So after reading a bevy of critics critique this
movie, Star Trek: Into the Darkness, I've come to realize that not too many
people enjoy 2 of my top 3 movie directors in 21st century, which are JJ Abrams
and Christopher Nolan. (Just for kicks the third one is Michael Bay.)
Anyways, finding a bad review for this movie was
pretty hard because most critics were more concerned with not revealing the
true identity of Benedict Cumberbatch’s character, rather than actually
reviewing and critiquing the movie. It was also fairly difficult because no one
critic really harped on one big specific problem, (other than their dislike for
JJ Abrams and how he’s going to ruin the new Star Wars franchise), they would
list small mishaps and not even elaborate on them. The critics would talk about
how it looked bad in 3-D and the director did one too many close ups and the
purpose of the Enterprise is to explore new worlds and new species, as seen in
these two reviews: http://nypost.com/2013/05/14/star-trek-into-darkness-is-lost-in-space/;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/movies/star-trek-into-darkness-directed-by-j-j-abrams.html?
However, there is one issue that is a reoccurring one
out of the reviews that I have reviewed. Senior editor and the principal film
critic at The Atlantic, Christopher Orr says “The screenplay is baroque and
preposterous, with plot holes big enough to drive a Constitution class cruiser
through.” Many critics believe that the sequence of events that take place
during this movie just does not make sense. Although I am arguing that this
movie is good, I understand where they are coming from. I, myself had to watch
this movie two or three times before I could say with confidence that I understood
the story line. But in my opinion, the story line is what makes the movie. It’s
like a freaking soap opera!
Admiral Marcus, (who is the head guy of Starfleet),
and supposed to be a good guy is actually working with Khan so that he can use
advanced weapons against the Klingons in war. Marcus sends Kirk and the
Enterprise to destroy Khan after Khan attempts to kill him but instead, Khan
surrenders to Kirk and his ship after learning that his fellow comrades are in
cryo sleep locked in torpedoes that are on-board the Enterprise. After learning
this, Kirk and Spock do not know whether they should trust the Admiral or ask
Khan for his help. Kirk and Spock defeat the Admiral with the help of Khan and
then Khan kills Kirk and then flees the area, (I kind of forgot how though).
Spock, in rage, chases Khan in an action packed sequence where he eventually
kills Khan. Then, using the same technology that brought Khan back to life,
they also brought Captain Kirk back to life. Yes it’s pretty cheesy but nobody
said they had a problem with it being cheesy. They just had a problem with the
plot holes. I rushed through that summary, for obvious reasons, but the
emotions shown through these many events are spectacular and heartwarming to
say the least.
I can answer all of your questions about the plot
and its “holes”. Why would a Starfleet admiral ask a 300 year frozen man for
help? Because the man was a mad genius and had and could create weapons that no
one else could. Why was Khan’s act of destroying San Francisco an afterthought?
Because it was not really relevant to the story besides depicting him as a villain.
I’m not trying to say this was the movie of the year or it was JJ Abrams best
movie of his career, but it was held to high expectations, and it did not
disappoint. As a matter of fact, I'm about to watch it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment