May 17, 2013, - 8:04 pm

Wknd Box Office: Star Trek Into Darkness, The Iceman, Erased, The Company You Keep

By Debbie Schlussel

Not much to love among the new movie releases at theaters, this weekend.

startrekintodarknessiceman

erasedcompanyyoukeep

* “Star Trek Into Darkness“: I did not care much for this first sequel to the Star Trek reboot (which I much preferred, read my review). It was long, kinda silly, and by Director J.J. Abrams’ own admission, the storyline/plot is an analogy to 9/11 Trutherism (that Bin Laden was just manipulated and used as a vehicle so that the leader could manipulate America’s soldiers into a losing battle–Iraq and Afghanistan and that Bin Laden didn’t really “do it” or “was forced to” because we gave him no choice).

This movie was soooo gay, to the point that I thought Spock (Zachary Quinto, who is gay in real life) and Kirk (Chris Pine) were about to have sex in one particular scene. They cry and put their fingers together to “touch” each other on a window that separates them. Awwww. Oy. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy (who has a cameo again in this movie as he did in the previous installment) would never CRY. At least, they didn’t dare, back in the day. Also, does a sci-fi movie–that its makers know young kids will see (and to whom they are marketing it)–really need to have a menage-a-trois scene in it? Mommy, mommy, why is Captain Kirk in bed with twin alien chicks with tails? Was this a Star Trek version of the Doublemint Twins ad, “interspecies erotica”-style?


Other stuff I hated about this movie: if I’m gonna see a Star Trek movie, I wanna see all kinds of aliens in weird colors with weird faces and limbs, etc. This movie had none of that. The very few aliens we saw (and that was a scant few) were blah. And they only showed them very briefly or in passing for the most part. It’s like, with a James Bond movie, men go to see it to see a lot of scantily-clad beautiful women. And when you see a Star Trek or Star Wars movie (and this and the next Star Wars movie share Abrams as their director), you expect to see a lot of strange-looking aliens. That was missing here. Plus, the movie was filled with silly, stupid story lines, like Uhura’s (Zoe Saldana) dumb lovers’ quarrels with Spock (yup, more “interspecies erotica,” though at least none of theirs is shown on-screen in, again, a movie lots of kids are sure to see).

The story: Kirk is demoted from Captain, after he violates policy and risks everything to save Spock from being killed by a volcano on an alien planet. The aliens from that planet see the ship going to save Spock, and this alters the course of history in violation of policy. Spock files a report telling on Kirk for his misdeed in saving Spock’s life. Upon his demotion, Kirk is at a meeting of all the top commanders, including the Admiral, Marcus (Peter Weller), when many of them are attacked and killed by Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), but in the end Khan was forced to be the terrorist because Admiral Marcus is really the bad guy, who manipulates Kirk into trying to start a war with the Klingons and inviting more revenge from Khan. The movie is not only a 9/11 Truther fantasy (just as the recent “Iron Man 3″ (read my review) was), but it is also peacenik/anti-war baloney.

The movie was a little long, but it was chock full of special effects and action. I saw it in 3D, but that was a waste of money. See it in 2D, and you’ll miss nothing. This movie was just okay, nothing to gush over or write home about.

After the first major credits roll at the end of the movie, there is a dedication to the “post-9/11 veterans,” as if to drive the Truther theme home. That was disappointing. And what’s with not recognizing the efforts of our pre-9/11 veterans, too?

HALF A REAGAN
halfreagan.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Iceman“: I hated this movie. It’s cold, pointless killing-porn. It’s supposed to be the story of real-life mob hitman Richard Kuklinski (Michael Shannon), who died in federal prison, where he was sent for life, after getting caught. I like a good mob movie. This wasn’t one. It had no story, unless you count a guy killing people and sawing them up into pieces–in a very graphic way–a story. I don’t. I didn’t exactly enjoy the brutal killings up close, such as the murder of an innocent homeless man on a dare. Famous shoplifter Winona Ryder plays Kuklinski’s naive wife, who does not really know he’s a hitman for a living (nor do their two young daughters). But it’s not like we haven’t seen that in a million mob and gangster movies. There’s nothing new or novel here. In fact, it’s so hackneyed and retreaded that Ray Liotta is cast in the novel role of mobster.

