Box Office Guru Wrapup: Furious Leads Record Memorial Day

Summary

Moviegoers gorged themselves on high-profile sequels powering the North American box office to a record-breaking Memorial Day frame with the top ten films grossing over $250M during just the Friday-to-Sunday portion of the long weekend. The marketplace expanded to incredible levels making for one of the five biggest overall box office weekends ever. Back to Article

Comments

The.Watcher

The Watcher

I genuinely hated the new Star Trek. I'm not a fan of the old franchise and loved the first remake, but Darkness pissed me off.

The story is mind-mindbogglingly stupid - nothing about the villain(s), the motivations, or the realistic plausibility of said machinations made any sense, and there were more exposition dumps - where absolutely nothing happened for long periods of time while the camera swirled around bizarrely (this breaks one of the cardinal rules of cinema: show, not tell [it's just lazy, really] - than the Star Wars prequels.

Glad to see IM3 doing well. Whatever that movie's faults, it was a breath of fresh air for the series. Pretty excited for Fast 6, the previous one was enjoyable. I wish they would move the story forward, though. I'm tired of all these mid-quels; there's only so much they can plausibly do before Tokyo Drift.

May 27 - 01:15 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Wow, I've never heard anyone claim Star Trek was too boring and not action packed enough. I thought it was one of the most action heavy movie's I've seen in a while. Almost too much so IMO. Think the fact that you weren't a fan of the original series probably worked against you since a lot of my enjoyment came from the in jokes on the original series and knowledge gleaned from Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock specifically.

May 27 - 02:09 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

It's one thing to have in-jokes (I watched the other movies, I'm simply not a Trekkie. I think Wrath of Khan is good, 1 and 3, not so much), they don't make or break a movie.

Pacing, plot, characters and writing make or break a film. Look, I'm not one of those people that nitpick and moan about shit - like I said, I loved the first one, and it has plot holes galore - but there are limits.

Like, for example, and this is just one of many, many stupidities that I couldn't get past: so Khan is supposedly this super human (who has this weird ability to get KO'd by one stun shot in the middle of the movie, but then takes 7 and is still standing at the end) who is "better" [awesome explanation btw] than everyone else... right? He gets unfrozen and then Murphy uses him to build a big ship before, for some reason, turning on him... the film takes place in the year 2259. He was frozen for 300 years, meaning the last time he was awake was NINETEEN FIFTY FUCKING NINE!!

What the fuck can he possibly know about spaceships? Or cell-phones? Or computers, or digital watches even? Really? He helped you build the starship? Bullshit! And how can one admiral possess so much authority as to be able to secretly do all that shit behind everyone's back? Really, not one person knew of this whole defrosting an ancient Captain America and building the death star project? Where did the money come from? It would cost TRILLIONS of dollars to build that. And sure, you can just fly a helicopter and kill all the military dudes, cos who needs defense, or patrols? Why would the klingons not attack the Enterprise, that's power-less for 20 minutes, after several patrols got killed. We know there were reinforcements, they showed them ziplining in! Did not one of them maybe radio in and say, hey guys, we're under attack? I thought they were a warrior race, what happened?

Kirk's command is completely unearned. He's captain cos we've seen the other movies, not because he actually does ANYTHING to deserve the position. He constantly puts his whole crew in danger, gets dunk, is a womanizer, and frequently disobeys orders. What possible bizarro version of the universe would ever grant him a state-of-the-art ship? With no experience? A 20-something year old punk?

Oh, and Scottie goes from being drunk on Earth to flying over Jupiter or whatever the fuck, in 10 minutes (movie time). Stone sober. Wow. Fuck Barry Allen, this dude's the fastest man alive.

/RANT. Can you tell it pissed me off?

May 27 - 02:39 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Yeah, I get it and I'm not a Trekkie either, but just a few points:
- Khan was hit 7 times at the end of the movie in the body, the one shot that puts him down was right to the temple and it didn't put him down for long. Think of it like a boxer absorbing 80 shots to the body during a fight and the one on the chin putting him down.

- I think you're a little off on your timeline cause if I remember correctly that was Khan's backstory from the original series as well. He wouldn't necessarily know about star ships, but he was super-intelligent so he was able to absorb the tech of the future and understand the principles and extrapolate from there. I believe Khan was from our future essentially after our WWIII if I remember my original series lore.

- You're right about the lack of understanding of how the military works with Kirk being ridiculously young, but the only things I can say is that's a trait often common in movie's and at least they tried to explain at that time that Star Fleet wasn't really a military organization and more of a scientific exploration organization similar to say NASA where I suppose it's at least feasible that Kirk's genius intellect could put him ahead of the curve.

- I don't think the Klingons detected the Enterprise and we don't know how far they beamed in the away team. The incident that happened on the Klingon homeworld could have been billions of miles away from the Enterprise.


- Lastly I think we were supposed to assume time had past for Scotty to sober up on the way to Jupiter.

May 27 - 03:34 AM

Heather Cuthill

Heather Cuthill

I'm a lifelong Trekker and I totally agree with The Water on this one. Plot holes galore. And then there's that pointless romantic? I don't know what to call it? entanglement? interlude? aside? ? between Spock and Uhura. They have zero chemistry and I'm not buying into this relationship at all.

My thoughts at the end of the film were "If they wanted to remake Wrath of Khan, why not just do it and call it that?" I found the film overly noisy, overly busy, lacking in story, but unfortunately - not lacking in lens flares. I had a headache by the end of it after all those eyeball-piercing flares in 3D.

May 27 - 09:53 AM

Heather Cuthill

Heather Cuthill

That of course should be "the Watcher", not "the Water".

May 27 - 09:54 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

@Bigbrother

-Ok, that's a small point, but I'll give it to you.

