Film Flare

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/34

Evening everyone.

I've only seen one film this week that I've not seen before, and it's proper unusual.

 

The Skin I Live In (2011)

Directed by legendary Spanish director Pedro Almodovar, this film was fantastic to watch for several reasons. Firstly, it is quite different in tone to any other Almodovar film I've seen so far. Secondly, it cements in my mind Antonio Banderas as a brilliant dramatic lead rather than a brilliant action lead as he appears in Desperado. Thirdly, it's creepier than Creepy the creepy crawly creeping over a wall of creeps.

Firstly, the similarities I assumed it shared with french film Les Yeux Sans Visage based on the use of skin and masks are thankfully absent.

 

Instead the film tells a story full of the typical intense character drama you'd come to expect from Almodovar film. The families broken by tragedy and the study of gender and transgender roles comes through in this film. Antonio Banderas is almost as good as someone like Cary Grant in a Hitchcock role or Sean Connery as James Bond, it's a suave and cool performance but with a dangerous edge and a chilling level of determination. The plot is such that I don't want to reveal too many details but needless to say, there are twists I didn't see coming.

Apart from Antonio Banderas, the other cast member who really stands out is Elena Anaya as Vera. Apart from a stunning beauty, there is an understated physicality to the role I almost didn't notice until more of the plot had been revealed. It's a stunningly played role that really brings out a strength of character with very little dialogue.

It's here also that Almodovar's brilliant direction also comes through. The film looks amazing, the scenes have a brilliant mix of cold metals and plastic whilst filling several scenes with intense and searing colour. The character of Vera is shot to look like some kind of mannequin which really adds to the character in many ways. Again, there is fantastic direction with several scenes which give Antonio Banderas a genuine menace and create a superior sense of tension. The film is also without doubt a thriller, I would argue a psychological thriller because much of the tension and suspense is created through simply exploring the minds of the characters and once you see how driven they are, the disturbing actions seem plausible. It's quite a horrific film in places but without a single scare in the film, it's just tension and atmosphere.

 

I thought it was one of those rare films that seek to unsettle you rather than have you leaping behind the sofa. It does this admirably.

 

Trailer:

  

Rush Film review

Hello everyone.

I saw Rush. Here is what I thought about it.

 

 

I thought it was really good.

I had little interest in Formula 1 but the winning strength of the film is that the Formula 1 aspect of it doesn't really play a huge part. It is an important part of the story because of the danger, the thrill and the politics that takes place in the film but the core of the film lies in the rivalry between two men, both very different.

There is some archival footage of James Hunt and Niki Lauda played right towards the end of the film and suddenly you are made aware of how similar the actors look to their real life counterparts. Daniel Bruhl is the real revelation here because I've not seen him in a leading role much before and he utterly nails the mannerisms and character. Niki Lauda comes across as a hugely driven, arrogant and talented man who manages to cross paths with so many people. It's testament to the well written script that his character isn't too unpleasant to put the viewers off. Chris Hemsworth has an easier job because James Hunt is the classic playboy with the heart type character. He doesn't need to try too hard to make himself the funnier, more laid back and easy to love of the two characters. 

 

The central story of the film is the 1976 Formula 1 season and the culmination of the rivalry between the two drivers. The film itself covers a far longer period of how they both meets and the frequent clashes the two had on and off the track. I've heard that in real life, the two were far closer friends but the film tends to portray the rivalry as a fierce one. The main scene of the film for me is where a crash occurs (won't say who, don't wiki it either!) and the films really becomes more interesting as the incredible recovery and character of the driver is almost too incredible to believe.

 

The direction is top notch. Ron Howard has a history of nice looking films with Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind and Frost/Nixon. Rush is no exception. Firstly, the film looks fantastic. The authenticity of the 70s is amazing and the vibrant colours of the cars and the racing perfectly offset the slightly more brown world off the track. The racing scenes are also exceptionally well done. They are tense and tight and give off the sense of danger, especially a later race in the rain. The intensity is mainly due to the characters though. The racing scenes are never as 'action packed' as many other race scenes can be but they look painfully realistic, with exceptional detail given to the cars and the pit lanes too.

The script crackles along too at a fair old pace, each character has deep flaws but enough charm, charisma and personality to have the audience rooting for them and not being around to know how the Formula 1 season ended in 1976 meant that the final few races were actually shocking and surprising.

