STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Review

by     Posted 1 year, 190 days ago

star-trek-into-darkness-chris-pine-zachary-quinto-slice

Star Trek is not iconography.  There are plenty of iconic moments, inside jokes, winks, nods, and more, but it all stems from an original story starring fleshed-out characters who answered the call of duty and the call of adventure in equal and enthusiastic measure.  Director J.J. Abrams only sees iconography, but it was enough to get him through 2009′s reboot.  The story was barely patched together, still filled with holes, and wrapped in coincidences, but Abrams’ talent as a director managed to bring the story and characters to life in a way that felt fresh and exciting.  Much like his take on Captain Kirk, it was slapdash, occasionally clever, frantic, and charming.  Unfortunately, a flashy smile and big set pieces can’t save Abrams a second time as his follow-up, Star Trek Into Darkness, amplifies the shortcomings of his original effort, and removes the joy as the picture stumbles around looking for character arcs, themes, and a compelling, well-constructed plot.  But its greatest embarrassment is in trying to steal classic Star Trek moments without having a clue as to why those moments had meaning.

The reckless Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) comes home to find that his irresponsible actions on a recent mission have knocked him down to First Officer, but he quickly regains his rank after a terrorist supposedly named “John Harrison” (Benedict Cumberbatch) attacks a meeting of high-ranking Starfleet officers.  Seeking revenge and clearly having learned nothing from his demotion, Kirk gets permission from Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to take 72 super-torpedoes, hunt down Harrison, and kill him.  Even though Spock (Zachary Quinto) is constantly warning the Captain about the severity of this action, and Scotty (Simon Pegg) won’t even have anything to do with torpedoes that could seriously backfire, Kirk charges ahead only to become a pawn in a much larger game.

star-trek-into-darkness-simon-pegg-chris-pine

Later in this review, I will go into spoilers, but first I want to make something clear.  I’m sure my integrity will be called into question simply because I previously voiced my frustration with Paramount’s handling of the film in regards to press screenings.  For those who don’t know, in most of the country, press screenings were at 9pm Wednesday night, at which point, the film had technically already opened in IMAX 3D starting at 8pm.  They’ll say I was ready to take an axe to the movie, I was sharpening my knives, or any other blade-related metaphor.  These people do not understand that I go into every movie wanting to like it, but I can’t disregard studio behavior, and neither does anyone else.  We all feel a studio’s intent in trailers, posters, and every other piece of a marketing campaign.  Marketing is intended to provoke a positive response, and the last-minute press screenings were bad marketing.  Nevertheless, I took my good will towards Abrams’ 2009 film, and hoped that even if the screenplay was bad, he could work his magic again.

Abrams is all out of magic.  Part of the problem comes from the lack of a through-line he can build around.  Star Trek (2009) is a fairly straightforward plot that has two protagonists (Kirk and Spock), a simple villain (Nero), and the main goal of pulling together the crew of the Enterprise.  Star Trek Into Darkness, on the other hand, is painfully convoluted.  There’s a promising beginning where it looks like the immature Kirk will become the confident, cool-headed Kirk of the original series, but he never comes close to that point.  There’s also a lovers’ spat between Spock and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), but that limps off halfway through the picture.  And when everyone gets embroiled in the ridiculous machinations of the antagonist’s sinister plot, everything goes to hell.  There’s no amount of shiny set pieces or one-liners that can salvage the clusterfuck wrought by screenwriters Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof.

star-trek-into-darkness-chris-pine-karl-urban

Being generous, 2009′s Star Trek story problems stem from a script that was cobbled together from years of various and disparate drafts, and turned into the semblance of a workable story.  But Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, and Abrams had four years to create a Star Trek that was their own, and they ended up stealing someone else’s movie.  Not only did they rip off a better film, but their script is still filled with lazy cheats, building the story around the set pieces rather than vice-versa, and a general failing to understand how this world functions.  For example, after the attack in London, no one in San Francisco (the location of Starfleet HQ) reacts to the bombing, so apparently mass media and reporting don’t exist in the 23rd century.

I could go into more depth about all of the script’s flaws, but to discuss the movie’s biggest failing, I have to head into spoiler territory.

[WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD]

star-trek-into-darkness-chris-pine-benedict-cumberbatch-zachary-quinto

If you haven’t already figured it out, “John Harrison” is actually Khan.  For those who never saw The Original Series or Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Khan Noonien Singh (originally played by Ricardo Montalban) is a genetically enhanced human who, along with his genetically enhanced brethren, tried to conquer Earth in the 1990s by wiping out anyone they deemed inferior.  They were captured, placed in cryo-sleep, and shot into space where they were discovered 300 years later by the Enterprise in the episode “Space Seed”.  Once he was awakened, Khan tried to take over the ship, he was stopped by Kirk, and then sent down to rule over the wasteland of Seti Alpha V.  In Wrath of Khan, he gets off the planet, lures Kirk to a battle, and Kirk manages to defeat his foe, but Spock ends up dying in order to save the Enterprise.

To be clear, Khan and Kirk aren’t life-long enemies.  Khan appears in “Space Seed”, Wrath of Khan, and that’s it.  The reason for making him the antagonist in the second feature film is because the story is about Kirk coming to grips with his lost youth.  So Wrath of Khan brings him a deadly nemesis from his past, who then forces Kirk to learn a harsh lesson, and lose his closest friend.  The movie embodies the best of the original series (the tense, naval-style battles; outsmarting rather than outgunning the enemy; an admiration for the creative and destructive power of science), but you can enjoy it without having seen a single episode. But if you’ve seen The Original Series, Spock’s death has serious weight.  It’s the end of a decades-long friendship, and the line “I have been, and always will be, your friend,” gets the tears flowing.

star-trek-into-darkness-chris-pine-zachary-quinto

Star Trek Into Darkness looks at all of this, and says, “So people know these moments?  Okay, we’ll twist them a bit, and call it an homage.”  In actuality, it’s just theft, and a poorly executed one at that.  To begin, the whole purpose of the alternate universe was to create new adventures.  That meant everything that happened in the Original Series couldn’t (or at least shouldn’t) happen in the new timeline.  However, since Khan was created before the timeline split, he should still look and act the same.  Abrams originally tried to get Benicio Del Toro for the role, and when the actor passed, the director apparently decided there were no more talented Hispanic actors left in Hollywood, and went with Benedict Cumberbatch.  Those talented Hispanic actors dodged a bullet because even a great actor like Cumberbatch can’t do anything with his bland character (it also makes no sense why Khan would now be a white guy, but I’m not going to get hung up on that).  Khan is held hostage by the Abrams’ mystery box where motives are submerged until they are drowned in our indifference.  The original Khan relished his superiority with zeal, and Montalban provided a seductive allure.  Cumberbatch is Khan insofar as a genetically enhanced madman is trying to trick his way into getting what he wants.  The joy and self-satisfaction are rarely apparent in the deadly serious character.

It’s truly Khan in name only, which is fine for Abrams because all he wants is the name.  He doesn’t understand that Khan was a potent villain in “Space Seed” not only because of his attitude, but also what he represented in terms of social commentary.  More importantly, as I’ve already pointed out, Khan has a special relationship with Kirk in Wrath of Khan, and that past adds depth to the relationship when they meet again.  In Star Trek Into Darkness, Khan is a guy that can dupe an endlessly gullible Kirk even though Kirk’s friends and fellow officers are saying that the captain should ignore their prisoner.

star-trek-into-darkness-benedict-cumberbatch-chris-pine

There’s a brief glimmer of hope when the movie hints that maybe the filmmakers aren’t as shallow and derivative as they seem.  Perhaps they did take the idea of Khan, but have drastically transformed the character into someone who was wronged by Admiral Marcus (who awoke Khan in order to create weapons for a potential war with the Klingons) and desperately wants to save his 72 cryogenically frozen brothers and sisters for purely benevolent reasons.  He could be a model for Kirk: someone who also wants to protect his crew, but has the patience and wherewithal to make the smart plays.

Then the movie laughs, “Of course Khan is a bad guy!”, and we learn this because Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) comes along to tell Spock about the Khan from the original timeline.  Khan then proceeds to take back what he thinks are torpedoes containing his comrades but are actually active torpedoes (his genius intellect can engineer an elaborate plan to get the cryo-chambers back, but he doesn’t think to have the chambers beamed over instead of the torpedoes), and attacks the Enterprise before getting kind of blown up (but not really because the movie needs another set piece).  So Khan is behaving like Khan except this isn’t really Khan.  It’s just a genetically engineered bad guy.  If you had Spock learn about the character from a data archive instead of speaking to Spock Prime, then the bad guy could be named Gerald Q. Honeybottom and all of the conflict would remain the same.  Nothing ties these people together: not a past or a theme or an emotional state.

benedict-cumberbatch-star-trek-into-darkness

With a complete misunderstanding of the character, the filmmakers should have gone ahead and created a new antagonist (or at least one who wasn’t as well known), which was the opportunity the alternate universe presented in the first place.  But that would require originality and effort, and no one wants to put in the hard work.  Instead, they continue to rip off Wrath of Khan without having any understanding of why that movie works.  They plagiarize Spock’s famous death scene but instead decide to “kill” Kirk.  There’s no weight to this death because A) These characters haven’t built a decades-long friendship; B) We’ve only seen them together in two movies; and C) a Lazarus potion from Khan’s blood was established earlier in the movie, so we know Kirk will be fine.  Abrams and his writers pat themselves on the back for reversing the roles, even though that role reversal doesn’t tie into any earlier conflict.  Kirk didn’t need to learn the merit of self-sacrifice, and Spock doesn’t have to cope with Kirk’s death since the Vulcan immediately goes to hunt down a fleeing Khan.

But where the film truly and finally came apart for me was the moment after Kirk’s temporary death.  Spock looks down at his friend’s body, raises his head to the sky, and screams “KHAAAAAAAN!”  At that moment, I laughed and then put my head in my hands.  J.J. Abrams now has ownership of this Star Trek franchise and he truly doesn’t get that moments like these have to be earned and not stolen.  This moment in particular takes Abrams disrespect for Star Trek and moves it into open disdain.  It’s not for the people who love Star Trek; it’s for the people who understand references to Wrath of Khan without ever having seen Wrath of Khan.  Abrams is parodying Star Trek in a canon Star Trek movie.  I understand it’s a difficult balance in trying to appease fans and general audiences, but Abrams simply shrugs it off and goes for the easy reference even though that reference has been rendered completely meaningless within the context of his movie.

zachary-quinto-star-trek-into-darkness

This wretched repurposing of Wrath of Khan embodies the core issue of why Star Trek Into Darkness fails: laziness and fear of originality.  In a movie with few redeeming aspects (Pegg and Pine’s performances, and a couple of nice set pieces although Abrams still thinks the action should be like Star Wars), this behavior is disrespectful to all audiences.  Even if you’re not a die-hard Trek fan, the film no longer has the charm to speed past such questions as:

  • If they can beam Spock out of the volcano, why didn’t they just beam him into the volcano in the first place?
  • Why does Kirk kick Scotty off the ship for refusing to use the torpedoes, and then decide to capture Harrison rather than use the torpedoes?
  • Why does Kirk promote Chekov (Anton Yelchin) to run engineering instead of someone who’s actually an engineer?
  • How would Admiral Marcus keep a gigantic dreadnaught filled with private security officers a secret?
  • Why does Khan run away from Spock when Khan is physically and intellectually superior?
  • Why do they need Khan’s super-blood when they have 72 other genetically enhanced people already on board the Enterprise?
  • If Kirk is sent on a secret mission to retrieve Khan after Khan attacks the Starfleet officers’ meeting, then does that mean Starfleet had no official response to the direct attack?

There are other issues like Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov having almost nothing to do in the film, and missing the opportunity to include Bones (Karl Urban) as a character on the same level as Kirk and Spock instead of one-liner comic relief.

[END SPOILERS]

star-trek-into-darkness-enterprise

When I saw Abrams’ Star Trek back in 2009, I enjoyed it, but I also hadn’t seen The Original Series, and had only seen Wrath of Khan one time many years before.  Since then, I’ve cultivated a serious appreciation for Star Trek.  I don’t think the original series is perfect, but I admire its spirit and its values.  I also recognize Wrath of Khan as a classic movie that can appeal to fans and non-fans alike.  Abrams’ sequel thinks it can achieve that same level of admiration if it simply copies the memorable moments for the 1982 film.

Star Trek Into Darkness proves the filmmakers’ apathy and ignorance regarding Star Trek by being the antithesis of the series’ famous proclamation, “To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Rating: D

star-trek-into-darkness-poster




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • Werefon

    Eat Shit and Die Hard!

    • Northern Star

      Wasn’t that the name of Bruce Willis’ last film?

      • Werefon

        Unfortunately it was but it also nickname of Goldberg

      • shadypotential

        and your mom

      • Werefon

        Speaking of mom’s. Tell yours that I take her for 1$ special and as result you will have a lil brother and call me Dad.

      • shadypotential

        wow. that was so lame it needed two replies just to make some kind of sense

      • Werefon

        wrong! It took 3! Did your mom like some flowers and do you have a sister or at least a nice mouth to make some 3some??? I will do this foreva you lil bitch))

      • shadypotential

        lmao wtf? that is hilarious lmaooo

      • Werefon

        Oh you thought I am all that serious! You will never see me coming!!!! Literally ! Lesson number one: Your moms boobs! There is no such thing.

      • shadypotential

        lmao

      • Werefon

        Owned bitch!

  • AlbertRuncorn

    Good review. Really disappointed that reviews like this keep popping up… I had such high hopes for this movie.

    • Sam X

      You still can like the movie. There are always going to be people like this one who don’t get it. You may find yourself liking, if you give it a chance. This is like someone who read, The Hobbit, and then says they didn’t like it. Do you think that same person is going to like the movie then?

      • monsterkillsthepilot

        SPOILERS!!

        If you are gullable enough to believe that the entire Enterprise crew could die in this film, go ahead watch the film and love it because they build the entire movie around such stupid scenarios as Spok dying after 3 minutes or the whole crew after 45 minutes or Kirk at the end, and non of the scenarios seem even remotely possible for the average fan, because we all know that there will be a Star Trek 3.

        The writers (hate to bash Lindelof, because I really like him) took advantage of some of the most overused cliches in sci-fi history and it really shows.

        This film is really dumb, although if you are a kid and never saw a movie before, you might enjoy this one.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

        I am an adult film critic who reviews over 200 films every year and this is easily one of the best of the year. Characters being in peril have always been a staple of every series and the point that you miss with these situations is that it is not about whether the character is really going to die or not, it is about the emotional connections the other characters have to that one. The essence of this story is love at its purest form, friendship. This has always been the cornerstone of the Star Trek series, but the difference is that we now actually have actors that can make these characters emotionally vulnerable and believable. I just watched ‘Khan’ again for the third time last night. I feel asleep again because the film has no pulse or understanding of the art of manipulation. Shatner and Nimoy are also emotionally devoid. So, we have actors that can’t portray emotion and a director afraid to use the camera, lighting, music, or anything else to enhance his drama. The story and villain are good in ‘Khan’ and I understand why all the Trekkies consider it a classic. Yet, if it had never been made and was delivered to us in the same package today it would be reamed by critics for how uneventful it is.

      • Reality Check

        Yawwwnnn. Uneventful? Troll harder guy. It’s called a different era of filmmaking. Back when Khan came out audiences weren’t ADD and didn’t need constant frenetic cutting, flashing lights and special effects to engage them in a story. Abrams style is flash without substance. That may appease some and that’s fine but it’s rather disingenuous of you to assert that these elements alone contribute to the emotional connections viewers have with the story unfolding onscreen. If this were true Michael Bay would be the most emotionally stirring director who ever lived.

      • WT

        Well said.

      • JibbelyJoobs

        well said sir!

      • Cedhollywood

        He’s not but as you said he also appeals to the ADD generation. Which explains his box office numbers and making a soulless childproof forth transformers.

      • Adron Gardner

        “Shatner and Nimoy are also emotionally devoid.”

        You must be mistaking the words “lens flare” for the word “emotion.”

        Almost had me there!

      • Cedhollywood

        Maybe if you watched the space seed episode from the tv series then maybe you wouldn’t fall asleep while watching its sequel ST2;TWOK. Then you might see as the article in a most coherent way explain to you that there is a deep emotional investment and history with the characters from the tv series to ST2;TWOK who have served together for years and then had to face Khan years later for a second time. With into darkness (among so many mistakes) it’s a real joke to have Spock in such a sadend emotional state since in this new universe Spock has only known Kirk for three years.

      • barry bullshit

        hahaha really? what is there to get in this film? so if you don’t like it that makes you some idiot? This film is just dumb fun at best, at the same level as a fast and furious film but in space. It is trash sci-fi with a crap story with dull characters. But if you enjoyed it fair play, just don’t go acting like its above certain people like its some clever piece of writing and genius directing coz it simply is not!

    • Max

      Pretty damn sure the good reviews really outweigh the bad reviews

      • Captain Kirk’s Dick

        Just like the number of stupid people in the world outweigh the number of smart ones. Otherwise, everybody would be making Oscar worthy films, curing cancer, designing space shuttles, or defining the theory of relativity.

        Instead the world is full of mediocre f$&k- wits, content with watching Wrath of Kahn 2.0 and not understanding why this film was truly a slap in the face.

        Now, beam me up fag-cock!

      • Star Wars is F**KED

        hahahah Very true! I applaud you sir!

        Sad to say tho, some people will never see through their bullshit and will continue to insist that these shallow, cgi smothered “films” are great!
        They’re to busy being distracted by all the pretty things flashing on the screen at super fast cutting speeds to notice what makes for a good story and great characters….why else would they still be making trash like the Resident Evil films, some nob ends keep watching them.

        ….its all over :/

    • /tv/

      Go see it anyway. Goldberg is just being his usually pissy little self who hates life and can’t experience any joy.

    • Why does he keep getting work?

      Damon Lindelof is involved, how high could your hopes really have been? What, was Prometheus and Cowboys & Aliens and Lost not enough of a clue that bad writing might…just might be involved?

    • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

      It is 87% on Rotten Tomatoes. There is no reason for you to feel disappointed. This is the opinion of one man who is in the vast minority.

      • Reality Check

        Why do you care so much about a minority opinion? Does it affect you in any meaningful way? Why are you taking personal offence to it? I’m honestly curious. Rather than create ad hominems attacking Wrath of Khan, engage with the film itself and provide counter arguments to Goldberg’s critiques. That would be a vastly more constructive approach.

      • fail!

        because they can’t…

  • GuyX

    Everytime I read the magic blood plot twist I just can’t believe anyone thought that was a good idea. Thank god Michael Arnt is scripting Star Wars VII otherwise I’d be worried. If I even so much as get a whiff of orci, Kurtzman or lindelof near that film I will execute an order 66 of my own

    • Joseph M

      When you saw the Tribble blood test, you immediately thought, “someone’s going to die and be brought back to life.” Then, as Spock bubbles for the guy he’s known all of three years, you just want them to give him the Tribble(!) test and get it all over with :) Agree about Arndt, too. Keep the Three Stooges away from that script!

  • Bret Dorman

    spoilers!

    1) The ship is underwater and at the time, was not allowed to be seen by the natives. Kirk breaks this rule to save Spock.

    2) Because Kirk acts with emotions! He trusts his gut! At first he was impatient and then he changes his mind.

    3) Because Chekov is a character we know and like and gives him something to do.

    4) Because he is the boss and the bad guy.

    5) Because he just crashed a spaceship into a city and wants to just get away and regroup, instead of fighting someone.

    6) Because 1 guy just COMPLETELY wrecked them, why wake up another person who could cause more damage?

    7) The official response was taken care of off screen and consisted of political hum drumming around. Kirk acts pretty fast after the event so the federation could have just said “We’re still figuring it out” with the plan to show them Khan’s corpse after Kirk was supposed to have succeeded.

    These issues aren’t really huge issues and some (1,4,6,7) are just looking for problems even though they are addressed in the movie or simply normal movie conventions.

    Yeah, the new Star Trek is light and fun, but its operating on a much much bigger budget and going for a much wider audience. I’m sorry you didn’t like the movie, but it really sounds like you didn’t even want to try. Even if you give the ‘I wanted to like it’ disclaimer, you also admit it was ‘basically impossible’ for you to like it because ‘the Studios’ really didn’t want you to.

    Admittedly, I’m no Trekkie. I like the dazzling easily digestible fun vibe this movie has. If I want to consume mega-hours of real Star Trek I can do so. Until then, I’m happy with the iconography.

    • ThisGuy01

      The man goes into intricate detail why the movie doesn’t work & then lists a list of things that had the movie been any good he probably would have been able to ignore (like when watching Star Trek 2009). There isn’t exactly a limited selection of big budget, brainless blockbusters out there meant for “All Audiences”, in fact that’s all we’re getting for the next three months. Soooo a movie shouldn’t get a pass just because it’s meant for a wider audience if it’s NOT ANY GOOD. STID is not good. It’s shallow, badly written & really only works on any level thanks to some talented performers doing what they can & what $200 million worth of eye candy can buy.

      • Alan Burnett

        Nah, Goldberg declared that the film is “disrespectful” to the audience and stated that the reason why is because of the above plot holes. The criticism is not only shallow, but displays a fundamental lack of critical thinking if Goldberg can’t understand why Kirk changes his opinion as if a character developing is the film’s failing.

      • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

        I’m not saying Goldberg didn’t have any valid criticisms in his review, but he’s CLEARLY desperately trying to find plot holes which aren’t there. He’s trying to be a contrarian. This film has a 87% on Rotten Tomatoes, and he gave it a D.

        This list of seven points demonstrates that perfectly. In order to justify such a ridiciously low rating he needs more plot holes.

        The movie explicitly states why Spock couldn’t beam in. It’s major plot point which sets in motion the events of the film. Only one of the seven is an actual plot hole (and it’s a forgivable one) and not Goldberg trying to be clever.

        Which if Goldberg can’t understand why Spock couldn’t beam in, why wouldn’t expect him to have a better understanding of Star Trek than the people who made the film?

      • Bret Dorman

        The movie isn’t perfect, but clearly if you go in wanting to have fun and like the movie (Like Goldberg claims) you can find a way to do so. The problems Goldberg has with the movie are either non-issues or minor things that were traded in favor of fun action.

        I’m all for big budget blockbusters that don’t require you to turn off your brain, but clearly Abrams’ Star Trek is more concerned with fast paced dialogue and spiffy action scenes. In that regard, yes, I did like this movie. Will it be one I defend to the end, watch a million times over and over, and stand the test of time? No. But for a summer movie that reboots a known franchise in a fun way, yes, I would go so far as to say the movie is a success.

      • NathanArizona

        okay so if you want to like a movie, it’s wrong if you don’t? You shouldn’t have to “find a way” to like a movie, that is just silly. A good movie will present you with everything you need to recognize that it is a good movie, you should never have to make up possible scenarios to explain away plot holes. That’s just lazy writing. I saw STID last night, and I did want to like it, as you say, and I enjoyed it for the most part, in the moment, but found myself returning to many of the same plot holes Goldberg states. You can’t write off the other 72 super soldiers, saying they would attack as well, or that they might not have the same abilities Khan did. You can’t, because the movie never states those things, you are just making assumptions. How about Bones whips up a sleeping compound so that they could withdraw blood without one of the super soldiers waking up? See, now we’re just making up our own movie to please ourselves.

        We have to go by the information the movie gives us, and in that respect, the movie does have lots of holes. It may be enough for some to sit back and watch the spectacle and laugh at one liners, but it wasn’t enough for me. I loved 2009 Star Trek, but I don’t love this one, nor will I go out of my way to explain away plot holes. A “D” rating is probably too harsh, as the cast and visuals are impressive, but the screenplay bumps it down to a C+ for me.

    • Lance

      I don’t think Matt’s list of bullet questions are dealbreakers to liking the movie, and you answered them pretty well. Also, in regards to the 72 other supermen, who knows if they had the same regenerative abilities Khan did.

      I do agree with Matt’s bigger point, though, that echoing the powerful scenes of WOK is something that doesn’t quite work, because in and of themselves the scenes in Into Darkness don’t carry that much weight — Kirk and Spock still aren’t really great friends yet, as the early part of the movie demonstrates. To the extent the scenes in the new movie work at all, it’s only because they’re drawing on the emotional power of your own memories of watching Wrath of Khan.

      However, I think calling Into Darkness a Star Trek parody is too much. I suspect the writers and Abrams were sincere in trying to make this movie about the power of love and friendship, and how that power can potentially provoke us into monstrous behavior when that love or friendship is jeopardized. And I did enjoy the movie, though it’s clear how much Abrams loves Star Wars in all the set pieces in the movie. He may well be the right guy for Star Wars, after all. But I enjoyed the ’09 Trek more than Into Darkness. Personally, I don’t feel Abrams, Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman quite succeeded in their goal of creating a sequel that was more better than the original movie.

      • Lance

        “more better” sigh… wish there was an editing function here.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

        I disagree with this entirely. I cried like a baby watching that scene in ‘Into Darkness’ and have not been even slightly moved by the similar scene in Wrath of Khan any of the 3 times I’ve seen it (or 6 times because every time I’ve tried to watch it I fall asleep in the lethargic first 50 minutes). The reason for this is simple. Fans of the series were moved by that moment in 1982 because they had seen 80 episodes and were entering the end of a second film. I watched Khan as a stand alone experience and the film itself earns no emotion whatsoever. Trust me, I’m the type of pussy that cries at most anything. If i was emotionally manipulative enough on its own then I would have been moved.

        ‘Into Darkness’ on the other hand, is wonderfully constructed in the way it develops the relationship between these 2. There is a subtle beauty to their connection. Plus, Pine and Quinto are infinitely better actors than Shatner or Nimoy ever were. I occasionally watch some old Star Trek movies, but the problem with the old Trek films is they have no idea how to manipulate a mass audience. They have an appeal to a very specific demographic that they were never able to break out from. ‘Star Wars’ did not have this problem because pioneers like Lucas understood the essence of film as an art form and how to manipulate an audience. It was about more than the iconic characters. It was about the direction of the film itself. This is why the Star Wars series as outsold Star Trek over 10 to 1. Abrams understands this and knows how to deliver the heart of what makes Trek a memorable series while also tapping into what brings people into a theater in the first place and what makes an average moviegoer care.

      • Lance

        Actually, if Star Trek was not as big as Star Wars in the past, it’s probably only because Trek tried to be more cerebral, and didn’t go in for the giant action set pieces (largely due to budgetary restrictions) the way Star Wars did. The only original cast Trek film that had anything like the budget Star Wars did was the very first motion picture, but it was hobbled by a desire to be more like 2001 than Star Wars.

        And I don’t understand the rationale behind trying to compare Wrath of Khan with Into Darkness in terms of which has “earned” its emotional moments. Wrath of Khan doesn’t have to independently earn its emotional intensity — given this was (at the time) potentially the original cast’s last movie, and a send off for Leonard Nimoy’s Spock, it was geared toward fans who knew all about those previous episodes and adventures. That’s why they brought back Khan from the tv series in the first place, as a way to bring the experience full circle, and why the theme of endings, mortality, and new beginnings features so prominently in the film.

        Into Darkness, on the other hand, basically tries to recapitulate that scene from Wrath of Khan when Kirk and Spock are at the beginning of their relationship to each other, not the end, and so I felt on first viewing it didn’t really work as well. On a second watch I did enjoy the movie more, but only because I figured this Spock is a much more emotional being than the original. We can argue if that’s a good thing for the character or not but it has to be taken as a fact, because there’s just no way the original Spock would yell “Khaaaaaaaaannn!!!” like that at this point in his life, and when his friendship with Kirk still feels relatively undeveloped.

        I did like the way the Into Darkness showed a little bit of Spock rubbing off on Kirk, and vice versa. Spock manages to use chicanery the way Kirk would, and Kirk not only shows a willingness to sacrifice himself, but also to take responsibility for his actions, the way Spock would insist upon.

        As for Lucas’s understanding of film as an art form… Well. Maybe at one time. But then there’s Jar Jar. And trade wars. And midichlorian counts. The stuff of moving, cinematic art? I beg to differ.

      • fail!

