Reżyseria:
J.J. AbramsZdjęcia:
Dan MindelMuzyka:
Michael GiacchinoObsada:
Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Benedict Cumberbatch, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Peter Weller, Alice Eve (więcej)VOD (4)
Opisy(1)
Załoga USS Enterprise zostaje wysłana na planetę w układzie Nibiru w celu obserwacji prymitywnej cywilizacji. Naruszając dyrektywę Federacji członkowie decydują się uratować ją przed nieuchronną zagładą, a tym samym ingerują w jej dalszy rozwój. Za naruszenie zasad kapitan James T. Kirk zostaje zwolniony z pełnionego stanowiska i oddelegowany na służbę do akademii. Jednak kiedy Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) wypowie wojnę Federacji, Kapitan Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) wraz z całą nieustraszoną załogą U.S.S. Enterprise wyruszą na jego poszukiwania, by obronić Ziemię i wyeliminować śmiertelne zagrożenie, jakie stanowi Khan. (Imperial Cinepix)
(więcej)Recenzje (14)
Star Trek for the whole family. Whereas the first modern Star Trek movie established bonds (not only between the characters, but between the characters and viewers unfamiliar with Star Trek), the sequel’s plot is built on the danger of those bonds being broken. Several of the alternative family models find themselves in peril. Kirk and Spock are driven by a thirst for revenge after their surrogate father is killed before their eyes. Carol is seeking a new, more trustworthy family onboard the Enterprise and Harrison’s crew has become his family as well. Thanks to the strong family subtext, Into Darkness is emotionally rich, but it doesn’t manage to directly face up to its melodramatic leanings (glycerine tears, Spock bellowing the villain’s name) and relativises them in every possible way through childish joking and placing them in a context that prevents the expression of emotion (Spock’s reaction, for example, is primarily a quote). The attempt at a constantly brisk narrative pace hinders the logical consistency of the story. The characters break or disregard regulations as it suits the screenwriter, some motivations are unclear and a lot of decisions are dubious. On the other hand, Abrams makes excellent use of every piece of the provided information, whether in the dialogue or action scenes (with shots that say more in one go than is common in today’s action movies). He continuously raises the stakes in the build-up of the action sequences: higher probability of error/greater loss, if errors occur/multiplication of objectives to be achieved through action. The final battle is an excellent example of how to overwhelm viewers with spectacle and, at the same time, make them think about the possible impacts of the actions that they have watched. Though it happens on the basis of an unconvincing chain of events, the scene itself is gripping. The dubious significance of similarly self-indulgent episodes in the narrative as a whole repeatedly points out to us that the film follows the narrative logic of television series (or video games). Many events have no consequences and stick out like a sore thumb, though they will thrill the mind of any nerd (a key scene from The Wrath of Khan turned upside down, Alice Eve in her underwear). It is not clear from the presented facts why some things happen in an exceedingly complicated way, or rather why some useless information is being provided to us (the circumstances leading to the explosion in the Archive). Other, more valuable information was left out for the sake of convenience (the improbably quick “modification” of 72 torpedoes before Harrison appropriates them, the premature cut-off of the rescue scene using a human chain, which doesn’t look solid at all). The new Star Trek would need to fill a lot of holes, but even with those holes, it is a top-rate summer blockbuster with a thrilling pace, a humanly monstrous bad guy and tremendous value added for everyone who has spent a fair amount of time in Gene Rodenberry’s world. 85%
()
(mniej)
(więcej)
Massive disappointment from J.J. Abrams, the first time ever. Effective eye candy, but it didn’t bring me any pleasure at all. The story is told so sloppily that I actually don’t know what it was about. Everything is ancillary to the glossiness and the pace – before the dust can settle after a twist, there comes another twist, and everything is now different; the movie won’t allow you to understand that turn of events because the plot never goes very deep. Important decisions that would need hours if not days of pondering here are made in a few microseconds. Just whoosh here, whoosh there, it doesn’t matter after all. At its most basic, from one scene to the next, it does work (you can follow the short-term motivations of the characters), but who wanted to do what long-term is something that I’m unable to put together and I fear it simply doesn’t make any sense; not even a bit. The fact that everyone speaks in dull one-liners doesn’t help either. The second Star Trek cheered me up a little only by the end, when it managed to arouse some emotions (I loved the first one, though), but it took me only a few seconds to realise that nothing had really happened, and I guessed exactly the gimmick the movie will use next to reach its nonconflicting goal. So, overall, I'm quite bitter. A film with a very charismatic villain played very charismatically by a very charismatic actor until you realise you don’t know anything about him and you only remember a couple of psychopathic grimaces doesn’t deserve a higher rating.