FOUR MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Erased“: This could have been a great thriller and starts out that way. But it ultimately becomes a ridiculous, politically correct, anti-business, pan-Muslim bore in the second half. Aaron Eckhart develops high-tech security mechanisms for the branch of a company based in Belgium. He is divorced, but his ex-wife died, so now his teen daughter–whom he does not know well and with whom he is trying to get closer–is living with him.

One day, Eckhart shows up to his workplace and finds it empty, all traces of it erased. And he soon discovers that almost all traces of himself are erased, too. His bank account is empty, and the company has no record of the office where he worked, that he worked for the company, or that the company ever made the products he developed. And there are hitmen chasing him and his daughter through Belgium.

And now for the super-fantasy part: the only people who will help Eckhart and his daughter are Arab Muslims, who risk their lives and are killed for helping them. Eckhart’s daughter was dating one of them, and he didn’t like that, but now he’s forever grateful.

Eckhart’s daughter begins to notice that her father has all kinds of skills that aren’t typical of a man who develops security systems: he can kill people with his bare hands, knows how to shoot a gun very well, and so on. So, who is he, really?

The CIA is involved, and the bad guys who are killing everyone (in partnership with the CIA) are the company for whom Eckhart worked. It’s trying to avoid paying a lot of money to victims of a sunken boat who are suing. And the CIA helped the company hide implicating documents to snooker those dumb, poor European victims.

Yeah, that’s the ticket: another anti-American, anti-business, pro-Muslim propaganda piece on the silver screen.

TWO MARXES PLUS TWO OBAMAS PLUS TWO BIN LADENS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerplus.jpgbinladensmallerbinladensmaller

Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Company You Keep“: You’ve probably heard more than enough about this thriller, which glorifies the Weather Underground terrorists as some sort of idealistic, righteous ones who were fighting a “noble” cause. And that’s exactly what it is. Instead of showing us the Bill Ayers of the country bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol and killing bank guards (who are fathers of four) when robbing banks, the movie gets viewers to pity them as unfairly accused “innocents.” The movie focuses on Robert Redford (who stars and directs this propaganda), an aging lawyer who is a single father raising a much younger daughter whom he had with his wife who died of cancer. He is soon outed as a Weather Underground activist who is wanted by the FBI, and he’s forced to flee with his daughter while trying to avoid the FBI manhunt.

Redford is unfairly accused in the bank robbery and murder of the guard, we are told, and that’s the storyline: he’s trying to clear himself and needs his former Weather Underground lover, Julie Christie, to clear him. She is also living a secret life as a drug dealer.

If this movie wasn’t a big fat lie and propaganda extraordinaire, trying to soften us on domestic terrorists who murder fellow Americans, it might have been an interesting thriller, at least at the beginning. But it is, indeed, propaganda and lies, whitewashing reality. And, ultimately, it becomes a silly bore about a nosy reporter (Shia LaBeouf) trying to get the scoop on Redford and his former lover and daughter, before the FBI does. It’s not interesting or thrilling.

Just disgusting.

How sad that a whole ensemble of semi-big-name stars agreed to participate in this crap. But soooo predictable that they would. Hollywood doesn’t have a conscience, and isn’t about to develop one now.

FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS PLUS FOUR BILL AYERSES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerplus.jpgwilliamayerssmallerwilliamayerssmallerwilliamayerssmallerwilliamayerssmaller

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

40 Responses

I suspect that Star Trek has plunged into its final darkness. The United States has essentially terminated any manned space flight programs. Instead, we will get to celebrate diversity and be more welcoming towards difference.

Worry01 on May 18, 2013 at 9:33 am

I think the days when there were movies you want to watch are over, at least temporarily. If you want to see something, that is probably more interesting than the movie reviewed here, is the story of Kuklinsky, and his interviews by a shrink in prison, which can probably still be seen on You Tube, free. Kuklinsky was a true sociopath/psychopath, they could have gotten the film character Hannibal Lector, from that guy.

RT on May 18, 2013 at 10:15 am

Pure trash coming out of Hollywood again. As I always say BOYCOTT Hollywood and maybe they will stop making movies with an agenda that is annoying and very noticeable. We stopped going to movies years ago. Hollywood makes movies showing blacks, gays, and anti-Americans in a good light and Christians, Jewish People and Patriots in a bad light all the time. Also they are very pro Muslim. So why support them?

Fred on May 18, 2013 at 10:16 am

    I very much doubt you saw any of these movies. But you wouldn’t get the point if you saw them anyway. No, I will not boycott today’s films. The new “Star Trek,” by the way, is a pure blast of fun. As for “The Company You Keep,” contrary to what Debbie claims, it is NOT some dewey-eyed nostalgic look at Weatherman terror. Au contraire, the film’s climactic scene, involving the characters of Robert Redford and Julie Christie in a remote Michigan woods cabin, constitutes a wholesale rejection of radicals who won’t grow up. It was anything but an apology for domestic terror.

    Seek on May 20, 2013 at 12:07 pm

This Star Trek reboot was a rip off the “Wrath Of Khan.” Save the $10 and rent the classic. Its a much better film! If this is saving the most famous sci-fi show of all the time, its time to put it out of its misery.

NormanF on May 18, 2013 at 10:55 am

    I always cannot stand people who will watch something, say how bad it is then tell people not to spend their money. Hey, pal, how come you do not follow your own advice? How come you did not save your money and not go see the movie?

    AR on May 18, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Just possible, AR, that a reviewer doesn’t know if an about-to-be released movie is good, bad, or indifferent UNTIL they go see it.

      Think much?

      Nir Leiu on May 19, 2013 at 4:34 pm

Off-topic – Secretary Of State John Kerry is calling for “restraint” in the use of force against Islamic terrorists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22580707#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Nope – its NOT Israel! Its Nigeria! That’s the ticket – our allies should be scrupulous about the human rights of those who kill Christians and Westerners. Seeing Kerry being a fan of the human rights of Islamic terrorists would be funny if it wasn’t so sad!

Its disgusting.

NormanF on May 18, 2013 at 11:01 am

Your ratings of The Company You Keep should also include four Bernardine Dohrns.

CharlesMartel on May 18, 2013 at 11:47 am

I don’t get it.
Star Trek into Truther Darkness get’s a 1/2 Reagan because we all used to have fuzzy feelings for the original series?
What is that????!!!???
It’s Star Trek in name only anyway.

5* Arafats + 5* Stalins + 5* Pol Pots

Zarus on May 18, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    Its difficult to capture lightning in a bottle. The original series and movies that followed expressed the sunny optimism of the space age – before we went to the moon.

    I think the show has lost that sense of optimism and the same is true of our space program which has no larger goals ever since the space shuttle was canceled. It really isn’t a question of money; its a question of priorities.

    Sadly, we don’t have that adventurous spirit anymore that captured the human imagination so vividly in the 1960s.

    Star Trek – Into The Darkness is an apt verdict of how far we have fallen as a country since that time.

    NormanF on May 19, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Disappointing?
They only acknowledge the veterans to show how pointless their efforts were.

This is a straight up diss but they know people are so desperate for any kind of recognition that they’ll make believe it isn’t.
Sad. Just sad.

Zarus on May 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm

Hello!!!!
Hello!!!!
We’ve been compromised baby.

Zarus on May 18, 2013 at 1:59 pm

why bring politics into everything. Was the Star Wars series anti colonialism? The First Star Wars movie was universally liked by audiences and critics. Plus the free market decided that it was a major success.

To the guy that say Hollywood shows Blacks in a A good light. Wow just Wow! Are African American not American ? Do u have a problem if they are shown in a good light? Samuel Jackson was shown in a good light in all his movies..pleaaase!!
Either a movie is good or its not. Otherwise just watch Chuck Norris films. I try not to look at hidden messages in movies.
It is escapism for a couple of hours..

sanjay on May 18, 2013 at 8:38 pm

Hey Sanjay,
You’re right this was probably an over reaction on my part.

But you’re not right to extent that it’s not OK to comment on political allegory in movies since it has become de rigueur in almost everything we see these days.

What I’m saying is that when Hollywood takes the politics or social commentary out of movies then I’ll stop noticing it.

Was Star Wars anti colonialism? Well it could also be anti fascism. It could be anti big government. The reason you have to ask is because it wasn’t as obvious back then.

The free market can decide what it wants. That has nothing to do with me. I don’t have to drink Coke because the free market likes it.
I happen to like Coke but I don’t get the urge to buy the world one everyday because I’m not free market zombie.

