The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

It was a pretty good surprise from last year, it's a shame I wasn't able to find it on sale anywhere when it came out on blu.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Glad you could enjoy it. Something else that bothered me was the cultural depiction- it felt too modern and hipster for the time period and was off-putting to me. Bearcat is from Seattle (I think) so I am sure he is all too familiar with them. It was just over-the-top hipster, and mixed with the cheese it became hard to watch. I can do hipster indies too--I love Safety Not Guaranteed.

Too modern? In what way? No PCs or cell phones, yet they were becoming available at the time. No Cd's. What gave you that vibe?

I cut films lots of slack on cultural depictions. Because, as I have discovered from too much business traveling, every community is an entirely different world. Whats cool in Green Bay might be considered the height of geekdom in Irvine Ca, and vise versa. The cool clothes, hair and car in San Diego would be laughed off campus in Cuyahoga Falls....and vice versa.

I want to ask what hipster means? At least your definition regarding this particular film.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Too modern? In what way? No PCs or cell phones, yet they were becoming available at the time. No Cd's. What gave you that vibe?

I cut films lots of slack on cultural depictions. Because, as I have discovered from too much business traveling, every community is an entirely different world. Whats cool in Green Bay might be considered the height of geekdom in Irvine Ca, and vise versa. The cool clothes, hair and car in San Diego would be laughed off campus in Cuyahoga Falls....and vice versa.

I want to ask what hipster means? At least your definition regarding this particular film.

I can try to explain it but I only really fully understand the culture because a few of my friends are hipsters (San Franciscans and Seattlites). It's an attitude and style emphasizing a "retro" look from a different era (sometimes a mix of different eras, whatever you find at the thrift store). The word is an alternative form of hippie but they are different things. The difference (in appearance) between a hipster trying to be 90's and an actual person in the 90's is the hipster only keeps what is still cool and not dated. These characters were conveniently free of anything less glamorous from that time.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I can try to explain it but I only really fully understand the culture because a few of my friends are hipsters (San Franciscans and Seattlites). It's an attitude and style emphasizing a "retro" look from a different era (sometimes a mix of different eras, whatever you find at the thrift store). The word is an alternative form of hippie but they are different things. The difference (in appearance) between a hipster trying to be 90's and an actual person in the 90's is the hipster only keeps what is still cool and not dated. These characters were conveniently free of anything less glamorous from that time.

I think I understand what you are saying about Hipster in the real world. It is a deliberate style/lifestyle/appearance choice, but flawed because it is incomplete, and therefore not truly authentic or genuine.

I am left confused though about the "Hipsterness" of/in the movie though.

Is the movie itself too Hipster, or is it the characters behavior/appearance too Hipster?

I think the reason I am confused is because the film is about the early 90's. So they are supposed to look and behave early 90's. If there are continuity errors in their looks, that would be the fault (mistake) of the hair/makeup/costume folks and the director for not researching well enough, right? Or, are you saying that it is not a mistake, and that it is a deliberate choice to make them appear hipster as opposed to authentic 90's?

[Abdrewes]

DJMethod,
You haven't posted the link for the review you made for The House is Black in the "review" link in your signature.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

I liked it a lot.

I think that if you look at this as a "Coming of Age" film, you are going at it all wrong. While it contains some typical CoA events, that's not the point of the film. There are WAY bigger themes at work here, not just the typical teen angst stuff.

I dont think it was aimed at teenagers at all. The subject matter was far too dark, heavy and serious. Seems more like a film for adults that is about a teenage boys struggle that just happens to take place during high school years. It really is NOT about high school, it's about Charlie. To me, all the "High School Melodrama" that people complain about is not what the film is about. I see it as material used in juxtaposition, a counterbalance to the story of Charlies

[Show spoiler]childhood sexual abuse, his best friend's suicide, his mental and emotional issues, and his recovery.

Unlike some of the negative reviews in this thread, I thought the pacing was perfect, and the ebb and flow from dark-to-light-to-dark-to-light was well balanced. Like real life. I also thought the music choices were fitting and realistic, not cliche.

I notice old guys like Steve and I dig this movie, and younger guys like DJ, AB, Bearcat did not like it at all. Part of me wonders if you guys are still too close (simply in the context of time) to those experiences to detach from them. Maybe if they were REALLY distant memories like they are for me, you'd see the balance in the film. That's not meant as a judgement guys, just an observation of a possibility.

