Review this movie
May 17, 20134I'm a big fan of the original 'reboot' and I expected this to be a pretty decent sequel. Massive disappointment. The 'plot' is unintelligible and seriously lacking. Effects and CG is okay but nothing we haven't seen before. Overall, Into Darkness is uninvolving and uninteresting.
May 18, 201310As a big Trek fan, I truly enjoyed this alternate timeline's second installment. There was never a slow moment. I was certainly surprised by several developments but ultimately a very satisfying experience. I look forward to more adventures with this crew.
May 16, 20133If you're a fan of past Star Trek movies and TV series, save yourself $11. Instead, (re)rent Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan. Abrams' re-imagining lacks any of the philosophical and ethical dilemmas of earlier Star Trek, or the clever battle of the wits between Kirk and his nemesis. Instead you have many characters who act in ways very different from the philosophy of Starfleet, unnecessarily (and poorly) reimagined species like the Klingons, inexplicable plot points, excessive fight scenes, and way too many lens flares. The intriguing backstory of the villain explored in earlier Trek is glossed over here resulting in a two dimensional baddie, despite Benedict Cumberbatch's otherwise excellent acting. If you're looking for an intellectually stimulating space adventure, look elsewhere. If you're looking for over the top action, eye numbing visual effects, and goosestepping-inspired uniforms, then it might be just what you're looking for.… Expand
May 17, 20138When I saw the reviews that were coming in for Star Trek Into Darkness, I rolled my eyes. The first one got good reviews and in my opinion, that movie was a mess. So my expectations were low going into this film; "just another stupid popcorn movie that will sully the name of Star Trek". I was even ready to go get a refund and go watch Iron Man 3 if need be. Boy was I wrong. This outing was thoroughly entertaining, flowed logically (a huge issue with the last film), and even had some good character moments. People also acted like people in this film, and Kirk was less of an idiot this time around and actually grew as a character. Story was pretty solid; some of technical details were off but I can't complain. Reveals were well paced and the action was handled well. There was one moment near the end that had me rolling my eyes and wondering what the hell the writers were thinking (hint: it isn't very original). However, upon reflection it made sense, and the reactions of the characters was believable. Though, one will have to accept that time has passed between this movie and the last, so the non-nonsensical character dynamics in the last film have evolved and been fine tuned into something sane and rational. Also, the main villain has been given a lot more menace and demonstrates why he's a major threat (you'll see what I mean when you watch the film). Overall, 8/10. A lot better than the first.… Expand
May 16, 20135As someone who grew up with star trek, I had some high hopes for this movie, especially considering how enjoyable the reboot was. So imagine my disappointment with a half baked script (with some good ideas) combined with cheesy acting. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were decent, but the rest of the crew seemed like window dressing. I have seen this movie before and it was and still is far superior......
Having said that, I just feel that Trek deserved better.… Expand
May 15, 20139Star Trek Into Darkness isn't just a great movie, but also a great addition to the Star Trek franchise. Along with stunning visuals and somewhat suitable 3D, the audience experiences brilliant acting from all the cast and a villainously brilliant performance by the one and only Benedict Cumberbatch. Since I don't remember much of the first film (which was great), so I cannot really compare the two. But I am sure that this sequel is certainly up there with all the other great films in the franchise. The film does have a couple flaws in it such as being a little predictable at times and even a little cheesy. Star Trek Into Darkness is a massive event film that fans with surely enjoy and audiences with surely love.… Expand
May 15, 201310First Star Trek from JJ was rather good, but obviously not perfect.
After a series of rather obscure trailers, and really strange posters, I've expected to be worse, or even not Star Trek at all.
And I'm so happy to be absolutely wrong!
Its intense, beautiful, a lot of action and explosions, but has a lot of character development (new Kirk is now my favorite one! seriously, better than Shatner!), and a great plot with lots of skilfully placed Trek references.
A very good Star Trek movie. Maybe the best.… Expand
May 15, 20132I did not like the movie. It was ordinary, nothing special. The visual effects you can find them everywhere now, and I guess that was what the director was hoping to catch public's eye on. The only thing I enjoyed evil "Sherlock" in perfect performance of Benedict Cumberbatch. Add +2
May 15, 20138I suppose it’s only logical that after the success of the “Star Trek” reboot, back in 2009, we see a sequel to it enter “Star Trek: Into Darkness” a bigger and bolder sequel, but does that guarantee success?
Like the movie’s predecessor it follows the adventures of Kirk and Spock. The movie starts off pretty fast with Kirk and Spock already on a mission on primitive alien planet. After anet. After the mission Kirk is relieved from duty and at the same time John Harrison, the movie’s main bad guy, blows up a Starfleet library this kicks in the movie’s main plot and this is where I’ll stop, because that would mean to go into spoiler territory.
I wouldn’t call the plot mind-blowing, because it doesn’t reinvent the formula if you’ve seen movies like “The Dark Knight Rises” or “Iron Man 3” you’ll find a handful of similarities here. Though, the plot does have a few nice moments taken from the original films which would make a fan smile.
The part which “Star Trek: Into Darkness” nails are the characters, for the most part at least. Chris Pine feels like a different Kirk by having to face the fact that people can die during his mission and that there won’t be anything he can do to save them. Zachary Quinto is also a different Spock due to his relationship with Uhura. Though, the standout performance here is from Benedict Cumberbatch. His character (“John Harrison”) is the thing that was missing from the previous film a strong main antagonist. Despite being a quiet dreadful villain he still has his moments of sympathy where you feel sorry for him.
I think J.J.Abrams’s work should be also noted here. It was really nice seeing all the big and small nods to the original films and also it seemed as if the lens flares were toned down this time around. Good work Abrams.
One thing that I sort of didn’t like was the ending. At one point it felt that the movie would actually have the balls to do something that big, but “nope”, said the movie 10 minutes later and pulled a “Bruce Wayne”. Another (smaller) thing that I didn’t like, was the lack of depth which the older "Star Trek" movies had.
To sum things up, “Star Trek: Into Darkness” isn’t only a great sequel, but also a great standalone film, because you don’t necessarily need to have seen the previous movie to enjoy this one.… Expand
May 15, 20135The trailers & title for the film made it out to be far more epic and grad then it actually was, if your after a action space movie then this is for you, but if your after a film with a bit more depth to it (i.e a story) then this film is not for you.
