie I've seen so far this year.

Side note: leokearon, if you ever say anything bad about Leonard Nimoy again, I'll haul your ass to Qo'nos!

Edited by cyberchop979

I love Star Trek and I thought this movie was very well executed. While the film relied heavily on previous source material there was enough of a twist to make it feel refreshing and believable. This is an alternate timeline after all.

Posted by DocLuthorVonDoom

@k4tzm4n said:

Hey Doc, while I understand your disappointment, this new take on the franchise has clearly made a strong effort to attract new fans, and based on the success of 2009's effort, there's a considerable amount of people in my situation. While this review is basically useless to you and other die-hard fans, I at least hope it's useful to the casual crowd -- and as I said, there's quite a lot of them. This is exactly why i included all of this in the intro, after all.

Perhaps you can post your own review to give a "true fan's" perspective?

Apologies for being brief, but I'm replying via mobile and it's an absolute pain.

I understand the need to attract new audiences, it's becoming harder and harder for media to survive on a cult fanbase in the modern world, but you, also, I'm sure understand the annoyance this causes long time fans, especially when the new product seems to alienate the die hard's; it's essentially a betrayal. And when you hear others sing it's praises, who have no interest in pursuing the originals, it's perplexing and irritating. I'm sure you've experienced this in some way, shape or form. Maybe with the 52 reboot, maybe with some poorly adapted movie of a novel, that was, to your shock and awe, extremely popular; maybe to some coveted franchise, (like Dr. Who, or *cough* Star Trek) that began to go down hill, in your eyes, and for some reason got really popular then. When you see people who write long reviews, or collect paraphernalia, or, just generally, pledge unyielding fanaticism to some enduring franchise after it has taken a turn for the worse and have no interest in pursuing the history of said franchise it makes you think that the only reason they like it now is because, suddenly, it has corporate sponsorship, or a huge marketing campaign, or big budget effects.

I understand that new fans exist, and they can love this movie, there's nothing wrong with that, but you should understand that long time fans find this irritating, and we can, and will gripe about it.

Posted by DocLuthorVonDoom

@ltbrd said:

@docluthorvondoom: you know, like real movie critics and not internet trollers who want to complain about anything they can.

I love how anyone who doesn't have the opinion "this is the greatest movie ever made, and the greatest review ever written!" is automatically a troll

@ltbrd said:

@docluthorvondoom:

Maybe instead of being a fanboy

...I thought this was a site for fanboys? Or is it just for fake fanboys?

Posted by The Stegman

Not a fan of the tv series at all, but these movies I love! Just saw it and it was fantastic!

Edited by k4tzm4n

@docluthorvondoom said:

@k4tzm4n said:

Hey Doc, while I understand your disappointment, this new take on the franchise has clearly made a strong effort to attract new fans, and based on the success of 2009's effort, there's a considerable amount of people in my situation. While this review is basically useless to you and other die-hard fans, I at least hope it's useful to the casual crowd -- and as I said, there's quite a lot of them. This is exactly why i included all of this in the intro, after all.

Perhaps you can post your own review to give a "true fan's" perspective?

Apologies for being brief, but I'm replying via mobile and it's an absolute pain.

I understand the need to attract new audiences, it's becoming harder and harder for media to survive on a cult fanbase in the modern world, but you, also, I'm sure understand the annoyance this causes long time fans, especially when the new product seems to alienate the die hard's; it's essentially a betrayal. And when you hear others sing it's praises, who have no interest in pursuing the originals, it's perplexing and irritating. I'm sure you've experienced this in some way, shape or form. Maybe with the 52 reboot, maybe with some poorly adapted movie of a novel, that was, to your shock and awe, extremely popular; maybe to some coveted franchise, (like Dr. Who, or *cough* Star Trek) that began to go down hill, in your eyes, and for some reason got really popular then. When you see people who write long reviews, or collect paraphernalia, or, just generally, pledge unyielding fanaticism to some enduring franchise after it has taken a turn for the worse and have no interest in pursuing the history of said franchise it makes you think that the only reason they like it now is because, suddenly, it has corporate sponsorship, or a huge marketing campaign, or big budget effects.

I understand that new fans exist, and they can love this movie, there's nothing wrong with that, but you should understand that long time fans find this irritating, and we can, and will gripe about it.

Of course I understand that. The opening of my reply says, "I understand your disappointment." You have every right be be disappointed with the direction the franchise is taking. You have every right to disagree on virtually everything stated in my review. You're more than entitled to that. But, based on our conversation, that's not why I've been chatting with you. I'm chatting with you because you've questioned why I wrote this review, and I'd like to believe my previous reply makes that more than clear.