        “every time I’ve tried to watch it (Wrath Of Khan) I fall asleep in the lethargic first 50 minutes”….

        well, that says it all really doesn’t it…
        Not enough flashing lights and fast moving effects? Finding it hard to focus that brain without any pretty things to look at?

        ;)

      • kvanar

        “because every time I’ve tried to watch it (Wrath of Khan) I fall asleep in the lethargic first 50 minutes”.

        Have you tested yourself for ADD?

    • Lance

      I don’t think Matt’s list of bullet questions are dealbreakers to liking the movie, and you answered them pretty well. Also, in regards to the 72 other supermen, who knows if they had the same regenerative abilities Khan did.

      I do agree with Matt’s bigger point, though, that echoing the powerful scenes of WOK is something that doesn’t quite work, because in and of themselves the scenes in Into Darkness don’t carry that much weight — Kirk and Spock still aren’t really great friends yet, as the early part of the movie demonstrates. To the extent the scenes in the new movie work at all, it’s only because they’re drawing on the emotional power of your own memories of watching Wrath of Khan.

      However, I think calling Into Darkness a Star Trek parody is too much. I suspect the writers and Abrams were sincere in trying to make this movie about the power of love and friendship, and how that power can potentially provoke us into monstrous behavior when that love or friendship is jeopardized. And I did enjoy the movie, though it’s clear how much Abrams loves Star Wars in all the set pieces in the movie. He may well be the right guy for Star Wars, after all. But I enjoyed the ’09 Trek more than Into Darkness. Personally, I don’t feel Abrams, Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman quite succeeded in their goal of creating a sequel that was more better than the original movie.

    • bickle2

      Just consuming 3 hours of Star Trek, Space Seed and Wrath of Khan would be plenty to demonstrate how bad this really is

      1- Why is the ship underwater? There is absolutely no reason for this, nor is the ship capable of operating in atmosphere, and the natives totally wouldn’t have sween or heard the gigantic 500 meter behemoth landing in the first place. The mere act of stopping the volcano violated the prime directive, as it is interfering in the natural evolution of the species. In the end. It’s underwater because JJ thinks it makes for a cool shot, just like parking it in Iowa in a gravity well in the first movie, which made absolutely, positively zero sense

      2- No captain, however pissed off, would deny his chief engineer this kind of request. Period. Because when you’re travelling at warp you don’t want a torpedo going off in your hold. Not only that, but like the doctor, the chief can override his orders when the safety of the ship is at issue, which it obviously in his opinion was from having untried very powerful weapons on board he knew nothing about It’s simply a stupid way to get Scotty onto the ship at the end. Gee, perhaps a better way would be for the Admiral to request he oversee the completion of his new starship, and he gums up the works so the Enterprise can escape? Where did I see that before……..

      3- Checkhov is not, nor has he ever been qualified to be chief engineer of a starship. He is a navigation, and later weapons officer. He’s given the job so they can have a clown with a funny accent say “W” words.

      4- Umm, no. You can’t keep something that big, that takes years to build a secret from anyone. The sheer amount of material, the emissions from its construction, etc, it’s impossible

      6- Because they don’t have to. They sedate him the minute they thaw him (which still takes a long time to wake up from by itself), and immediately ice him again once they have the blood. Dead simple.

      7- The Captain’s meeting was part of the official response, which would have taken the form of demanding Khan’s extradition. Since the Klingons don’t like augments (Enterprise continuity still exists, even in JJ’s stupid world), they would have no issue with giving him the heave-ho.

      • Bret Dorman

        I would like to say “I stand corrected. You’re absolutely right. This movie is 100% garbage. The originals are completely flawless and every character always acts perfectly and every conflict is solved in an efficient manner.”

        BUT THIS MOVIE IS BRIGHTER AND SHINIER!

        so its automatically better. nice try though.

      • bickle2

        They are only 100% perfect in terms of being Star Trek and Khan. When you remake, you must follow the blueprint to the letter. Otherwise, you are wrong, and the original by default is always right.

        Since this movie bore virtually zero resemblence to either one, aside from the most superficial of occasional nods

        Khan is nothing like the real Khan. The real Khan is passionate, he’s not a genocidal maniac, in fact it is specifically stated in the episode that he went out of his way to NOT kill people during his reign on Earth. Khan is an egomaniac, and a man of great passions he needs to be told, and show he is superior. Cummerbach’s character is simply a cold blooded killer.

      • Bret Dorman

        They don’t NEED to make new Khan EXACTLY like old Khan. I prefer when they change it up a bit. They woke Khan up and he tells them they shouldn’t have. He doesn’t kill people for fun, he does it because he’s backed into a corner and left no choice by Robocop. I thought it was interesting how Khan said they should have just let him sleep. I mean, in this movie he’s not so much a power hungry overlord who needs Kirk to respect him, he’s just trying to make the federation pay for what they did to him and his family and used him for. Instead of focusing on his backstory a bunch (which most fans will already know and be bored with) they used him to propel the new universe in a forward direction.

        Plus in the original didn’t he kill a bunch of people in the movie, doesn’t he blow up some entire ship. And you’re telling me he went out of his way not to kill people on Earth, but wasn’t everyone one Earth at war or something? So he basically got to be one of the biggest and baddest leaders on Earth by hugging everyone or something? (he may care for his family, but not others)

        Oh, and you’re passionate loving Khan put brain eating monsters in peoples ears in the movie (which eat away at the brain but conveniently leave the one guy alone after a while with absolutely no brain damage). 100% perfect though!!!

        (point is movies are silly and yes, especially the new ones)

      • bickle2

        He’s nothing like Khan. That’s the problem

        Khan is completely driven by passion, he is also not a “genocidal maniac”, in fact it is specifically stated that he went out of his way to NOT kill people. He doesn’t need Kirk to respect him, he wants EVERYONE to acknowlege why he is their superior. What is his firs’ts last words? “Yours…is superior”.

        The Wrath of Khan contained all the information you needed to know about him in a few lines, There’s nothing “boring” about it, unless you really really need to take your Ritalin. They could not be more different in their motivations, their tactics, their strategies, their personalities, and everything else that defines a “character”.

        In the original episode, he deploys non-lethal tactics to take the Enterprise. He cuts off their air and waits for them to pass out. He does NOT wait the extra 5-10 minutes to finish them off. Why? Because he wasn’t a killer, and he needed the to acknowlege his superiority, which is also why he didn’t suspect that MacGyvers was going to betray him.
        His arrogance got in the way. He even accepts Kirk’s sentence at the end because it gives him mostly what he wants. He has a woman he loves, and he has a planet to conquer.

        Yes, 15 years marooned in a desert hellhole does change a man doesn’t it? Single-minded obcession tends to cause people to abandon their long held morals, especially when it comes to revenge.

        You’re going off of probably decades-old memories of these stories and claiming it as fact. I rewatched both of them last night. He doesn’t blow up an entire ship, He maroons the Reliant crew on Ceti Alpha 5, and takes Terrell and Checkhov along with him becaue he needs them not only to explain how to work the ship to him, but to act as the front so he can get what he wants. A friendly face goes a long way into obtaining weapons of mass creation.

        Kirk’s pulling victory out of certain defeat snapped his last thread of sanity. He had Enterprise cold, but Kirk’s superior knowlege and abaility when it came to starship command defeated him, AGAIN, thus proving he was NOT superior. This is exactly the fire that fuels his insanity, on top of the legitimate wrongs that were done to him (not checking up or dropping new supplies).

        You have a great misunderstanding of the movie, the episode, and the themes and characters contained therein. Please watch them tonight so we can have a conversation about it on equal footing, where we both start with a fresh state of information

      • Bret Dorman

        I watched them (Space Seed, my very first episode of any Star Trek ever) and Wrath of Khan for the first time two weeks ago. They were okay, which is why I didn’t remember every tiny little detail. I will not be rewatching them to continue this conversation. Yes, Old Khan is better than New Khan, but I liked both movies just fine. I’m sorry you don’t.

  • I told Y’all

    Star Wars Into Suck

    • Johnson

      Star Wars FTW

    • Johnson

      Star Wars FTW

  • The Exploiter

    New low. Incredibly narrow-minded and hypocritically lazy review. Give yourself a hand. Maybe you impressed a critic.

    • Wilhelmet

      Have you seen the film yet? Because I have, and his review is spot on. I really wanted to like this, but my god, it’s like a Family Guy take on Wrath of Khan.

      • Andrew Sanders

        I would say a ‘D’ was a bit harsh.
        I watched it at IMAX last wk & although i quite enjoyed it,i found the scenes they’d ripped out of Wrath of Khan were unforgiveable.

      • Jen

        This moron of an author gave Iron Man 3 a, B rating. Go figure

      • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

        But it’s not spot on. He goes on to list a series of plot holes which aren’t actual plot holes. He didn’t like the film and then tried to find ways to make it seem far worse than it actually was.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

        Not even close. I just watched Khan again last night and there is about 4 minutes worth of comparison between the 2 here. Only someone who has a deep connection to that film is going to give two shits about the connection at all. Also, the emotional moment between Spock and Kirk here works a million times better than it did in Khan. It is not even close. I was never moved in the slightest by that moment in Khan (because I didn’t watch 80 episodes of the show before seeing that film) and the moment in ‘Into Darkness’ made me break down in tears. I knew that Kirk would be brought back, but that is not what mattered. It was the devastating power of the performances and connection between the two actors. Their chemistry is just electric, and by turning the table on that particular situation, they exposed what was truly powerful about the concept in the first place. Also, the scene in ‘Khan’ where Shatner yells “KHAAAN” twice was so cheesy. Especially, since he already knew that he would be easily escaping soon. In this movie, that iconic moment has good reason to be iconic. Abrams understands this, and that is why this movie will connect with a much larger audience than the previous series ever had a chance of doing.

      • Reality Check

        You can’t self-consciously create an iconic moment. The moment only works at all because its trading off fan recognition of a moment that is truly iconic, the scene pilfered from the original Khan. Iconic moments occurr after the fact, once they are integrated into the zeitgeist.

  • mike

    This review seems harsh but I’d have to agree. As soon as you put any thought to virtually anything that happens in the film, it falls apart and logic goes out the window.

    • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

      No it doesn’t. Everything that someone has mentioned here is veeeerrryy easily explained. Name something that falls apart and I will explain it to you.

      • Reality Check

        Are you a studio plant?

      • blaablaablaa

        ….you still here? the film sucked, jog on! ;P

  • Mikey The Riot

    he’s still pissed about how they released it a day before his screening… lol

  • Ishant Kumar

    This review is based on broad-minded man who brings all the concept of its own while watching movies.

  • http://twitter.com/TanuRoshan Tanu Roshan

    It has fresh rating on Rotten tomatoes and metacritic.

    • Da5id

      And the Twilight saga. And I think a couple of Madea movies are well positioned, too. So what?

      • TotesMcGotes

        On rotten tomatoes none of them are.

      • Sam X

        The Twilight saga never had a good rating you moron!

    • Get a load of this guy

      Yes, listen to the hive mind. Forming your own opinion is for fools.

    • Get a load of this guy

      Yes, listen to the hive mind. Forming your own opinion is for fools.

  • SV7

    This review is sadly spot on. The decision to take the story in this direction is simply staggering. The Wrath of Khan references felt like a lame parody. There was no emotional weight. It wasn’t earned. The blood cure set up with the tribble was sooooo lazy. I still can’t believe it all. I really enjoyed Star Trek 2009 but a “D” here sounds about right to me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

      Yes it was. It wasn’t earned in ‘Khan’ by any stretch of the imagination. I’ve watched that film over and over. I was never even slightly moved by it. I cried like a baby in ‘Into Darkness’. The only people that will be left unmoved in this film are those who have that old Trekkie connection to Wrath of Khan and those who are just generally unmoved by anything in movies. Everybody else (the vast majority of people who could care less about the old and inferior Trek movies) are going to be moved by this film.

      • Reality Check

        Ladies and Gentleman: JJ Abrams! How are ya J? Don’t worry about Into Darkness being an inferior effort. You’ve alway got Star Wars.

      • Nathan LigoZZZZZZZZZ

        dude, shut up haha you are real goblin aren’t you? People have a better connection to Wrath because…and brace your self here… ITS A BETTER MOVIE!!!!

        Only kids and idiots will love this more than the original, thinking its more than what it is, which is a shallow cgi fire work show, a fast and furious in space!

        How can you hold a film that unashamedly rips off another film in such high praise? From a film i might add that is old and “inferior” according to you. They couldn’t be assed to work out their own original story so they had to take a plot and it’s ideas from an old and “inferior” film, apparently, go figure you joker! :D

  • Angel of Death

    Goldberg, you’re such an idiot. They address almost all of your “plotholes” in the movie, if you were freaking paying attention, which you weren’t. You were just being a whiny little prick:

    If they can beam Spock out of the volcano, why didn’t they just beam him into the volcano in the first place?–THEY CLEARLY SAY THAT SOMETHING IS MAGNETICALLY JAMMING THE TRANSPORTERS WHILE THEY’RE UNDER WATER.

    Why does Kirk kick Scotty off the ship for refusing to use the torpedoes, and then decide to capture Harrison rather than use the torpedoes? BECAUSE AT FIRST KIRK IS FILLED WITH RAGE AND NOT THINKING LOGICALLY ABOUT HOW TO GET HARRISON. HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE VENDETTA. HOWEVER, SPOCK’S REASONING ENABLES HIM TO RECONSIDER SINCE THERE’S A RISK OF STARTING A WAR WITH KLINGON, AND SINCE KIRK IS NOT A KILLER. THIS WAS MADE SO CLEARLY. YOU’D HAVE TO BE RETARDED NOT TO CATCH IT.

    Why does Kirk promote Chekov (Anton Yelchin) to run engineering instead of someone who’s actually an engineer? THEY ALSO ADDRESS THIS. CHECKOV HAS BEEN SHADOWING SCOTTY AND KNOWS THE ENGINE BETTER THAN MOST. HE’S ALSO A PRODIGY OF GENIUS LEVEL INTELLECT AND HAS MOST LIKELY PICKED UP THE KNOW-HOW FROM SHADOWING SCOTTY.