May 16, 20135'How do you choose not to feel' kirk. 'I dont know but right now im failing' -spock. Watching that for the 2nd time made me crack up laughing!
POPCORN MOVIE PURE AND SIMPLE! Old school Star Trek fans like me maybe feeling let down and jilted over this movie. I personally feel quiet angry Star Trek was not brought back to the TV medium as it would be better suited.
Turning Star Trek into* generic Sci-Fi for all its feelings and emotions cheapens the effort in comparison.
And yes! I know Star Trek on the TV is far from perfect, however what it makes up for in bucket loads is vision.
As for the movie its got emotion and feeling in droves. I found the actors emotions conveyed even in there eyes. All the actors had that look into my eyes moment, I didnt mind it.
Pacing suffered quiet a bit but I felt that was down to Damon Lindelof compulsion to answer everything and give a bit too much scope.
I didn't like a few of the short cuts made in the film but again that boils down to vision and my
previous comments about lack there of TV medium, not to mention the TV series were always guilty of the same short cuts but its 2013 It can be done better.
Benedict Cumberbatch was overall great in this movie lacked a bit of added ommpth but guess what boils down to the same TV vs Blockbuster movies.
Peter Weller was a fairly strong character in this movie I especially liked his lines and vocal performance.
People will feel one of the last scenes was cheap, I saw it as a parallel, one I found a bit too funny the 2nd time watching the movie.
"how do you choose not to feel" -k "i dont know right now i am failing" -s hahahahahaha
I'm conflicted about this movie.… Expand
May 15, 20134This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film was all over the place, and not in a good way. There's not a single interesting moral or philosophical idea or crisis to be found in its entire plodding run time. It felt like four stretched-out episodes of an artless TV series with the budget of BSG, until screenwriters Lindelof, Kurtzman, and Orci ran out of ideas and decided to spend half the movie remaking (one of) the most beloved of Trek films without having earned any of its heart or soul.
Spock x Uhura falls flat this time around; their romance could have been so much more interesting than the bickering taking place onscreen. Pegg's Scotty is great, but Urban's Bones, Cho's Sulu, and Yelchin's Chekhov (all fantastically cast in the first outing) don't have enough to do. For all the Sherlock fangirls out there, Cumberbatch's talents are sadly wasted. We never get enough of his motivations, but then when his exposition dump rolls around, anyone who's seen the Trek film this material was based upon can guess how the rest of the film will play out. It's a far cry from the original, much better portrayal of this character, and the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the film's lazy screenwriters. If the movie gets one thing right it's the bromance between Kirk and Spock Pine and Quinto try their very best. But not even the best performers can polish subpar material. J.J. and his partners in crime clearly don't care enough about this universe (or didn't have the time) to fix numerous plot holes, (i.e. why would all of the top brass need to meet in person with holographic technology? Oh, because it's a plot convenience that allows us to cram more events into a film that has no room to breathe).
The 2009 film (which I also disliked) is better in almost every way. Perhaps most telling is that even Michael Giacchino's score this time around sounds rushed. I have never once before taken a disliking to one of Maestro Giacchino's tracks, but this is not his best stuff here.
Also, the action scenes and even the CGI are not as well filmed as those in the 2009 film.
Sadly, there's no sense of the humanitarian/colonial themes of the original Trek series anywhere. As a character puts it, since the events of the first film Starfleet has become more of a military force, which means stocking the Enterprise with mysterious warheads.
Dear fellow filmmakers, why were you denying the rumors regarding you-know-who? As it turns out, you just knew that once the cat was out of the bag, we'd all see the Emperor's new clothes for what they were. Guess what, screenwriters? You're officially writing AU slash fanfic.
To be perfectly honest, I love Star Trek (my fave is TNG) but Star Wars is closer to my heart. To me it's infuriating to think that these schmucks are going to be in charge of Star Wars now (officially, Michael Arndt's writing the script to that one based on a story by George Lucas, but Abrams will almost certainly have Lindelof advising him.)
PS: Mr. Abrams, I know there is good in you. Get back in gear.… Expand
May 16, 20133Star Trek Into Darkness isn't just a bad movie, it also a poor addition to the Star Trek franchise. Along with over the top visuals and poor 3d, the audience experiences bad acting from all the cast, and a finesse performance by Benedict Cumberpatch. I know the first film by heart, so I know that this film isnt going to make it with the greats of film history. Here's why; The film's emphasis is predictable and cheesy, you will notice this within the first 20 mins, don't be fooled as it attempts to overshadow all the bad plot-lines with great effects, but the effects look the same as everything else now days. And there is a sprinkle of "camp" and "cheese" throughout the film, where every character is generic and resembles more of a comic book. Sex, Visual Effects, Ego is all you will see at the end. Goodbye Star Trek TOS nice knowing you.… Expand
May 16, 20130Not so boldly going where we've already gone before. Dumbed down from a highly intelligent and thoughtful franchise. More cliche characters. Inconsistent with 45 year old characterisation (No, split reality does not excuse everything). Boring plot with "homages" which are word-for-word and judging by the "twist" in the last act JJ Abrams and his writers either think we're stupid or have short term memory loss.… Expand
May 16, 20139Epic is an understatement. Probably one of the best Star Trek movies ever and certainly about the best movie out this year. Superb. Sharp witty dialog, excellent use of past "trekkie" lore, fantastic acting (love Sulu's "scene")... all in all a fantastic ride.
May 17, 20130Absolutely wretched, gone are the movies of the past with complex character and deep plots. Even a well timed cohesive plot with poor character could have out-shined this dud by J.J. Abrams. Prepare to be sidetracked with a special effects bonanza that will surely steer one away from the broken plot and "Nothing new under the Sun" plot.
A Bozo who resembles Khan from the original star trek (also the first Star Trek New movie had a singular "bad guy") Will destroy the federation with his master mind and intelligence. Chaos and forced Drama ensue between main characters in an attempt to prop this proposed script up as a "masterpiece". Im not fooled and no one else should be either. Look closely at how the movie is put together behind the special effects, pay close attention the "Bad Guy" and plotline, and dare tell me its never been done before.… Expand
May 16, 20139I'm more than happy to say that this film in the long-enduring and popular sci-fi franchise is every bit as entertaining and perfect as its predecessor from 2009! Director J.J. Abrams is quickly becoming one of my favorite sci-fi filmmakers! Everything in this film was handled perfectly! The visuals were better than ever! The acting was also superb, as there was once again plenty of humor to many of the characters. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto once again make the perfect duo of heroes! However, I must say that Benedict Cumberbatch's sinister performance was the main highlight! Alice Eve also made a worthwhile addition to the crew. Even the story was really impressive! Despite it borrowing and tweaking a few parts from "Wrath of Kahn", it still turned out not too bad. Overall, I can't say enough good things about this movie! I absolutely loved it! Trekie or not, I think that a lot of people are going to enjoy this movie just as they did with the first one! Bravo J.J. Abrams!… Expand
May 17, 20132Whoa is me! For I do not even have to use my mind these days to bare witness to the shock and flaw that is Hollywood production. Ill make this quick.
In an effort and successful effort to make Gazillions of Star Trek, Abrams has pulled over a special effects masterpiece, glaring visuals, awesome mind numbing explosions, and....well...thats actually about it.
Expect nothing much else, the character plot is essentially the same as the first Stark by Abrams, glaring plot holes that resemble the Greek Version of Tartar-us and there is no hope of escape throughout the movie, the hole is there, makes itself comfortable and will baffle even the highest IQ's on what the scriptwriters were thinking. Spock is no longer Spock, but a Bi-Polar maniac with unbridled lust, Kirk was about the same, and Scotty.....spends his time using "cliché" character dialogue.
I was not impressed and will not bow down for the sake of special effects.… Expand
May 20, 20131Please JJ, if you can't keep your crayon within the borders, don't consider the resulting scribble to be "art". I don't buy your "alternate timeline" bs. You have managed to make a cheap, throwaway version (or two) of "Star Trek", and you are ruining its heritage in the process. Roddenberry must be aghast! Please, JJ, leave Star Trek to people who actually care. What a shame!
May 16, 20137Let's get this straight. I am not a fan of the previous movie in this reimagining/alternative timeline setting.
But this movie? It really is the Wrath of Khan of this series so far. It even seems to be designed that way! And while the plot is a little spartan and predictable, and some of the scenes are hilariously hammy, I enjoyed myself a lot watching this movie. Its just plain enjoyable, on the whole.
Only real downside to this movie (without being a niggling Star Trek nerd that I often am) was some of the scenes were too long. They could have shaved 15 minutes off the movie and it would have been improved either that or replace them with some extra characterisation and plot dialogue. But its not enough to make me really count it against it people love their action scenes after all.
This movie knows when its being silly. I can't imagine some of the actors not bursting into laughter multiple times while attempting their lines one in particular. No spoilers, but when it happens you'll know (even if you're not a diehard Star Trek fan).
All in all, a basic plot that a first seems more complicated then it is, more likeable characters (Kirk especially has dropped most of the childish douchebag he was carrying around during the entire first movie), an actual villian (amazing, I know!) and some acceptable reimaginings to go with this new timeline. You know they did a decent job when a picky Trekkie like myself isn't going on about all the minor plot errors!
Also, please note that my score of 7 is a 'very good' from me. Few movies get more then that. I imagine if I was one to give inflated scores this movie would score an 8 or maybe 9. But I'm honest to my belief that everything can be improved upon so a solid 7 I give it.… Expand
May 17, 20130This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Into Darkness and the 2009 film which preceded it represent much more than simply the abandonment of almost 50 years of meticulously-maintained canon. Instead, something far less tangible and far more devastating has been lost.
What is it about this show that compels people (like me!) to obsess over it? And why is it so difficult to explain to others why it means so much to us? Or why we think that there is something unique and special in Star Trek.
It’s not easy to articulate an answer for that question. I’ve seen many interviews where even the actors who play the characters in the shows have trouble explaining it in a way which really outlines the totality of the premise.
I think the biggest problem is that we currently lack the shorthand language needed to express certain ideas represented by Star Trek at its best to other people in a way which is clear and simple to understand.
Star Trek showed us the world through a very wide angle lens, so we saw much more. I’m not speaking of the physicality of the place, but of the ideas. Star Trek brought us out of the pettiness of our own small daily lives to consider ideas different than those we might normally encounter. After watching at length, one might begin to realize that it’s actually a way of thinking; a different approach to the world.
There is a certain amount of optimism about our ability to solve our own problems together as a species. Because many of our contemporary problems have been solved, there are new problems to face. While they live in a utopia from our present day vantage point, I think the crew of the Enterprise would argue that they face problems all the time theirs is not a perfect world. They do have problems, but theirs are different.
Although Star Trek has fallen short in many ways over the years in presenting this idea. It had seemed that the core thought had managed to survive for a while. It was very clear from very early on what the basic idea was. A good summation about the mission of the show was given in a very early episode by a character named Keeler:
“One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energy maybe even the atom. Energy that could ultimately hurl men to other worlds in some sort of spaceship. And the men that reach out into space will find ways to feed the hungry millions of the world, and to cure their diseases. They’ll be able to find a way to give each man hope and a common future. And those are the days worth living for.”
While very interesting, taken on its own, Keeler’s charter probably didn’t resonate as easily with people as “…to seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before.”
In the 1960s, Keeler’s was a message that you just did not see on television. You had your all-American families, your spy shows, and your mysteries. Science fiction itself was confined to the domain of strange aliens who always seemed hellbent on killing the Earthlings.
Even today, we still haven’t appeared to move much beyond this place in our media. When people think of science fiction, it is seen as either being an action adventure in space or some esoteric about a madman who wants to change the nature of being human or otherwise offend our present day sensibilities.
J.J. Abrams’ understanding of Star Trek appears to fall within these bounds. Gone are the stories about unmasking self-proclaimed gods, or the stories wherein the abandonment of the future’s ideals is seen as a wrong rather than a somehow heroic and necessary evil but not totally evil because our hero is infallible.
His vision of Star Trek is more about some nebulous battle and seemingly unending war between good and evil a theme which seems to resonate well in our culture. It’s a very simplistic message: Our guy (Kirk) is good, the other guy (this time, Khan) is bad.