Film 4.5/5

Yep, Top 3 of 2012. Maybe my favorite.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Is the movie itself too Hipster, or is it the characters behavior/appearance too Hipster?

I think the reason I am confused is because the film is about the early 90's. So they are supposed to look and behave early 90's. If there are continuity errors in their looks, that would be the fault (mistake) of the hair/makeup/costume folks and the director for not researching well enough, right? Or, are you saying that it is not a mistake, and that it is a deliberate choice to make them appear hipster as opposed to authentic 90's?

It didn't feel genuine to me. It was like they were showing the 90's the way they wish it was. I'm normally not a nitpicker on this type of thing, but they seem to have lost themselves on the spectrum between 90's posers and the actual 90's and it happened to irritate me. It's only one reason the film didn't work for me though.

Side note: Are you watching Game of Thrones?? This season is far better than last season so far!

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

DJMethod,
You haven't posted the link for the review you made for The House is Black in the "review" link in your signature.

You, sir, are absolutely right. What a powerful little film...

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

[Show spoiler]I liked it a lot.

I think that if you look at this as a "Coming of Age" film, you are going at it all wrong. While it contains some typical CoA events, that's not the point of the film. There are WAY bigger themes at work here, not just the typical teen angst stuff.

I dont think it was aimed at teenagers at all. The subject matter was far too dark, heavy and serious. Seems more like a film for adults that is about a teenage boys struggle that just happens to take place during high school years. It really is NOT about high school, it's about Charlie. To me, all the "High School Melodrama" that people complain about is not what the film is about. I see it as material used in juxtaposition, a counterbalance to the story of Charlies

[Show spoiler]childhood sexual abuse, his best friend's suicide, his mental and emotional issues, and his recovery.

Unlike some of the negative reviews in this thread, I thought the pacing was perfect, and the ebb and flow from dark-to-light-to-dark-to-light was well balanced. Like real life. I also thought the music choices were fitting and realistic, not cliche.

I notice old guys like Steve and I dig this movie, and younger guys like DJ, AB, Bearcat did not like it at all. Part of me wonders if you guys are still too close (simply in the context of time) to those experiences to detach from them. Maybe if they were REALLY distant memories like they are for me, you'd see the balance in the film. That's not meant as a judgement guys, just an observation of a possibility.

Film 4.5/5

Keep in mind that I absolutely adore the movie, but...

I'm really glad you loved it. Like Steve said, quite possibly my favorite movie of 2012.

I recommend listening to the commentary if you ever buy the movie. I had never listened to a commentary before this one, but it really reinforces how close the cast and the director/writer got. That is also one of the major reasons why the movie worked so well.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I think I understand what you are saying about Hipster in the real world. It is a deliberate style/lifestyle/appearance choice, but flawed because it is incomplete, and therefore not truly authentic or genuine.

I am left confused though about the "Hipsterness" of/in the movie though.

Is the movie itself too Hipster, or is it the characters behavior/appearance too Hipster?

I think the reason I am confused is because the film is about the early 90's. So they are supposed to look and behave early 90's. If there are continuity errors in their looks, that would be the fault (mistake) of the hair/makeup/costume folks and the director for not researching well enough, right? Or, are you saying that it is not a mistake, and that it is a deliberate choice to make them appear hipster as opposed to authentic 90's?

I agree. I think it's a fantastic film and while I very seldom disagree with DJ, I have to hear. In regards to the hipster opinion, I personally don't think anything in the film evokes or conveys the word hipster, either intentionally or accidentally. It's almost like there was a search for a trendy adjective to use to describe one's opinion of the film. Based on the most recent DJ post, it seems as though authenticity is a major issue for him.

For those that love the film, as I do, I think authentic/genuine is one of the very first words that come to mind when describing why we enjoy the film and think it's successful. I would assert that the trio of central performances are as authentic as I've seen for a high school set film. The genuineness of emotion conveyed by the three main characters and the chemistry they have with each other I find to be a major strength of the film.

Squid, I agree with you that one thing that sets the film apart is that although it encompasses some very common issues portrayed in films of this type, it's how the film deals with them that sets it apart; it doesn't sugarcoat them and doesn't feel obligated to present a favorable or uplifting resolution to them.

