May 16th, 2013
05:30 PM ET
"Star Trek Into Darkness" has already grossed $3.3 million after Wednesday night and midnight showings, putting it on a path to potentially rake in $100 million by Monday.
Reviews for the film, however, might not help sell tickets for those who are on the fence.
Directed by J.J. Abrams, the follow-up to 2009's "Star Trek" sees Zachary Quinto (Spock), Chris Pine (Captain Kirk), Zoe Saldana (Uhura) and more back on the Enterprise as they hunt down Benedict Cumberbatch's villainous John Harrison, who claims responsibility for a devastating attack on Earth.
Abrams' "Star Trek" was widely praised, perhaps so much so that his own work set the bar a little too high for his next effort. A number of critics complained that "Into Darkness," while it pushed all of the right buttons, still had something missing. That left many falling into two camps: the unsatisfied, and the thrilled.
In the former category, reviewers walked away from Abrams' "Into Darkness" wanting more:
The New York Times: "[I]t’s hard to emerge from 'Into Darkness' without a feeling of disappointment, even betrayal. ... [I]n his pursuit of blockbuster currency, Mr. Abrams has sacrificed a lot of its idiosyncrasy and, worse, the large-spirited humanism that sustained it. ... 'Star Trek Into Darkness' does not quite stand by itself as a satisfying movie, but then again it doesn’t need to. It is the leg of a journey that has, remarkably, lasted for nearly half a century."
The Hollywood Reporter: "[I]t efficiently delivers what it's built to do, but without style or personality. ... Abrams works in a narrower, less imaginative mode here ... One feels the dedication of a young musician at a recital determined not to make any mistakes, but there's no hint of creative interpretation, personal feelings or the spreading of artistic wings."
Salon: "This is a brawny, mass-audience, popcorn-transmission vehicle ... There’s absolutely nothing wrong with 'Star Trek Into Darkness' – once you understand it as a generic comic-book-style summer flick faintly inspired by some half-forgotten boomer culture thing."
But there were others who found the director's sequel thrilling, and worthy of a summer blockbuster crown:
Entertainment Weekly: "'Into Darkness' is a sleek, thrilling epic that's also a triumphantly witty popcorn morality play. It's everything you could want in a 'Star Trek' movie.
The Washington Post: "[T]he best parts of 'Star Trek Into Darkness' are purely escapist and sensory ... [it] banishes, at least for the moment, the lugubrious mood and sepulchral look that too many comic-book movies mistake for sophistication. All hail an action film that isn’t ashamed to have fun and to be seen doing it, in the dazzling light of day."
Variety: ""Into Darkness' may not boldly go where no 'Trek' adventure has gone before, but getting there is such a well-crafted, immensely pleasurable ride that it would be positively Vulcan to nitpick."
If you've seen "Star Trek Into Darkness," what's your verdict?
About this blog
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.