-The original, maybe, but the remake hasn't said or done anything to make it know that its 1959 was any different from ours, so, for all intents and purposes, it wasn't.

-Still doesn't make sense. He may have genius intellect, but it doesn't warrant making him captain. Make him a science officer for a couple of years, at least. They could have shown him to be brave and worthy of command, but it's like he learned nothing from the first film.

-It's highly unlikely that they can beam over billions of miles. You know how much interference, both in terms of sonic and visual frequencies, as well as radiation, there would be over such a huge distance? They need to be fairly accurate, and they couldn't even beam Spock up in the beginning from the volcano, and that interference was nothing compared to such a huge distance. So no, they have to be close enough for a supposedly advanced warrior race to be able to track them.

-That's not possible. The Enterprise gets fixed in 20 minutes, Kirk phones Scottie, right? Everything after that has to take place in 10-20 minutes, otherwise it makes no sense. This isn't Dragonball Z, where characters stand around for hours doing nothing.

@Heather - Yeah, the lens flares in 3D were abysmal. The "relationship" between Spock and Uhura.. I mean, what is there to say? Especially their bickering on the landing ship when going to the Klingon planet - it sounds like high school kids, and not supposedly trained professionals. The movie was just dumb.

May 27 - 12:37 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Not saying 1959 is/was different from ours. In fact everything should have been the same up until the point where Kirks father dies, the arrival of the Romulans is what starts the differences, what I'm saying is I don't think Khan came until after our current time, but you're right they screwed that up. They should have said he was frozen for 200 years. I guess they were trying to hard to go with the original lore in which Khan was a war criminal in like 1996.

- He was the only guy who saw the Nero thing coming and actually handled it fairly well. This wouldn't be the first time in history a young person was promoted to a leadership position because of a heroic act, deserved or not. Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, William Wallace, LaFayette, Audie Murphy, etc.

- I'm not sure the Enterprise got fixed in 20 minutes, I think that might be a false assumption because that was a ton of events to happen in 20 minutes. Also, might consider that Scotty wasn't really that drunk, he's pretty much a goofy character anyway so it's hard to tell when he's drunk and when he's just Scotty.

Agree to disagree on the movie in general, I went in not expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised by how it played off the old series while upping the action.

May 27 - 06:01 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

I'm actually just now watching RedLetterMedia's (of the SW prequel review fame) review Star Trek 2, and they say everything I'm feeling, only much, much better, so I advise you to check it out. It's really funny and fantastic. Just go to youtube and type in redlettermedia, go to their channel, it's the newest video. Awesome stuff.

May 27 - 06:39 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Cool, I'll do that. I enjoy a good laugh even at the expense of movie's I enjoy.

May 27 - 09:11 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Let me know what you think of it, dude.

May 27 - 11:02 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

You liked Iron Man 3 but hated Star Trek? While I can agree 'Darkness' wasn't perfect, it was better than the poop tornado IM3 was...

May 27 - 11:37 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

I'm debating whether or not IM3 was the best of the bunch. It was certainly the best written, by a wide margin. I love the Mandarin plot twist - not a Marvel comics fan so I'm not attached to the character or anything. The finale was fairly meh, but that's true of every Marvel film.

But then, I'm a big fan of Shane Black. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was one of the year's best for me, and Lethal Weapon is a work of genius.

Sure, IM3 has plot holes (Why didn't Tony call the army of suits from the very beginning?), but, like I said, I'm not one to bitch and moan about plot-holes as long as they're not egregious, like Darkness's were. The former is still fundamentally logically sound, the latter is not.

May 27 - 12:42 PM

Typhon

Typhon Q

Khan was a far better villain than Aldrich Killian. If they had kept Ben Kingsley's character as a real villain, that would've been epic. Unfortunately, they went with a forgettable, fire breathing scientist.

May 27 - 03:47 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

My beef with IM3 was that halfway into the film, there was no plot. It's like they made it up as they went along.

May 27 - 04:04 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Typhon, you think so? Cos, to me, he was horrible. No clear motivations, no understanding of what makes him tick. No explanation for his so-called genius (despite him being from the 1950s, he was somehow able to understand super modern tech and build a spaceship) other than a simple thowaway line of him being genetically enhanced.. he was a genius yet he let himself be tracked so easily, let his guard down around Kirk to be tasered, despite having NO reason to believe that the Enterprise wouldn't turn on him the second they got the chance.

Blew up hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent civilians despite his beef being with one (1) admiral, and couldn't see the most obvious trick (bomb in a pod) coming at him? That's not a good villain. That is a trainwreck of bad writing.

Killian wasn't good, either, but IM3 was a comic book movie that followed Avengers, which was inherently ridiculous. There's lee-way there that a supposedly serious space movie like Star Trek doesn't have. It's all about world-building, and staying true to that world. If you, as a writer/director, cannot follow through on your own logic and rules for your universe, then your project is an objective failure.

May 27 - 05:01 PM

Jordan Mundy

Jordan Mundy

I'm really glad they changed it to Aldrich Killian. The move was pretty clever and showed how smart Killian was. Using a fake terrorist to strike fear shows his wits.. Additionally, If it were Kingsley, we'd have a guy with no real motive to bring about conflict between him and Tony. He'd be more along the lines of a guy that just really wants give Tony a shitty day. With Killian, you have two parties with something against the other.

I don't even want to get into to big of a rant on Star Trek into Darkness. It was just a big disappointment for me. I didn't care for Khan at all. He never felt like the threat he was in Wrath of Khan. Robocop was more of a threat than him and he didnt even have his suit. Also, why did Spock yell Khan aside from the fact it was a reference? It didn't fit with the situation. Marcus sabotaged the ship. He should yell his name. Not Khans.

May 27 - 05:09 PM

Typhon

Typhon Q

@Watcher: I'll admit that there were some deficiencies plotwise for Star Trek, but acting wise, he's the best villain we've had so far this year.