    How would Admiral Marcus keep a gigantic dreadnaught filled with private security officers a secret? IT’S ON ANOTHER FREAKING PLANET THAT NO ONE ELSE BUT KHAN KNOWS THE COORDINATES TO. ALSO WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

    If Kirk is sent on a secret mission to retrieve Khan after Khan attacks the Starfleet officers’ meeting, then does that mean Starfleet had no official response to the direct attack? STARFLEET CAN’T GET TO KHAN IF HE’S HIDING ON A KLINGON PLANET SINCE STARFLEET’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN WAR WITH KLINGON.

    Why don’t you watch a movie properly before dissing it you fat tubby blind-ass piece of garbage?

    • Joseph M

      Death, instead of calling reviewers pissy little names and using lots of CAPS, go learn about structuring a script and handling characterisation. When you’re done, go watch STID again.

      • Angel of Death

        Joseph M, if you know so much about structuring a script and handling characterization, why aren’t you a famous screenwriter instead of a frustrated, wannabe, no-talent, nobody who lives in his mom’s basement and feels that he’s above the movies that are actually being made (as opposed to his own–which will NEVER be made) and thinks he has a self-important right to criticize others for no reasons at all other than delusions of grandeur?

      • Wilhelmet

        Angel? You’re simply wrong. Accept it. Move on. And after reading your little whinge above, I’m just hoping you’re no older than 9.

      • Josh

        Actually, Angel of Death you’re completely right, an these other Hacks are just jealous. So much hate for movies that are meant to entertain, not be intellectually firing on every cell.

      • Wilhelmet

        Must be looking forward to Transformers 4 then boys. Enjoy.

      • Kim

        Are you a fan of Iron Man 3? IF ANYONE HERE LIKED IRON MAN AND NOT STAR TREK PLEASE RESPOND HERE SO I CAN TELL YOU HOW STUPID YOU ARE. Thank you.

      • Wilhelmet

        Iron Man 3 was better than Star Trek Into Darkness. There. Hit me. (I love what you did with the capitals, by the way)

      • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

        I liked them both for very different reasons. So has the vast majority of everyone else that has seen the two films.

      • Hop

        Iron Man 3 was far superior to Star Wreck Into Darkness.

      • where are the brains?

        hahahahahhahahah really!?

      • blakeavon

        no Angel is actually right, he is certainly more grown up and capable of listening to basic film dialogue so much more than the reviewer is

      • fail!

        your right, this film has very basic dialogue hahaha trash

      • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

        What is it that he wrote that was wrong other than being rude. His explanation of the plot points in the film are right on.

      • Joseph M

        Angel of Death (awesome tough Internet name btw), I write for TV in the UK. You’re probably a fan of one of the shows I write for…As for income, my wife and I are doing well, thanks. Now off you go and stop being a silly little angry boy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

        I am also a film critic and an independent film critic in Dallas. I agree Mr. Death (lol) is being a bit of a child (like most people on the internet), but his dispute of the plot points are absolutely correct. Explain to me how he is wrong and what about this film missed the understanding of how to characterize or structure a script.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

        I know exactly how to structure a script and handle characterization very well. I also loved this film. It is a brilliantly directed film. There are some issues with the script, but there are some issues with every script for every major blockbuster ever made. Name one blockbuster that people have not beat up on in the last 10 years. I do this for a living and I can guarantee you that even films like TOY STORY 3 (which was 99% Fresh) had plenty of people on forums pointing out silly supposed plot holes. Your statement means nothing unless you can point out an issue.

    • Twintosser

      great post, and dead on. This guy went in ready to compare it the the Khan from many years ago and got pissy about it.

      • Wilhelmet

        Given that they pretty much stole the whole of Wrath of Khan, and tried to pawn it off as an ‘original film’, then the comparison is hardly an unfair one to make.

      • Angel of Death

        Wilhelmet,
        A) Uh…Prove that I’m wrong. I am citing concrete evidence from the movie in my post to counter all of Matt Goldberg’s stupid “plotholes” about the movie. You, on the other hand, are just calling people wrong for the sake of calling people wrong, then name calling them (and you think I’m the one who’s 9?) without any sort of evidence or argument to back up why they’re wrong.

        B) No one is trying to pawn anything off as an “original film”. Your misinterpretation is what’s wrong. This is a sequel/reboot of an existing franchise. Events of Wrath of Khan can still happen again, and as history has a tendency to repeat itself in alternate timelines, could very well do so again in different ways–case in point, in the 2009 movie, Kirk still becomes a captain, in a different way from how it happens in the original timeline. In this, we get a different version of “Space Seed” and “Wrath of Khan” in which similar events transpire but in a different way.

        If neither you, nor Goldberg understand this concept, then the movie industry must confuse and scare you, since you clearly have no idea or concept of what a reboot is.

        PS: I DARE you to give me a logical argument this time to counter any of these points you stupid, crying, little infant.

      • Wilhelmet

        Wow! You are just too good to be true!

        Ps: I DARE you to grow some pubes.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

        What a poor, pathetic little wannabe Trekkie you are.

      • Angel of Death

        And you people are literally even more pathetic trolls who just go on these things to piss people off. Please take your tiny male genital organs and forcefully insert them into your rectums over and over and over again. That’s all you jackoffs are good for.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

        This is a ridiculous statement. The Khan stuff is all done as a loving homage. However, it amounts to about 5 minutes of the film and even then they flip the tables on the characters. I just watched ‘Khan’ last night. It is not even slightly the same as this film. The plots don’t line up at all. The only thing that is similar is a scene at the end of the film where the tables are turned from that film and Kirk goes into the radiation room to save the ship. Now, some will find this homage a loving and beautiful take on a story they love. Others will feel cheated like you do, but dispute your actual issue and don’t make statements that are broadly false.

    • Kim

      This movie had too much INFO for this idiot to digest. He surely enjoyed Iron Man 3, gave it a B-rating as a matter of fact, lol. His opinions mean nothing and he should be replaced with such sh!tty taste in movies.

    • blakeavon

      glad to see someone shared the same level of an anger i felt reading this, if you cant see and understand these basic things that are clearly explained in the movie, why then should be take his thoughts in the rest of the review with any value?!

    • http://www.facebook.com/nathan.ligon.75 Nathan Ligon

      I completely agree with you, but calling him names doesn’t do you any good.

    • Hop

      Ladies and Gentlemen, behold the new breed of fanboy. Now shut up, ANGEL OF DEATH.

  • amar

    I don’t visit this site for reviews as this site is worst place for movie reviews.

    • http://www.thecorrigan.com Corrigan

      …I feel like you’re confused as to what you just did here.

    • Fitzchiv

      you are so right, its the movies news and trailers that keeps me coming back, matt goldbergs reviews are of absolutely no value to anybody but matt goldberg

      • Nerdgasm

        False he’s pretty spot on here, with this one…

      • Kim

        He enjoyed Iron Man 3 more than Star Trek, that must tell you a lot about this tasteless author.

  • Sigh

    It’s as simple as this: If you are are not a trekkie, you’ll probably enjoy it. It’s a breezy fast-paced film that has a few cool set pieces and a bucketful of funny lines. Anybody who’s ever been on youtube is aware of KHAAAAAAAN and the handful of other references Into Darkness has, so it’s accessible to a wide audience. Basically, it’s mass-appeal Star Trek; a film to plonk yourself in front of and turn off your brain. But for any real hardcore Trek fan, this film is an absolute travesty. Abrams saved the franchise four years ago because he isn’t a fan of the series, and tragically, this same lack of devotion is what brings it all crashing down this time around. Many points from this review are spot-on; this film has no real soul, and every meaningful moment has already been done better by a previous film with a fraction of the budget. It pains me to say it, but Into Darkness is a disjointed rehash, plain and simple.

  • Miran

    Good review! Agree 100%, fast and stupid movie, that rips a good one. Movie made for dumb american audience, yes and yes! Everything needs to be explained with two guys punching, guns firing, camera shaking, extra fast cutting. No drama, no good written situations, characters or even plot. 30 years after original move, we fail so much as audience, and they fail as storytellers.

  • Rod

    OMG, I just saw the movie and floved it! If you didn’t enjoy this roller coaster, then you need to have a personality transplant. It was the most fun I’ve had at the movies this year, and it was 10 times better than IronMan 3. I’ve seen every episode of Star Trek and knew Gene Roddenberry. This movie is a joy to watch, and I’m sure even Gene would have gotten a kick out of it. You need to chill out and check back in two weeks to apologize for this nitpicky, overblown “review.”

    • Nerdgasm

      If your that close to Star Trek you shouldn’t have anything to say about it being as you are now… a dumb biased person who doesnt realize he’s biased.

      • GunzOfNavarone

        Coming from a guy who doesn’t know the difference between your and you’re. Genius.

  • http://www.thecorrigan.com Corrigan

    Spot-on review.

  • Ken

    The author of this article gave Iron Man 3 a rating of B. He gives Star Trek Into Darkness, a rating D. Need I say more about this poor man’s terrible taste in film? Star Trek was 10000 times better than Iron Man 3 and no, I am no trekkie.

    • http://twitter.com/TanuRoshan Tanu Roshan

      Yes if Iron Man 3 gets B then it should get B+

    • Johnson

      Great comparison. MG doesn’t mind they made The Mandarin, Iron Man’s greatest and for the longest time foe (and one of Marvel’s biggest bad-asses) a drunken unemployed lazy actor who problematic bowels, but doesn’t like the way Abrams and Co have shown Khan…

      • Fitzchiv

        ben kingsley is a frickin amazing actor you dumbass!

    • Johnson

      Great comparison. MG doesn’t mind they made The Mandarin, Iron Man’s greatest and for the longest time foe (and one of Marvel’s biggest bad-asses) a drunken unemployed lazy actor who problematic bowels, but doesn’t like the way Abrams and Co have shown Khan…

    • Still a fan

      I grew up watching Trek my whole life, I was 2 when I saw Search for Spock in theaters. I agree with you! Iron Man 3 was one of the biggest slight of hand gag movies I’ve ever seen. Trek at least had a knowledge of the characters involved, shook things up a bit, but the characters never lost who there were. Khan was Khan… he wasn’t a drugged out actor. That alone makes this movie better than Iron Man 3

    • Still a fan

      I grew up watching Trek my whole life, I was 2 when I saw Search for Spock in theaters. I agree with you! Iron Man 3 was one of the biggest slight of hand gag movies I’ve ever seen. Trek at least had a knowledge of the characters involved, shook things up a bit, but the characters never lost who there were. Khan was Khan… he wasn’t a drugged out actor. That alone makes this movie better than Iron Man 3

  • Scuba

    I can try to answer your questions. The first two questions alone show you just weren’t paying attention and wanted to hate this movie.

    1. They couldn’t beam Spock in because there was interference with the volcano. That’s why Kirk had to break Starfleet regulations and reveal himself to the indigenous race just to beam Spock out.

    2. Kirk had a change of heart due to things like Scotty quitting and Spock repeatedly questioning the mission.

    3. Not a good answer for this although in the first movie Chekov assisted in beaming people back to the ship under impossbile circumstances so he should have great engineering knowledge.

    4. I don’t even think I can address this question. This isn’t even a good complaint.
    5. Because Spock has a phaser gun and Khan doesn’t and although Khan is far physically superior to Kirk, it’s clear from the first film that Spock is physically superior to Kirk as well.
    6. Maybe because they would have to thaw them out to get the blood. Probably the most valid argument you have but not worth tearing apart a movie over.
    7. It’s a secret mission because the Admiral has a secret agenda. He’s trying to start a war so of course he’s keeping it off the books.
    I really liked this movie. I have friends that loved this movie. I won’t resort to name calling. I just get the impression that your loved the original series and Wrath of Khan so much that this just felt like a rip off. This movie was made for a non-Trekkie audience but still leave some of heart of the original series. I agree the new movies are more about action and less about strategy and intellect that the original series focused on. Sadly, this is the world we live in now.
    Star Trek into Darkness was a fun movie to watch. I admit having seem Wrath of Khan that the emotional moments, especially at the end, didn’t hold much weight. But I’m sure more people will see the movie this weekend than ever saw the second Star Trek motion picture.

  • http://erasend.blogspot.com kingdom2000

    Whoa Goldberg read my mind and wrote the review from it. Mind thief!!!

    Just watched the film and I think it is an entertaining action flick but its a crappy Star Trek story. If gong to crib from a film usually the goal is to do it equal to or better. Not even close here. The film is desperate for emotional beats but the action is so unrelenting that none of them were earned and most go by so fast that they probably should not have bothered to try.

  • Alan Burnett

    MATT GOLDBERG SAYS

    “I didn’t have an agenda, but screw Paramount and they’re stupid and they don’t respect my greatness and they are going to be REALLY SORRY when they read my review.”

    Yikes. I have never seen someone with as little power as Goldberg wields corrupted so easily. The studio is the studio: the film is the film. Does anyone watch a Michael Curtiz film and say, “well, you know, he was a giant asshole so I can’t enjoy ‘Casablanca’”? And, unlike Curtiz whose negligence on a film set led to the death of three extras, Paramount decided to, um, not give Goldberg the free screening when he wanted one. These people are SICK!

    And Khan was Indian, so I am stunned why race-lifting is OK when Indian actors missed out in the first place, but is SUPER RACIST when Hispanic actors missed out.

    • Fuck me right?

      Which just shows how dumb the original writers were. “Lets make him north indian but he’s gunna look hispannic and have a latino accent. Ahh who gives a fuck right? 0 fucks here!”

      • LOL At America

        Better Hispanic than the whitest whitebread BRITISH actor they could pull away from his tea to provide an accent that would dupe American audiences into believing what he’s saying is intelligent and/or menacing because of the (as demonstrated by this comment section) of the obdurate anti-intellectualism rampant in America. “I’m proud that I don’t care ’bout story” “I’m proud shoddy writing doesn’t bother me!” “I don’t care ’bout no thinking so long as da guv’ment don’t take me guns or taxes me for the social services I uses!” “YEEEE HAAAAAA!” [Fires six shooters in the air]

      • LOL At America

        Better Hispanic than the whitest whitebread BRITISH actor they could pull away from his tea to provide an accent that would dupe American audiences into believing what he’s saying is intelligent and/or menacing because of the (as demonstrated by this comment section) of the obdurate anti-intellectualism rampant in America. “I’m proud that I don’t care ’bout story” “I’m proud shoddy writing doesn’t bother me!” “I don’t care ’bout no thinking so long as da guv’ment don’t take me guns or taxes me for the social services I uses!” “YEEEE HAAAAAA!” [Fires six shooters in the air]

  • Joseph M

    Great review, and I agree completely. I’m actually amazed by the amount of mistakes Abrams has made with this film. A convoluted mess, full of inconsistencies and empty, almost mocking, lifts from the original cannon. Abrams shows little respect for the intelligence of the viewer, thinking some old names and comedic iconography references will have us all clapping like seals. I was hesitant but blindly positive about Abrams being given the Star Wars gig. STID was his tester, to see if he’s ready. Now, I think Lucas and Disney have the wrong man.