If there is one flaw of the film I had, it was that there was a scene towards the end in an aircraft hanger that just felt a little bit too convenient, that it had to be put in there to have the main character talking one last time before the credits rolled. It wasn't a bad scene at all, but it felt a tiny bit forced.

 

However, the film is a thrilling character study of a very interesting season of a very interesting sport. The racing scenes are incredibly well done but naturally play second fiddle to Daniel Bruhl and Chris Hemsworth doing really good work at playing their characters with a great script with great direction.

 

Great!

Trailer (complete with dubstep!):

 

  

I'm back

Good evening everyone.

 

It's been an almighty age since my last entry (Film Noir I believe). There are reasons for that, but none that are printable so I shall simply say that I'm sorry for the delay but it's all back and dandy from now on.

So this week, you should be expecting my piece on the Hayes Code (fucking finally!!!), my review of Rush and a mid-to-late week FFFD entry from other films I've seen.

 

See you then.

 

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa review

A charmingly rubbish 13 days after seeing this film, it's finally time for my Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa review.

"Waterway to have a good time. Cheers!"

 

 

I was expecting for this to be THE most awkward film ever. Like watching 90 minutes of David Brent from The Office. It is not, mercifully. The film has it's awkward moments but the reason it never quite reaches the wince-inducing heights of I'm Alan Partridge or Knowing Me, Knowing You is that it treats the character of Alan Partridge differently.

 

Unlike the desperate television shows (and to a lesser extent Mid-Morning Matters), the film doesn't treat Alan as a victim. In the shows, bad things happen to him and it's his attitude and reaction against the face of everything going wrong that is so painful to watch at times. The film actually treats Alan with much more respect. Yes, he's an aged, out of date radio DJ working for North Norfolk Digital but the film gives him opportunities for heroism, redemption and fame.

 

I would strongly argue that this is one of the main reasons that the film is no where near as cringeworthy as the televisions shows that feature Alan Partridge. In fact, apart from a few scenes where it gets a little awkward, the film is entirely watchable. It's a really good film.

 

First and foremost, it is funny. Really, really funny. The character of Alan Partridge has been around for so long that it's hard to imagine any further comedic situations are possible with him. And yet, his most recent outings, whether Mid Morning Matters, I Partridge (We Need to Talk about Alan) or Welcome to the Places of My Life show that the character has hit a stride.

And the film continues with a rich, varied and very sharp sense of humour. The humour is distinctly Alan Partridge and yet it is just funny. His mannerisms, his sense of humour, his view of people and world inbue this film not only with a great sense of comedy, but also act as to further open up the character himself. The other cast besides Coogan as Partridge are great also, it's nice to see Felicity Montagu as Lynn Benfield, Simon Greenall as Michael the Geordie, Tim Key as Sidekick Simon and Phil Cornwell as Dave Clifton come back from either I'm Alan Partridge or Mid Morning Matters. It's nice and grounding to his back catalogue to have characters back from his past and well placed within the film. The new main addition is that of Colm Meaney as also over-the-hill radio DJ Pat, the film's antagonist. His character provides a nice foil against Alan's character, as well as a level of further emotional involvement and a small level of unhinged menace. It's a great role that isn't played too hard for comedy whilst also not being serious and dangerous enough to go against the overall tone of the film. 

 

It's also a charmingly British, a small, unimportant piece of small city adventure. There's armed police and chases and a seige and hostages and guns and fights and yet it's just silly in so many ways. It's a really nice, small story. It all makes sense and several points of the film also remain surprising and really very funny.

I very much enjoyed this and look forward to seeing it again.

 

Trailer:

  

 

 

2 Guns Review

 

Well this was a surprise.

After being grabbed by the trailer and its use of the really, really good Ed Sheeran/Devlin version of All Along The Watchtower, I had an urge to go see this film.

 

And I was expecting something mediocre, not great. A standard action comedy film.

And I was surprised.

 

This film was a tightly made, stylish action film. It's also really funny, mainly thanks to both a crackling script by Blake Masters and the superb interaction between stars Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington.

The film is by no means perfect though, let's start with a negatives.

 

The plot:

The twisty, turny, everyone could be a villain type film has been done before and it's been done better. It's no shock to learn that the action comes before the plot of this film. Whilst it does make sense, it's hard to keep track of as the film moves at a whip crack pace.

 

Original Ideas:

The film doesn't tread any new ground or try to bring anything new to the genre. The action/crime film is a well worn one and this film could cynically be seen as simply throwing together a crazy white guy (Walhberg) and a smooth black guy (Washington) like many films (e.g Lethal Weapon) have done before.

 

The females:

I like Paula Patton. I really do. She's capable of being not only a good actress but a great female action star (see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol for point 2). In this film however, she is given surprisingly little to do. Her character appears in a lot of scenes and she has quite a few lines but the character never has any weight behind her. She's there as almost nothing other than a plot device rather than a fleshed out character.

 

But those are literally the only complaints I can raise against this film. The rest of the review is waxing fantastic about the great points of the film, which far outnumber the negatives.

 

The script:

It's super slick.  The dialogue between the two leads is some of the best I've heard for ages. It crackles along, aided by the great acting which I'll move onto shortly. Besides the two leads, the male peripheral characters are great too. I've never seen Bill Paxton do menacing so well, seriously. His character has a single mindedness and a methodology which seems brutally at odds with the comedic side of the film. Edward James Olmos brings a lot more to a thinly written character than you would expect, his character has a weary, exhausted edge to him. James Marsden is also great as a slimy navy officer.

 

The lead actors:

Wahberg and Denzel have such good fun together and the film pushes hard to get as much fun and comedy out of the two of them as possible as there isn't much comedy found anywhere else in the film. They work so well off each other that you really want to see them partner up in another film.

 

The feel:

The film feels great. The action is wonderfully shot, not quite as poetic or balletic as John Woo or Antoine Fuqua but it's incredible to watch. The action scenes have a gritty nature behind the flashy look which means that it's not all slow motion gunplay without the threat to make you care.

The film looks great as well. The scenes in Mexico in particular almost make you rub the back of your neck. It looks so dry, dusty, prickly. It's really quite well done. The colours in the film are very brown, grey or gold, there's very little bright colour in the film. 

 

I've heard reviews saying the film is jarringly violent. 

The film is violent, yes. There is a moderate level of gruesome violence on the screen which is at odds with the comedy/action side of the film but it's never 'too much' violence, usually in short, sharp jabs. It never lingers. To the credit of the film makers, the film straddles the line quite well. I laughed so hard at a lot of the screen and winced at others and never once did I feel it had gone too far comedy or too far violence. 

 

I really liked this film. I wasn't expecting much and I got much more than I thought I would.

 

Trailer:

 

 

The World's End review (No spoilers)

Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright set our screens on fire back in 1999 with lo-budget super comedy program Spaced. Two seasons of that comedy gold later and we had to wait until 2004 for the release of seminal horror/comedy/romantic/zombie film Shaun of the Dead. Soon this was followed up by the second film Hot Fuzz, released in 2007. 

The two films shared many cast members, director and producer Nina Park (who also helped produce Spaced). During promotions for Hot Fuzz, it was pointed out that Shaun of the Dead featured a strawberry Cornetto (to signify the blood) and Hot Fuzz had a blue original cornetto, mirroring the blue of the police. So the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy was born.

 

So we now have the final part. Mint Cornetto (green to signify aliens) aka, The World's End.

 

 

This is a funny film.

The question on (almost) everyone's lips is how it compares with Shaun and Hot Fuzz and I'll get onto that shortly. But first:

The film is a really quick, funny, action packed science fiction film that throws in a healthy amount of social satire. The main cast of Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Paddy Considine (who I last saw in grim, revenge-a-thon Dead Man's Shoes) and Eddie Marsan (who I last saw being creepy as all hell in grim film, Tyrannosaur) are all excellent and are very good to playing seperate roles within the group. Eddie Marsan in particular has some really good scenes and stands out here.

The character played by Simon Pegg is one of the reasons why I don't find the film as funny as Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead, but instead more tragic. In Shaun and Fuzz, his character is flawed but lovable, capable of growing and redemption. In The World's End, he is just pathetic. And instead of the film really breaking this character down, it kind of celebrates in his stupidity. He does have a lovable, emotional side which comes out every now and then but it's much harder to see this because the character is such a tit. However, it does show off actually how capable Simon Pegg is at being an actor beyond comedic roles. If you remove the jokes from the script, the character would be a truly tragic figure and Simon Pegg plays it very well.

Certainly the film has plenty of action, really good action. Mostly involving pubs. The robots as the villains  are fantastic and creepy until the explanation for them being there is explained. It's just not as robust as even the solution to the murders in Hot Fuzz. 