As for Killian, I never understood why he had to make that terrorist cover story. I doubt that the explosions that his Extremis patients make could really be traced back to him. There was no real reason for him to have to go through this whole terrorist facade thing.

May 27 - 05:17 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Jordan - Pretty much this.

Typhon - I gathered it's cos he needed funding to drive his project to ultimate perfection. That's why he was courting Stark in the first place.

The terrorism angle - while being fairly ridiculous (though it does somewhat work as an examination of symbology) - is a sound plan, as far as super-villain evil schemes go: create a huge threat, swoop in and 'save' the day, get famous and popular, get funding for anything you want.

May 27 - 06:00 PM

Brian Toohey

Brian Toohey

100% agreed. Star Trek has its flaws, but was still a well-made, entertaining film. IM3 was filled with enormous problems and things that didn't work from start to finish (and yet was still an improvement in IM2)

May 27 - 12:44 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Like what?

May 27 - 06:00 PM

Andrew Wilson

Andrew Wilson

To each their own I guess. We just got back from seeing Star Trek in IMAX and I thought it was amazing. I also saw IM3. Honestly, I would see Star Trek over IM3 any day.

May 27 - 02:20 PM

Julia Turner

Julia Turner

just as Edward responded I am alarmed that some one can get paid $9048 in 1 month on the internet. did you see this site link... www.Rush60.c?m

May 29 - 02:15 PM

Jake

Jake Armistead

The difference between Fast and Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III in terms of box office just goes to show that quality matters, Fast 6 may not be perfect but it has upped its game.

May 27 - 01:51 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Yep, F&F was coming off a win and The Hangover 2 was coming off a loss and that made all the difference. Sadly, I don't think the Hangover 3 did itself any favors on it's own merits either.

May 27 - 02:10 AM

Preston Scott

Preston Scott

Completely true. Quality (in a way) finally won at the box office. Furious 6 was great (for a popcorn action film) while Hangover kind of just kept going down the wrong path. It was slightly better than the second, but still a huge let down in the end.

May 27 - 02:04 PM

Christopher256G

Christopher Greffin

Well the fourth one that stunk did very well at the box-office too, but it certainly doesn't hurt that these last two have been decent films. I kind of hope seven is the last one in any case because really how long can it go?

May 27 - 05:09 PM

Jake

Jake Armistead

I am pretty sure the seventh one will be the last one with this cast, I doubt they will scrap a successful brand like this.

May 28 - 02:41 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Wow, I've never heard anyone claim Star Trek was too boring and not action packed enough. I thought it was one of the most action heavy movie's I've seen in a while. Almost too much so IMO. Think the fact that you weren't a fan of the original series probably worked against you since a lot of my enjoyment came from the in jokes on the original series and knowledge gleaned from Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock specifically.

May 27 - 02:09 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

It's one thing to have in-jokes (I watched the other movies, I'm simply not a Trekkie. I think Wrath of Khan is good, 1 and 3, not so much), they don't make or break a movie.

Pacing, plot, characters and writing make or break a film. Look, I'm not one of those people that nitpick and moan about shit - like I said, I loved the first one, and it has plot holes galore - but there are limits.

Like, for example, and this is just one of many, many stupidities that I couldn't get past: so Khan is supposedly this super human (who has this weird ability to get KO'd by one stun shot in the middle of the movie, but then takes 7 and is still standing at the end) who is "better" [awesome explanation btw] than everyone else... right? He gets unfrozen and then Murphy uses him to build a big ship before, for some reason, turning on him... the film takes place in the year 2259. He was frozen for 300 years, meaning the last time he was awake was NINETEEN FIFTY FUCKING NINE!!

What the fuck can he possibly know about spaceships? Or cell-phones? Or computers, or digital watches even? Really? He helped you build the starship? Bullshit! And how can one admiral possess so much authority as to be able to secretly do all that shit behind everyone's back? Really, not one person knew of this whole defrosting an ancient Captain America and building the death star project? Where did the money come from? It would cost TRILLIONS of dollars to build that. And sure, you can just fly a helicopter and kill all the military dudes, cos who needs defense, or patrols? Why would the klingons not attack the Enterprise, that's power-less for 20 minutes, after several patrols got killed. We know there were reinforcements, they showed them ziplining in! Did not one of them maybe radio in and say, hey guys, we're under attack? I thought they were a warrior race, what happened?

Kirk's command is completely unearned. He's captain cos we've seen the other movies, not because he actually does ANYTHING to deserve the position. He constantly puts his whole crew in danger, gets dunk, is a womanizer, and frequently disobeys orders. What possible bizarro version of the universe would ever grant him a state-of-the-art ship? With no experience? A 20-something year old punk?

Oh, and Scottie goes from being drunk on Earth to flying over Jupiter or whatever the fuck, in 10 minutes (movie time). Stone sober. Wow. Fuck Barry Allen, this dude's the fastest man alive.

/RANT. Can you tell it pissed me off?

May 27 - 02:39 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Yeah, I get it and I'm not a Trekkie either, but just a few points:
- Khan was hit 7 times at the end of the movie in the body, the one shot that puts him down was right to the temple and it didn't put him down for long. Think of it like a boxer absorbing 80 shots to the body during a fight and the one on the chin putting him down.

- I think you're a little off on your timeline cause if I remember correctly that was Khan's backstory from the original series as well. He wouldn't necessarily know about star ships, but he was super-intelligent so he was able to absorb the tech of the future and understand the principles and extrapolate from there. I believe Khan was from our future essentially after our WWIII if I remember my original series lore.

- You're right about the lack of understanding of how the military works with Kirk being ridiculously young, but the only things I can say is that's a trait often common in movie's and at least they tried to explain at that time that Star Fleet wasn't really a military organization and more of a scientific exploration organization similar to say NASA where I suppose it's at least feasible that Kirk's genius intellect could put him ahead of the curve.

