When Star Trek: Into Darkness was announced, there was much speculation about the bad guy. It’s no stretch that Wrath of Khan is probably the best of the original movies and it has been such a pervasive part of our pop culture, I really had no idea how they would modernise it without losing …something. Benedict Cumberpatch was announced as the villain John Harrison, an ex-Federation officer gone rogue and so we all accepted that, yes, this is a new cast with a new time-line and new stories. Let us let Khan rest.
Difficult to talk about STID without talking spoilers. Truly. So I’ll try my best to avoid plot points.
Before we went to see Darkness, we re-watched Star Trek. Afterwards, I was lamented to Jadek that, while I did love the movie, it felt like there was a lot action and not enough philosophy. What I really like about the Star Trek universe is that it’s a thinking man’s landscape. It’s not just a shoot-em-up in space; it deals with real issues like racism, ethics, equality, technology, biology, etc. I was missed the ponderous soliloquies.
After watching Darkness, I felt the same way. Even so, it was well-plotted and paced, the actors knocked it out of the park, lots of surprises and twists, and the effects… well, they were pretty amazing. 4 out of 5 stars.
Then I read an Aint-it-Cool article. Beware: it’s full of spoilers. It made some very salient observations about the philosophical and political messaging in the movie. It’s funny, because I totally agree with the assessment that this movie makes you think rather deeply about some big issues. But – and this a big ’but’ of Sir Mix-A-Lot proportions – is it too subtle to decipher amongst the space battles and action scenes? I know, no one wants to be hit over the head with a morality bat, I get it. Yet – if a movie IS going to take a contentious stance, shouldn’t it be a little obvious? At least to its franchise fans?
Go on, read the article. Tell me what you think in the comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment