Sometime a cigar ....

I recently dropped over Michael Medved's page to catch his review of the recent Star Trek movie. Seems a guest reviewer did the actual review, but the comments quickly turned into a fracas over whether or not the movie was intended as an attack on George Bush and his War on Terror. My opinion of  course is that Into Darkness is a shameless attack on the policies of Millard Philmore. (Just in case your mind is hopelessly mired in political thinking, This is Intended as a Joke. I voted for Thomas Jefferson only because George wasn't on the ballot)

Some movies are intended as political commentary and sometimes it is just entertainment. More often, what you see depends upon what you bring in the theater. Maybe it is just me, but I would rather enjoy a good movie than indulge in political argument. I always thought anyway the Star Trek expressed the hope that Mankind would someday grow out of its childish aggressive nature. Your mileage may vary however.

Star Trek: Into Darkness (comment only, no spoilers)

It is hard to know how to review a movie like this. Technically, the movie is close to flawless, except for a little cannibalism of a previous (and far superior) movie. (I am assuming to please the fanboys) . Yet I am wondering why they didn't get Bruce Willis for the lead and call it Die Hard: Warp Six, or maybe The Bourne Federation. Oh I know: Kill Roddenberry Pt 2. Its not Star Trek.

If what you are looking for is dark themes and gritty action, this movie has it. If what you are looking for are things that made Trek a phenomenon, even Nemesis would be a better choice.