But Star Trek is about bigger things than this round-robin. Said Gene Roddenberry: “Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.”
We cannot go out into the universe and try to impose our will upon it with the gut certainty of being absolutely right. This will only lead to more conflict and probably our destruction by some far more powerful species.
Star Trek was an appeal to us to look at things as they could be and to ask… why not?… Expand
May 19, 20135J.J. Abrams has achieved his goal of making Star Trek for people who weren't smart enough for the original series there is no science in this fiction and don't think too much about anything anyone says or you will start to ask questions around which the poorly pillaged plot will quickly unravel.
The effects are pretty, no denying it's a great looking film.
I only wish this quality cast had quality scripts to run with, they make a valiant attempt at saving the film from itself, but in the end you have a poorly scripted car chase movie in space.… Expand
May 20, 20135Bad trek, bad science fiction, bad direction, good action.
Adjust your expectations this is a action film that plays lip service to trek by lifting entire scenes and elements from wrath of khan jumbles them up and sprinkles underwear,running around and action on top without understanding or even caring about its source material, plot consistency, physics or even potentially its own future as a film series.
Leaving out the obvious about how the film is made to make a good trailer for a film not a good film, its total rehash of ST2 and going straight in on the lack of consistent use of plot, the film attempts to broaden the scope of the action introducing a room full of captains whose ships are available and are never used even when the finale is unfolding within spitting distance, takes iconic trek tech and continues to bastardise it, like beaming direct from Earth to Qo'nos effectively means that tech will need suppressing for future movies or you won't even require a star fleet if you can beam bombs across the galaxy.
Warp drive continues its unabated exponential speed increases, Janeway would give her left leg to get a hold of it and would have been home in days.
The ship itself continues to get dumber, in addition to engineering in the first film being a death trap in case of emergency decompression now the saucer section is too with internal open spaces riddling the ship existing only to add tension to later scenes, the only logical reaction would be to don your space suit and wear it constantly for fear of sudden death.
Moving away from the fantasy physics of Star Trek to just fantasy physics of film, everything is spread up 1000x for effect and plot tension an object falls unpowered from the moon to earth in minuets anti gravity going offline causes ceilings to become floors while in free fall, even accounting for rotation that's dumb.
That said I am giving it a 6, perfectly watchable dumb action film Scotty is solid, Pike is perfect, sulu gets the biggest character progression of anyone, everyone else retraces their arcs from the first film.
Oh wait a minuet, the plot hook is magic blood, that loses a mark your getting 5 into darkness.… Expand
May 16, 201310I was blown away by not only the intense action and thrills, but also the remarkable storyline with amazing characters. It was packed with emotion much of the essence of Star Trek and contained some incredible twists. It is an extremely good approach to this much loved franchise, as by using an alternate timeline doesn't exploit its own advantages, but allows other people to enjoy it as much and it takes pride in its ability to stretch itself to new levels.
The villain, played by the venerable Benedict Cumberbatch, commanded much attention through his mesmerising baritone voice but also his physicality. When he wasn't in scenes, you could still feel his threatening presence, and when he was, he was spectacularly manipulating and hyper-intelligent. He was cold, calculating and rational, with kick-ass moves and hypnotizingly sympathetic motives with destructive methods. The crew had to so much grow incredibly in order to face up to who could be described as one of the best villains I've ever seen. Delivering the fact that he provides the film aplenty with moral dilemmas, he contributes wit alongside his fellow actors, possibly more, without an overload of special effects and action.
Enthralling as well as thrilling, it is an interesting and extremely entertaining addition to the Star Trek that doesn't lack the essence but puts a new twist on it, it is something I could watch multiple times and still would want more. When a film does that, you know it's good.… Expand
May 16, 20136What made me pay attention to this series, was the perfect blend of what made the original series and early movies so great and the dark undertone to which carried the first movie. How the alternate reality event was so well done it felt entirely plausible within this universe.
The title of the movie felt some what questionable as i believe the original movie was far darker. What separated this film from other mindless Sci-fi action movies out there is the rather ominous performance from Benedict Cumberbatch due to his alluring screen presence, Yet i felt what made the original villain to whom Cumberbatch WAS playing so great was the balance he had with Kirk and Spock. Yet throughout its clear both actors are being heavily out done and it feels more of a cop out than an actual victory in the final moments.
I felt that alot of the secondary characters became simple plot devices rather than interesting, with the overplaying on comedy which removed what little elements of darkness, which made the original so good.
To summarise what made this film good, was exiting action sequences likeable characters and beautiful CGI. The downfalls are unbalanced acting pared with a lack luster script and disappointing ending which felt an insult to what the original film had set up.… Expand
May 16, 20139I sure do like Star Trek and I'm in the camp where I can accept these movies even though they're little more than Star Trek in name.
The movie takes the mythology of the old films and constructs a fun action romp that plays around with fan's expectations. For me, I was happy to see what they did with the characters.Things make sense for the most part, which is surprising because Damon Lindelof had a hand in its writing.
The effects and audio are off the scale so it's hard to find any gripes there. Acting is solid, with the only issue being that some characters are 'one-liner' generators due to the fast pace at which the film moves.
If you liked the Start Trek film from 2009, you will like this one. Into Darkness contains the same positives and negatives as 2009, but with the positives slightly amplified, I would say. Thus, it makes the better picture.… Expand
May 17, 20131Star Trek: Into Darkness, is like walking into subway and getting the most loaded Sub you can possibly imagine, with your hunger about to be satisfied; you walk about to the preparation table only to discover that all the lettuce, meat, and other condiments has been all used up. What's this you ask?
All leaved bread with no substance. Puffed up, without any filler?
Thats what I got when I viewed Star Trek: Into Darkness, I was given plenty of leavened bread...all the presentation of a delicious meal, but everything else was left out. Prepare to leave the theater absolutely craving for a real movie with real purpose.
The Duke… Expand
May 17, 20138This movie had plenty of great action from start to finish. The plot is twisted but once you realize who's who it all falls into place. A lot of great references to past Trek episodes and a plot twist that will make you say WHOA!!!! instead of WHAT??? Best movie of the summer so far.