Escapism is great and if these movies do it for you then more power to you Sanjay.
Watch out for the zombie effect that’s all I’m saying.

Zarus on May 18, 2013 at 11:04 pm

“FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS PLUS FOUR BILL AYERSES” = 1 fart. Curious how Robert REDford’s (emphasis on the RED)movies keep bombing at the box office. Maybe he should take the namesake of this film as a hint: the company he keeps discredits him completely.

Rui on May 19, 2013 at 12:52 am

Verdict on Star Trek film: http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-3d-opens-to-2m-late-night-and-imax/

Worry01 on May 19, 2013 at 12:54 am

Re the rehabilitation of the Weatherman terrorists, we have been plagued by this kind of garbage for more than a century. The glorification of the Haymarket criminals, Sacco and Vanzetti, Communists in general, Muslims, etc. Conservatives in this country will never be efffective against the left until they learn how to adequately counter this BS.

Little Al on May 19, 2013 at 8:09 am

    Little Al: Don’t forget the Rosenbergs, heroes to the Libtards for their theft of nuclear secrets (can’t have the “evil” United States as the only ones with atomic bombs, now, can we?).

    jc15 on May 19, 2013 at 12:41 pm

      At least the Rosenbergs were executed. I guess their being (technically) Jooos made that possible.

      skzion on May 19, 2013 at 3:47 pm

        As an important note in history, there is credible evidence from a variety of sources, including Russia, that although Julius Rosenberg was a spy, his wife Ethyl was not, nor had she aided her husband in any way harmful to the interests of the US. Ethel was innocent and she was executed on perjured evidence from the prosecution.

        Also, having finally gotten around to seeing the DVD of “The Company You Keep,” I found it tedious and poorly paced as far as political thrillers go, although some key scenes along the way of the chase parts of the movie were well done (e.g., hotel evacuation, subway, out in the woods). The acting overall, however, was very good. Insofar as the politics of the movie are concerned, I didn’t find it to be quite the love affair with the Weatherman that our host Debbie did, principally because the point of view is mostly that of the reporter (Shia LaBeouf), who does not take a pro-Weatherman stance, although he is attacked as such by the FBI in the movie–even though the reporter was responsible for doing the real investigating to expose them. Also, the movie could have given an historical context for the mood of the times, particularly among the young, by showing us instances in which the US Government was engaging in political terrorism of its own–but it barely touched on those even as potential motivators. Nor does the movie depict the FBI as “bad” in any way. They are merely shown as inept at times. That’s pretty lightweight treatment of them, if the primary objective was to create a pro-Weatherman propaganda piece. Further, as the reporter says, “terrorism is still terrorism, no matter who does it”–or words to that effect.

        Ralph Adamo on October 30, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    Not to mention the media’s glorification of Jesse James and his gang in the 1870’s – and in the 1930’s, their glorification of the Most Wanted criminals (i.e. Bonnie & Clyde, Ma Barker, Alvin Karpis, Baby Face Nelson – and especially John Dillinger). In all these cases, there was an inkling of class warfare in the elevation of these violent criminals as “heroes” – kind of like what they’re doing today, non?

    ConcernedPatriot on May 19, 2013 at 3:40 pm

What Hollywood is really missing is that people don’t want to pay ten bucks and waste two hours of their lives on heavily veiled political and social commentary dressed up as entertainment. People want to escape reality and forget about the world for a while. A good movie makes all of that a very enjoyable experience.

As Debbie’s reviews show, we’re not nearly getting as much fun as we used to. When all the movies seem like crap our movie dollars don’t buy as much as they once did. And you can safely skip most of ‘em nowadays.

NormanF on May 19, 2013 at 3:36 pm

Perfect review of “Into the Darkness,” Debbie. I myself saw the film Friday. It was dull as dirt. The characters were flat, the plot predictable, the story unimaginative, the sci fi elements absurd and insulting.

For the first time in my life, after seeing this film, I can’t stand Spock. He turns out to be a stubborn liberal prig. I never realized that before.

The last forty-five minutes of the film having to do with the reactor core that might blow up or leak onto Kirk were particularly silly, empty, derivative, and boring.

The film definitely got worse and worse at it went along, especially considering the close-to-2 1/2-hour running length. And I haven’t even mentioned the pacifist and pro-terrorist liberal subtext which you rightly disparage.