[jvince]

Princess Mononoke (1997)
dir. Hayao Miyazaki

The Good: Stunning animation; one of the most gorgeous I've seen. Wonderful musical score by Miyazaki's (as well as Beat Takeshi's) composer of choice, Joe Hisaishi. Great themes and message. Shockingly violent (heads and limbs constantly flying everywhere, yet it somehow passed as PG-13?).

The Bad: The story drags, especially during the middle act. Lacks sympathetic characters. Too weird, even for me (the most bizarre moment has to be when San feeds Ashitaka some dried meat, Alicia Silverstone-style). English dub is shit.

The Bottom Line: Princess Mononoke looks epic and magical, but it ultimately feels short of both, not to mention it isn't as universally accessible as the other films in Studio Ghibli's catalog.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Side note: Are you watching Game of Thrones?? This season is far better than last season so far!

No. I do not watch any shows as they air. I always wait for the Blu-ray. Been doing it this way since 2007. A commercial for diapers in the middle of an intense scene on Mad Men kinda kills the mood for me. And, for me, the weekly wait ruins the pacing. I like experiencing the flow the way the writers created it. Like reading a book at your desired pace. PQ and AQ are really important to me as well. So for me it is 12 months wait, 3-4 days marathoning, 12 months wait, 3-4 days marathoning, repeat, repeat.

What would you say is better about this season? Drama, action, character development, story advancement? I can't wait to explore more of what is North of the wall.

On the plus side though, there are so MANY FANTASTIC serialized dramas on TV right now, I have one to watch on a somewhat regular basis.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

I recommend listening to the commentary if you ever buy the movie. I had never listened to a commentary before this one, but it really reinforces how close the cast and the director/writer got. That is also one of the major reasons why the movie worked so well.

I did. And as you say, it confirmed what I suspected. The crew immediately became very close friends. To me, that showed in the on screen chemistry.

[legendarymatt92]

Second viewing of Star Trek Into Darkness and some extended thoughts on it.

I gave Into Darkness 8.5/10 in my last rating, and I still believe that's where it sits, but the second viewing (in IMAX 3D this time!) allowed for better contemplation on how the film worked on a technical, visual and narrative level than with just one watch.

The first thing I'll say is that J.J. Abrams is extremely heavy-handed when it comes to emotional manipulation of the audience; the close-ups of the hands, the over-bearing shots of nostalgic signifiers, is almost too amateurish for a blockbuster film like this. I expect to see that kind of subtlety in college short films, not something that cost upwards of $190 million dollars to make and has one of Hollywood's biggest directors at the helm. I felt that, besides being a device for the plot to forward, Noel Clarke's situation was not relatable nor fleshed-out significantly enough to become important, and that it was a rather simple way for the whole bombastic narrative to fall into place.

Abrams' visual style is as assured and distinctive as always, yet his insistence on unconventional camera shots or movements is less about making statements or comments on the characters/story, and more about having something interesting to look at. Whilst the canted angles and cyclical movements may be impressive, they add nothing important and are simply there to improve the overall visual feast (which I'm fine with, since Abrams has such a signatory, overblown style) for the viewer.

I especially liked the improved character dynamics between Spock and Jim, and felt that it was a logical progression from where 2009's incredible effort left off. Whilst the original was more about introducing characters to a whole new generation, Into Darkness allowed the writers to delve into the relationships with more depth and create a truly realistic portrayal of their friendship. The third act,

[Show spoiler]when Jim and Spock finally voice their fondness for each other as the former dies

, is truly incredible and, although it's (once again) dealt with in a over-bearing fashion, it really strikes at the heart of their relationship.

[I have much more to discuss in relation to this, including the story, Cumberbatch and the actual IMAX experience, but it'll have to be split into 2 parts since I'm ready to go out at the moment.]

[legendarymatt92]

Star Trek Into Darkness Part 2

The feature most improved over the original is the story, which feels fresh and instinctive; the 2009 film, inviting us to meet these characters, lacked a real story because it always felt as though it was too busy making introductions to really get anywhere important. Thankfully this is much changed in Into Darkness, where the story takes precedent and ties in with a previous Trek instalment with great originality. It may feel a little bloated or forced at times, but Abrams and the screenwriters have done a great job in putting the reigns on a story that could, quite easily, have become extremely and uncontrollably unwieldly. The narrative's great use of the villain leads me nicely onto my next point...