- I don't think the Klingons detected the Enterprise and we don't know how far they beamed in the away team. The incident that happened on the Klingon homeworld could have been billions of miles away from the Enterprise.


- Lastly I think we were supposed to assume time had past for Scotty to sober up on the way to Jupiter.

May 27 - 03:34 AM

Heather Cuthill

Heather Cuthill

I'm a lifelong Trekker and I totally agree with The Water on this one. Plot holes galore. And then there's that pointless romantic? I don't know what to call it? entanglement? interlude? aside? ? between Spock and Uhura. They have zero chemistry and I'm not buying into this relationship at all.

My thoughts at the end of the film were "If they wanted to remake Wrath of Khan, why not just do it and call it that?" I found the film overly noisy, overly busy, lacking in story, but unfortunately - not lacking in lens flares. I had a headache by the end of it after all those eyeball-piercing flares in 3D.

May 27 - 09:53 AM

Heather Cuthill

Heather Cuthill

That of course should be "the Watcher", not "the Water".

May 27 - 09:54 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

@Bigbrother

-Ok, that's a small point, but I'll give it to you.

-The original, maybe, but the remake hasn't said or done anything to make it know that its 1959 was any different from ours, so, for all intents and purposes, it wasn't.

-Still doesn't make sense. He may have genius intellect, but it doesn't warrant making him captain. Make him a science officer for a couple of years, at least. They could have shown him to be brave and worthy of command, but it's like he learned nothing from the first film.

-It's highly unlikely that they can beam over billions of miles. You know how much interference, both in terms of sonic and visual frequencies, as well as radiation, there would be over such a huge distance? They need to be fairly accurate, and they couldn't even beam Spock up in the beginning from the volcano, and that interference was nothing compared to such a huge distance. So no, they have to be close enough for a supposedly advanced warrior race to be able to track them.

-That's not possible. The Enterprise gets fixed in 20 minutes, Kirk phones Scottie, right? Everything after that has to take place in 10-20 minutes, otherwise it makes no sense. This isn't Dragonball Z, where characters stand around for hours doing nothing.

@Heather - Yeah, the lens flares in 3D were abysmal. The "relationship" between Spock and Uhura.. I mean, what is there to say? Especially their bickering on the landing ship when going to the Klingon planet - it sounds like high school kids, and not supposedly trained professionals. The movie was just dumb.

May 27 - 12:37 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Not saying 1959 is/was different from ours. In fact everything should have been the same up until the point where Kirks father dies, the arrival of the Romulans is what starts the differences, what I'm saying is I don't think Khan came until after our current time, but you're right they screwed that up. They should have said he was frozen for 200 years. I guess they were trying to hard to go with the original lore in which Khan was a war criminal in like 1996.

- He was the only guy who saw the Nero thing coming and actually handled it fairly well. This wouldn't be the first time in history a young person was promoted to a leadership position because of a heroic act, deserved or not. Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, William Wallace, LaFayette, Audie Murphy, etc.

- I'm not sure the Enterprise got fixed in 20 minutes, I think that might be a false assumption because that was a ton of events to happen in 20 minutes. Also, might consider that Scotty wasn't really that drunk, he's pretty much a goofy character anyway so it's hard to tell when he's drunk and when he's just Scotty.

Agree to disagree on the movie in general, I went in not expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised by how it played off the old series while upping the action.

May 27 - 06:01 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

I'm actually just now watching RedLetterMedia's (of the SW prequel review fame) review Star Trek 2, and they say everything I'm feeling, only much, much better, so I advise you to check it out. It's really funny and fantastic. Just go to youtube and type in redlettermedia, go to their channel, it's the newest video. Awesome stuff.

May 27 - 06:39 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Cool, I'll do that. I enjoy a good laugh even at the expense of movie's I enjoy.

May 27 - 09:11 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Let me know what you think of it, dude.

May 27 - 11:02 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Yep, F&F was coming off a win and The Hangover 2 was coming off a loss and that made all the difference. Sadly, I don't think the Hangover 3 did itself any favors on it's own merits either.

May 27 - 02:10 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

It's one thing to have in-jokes (I watched the other movies, I'm simply not a Trekkie. I think Wrath of Khan is good, 1 and 3, not so much), they don't make or break a movie.

Pacing, plot, characters and writing make or break a film. Look, I'm not one of those people that nitpick and moan about shit - like I said, I loved the first one, and it has plot holes galore - but there are limits.

Like, for example, and this is just one of many, many stupidities that I couldn't get past: so Khan is supposedly this super human (who has this weird ability to get KO'd by one stun shot in the middle of the movie, but then takes 7 and is still standing at the end) who is "better" [awesome explanation btw] than everyone else... right? He gets unfrozen and then Murphy uses him to build a big ship before, for some reason, turning on him... the film takes place in the year 2259. He was frozen for 300 years, meaning the last time he was awake was NINETEEN FIFTY FUCKING NINE!!

What the fuck can he possibly know about spaceships? Or cell-phones? Or computers, or digital watches even? Really? He helped you build the starship? Bullshit! And how can one admiral possess so much authority as to be able to secretly do all that shit behind everyone's back? Really, not one person knew of this whole defrosting an ancient Captain America and building the death star project? Where did the money come from? It would cost TRILLIONS of dollars to build that. And sure, you can just fly a helicopter and kill all the military dudes, cos who needs defense, or patrols? Why would the klingons not attack the Enterprise, that's power-less for 20 minutes, after several patrols got killed. We know there were reinforcements, they showed them ziplining in! Did not one of them maybe radio in and say, hey guys, we're under attack? I thought they were a warrior race, what happened?