May 17, 201310Fast paced, exciting, action packed, yet tells a great story that begins the 5 year mission of the original Enterprise crew. True to the characters and the world of Star Trek, this movie is one that can be enjoyed by all (except Trekkers who believe Star Trek is only meant for them). I think this movie is a great way to introduce Star Trek to a new crowd....a much broader crowd that previous movies just didn't do. Thank you JJ Abrams and team for putting together yet another excellent movie.… Expand
May 17, 20131Unmotivated characters, in-cohesive plot, and archaic execution.
JJ Abrams: Okay. The first Star Trek was good. Let's make the second one better!
Studio: Meh. People will still watch anything with your name and the brand of Star Trek attached to it. Just make the film as fast you can so that we can make money.
May 18, 20135This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Good points:
Effects are superb, Pine is excellent as Kirk, CGI is also excellent.
Khan should be ruthless, virtually unbeatable he isn't.
Scotty is a major annoyance esp that accent!
Spock FFS can't believe they actually have him crying that's a major cringe point, this alone managed to detract from what was an entertaining movie.
It's a real pity as I thought this was going to be a hit.… Expand
May 19, 20136This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The downfall from moral tale about a uptopian future continues in this installment. There is not much of Roddenberry's creation left amongst the summer movie popcorn movie making here. The dialogue is never allowed to sink in, Kirk is never in control of anything and continues to be buffeted about by every other character, and the action sequences are all given the same level of intensity and editing. A gentle touch on the shoulder is treated the same as a spaceship spinning out of control. There was no love in this movie. The writers and producers appear either to actively disrespect Star Trek, or they do not care and see this as less of an artistic outing as it is a cash grab. This is a decent summer action movie and nothing more. As far as a Star Trek film, it is a failure.… Expand
May 15, 20138After the success of the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie. I think it was safe to say that there was no way it was going to be as good as the first. But I have to give it to J.J. Abrams, it's just as good as the first one. This sequel's fun, exciting, sexy (at times) and even dark. That just pretty much sums up the storyline of the movie. Its a strong Star Trek movie, and done proudly. As far as acting goes, Benedict Cummberbatch steals the show. I mean, all the other actors are very good, but like the Joker from "The Dark Knight", Khan (Benedict Cummberbatch) is the star of the show. Plus, the visuals help make the movie exciting and alive. The only real problem are the lens flares. That's really the only problem I had with both movies. But I try to put that aside and focus on the movie. I'm just glad they didn't over do it. Overall, it's a sequel that's just as good as the original.… Expand
May 15, 20138This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 'Into Darkness' opens with a visually stunning chase through a blood-red forest, with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) being pursued by spear-throwing aliens, while Spock (Zachary Quinto) lies stranded in an erupting volcano. It's a great start, and the pace seldom drops from this point on. But the real story involves Kirk leading the Enterprise crew in an intergalactic manhunt for mysterious new villain John Harrison (a chilling Benedict Cumberbatch) after he makes a devastating attack on Starfleet.
Expectedly there are some thrilling set-pieces and big explosions, but the film is engaging as much for the squabbling bromance between Kirk and Spock. Abrams knows that a good blockbuster isn't just about spectacle, but also about characters, and he confronts his protagonists with difficult questions about loyalty and death.
I'm going with three-and-a-half out of five for 'Star Trek: Into Darkness'. If you're willing to suspend disbelief, and even embrace the illogical, you'll be rewarded with a film that doesn't bore you even for a minute.… Expand
May 16, 20139What can I say? Good movie, good acting and a good plot for a come back from the past. It was cool because there is a surprise in the movie. For about 8 minutes you get to see one of the original actors in the original series. And no its not the Price Line Guy. But I will give you a hint, Its eary....THINK! I'm not going to spoil the movie. Its serious, dramatic and comical all wrapped up in one good flick. Worth the Price.… Expand
May 16, 20139This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Star Trek Into Darkness has been a long time coming, that anticipation has built up but it satisfies the Trekkie, Sci-Fi fan, and overall moviegoer in me to every extent. Something I loved about the first film was the cast, and they are still glowing as ever in this sequel. The addition of Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain only add to the fantastic chemistry already present in the film. He is dangerous, smart, cunning, and always one step ahead of everyone and even dwarfs the crew of the Enterprise as a force. The movie is unrelenting on action, there's never a slow moment or dull passing. The only real complaint I had was some of the story was a little bit predictable, but it's set up so well I easily forgive that. The biggest thing (here's the only big spoiler) is that it takes so much from Wrath of Khan I felt an essence from that, but a re imagining and homage. I'm not exactly sure if that's what I wanted, but for this generation it's an excellent Star Trek and J.J. Abrams and crew have solidified the characters in their new universe and I want to see them again very very soon.… Expand
May 16, 20137This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Saw an advanced screening of new Star Trek movie last night. Don’t bother with paying extra for 3D…it was about 2D½. Only good 3D was at end. 2/3 of movie was really good but by the last third I was predicting the dialog. Movie was filled with both inside jokes that Trekkers will get right away, and jokes that “new viewers” will enjoy. Loads of action, great sound, same great character interaction, with a new romance added to entice new viewers.
Spoiler Alert: the last third of the movie revealed who they were fighting. The recycling of old story lines has never appealed to me. With the entire universe to travel, you think they could come up some new ideas.… Expand
May 17, 20138If you enjoyed Star Trek (2009), you'll enjoy this film. If you watched and enjoyed the original Star Trek II *and* enjoyed Star Trek (2009), you'll really enjoy this film. If you didn't like Star Trek (2009), don't bother going.
Visuals: 10; Music: 9.5; Character Development: 9; Story: 7, Fun Factor: 8; Total (after weights): 8.3 Will have to round down to 8.
Star Trek Into Darkness has positive themes such as enduring friendship, father/son relationships, and coping with loss.
The character arcs for Kirk and Spock (as well as side characters like Scotty and Sulu) are very good for the movie and the series.
The visuals and music were both top-notch.
There are a couple potential plot holes which I won't get into here, but otherwise, I thought the story was entertaining.