...Benedict Cumberbatch is amazing in this. I don't believe in over-hyping performances, but he judged it perfectly and it's superb; it's never cheesy, hammy or over-acted, but always measured and controlled. I'd be extremely surprised if Cumberbatch didn't become an A-list star based solely on this performance (I suspect there'll be a few lead roles for him coming up in the next couple of years...)

Finally, if you're tempted to see this, please opt for the IMAX. Whilst the 3D may not be incredibly worthwhile, the picture and sound quality is well worth the extra money, and you'll be thankful you watched it in that format. IMAX is really the only way to truly do justice to the incredible feat that Abrams has completed; making a sequel that is better than the original in almost every respect.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I did. And as you say, it confirmed what I suspected. The crew immediately became very close friends. To me, that showed in the on screen chemistry.

I didn't know you listened to it already. You are right though. It definitely showed on screen.

It also made me wish there was more special features to see more of the interaction between them while filming. Obviously what is there is good, especially the commentary, but more would have been great.

The movie also brought back memories of when I lived just outside of Pittsburgh. Driving through the same tunnel they did and coming out right into the city is great, and I still remember eating at King's like they did too.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

The first thing I'll say is that J.J. Abrams is extremely heavy-handed when it comes to emotional manipulation of the audience; the close-ups of the hands, the over-bearing shots of nostalgic signifiers, is almost too amateurish for a blockbuster film like this. I expect to see that kind of subtlety in college short films, not something that cost upwards of $190 million dollars to make and has one of Hollywood's biggest directors at the helm. I felt that, besides being a device for the plot to forward, Noel Clarke's situation was not relatable nor fleshed-out significantly enough to become important, and that it was a rather simple way for the whole bombastic narrative to fall into place.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Abrams' visual style is as assured and distinctive as always, yet his insistence on unconventional camera shots or movements is less about making statements or comments on the characters/story, and more about having something interesting to look at. Whilst the canted angles and cyclical movements may be impressive, they add nothing important and are simply there to improve the overall visual feast (which I'm fine with, since Abrams has such a signatory, overblown style) for the viewer.

Yeah, I see what you mean, but given the choice between watching something static (like all the other Trek movies, as directed by Robert Wise, Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner, Jonathan Frankes, etc) and watching JJ Abrams spinning the camera around with lens flares while he's banging on the camera, I'd still pick the latter. Something about the style really helps make it all stand out, and it especially helps to really slam the action into the viewer's faces.

Above all, with a Trek film, I think it is somewhat smart to use more gravity-defying camera work and lens flares, to emphasize the fact that they're in deep space. The camera tricks help add a certain level of vertigo that's otherwise absent in the other films, and in an environment where direction and trajectory are relative, I think it makes perfect sense. Especially in the ending scenes, where the gravity was shut off.

In comparison, I got to admit that the older films come off as being a little less interesting, because they are so still and everything stands straight up.

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I especially liked the improved character dynamics between Spock and Jim, and felt that it was a logical progression from where 2009's incredible effort left off. Whilst the original was more about introducing characters to a whole new generation, Into Darkness allowed the writers to delve into the relationships with more depth and create a truly realistic portrayal of their friendship. The third act,

[Show spoiler]when Jim and Spock finally voice their fondness for each other as the former dies

, is truly incredible and, although it's (once again) dealt with in a over-bearing fashion, it really strikes at the heart of their relationship.

The feature most improved over the original is the story, which feels fresh and instinctive; the 2009 film, inviting us to meet these characters, lacked a real story because it always felt as though it was too busy making introductions to really get anywhere important. Thankfully this is much changed in Into Darkness, where the story takes precedent and ties in with a previous Trek instalment with great originality. It may feel a little bloated or forced at times, but Abrams and the screenwriters have done a great job in putting the reigns on a story that could, quite easily, have become extremely and uncontrollably unwieldly. The narrative's great use of the villain leads me nicely onto my next point...

...Benedict Cumberbatch is amazing in this. I don't believe in over-hyping performances, but he judged it perfectly and it's superb; it's never cheesy, hammy or over-acted, but always measured and controlled. I'd be extremely surprised if Cumberbatch didn't become an A-list star based solely on this performance (I suspect there'll be a few lead roles for him coming up in the next couple of years...)