Kirk's command is completely unearned. He's captain cos we've seen the other movies, not because he actually does ANYTHING to deserve the position. He constantly puts his whole crew in danger, gets dunk, is a womanizer, and frequently disobeys orders. What possible bizarro version of the universe would ever grant him a state-of-the-art ship? With no experience? A 20-something year old punk?

Oh, and Scottie goes from being drunk on Earth to flying over Jupiter or whatever the fuck, in 10 minutes (movie time). Stone sober. Wow. Fuck Barry Allen, this dude's the fastest man alive.

/RANT. Can you tell it pissed me off?

May 27 - 02:39 AM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Yeah, I get it and I'm not a Trekkie either, but just a few points:
- Khan was hit 7 times at the end of the movie in the body, the one shot that puts him down was right to the temple and it didn't put him down for long. Think of it like a boxer absorbing 80 shots to the body during a fight and the one on the chin putting him down.

- I think you're a little off on your timeline cause if I remember correctly that was Khan's backstory from the original series as well. He wouldn't necessarily know about star ships, but he was super-intelligent so he was able to absorb the tech of the future and understand the principles and extrapolate from there. I believe Khan was from our future essentially after our WWIII if I remember my original series lore.

- You're right about the lack of understanding of how the military works with Kirk being ridiculously young, but the only things I can say is that's a trait often common in movie's and at least they tried to explain at that time that Star Fleet wasn't really a military organization and more of a scientific exploration organization similar to say NASA where I suppose it's at least feasible that Kirk's genius intellect could put him ahead of the curve.

- I don't think the Klingons detected the Enterprise and we don't know how far they beamed in the away team. The incident that happened on the Klingon homeworld could have been billions of miles away from the Enterprise.


- Lastly I think we were supposed to assume time had past for Scotty to sober up on the way to Jupiter.

May 27 - 03:34 AM

Heather Cuthill

Heather Cuthill

I'm a lifelong Trekker and I totally agree with The Water on this one. Plot holes galore. And then there's that pointless romantic? I don't know what to call it? entanglement? interlude? aside? ? between Spock and Uhura. They have zero chemistry and I'm not buying into this relationship at all.

My thoughts at the end of the film were "If they wanted to remake Wrath of Khan, why not just do it and call it that?" I found the film overly noisy, overly busy, lacking in story, but unfortunately - not lacking in lens flares. I had a headache by the end of it after all those eyeball-piercing flares in 3D.

May 27 - 09:53 AM

Heather Cuthill

Heather Cuthill

That of course should be "the Watcher", not "the Water".

May 27 - 09:54 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

@Bigbrother

-Ok, that's a small point, but I'll give it to you.

-The original, maybe, but the remake hasn't said or done anything to make it know that its 1959 was any different from ours, so, for all intents and purposes, it wasn't.

-Still doesn't make sense. He may have genius intellect, but it doesn't warrant making him captain. Make him a science officer for a couple of years, at least. They could have shown him to be brave and worthy of command, but it's like he learned nothing from the first film.

-It's highly unlikely that they can beam over billions of miles. You know how much interference, both in terms of sonic and visual frequencies, as well as radiation, there would be over such a huge distance? They need to be fairly accurate, and they couldn't even beam Spock up in the beginning from the volcano, and that interference was nothing compared to such a huge distance. So no, they have to be close enough for a supposedly advanced warrior race to be able to track them.

-That's not possible. The Enterprise gets fixed in 20 minutes, Kirk phones Scottie, right? Everything after that has to take place in 10-20 minutes, otherwise it makes no sense. This isn't Dragonball Z, where characters stand around for hours doing nothing.

@Heather - Yeah, the lens flares in 3D were abysmal. The "relationship" between Spock and Uhura.. I mean, what is there to say? Especially their bickering on the landing ship when going to the Klingon planet - it sounds like high school kids, and not supposedly trained professionals. The movie was just dumb.

May 27 - 12:37 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Not saying 1959 is/was different from ours. In fact everything should have been the same up until the point where Kirks father dies, the arrival of the Romulans is what starts the differences, what I'm saying is I don't think Khan came until after our current time, but you're right they screwed that up. They should have said he was frozen for 200 years. I guess they were trying to hard to go with the original lore in which Khan was a war criminal in like 1996.

- He was the only guy who saw the Nero thing coming and actually handled it fairly well. This wouldn't be the first time in history a young person was promoted to a leadership position because of a heroic act, deserved or not. Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, William Wallace, LaFayette, Audie Murphy, etc.

- I'm not sure the Enterprise got fixed in 20 minutes, I think that might be a false assumption because that was a ton of events to happen in 20 minutes. Also, might consider that Scotty wasn't really that drunk, he's pretty much a goofy character anyway so it's hard to tell when he's drunk and when he's just Scotty.

Agree to disagree on the movie in general, I went in not expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised by how it played off the old series while upping the action.

May 27 - 06:01 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

I'm actually just now watching RedLetterMedia's (of the SW prequel review fame) review Star Trek 2, and they say everything I'm feeling, only much, much better, so I advise you to check it out. It's really funny and fantastic. Just go to youtube and type in redlettermedia, go to their channel, it's the newest video. Awesome stuff.

May 27 - 06:39 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Cool, I'll do that. I enjoy a good laugh even at the expense of movie's I enjoy.

May 27 - 09:11 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Let me know what you think of it, dude.

May 27 - 11:02 PM

Jake Cecena

Jake Cecena

"The Hangover Part III" had to be the biggest pile of crap I've seen all year, even worse than "A Haunted House" and possibly even "Scary Movie V." They should've just kept it at one film instead of turning it into the god-awful franchise it is today. Hopefully, Todd Phillips meant it when he said this was the end.

May 27 - 03:32 AM

Killer Jay

Jay Catler

Is it worse than your mom?