    • marigol

      Almost the same as Nolan did with dark Knight Returns. Both had made good previous movies, I knew this was bound to disapoint.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorena.sanzvallas Lorena Sanz Vallas

    IT’S A CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Seriously, what other thing did you expect with JJ Abrams involved?

  • Susie

    Very good review. Abrams has no respect for the Star Trek universe, the character of Kirk, or the friendship between Kirk and Spock (to say nothing of McCoy) and it shows. The casting of Cumberbatch in this particular role (no spoiler) makes no sense.

  • Tony Ferris

    Thank god for this review. I thought I was going mad listening to all the positivity directed at Abrams’ admittedly well crafted (in terms of production design and set-piece construction), but frustratingly empty and – I’m sorry – stupid Star Trek movies.

    He doesn’t seem to like Trek particularly. He certainly doesn’t understand it, or even really know it. Shame!

    But to those that are having fun with his take; more power to you. I wish I could join you, but it’s just not good enough.

  • Asgarpth

    Actually Star Trek Into Darkness is one of the most perfect film that come out in recent years. No moment of boredom, great actors and especially Benedict Cumberbach is magnificent. You can actually feel how dangerous he is, instead of the bland villian Nero. Also the movie give every character a meaningful existence and task, instead of the previous one. Something nearly none movie accomplished with so many rich characters.

    The author of this review couldn’t be more wrong about everything. Especially that he missed the real plot holes of the story.
    1) Why does nobody find out that there are people within the bombs?
    2) How could scotty get into a ship that can pinpoint people exact locations and differentiate them?

  • spongefist

    Not a bad review, mostly accurate, especially the action scenes being shot like Star Wars, the shuttle chase on Kronos scene was M-falcon all over.

    However in spite of it all, it was quite enjoyable.

    There were terrible spoon fed giveaways through out, you always knew what was coming and Khan was a wasted opportunity, but hey about a million times better than GI Joe and Iron Man.

    • marigol

      The conference attack was mimicking Robocop or some other 80s movie.

  • Daniel Ronczkowski

    Matt sucks

  • Fred

    Typical review fromn a typical “know-it-all” wannabe reviewer. Sad, really.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Richards/100002224412328 Jason Richards

    FUCK GOLDBERG. MAN CUNT PUSSY.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

      Poor little Abrams-lover can’t handle the truth huh? There is nothing more pathetic than a wannabe Trekkie like you.

  • Oliver

    is this meant to be journalism? It’s one of the shittest, most rambling and irate reviews I have ever read. Collider – you really need to edit this guy! People might actually listen to him!

  • ikkf

    J.J. Abrams is turning into the Joel Schumacher of his generation.

  • Frodo

    Sorry, but the patented ‘JJ Abrams Mistery Box Method TM’ is an empty box. What’s the island of Lost? It’s never answered. What happened with that Rambaldi guy in Alias? Again, never answered. And my favorite: What THE HECK is the Rabbit’s Foot in MI3? Who cares? Look, it’s Tom Cruise! Adding riddle after riddle without giving an explanation can hook the audience during some time, until you you end up alienating them if they don’t get some answers (ie: Lost, Prometheus, etc.). For me, JJ Abrams is the poor man’s Spielberg. I prefer the real thing, thanks.

  • vicious1fan

    It’s 87% positive on Rotten TOmatoes…Matt always likes to be in the minority, he’s a hipster douche bag

    • fandom

      Because Rotten Tomatoes is a sure proof of the quality of a movie. And obviously the studios doesn’t tweak the system over and over again hiring a batallion of Bombay typewriters to add positive reviews for their newest releases. By the way, my name is Bob and I’d like to talk you about the new Verizon prepaid plan for cell phones.

  • whodey17

    I think its more Goldberg is pissed they didn’t give him his special treatment and allow him to see the movie before everyone else.

  • sense11

    Your in the minority on this one

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

      Wrong there. Even half the morons who liked the first wannabe Trek hate this one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lee.cocker Lee Cocker

    I agree with Matt and Tim. Matt is spot on with everything that is wrong with the movie. OK yes it is a reboot, but it has so many plot holes it is a joke. Everyone needs to get off the J.J bandwagon he is way overrated. And Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci……how in the hell are these guys still writing movies. One guy destroyed Prometheus and the other two are the guys that ruined Transformers!

    • Still a fan

      It’s Michael Bay that ruined Transformers, Orci and Kurtzman only wrote an outline for 2(Bay did the rest during the writer’s strike), most of their script for 1 got rewritten on set by others and they refused the offer to come back for 3 and it was still shit.

      • marigol

        There was no freaking chance that Transformers would end up good, even if P.T.Anderson wrote it.

    • Still a fan

      It’s Michael Bay that ruined Transformers, Orci and Kurtzman only wrote an outline for 2(Bay did the rest during the writer’s strike), most of their script for 1 got rewritten on set by others and they refused the offer to come back for 3 and it was still shit.

  • Dandru

    The writer of this article is incorrect in saying that Khan “tried to conquer Earth in the 1990s by wiping out anyone they deemed inferior.” Quite the opposite–Khan was a tyrant, yes, but he was a tyrant under whose leadership there was peace. “Space Seed” made that abundantly clear–Khan was NOT genocidal. He was interested in ruling people, not killing them. That’s one of the many things the writers of this film got wrong, continuity-wise. It’s as if they never saw “Space Seed.”

    • whodey17

      You know this is a reboot right? They are not obligated to follow any sort of canon. They’d be wise to, but not obligated to.

  • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/‎ tarek

    I didn’t watch it yet. And I will watch it for sure. I loved the first one. So this one will hopefully be as good as the first one.

    Regarding the Iron Man 3 review: I watched it and was pissed off by the silly script. It was just a show off of what the CGI guys were able to do. Tony jumping from a suit to another on fly was entertaining, but not sufficient to give to the movie an epic dimension.
    My rating for Iron Man 3: C-

  • Juaners

    The character Khan is supposed to be from India so please get off your high horse in reporting they couldn’t find a “hispanic” actor to play the role.

  • ArmandoSanchez8233

    I can’t wait for the Fast 6 review, oh and the Man Of Steel review.

    • Kim

      This tasteless author will give Fast 6 an A+rating. He’ll give Man of Steel an F-rating. Why? He has sh1tty taste in movies. He enjoyed Iron Man 3 better than Star Trek….lol….

  • http://twitter.com/TheChiHawk Sean Hawk

    While I tend to have wildly differing opinions from Matt regarding Cinema; his central point revolving around this film is spot on–its an example of laziness and banality in Hollywood.

    Whatever you think of the experience of watching this film, you cannot avoid the following truth–Abrams and Co. rebooted the Star Trek Universe by going back in time and despite having a couple of years to come up with an original plot … they STILL end up recycling a character and iconic moments.

    You can debate about Star Trek canon and all that, or ignore it as you like–either way is fine with me. But these two movies exhibit the reality that without its own history to draw upon, this Rebooted Universe lacks gravity and traction.

    Star Trek movies are not one-off stand-alone entities–they NEED backstory. They need a series to draw upon.

  • John

    Why can’t we have Frosty review movies? This guy is just a hater and a troll.

    BRING BACK FROSTY!

  • Saltonstall

    Um. Goldberg gave Dark of the Moon a B-. He then proceeded to bash the writings of Tolkien. So excuse me if I can’t fully respect his opinion.

    • Kim

      He gave Iron Man 3 a B rating. This author is fcking ridiculous, sh1tty, complete sh1tty taste in movies. FIRE HIM PLEASE

      • Saltonstall

        This is awkward… I liked Iron Man 3.

    • DjangoBro

      I can’t believe people forgot about that and they still choose to defend him lmao. Why are people so angry with this movie, it was no where near bad that people are making it out to be. Leave it to the Trek nerds to get their panties in a bunch for a rebooted franchise that basically brought Star trek back.

      • kerashov

        because something you anticipated most this year (after a real good first movie) ended up a big letdown. that’s why there’s ‘the angry’.
        and after spiking news about how Abrams the greatest guy to do another legendary scifi (SW) it just boils the top the more

      • DjangoBro

        Well who’s fault is that? Everybody knows when you set your expectations at absolute heights, you will find nothing but disappointment. Don’t ever go into a film thinking its going to be a masterpiece.

  • DarkistheKnight744

    Possible Spoilers:

    One thing that always bothered me about the first movie is the fact that although it was a “reboot”, they decided to use an actor from the original series: Leonard Nemoy. And in this STID he does nothing except fill in young spock of what to expect from Khan in the furture. So is Nemoy just going to show up in every future installment in the franchise to warn young Spock of every potential problem that may arise? Abrams really had a wasted opportunity to start fresh for an ACTUAL reboot where no other previous characters and/or adding little things like Spock this time yelling “KHAAAAANN”. As serious as that moment in the movie was supposed to be, I couldn’t help but burst out laughing. Here’s hoping whoever takes over the franchise, they will let it stand on its own 2 feet and not make so many platent lazy references to the old franchise.

  • Nathaniel Haywood

    Why are people surprised at this review? Any blockbuster-type movie that I am excited about, I assume that Goldberg is going to hate. Then I see it and usually end up liking it. Never fails. I’m sure the movie has plot holes and things that could be improved. But there’s no sense in reviewing this movie like it’s trolling for an Oscar. That’s not what this is. I teach a film class, so I could Goldberg every movie I see if I wanted to, but what’s the point of that? Great Gatsby (interpreting classic American Literature)? Bring it on. Star Trek? Give me the original crew, a good villain, some crazy action, and then get out of my way and let me watch it.
    I like to refer to The Dark Knight, which critics adore. There are a LOT of minor plot, tone, and logic issues in that movie too, but they don’t overpower the film so you can still appreciate and enjoy it. I’m sure Into Darkness is no Dark Knight, but that doesn’t mean it’s garbage.
    I won’t be able to see this until this weekend or early next week, but I’m sure that history will hold true and I’ll enjoy it.

    • Kim

      This tasteless author like Iron Man 3, nuff said

    • HopeTrio

      into darkness is dark knight returns…

  • ~The Cleveland Kid

    The reason this review seems so unfair is that the readers can hear the anger in your tone. Just because you prefaced the problems you had with the studio doesn’t mean that you didn’t put that anger into this review. This movie was not as solid as JJ’s 1st one, but it was still a very good movie. Of course you can’t compare it to Kahn(although you do). All the original treks don’t even come close to Wrath.

    Everyone enjoyed the flick that was at my packed theater last night and trekkers seem to dig the way JJ changed things around but stayed true to the Trek franchise.

    Most of your supposed inconsistencies were answered in the movie if you payed attention and the one’s that were not were too small for people to care. Kirk wanted to kill the bad guy who killed his mentor, so he wasn’t going to listen to Scottie. It was only after Scottie, Spock & finally Mccoy voiced the same feelings that he decided not to use the photons. I won’t go into length at the other questions, but they are all pretty small & nit picky.

    I usually enjoy the reviews on here but this one should have been thought out more and drafted again & again until the anger was gone & the facts remained. Maybe spock can teach ya how to do that one. At any rate, in the future you should take yourself out of the running to write a review if your are already mad at someone(s) in the flick. You obviously had a conflict of interest and you did Collider a big disservice. I think I’ll take some time away from the site until I hear things are fixed here. I would hope others will to.

    • hi

      I agree. There was way too much anger in this review. Screening, no screening, what’s the big deal?

  • Jagdish

    - “I can write controversial opinion pieces, devoid of fact or logic. Like, what if I picked out plot holes in big summer movies? Think of all the page hits and comments.”

    - “You’re hired!”

  • Josh

    Matt Goldberg you’re a fucking hack. This was a great exploration of the continuation of the Spock and Kirk characters of this series, this alternate timeline. I was also in a packed theater with fans and general audiences and the general consensus was that we all loved it. I’d like to see you do a better job, the script, the acting, the directing, all good and fun. You didn’t even see the series until after Jo’s first film, you have no authority to speak for Trekkies. Take your D rating and find a new career!

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

      As a real Trekkie, I have the authority to speak for all real Trekkies. I say Abrams is shit, as are his fanboys.

      • Nathaniel Haywood

        I’m also a real Trekkie who watched every series from TOS to TNG to DS9 to Voyager to Enterprise and I have no problem with JJ’s take. If you want it exactly like TOS then just WATCH THOSE INSTEAD! I think JJ has done a pretty decent job of doing a modern interpretation of the characters while staying true to them. Tell me one SUBSTANTIAL element of TOS that has been destroyed? Vulcan? Please – how many times did you see another Vulcan – or the planet itself – on TOS? Once? The relationships? Nope – different actors, but the essence of the characters are there. Spock and Uhura? Who cares. There were no intimiate relationships of any kind on TOS because of societal racism, so there was nothing to destroy. Marvel fans (of which I am a huge one) seem to be okay with Iron Man and The Avengers even though those films change A LOT. Way more than Abrams did, to be honest. (They don’t even have all of the original Avengers, for crying out loud!) Same thing with X-Men and X2 and X-Men First Class. They changed WAY more than Abrams (different characters, time periods, relationships, powers, etc) and those films are still good. It’s an adaptation. So don’t be so serious about it – it’s not like it’s Superman Returns. Or if you can’t handle it, pull out your VHS player and watch Wrath of Khan again.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

        Sorry, wannabe. You have made no valid point. There is nothing similar about this wannabe Trek with real Trek other than character names.

