johnlinkmovies

I saw the first STAR TREK reboot in theaters in 2009. I meant to watch that again before seeing this one, but I don’t think it really  mattered. This second STAR TREK was fairly standalone. On the plus side, I just discovered that my Blu Ray player can hook up to my Amazon Prime subscription. No more watching Prime movies on an iPad mini!

I watched STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (2013) on 11.29.14. It was my firs viewing of the film.

Sometimes it is nice coming to a film after the debate has died down. There was a lot of talk about the science of this new STAR TREK, about the reintroduction of Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) as a villain, and a scene with Carol (Alice Eve) in her underwear.

Let’s take that last one, for a second. We, as a society, have come a long way in 20 years. In the 90s, the female lead was expected to have a gratuitous shot naked or, at least, only semi-clothed if she was in what Hollywood deemed to be a guy’s movie. Hell, when they made SWORDFISH, they practically planned their marketing around the fact that Halle Berry would be topless. Now, an unnecessary shot of Alice Eve in her underwear at a point in the movie that didn’t require it raised a firestorm.

And that’s a good thing.

I’m no prude. Not only do I not have an aversion to sexuality in film, but I think it is pretty funny that American ‘family values’ are completely fine with watching a guy get his head blown off, as long as there isn’t a picture of a topless woman behind him. But, in this STAR TREK movie, the underwear shot was one of the few sour notes in an otherwise good movie. I mean, what the heck was the point? To show that Kirk (Chris Pine) likes women? That was already established in a scene when he wakes up in bed with two women with tails (I mean that literally, I’m not making a judgment there). Is it supposed to show us that Kirk cares about her so that when she is later taken off the Enterprise against her will, we know he really cares about her? If so, that’s a horrible bit of writing to get us to that conclusion. Whatever it is, that was probably the first time that someone in their underwear in a PG-13 movie started a big controversy. It’s funny what does and does not get legs on the internet.

But, too much tie has been spent on that discussion anyway. So let’s move on.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is a really good action/sci-fi film. The team is all back, though the movie finds ways to put them in new roles. Scotty (Simon Pegg) resigns, though we know we will see him later. This moves Chekov (Anton Yelchin) off the bridge and into the engineering room. Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) are in a relationship, but it isn’t going so well because Spock still insists on being too damned Vulcan.

The villain, on the surface, is a rogue admiral of Star Fleet (Peter Weller), but the person who really is the nemesis here is Khan. From the director’s chair JJ Abrams tips his cap plenty to the previous iteration of Khan. Because this is an alternate time line, as set up in the first STAR TREK reboot, this is allowed to happen without being a rip off. Someone screams ‘Khan’, though it isn’t Kirk. The ending of the WRATH OF KHAN is mirrored in the ending of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, albeit with some role reversal. The things Abrams ramps up, Khan’s fighting prowess and his more frequent iteration with the crew than in the 80s film, work to make this an exciting movie.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is worth it. It’s fun, even if it is not groundbreaking. It’s a serviceable sequel that both honors the original series and moves the franchise forward. I’ll be ready for the third film, whenever that may be.

SCORES

FILM: 5; MOVIE: 9; ACTING: 6; WRITING; 7

5+9+6+7+0=27

FINAL SCORE: 6.75

~ by johnlink00 on November 30, 2014.

Posted in ~ S ~, ~~~ 2013 ~~~
Tags: alice eve, anton yelchin, benedict cumberbatch, chris pine, jj abrams, simon pegg, star trek into darkness, zachary quinto, zoe saldana