Posted on 05/16/2013 7:43:24 PM PDT by EveningStar
Director J.J. Abrams' 2009 prequel to the dusty Star Trek property got the space saga out of mothballs and back on the pop culture radar.
Star Trek Into Darkness resumes the franchise's penchant for futuristic allegories to modern times. Well, if you consider the Bush years the state of today's foreign policy debates.
The '60s series never bludgeoned viewers with its mission statements, and the Star Trek sequel similarly embraces razzle dazzle over speechifying. Abrams is too keenly focused on ambitious action sequences, those maddening lens flares and the bond between the ship's crew that made those prior voyages such a pleasure...
Star Trek Into Darkness doesn't reach the dizzying highs of Abrams' initial Trek adventure, and logic-loving sci-fi fans will wince at the sillier plot developments. Conservatives may bristle at the politics bubbling underneath the franchise. Abrams doesn't lose sight of his own Prime Directive--ensure the franchise lives long and prospers beyond cheap talking points...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It will never take the place of William Shatner and company IMO, but I will see it
I’m old enough to have watched the original each week! Sure, they were “liberal” but not like the crazy left wing idiots today.
Reagan gave us Bush...
Why? (Why is it embarrassing, not why didn't you ever watch an episode of an X Files remix?)
I think is speak more to the “Walk softly but carry a big stick” idea. Kirk will take the first punch, he’ll give you the early rounds, but after you wear yourself out, he’ll stomp you in to the ground, in my view a very American attitude.
Bookmark
Oh yes, at least a dozen or so, both overt and covert.
I would buy the DVD, but only if I could edit out a total of an estimated 3 minutes of gratuitous not so subtle propaganda, that contributed nothing to the plot but was intended merely as clumsy subconscious indoctrination to accept the 'new reality.' A poke in the conservative eye, so to speak. I shall mention the first one.
The year when the story takes place may not have been mentioned, but I'm assuming 23XX or so. The jarring rap music (!) in the first few minutes of the film made me want to walk out even if I didn't get my money back. The only thing that prevented me from walking out right then was not wishing to embarrass my wife.
Yes, spoiled the entire movie for me.
In my entire life that was the fourth movie I should have walked out of. Yes, there was more indoctrination, including the end, where unconditional pacifism is touted as the ultimate achievement of civilized moral and ethical man.
As a result I hated the movie. On my personal scale of 10 I would give it a 2.
Without the offensive 3 minutes it might have been a a 9.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.