Star Trek Into Darkness
The young cast is mostly callow and TV-bland and the special effects don't quite seem worth that hefty price tag, but overall this is a presentable addition to the franchise.
Why don't you just admit that you don't know jack or **** about FX.
May 8 - 03:10 PM
He just did... and more.
May 8 - 06:29 PM
TV bland, meaning you don't like shaky cams, industrial pipes, and extreme closeups?
May 8 - 03:56 PM
Having seen the film, I respectfully disagree. The cast was excellent, and the special effects were breathtaking.
May 8 - 04:14 PM
I can see where you got the complaint about the cast. Sometimes I felt like I was watching a JJ Abrams tv episode, because of the acting and the screenplay. It is simply ignorant to bash the FX, however. Easily some of the best I've ever seen.
May 9 - 02:38 AM
the special effects were spectacular and more over, they were well used. not a penny was wasted in the budget. JJ gave it everything he had and more and I was very pleased with the results. going back again tonight after work. best movie experience in a long while since slumdog if you ask me
May 9 - 08:04 AM
by bland he means no personality wich i agree. this movie was made to draw in 18-25 year olds that havent seen and grown up with the better original. i thought it was better than most of tng's movie fair (love tos,tng and ds9) except first contact. i would say it was mediocre to awful in parts for a reboot, including the god awful score. fans of this think transformers 2 and g.i. joe are visionary film making, star trek for dumb jocks. lol. the reboot will never rekindle the movement roddenberry started.
Oct 19 - 02:46 PM