Skip to main content

Star Trek: Into Darkness *Minimum Spoilers* Review

 

I've just returned from seeing the sequel to J.J. Abram's Star Trek. Going into the film I already had surmised who the villain would be. However, I shall endeavor in this review to leave spoilers to a minimum.
Many purists have made their protestations regarding Abrams move into an alternate timeline/reality. These Trekkie Truists have deemed Abram an Ahab and the new voyages of the U.S.S. Enterprise as an abomination. With respect to those that have strong feelings about The Star Trek Universe, the new direction Abrams is taking is for a new generation. This new saga isn't meant to be compared with the The Original Series and Movies. Like Star Trek: The Next Generation, Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise, Abram's is taking Star Trek boldly where it has never gone before. The pacing and feel of these films aren't suppose to be same as Gene Rodenberry's masterpieces. Abrams is a new Captain and his Enterprise is there going to be managed differently.

Now for Star Trek: Into Darkness. Sequels tend to be ambitious and either surpass expectations or seriously disappoint. Into Darkness is the former. The character development like in the last installment is brilliant! Kirk and Spock's friendship really blossoms and there is more raw emotion than the last film. The story is more developed, revolving around a believable villain this time. I wasn't quite convinced by Eric Bana's Nero, he was very one dimensional. The new villain, John Harrison, has a compelling reason for his actions besides just mere revenge (see Major Spoilers Review for more details).

One problem I had with the Abrams' last Trek was that there was the major plot holes. When Nero returns to the past, he could conceivably take the Red Matter to Romulus and have them keep it for the Super Nova that destroyed Romulus in his future. This would then erase his wife and child's death. Secondly, the fact that events are altered by Nero's acts in the past (Killing Kirk's father) and destroying Vulcan have significantly changed the future. The Science Vessel that Spock had commissioned and created by The Science Academy on Vulcan wouldn't exist and thus the Red Matter wouldn't exist and Nero wouldn't be ravaging Star Fleet and obliterating planets (dizzy yet?). Future Spock played by the talented Leonard Nimoy would cease to exist because the Alternate Time-Line Spock wouldn't become him. On the other hand Old or Original Spock could create the Red Matter sooner and save Romulus and thus make this entire Abrams Alternate Timeline cease to exist. So many black holes in the plot that you can get lost. But I digress, lets get back to Into Darkness.

One of the elements of this film that I preferred over the previous installment was the time spent planet side. I appreciated less time spent in space or on board a star ship. Seeing the night life of San Francisco, seeing Star Fleet London, and other locations was a delight.

If your looking for entertainment look no further than the latest voyage of U.S.S. Enterprise. Star Trek: Into Darkness has the perfect blend of story and special effects. Be prepared for space adventure that goes at warp speed and doesn't stop tell the very end. Prepare to Go boldy where no man has gone before... again.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come...
Post a Comment
Read more

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few peop...
Post a Comment
Read more

Concerns About The Jerusalem Cross

  When you travel to Jerusalem, it is the custom of a pilgrim to by a Jerusalem Cross as souvenir. Its suppose to represent Jerusalem, and Christianity there. Even Protestant brothers and sisters have adopted the Jerusalem Cross symbol as a missionary symbol, the four extra crosses being to four corners of the world, “And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matthew 24:31). The problem is that the Jerusalem Cross has a very dark history spiritually. Yes it was used like French Cross as a counter to Nazi swastika during the 1940’s which is ironic since one variant of Cross Potent which is in the Jerusalem Cross was a swastika called the grammadion which was a talisman for luck and good fortune: My greater concern is the crusader theology tied to the Jerusalem Cross. The Jerusalem Cross as we know it was created when the Kingdom of Jerusalem was formed during The Fi...
Post a Comment
Read more