YET….I’m glad you gave the film half a Reagan anyway, because you should probably reserve most of your Marxes for even worse films like “The Company We Keep.” For all its faults, this new Star Trek prequel was for the most part essentially just empty, stupid, escapist blather–loud noise and special effects designed to rake in money and keep viewers stupid. Redford’s romantic fairy tale about the Weather Underground had a more ideologically driven, corrupt purpose.

Burke on May 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm

I don’t think you’re getting the “Star Trek” movie.

The “opposite sides of the glass” thing WAS done with the original Kirk and Spock in 1982’s “The Wrath of Khan” – only Spock was the one who got irradiated.

I also hate all the alien costumes – the original (and best) series had virtually none of that, relying instead on characters and plotting.

Other than “The Wrath of Khan,” this is probably the best “Star Trek” movie. Admittedly, though, some of the other installments have been pretty terrible.

St atTusM nkKey on May 20, 2013 at 2:27 am

It is obvious that Debbie isn’t a “Trekkie”. That’s OK then that she didn’t enjoy the movie as much as I did.

The Star Trek series was always used as a vehicle to get political messages through to people via science fiction. The original series had episodes with veiled references to racism, the Vietnam War, the evils of Nazism, etc.

This movie tries to warn the people about a government that is doing evil things “for their own good” and keeping them in the dark. The main villain truly believes that the end justifies the means. Star trek has done this before (and way before 911–look at Star Trek 6 and the conspiracy between Starfleet and the Klingons).

Remember that this movie is an alternate timeline from the original series. Most of the movie is the Kirk character growing and becoming truly “The Captain”. Scotty, Mccoy, & Spock try to remind him of the ideals which they swore to and live their lives when Kirk wants vengeance.
The whole glass scene is not a ripoff (Star Trek Nemesis was a blatant ripoff of that), rather it shows that Kirk wuld sacrifice himself for his ship and crew. Also it showed that Kirk and Spock while disagreeing often loved each other like brothers.

So, my conclusion is that if you like Star Trek, you will LOVE this movie !!!! If you don’t it’s an enjoyable popcorn movie with lots of cool effects and stuff blowing up.
I rate it 5 photon torpedoes. -)

JP: Am I a Trekkie in the sense of being an uber-geek who knows way too much about the series and movies? NO. But I liked the TV show and the original series of movies. So, to that extent I am a Trekkie. I just didn’t like this boring, silly moive. DS

jimmyPx on May 20, 2013 at 8:06 am

    Roddenberry would’ve hated Into Darkness. He hated Wrath of Khan and Star Trek 6, both of which Into Darkness steals from.

    Roddenberry was very leftist, but he believed in a future where humanity evolves socially and ethically…not one where they act exactly like people do in our time.

    ANd there were tons of flaws in the films to boot. They can call Scotty on Earth, they can call Spock on New Vulcan, but never call for help against big bad evil ship. The transporters can work at long range or not at all, depending on what the script calls for at that moment. Evil admiral’s crew conventiently wear different silly uniforms than our heroes, even though they are all Starfleet.

    Time to give the franchise to someone else. Someone who, maybe actually liked the old Star Trek, not hammered it into something they could like.

    Abrams and Crew are Rotten Berries on May 22, 2013 at 8:37 am

@jimmyPx

I was a fan of the original Star Trek TV series. Some of the older feature films were OK.

Sure there’s always been social commentary in Star Trek.
So what?
They used to have a mildly engaging storyline and characters.
Lately it’s just a clunky sci-fi geekfest that wears its political convictions on its sleeve and is about as subtle in its message as a Sunday evangelical kids show. Nothing against those.

If you go to films for the popcorn, explosions and captain starship fantasies then it probably makes no difference to you what the message is or who the allegorical villain is supposed to represent.
In fact the message is completely lost on you anyway and J.J. Abrams wasted his time putting it in there for you.
He was probably aiming for people whose horizons are a little broader at least on an unconscious level anyway.
Osama Bin Laden was a man who truly believed that the ends justified the means BTW.

Enjoy.

Zarus on May 20, 2013 at 10:14 am

    Zarus, the wonderful thing about good science fiction is that it leads to people thinking about things going on in the World now. In fact in many movies and books I don’t happen to agree with the message but still enjoyed it because it made me think.