Finally, if you're tempted to see this, please opt for the IMAX. Whilst the 3D may not be incredibly worthwhile, the picture and sound quality is well worth the extra money, and you'll be thankful you watched it in that format. IMAX is really the only way to truly do justice to the incredible feat that Abrams has completed; making a sequel that is better than the original in almost every respect.

Right on.

My one and only complaint about Into Darkness is

[Show spoiler]the fact that they had to retread The Wrath of Khan, right down to the reactor chamber death scene. That scene in particular is as manipulative as it is unoriginal. It really threw me off, because I was really hoping for something more original for a change. Comparing Cumberbatch with Ricardo Montalban is also a painful thing for me, because now I have to concede that Montalban's performance, which I've known forever and have grown to idolize, is now outdated; or, I would say that Cumberbatch doesn't compare, but that's equally blasphemous.

If it wasn't for all that, I probably would have given the full full marks, but as it is, I rank it just a grade lower than the first film.

Regardless, it is good progression of the series, and I do hope future films take on thrilling new directions.

[Al_The_Strange]

Now it's time for...

After Earth

This film is destined to be hated. Director M. Night Shyamalan, once revered for his work on The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs, hasn't had a good reception with his last few films (especially The Last Airbender). Chances are that people will watch this film with the expectation that there will be something to hate, because of all the weaknesses the man exhibited before.

After Earth is not a return to form. In fact, it's not Shyamalan's form at all: it's the Smith clan at work, not only as the stars, but also sharing the writing and production credits. The big appeal to this film will be in seeing a literal father and son team on a big-screen sci-fi adventure. Even though Shyamalan's hands are in the script and direction, I believe the film's qualities as a sci-fi adventure outshine its weaknesses.

To be fair, the film has a few weaknesses, which I'm sure regular Shyamalan haters will harp on. Acting and writing may be suspect, given the actors' weird accents and the script's penchant for exposition and monologues. Some of the sets look cheap (the crashed spaceship and its payload look like they're made of packing material). CGI is in abundance here. The biggest complaint I've seen, however, is that the film is a bore, totally ineffective in engrossing the audience and making them care for the characters or the dangers they face.

I think that's the chief factor here: if you're not pulled in by this film's concepts and worlds, and if you have a bias against this director, then you will hate this film.

As for myself, I've never hated Shyamalan's work as fervently as other viewers, and I am a sucker for all things sci-fi. So this film was right up my alley. I really enjoyed the film's high-concept premise, and I grew to appreciate the story and characters as they unfolded. I really enjoyed the visual spectacle at times. There is a bit of drag in the film's opening act, but once the ship crashes and the struggle for survival begins, I was pretty well-engrossed. I felt the film established plenty of peril and suspense as it pitted the main characters against a whole world of wicked animals in a hostile environment.

As you can surmise, the movie is primarily a man-vs-nature struggle. On top of that, it's also a pretty apt coming-of-age story, using raw survivalism as a catalyst for showing the protagonist's progression from a frightened and scarred boy into an actual "ranger." With its use of flashbacks and emotional tension between the characters, the film establishes a lot to the characters. If there's anything I would complain about, it's that certain scenes could have used more explanation (especially in understanding how and why the Earth became hostile toward humans, a point that many will find stupid anyway; I assume, however, that this was

[Show spoiler]connected to the Ursa invasion

), and the pathos of the characters is somewhat marred by their stiffness. It also occurred to me that this story is pretty much the same as Red Planet, swapping out Mars with Earth, and swapping the robot AMEE with a predatory monster.

As a film, After Earth looks slick, with good and stylish photography. A few scenes are a bit jerky, and there are a few parts where it's hard to tell what's going on, but most of it boasts excellent imagery. Editing is even and good, save for one scene that's rapid-fire. Will Smith plays his role really stiff throughout the film, in keeping with his character, but it's his son Jaden that steals the spotlight throughout, and shows apt emotion and range throughout. Other characters are pretty cheesy. Writing for this picture is generally not bad, but a few lines are silly, and some dialogue is bloated. Production design is generally interesting, but some of the sets for the spaceship are weird (why is it made of bones? Why does it look like a pile of garbage when it's crashed?). Otherwise, the props, costumes, and special effects are solid. Music is not bad either.