  • cloud720

    “it also makes no sense why Khan would now be a white guy”
    Coming from the guy who had this to say about casting a black guy in fantastic four…
    ” This fact will undoubtedly infuriate geeks who are racist and/or horribly OCD.”

  • brNdon

    For every one good review Goldberg gives, there are 10 awful ones. He almost passes for someone who knows how to write about movies. A person should be able to read a movie review and not be spoiled. Yes, I realize there was a warning, but the fact that you felt the need to spoil it voids it as a readable review for someone who hasn’t seen the movie. I’m not saying this movie is going to be great, but I really wish Collider would vote this guy out of writing reviews, or anything else that he is not an expert at.

  • Jamesy

    Is it not possible to review a film without spoiling the whole effing thing?! I get you gave spoiler warnings, but still…you can review a film without giving everything away.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

      The film is not just spoiled, it is so completely rotten as to cause maggots to puke.

      • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/‎ tarek

        Hey Rob! Talk to my hand.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

        Hey Tarek! Get it out of your boyfriend’s ass & I’ll break it for you.

      • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/‎ tarek

        Hey Rob! Take a deep breath and repeat after me: “this is just a movie… this is just a movie”

        You feel better now right ? No ? I see no other way to save you from yourself alas.

  • Jake

    This review is bullshit, as i expected from Matt Goldberg. Terrible reviewer. The movie is great.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

      Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Maybe you should pray to your god Abrams to strike the blasphemous film critic dead.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

      Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Maybe you should pray to your god Abrams to strike the blasphemous film critic dead.

      • Jake

        I’m not even a JJ Abrams fan. The only thing i have seen that he made is Star Trek. It’s a great movie. Get over it, fanboy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

        You are truly fascinated by shiny objects aren’t you, loser? Just like your fellow ADHD Abrams-worshiping shit eaters.

      • Jake

        I’m not even a JJ Abrams fan. The only thing i have seen that he made is Star Trek. It’s a great movie. Get over it, fanboy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

    LOL! Just look at the whiny little Abrams-loving bitches cry! You losers need to get LOST.

    • Nathaniel Haywood

      I responded to an earlier post of your and then swung back over a while later and noticed that you are actually trolling this page. Nice. Are you Goldberg posting under a pseudonym? Anyway, as I said earlier, if you hate Abrams and Into Darkness so much, Wrath of Khan is on sale at Best Buy. Great film. No changes made. Check your local retailer and stop being a bitch.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

        I see. Stating my opinion makes me a troll, but not you. Nothing lower than a hypocrite. Not even a piece of shit like a wannabe Trekkie.

    • Kim

      You’re the loser that’s so obsessed with the classic Star Trek films. JJ Abrams stated, he doesn’t give a FUCKK about you losers, he’s making this film for EVERYONE. And boy did he excel. You a fan of Iron Man 3? I’m sure you are.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rob.cline.94 Rob Cline

        LOL Aww… little Abrams-lover got put in his place so has to whine some more. You are truly the most pathetic piece of shit to ever exist.

  • Harry Palm

    JJ Abrams, like far too many filmmakers working today (Joss Whedon, Christopher Nolan, Michael Bay, ect.), are all style over substance. Weak, generic, copycat scripts hastily cobbled together by a legion of hack writers are coated in layer upon layer of flashy effects and camera moves to distract you from the weak story. These movies are copying movies that came out only a few years before and the crazy thing is, the fanboy nerds don’t even notice and then jump all over anyone that dares point it out.

    Sensible Person: “Hey, Loki’s plan in ‘The Avengers’ is just like the Joker’s from ‘The Dark Knight.”

    Fanboy Nerd: “Shut up! That movie is awesome and anyone that doesn’t think it’s the greatest movie ever is just a stupid loser that should die!!!”

    • Nathaniel Haywood

      Well, the Joker and Loki are incredibly similar characters, you must admit. The plans are similar in general terms, sure. But if you give me literally any movie on the face of the Earth, I can find a movie made before it that has similar plot details. So that’s not unique to these types of films. I enjoyed both Avengers and Dark Knight, and while I don’t think they’re the greatest films ever, they both have very good reviews from the standard film critic info sites that gather that stuff (metacritic, imdb, rottentomatoes, etc, etc) so it’s not just fanboy nerds. They have backup there.

      Yes, these movies are using old Trek ideas and adapting them. But so what? As a Trek fan, I’m happy that Trek is back on the big screen in an entertaining way that is true to the ESSENCE of the characters. I don’t need every little detail to be the same. I have my series box sets for that. Besides, Trek movies – even the best like Wrath of Khan and First Contact (TNG) – were never Citizen Kane. So why are people getting angry that they aren’t groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces?

      Rule of thumb: The closer you get to summer/winter when teens are on vacation, the more the film is pure entertainment. The closer you get to spring/fall, the more the film is supposed to be a “masterpiece.”

  • Pingback: Der Flop des Jahres: Abramstrek into Darkness | Mate-Schrank

  • Phil

    Wow, this is exactly how I felt about the movie. I also love the last line of this review, “the antithesis of this series’ proclamation, “to boldly go where no man has gone before.” They certainly did nothing of the sort when designing this highly derivative remake of a far superior film.

  • Bob

    Movie was great in my opinion. On par with the first, better in some ways and worst in others. Cumberbatch was amazing, like amazing. Felt his emotion and the dude had me creeped out. The entire cast was great, Pine as Kirk was fantastic once again. Quinto as Spock as well. Scotty, Harold(yea I called him Harold haha) were awesome as well. Zoe Saldana was great, and beatiful as always. Everyone was great! Which is honestly the best part of the movie for me; great characters played by great actors. The effects are also spectacular, and action engaging and badass. Also the score was great, I was sitting up in my seat never laying back out. Movie was the best movie of the year so far, really entertaing, strongly acted, plenty of emotional scenes which dprove you like the characters, great characters, great effects, awesome action…just a great sequel and movie period.

    Star Wars is in good hands.

  • goldbergisafgt

    If there’s another holocaust i hope matt goldberg is the first one to go!!!! can’t stand that idiot jew.

    • juaners

      Way to be a total dick! I thought his review was crap but this is completely uncalled for and seems like the actions of a loser that likes to hide behind his keyboard.

  • Romsy

    Yeah, sorry, but I don’t understand why everyone holds Wrath of Khan on such a high pedestal. Its ok, not amazing. I guess trekkies will not like this movie because it treads on what they see as holy ground, and non trekkies will like it because its a fun summer action movie. But it looks like the main reason Goldberg didn’t like this movie was the “Press” wasn’t given the special treatment they think they deserve.

    • Trevor

      Wrath of Khan is enjoyable, moody, has great pace, characters are mysterious as much as fun , STID is loud, 400 miles per hour, too easygoing (oh those are the Klingons, the boyband up there aha, okey) predictable (in other words a common blockbuster in the 2010s)

  • Romsy

    Yeah, sorry, but I don’t understand why everyone holds Wrath of Khan on such a high pedestal. Its ok, not amazing. I guess trekkies will not like this movie because it treads on what they see as holy ground, and non trekkies will like it because its a fun summer action movie. But it looks like the main reason Goldberg didn’t like this movie was the “Press” wasn’t given the special treatment they think they deserve.

  • Zeke

    So… Johnny Storm is now black? Awesome and progressive!

    So… Khan is now white? WHAT THE FUCK RACIST HOLLYWOOD

    -Matt Goldberg, everybody

  • Zeke

    So… Johnny Storm is now black? Awesome and progressive!

    So… Khan is now white? WHAT THE FUCK RACIST HOLLYWOOD

    -Matt Goldberg, everybody

  • THE REAL BRUCE LEE ROY

    This is what I don’t get about the people who read this review.
    If your not willing to take this guy’s advice then why read it?
    Think you know what trolling is now do you? HAHAHAHA (-_-)ALL
    OF YOU ARE JUST AS CRITICAL! Goldberg Bashing won’t change
    shit I may not agree with all his reviews but he’s accurate for the most
    part so I’ll stream this one! And Iron Man 3 was an excellent film
    from start to finish only a fuck boy would complain that there was too much
    Action going on in a ACTION MOVIE!

    • kim

      There was a lot of action in Iron Man 3? Iron Man 3 was an excellent film? My god……my my my god….what is coming of this world? This MORON enjoyed Iron Man 3 better than Star Trek….go rewatch Iron Man 3 and puke. ATROCIOUS film, it barely has action, it’s a comedy movie.

  • THE REAL BRUCE LEE ROY

    This is what I don’t get about the people who read this review.
    If your not willing to take this guy’s advice then why read it?
    Think you know what trolling is now do you? HAHAHAHA (-_-)ALL
    OF YOU ARE JUST AS CRITICAL! Goldberg Bashing won’t change
    shit I may not agree with all his reviews but he’s accurate for the most
    part so I’ll stream this one! And Iron Man 3 was an excellent film
    from start to finish only a fuck boy would complain that there was too much
    Action going on in a ACTION MOVIE!

  • Adreth Stark

    repost

  • ItsNotaSchooner

    I’m done talking about how horrible Goldberg reviews are.

    If you loved Star Trek 2009, you’ll love this movie. It’s that simple.

    • Aragost Scott

      100% agreed.

    • Still a fan

      Yup, agreed. I liked most of the original movies, and was a fan of the series. And I enjoy these new ones because they don’t do anything to take away my love and enjoyment of those older ones. Where this one ends, is the perfect place to take off and do new material without referencing what’s come before

    • kerashov

      i love 2009 one, hate this one with passion. your theory is wrong.

      • DjangoBro

        Ah shut up Trekkie lol I swear Star Trek nerds are absolutely the worst fans, they complain about foolishness.

      • chandler Bing

        hey asshole, its because of the original fans who kept the franchise alive that you get to see a movie(albeit shitty) 50 years later. so have some respect for them. they grew up with it.

      • ItsNotaSchooner

        well it completely boggles my mind how you didn’t like this one if you liked the 2009 one. i could understand not enjoying it as much, but hating? really? it’s strange what gets under people’s skin

  • ItsNotaSchooner

    I’m done talking about how horrible Goldberg reviews are.

    If you loved Star Trek 2009, you’ll love this movie. It’s that simple.

  • Still a fan

    Just got back from it and enjoyed the hell out of it. Does it diverge away from classic cannon, You bet. But since this is a re-established timeline(hate it or not that’s the case) wouldn’t fans be more pissed if they just went back and did the exact same movie all over again? They didn’t pull a Mandarin with the villain. He was who he is, a evil conniving bastard hell bent towards killing those who’ve wronged him with a deranged sense of revenge and justice. Did they barrow from classic moments from the old movies? Sure they did. But they made it work for this universe they’ve created. By going through all of these “expected” or “seen before” moments they leave this new take on the franchise with room to move beyond what people want to see or have seen before. They get to go in new directions without having to retread old ground. I grew up with Trek my whole life and the main reason why the series faded from TV screens and the movies got so stale and tired was because no one was brave enough to make some changes to keep things fresh and exciting, to shake things up a bit while staying true to the essence of the characters. Kirk will always act from the gut. Spock will always put logic first(with a justified exception in this one) – if you’re not going to separate what came before then there is no point in seeing this one, I can tell you right now you’re probably going to hate it. I enjoyed the hell out of it. It could have been a little tighter scripted, a good 10 mins could have been trimmed but it’s still one of the best movies of the summer so far. 4/5 – INMHO

    • Grayden

      exactly, people bitch when Hollywood remakes or reboots “classics”, but when studios take a different direction with that canon/mythos/whatever the same people bitch about how it’s nothing like the original. When a studio manages to come up with an original idea people will always compare it to the original stuff and how it pales in comparison. This same argument is valid for Man of Steel. The die-hards are just pissed another Superman movie is being made. They’d rather the ’78 film was the only one made and everything after it is absolute crap. Same with Trek fans. They’re a vocal minority; best ignored.

  • Still a fan

    Just got back from it and enjoyed the hell out of it. Does it diverge away from classic cannon, You bet. But since this is a re-established timeline(hate it or not that’s the case) wouldn’t fans be more pissed if they just went back and did the exact same movie all over again? They didn’t pull a Mandarin with the villain. He was who he is, a evil conniving bastard hell bent towards killing those who’ve wronged him with a deranged sense of revenge and justice. Did they barrow from classic moments from the old movies? Sure they did. But they made it work for this universe they’ve created. By going through all of these “expected” or “seen before” moments they leave this new take on the franchise with room to move beyond what people want to see or have seen before. They get to go in new directions without having to retread old ground. I grew up with Trek my whole life and the main reason why the series faded from TV screens and the movies got so stale and tired was because no one was brave enough to make some changes to keep things fresh and exciting, to shake things up a bit while staying true to the essence of the characters. Kirk will always act from the gut. Spock will always put logic first(with a justified exception in this one) – if you’re not going to separate what came before then there is no point in seeing this one, I can tell you right now you’re probably going to hate it. I enjoyed the hell out of it. It could have been a little tighter scripted, a good 10 mins could have been trimmed but it’s still one of the best movies of the summer so far. 4/5 – INMHO

  • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

    Matt Goldberg is the worst. He doesn’t like mainstream movies. Why doesn’t Frosty who actually likes the movies this website covers writing the reviews?

  • Pingback: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Viral John Harrison News/Images and Character Featurettes with Sulu, Scotty and Bones | Collider

  • Pingback: Check Out Redacted Starfleet Memorandum on STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS’s John Harrison, Plus Character Featurettes for Bones, Sulu and Scotty

  • blakeavon

    I for one would like to see a movie website that is run by people who actually enjoy movies, who understand the nature of the industry and sadly its limitation. not ones who cant give things constructive reviews but overburdened by “Comic Book Guy” levels of over thinking. This comes across as a four year old whose toy just got stolen by another. some of your points at the end are so laughable i actually began to wonder if it was written by a four year old. EG

    “Why does Kirk kick Scotty off the ship for refusing to use the
    torpedoes, and then decide to capture Harrison rather than use the
    torpedoes?” … Did you fall asleep? or perhaps too busy already thinking of all the nasty things you were going to say? Its crystal clear, he finally realised the futility of revenge, he finally remember all that Prime Directive stuff, he finally realised killing one person who a Jericho type missile was not the right and humane thing.

    “Why does Khan run away from Spock when Khan is physically and intellectually superior?”… for fun, for sport, too tease!