    Actually Khan more than the Admiral resembled Osama Bin Laden the most. He believed that he was wronged by the evil Starfleet, wanted to be left to live in peace with his people (so he claimed), and that the evil Starfleet used him and then drove him to do what he did. Change Khan for OBL and Starfleet for the CIA/US and there you go. The stealth missles are an obvious metaphor for drones today.

    So yeah even though I enjoyed the movie and love Star Trek, I’m not a moron who is uneducated and “doesn’t get it”.
    I’ll give you a hint that many “Trekkies” are highly educated and very successful in this World. Don’t assume that just because they enjoyed the movie, they “don’t get it”.

    jimmyPx on May 20, 2013 at 10:48 am

Oops, looks like I hit a raw nerve. Sorry.

Of course you can interpret the film however it suits you but if you read this article you know that by the directors own admission the storyline is an analogy to 911 Trutherism.

So your whole spiel about Khan representing Osama Bin Laden(blah blah)is so obviously an attempt to justify your enjoyment of the film to yourself.

It’s not necessary because of course Khan is meant to resemble Osama. It’s allegory not role reversal. Are you sure you get what you think you’re getting?

Like you said the film is mindless entertainment so what am I going to learn from it that’s going to challenge my preconceptions?
It’s Star Trek not War and Peace dude. Give it a rest.

Anyway like I said enjoy.

Zarus on May 20, 2013 at 11:37 am

The real villain in this movie isn’t Khan, jimmy.
He’s just the patsy.

Zarus on May 20, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Truthers and space cadets, popcorn and circuses.
Who needs Sci-fi these days?

Zarus on May 20, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Debbie & Zarus are right in that this is a Star Trek movie, not War and Peace. I will admit that I know far too much about Star Trek & Star Wars although I’ve never worn Vulcan ears, dressed as a Klingon or learned the Klingon language. -)

That said since Star Trek has a history of doing the moral lesson thing, I am OK with it. I will NOT be OK if JJ Abrams does that to Star Wars— Wookie terrorists ???

jimmyPx on May 20, 2013 at 3:38 pm

About 95% of movies being released since 1985 are drivel IMO. The movie-going experience is long-dead thanks to Hollywood, an ever-increasingly vapid audience and, of course, honorable mention goes to the bug-eyed, Lucille Ball-dyed hair, bat shit insane OWSer, James Eagan Holmes.

DS_ROCKS! on May 20, 2013 at 7:21 pm

Concerning Star wars, and Star trek I would say I have a passing interest where I just learn enough to learn the background of the characters and story. I am not a fan, Trekkie, etc who pretends to be a character in cosplay (costume play, Japanese invention). Though having read and unfortunately seen some of the films coming.out the past decade, I can authoritatively ask “Agenda anyone?” Seems the nee crop of directors just do not know the art of film making, they may know the science or technical aspects, lighting, film viewing, editing but the art they fall flat, which includes good scripts and subtle yet innovative thinking.

Mario on May 20, 2013 at 11:21 pm

You give dumb blondes a bad name.

boborci on May 25, 2013 at 2:19 pm

Note that I felt the film was one of the best I’ve seen this year (then again the only other films I’ve seen so far are animated features on account that my only female friend has very little interest in live-action films), and that I’ve yet to watch TOS (something I’m sure I’ll regret saying later); some of my information comes from pop culture osmosis more than anything else.

“This movie was soooo gay, to the point that I thought Spock (Zachary Quinto, who is gay in real life) and Kirk (Chris Pine) were about to have sex in one particular scene. They cry and put their fingers together to “touch” each other on a window that separates them. Awwww. Oy. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy (who has a cameo again in this movie as he did in the previous installment) would never CRY. At least, they didn’t dare, back in the day. Also, does a sci-fi movie–that its makers know young kids will see (and to whom they are marketing it)–really need to have a menage-a-trois scene in it? Mommy, mommy, why is Captain Kirk in bed with twin alien chicks with tails? Was this a Star Trek version of the Doublemint Twins ad, “interspecies erotica”-style?”