()
I stared wide-eyed for two hours as if I were fifteen again. Nevertheless, I have two major criticisms to air. Abrams dragged on the concept of the first film without any significant innovation (the timing of the action scenes fits more or less one-to-one within the runtime) and, most importantly, he hardly works with the villain (and Cumberbatch provides him with what few others can). When I watch it the second time is when I'll decide if it was all on purpose and it's still all about the fire of catchphrases, perfect characters, and "absolute" moments like falling from space, or if J.J. is already on the other side of the galaxy with his thoughts.
()
I loved the first movie of this restarted Star Trek series. It was full of action, good effects and it was fun, which is something I was grateful for. Four years ago, it was fun to discover a movie like this, but now these blockbusters are a dime in a dozen and it’s hard to find a really good one. But this one was great. It might not match up to the first movie’s quality, but it definitely comes close. Because Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely perfect as a villain. And J.J. Abrams is an amazing director, so apart from digital orgasms, you also get plot twists and you get to build an even stronger relationship with actors such as Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto or Simon Pegg, which all makes me happy as a clam. You can clearly see the Star Trek fans in this movie. It’s just a shame that this movie has too little in common with the original decent Star Trek and a good portion of the fans can’t forgive the creators for that. If they only looked past it, they would enjoy a pleasant popcorn fun that has a message behind it, you just have to open up to it enough.
()
I can hardly abstract from the emotional factor because, as in the previous episode, I felt at home swallowing Abrams' upgraded poetics of the rigid Federation and the less-clamped crew of the Enterprise to the fullest. In some ways, the flight into darkness is a little less consummate than its predecessor - it was actually atypically brisk, functional, dynamically connected and clever for a prologue. He built the foundations of a new mythology, paid homage to the old, and economically sketched the new chemistry of the characters. The sequel toils more with the explanation of some motivations and events, the last instance being deus ex machina, or a reference outside the world of film (to The Wrath of Khan, to the series episode "Space Seed", to the first Abrams ST, to the accompanying comics, etc.). As a result, Into Darkness may seem like a nerd encyclopedia with poor logic. To some extent, I agree. Anyway, if we abstract from the occasional naivety, unsuccessfully pointed dialogue, and a certain sparsity (or rather evasion) of the script, the film simply works. The film elegantly uses the established motifs, cleverly re-interprets familiar events with a raster of "changed reality", all while not forgetting to work with a key element of the new ST: the relationship between Kirk and Spock. In many ways, it surprisingly brings them together (fatherly motif, anger) while not only acting as a derivative of the original film duo. Cumberbatch in the role of Khan is probably the most successful transcript - he was able to combine a certain human fragility with the theatricality of Ricardo Montalbán, and he also acts as a catalyst: in some ways he is similar to Spock (superior physical and mental abilities), and in some ways to Kirk (obvious interest in improvisation and problems with self-control and order). In any case, he puts them both in a situation where they have to reconsider their basic attitudes and views on their service. Fortunately, he does not resemble in any way the "destructive fateful" villains that Christopher Nolan so masterfully constructed, but he is actually old-fashioned at his core (good old fashioned revenge). The new ST is primarily an attraction. At times, it seems that the obsessive fondness for thinking and rendering that the Star Trek series is famous for was set aside and was replaced by pure dynamics. Nevertheless, observing the ingenuity and dynamism of often parallel and precisely constructed actions brings almost infantile pleasure. So does experiencing bursts of nostalgia from familiar scenes that shine again and, despite a certain rational calculation, still work and enrich the new story. A film where everything is in place for me. Sometimes it's a bit mysterious how it got there, but ST simply offers enough for a viewer raised on Rodenberry's world to come to terms with it.
()
Stay true to your geek enthusiast soul, making Trekkies happy with allusions and references, or pander to the demands of the blockbuster market? That is the question to which this time Abrams didn’t find a satisfying answer to. And so sways between these two approaches, a while this way, a while the other. The instability here rears its head in all aspects. On the one hand a seriously conceived (and criminally underused) villain with incredible motivation played by a charismatic actor and opposite him a comically fresh-faced crew full of puppets to make up the numbers. Although it’s Spock-style emotionally cold, more tears are shed here than at Kim Jong-il’s funeral. It pretends to be a popcorn movie where you don’t have to switch your brain off, but they start coming out with over-combined plans that would seem idiotic even in much dumber pastiches. We get tongue-in-cheek Indian Jones-style escapades and attempts at dark, fateful monumentality topped off with a convolutedly grafted on compulsory deus ex machina-style cameo, incessantly recycled music, unwanted, ridiculous metavariations (the worst being that awful scene “behind the glass) and the rather sudden ending which, rather than being a climax involving the inevitability of fate, looks more like the budget ran out and so the movie didn’t end as it was originally meant to... Simply a messy (and confusing due to the frenetic work in the cutting room) result where the biggest surprise is that Abrams had no problem with exactly the same things in part one.
()
The story of the most genuine and strongest male friendship – and breathtaking action/adventure into places where many would never dare set foot as a little bonus. Chris Pine proves that the moment he puts on the yellow-black suit, he absolutely nails everything; Karl Urban traditionally expresses the emotions involved, even if it's just raising an eyebrow; and this time around the tried-and-true creative team is playing it safe Although in a few places they unnecessarily rely on the audience's knowledge of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Abrams and the screenwriters didn't miss this opportunity. Almost every bit of dialogue leads to explosive consequences, and in the face of an unpredictable character that Benedict Cumberbatch gives the power of a fallen angel, all criticisms must inevitably fade away. Not to mention that during the final half hour, it almost exclusively plays on the first emotional signal and rational considerations are definitively put aside. An astonished 90%, with a lingering slight trembling and eternal sadness that the creator of the best reboot in history has sailed off into a galaxy far, far away.
()
If you really wanted to, you could say that Abrams created a multi-layered, sophisticated revival of Star Trek, in which he strengthened and updated all aspects of the classic series, not only its idealism and ethos, but also its campiness. However, it is rather more appropriate to admit that the second new Star Trek has some fundamental problems that make its unintentionally ridiculous elements stand out, with the terrifying replay of all of the main participants at the fore. The script is the film’s Achilles heel, as it is built around a single major twist connected with the revelation of the main antagonist’s name and the resulting variations on the iconic moments of the classic Star Trek films. Other than those elements, however, the film offers nothing else that would attract the viewer’s attention and thus strengthen the effectiveness of those moments. If with the new Star Wars Abrams sponsored the creation of great fan fiction, which inventively varied, overturned, updated and enriched the canon, Star Trek Into Darkness is a prime example of sloppy fanfiction that merely varies its template in a non-conceptual way, but does not bring anything new or independently functional into it. We could theoretically be thankful that Star Trek has thus paradoxically become a frightening example from which the folks at Disney learned and therefore entrusted only the first of the new sequels to Abrams. The second Star Trek showed that Abrams is great at creating new and clever variations of old worlds, but he unfortunately does not know what to do with them the second time around.
()
Star Trek shattered the traditional concept of space opera with all its naivety and old rituals and boldly stepped toward the younger generation and those who had remained outside the world created by Gene Roddenberry. It resulted in an entertaining blockbuster that is modern, dynamic, and full of action, battles, memorable lines, and tension - simply a likable popcorn movie for mass audiences. The sequel follows a similar spirit, although it reduced the number of memorable lines and humor, replacing them with pathos and, in some cases, pure sentiment (yes, brave space heroes are not ashamed of shedding tears), and overall the film slightly lost the lightness of its predecessor. On the other hand, it is by no means a failure; many sequels struggle to even come close to the original film's quality (Guy Ritchie could tell you all about that). The film's generous production, breathtaking special effects scenes, the action following one after another, and the fast pace prevent viewers from noticing the gaps in logic and the simplicity of the story. This type of blockbuster is not meant for contemplation or reflection, but for quick consumption, and it fulfills this role more than adequately. Overall impression: 80%.
()
The screenwriters couldn’t resist. Honestly, it was just too enticing, but hats off to Abrams for saving fans from themselves (clever differences in the trailers) because he knows the value of a good secret. The story of Into Darkness is a solid political sci-fi thriller, working perfectly with the main characters and visually provokes nothing less that amazement. Both Kirk and Spock are given equal space. The divergence from the primary story line, caused by Nero’s intervention completely turns around some events and changes the context of certain events to a chilling extent. I’m afraid the creators just can’t afford to do this next time. The so acclaimed bad guy with a mug like Benedict Cumberbatch lives up to his reputation both mentally and physically (his hands are like skull-crackers). And Peter Weller is cool! - If Spock were here, and I were there, what would he do? - He’d let you die.
()
The new Star Trek has several incredibly stunning shots and visually sophisticated action scenes. In this, Abrams is not only a pioneer but also a top creator. I am not particularly interested in the original series or the several feature films, so I can look at this universe objectively and with distance. If I have to evaluate it purely "cinematically" and not emotionally, then I see it as a visually polished blockbuster with enjoyable storytelling, a fast-paced plot, a brilliant villain, and that's about it. Nothing more, no genre revolutions (like MI3) and so on. I didn't feel any profound emotions, nor do I feel the desire to watch it again. A polished film for 200 million dollars, but I would expect more from it than just thrilling and visually appealing adventures.
()
"Spock, tell me it will be ok!" - "I have neither the information nor the conviction to do so." Fortunately, it turned out okay. More than okay, actually. The script dares to play with the parallel Star Trek universe even more than last time, I didn't find a single blemish in terms of the technical aspects, J. J. Abrams directs as well as all the actors act - flawlessly. At times it is funny, at times dramatic, at times intimately moving... And the change of pace never feels like a punch in the face, which is admirable. Of the actors, Benedict Cumberbatch is rightly singled out, whose villain would have a hard time finding competition in contemporary film (hello to the awkward Loki from Avengers and many others). The best part of the film is probably the one that starts with the meeting of the two ships, continues with Scotty's humorous mission, the transfer from one ship to the other and ends with the "reveal". However, I also really liked the opening chase, as if cut from the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Michael Giacchino managed to maintain the excellent level of the last film's music, and the storyline of Kirk and Spock's friendship continued nicely. By the way, Spock is about the only weakness of the film. But I don't mean the "new" one played by Zachary Quinto, but good old Leonard Nimoy, who is here again, but this time his presence seems rather forced and unnecessarily "Deus ex machina". But like I said, that's probably the only flaw.
()
A great advantage of the film is the presence of Benedict Cumberbatch. Although his Khan is a bit of a strange character, his portrayal as an actor is so brilliant that even from the poster he looks like a truly dark anti-hero. This is how a charismatic villain should look like. Marvel could learn from this. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2013/07/star-trek-do-temnoty-2013-80.html
()
My review was largely influenced by seeing this at the movie theatre. It’s a completely different experience outside it. I only watched the first installment on DVD, so I missed out on its epicness and I was slightly skeptical about the Star Trek series itself. I ended up giving it 4 stars, especially because the first installment got rid of the naivety and added more hilarity. The second installment is considerably different, but, in some respects, it has remained the same, perhaps to its detriment. The whole movie and especially the scenes in space are a visual orgy. The soundtrack is brilliant, taking the movie to a whole other level. What bothered me about the first installment was the villain, who was simply too weak and didn't fit well into an otherwise good movie. Therefore, when Benedict Cumberbatch (aka Sherlock) was announced as the main villain, I was naturally excited. Nevertheless, it was a disappointment. It's not the fault of Cumberbatch, who gives an excellent performance. The screenwriters are to blame, as they gave him virtually no space, so we learn almost nothing about him. A huge shame. He may be an ingenious, mysterious intergalactic terrorist, but the battle between him and the Enterprise crew gets "resolved" in such a naive way that is so typical of Star Trek. I was also disappointed by the story, which I consider to be an important aspect in all of my reviews. It’s all narrated so hastily. I just felt as if a few scenes were missing that would make this into a more coherent whole. To all the negatives I’ve listed so far, I have to add a big BUT. Since I'm not an expert on the Star Trek world and the whole story around it, I shouldn't criticize things I didn't pick up on, but Star Trek fans would. Kudos to J.J. Abrams, because he revived a franchise which wasn’t familiar or interesting to me up until then and gave it a form which made it digestible for people like me. That means less of the classic Star Trek, more of the visual orgies. The result is one of the best blockbusters of this year.
()