    “Why do they need Khan’s super-blood when they have 72 other genetically enhanced people already on board the Enterprise?” …Um because the one who had been woken up was going apeshit and destroyed the Enterprise, kill their Captain, killed hundreds of innocent people… and maybe because they were still frozen?

    “If they can beam Spock out of the volcano, why didn’t they just beam him into the volcano in the first place?” this was the opening of film, you couldnt have possibly been asleep already, it was clearly explained in the film and indeed was the whole reason for the scene.

    Maybe more attention should be paid to listening to dialogue than getting hung up on what you think are flaws.

    • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

      The confusing thing about Collider is that the two most prominent writers seem to be at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. Frosty loves these types of movies and gave this film a glowing review. Goldberg predictably hated this film and gave a series of absurd critiques.

  • /tv/

    Goldberg you pissy little Jew. If you actually watched the movie properly you’d have noticed everything is explained.

    I am very critical and even I found myself enjoying this movie. It is getting mainly positive reviews. It’s only the little faggots trying to get attention like yourself giving it a bad review.

    JJ is also a Jew like yourself, you should be trying to increase his shekles.

  • DjangoBro

    HAHAHA!!! This is so typical Goldberg. You would hate this movie… get lost man. You are such a sour puss.

  • DjangoBro

    Seriously I don’t get fans, J.J. Abrams did what he did with STID to give the old franchise a nod and people are still mad?! why?! I don’t get it. if he didn’t do anything related to the Wrath of Khan what would have happened? People would still be complaining!!! The man can’t please everybody. People can never sit back and just enjoy. A perfect example is Watchmen, people hated it because it was too faithful to the source material? WTF? What would happen if it wasn’t? Were people going to consider it as a masterpiece? I think not! People would still be bitching and moaning. As film goers we have become so sophisticated to the point that nothing can really satisfy us and that is pathetic.

  • peter

    I get people don’t like Goldberg’s review (ever) I don’t like them but I don’t complain. If you don’t like them then don’t come here just to whine about how awful Matt is there are a lot of other sites. What I don’t get is that every movie is reviewed by Goldberg, if people don’t like him why not change him? I know there are a few reporters in here that can do the job aswell. Not hating just saying for the sake of Collider change the reviewer once in a while

  • seriouslyritajustsupasizeitwtf

    haha oh matty g you need to separate your intense love for the star trek series and review this movie more objectively. These movies are a reboot, simmah down now. Yes Kirk is a good ol’ troublemaker but he’s also a fine commander and thinks well on his feet. In these movies kirk is younger so yes, he’s not as wise and tempered as the star trek series, obviously. Now I’ve only seen the star trek movies, never watched the series and I didn’t see the wrath of khan, but the khan in this movie killed it. I get your mad if he’s different, but uh, I loved cumberbatch’s performance, you knew this guy ain’t nothin ta fuck with. Yes, the movie is silly at times (fairly obvious kirk will be saved by khans blood) but overall i liked it. As for your bullet points..the answer was also fairly obvious for most of those…

    *tryin to hide the ship. duh

    *changed his mind, people ya know, do that from time to time (gasp!)

    *the dude shadowed ol scotts so he knew what he was doing, let it go man

    *he’s really good at hide n seek

    *spock had a phaser, even khan can’t fight guns bare handed

    *eh maybe khan’s the best, who knows

    *we’ll never know, but if i was a bettin man, and i am, I’m guessing they had a response. Or they just sat there and did nothing. I’ll let you figure this quandary out genius.

    In summary: tone down the nerd rage. that is all.

    • walt kovacs

      how many times did uhura shoot him before he dropped?

  • kmccarney88

    Wait, time out…you gave this movie a D? Are you serious?

    A while ago I used to sympathise with you, Goldberg….and, quite often, used to agree with your ratings on films. But as of late….you have lost all credibility. Coming from the guy who gave Iron Man 3, which was a huge, steaming pile of horse sh*t and easily the worst Comic book movie in the past five or six years, a solid B rating.
    And now, you give a great film like Star Trek Into Darkness a friggin D.

    I can officially no longer trust your opinion…

  • kmccarney88

    People, go see this movie in IMAX 3D….its friggin awesome. Dont waste your money seeing it any other way. It NEEDS to be seen in this format.

  • jk

    This movie was a disaster. Glad someone gets it.

  • Justin

    So, I don’t think we saw the same movie. It’s was highly enjoyable and WAY better than a “D”.

  • Melissa

    I AGREE with this review!!!!!! ALL the movie did was PANDER to what is popular in the star trek lore ….and ALL of that BULLSHIT John harrison secrecy just for this movie to be a cute little remake of wrath of khan but some adjustments.

    COME ON!!!!!! Do something ORIGINAL!!!!!!!

    Why not just make a WHOLE new story with new characters and forget the cute little winks and nods.

    AND YOU CANT KILL KIRK then bring him BACK in the SAME MOVIE!!!
    It ruins the effect of killing him!! it cheapens it.

    I like Bendy dick but he is just phoning in a villian while his career soars from this and sherlock…..this falls flat for lack of originality and being a slave to what is popular.

  • tweek

    I´ve seen ITD two times. Great Sci-Fi-Action and an awesome Cumberbatch.
    My rating: B-

  • Pessovek

    And this is now the man who has almost limitless control of both the Star Trek and the Star Wars universes? Poor sci-fi nerds, what did you do to deserve such a fate.

  • KriptonianKnight

    Star Trek nerds out in full force again treating The cannon like Holy Writ, typical. As for Matt’s review, what did you expect? Any movie that gets over an 85% on Rotten or over 70 on Metacritic that is a boxoffice smash gets the bizzaro treatment by Goldberg. Collider is a great site for news not reviews, unless you want to laugh. Beam me up Scotty! #FunFlick

  • brNdon

    So many bogus points in this review. First off, since Kahn was frozen before the timeline was split, it was very likely that a space-faring Earth would have discovered him, leading to similar events. If anything, this movie embraces that some things can not be changed, and that destiny is destiny.

  • FreezePeach

    Thanks for the review. The “remaking WoK for people who’ve never seen it” seems spot on.

  • KHAAAN

    Shut your fucking mouth Matt. One of the worst reviews I’ve ever read, by someone who’s claiming to have more information than they possess about Star Trek.

    You can retire now.

  • runner_j

    I have been thinking about this since these negative reviews started rolling in and this is my opinion. I frankly don’t find it very surprising that the story and script for this film is so bad. I think Abrams, Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof have talent, but the problem is that they didn’t devote themselves enough to the task of coming up with a great, original story.

    If you look these guys up on IMDB, all of them are insanely busy. Each of them have multiple film and TV projects on the go. When you’re spread as thin as they all clearly are, you’re not going to give any of these projects your very best.

    To illustrate this, a few years ago I read a story about the second Transformers movie that Kurtzman and Orci wrote, where they basically admitted to writing the script in a weekend. They left it essentially to the last minute because they were busy with other things, and so they locked themselves in a hotel room with I think another writer, and they cobbled together a screenplay. If you saw that film, you can see how well that worked for them. They treated it as if they were in college cramming for finals, just trying to memorize as much shit as possible. Creativity doesn’t work that way.

    Frankly I think a similar situation occurred here with this film. It’s been four years since the first film they delivered and a few of them have said in different interviews I’ve read (producer Bryan Burk said this as well) that they were all busy with other things and they kept putting it off until they, with Abrams, could devote their attention to it. I can imagine the scenario: Paramount was, as you can imagine, very impatient and putting the heat on them to get going and in an effort to meet some deadline (either self-imposed or studio mandated; maybe both) they got together and threw this story together. Under such circumstances, you can’t imagine a great story or inspiring screenplay being created.

    Abrams is a really talented director, and his talent made the 2009 film work, despite the story for that being a bit weak, and I’m sure this film will appear equally as thrilling. But you take him out of the equation for the next film as director because of the new Star Wars movie, and it’s a little frightening to think what may happen. You’ll need an equally talented director to compensate for the hackneyed storytelling process these guys employ, and if you don’t have that, the next film will be a disaster, because there will be nothing distracting from the piss-poor quality of the storytelling.

    Frankly, I think Paramount should part ways with all of them, and instead find some talented creative people who will really devote their energy, time and best effort to make a good film with a compelling story – the way Marvel has done so with their slate of films. There are so many talented filmmakers on the rise out there to choose from. Let Abrams & Co. continue on with being the McDonald’s of Hollywood, but keep Star Trek out of it.

    • Adron Gardner

      I gotta comment just to say I’m amazed there’s at least one or two people on this board who wrote something that didn’t start with F*** and end in a racial slur.

      Collider comments are worse than Call of Duty on Xbox Live.

  • Beezlebuub

    Trek Fans need to relax. Quite frankly it pisses me off how people want to compare this to the show or what they think the film should be.
    This was a fun movie and it was very enjoyable. Were there chessy moments? yes. Were there some plot holes that needed explaining? maybe? However I beg you to search out any sci fi classic that doesn’t have its flaws. And you cant say Blade Runner because Decker was a total idiot, ok. I loved the movie but its not without its flaws.
    My point is that we romanticize everything in the past like it’s infallible. I fell in love with SCI FI because of those plot holes and questionable moments that leave you scratching your head. As a kid I never understood half of what was going on in those movies but damnit I loved them anyway.
    Relax fan boys and enjoy something for what its worth. You are missing out on some kick ass stuff.

  • lobtaylor

    Just saw this, and I must say any lover of the Original Star Trek movies will absolutely love this! As usual this Mr Goldberg is a twat and am not sure why they let him review all the major movies.

  • Mark Ham

    Matt you are a moron. I don’t care to ever read another word you write. Did we see the same movie? You simply don’t understand storytelling. That was masterful. Go watch 20 minutes of Transformers and wax M Bay’s jock.

  • chris gault

    Hands down one of the best SciFi action movies of the last 3 or 4 years … Matt has a mathematical formula for what makes a good movie to him … it’s best to just ignore his reviews … decide for yourself … I never understood why people listen to reviewers anyways.

    • kvanar

      “Hands down one of the best SciFi action movies of the last 3 or 4 years”.

      I think you need to watch better movies mate.

  • Adron Gardner

    They should have called it Khan Air. It’s only missing Nic Cage to seal the deal.

    I’ve never seen so many people threatened by Matt Goldberg and his movie reviews. He must be touching a nerve. The truth hurts.

  • Adron Gardner

    Matt I think you’re almost dead on despite all the crazies floating around here. The main thing really has nothing to do with earning the death scene in Wrath of Khan. That’s part of the appeal, but only works in hindsight. You don’t even need to know anything about Star Trek.

    The reason the original Khan story works is simple. Nick Meyer was a pretty sharp dramatist. He constructed his Kirk, from the opening simulation on, as the guy who took short cuts and found the easy way out, often considering himself smart for doing so, even if it meant risking other people’s lives again and again. But in the end there were no short cuts and no easy ways out after his closest friend paid the ultimate price. Justice is served.

    Old school drama. Aristotle style. This movie was a Kanye West mix tape of a song few people these days knew the words to.

  • movieguy223

    While some of your attacks are arguably overreactive, I will say that your point about the film failing to take advantage of its alternate timeline establishment is 100% accurate. Though I still very much enjoyed watching the film, I found the original to be superior, on multiple levels, mostly because of its freshness, its ingenuity and inventiveness (despite some contrivances and cheats via fan service), and its originality – it’s non-Trek Trekkiness. It was bona fide Trek, and had movement and spirit like Trek, but it wasn’t something we had seen already. It was a backstory minus overdrawn exposition. It was as fun and blockbuster-y as could be, this one had all of the options in the world to do that. Using Khan was a letdown. A HUGE letdown. Cumberbatch is extraordinary, almost to the point where I forgot my disappointment because we were afforded such a monumental, call it even star-making performance, for Cumberbatch, but his talent could have been used for someone totally different. They could have created this rebooted series’ Khan through another franchise character, or someone of their own creation. While Nero in the ’09 flick is pretty cookie cutter, at least he was an antagonist worth our time, and the still-assembling-its-crew Enterprise’s time. Khan was a villain for the old franchise, the old crew, the old timeline. Khan doesn’t need to be in this new series…or at least doesn’t have to be here yet. Using him so early on in is just recycling, regardless of how you remix the Wrath of Khan plot.

    I had fun and wasn’t bored for a single second of this movie, and as a blockbuster it’s totally buttery and explosive and prime for an IMAX 3D screening, but the Trekkie in me was definitely irked by Khan being the focused protagonist. I actually preferred when Weller’s Admiral Marcus was the main villain, he was great in the meaty supporting role and had enough ham, smarm, and corruption running through him to make him seductively chilling. Khan was like Bane in TDKR => Physically terrifying, intense presence, used to underwhelming effect. Though memorable, neither villains are on any kind of ‘Best of’ radar. Any act would have a tough time following The Joker, but Khan is Star Trek’s Joker, and he didn’t have to be used just yet, if at all.

    Gimme Gary Mitchell…that’s who I wanted since the very beginning. With the door still very much open for future installments, who is to say that Mitchell won’t appear or Abrams won’t strike gold again like he did in ’09. But Into Darkness was definitely a step down.

    Plus, the climax was very anticlimactic, all nicely tied up with a bow on top and another recitation of the captain’s oath, this time by Kirk, and all the danger gone. After all that, Spock’s uppercut ended up being the answer to the entire film’s problems? Good to know for future villains.

  • greg

    Matt should be fired. Not because he didn’t like this movie, he’s just generally an asshole and not in a fun, ‘i love to hate him’ way, just in a ‘he’s really unlikable’ kind of way.

  • Pingback: Will this ever end? | Cagey Films

  • Pingback: TOP 5: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, Christopher Nolan and JAMES BOND 24 Rumors, AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D., New PACIFIC RIM Trailer, ROBOCOP Remake Set Photos and Video | Collider

  • SpeedieJoe

    I enjoyed the film, but, it did have some weaknesses. But some of the “plot holes” weren’t. For example, why did Khan run? Spock had a a weapon! Duh! Stupid complaint by reviewer.

    As far as why Kirk changed his mind, I thought it was obvious that he had been contemplating what Spock, Scotty, etc. had said and concluded they were right. Kirk is supposed to ultimately have a conscious even if he sometimes goes off half-cocked.