…er, Debbie, you do know that Kirk and Spock’s friendship (and the Ho Yay that follows) are one of the more iconic aspects of the series, right? And regarding the scene you’re talking about: 1)in this film, both characters are younger, so they may be more afraid of death; 2)if I recall correctly, Kirk was only barely managing to hold back tears at Spock’s funeral in Wrath of Khan; and 3)the scene itself is meant to be an inversion and/or homage to the one in Wrath of Khan.

Also, regarding Kirk in bed with twins: I seem to recall that Kirk didn’t seem to have a problem hooking up with alien space babes.

“It’s like, with a James Bond movie, men go to see it to see a lot of scantily-clad beautiful women. And when you see a Star Trek or Star Wars movie (and this and the next Star Wars movie share Abrams as their director), you expect to see a lot of strange-looking aliens. That was missing here. Plus, the movie was filled with silly, stupid story lines, like Uhura’s (Zoe Saldana) dumb lovers’ quarrels with Spock (yup, more “interspecies erotica,” though at least none of theirs is shown on-screen in, again, a movie lots of kids are sure to see).”

Actually, I would go to a James Bond, Star Wars, or Star Trek movie if it looked or sounded like an interesting enough story or property to warrant my attention.

In the context of the film, it isn’t exactly out-of-nowhere, and while it was a little silly, it wrapped up quickly enough that it didn’t distract too much.

“The story: Kirk is demoted from Captain, after he violates policy and risks everything to save Spock from being killed by a volcano on an alien planet. The aliens from that planet see the ship going to save Spock, and this alters the course of history in violation of policy. Spock files a report telling on Kirk for his misdeed in saving Spock’s life.”
What course of history? Time travel plays little role in this film. I’m guessing you mean “violate the Prime Directive”, which I recall means that they do not interfere with the development of alien civilizations.

“Upon his demotion, Kirk is at a meeting of all the top commanders, including the Admiral, Marcus (Peter Weller), when many of them are attacked and killed by Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), but in the end Khan was forced to be the terrorist because Admiral Marcus is really the bad guy, who manipulates Kirk into trying to start a war with the Klingons and inviting more revenge from Khan. The movie is not only a 9/11 Truther fantasy (just as the recent “Iron Man 3? (read my review) was), but it is also peacenik/anti-war baloney.”
Debbie, there are two issues here.
1. He doesn’t get demoted at the meeting. He gets discharged, then he gets relisted as Pike’s First Officer. Then the meeting happens.
and
2. DID YOU REALLY HAVE TO SPOIL THE WHOLE DAMN THING?! Really? Look, I know it was obvious that Harrison was Khan in hindsight, but you could’ve conveyed your dislike without ruining it for those who hadn’t seen it yet.

Also, while it’s use here may be influenced by 9/11 truther theorists, the twist of “The bad guy was actually working for the head of your organization, who’s also evil, the whole time!” is hardly something that was unheard of before, and it did make for an interesting twist.

In addition, considering Harrison is Khan, $5.00 says that as soon as he could guarantee the safety of his crew from Marcus, he was going to backstab Admiral Marcus, and probably continue where he left off; hell, that’s exactly what he does at the climax, from which he prepares to destroy the Enterprise and continue his conquest.

“After the first major credits roll at the end of the movie, there is a dedication to the “post-9/11 veterans,” as if to drive the Truther theme home. That was disappointing. And what’s with not recognizing the efforts of our pre-9/11 veterans, too?”
How the hell does that drive any sort of Truther theme? With the War on Terror’s influences on this film, I figured that was just a way for the creative team to thank our armed forces for their service during it. In fact, how is that disappointing in the first place?

Here’s my reaction to the film:
Star Trek: Into Darkness features great acting (especially from Benedict Cumberbatch), an interesting story, some cool homages to the source material, and engaging action sequences; it’s one of the best films of the year and, short of JJ managing to pull of a miracle and juggle Episode VII around a potential third film/50th Anniversary, whoever steps into the director’s chair next has big shoes to fill.
8.5/10

Now, can someone call me an ambulance? I may have shot myself in the foot so many times that blood is spraying out like a hose where my toes used to be.

Adam Sherman on June 7, 2013 at 3:28 am

I read a lot of interesting articles here.
Probably you spend a lot of time writing, i know how to
save you a lot of work, there is an online tool that creates readable, SEO friendly
articles in seconds, just type in google –
laranitas free content source

Ashlee on September 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field