Lastly, for fans of Star Trek II, there is some fan love at places which was a lot of fun.… Expand
May 17, 20139Star Trek Into Darkness may annoy fan boys even more, but at the end of the day, it's the second best Star Trek film after...the reboot in 2009. The older Star Trek movies were never that great; they were usually lower budgeted fare, reaching its nadir in installments such as Star Trek Insurrection, looking more like a TV movie than anything else. Sure, Trekkies eat them all up... I was also a big fan of the Star Trek series, especially TNG, but heck...we fans gave them a lot of leeway in term of their limited production values. Prior to 2009, the Star Trek franchise is dead...its latest big screen outing in 2002 bombed so badly. J.J. Abrams revitalized Star Trek and made it acceptable to the mass audience. Into Darkness also drew the same 'negative' response. A word of caution: don't listen to them. Into Darkness is a great sequel and while it sags a bit in the middle, it resumes its blazing pace in the last hour or so, ending with non stop set pieces and an exciting fistfight with the villain. It does tackle some serious subject, but propels it at such a breakneck pace that you may not notice. At the end of the day though, it feels more like a Star Wars film than any of the prequels. But hey...I am now confident that we'll have a great Star Wars film again in Episode 7 from Abrams.… Expand
May 17, 201310This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When I saw the first reboot Star Trek film I was taken out of the theatre and onto a great adventure. With the second installment I literally felt EXACTLY the same way, I couldn't believe it. While the use of Khan was not the best decision they could have made, I still loved this movie.… Expand
May 17, 20132Full disclosure: of all the Stark Trek chapters whether in books, TV episodes and movies I have only seen 2 of the 6 Star Trek movies. Being fairly new to what has been around for nearly 50 years I hope “Star Trek Into The Darkness” as a stand alone movie doesn’t represent all the previous stories. I felt a lot depended upon being a ‘trekkie’ and knowing what came before.
The current f current film, in spite of the title, has more strobe lights and different colors than any movie I have seen in a long time. Between “Oblivion” and “Iron Man 3” this movie had very poorly executed non-special effects except how San Francisco will look years from now. The fights whether between men or machines were very lame.
The screenplay by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof offered some looks into the human side of all from a possible romance between Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Nyota (Zoe Saldana) if not a bromance between Spock and Kirk (Chris Pine) though I didn’t know who the latter was until later in the film when he is referred to as Captain James T. Kirk and, for whatever reason, I immediately thought of William Shatner.
The standouts were Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain with Simon Pegg as Scotty offering the only laughs along the way. Whether the rest of the cast were satisfactory to Trekkies I didn’t have any problems with John Cho, Alice Eve, Bruce Greenwood, Peter Weller or any of the other actors.
A new director and other screenwriters would bring a lot more to the sequel than those involved with this did. With many more ‘summer’ special effects blockbuster movies on the way I would suggest skipping this one.… Expand
May 19, 20135JJ Abrams continues to be the quintessential factory-farm movie guy. He doesn't want to create his own voice, so much as he wants to show you how remarkably well he can mimicking Spielberg at his mid-80's peak.
It's a different era, though, and the attention spans aren't what they were, so no plot point is considered too significant to interrupt the action for more than one or two minutes.
Basically, this is a fun movie that has nothing to do with what Star Trek was. It's a mindless summer thrill ride in every sense of the word but one...the actors are seriously in it to win it this time around (and good for them...they shine). There's nothing wrong with being a mindless thrill ride, of course. My only real complaint is that I miss, beyond any hope of communication, the days before CGI.
This isn't because I think effects looked better, back then, but because creating special effects within the primary filming process required directors to think about something other than "How cool can you make it look, my software junky slave labor crew?" These days, the characters can destroy an entire city center, wiping out innumerable lives, and then sprint barely half a city block over to continue the fight in a place where the populace is still casually strolling to work and where the glass isn't even cracked. It separates you from the film.
And why do lazy mistakes like this happen? Because the director thinks you're an idiot? No....because the special effects are a far greater and more invasive component to the film than they ever could have been twenty-five years ago, but they are often no more a part of the discussion when plotting out the story than they were at that time.
The other thing that struck me is that Abrams tried to engage Star Trek in this movie simply by using sense memory (visuals and audio reminiscent of the past) and by copy-pasting text from older movies. That's fine, when you're making a reboot movie that can easily be deleted from the "fan canon" later on and carries no franchisal threat....but I sure hope he doesn't take the same approach when he makes Star Wars. That brand may be at the point where anything is up, but if Abrams brings it up from prequel level to "Into Darkness" level, then he's missed a real opportunity.… Expand
May 19, 20134The best movie JJ Abrams hasn't made is probably how he pulls it off to manage Star Trek, Star Wars and make homages to 80s Spielberg all at the same time. This new one has some good ideas after a clunky first act, with a very good actor in Benedict Cumberpatch and a dramatic revival from Peter Weller. The Kirk and Spock chemistry is super lacking, even though the dramatic choices and homage-laden finale lays entirely upon emotional investment that there is a deep connection between the two. Both Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine are blocks of wood, so it really hurts the overall impact of the movie. Though I didn't like this movie very much, it's better than the 2009 version. The movie has improved SFX, and some cool stuff in terms of scope, but it's not really clever in terms of tactical space battles and the lack of emotional investment hurts the overall impact. And the movie is overly fast-paced, with too many abrupt all-of-a-sudden moments.… Expand
May 20, 20135This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This second installment of Star Trek just doesn't flow as smoothly as the first one. Good action and visual effects like one would expect from JJ Abrams but in my opinion, this movie was not as engaging as the first one. The story and sequence of events just was not as exciting as the first one. It is still a good movie to watch for sci-fi fans as well as the Star Trekkie. A couple of flaws in the story but maybe I just didn't quite fully understand the history of the Star Trek universe. For example, why need to draw blood from Kahn when you have 72 frozen bodies to draw blood from on the starship, all of whom are genetically engineered superhumans?… Expand
May 20, 20134This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. ***SPOILERS***