May 27 - 12:49 PM

BCENS

B Cens

Yup, even worse than your burnt-latex flatulence.

May 27 - 02:52 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

Yeah, I get it and I'm not a Trekkie either, but just a few points:
- Khan was hit 7 times at the end of the movie in the body, the one shot that puts him down was right to the temple and it didn't put him down for long. Think of it like a boxer absorbing 80 shots to the body during a fight and the one on the chin putting him down.

- I think you're a little off on your timeline cause if I remember correctly that was Khan's backstory from the original series as well. He wouldn't necessarily know about star ships, but he was super-intelligent so he was able to absorb the tech of the future and understand the principles and extrapolate from there. I believe Khan was from our future essentially after our WWIII if I remember my original series lore.

- You're right about the lack of understanding of how the military works with Kirk being ridiculously young, but the only things I can say is that's a trait often common in movie's and at least they tried to explain at that time that Star Fleet wasn't really a military organization and more of a scientific exploration organization similar to say NASA where I suppose it's at least feasible that Kirk's genius intellect could put him ahead of the curve.

- I don't think the Klingons detected the Enterprise and we don't know how far they beamed in the away team. The incident that happened on the Klingon homeworld could have been billions of miles away from the Enterprise.


- Lastly I think we were supposed to assume time had past for Scotty to sober up on the way to Jupiter.

May 27 - 03:34 AM

Banga Tourism

Banga Tourism

Before Midnight is awesome!

May 27 - 06:29 AM

Heather Cuthill

Heather Cuthill

I'm a lifelong Trekker and I totally agree with The Water on this one. Plot holes galore. And then there's that pointless romantic? I don't know what to call it? entanglement? interlude? aside? ? between Spock and Uhura. They have zero chemistry and I'm not buying into this relationship at all.

My thoughts at the end of the film were "If they wanted to remake Wrath of Khan, why not just do it and call it that?" I found the film overly noisy, overly busy, lacking in story, but unfortunately - not lacking in lens flares. I had a headache by the end of it after all those eyeball-piercing flares in 3D.

May 27 - 09:53 AM

Heather Cuthill

Heather Cuthill

That of course should be "the Watcher", not "the Water".

May 27 - 09:54 AM

Typhon

Typhon Q

This is such a crowded weekend. Just wait till Man of Steel gets in on the action...

May 27 - 10:18 AM

Ben Moore

Ben Moore

Fast and Furious demonstrates how many simple minded people that there are in the United States. Absolutely awful. Hats off to the filmmakers for taking advantage of stupid people. On to Fast 7!

May 27 - 10:37 AM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

I totally concur, It's really embarrassing. If you think those are good movies I pity the fucking pea brain that must be rattling around inside that big goofy head...

May 27 - 11:39 AM

Jake

Jake Armistead

Get off your high horse, if you can't enjoy a bit of ludicrous entertainment now and again then that is your problem. I have loved the majority of the FF series, doesn't make me dumb and I love a lot of other movies that are not just a bit of entertainment.

May 27 - 01:07 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

^ A retard who embraces his mental disability. I just hope you didn't wipe snot under the seat.

May 27 - 04:08 PM

Jake

Jake Armistead

You are last person to call me that but then again insults are the last port of call for people who have no argument.

May 28 - 02:43 PM

Dave J

Dave J

How pea brained are the "Fast and Furious" movies in comparison to say Eastwood's Spaghetti Western movies, "Any Way You Can" and "Dirty Harry" movies! And to remind you that "Any Way You Can" and it's sequel received a rotten from the critics!

May 27 - 01:25 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

Profile pic may be misleading, I am not an Eastwood fan, just a grumpy asshole. That being said F&F still sucks balls.

May 27 - 04:01 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Then action films is not really your favorite genre anyway since your preferences are mostly Oscar drama films! And that you're limited to older action films even though they can just be as brainless as any action film you had ever liked! As a matter of fact I don't ever recall the last one you had liked since you don't like Skyfall or any of the super hero films! Name me one action film that you have liked in the last 5 years because I bet you there isn't a single one, and by the way in my opinion "Drive" doesn't count!

May 28 - 12:45 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

As far as Superhero films go, I did like the Dark Knight Trilogy, the first Iron Man, and the Avengers. Action movies are more difficult to define, does sci-fi count or just 'reality-based' action films..

May 28 - 02:14 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well look, in terms of being a realist "Iron Man", The Dark Knight trilogy and The Avengers are just as silly as the "Fast And Furious" films, perhaps even more so because they can be defined as pretentious entertainment! I'm just saying that although they're entertaining films to watch, there's more chances someone is most likely going to see an actual car crash that is similar to any of the Fast And Furious movies than someone wearing a silly costume fighting crime and saving lives- I'm just saying that although you can adapt to like some, that you aren't able to adapt to others!

May 28 - 02:48 PM

Christopher256G

Christopher Greffin

I hated the first one in the F&F series and didn't see another until Fast 5 which I really quite liked as high octane simple minded entertainment. I say congrats to Justin Lin for taking a crummy series and giving it some inspired fun.

May 27 - 05:18 PM

bigbrother

Bigbrother .

It did well oversea's too, so not just the US who has bad taste...according to you anyway. Haven't seen yet, but I'm more inclined to trust the BO/Critical review combo than RT's answers to Statler and Waldorf.

May 27 - 06:12 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

The success of Fast&Furious only proves to me this country is full of more shallow fucktards than ever. If you wanna pay for trash I have a whole can outside my house, that will be 10 bucks please.

May 27 - 11:34 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

There's nothing wrong with the F&F franchise - it's simple entertainment. There's a place, and time, for it. Just like the Final Destination or even the RE series - it's perfect for getting together with friends, having a toke or drink, and enjoying the events unfold. F&F may be unrealistic and ludicrous, but it's inventive and doesn't insult your intelligence - because it doesn't pretend to have any - like, for example, Michael Bay films do.