I didn't see much wrong with After Earth (and believe me, I tried to find something wrong), and I'm getting the impression that people are hating on this film just because it's got Shyamalan's name plastered all over it. I give the film the high points because I was engrossed by it, I felt it's not bad in sci-fi terms, and a lot of the things that bother other people don't bother me that much. Regardless, I can only recommend this as a rental for anybody who's interested.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Notes

• There are a couple of screwy parts I noticed:
  • The biggest thing I remember is,
    [Show spoiler]when the kid finally gets the beacon, he couldn't send a reception, because of the disturbance is in the ionosphere. So he has to go to the raging volcano, because if LOTR: ROTK taught us anything, it's that the story has to reach its most dramatic point in a hot oppressive ash-laden wasteland. The logic gap I see here is that, apparently, the beacon can cut through volcanic ash and sediments, but not through a clear sky, because of something vague about the ionosphere?
  • The kid walks into a restricted area of the ship. It's sectioned off by...a curtain made of brushes. Gee, wouldn't a DOOR have been better?
  • Also not sure if I really buy the idea
    [Show spoiler]that the world freezes over every night. At least it's not as silly as The Day After Tomorrow.

[jvince]

You Can Count on Me (2000)
dir. Kenneth Lonergan

The Good: Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo are so f*cking amazing in this; both act their freaking hearts out, it's a travesty Ruffalo was snubbed for an Oscar nomination and Linney lost to Julia Roberts (Erin Brockovich). Rory Culkin also delivers a fantastic performance as Linney's eight-year-old son. Superb, down-to-earth screenplay by Lonergan. The main characters are endearingly human. Their interactions elicit a few good laughs. All the scenes with Ruffalo and Linney/Culkin are absolutely sublime. And that ending at the bus stop... so emotional, so perfect.

The Bad: The subplot where Sammy (Linney) has an affair with her boss (Matthew Broderick) is its sole weak point (although that's probably just me wanting more brother-sister bonding).

The Bottom Line: You Can Count on Me is a charming, deceptively simple character study of two, lonely, confused, lost, and broken siblings and their enduring bond with the only family they got -- each other. Sweet but never schmaltzy, this heartwarming family drama is one of those forgotten gems that deserves more attention than it's gotten over the years.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Yeah, I see what you mean, but given the choice between watching something static (like all the other Trek movies, as directed by Robert Wise, Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner, Jonathan Frankes, etc) and watching JJ Abrams spinning the camera around with lens flares while he's banging on the camera, I'd still pick the latter. Something about the style really helps make it all stand out, and it especially helps to really slam the action into the viewer's faces.

Above all, with a Trek film, I think it is somewhat smart to use more gravity-defying camera work and lens flares, to emphasize the fact that they're in deep space. The camera tricks help add a certain level of vertigo that's otherwise absent in the other films, and in an environment where direction and trajectory are relative, I think it makes perfect sense. Especially in the ending scenes, where the gravity was shut off.

In comparison, I got to admit that the older films come off as being a little less interesting, because they are so still and everything stands straight up.

Yeah, I completely agree with you. I didn't mean to come off as just criticising Abrams' style because it's incredibly distinctive and visually interesting, but just wanted to point out that, in my opinion, it's mostly for show and nothing else; the cinematography never grabs me like it does in, say, Children of Men, because that has actual meaning behind it.

That said, I'm in the minority of people who actually like the lens flares (when not used excessively, of course) because it creates a clinical, futuristic setting that embodies Star Trek. It's a small technique (given its use in Super 8, one that probably has no real motive behind it) but works wonders when used here.

Your final sentence sums everything up perfectly.

My one and only complaint about Into Darkness is

[Show spoiler]the fact that they had to retread The Wrath of Khan, right down to the reactor chamber death scene. That scene in particular is as manipulative as it is unoriginal. It really threw me off, because I was really hoping for something more original for a change. Comparing Cumberbatch with Ricardo Montalban is also a painful thing for me, because now I have to concede that Montalban's performance, which I've known forever and have grown to idolize, is now outdated; or, I would say that Cumberbatch doesn't compare, but that's equally blasphemous.

[Show spoiler]Yes, exactly; it was the one moment where my dad actually looked at me and said "they're really doing it the same, aren't they?" in a kind of stupendous disbelief. It wasn't necessarily terrible in itself as a scene, but the lack of originality was very surprising. Both performances are dazzling (it's been a while since I've seen Wrath of Khan but I remember being blown away by Montalban, but I do have to say that I think Cumberbatch slightly edges it - he judges the character perfectly.