Edgar Wright's direction is on the ball for this film. Employing some of the camera techniques and music used waaaaay back in Spaced made me smile so much, but it's clear he's grown as a director, both from directing Shaun and H.F (Hot Fuzz, durr!) as well as Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. The film has a fantastic look to it, a great feel and whilst there is CGI, it's never for the sake of gratuity. The films deftly handles both quieter moments and the louder, faster, more action packed scenes and on a personal level, it'll be super hot seeing Edgar Wright and his direction of the upcoming Ant Man film.

I really liked this film. But for me, it didn't quite stand up to the insanely brilliant Shaun of the Dead and almost as brilliant Hot Fuzz. It's a worthy end to one of the most genre spanning trilogies of recent times. By the time the credits roll, you'll feel super satisfied. Again, on a personal note, I heavily appreciated the use of Sisters of Mercy "This Corrosion" in the film.

 

Trailer:

 

Pacific Rim review

As the Film Diary entry on Monday may have suggested, I am a big fan of Guillermo Del Toro and pretty much every film he has made. 

However, his most recently released film, Pacific Rim, is about huge robots fighting monsters....and that's about it. Whilst the reviews have actually been pretty good, the general consensus I've heard is that it's major grade bollocks for twelve year old boys. So I decided to take my twelve year old self down to the cinemateque to find out for myself.

 

Here's what I found:

 

 

This was an interesting film.

Interesting because I could see so many influences from other films and genres present. You have noticeable nods to anime, godzilla, Top Gun, Transformers, previous Del Toro films and huge blockbuster films like Independance Day and War of the World.

And it was a good, fun film.

I was expecting a bright, colourful action film with minimal story and pathetic characters. Instead, what I got was a bright, colourful, epic action film with minimal story and reasonable characters.

 

First of all, the colour palette. 

It looks incredible, the deepest blues, the neon of Hong Kong, the lighting. All incredible. The scenes indoors in Hong Kong reminded me most of Hellboy 2 with the oranges and reds present. The film looks like live action Manga and that works to the film's advantage because it keeps everything from becoming too dour, somber and moody. 

 

Akira: Tokyo

 

Pacific Rim: Hong Kong

 

And aside from the colour palette, the other huge nod to Del Toro's back catalogue is the design of the Kaiju themselves. Looking much like steroid pumped Hellboy rejections, these monsters are huge, varied, capable of massive destruction and provide perfect opponents to the man made Jaegers.

And the Jaegers themselves are hugely impressive feats of CGI. Constantly reminding us of the sheer, implausible scale of the them is a consistent joy whilst watching the film and each of the few that appear on screen are varied and recognisable. 

 

When the action does start, it is massive. Hugely impressive but there are some points I really want to make about the action scenes and it directly contradicts the action scenes in Man of Steel, because they're pretty similar in terms of scope and collateral damage.

Firstly, Del Toro makes an effort to show the streets and worlds emptied of people before the Kaiju go apeshit on land. They're all in shelters and so when the Jaeger and the Kaiju fight and buildings are going over and entire areas are getting destroyed, there's no mass killing of people. In Man of Steel, everyone is caught up the catastrophe and you assume that the death toll must be in the hundreds of thousands.

Secondly, when Superman and Zod smash the hell out of each other, there's no threat, no danger. It's just punch, punch, fly through building, smash into the ground. Boom Boom Boom without any sense that they're doing any damage to each other. In Pacific Rim, the pilots gets battered around, cut up, bloodied. They're in danger! It's a small point but it makes the fights in Pacific Rim much more gripping and intense.

 

 

And this partially works because of the characters and the cast. They're not original, hugely complex and most of them are little more than decoration but they serve their purpose and some actually stand out as being good fun. Idris Elba is pretty damn good as the gruff, mysterious commanding office. Charlie Hunnam is fine as the washed up pilot given a second chance. Rinko Kikuchi is great as the potential love interest. They're not new takes on original characters but they're done well here. 

So it is left to the story to fall flat. The whole 'mind drifting' idea was clearing created as a potentially novel way to introduce character drama and interaction between characters but the whole idea never quite hits, despite the pseudo-scientific jargon around the idea. And the whole reason for the Kaiju being there is underwhelming for sure, them being there provides the conflict but the explanation is weak. There are also pretty big plot holes and stupid decisions that get made by the characters don't ruin the film, but it's certainly no where near as clever as it means to be.