    Why not beam Spock down into the volcano? They couldn’t see what would be a good place to land.

    Why not use one of the other 72 people? Well, the explanation on this one is weak. But, they did earlier say they didn’t fully understand the cryogenics technology, it had been obsolete since warp drive. Thus while unthawing one of them, they could have killed the person. But, then again, the put Kirk in it. But they didn’t want him to continue to degenerate. So, I think the best explanation would be they wanted Kahn as first choice since his blood had already been tested and he was already awake, but could have resorted to the other 72 if they had to.

    • chandler Bing

      your explanations suck. theyve been already dealt with, in a better way.

      the ‘weapon’ was kicked away in 2 seconds.

      they couldnt beam because they couldnt go near the volcano withouth risking showing the enterprise to the natives. also, i believe there is something about jamming.

  • Zachrifice

    Goldberg was actually coincidentally parodied in the second season of Entourage. Rainn Wilson played a pretentious, untalented fanboy who happened to write on a blog and he was entirely unlikable and bitter.

    This film was really good. It’s near-impossible taking a reviewer seriously when they never like anything. Hope this loser hack gets fired from Collider ASAP.

  • WT

    It sucked. End of story. Now J.J. has to go whip on Star Wars. Maybe Obi-Wan Solo will be destroying the Death Star III this time?
    Oh well the movie will make tons of money, the fanbois for the reboot will shout out all nay sayers, and everyone will be back for Star Trek: Give Me All Your Money, All Your Bases Are Belong To Us

    • Zachrifice

      You’re unintelligent.

      • WT

        Wow what a remarkable way you have with the English language. Obviously debate isn’t a strong suit.

      • kvanar

        Into Darkness was way more unintelligent. Very lazy writing.

    • mike_thoms

      You know that Abrams didn’t actually write this movie, and he’s not writing Star Wars either.

      • WT

        Yes, and he should have told the studio that the script is rubbish, and had a major re-write. to lift entire scenes out of ST:WOK is pure laziness.

  • bill

    Just saw Trek and I must say, this review is right on…the universe is filled with too many stories to do a remake with Khan….the box office will suffer and actually is according to the Hollywood Reporter,,,,,

  • Nathaniel Haywood

    Now that I’ve seen the movie, I have to say that Goldberg is definitely taking this personally. It seems like he’s angry that they used Khan and then even angrier that they didn’t use Khan the way he would’ve. I agree that it’s a waste not to try new things since you’ve got an alternate reality, but I do think that if you’re going to use old villains then you might as well put new twists on them. This timeline is before Khan ever met Kirk, so Abrams is pretty free to make him be however he wants him to be. Yes, the social commentary is gone. I agree that that’s a shame. But if it was there, then this really would be a Wrath of Khan remake, and that’s not what Abrams wanted. Also, you can’t be mad about the fact that Kirk and Spock aren’t friends of 20 years or that Kirk and Khan don’t have an extended past – by nature of the new versions of the characters, it’s impossible. I thought the twist of Kirk “dying” and Spock yelling “Khan” was awesome. Sure, Spock’s original death held more weight. No doubt about that. But Kirk learned more by dying in this film than he did by watching Spock die in the old one, and seeing Spock be overwhelmed by personal loss (real personal, not “my planet is gone” personal) and scream “Khan!” was way more impactful to me than Shatner’s melodramatic, face-shaking version (which is much more laughable than how Goldberg describes this one). Plus, now we don’t have to sit through a third movie called “The Search for Kirk” – and thank god for that, because Star Trek III was terrible and the premise just as bad. Overall, I think it was a solid effort that highlighted the new Kirk/Spock relationship in a new way, with less plot holes than the first film. I say a B is a fair grade.

  • Nathaniel Haywood

    Oh, I almost forgot – when I read the “plot holes” that Goldberg came up with, it made me wonder if he even watched the movie. I bet he just sat there with a pen and a pad brainstorming ways to hate on it and thus got distracted. His “questions” are all pretty easily answered:

    1. They explained that they couldn’t beam in or out unless they had a direct line between the ship and Spock…which they couldn’t do without breaking the prime directive. Thus why they snuck the shuttlecraft in there while Kirk created the distraction…I mean, that was blatantly obvious…

    2. Kirk is about to use the torpedoes when he looks at Spock – VERY pointedly, I might add – and reconsiders Spock’s admonition about the moral thing to do. Again, Abrams almost beat us over the head with that look. Were you in the bathroom, Goldberg?

    3. My assumption is that Kirk wants a bridge member and someone he trusts in charge. Plus, Kirk admits he doesn’t know how to run a ship and makes most of his moves on gut instinct. Bathroom again? Gotta watch those movie theatre sodas.

    4. Good question. It’s not a new concept, though. Movies are filled with top secret facilities that no one’s ever heard about. Marcus is in charge of starfleet. If anyone can commission top secret facilities and programs, it’s him.

    5. Their constant movement is the only thing stopping them from being beamed aboard the Enterprise. Stopping to confront Spock would’ve just made it easier.

    6. Because McCoy specifically said that they had to be woken up in a particular way or else they could be killed and they didn’t really have time to try and figure it out while Kirk’s death set in. It was in the dialogue, man.

    7. Their official response was a manhunt for Harrison just like before. What would’ve changed? Why would they stop looking for him officially when he just committed more crimes? There’s no need to change anything. I really don’t understand how you didn’t catch any of this. Honestly, I’m not trying to insult. I just truly don’t understand how this all slipped past you.

    Sulu and Chekov don’t have a lot to do, that’s true. But the story isn’t focused on them. If you’ll recall, they didn’t have much to do in Wrath of Khan either, but you seem to LOVE that film. Uhura almost never had ANYTHING to do in ANY of the old Star Trek films, but you don’t mention her increased involvement in your review. Curious.

    This movie is not perfect by any means. But if you want to grind it to dust, you need to find better merits than this.

  • Pingback: TheoFantastique | A meeting place for myth, imagination, and mystery in pop culture.

  • Very Sad Star Trek Fan

    Unfortunately, I could not agree more. I love Star Trek in every incarnation (excluding Deep Space Days Of Our Nines). I was giddy after that first 15 mins or so and then shit started going horribly wrong. I can excuse almost everything but the fact they managed to fuck up the first movie showing that that must have been a fluke. The 2009 Star Trek could exist in the same universe and I though it was unqualified genius the way that was done. Then they bring back Khan (who could not possibly have changed with the new timeline!) and they undo all that good work showing this was a reboot and not a continuation of the franchise in completely new and amaxing directions.
    I am a very sad Star Trek fan and a very worried Star Wars fan.

    • Joe

      You needn’t worry about Star Wars. Lucas did such a bad job with eps I-III that the only way is up. Even WITH lens flares and skimpy writing.

  • kvanar

    I don’t agree with everything Matt says but the tenor of his criticism holds true. The writing is lazy, contrived and unoriginal. It becomes almost farcical rather than homage – I refer to the death scene. The entire point of Khan as a villain just loses poignancy in this version. In short, I think this movie was heavily neutered for these reasons.

    I watched Wrath of Khan at home immediately after this movie. Despite the slower pacing, less glitzy special effects and explosions, it was a far superior movie in all regards. I actually felt emotional when Spock died. Into Darkness death scene? Nothing. Not even a twinge of emotion. In fact I was silently groaning the whole movie.

    It’s just my opinion.

  • mike_thoms

    Pretty good review on AICN news by Harry Knowles. I don’t always agree with him and definitely think that website has certain people in Hollywood who treat them well so they return that treatment in kind. But Abrams movies are a Star Trek for a new generation and they are also for a new allegory. In the 60s Star Trek had allusions to the Cold War and the civil rights movement. This is a Star Trek for post-9/11. The reason that Khan is different is because the timeline has been altered. Starfleet is being militarized after the destruction of Vulcan. Khan was found by Marcus who used him instead of banishing him and his people to a planet they seemingly couldn’t escape from. So Khan has nothing against Kirk until Kirk gets in his way. I realize that detracts from the original show but this isn’t the original show.

    • walt kovacs

      how did the timeline from the 90s get altered?

    • Joe

      So what you’re saying is that not only have they been unoriginal in introducing a “different” Khan but in the process made him a shadow of his substance? That takes skill!
      Why not just call him ‘Harry’ or ‘Bob’?

  • Cedhollywood

    Coming from a 35 year Trek fan your review is 100% accurate and on point. I defended Abrams 2009 reboot tooth and nails. But this sequel is a abomination and a sick joke for the true Trekkers out here. This movie is a great ride for those with none to little knowledge of trek but to the fans that has has supported this franchise since day one its cheap and tacky piece of a mess. Abrams and company did a excellent job with the 2009 reboot with making the movie accessible to a new audience without alienating the fans. But into darkness totally disregarded the people that have made sure this franchise has stayed alive for four decades in favor of people who has recently just come aboard for the ride. Thank you for your honesty and may you live long and prosper. /

  • walt kovacs

    If they can beam Spock out of the volcano, why didn’t they just beam him into the
    volcano in the first place? there was a throw off line about the planet’s gravitational and some other issues messing with the transporter, making it impossible to beam without a line of sight

    Why does Kirk kick Scotty off the ship for refusing to use the torpedoes, and then decide to capture Harrison rather than use the torpedoes? scotty needs to be off the ship to serve the plot and sabotage the vengeance….kirk is a fricken prophet

    Why does Kirk promote Chekov (Anton Yelchin) to run engineering instead of someone who’s actually an engineer? so kirk can make a red shirt joke

    How would Admiral Marcus keep a gigantic dreadnaught filled with private security officers a secret? section 31 is a total secret. and if you didnt notice, he hired retards to man the ship.

    Why does Khan run away from Spock when Khan is physically and intellectually superior? khan got a booboo in the crash and his super magic blood hadnt healed him enough to fight spock. also nu-spock has cooties from kissing nu-uhura

    Why do they need Khan’s super-blood when they have 72 other genetically enhanced people already on board the Enterprise? nu-spock forgot to ask original-coke spock if the other genetic supermen had magic blood. however, had he, old-spock wouldve said the entire concept of healing blood is not logical and is the stuff of comic books and that shitty tv show, heroes

    If Kirk is sent on a secret mission to retrieve Khan after Khan attacks the Starfleet officers’ meeting, then does that mean Starfleet had no official response to the direct attack? nu-starfleet is filled with fucktards who are even too stupid to create an earth defense system

  • that guy

    Thank for the good read, Mr. Goldberg….I happen to agree with most of what you bring up about this movie.
    Abrams knows how to make a pretty looking movie. It’s got a good cast, great production, a rousing score…it’s just missing a good script!
    Yes, I’m an “older” Trek fan…I enjoyed the “reboot” for what it was. I still say that movie is just a Star Trek-Star Wars mash-up, but it was fun and again, the great cast and fine production brought a lot of good will.
    This new movie is like a car wreck involving a really fine looking sports car…it’s painful to see something so cool get mangled, but you can’t turn away…

    I’ve also noticed the love-hate thing going on with this movie is a pretty generational thing….the twenty-or-so folks who don’t really have any heart invested in the history of Trek are willing to just enjoy the ride and not be bothered (or even notice) the movie’s cynical take on Trek lore…

    Appreciated your view, Mark….thanks.

  • Pingback: Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release) - Page 23

  • Pingback: movie review - ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ | The WAE

  • Darren James Seeley

    While I don’t think the film is as horrible as the review says, I do agree that the shout outs to Wrath were really lazy and unnecessary. I also thought Carol Marcus was a throwaway character and the wrong character to use. But I really liked Cumberbatch as Khan. That said, I started to also re-think and change MY opinion over the past week or so. I am now convinced that Cumberbatch shouldn’t have been Khan…but a character who, by definition, fits the given movie even better. I’m starting to have this debate with friends, and even to those who loved the film, think I’m onto something.

    That character is Joachim.

    Think about it. Khan’s right hand, “Number One” in Wrath Of Khan, played by an uncredited Judson Scott. There is a slight passing resemblance to Cumberbatch and Scott, at least at certain angles. But wait–there’s more.

    How would Admiral Marcus know which cryotube was Khan’s? In Space Seed, the Enterprise thawed them all out, and Khan assumed leadership. So Marcus outwitted Khan and re-froze everyone but Khan? Hard to say. But what is known is that Marcus used the 72 Botany Bay crew as leverage on Khan. That much we know from Into Darkness. If we swapped Khan for Joachim, it would essential be the same EXCEPT that there would be an added layer where Joachim would want to re-awaken his best friend and leader, Khan. When McCoy and Carol Marcus check out the cryo body from the torpedo, wouldn’t it be a mind blower IF there was CG image of a young Ricardo Montalban – Khan – in it?

    As pointed out, the other 72 crew of the Botany Bay would *also* have the same abilities and healing DNA as Khan. That would include, of course, Joachim.

    But if the writers and director used Khan’s right hand instead it would also:

    1- Add a surprise that would justify the “denial” that Khan was being used. Sure, “Khan” might be a bigger name to sell tix, I agree BUT Khan wasn’t a focal point in the marketing at least in name. It could have been Joachim and you wouldn’t lose anything in marketing. Not if all you had was “Cumberbatch as John Harrison”

    2- Joachim, for the most part, is a clean slate. There would be few, if any, hangups about the character’s ethnic background. There is an unfair but common criticism among ST fans regarding Cumberbatch as Khan (ethnic background) but…could that be said about Joachim? Not so much. In addition, you have the best of both worlds. On one hand, the character is from Wrath Of Khan/Space Seed but at the same time is also a *unique* villain for an altered timeline.

    3- The “threat” of Khan’s awakening could be used..You could still make call outs to Space Seed and/or Wrath Of Khan if you wanted.

  • BK

    Matt – The paragraph that begins “With a complete misunderstanding…” is perfectly stated. I’m surprised I haven’t see more reviews like this one. Great work.

  • Hop

    I liked this movie. I DO see your points, and they are somewhat valid. However, I enjoyed Cumberbatch’s scene-chewing performance, and found the movie enjoyable regardless of plot holes.

  • Hop

    Excellent review!

  • Pingback: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Review

  • Pingback: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Review | WholeMovieInfo.com

Click Here