Movie Review: Star Trek Beyond (2016)

[Dave Gray]

Full disclosure: Into Darkness is my favorite Trek film and I believe it to be important to the franchise and sorely misinterpreted by the Trek community, so you might just want to throw my opinion out, if you're a hater of that.

I enjoyed this movie, but it is (upon first viewing) my least favorite of the reboot films.  It does branch out and tell its own story, with its own characters and species and sci-fi concepts that are cool.  People that wanted to get back to "classic Trek" will like a lot here.

I actively disliked Justin Lin's direction.  The action is hard to place.  The camera is too active, the action is too tightly shot, and there are environmental oddities (weird gravity, ship falling off a cliff), that when all put together, it's just difficult to tell what's going on.  It has a bit of an Avengers: Age of Ultron, in that respect.

I have a feeling that this will probably be made clear on a 2nd viewing, but I found it very difficult to understand Krall.  Both his motivation and what he's trying to accomplish aren't revealed until the very end of the film, so on first viewing, he seems like a cartoon villain, doing the sci-fi equivalent of tying women to the railroad tracks.  I still am unclear about how his physical transformation works (is it other bodies or his own morphing?...not exactly sure...they may have explained it), but I think that will become more clear when I watch it again.

I did love the movie when it slowed down.  The character moments are wonderful, moving, and these characters are just fun to be around.  Kirk/McCoy and McCoy/Spock dialogue moments are really special and what I love most about these movies.  The film also does a really good job of wiping the slate clean and putting  lot of the baggage of the reboot universe aside.  Multiple Spocks, the crew growing into their roles, the prime universe.  That stuff is all handled and never needs to be mentioned again.  You can just make movies now with nothing that needs to be addressed going in.

After seeing the way Sulu's sexuality was handled, it's even less of a deal than I thought -- understated and tasteful.  There's no merit in the "he wouldn't been closeted all these years" argument.  It's not pandering, nor a big deal at all.

Overall -- good addition to the series and places it in a direction to expand the stories.  Looking forward to additional viewings and more films in the franchise.

[Dolphin-UK]

I am seeing this Thursday and have only skimmed your review for fear of spoilers...but my greatest problem with this reboot at the moment is that I didn't feel like the first two were Star Trek films, they were both star trek themed action films.

It's similar to my current disappointment with the Bond franchise, generic action film with themed locations and charaters.

I'm worried about your comments about the directing, I can't stand it whne directors use multiple quick changing shots to portray the action.

I will watch on Thursday with a bottle of wine (yes, our local cinema is awesome!) and post back with my thoughts.

[Dave Gray]

I see people complain about Trek now being action films, but aside from 1 and 4, they've all been action films, in my opinion.  Now they just look better and are more fun.

This movie is more sci-fi than the other two, though.  Even though it was my least favorite of the reboots, I think most people who haven't liked these films will find this one to be the best.

[CF DolFan]

I'm not a Trek fan but these latest movies look interesting. I'll probably go back to watch the beginning of this series and then see this movie.

[Sunstroke]

Kirk/McCoy and McCoy/Spock dialogue moments are really special and what I love most about these movies. 

I have to admit that, when I saw that Karl Urban was being cast as McCoy for the reboot, I had serious reservations. I like Urban, but didn't think that type of humor was his forte. After the first two reboot ST movies, I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised with how well he's played that role.

Looking forward to seeing this one soon.

[Dave Gray]

McCoy has a bigger role in this movie than the other two.  The first two movies were like a Kirk/Spock bromance.  This is a Kirk/McCoy and Spock/McCoy one.

[pondwater]

The new ones are passable and I'll watch them. But Into Darkness ain't got nothing on The Wrath of Khan from '82.

[Dolphin-UK]

Finally got round to posting some thoughts on this film...the trailers I had seen set it up for another action film set aboard another planet with Star Trek themed characters.

What we got was kind of the opposite, yes there are fight scenes but there was thought, character and dialogue.

I agree with Dave, I'm not entirely sure what Krall's motivation is, the twist element at the end is kind of odd and leaves a lot unexplained.

I actively hated some of the action scenes, when there's a lot of CGI already why the need for the shaky camera shots and multiple quick angle changes...ugh

I enojoyed this film, a rewatch might expose a slight lack of plot...I think the "oh wait, we haven't quite stopped the bad guy yet" is wearing a little thin as a device for ST, but all in all enjoyable, now lets get out into a space and interact properly with one of the other major factions in the universe, and NOT the Borg, that's too obvious.

[Fau Teixeira]

I just watched Wrath of Kahn from 82 .. and i recently watched Into Darkness ..

Into Darkness is just a better movie all around.

I think we romanticize older versions of movies. Sometimes incorrectly.

Take the original batman movie with michael keaton for example. It was crap on a stick and didn't hold a candle to any of the newer batman movies.

[pondwater]

I just watched Wrath of Kahn from 82 .. and i recently watched Into Darkness ..

Into Darkness is just a better movie all around.

I think we romanticize older versions of movies. Sometimes incorrectly.

Take the original batman movie with michael keaton for example. It was crap on a stick and didn't hold a candle to any of the newer batman movies.

Nah, the actors aren't even close to being as good, the story is silly, and to much CGI.

[Dave Gray]

I just gravedug this to find it.  But Pondwater is nuts.  The original cast of Trek can't hold a candle to the new people in terms of how good of actors they are.  Every single person on the new cast is a much better actor that the old cast.  I suppose you can argue that Nimoy is a better Spock (I wouldn't, but you could) -- other than that, there's no question.

[pondwater]

I just gravedug this to find it.  But Pondwater is nuts.  The original cast of Trek can't hold a candle to the new people in terms of how good of actors they are.  Every single person on the new cast is a much better actor that the old cast.  I suppose you can argue that Nimoy is a better Spock (I wouldn't, but you could) -- other than that, there's no question.

Well, we all have our opinions. And you know what they say about opinions. There isn't one single thing about the newer movie that's better than the older one. It's too bad that they have to do all these remakes and reboots.

[Dave Gray]

^Yeah, it's just opinions, but I just greatly disagree.  Don't you think you might just not be open to new things?

The effects are better.  The score is miles better.  The sets are better.

The actors are all people at the top of their games that are able to get leading roles in lots of other projects.  James Doohan is no Simon Pegg.
Zoey Saldana is A-list.  I don't think Nichelle Nichols was ever in anything else.

I don't even know who plays Chekov.    The list goes on and on.

[Fau Teixeira]

It's not a crazy take, TOS was on for a couple of seasons and wasn't even a huge hit. It's not controversial to say that Chris pine is a better Kirk, It would be like saying that christian bale was a better batman than adam west. I don't think that's controversial at all.