 

All in all. I got what I expected. It's like Del Toro looked at Transformers and Godzilla and thought "Hey, I can do better than that." and he did better than them.

Good fun.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

World War Z review (no braaaaaiinnnnssssss!)

I mean no spoilers. Of course. No spoilers.

Here we go...

 

 

After a convoluted production, the film based on the Max Brooks novel of the same has finally hit the screen. In true Film Flare style, I've seen the film a few weeks after release and most the reviews have already hit the web.

Time to weigh in with my thoughts.

 

I really liked this film.

It was the perfect mix of intimate intensity, emotion and absolute, terrifying spectacle.

 

Directed by Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace, Monster's Ball), and starring Brad Pitt, the film deals with a zombie outbreak on a global scale and the attempts to find the source and cure.

Certainly, the film is barely ten minutes young when it all kicks off. We're quickly introduced to Gerry Lane (Pitt), his wife (Mireille Enos) and their children and then the outbreak begins. Certainly the difference between this film and almost any other zombie film preceding it is scale. It is a LARGE scale film, the CGI is used incredibly effectively for portraying thousands of zombies at a time.

It is this that creates the intensity. The sheer numbers and volume of the zombies overwhelm and the film certainly has fun with the large scale scenes and the behaviour of these creatures. There are a few times where the sheer scale of the events on the screen is awesome in the very literal sense of the word, you are in awe. 

 

This scale is impressive on a technical level but it's even more impressive that Marc Forster, Brad Pitt and scriptwriters (initially J. Michael Straczynski, then later Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof for re-writes) manage to find the human story and relationships amid all the mayhem. Certainly the supporting cast provide compelling roles, special mention must be made to Daniella Kertesz as an Israeli soldier.

 

The humanity of the story helps to fuel the tension for the other kind of 'zombie' scenes, which are the quieter, scarier type of scenes which don't feature as many zombies. Is it here that the pacing (and scale) are dimmed down hugely. The film doesn't stop to a halt, but the tone of the third half of the film is certainly slower than the rest of the film. Apparently, it was here that the rewrites and re-shooting had their main impact on the film. It's a noticeable shift in the overall tone of the film which actually is quite welcome for one main reason.

 

There is no way they could have gone bigger than scenes earlier in the film. They don't try to outdo the earlier scenes in scale or number of zombies present, instead, it shifts the tension much more to the characters and I found it works. I could imagine that people could have disappointed with the lack of 'bang' at the end of the film but for me, it worked. 

The film has a few really nice touches in there as well, nice actions the characters take that seem very honest and real as well as you hear about some countries reactions to the outbreak which make sense.

 

Now, it is most certainly true to say that the film differs from the book. That is a fact. The book deals with World War Z as a series of interviews from people important to the event itself, separate narratives and so on. The film has a single narrative path, beginning, middle, end, and only really following Gerry Lane throughout the events. However, I found the film to be a superior zombie film as well as a stunning (and intense) action picture.

The point was also made afterwards that whilst it has scary moments and is very intense, it is light on actual gore. Certainly the usual zombie cliche of some guy graphically getting eaten alive is not present. The film certainly isn't a 15 for explicit violence but the general tone of the film is not only intense, but pretty bleak too(I don't often mention the film's rating in my reviews btw).

 

Anyway, really enjoyed the film. Would easily watch again.

 

Trailer:

 

 

Man of Steel review (no spoilers)

Well here it is at last, the most eagerly anticipated superhero film since Iron Man 3. Man of Steel has an awful lot riding on it. The revival of a stale film series (Superman Returns anyone?), the potential to spearhead a series of DC licensed films culminating in a Justice League film, or, 'doing a Marvel' as it should be called. 

So, after a snowballing advertising campaign, it's finally time to spit out all of the hype and see if the film is any good.

 

 

It almost breaks my heart saying this but I was....disappointed in this film.

I think it's the best Superman film I've seen so far and quite possibly the best the film could be but the weaknesses of the film aren't belonging to the director, or cast, but to the character itself.

 

I was hoping, based on the trailers, that they would explore the emotional frailty of the character and present a new, Nolan/Goyer-esque unravelling of Kal El, to give him some emotional grounding. They don't really, there are several flashbacks to his youth and his difficulties growing up which provide many of the best scenes of the film but once he dons the famous cape and the action really starts, the film has nothing new to offer other than really, really good CGI and an epic scale which earlier film couldn't realistically create.