May 27 - 12:46 PM

Premo Beat

John Noto

Agreed. I feel I am way more critical of most movies than my peers but F&F is simple fun as you stated does not insult the viewer. It also helps that they are original entertainment and not feeding off childhood nostalgia like most current comic book and toy movies.

May 27 - 01:41 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

Original. For the sixth time. After 'Gone in 60 seconds' and anything related to cars before it.

May 27 - 03:58 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Fine, by that logic, name a movie and I'll name you 10 that had the exact, or close to exact, same story line that came before it.

May 27 - 05:05 PM

Dave J

Dave J

You're wanting more films that are like "Dirty Harry" and Schwartzenegger and perhaps Stallone films, right! But the thing is "The Last Stand" bombed and Clint is not as young as he used to be leaving with not much to chose from in terms of action movies! And it's not my fault or anyone else's fault for that matter if you don't know how to "adapt" to a new type of action film since majority of the action movies successful are usually heavy on CGI and a use of blue screen!

And besides that why is "Fast & Furious" 6 considered as trash just because you wouldn't pay any money to see it- the movie was still certified fresh on RT!

I love to see different types of models besides the cheap ones people see all the time and never-before-seen possibly credible car crashes, and I can see now that you obviously don't! Stick with the old action films of yesterday and ignore the new right which raises the question what was the last action film that you actually liked?

May 27 - 12:51 PM

Chase Lehocky

Chase Lehocky

@Val Mordas...what do you watch that makes you a less of a "fucktard?" Seriously...

May 27 - 02:15 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

Well, for starters I'm not watching what you are.

May 27 - 04:09 PM

Chase Lehocky

Chase Lehocky

What do you mean? I haven't watched Fast 6 or Hangover 3 so first off you probably have a small dick and you just need to answer the question we are asking you and stop dodging the question.

May 27 - 05:02 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

I'm not going to write a list of every film I've ever seen to humor you. You can just quit wondering about my dick size too. There are action films out there which aren't terrible - this series includes none of those.

May 27 - 09:11 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Look Val, you once hinted that you liked some of the older James Bond movies before Daniel Craig came into the picture, explain to me how you're able to adapt to something as fun and ridiculous as the older James Bond movies as opposed to "The Fast And Furious" movies? What's the difference since they used as much CGI as some of the Pierce Bronson ones?

May 28 - 12:33 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

If we're talking Bond it's because I preferred the old bond with the humor, gadgets, etc... the action scenes from Skyfall were fine, but Bond himself and the plot were lacking.

May 28 - 02:17 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well then, by going by your standards "Fast And Furious 6" does contain some of the same humor similar to the James Bond movies but have no gadgets except showcases of it's latest actual model cars, and I have to say that the action scenes consist to use as much CGI as "Skyfall" or any of the Bond films that uses CGI as well!

I'm sorry, but you still haven't a legitimate reason why those kind of action films that you like are easily to accept as opposed to the Fast And Furious movies! Maybe it's the improvisational dialogue is what you couldn't get into even though I know actual people who talk like that too, or that the improvisation were used in many films before- perhaps that's a turn off! And the fact that you're not a fan of Vin Diesel's screen presence, even though some of those action scenes consisted of old school stunt doubles because not all of those car crash scenes are CGI!

May 28 - 03:06 PM

Ken Wolfson

Ken Wolfson

get off your high horse and enjoy the popcorn films. No need to be an arrogant prick.

May 27 - 02:46 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

You liked Iron Man 3 but hated Star Trek? While I can agree 'Darkness' wasn't perfect, it was better than the poop tornado IM3 was...

May 27 - 11:37 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

I'm debating whether or not IM3 was the best of the bunch. It was certainly the best written, by a wide margin. I love the Mandarin plot twist - not a Marvel comics fan so I'm not attached to the character or anything. The finale was fairly meh, but that's true of every Marvel film.

But then, I'm a big fan of Shane Black. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was one of the year's best for me, and Lethal Weapon is a work of genius.

Sure, IM3 has plot holes (Why didn't Tony call the army of suits from the very beginning?), but, like I said, I'm not one to bitch and moan about plot-holes as long as they're not egregious, like Darkness's were. The former is still fundamentally logically sound, the latter is not.

May 27 - 12:42 PM

Typhon

Typhon Q

Khan was a far better villain than Aldrich Killian. If they had kept Ben Kingsley's character as a real villain, that would've been epic. Unfortunately, they went with a forgettable, fire breathing scientist.

May 27 - 03:47 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

My beef with IM3 was that halfway into the film, there was no plot. It's like they made it up as they went along.

May 27 - 04:04 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Typhon, you think so? Cos, to me, he was horrible. No clear motivations, no understanding of what makes him tick. No explanation for his so-called genius (despite him being from the 1950s, he was somehow able to understand super modern tech and build a spaceship) other than a simple thowaway line of him being genetically enhanced.. he was a genius yet he let himself be tracked so easily, let his guard down around Kirk to be tasered, despite having NO reason to believe that the Enterprise wouldn't turn on him the second they got the chance.

Blew up hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent civilians despite his beef being with one (1) admiral, and couldn't see the most obvious trick (bomb in a pod) coming at him? That's not a good villain. That is a trainwreck of bad writing.

Killian wasn't good, either, but IM3 was a comic book movie that followed Avengers, which was inherently ridiculous. There's lee-way there that a supposedly serious space movie like Star Trek doesn't have. It's all about world-building, and staying true to that world. If you, as a writer/director, cannot follow through on your own logic and rules for your universe, then your project is an objective failure.

May 27 - 05:01 PM

Jordan Mundy

Jordan Mundy

I'm really glad they changed it to Aldrich Killian. The move was pretty clever and showed how smart Killian was. Using a fake terrorist to strike fear shows his wits.. Additionally, If it were Kingsley, we'd have a guy with no real motive to bring about conflict between him and Tony. He'd be more along the lines of a guy that just really wants give Tony a shitty day. With Killian, you have two parties with something against the other.

I don't even want to get into to big of a rant on Star Trek into Darkness. It was just a big disappointment for me. I didn't care for Khan at all. He never felt like the threat he was in Wrath of Khan. Robocop was more of a threat than him and he didnt even have his suit. Also, why did Spock yell Khan aside from the fact it was a reference? It didn't fit with the situation. Marcus sabotaged the ship. He should yell his name. Not Khans.

May 27 - 05:09 PM

Typhon

Typhon Q

@Watcher: I'll admit that there were some deficiencies plotwise for Star Trek, but acting wise, he's the best villain we've had so far this year.

As for Killian, I never understood why he had to make that terrorist cover story. I doubt that the explosions that his Extremis patients make could really be traced back to him. There was no real reason for him to have to go through this whole terrorist facade thing.

May 27 - 05:17 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Jordan - Pretty much this.

Typhon - I gathered it's cos he needed funding to drive his project to ultimate perfection. That's why he was courting Stark in the first place.

The terrorism angle - while being fairly ridiculous (though it does somewhat work as an examination of symbology) - is a sound plan, as far as super-villain evil schemes go: create a huge threat, swoop in and 'save' the day, get famous and popular, get funding for anything you want.

May 27 - 06:00 PM

Brian Toohey

Brian Toohey

100% agreed. Star Trek has its flaws, but was still a well-made, entertaining film. IM3 was filled with enormous problems and things that didn't work from start to finish (and yet was still an improvement in IM2)

May 27 - 12:44 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Like what?

May 27 - 06:00 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

I totally concur, It's really embarrassing. If you think those are good movies I pity the fucking pea brain that must be rattling around inside that big goofy head...

May 27 - 11:39 AM

Jake

Jake Armistead

Get off your high horse, if you can't enjoy a bit of ludicrous entertainment now and again then that is your problem. I have loved the majority of the FF series, doesn't make me dumb and I love a lot of other movies that are not just a bit of entertainment.

May 27 - 01:07 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

^ A retard who embraces his mental disability. I just hope you didn't wipe snot under the seat.

May 27 - 04:08 PM

Jake

Jake Armistead

You are last person to call me that but then again insults are the last port of call for people who have no argument.

May 28 - 02:43 PM

Dave J

Dave J

How pea brained are the "Fast and Furious" movies in comparison to say Eastwood's Spaghetti Western movies, "Any Way You Can" and "Dirty Harry" movies! And to remind you that "Any Way You Can" and it's sequel received a rotten from the critics!

May 27 - 01:25 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

Profile pic may be misleading, I am not an Eastwood fan, just a grumpy asshole. That being said F&F still sucks balls.

May 27 - 04:01 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Then action films is not really your favorite genre anyway since your preferences are mostly Oscar drama films! And that you're limited to older action films even though they can just be as brainless as any action film you had ever liked! As a matter of fact I don't ever recall the last one you had liked since you don't like Skyfall or any of the super hero films! Name me one action film that you have liked in the last 5 years because I bet you there isn't a single one, and by the way in my opinion "Drive" doesn't count!

May 28 - 12:45 PM

Valmordas

Val Mordas

As far as Superhero films go, I did like the Dark Knight Trilogy, the first Iron Man, and the Avengers. Action movies are more difficult to define, does sci-fi count or just 'reality-based' action films..

May 28 - 02:14 PM

Dave J

Dave J

Well look, in terms of being a realist "Iron Man", The Dark Knight trilogy and The Avengers are just as silly as the "Fast And Furious" films, perhaps even more so because they can be defined as pretentious entertainment! I'm just saying that although they're entertaining films to watch, there's more chances someone is most likely going to see an actual car crash that is similar to any of the Fast And Furious movies than someone wearing a silly costume fighting crime and saving lives- I'm just saying that although you can adapt to like some, that you aren't able to adapt to others!

May 28 - 02:48 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

@Bigbrother

-Ok, that's a small point, but I'll give it to you.

-The original, maybe, but the remake hasn't said or done anything to make it know that its 1959 was any different from ours, so, for all intents and purposes, it wasn't.

-Still doesn't make sense. He may have genius intellect, but it doesn't warrant making him captain. Make him a science officer for a couple of years, at least. They could have shown him to be brave and worthy of command, but it's like he learned nothing from the first film.

-It's highly unlikely that they can beam over billions of miles. You know how much interference, both in terms of sonic and visual frequencies, as well as radiation, there would be over such a huge distance? They need to be fairly accurate, and they couldn't even beam Spock up in the beginning from the volcano, and that interference was nothing compared to such a huge distance. So no, they have to be close enough for a supposedly advanced warrior race to be able to track them.

-That's not possible. The Enterprise gets fixed in 20 minutes, Kirk phones Scottie, right? Everything after that has to take place in 10-20 minutes, otherwise it makes no sense. This isn't Dragonball Z, where characters stand around for hours doing nothing.

@Heather - Yeah, the lens flares in 3D were abysmal. The "relationship" between Spock and Uhura.. I mean, what is there to say? Especially their bickering on the landing ship when going to the Klingon planet - it sounds like high school kids, and not supposedly trained professionals. The movie was just dumb.

May 27 - 12:37 PM

What's Hot On RT

Critics Consensus
Critics Consensus

Transcendence is a Sci-Fi Snooze

Total Recall
Total Recall

Johnny Depp's Best Movies

24 Frames
24 Frames

Picture gallery of movie bears

Good Friday
Good Friday

50 movie posters gallery

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile