I've been a Trek fan since the age of ten and it was the show that ultimately opened to door to the world of science fiction (and geekiness!) for me. So I do hold strong feelings for this franchise and that is why I swiver over my feelings for Abrams' films.
The film opens with Kirk extensively breaking the Prime Directive and, while he does so with good intentions, he is portrayed to be much more devil-may-care and arrogant (perhaps, even adolescent) than Shatner's Kirk. But before he can suffer Starfleet's disciplinary action, Earth is attacked by a terrorist John Harrison. Determined to bring him to justice, Kirk and his crew set out after him only to discover nothing is what it seems.
Benedict Camberbatch did a good job as the ruthless Harrison but, through no fault of his, the actual character portrayal within the story meant he never quite had the same complexity of the Joker or even Loki from the Marvel-verse. Not to ruin the film too much but I do think this is the result of this franchise being restricted to two films compared with the original films, which had a whole series to build upon. I can't complain about the Enterprise characters as I do think they all do their roles justice and are worthy successors (I can complain, however, that there just was not enough McCoy- give him more scenes in the next film!).
In terms of the actual plot, it makes for a great popcorn flick that will appeal to general cinema goers who have no clue about Star Trek as well as being entertaining enough for Trek fans who do tolerate Abrams' films. As I said, it did lack some of the emotional appeal because the characters just do not have the history and level of deep friendship that we saw in the original films (and how can they when there is only meant to be a year between this film and the first one?). I also wish they would do more to recreate the Kirk/Spock/McCoy friendship that was such a part of the original series. McCoy barely has screen time here and I think that even despite being biased about my favourite character.
In all, I do think it's worth a look. It's not fantastic nor does it compare to 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' but it is an entertaining film that moves along well from what was established in the first film. I hope it doesn't take them as long as four years to produce a third film. One thing though, see it in 2D if possible. The 3D is pointless and a waste of money for those of us who have to fork out extra for 3D tickets. It's time Hollywood relegated 3D to kiddie films and cartoons.
The film opens with Kirk extensively breaking the Prime Directive and, while he does so with good intentions, he is portrayed to be much more devil-may-care and arrogant (perhaps, even adolescent) than Shatner's Kirk. But before he can suffer Starfleet's disciplinary action, Earth is attacked by a terrorist John Harrison. Determined to bring him to justice, Kirk and his crew set out after him only to discover nothing is what it seems.
Benedict Camberbatch did a good job as the ruthless Harrison but, through no fault of his, the actual character portrayal within the story meant he never quite had the same complexity of the Joker or even Loki from the Marvel-verse. Not to ruin the film too much but I do think this is the result of this franchise being restricted to two films compared with the original films, which had a whole series to build upon. I can't complain about the Enterprise characters as I do think they all do their roles justice and are worthy successors (I can complain, however, that there just was not enough McCoy- give him more scenes in the next film!).
In terms of the actual plot, it makes for a great popcorn flick that will appeal to general cinema goers who have no clue about Star Trek as well as being entertaining enough for Trek fans who do tolerate Abrams' films. As I said, it did lack some of the emotional appeal because the characters just do not have the history and level of deep friendship that we saw in the original films (and how can they when there is only meant to be a year between this film and the first one?). I also wish they would do more to recreate the Kirk/Spock/McCoy friendship that was such a part of the original series. McCoy barely has screen time here and I think that even despite being biased about my favourite character.
In all, I do think it's worth a look. It's not fantastic nor does it compare to 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' but it is an entertaining film that moves along well from what was established in the first film. I hope it doesn't take them as long as four years to produce a third film. One thing though, see it in 2D if possible. The 3D is pointless and a waste of money for those of us who have to fork out extra for 3D tickets. It's time Hollywood relegated 3D to kiddie films and cartoons.