Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Star Trek Into Darkness
 
#10
It actually looks like a brewery crossed with an inertial confinement fusion reactor.

Took me a while to spot the plotholes, though.... but when you really think about it, they're pretty silly. Other elements of the film are clearly more for the 'awesome' feeling rather than the makes snese feeling.

I went back and watched the relevent original Star Trek movie and found it much tighter plotted and more intense preciseley because it wasn't hung up on just moving between one budget-sucking slam-bang and shine sequence to the next one, that this one was. Star Trek is always at its best when it's stuffed into a bottle and forced to spend time on writing rather than money on effects. Only a few times has it ever managed to get both right.

It is enjoyable in the cinema - the energy makes it good on a big screen, but not so much on reflection when you look back and realise it's a shell of action.

There was some bones of a good film in there, with some interesting concepts. It's no more heavy handed about its message than some of the earlier TOS episodes but it smacks you in the face with it for 2 hours rather than 45 minutes.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Star Trek Into Darkness - by M Fnord - 05-18-2013, 04:52 PM
[No subject] - by robkelk - 05-18-2013, 04:59 PM
[No subject] - by Dartz - 05-18-2013, 11:44 PM
[No subject] - by M Fnord - 05-19-2013, 01:39 AM
[No subject] - by Dartz - 05-19-2013, 02:35 AM
[No subject] - by M Fnord - 05-19-2013, 06:48 PM
[No subject] - by khagler - 05-24-2013, 01:16 AM
[No subject] - by sweno - 05-24-2013, 02:37 AM
[No subject] - by M Fnord - 05-24-2013, 02:44 AM
[No subject] - by Dartz - 05-24-2013, 02:50 AM
[No subject] - by Logan Darklighter - 05-24-2013, 04:27 AM
[No subject] - by Bob Schroeck - 05-24-2013, 02:30 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)