I like the first (2009) movie, however I completely dislike this recent attempt. One, Cumberbatch as Khan simply does not work. They went through great lengths to find plausible actors for the main crew, why not the same treatment for Khan? He looks, sound, and acts nothing like the original. I could call the Excelsior the Enterprise, it doesn't make it true. I will say that Cumberbatch makes a good antagonist, but a crappy Khan. Other than that, the plot holes and head-scratching moments are far too abundant. For instance, what was the point in the scene with Marcus and Kirk when she was indisposed? I found the movie to be a good action film, but a poor Star Trek film. It lacks the sophistication and intellect I expect. After all, Star Trek is a sci-fi "DRAMA", it relies on better writing, casting and acting than this movie received.… Expand
May 20, 20131It's like a bunch of dumb drunk guys sat around watching the original Star Trek and got a wild hair to recreate the show using the old action figures as puppets. The characters are only similar to the originals in slight cartoonish ways. I know, I know, alternate universe--which here is just an excuse to pull any cheap thrills they wanted and have an excuse for it. Tradition aside, the script of this movie was so ponderous, half the dialogue was used to inflict plot points on us. The jokes don't work because the movie is in a contrived tizzy state almost the whole time, and there's almost no relief from it. And the jokes are not funny anyway, they're played out. Also, where's the science? The ship's broken at one point and no one knows why and we never find out. The explorative and intelligent part of Star Trek is gone in this movie, replaced with frantic and inane running around. In general, the characters were whiny and spineless and hard to pull for--like they dropped out of any stock poorly-written TV show. The whole experience was so fake--I'm bummed. I gave this a 1(instead of 0) because the scenes with Jim and Christopher Pike were good.… Expand
May 21, 20134This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Orci, Kurtzman and LIndelhof need to go back to the drawing board. Given a freeslate to work with and they come up with a product that is horribly maligned. Add to that the fact that Abrams tries to pull a Bay with his direction and style and you have a recipe for a disaster, thats before mentioning that the lens flare shenanigans have only gotten worse. The dialogue in particular is horribly dull and cliched with their delivery off base most of the time. The melodrama between spock and uhura is so poorly done that it reeks throughout the movie long after the scene has passed. The actors do their best, Pine, Quinto Cumberbatch and Urban (Urbans Bones is by far the best part of the film, the only part to stay consistently good the whole time) but the scripts dialogue is just so bad. Cumberbatch's character suffers the most out of the four, with not only having to deal with terrible lines but also uneven direction. This is before we even get to the plot of the film which is so incredibly uneven and unappreciative of its clean slate in the star trek universe. It boils down to the fact that its treated more like a transformers esque action film than the adventure of star trek and lets be clear, Abrams can't direct action, he does adventure. Its painfully evident as the action scenes themselves are quite nice, but due to the weak script they have no weight, no consequence making it all seem so MEH! Paramount needs to let go of the writing team in favour of people who are willing to bring life to the franchise (keep Abrams, its not his fault the script was shoddy). And also Spock crying "KHAAAAAAAN!" is so out of place that its a parody of itself, not Wrath of Khan mind you but of Into Darkness. If you really want to watch this train wreck, dont waste your money on this cash grab, stream it or torrent it.… Expand
May 15, 201310Star Trek Into Darkness is truly the ultimate "trek" experience It has everything in it that a trek film requires. The new take on the klingons is fantastic and the banter between the cast is just like watching the original series. Just like in the 2009 film jj abrahms has succeeded in creating an amazing experienc
May 16, 20139The 2009 Star Trek movie inspired me to watch the originals, and by the time I saw Into Darkness came out (yesterday) I had seen all of the original series and the movies several times. This movie is accessible to unfamiliar viewers yet holds much more depth through references and easter eggs throughout the movie. This movie may receive complaints due to to relying to heavily on previous Star Trek movies, but viewing it as the alternate reality it is allows the viewer to gain a deeper appreciation for both old and new realities. This is a movie that you need to see, especially if you're into any sort of sic-fi or even just action-adventure.… Expand
May 16, 20138Love the movie, very watchable for me. I think if you're not a fan, you'll enjoy yourself, it's action-packed, funny, full of quirky relationships. If you're a fan, it can go two ways. You reject this as a desecration of the original TV series or you'll embrace it as a jazzy improvisation of the original. I'm that third option. Funny enough, I don't mind the changes, and I love it that they keep winking at the old ones, without getting in the way of the story.… Expand
May 16, 20139Well acted and written sequel to the 2009 reboot. There are certain points that make you want to tear up, and certain parts that make your jaw drop. I'm not going to give anything away, but let's just say there are some newer, fresher editions to a certain race and a certain character from the original Star Trek films. The pace was just right, without ever a dull scene. Every line in this movie was written for each character to say with a purpose. I had a great time watching this film. Highly recommend. Can't wait for the next one!… Expand
May 17, 201310If you try to compare this movie to the 2009 film or any of the other Trek films for that matter, you're going to have a bad time weighing the strengths of this movie against your lofty expectations. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy this 2 hour-long ride with stunning visuals (3D NOT NEEDED), superb acting (at least from the Kirk, Spock, and "the villain"), and a script that, while not incredibly original, still gives a nod to the original Star Trek while keeping it fresh for 2013.
The price of admission is well worth the final 30 minutes of this film alone, as I had chills throughout taking in the parallels Abrams drew from the original movies this film was based on (albeit loosely).
While it was slightly upsetting that some of the crew was glossed over in this film, it also didn't take away from this movie either as each actor/actress nailed their parts in the brief moments they had to shine.
Frankly, the only complaint I have is the somewhat slow and monotonous middle third of the movie, but even then, the opening and conclusion to Star Trek: Into Darkness makes it an instant classic in my book, and the definitive first must-see blockbuster of the summer for trekies and casual science fiction fans alike.… Expand
May 17, 201310This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Very seldom do I experience something that have the capability to render me dumbfounded. Absolutely speechless. JJ Abrams was able to accomplish this with Star Trek Into Darkness. After not only rebooting, but rewriting the Star Trek mythos with his 2009 film, dedicated and new fans alike were given a new look at the adventures of James Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the Enterprise crew.
Leading up to the release, subtle clues, that were not missed on me despite attempts from those in Paramount's PR, everything about this movie continually screamed Wrath Of Khan. From the man Kirk was sent after, who turned out to be Khan under another alias, to Dr. Marcus, the movie gave so many nods to the original second film. Abrams ran right along with it. And I'm glad he did.
At this current time, I've been out of the movie for about 30 minutes. And my heart has finally calmed down. From the start of the movie, it was a non-stop ride that was not only exciting, but a bit nostalgic throughout. Even right down to what was reversed with Kirk and Spock, and the shriek of the first officer with the infamous words: KHAN!!!