 

The cast is a varied bunch, Henry Cavill provides a physical presence and is actually very capable in the role. Amy Adams as Lois Lane, not so much. If she's a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, then I'm Vladimir Putin's favourite hunting rifle. Laurence Fishburne is really quite good in a small role as Perry White and Ayelet Zurer provides a nice evil henchwoman to the General Zod antagonist.

And whilst we're on the topic of General Zod, it must be mentioned that is a really, really good villain. His portrayal by Michael Shannon is intimidating, honest and nuanced in ways you wouldn't have expected it to be. His character is easily one of the more outstanding parts of the film. The other standout character for me is Kevin Costner, the 'earthly' father rather than the smug, superior Jor El (Russell Crowe). Costner's Johnathan Kent is the main reason the 'young Superman' scenes work so well, providing an honest and human voice.

 

But as I mentioned earlier, once the costume is on (no red pants on the outside anymore), the non-stop action really begins. It's visually stunning but lacks force or threat. It's like watching the fight scene between Neo and Agent Smith towards the end of Matrix Revolutions, in the sense that there's a lot of impressive effects, being thrown about the place and loads of collateral damage but very little honest threat or drama. Having these super being fight each other and throwing themselves hundreds of yards, or destroying buildings all over the place is very impressive to watch, but it just underwhelms in almost every other respect.

 

I think it's the weaknesses of the character that let me down, Superman is just not interesting. The secondary cast is interesting (Zod, father Kent, etc) but Superman himself, even when shown his moral turmoil as a youth, is just very one dimensional. There's none of the lovable rogue of Tony Stark, or the moral darkness of Batman. Even goody two shoes Captain America has an honest appeal to him, a humanity. But Superman isn't human and his powers are godly.

The other oddity about the film is the universe that's been created for other DC heroes to fill. There's other planets, super beings and absurd technologies. How's a hero like Batman (Nolan/Goyer Dark Knight type Batman) going to have any real impact in a world like that? The answer would be a re-introduction, a new actor, having the character reinvented into this universe with new toys, tricks and powers. 

 

When leaving the cinema, we heard another patron say "The film would have been good if Joss Whedon had directed it." 

Whilst harsh on the visual genius of Zack Synder, it does highlight just how Marvel still have a large advantage in the cinema stakes. Even Gods in the Marvel films have very human flaws, something that Superman for one finds hard to replicate. 

 

Despite the last 500 words saying otherwise, I didn't dislike the film. I was just hoping for so much more. I was hoping that the film would bypass the flaws of the character and deliver an emotionally engaging Superman. Instead, you get an emotionally engaging young Clark Kent and then forty five minutes of CGI cities falling apart.

It's also painfully unfunny. Seriously. They try to put some jokes in there that are so flat, so badly timed. They'd be funny if Joss Whedon had directed it.

 

Trailer

  

 

 

Star Trek Into Darkness review (no spoilers)

 

This is a good film.

It is a very good film.

I really, really liked this film.

 

Fear not, the whole review will not simply be variants of that single statement, I just wanted to start out with that news which I am happy to report.

 

 

After the successes of the first film in the 'rebooting' of the beloved franchise which worked primarily as a litmus test for the characters and tone of the film, the second film is altogether more confident in the world and characters it presents. The plot also makes a whole heap more sense than the time-travel, black hole malarky of the first film.

So, we know already they got Captain Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Chekov (Alton Yelchin) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) as characters sorted. So they look to expanding the roles of others characters and the introduction of new ones, with varying success. Some of the new characters do not appear much but that is mainly because a large proportion of the film is aimed towards the relationship between Kirk and Spock after the groundwork set by the first film.

 

Despite the title and the advertising campaign suggesting the pitch black tone of the film, this is still a bright and funny sci-fi film. They've nailed a sense of humour with Scotty and Bones. There are action scenes a-plenty and whilst the film does have a reasonably long running time (133 minutes), the time never drags. In fact, with all the journeys off to new places and sticky situations the crew find themselves in, the film is never less than moving at a fast pace. 

 

Now, it's not perfect. There are a few plot holes here and there and one particular thing you could see coming from a mile away but it cannot detract from the fact that they have taken the best points from the first film (adventurous tone and characters) and built a better film on top of them. Oh, and Benedict Cumberbatch is awesome! I think he's super good in this.

Oh, and I'm not a die hard trekkie, but I know my way around a little and I found some lovely little touches in the film.

 

Watch it!

 

Trailer: