Mick

Profile

Username:
drmaus
Name:
Mick
Location:
Pittsburgh, PA
Birthday:
01/01
Status:
Not Interested

Stats

Post Reads:
167,736
Posts:
491
Photos:
1
Last Online:
> 30 days ago
View All »

My Friends

> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago

Subscribe

Maus

Entertainment > Star Trek, into Darkness Movie
 

Star Trek, into Darkness Movie

I saw the new Star Trek movie, Into Darkness, and despite being a devotee of the series I might just skip the next movies they make with this new set of actors playing the old roles. It was that awful.

The action scenes strike me as so much like a video game I felt cold and left behind: The action moves too fast for the human eye to follow, which of course many movies are guilty of now. Those same action sequences were also so dark they left no impression of anything I wanted to see again and enjoy, no afterimage of beauty.

The characters don't have military manners (or any kind of manners), so when they "break the rules" they aren't being ... sorry, the only word that comes to mind is mavericks... anyway, they aren't being mavericks; they are being rotten children. In each scene Kirk is being smug, overbearing, rude, insistent. He talks over top of people including his superior officer. There is no discipline to start from. I'm weary of it.

There's another problem, and it's a deal-breaker for me and others Trekkies: Both Kirk and Spock behave in ways contrary to canon. Kirk just wouldn't take an order to do something so heinous as he does in this movie, and Spock was a stickler for rules, not inflexible enough to let closest friends die. I can't buy it.

When the story line attempts to have an emotional moment, it doesn't work because the characters haven't been the people they're supposed to be. Some reviewer pinned it down by saying that the director denies the importance of anything from the original Trek series while simultaneously relying on the original for effect.

I've tried to keep in mind that becoming the new Kirk or Spock would be almost too much for any actor, but still can't like either of the new guys. Chris Pine seems to have what my sister called mid-face deficiency or else maybe his face just didn't go through all the necessary stages of development. His features are small and seem pushed close together, like a baby's.

That kind of face seems to be a hot trend among actors. Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain has the same type of face, in fact his face seems -- like outer space -- to be curving in on itself; however, he has seriousness and depth and mutability to his acting that I like a lot.

Secondary characters are good choices, though, and I like most of them.

But this movie altogether wasted itself. If you wanted to know the plot, I'd have difficulty telling it because I was so distracted the story scarcely got across to me.

It's incredible realizing the TV series was over forty years ago.

Maybe I'll just stick to watching reruns.


posted on May 20, 2013 8:41 AM ()

Comments:

This doesn't surprise me a bit. The real Trek was a story that just happened to take place in a future time. Leave it to Hollywood to play to the least common denominator (to make a buck). Too loud, too bright and flashy, to willing to break the "rules" in pursuit of an audience. I saw (long after release) the movies with the real guys and one of the movies with the young Kirk, and that was enough. In this case, I'm stuck in the past and I don't have a problem with that.
comment by jjoohhnn on May 20, 2013 11:11 AM ()
P.S. I couldn't put a face to Benedict Cumberbatch so I Googled photos of him. I hope he is a really fine actor because his visage is not a young girl's dream. He, ya know, looks funny.
comment by tealstar on May 20, 2013 8:58 AM ()
He does look funny. But his voice is great.
reply by drmaus on May 20, 2013 9:26 AM ()
For several years I've felt like the new movies move too fast, and wondered if it was just me. They'll flash something past us, and we are supposed to absorb that important plot element in the blink of an eye, and the action sequences - too fast to keep track of who seems to be winning. And the young male actors all look alike to me so I get confused between them - can't tell if it's part of the movie for there to be identity confusion, or I'm the only person in the world who can't tell them apart. Call me Mr. Magoo.
comment by troutbend on May 20, 2013 8:55 AM ()
I think the speed does not allow for emotional dynamics -- it's all flash and no substance -- is what older viewers miss in the rush for comic book wow bam kazam. Kids think what they see is all of it -- they think flash cards are life. It's them I feel sorry for.
reply by tealstar on May 23, 2013 11:37 AM ()
When I first started to complain about movies moving too fast, this young kid tried to tell me that it's because younger people now absorb material at a faster rate. That's nonsense and the military has proved it; there's a plateau after which people don't take in information. All it is, is that younger kids are accustomed to speed in film. I guess they'll all need Ritalin.
reply by drmaus on May 20, 2013 9:25 AM ()
Thanks for review -- I am also inclined to skip this one, particularly since I only saw a very few episodes of the first Star Trek. I considered it a comic-book type series. I liked The Next Generation a lot and loved those characters, particularly Brent Spiner as Data. I thought its situations and dynamics were more mature than the first series. Anyway, doesn't look like they have improved on it.
comment by tealstar on May 20, 2013 8:55 AM ()

Comment on this article   


491 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ Next Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]