Staff
Posted by MuyJingo

As a Star Trek fan, I have almost the opposite reaction to k4tzm4n.

Star Trek was definied as generally being more intellectual than Star Wars or the other stuff on TV. That doesn't mean it was better for it, just different. Obviously it had it's fair share of action...but most of the time it had stuff that other sci-fi made for the masses didn't touch on.

Decisions about how to deal with interfering with a primitive culture or situations caused by interfering with the prime directive (commentary on colonialism), episodes dealing with defectors, war and racism (just look at the romulan defector episode of TNG or the episode with the black and white aliens in TOS)...thought provoking stuff.

Star Trek was meant to be commentary on humanity, the problems with ourselves and how we faced them as well as a very optimistic view of where we are going and what we would face on the road to arrive there.

The JJ Abrams iteration....leaves all that behind. In a really disappointing way.

Most noticeably this trek throws science out the window. It's gone from Science Fiction to Science Fantasy, which is sad to see. Trek was realistic in that it had limitations...the technology was not meant to be magical. The first movie introduced transporting at warp speed and now this movie introduces warping between planets. Shameful.

Also, the changes are extremly frustrating. The 2009 reboot set up an alternate universe...which would explain any further changes. Yet, the writers don't seem to care, and have implemented many changes from before the timeline changing event...which doesn't make any sense. Why are there Gorn and Tribbles in the movie, things that were encountered on the 5 year mission?

I'm not too happy with the characters either. On TOS, Scotty was a real character, with depth, courage and dignity. Here he has been reduced to nothing more than comic relief. And what about Uhura? She is just on screen to be a needy girlfriend....pretty sure this movie fails the Bechdel test.

The lens flares are ridiculous. They take you out of the movie....what a useless thing to implement. I've read the reasoning behind it when Pegg defended it, which is flawed. I don't understand why it was considered a smart decision.

The movie seems to sacrifice story and characters for fan service. There are so many references, that more time is devoted to that instead of developing the characters. Oh look a tribble! It's meant to be a reboot, are they completely out of new ideas?

Speaking of which, the idea to reprise Kahn is horrible.The way he is revealed is foolish, without any suspense or drama. The Spock Prime cameo is completely pointless and is where the movie starts to drag down even more. Not to mention the recreation of the death scene from TWOK. Except that scene had two characters who had developed a very meaningful friendship over many decades understanding each other better as one sacrificed himself. This recreation had two characters who were not yet friends and still trying to understand each other, have one sacrifice himself while the other yells out KAAAAHN!!!! in a cheap parody of a defining moment from the real trek, as a single manly tear rolls down his trek. Yes, this is what Trek has become.

This movie feels like random geeks on the internet were given a hollywood budget and allowed to play around. It does not feel like someone taking the universe and characters seriously.

To the fans of the new trek who never liked or gave the old trek a chance, I highly recommend it. Don't be put off by the cheap effects and costumes...the acting and writing often elevates the shows above even newer stuff being made today. There is a reason the franchise has lasted as long as it has.

For fans of the original trek, I really recommend this review over at AICN....very well written and captures the sentiment many trek fans share.

@k4tzm4n said:
Thank you! If you really want to know...

Spock screams "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"

I'm just curious, since you said you're not a ST guy, yet you must have seen TWOK for you to have that reaction. How did you you find it insulting if not a cheap parody?

@k4tzm4n: I

just don't understand why you would write a review of such a coveted franchise when you've never seen any thing that made that franchise so memorable? It's not that you can't do it, obviously, physically, you can, it's just why? It's like writing a Skyfall review when you've never seen a Connery Bond, or Dark Knight Rises when you've never read a Batman comic, or Game of Shadows when you've never read any of Doyle's stories. Like you can write a review, have an opinion, but you have no basis for comparison, so who cares what you have to say about it? Maybe instead of writing reviews, you should spend the time getting your Shatner on.

What kind of nonsense is that?
The whole point of the 2009 reboot was to attract new fans. Granted, they did it by considerably dumbing the franchise down and attracting people who just want an action movie, but that was their goal. What's wrong with fans of this new iteration of trek giving their perspective?
Posted by Darwolf

This is was one of the few films i walked out on.

Edited by spinningbirdcake

Man. I am so glad I'm not a fanboy of anything. I went into the movie looking to be entertained and I was, not enlightened, entertained.

Posted by Holuntron

If you're not a Star Trek fan then why are you writing a review of the new Star Trek movie? Oh, I get it, so we can get the perspective of one of those Abrams fans that this dumbed down shootout/running from explosion perversion appeals to.

Actually this film heavily resonates the spirit and themes of the original series. There is social commentary galore and plenty of great character action. The story and scifi are just as smart as anything from the Shatner days. From a Trekkie's perspective, it was pretty fantastic.

Posted by MuyJingo

@docluthorvondoom said:

If you're not a Star Trek fan then why are you writing a review of the new Star Trek movie? Oh, I get it, so we can get the perspective of one of those Abrams fans that this dumbed down shootout/running from explosion perversion appeals to.

Actually this film heavily resonates the spirit and themes of the original series. There is social commentary galore and plenty of great character action. The story and scifi are just as smart as anything from the Shatner days. From a Trekkie's perspective, it was pretty fantastic.

You seem the minority in holding this point of view. I certainly don't understand it. Could you elaborate with some examples?

Posted by infernopig

Alice eve was great in this movie especially the changing scene... Im not a diehard fanboy that hates change so i really enjoyed this movie

Edited by GodOfMischief

I thought the film was brilliant; I went to see it three times. The second viewing I took my dad (who is a big Star Trek fan) who also thought the same. A lot of Star Trek fans seem to like it - not every die hard fan hates it.

Posted by JamesKM716

@k4tzm4n said:

@dragonborn_ct said:

Great review, man. I can't wait to see it, it will only get released in my country next month :\

I am curious to know what line made you spit your coffee lol :P

Thank you! If you really want to know...

Spock screams "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"

That was my favorite line of the entire movie personally.

I loved Quinto's emotion and rage in it.

Edited by Holuntron

@muyjingo said:

@holuntron said:

@docluthorvondoom said:

If you're not a Star Trek fan then why are you writing a review of the new Star Trek movie? Oh, I get it, so we can get the perspective of one of those Abrams fans that this dumbed down shootout/running from explosion perversion appeals to.

Actually this film heavily resonates the spirit and themes of the original series. There is social commentary galore and plenty of great character action. The story and scifi are just as smart as anything from the Shatner days. From a Trekkie's perspective, it was pretty fantastic.

You seem the minority in holding this point of view. I certainly don't understand it. Could you elaborate with some examples?

Actually I do not appear to be the minority. I have read countless fans' reviews so far in agreement, though of course there is always room for debate. Here is how I see it: in the Original Series and its subsequent movies, the plots did there best to incorporate messages or morals directly tied to real world current events of the time (Vietnam, the whales) and Gene Roddenberry even admitted to doing this. Into Darkness was another example of such an attempt: its plot involved obvious references to 9/11 and the War on Terror, and the ending dedication even promptly stated as much. Thus, the theme was very Trekkian. As for the spirit, the franchise has always seemed to be about intelligent science fiction written around lovable characters in a well-written plot (harking back to the whole social commentary but) while creating a whole universe and mythology for fans to enjoy and experience. In my opinion, this film did exactly that. The writing and science was smart, the characters were engaging (I will admit, not all of them proved to be as interesting as their original incarnations, and the ones that did achieved this due to the momentum established by the previous movie, yet it was still effective for me), the story was on par (an in some cases, even surpassing) that of any episode (definitely any move, save for maybe the classics such as the original Khan), and it did reach further into the extensively infinite mythology Star Trek culminates within its fiction. Even if every reference did not directly align with one form the Original Series, re-imagining details and ideas is what keeps reboots fresh. If only the same bits were ever used, the stories would be boring and go nowhere. I do not believe nitpicking, such as feeling annoyance over the mention of a Tribble, is a valid use of criticism. If the movie has disrespected and denied the tone and spirit of the franchise (such as the last Batman or Spider-Man movies), I would have much more negative views to share. Since I do not believe it did, I found the piece quite entertaining and fantastic.

Edited by The Average Bear

I thought it was pretty neat, homies. Some of the plot was sort of confusing, especially if you haven't seen the original series/ movies. Cumberbatch didn't seem like a real villain to me. I don't know what was getting in his way. Maybe it was his lack of attacking the main characters except from a distance (until the end, anyways). That's my only real gripe, though.

I thought the scene that made K4tz spit out his coffee was a little cheesy but they had to do it

Also, Alice Eve. ALICE EVE. Get in line

Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus

Excellent movie in my opinion. Really wish Abrams would have had a flashback to the 20th century Eugenics Wars myself and give Khan a little "origin" story but that's just my wish. The movie was GREAT I think even if its not raking in the cash at theatres as it should be this time around.

Edited by MuyJingo

Actually I do not appear to be the minority. I have read countless fans' reviews so far in agreement, though of course there is always room for debate. Here is how I see it: in the Original Series and its subsequent movies, the plots did there best to incorporate messages or morals directly tied to real world current events of the time (Vietnam, the whales) and Gene Roddenberry even admitted to doing this. Into Darkness was another example of such an attempt: its plot involved obvious references to 9/11 and the War on Terror, and the ending dedication even promptly stated as much. Thus, the theme was very Trekkian. As for the spirit, the franchise has always seemed to be about intelligent science fiction written around lovable characters in a well-written plot (harking back to the whole social commentary but) while creating a whole universe and mythology for fans to enjoy and experience. In my opinion, this film did exactly that. The writing and science was smart, the characters were engaging (I will admit, not all of them proved to be as interesting as their original incarnations, and the ones that did achieved this due to the momentum established by the previous movie, yet it was still effective for me), the story was on par (an in some cases, even surpassing) that of any episode (definitely any move, save for maybe the classics such as the original Khan), and it did reach further into the extensively infinite mythology Star Trek culminates within its fiction. Even if every reference did not directly align with one form the Original Series, re-imagining details and ideas is what keeps reboots fresh. If only the same bits were ever used, the stories would be boring and go nowhere. I do not believe nitpicking, such as feeling annoyance over the mention of a Tribble, is a valid use of criticism. If the movie has disrespected and denied the tone and spirit of the franchise (such as the last Batman or Spider-Man movies), I would have much more negative views to share. Since I do not believe it did, I found the piece quite entertaining and fantastic.

I think there is little doubt that you are a minority. The critics reviews seem pretty evenly divided, but every discussion for the most far has old trek fans feeling insulted and fans of JJ trek thinking it was a fantastic movie. As an old trek fan who thinks it was a fantastic movie, you would seem to be in the minority.

I think we disagree here. Yes, trek was often about, if not partly defined by having commentary on real world events. It was also about being semi-realistic and being based in science, which JJ trek throws out the window. Beaming between planets? Not OK.

I think many of the characters were disrespected...Uhura reduced to a needy girlfriend and Scotty reduced to comic relief....nothing like their series counterparts.

The commentary on the war on terror was a lot fainter than it has been on any series. I don't know that it deserves to be called commentary so much as....inspiration. I don't know....it just seems far removed from old trek...science and limitations are thrown out the windows, characters are reduced to cliches, scenes are recreated for no apparent reason with no apparent benefit (do you really call Spock screaming out KHAAAAAAAN original and keeping the reboot fresh?), and any continuity that was meant to exist before the timeline change...is discarded with the timeline change being used as the excuse.

This is Star Trek made by someone who grew up watching Star Wars and really wanted to make Star Wars all along, and it shows.

Posted by Ama_Sama

I really enjoyed this movie. I've seen all of the old Stark Trek movies and would consider myself a fan. I like the fresh take Abrams is taking with this new series. The point of an alternate universe is to explore new plots and not rehash the old one. He's definitely done that while still keeping remnants of the "first universe" as a nice tribute to the classic series. I also liked the balance of humor, action, and seriousness in the storyline. The overall plot, although there may have been minor plot holes, didn't have any glaring ones that I would really pick at. I'm really looking forward to the next film.

To the people who complained about the actors, I'd like to point out that, typically, "mimicking" the originals is usually the point. If the actors are playing the "same person", it'd kind of makes sense for that person not to deviate from his/her character type and mannerisms. I'd say the cast is pretty spot-on with their ability to mirror the original actors in their roles.

Edited by Pwok21

Truly this was an awful, awful film.

I've been watching Star Trek all my life, and the Wrath of Khan is a personal favourite film.

This entire film was unnecessary, with Abrams not coming up with a SINGLE original idea; but also left with so many plot holes or dumb ideas I left the cinema confused at how the plot got cleared full stop.

The only thing that I can commend this movie for is the acting, with Pine, Quinto, Urban and Cumberbatch making the most of a poor film.

I could go on, but I won't.

2/10.

Edited by k4tzm4n

@muyjingo:

The critics reviews seem pretty evenly divided,

It currently has an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes (186 fresh, 29 rotten) and a 73 on Metacritic (35 positive, 5 mixed, 1 negative).

