HuskyCaucasian Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) I really loved Star Trek Into Darkness. Overall, a very solid movie. There was one particular scene ( Kirk's death ) that I could have done without. It was totally unnecessary and rehashed . They need to start forging their own path and not have never ending "Call backs" to the orginal movies/series. My wife, who is not a Start Trek fan (prior to the 2009 reboot), LOVED the movie. SHe has never seen the original movies or series. Edited May 18, 2013 by Athomeboy_2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS' FALLS SHORT OF EXPECTATIONS; 'IRON MAN 3' AND 'GATSBY' HOLD UP WELL May 18, 2013 04:43 AM by Phil Contrino (boxoffice.com) Despite posting strong early numbers on Friday, Star Trek Into Darkness has cooled down. The sci-fi extravaganza is now on pace for $68 million from Friday-Sunday after tallying $22 million on Friday. That will put its 4-day total at $81.5 million. Even Paramount was expecting $100 million in four days. Negative word of mouth doesn't seem to be the culprit. Into Darkness is creating plenty of buzz on Facebook and Twitter, and it boasts an "A" from CinemaScore. The impact of Iron Man 3's monster debut combined with the impending release of The Hangover Part III and Fast & Furious 6 could be to blame. 2009's Star Trek made $82.7 million during its first four full days of release, or approximately $87.5 million when adjusting for inflation. Iron Man 3 wasn't hurt by Into Darkness as much as it could have been. The Disney release fell 50 percent during its sophomore frame. Everything from this point on is icing on the cake for Iron Man 3 now that it has hit $1 billion globally. Being sandwiched in between Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness would be daunting for any film, but The Great Gatsby is holding up reasonably well in the face of it. The period flick is on pace to drop 54 percent during its sophomore frame. Gatsby will hit $100 million in North America by next weekend, and its overseas rollout is just beginning. WB's gamble seems to be paying off. www.ew.com/movies J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness beamed into first place Friday, pushing Tony Stark and his Iron Man suit into the No. 2 spot. The highly-anticipated sci-fi sequel, which opened wide on Wednesday, made an estimated $22.0 million on Friday in 3,868 locations, including 336 IMAX 3D locations, bringing its domestic total to $35.5 million. This was somewhat shy of expectations: The first Star Trek of the Abrams era opened in May 2009 to a $26.98 million Friday in 3,849 theaters. As a director, J.J. Abrams has a limited history at the box office. His only other efforts are 2011′s relatively low-budget ($50 million) Super 8, and 2006′s Mission: Impossible III. But, big things are still expected from this sequel, which cost an estimated $190 million to make. With the help of the original cast — most of whom are bigger stars now — and writing team (including new addition Damon Lindelof), strong reviews from critics and an impressive “A” CinemaScore, and the tease of a menacing new villain in the form of Benedict Cumberbatch, the sci-fi epic is on pace for a $60 million three-day weekend. Edited May 18, 2013 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Star Trek Into Darkness was simply fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Was suppose to go see Star Trek last night but my buddy bailed because he was on a rooftop for Cubs game. I need new friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 I saw the movie "Disconnect" starring Jason Bateman last night. I'd give it 6 out of 10. The storylines were fairly interesting, with the basic premise being that the Internet is a dangerous place where terrible things can happen to you. The acting was good, but they left two of the three stories unanswered at the end. That's a pet peeve of mine. Wrap your stories up, it's the least you can do. I'd recommend it on Netflix, but I wouldn't really suggest paying theater prices for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 QUOTE (The Critic @ May 19, 2013 -> 05:20 PM) I saw the movie "Disconnect" starring Jason Bateman last night. I'd give it 6 out of 10. The storylines were fairly interesting, with the basic premise being that the Internet is a dangerous place where terrible things can happen to you. The acting was good, but they left two of the three stories unanswered at the end. That's a pet peeve of mine. Wrap your stories up, it's the least you can do. I'd recommend it on Netflix, but I wouldn't really suggest paying theater prices for it. I wanted to see it but unsure about plucking down $10 for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Really, really like Great Gatsby. I thought the modern soundtrack and CGI, which seem to be the biggest two complaints, actually really aided the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatnom Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 19, 2013 -> 11:49 PM) Really, really like Great Gatsby. I thought the modern soundtrack and CGI, which seem to be the biggest two complaints, actually really aided the movie. Really? I felt like the CGI took away from it a lot, particularly when they would do that thing with all the words on the screen. Ultimately, I think the metaphors of the book just ended up as corny in the movie, though I appreciated their attempt to make it work. The soundtrack was kind of weird, but I was ok with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Saw Iron Man 3 last night. Liked first 2/3 of the movie, kind of average/disappointing in the last 1/3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Star Trek was very good...would put it in the Iron Man 3 category, maybe just a tad bit better. Not quite the equal of its predecessor, but Khan was definitely a stronger villain . Benjamin Cumberbatch is getting lots of rave reviews for his performance, "stealing" the show from the main cast and crew. For some reason, he reminded me a little bit of Michael Fassbender. And Rachael Taylor, hot hot hot with the short hair and shorter skirt, haha. (Extra bonus points for a gratuitous scene with her in her VS, and thank god for Australia). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 20, 2013 -> 08:38 AM) Star Trek was very good...would put it in the Iron Man 3 category, maybe just a tad bit better. Not quite the equal of its predecessor, but KhanKhan was definitely a stronger villain . Benjamin Cumberbatch is getting lots of rave reviews for his performance, "stealing" the show from the main cast and crew. For some reason, he reminded me a little bit of Michael Fassbender. And Rachael Taylor, hot hot hot with the short hair and shorter skirt, haha. (Extra bonus points for a gratuitous scene with her in her VS, and thank god for Australia). Are you talking about a different movie in the last line or are you talking about Alice Eve? Rachael Taylor was not In(to) Darkness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 20, 2013 -> 07:38 AM) Star Trek was very good...would put it in the Iron Man 3 category, maybe just a tad bit better. Not quite the equal of its predecessor, but Khan was definitely a stronger villain . Benjamin Cumberbatch is getting lots of rave reviews for his performance, "stealing" the show from the main cast and crew. For some reason, he reminded me a little bit of Michael Fassbender. And Rachael Taylor, hot hot hot with the short hair and shorter skirt, haha. (Extra bonus points for a gratuitous scene with her in her VS, and thank god for Australia). I think yo mean Alice Eve, not Rachael Taylor. And yes, Alice Eve was something special. Benedict Cumberbatch was amazing. He played his part spectacularly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackSox8 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 20, 2013 -> 07:38 AM) Star Trek was very good...would put it in the Iron Man 3 category, maybe just a tad bit better. Not quite the equal of its predecessor, but Khan was definitely a stronger villain. Benjamin Cumberbatch is getting lots of rave reviews for his performance, "stealing" the show from the main cast and crew. For some reason, he reminded me a little bit of Michael Fassbender. And Rachael Taylor, hot hot hot with the short hair and shorter skirt, haha. (Extra bonus points for a gratuitous scene with her in her VS, and thank god for Australia). Not to be a dick, but there is probably a spoiler in that post. Just saying Edited May 20, 2013 by onedude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2013 -> 08:15 AM) Are you talking about a different movie in the last line or are you talking about Alice Eve? Rachael Taylor was not In(to) Darkness. neither was Benjamin Cumberbatch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (onedude @ May 20, 2013 -> 08:21 AM) Not to be a dick, but there is probably a spoiler in that post. Just saying agrred. needs to be blacked out. I blacked it out in my reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 20, 2013 -> 08:22 AM) agrred. needs to be blacked out. I blacked it out in my reply. done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackSox8 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 20, 2013 -> 08:24 AM) done maybe help him out and fix his Actor mistakes too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (onedude @ May 20, 2013 -> 08:27 AM) maybe help him out and fix his Actor mistakes too I can only do so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Caught up with two "old" movies with the wife this weekend: 3rd (Nolan) Batman - Solid B+. Probably equal to the first, not quite as good as the second. Yet another awful "voice" though. Maybe it was my TV but Bane's voice was way too clear and separated from everything else around him. It sounded like it was just being played over the movie instead of taking place in the scene with the other actors. Also, for being the main villain his ending was pretty anti-climactic. Still, didn't detract from the movie at all. I liked it a lot. The Hobbit - A-. I don't get the hate. I thought it was great. It was pretty much everything I expected. I still find it ridiculous that they are going to spend 8-9 hours telling that story, but I was engaged the entire time. I also liked how they tied in the LOTR books in key spots. I didn't experience any of the weird filming stuff people complained about in the theaters. Maybe it wasn't as noticeable on my TV or maybe they fixed that for the blu-ray release? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 I was a pretty big LOTR fan. I've read The Hobbit and LOTR a few times each. I turned The Hobbit off half way through. I really just couldn't take it. In fairness, I was done after Del Toro dropped out and Jackson took over though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 20, 2013 -> 02:12 PM) The Hobbit - A-. I don't get the hate. I thought it was great. It was pretty much everything I expected. I still find it ridiculous that they are going to spend 8-9 hours telling that story, but I was engaged the entire time. I also liked how they tied in the LOTR books in key spots. I didn't experience any of the weird filming stuff people complained about in the theaters. Maybe it wasn't as noticeable on my TV or maybe they fixed that for the blu-ray release? I don't believe BluRay can do the 48fps thing, so you probably didn't get it at all. I saw it in theaters, and it was...weird. It's hard to explain and it's definitely off-putting at first, but I got used to it and eventually liked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Watching the bland Total Recall remake this weekend a question came to mind: Has a hotter woman ever kicked more ass on film than Kate Beckinsale? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ May 20, 2013 -> 10:09 AM) Has a hotter woman ever kicked more ass on film than Kate Beckinsale? I think not. This. she makes my loins tingle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatnom Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 20, 2013 -> 10:11 AM) This. she makes my loins tingle. I don't think this is a good thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Saw the Trek movie, in 3D, and I have to say... not nearly as good as the last one. The flash and dash was good, and at least in 3D was even a little too much to follow. But the plot, much of the acting, story devices, even the dialogue really fell flat, in my view. The snappy feel of the previous movie was partially lost, and the intensity was severely lacking (replaced with loudness, which is not the same thing), except from Cumberbatch who was fantastic. Without him, this was a pretty garbagy movie. I was disappointed. And I echo what some others have said, that I really hope they try to carve some new ground in any future iterations, instead of an entire movie of rehashed plot lines and devices. It was fun, in a shallow popcorn movie kind of way, but didn't even do a great job with that. 2.5 stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.