Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn
I agree.
But would you say that Into Darkness is not worth seeing because of Wrath of Kahn? Or would you say that Wrath of Kahn prevents (or should prevent) anyone from watching/owning Into Darkness?
|
Not at all. I feel that Cumberbatch's performance alone warrants a viewing of
Into Darkness. In addition, even though many here have claimed that the movie is more/less a carbon copy of Khan, it's really not. Sure, it explores a few plot points that were previously visited by the series, but overall, I feel the plot of
Into Darkness varies more from
Star Trek II than
Man of Steel does from
Superman I.
That's not to say that the movie is without flaws. Like any J.J. Abrams film/work, he seems to get so caught up in creating plot twists and "mindblowing" story-arcs that he creates blackhole sized plot-holes in the process.
Focusing a moment on Abrams, he is developing a reputation for being almost deliberately
unfaithful to the universes of which his franchises operates. This fact has alienated a lot of "purists" from his work, and those expecting him to be faithful to Star Wars universe may be in for a unwelcome surprise.
On the whole, I feel Abrams is one of the more overrated directors currently in the business, and believe he and his brand could suffer a huge blow if his interpretation of the Star Wars Universe fails to meet the expectations being constructed around it. I believe Abrams is a slightly smarter version of Zack Snyder, because even though Abrams has shown he is committed to style over substance, he has demonstrated the ability to tell a story which causes the audience to become emotionally invested in his characters.
Anyways, to answer your question, I felt
Into Darkness was entertaining and had a story original enough to be worth a watch.