I must start this review with a confession- I have seen this movie 4 times so far (as of 14th June), in both 2D and 3D, as well as on the IMAX screen and standard sized theatre screens. All of this would indicate that I thoroughly enjoy this movie- which hands down I do. But it has made me think of some very interesting points.
Before I go any further I must use the words of one River Song and provide the following warning "spoilers sweetie!"
While I'm by no means an expert Trekker (unlike many others out there), I have noticed that despite J.J. Abrams' stating that he doesn't want to tired to the original Trek lore (as evident with no numeral in the title of this movie), I contend that either intentionally or unintentionally Abrams is actually following in the path of the original movie series
For example, in Star Trek II: The Wraith of Khan, according to Wikipedia (yes, I know not a scientifically accurate website, but hey a remarkable well informed starting point for matters such as this) not only do we see the distraction of the Enterprise, but we also see the passing of our beloved Vulcan-Human Spock. Compare this to Darkness, where not only do we see Kirk heroically "die" saving the Enterprise from a near fatal re-entry to the earth's atmosphere, but we also essentially see the destruction of the Enterprise from it's visually stunning encounter with a psychopathic Starfleet admiral, then the notorious Khan.
Speaking of Khan, do I really need to mention the obvious connection between the two films? Don't get me wrong- Cumberbatch was brilliant in his performance and he has a stage presence which is enjoyable (his voice is deliciously evil I must admit), but the fact that the second movies in both series has me asking some questions.
Is there a reason for this, or is it just one big homage to the original series? After all, the nod to Christine Chapel was a nice reference to fans (one that I had to look up, despite the fact it did ring some bells in my head).
Apart from those two connections, what else can I say about this movie?
Not much- except to say that personally, I found it a brilliant movie with an interesting plot, brilliant acting from the cast and the effects amazing as per normal.
I shall end this review by mentioning something Marc Fennel mentioned in his discussion about this movie on The Spoiler Guys podcast- what is up with the camera angles facing towards the actors faces? You very rarely see their tummies.
Until next time
Before I go any further I must use the words of one River Song and provide the following warning "spoilers sweetie!"
 |
| One of many movie posters for Into Darkness |
While I'm by no means an expert Trekker (unlike many others out there), I have noticed that despite J.J. Abrams' stating that he doesn't want to tired to the original Trek lore (as evident with no numeral in the title of this movie), I contend that either intentionally or unintentionally Abrams is actually following in the path of the original movie series
For example, in Star Trek II: The Wraith of Khan, according to Wikipedia (yes, I know not a scientifically accurate website, but hey a remarkable well informed starting point for matters such as this) not only do we see the distraction of the Enterprise, but we also see the passing of our beloved Vulcan-Human Spock. Compare this to Darkness, where not only do we see Kirk heroically "die" saving the Enterprise from a near fatal re-entry to the earth's atmosphere, but we also essentially see the destruction of the Enterprise from it's visually stunning encounter with a psychopathic Starfleet admiral, then the notorious Khan.
 |
| (L-R) Spok, Khan and Kirk. |
Speaking of Khan, do I really need to mention the obvious connection between the two films? Don't get me wrong- Cumberbatch was brilliant in his performance and he has a stage presence which is enjoyable (his voice is deliciously evil I must admit), but the fact that the second movies in both series has me asking some questions.
Is there a reason for this, or is it just one big homage to the original series? After all, the nod to Christine Chapel was a nice reference to fans (one that I had to look up, despite the fact it did ring some bells in my head).
Apart from those two connections, what else can I say about this movie?
Not much- except to say that personally, I found it a brilliant movie with an interesting plot, brilliant acting from the cast and the effects amazing as per normal.
I shall end this review by mentioning something Marc Fennel mentioned in his discussion about this movie on The Spoiler Guys podcast- what is up with the camera angles facing towards the actors faces? You very rarely see their tummies.
Until next time