As for you previously asking me about the line, no, I did not see ST: WoK in its entirety prior to seeing this film. I recognized the cry because it has been a huge part of pop culture. I've seen the clip countless times, the scream has been in numerous parodies, so on and so on.

@pwok21 said:

Truly this was an awful, awful film.

I've been watching Star Trek all my life, and the Wrath of Khan is a personal favourite film.

This entire film was unnecessary, with Abrams not coming up with a SINGLE original idea; but also left with so many plot holes or dumb ideas I left the cinema confused at how the plot got cleared full stop.

The only thing that I can commend this movie for is the acting, with Pine, Quinto, Urban and Cumberbatch making the most of a poor film.

I could go on, but I won't.

2/10.

Ouch. Well, I at least hope you saved money by seeing it in 2D or a matinee.

Staff
Posted by Pwok21

@k4tzm4n:

Don't get me wrong, I was genuinely excited (yet somewhat sceptical) for the film having enjoyed the first one immensely. There was so much potential there for a story that hadn't been told within a fresh universe (like a Khan-Klingon alliance) yet they chose to tread old ground.
The one great thing about the first film was that both old fans and newcomers alike could enjoy it, but most die-hard fans will just be left with a sour taste in their mouth.

Regardless, I can't really watch 3-D due to glasses!

Edited by Super_SoldierXII

The prospect of a royally pissed off Spock versus Khan near to towards the end seeking vengeance gave me goosebumps. I quivered with anticipation.

That is all.

Posted by Damren

Overall, I liked the movie. The visuals, the action and the character portrayals worked for me. The plot was more recycled than I would have liked. Having seen just about everything StarTrek (I've missed a few Voyager & Enterprise episodes), I am game to see something new. But, I can see the attraction for new fans.

I did have a few gripes with the tech and the use of the technology. As to the use of communicators across the galaxy, I think the reviewer isn't reading into that enough. Just like our cell-phones ping off towers to communicate across the country and the world, I am sure StarFleet communicators link to the local SubSpace communications technology (either on the Enterprise or on Earth) and link the calls.

I do think that if they can TransWarp beam (which I hate) then they could have beamed Spock out of the freakin' volcano. I don't think the magnetic field of any planet would be as complex as a warp field. If it was, communicators and other high tech would likely not work either. I don't, strangely enough, completely object to interstellar transporters. It was technology that existed in TOS, it just wasn't used by the Federation. It's not too much of a reach to think they might have it in the new reality.

Tribbles and Gorn don't bother me much either as both could have been encountered earlier in the new timeline. Generally speaking, since Nero's attack on the USS Kelvin, my sense has been that StarFleet had begun to step-up their tactical capabilities. That's about 25 years (or so) of accelerated technological expansion beyond the original series - which generally indicated that violent contact with the Romulans occurred much later in the timeline.

The new travel speeds kind of bug me - a bit. Minutes to go from one system to another seems kind of much, even for warp speed. Every thing feels more powerful and space doesn't quite feel so vast, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I have no idea if this level of forethought went into the actual plans of the movies, but that's my take on it. Overall, I like the new series, I just wish they would get a handle on the science and the technology - which feels a little off-step to me. I also really do want them to go and explore something that we haven't seen much of yet. I would like to see stories that have fresh appeal to almost everyone.

Posted by Queso6p4

Definitely agree with you, Greg. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie to the point that I'll actually buy a 3D copy of it when it comes out. It was so character-driven and well-done at that. This might be the best movie of the year.

Posted by sentryman555

I haven't watched much of the old Star Trek series. But I think it's unfair to say Scottie was reduced to comic relief and Uhura to a needy girlfriend, I will admit I wish her character had been developed a bit more but she didn't come off as needy to me.

Scottie resigning from the crew because of the missiles to me showed a lot of character. The fact that he wouldn't be part of something like that. And also the fact that he chose to come back and help the crew even after he was dismissed shows a great deal more than comic relief in my opinion. Yes, he did have a lot of comedy moments but that's cause he seems to deal with situations with humor.

Uhura had every right to be made at Spock for deciding to just give up his life. Her reaction was logical! Spock was just gonna die and leave her. But after Spock explained himself to her she did get over it. She didn't harp on about it all movie. And when time's were tough she did what she should do. I didn't see anyone else go to help Spock fight Kahn. I was even wondering why Sulu wasn't going to help considering he is kind of badass right when Uhura told them to beam her down.

Posted by yo_yo_fun

I loved it! I thought it was awesome!