In short, I cannot wait until it is released on video. I will be watching the first and this one repeatedly. Abrams took one of the best series of our time, a benchmark in modern sci-fi, the catalyst of everything we love about the genre, and completely turned it on its head. And, if I could ever have the opportunity to meet him face to face, I would thank him for not only rebooting the series, but breathing new life in it altogether.
If he were here today, and could see what Abrams has done to an already great series, I believe Gene Roddenberry would be in as much awe as I am. My only question, though, how will Abrams top this?… Expand
May 18, 201310Not only a great Star Trek movie, but also a great movie overall!
To begin, I should admit that I have been a Star Trek fan for a long time now. I also have a film degree and have studied and made films for many years. I saw Star Trek Into Darkness last night, and it made me laugh, cry, and shout for joy! Yes, the action scenes are exciting, but what really makes this film great is the emotional depth of the characters and their interactions. For those of you who are wary of seeing this film because it may not be exactly like previous episodes or films, I argue that you give it a chance. Yes, the stories are different, but our protagonists are the characters that we have come to know and love over the years. If you go to this film, and support the Trek series, we can be sure that we will have the opportunity to join these beloved characters as they travel where no one has gone before for many more years to come.… Expand
May 18, 20138Star Trek Into Darkness is a big, loud, summer tent pole of a movie, and it succeeds in being a really fun thrill ride. All of the characters from the first movie return in this sequel to the 2009 film, Star Trek, which features all of the characters of the original 1960’s television series of the same name. If you are a fan of any of the things that I just mentioned, then you should defefinitely see Star Trek Into Darkness. Now, I do have some critiques of the film. While the first movie in this series was intent to be an amazing spectacle, making occasional nods to the original series, this sequel seems to be more interested in paying fan service to folks who grew up with the original television series over creating a truly unique experience. There were whole sections of the movie where it seemed as though the filmmakers were ham fisting in scene after scene to pay homage to events that have played out on screen before. There seemed to be a really big missed opportunity to take characters that we thought we knew, and twist them into something unexpectedly fresh. I would have been much happier if they had simply tried to craft an original tale. As a longtime fan of the original television series, I genuinely appreciate the performances given by this new generation of actors in roles that were firmly established well before they were even born. I would love to see them continue on in their voyage for many more episodes, but I want to see them do something new. I do not need any more re-treads of old stories.
Star Trek Into Darkness B… Expand
May 18, 20139I am not a trek guy! So for those of u that did not grow up in a star trek world it is a great movie to go see. I also liked the last one they made. I have read a ton of bad reviews from star trek fans. If you forget about the past which is what they tried to do in the first film. Then it is a great movie.
I cant wait for the next one!
May 19, 20139Star Trek Into Darkness reminds us this that Abrams and company have no allegiance to the stories and characters of old, that this is not your father's Star Trek. Into Darkness shows that the crew tasked with writing and producing these films are honing their craft and making arguments as to why Sci-Fi may be the greatest genre in entertainment right now. Abrams' signature is lightly written over the production work without pushing the lens flare effects he's known for. At times, the filmography resembled that of Joss Whedon's "Firefly" TV series, something that translates well into Star Trek. The cast again turn in fantastic acting performances, diving deeper into their own characters' strengths and vulnerabilities while staying true to the characteristics of each character. It's very fun and rewarding to see Into Darkness' plot unfold, and the surprise villain will certainly tickle the Trek fans. I definitely recommend this, especially if you liked the previous film.… Expand
May 20, 20136Watching this movie felt like déjà vu. The plot (an evil power bent on destroying the Star Fleet) is certainly nothing new. The dialogue seemed cobbled together from every cliché in the series: annihilation is imminent with every decision, each crew member must take a stand (using the inevitable cliché) and Kirk/Spock spar/smooch. The futuristic Earth has cool architecture and the big crascrash is spectacular, but most of the combat is all noise and flash without much cool action. Fans will dig the endless drama, but I'd rather see "Iron Man 3" again.… Expand
May 20, 20136These days a movie has to have more than the usual CGI mechanics. It has to have a story. This one was weak and barely good enough for a TV episode. Cumberbatch is great, but none of the other characters caught fire. Pine does a good young Kirk-he's more likeable-and Quinto does Spock well, but doing Spock well is like falling off a truck. Just look thoughtful and don't use your facial muscles. Uhuru shagging Spock? C'mon girl, you need passion!… Expand
May 20, 20135This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Just... not good. ABRAMS!!! The guy is a hack in creative terms but pretty talented regarding his production company. He should stick to what he knows and especially keep his hands out of space. the best thing he ever did as a sole creative endevour was writing Armageddon.
This IS a bad remake of Star Trek 2. Star Trek 2 is Star Trek 2. There is little positive to say about it. It's a functional summer action movie. The new Superman is more important than this, and that's just because of the people involved alone.
Paramount should trilogy this out for good and then do a TNG reboot! haha. Trek is dead, long live the Trek.… Expand
May 15, 201310J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness continues the voyage of the Starship Enterprise and her crew following the director’s 2009 origin story/alternate reality reboot of the classic sci-fi series. The sequel catches up with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto) several months after the events of the original film as they, along with their iconic Enterprise crew, bw, begin going (“boldly”) where no-one has gone before. In Kirk’s case, that means ignoring a prime directive, endangering the lives of his shipmates, and defying Starfleet regulations (not without consequence).
However, when a massive terrorist attack rocks London, Starfleet scrambles to maintainJ.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness continues the voyage of the Starship Enterprise and her crew following the director’s 2009 origin story/alternate reality reboot of the classic sci-fi series. The sequel catches up with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto) several months after the events of the original film as they, along with their iconic Enterprise crew, begin going (“boldly”) where no-one has gone before. In Kirk’s case, that means ignoring a prime directive, endangering the lives of his shipmates, and defying Starfleet regulations (not without consequence).
However, when a massive terrorist attack rocks London, Starfleet scrambles to maintain order and bring the perpetrator to justice. Ignoring Spock's order and bring the perpetrator to justice. Ignoring Spock’s pleas for restraint, Kirk refuses to back down from the fight, putting him at odds with members of his crew, as he commands the Enterprise in deadly pursuit of the mysterious attacker known only as John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). In Star Trek Into Darkness, returning writing team Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (as well as Damon Lindelof) seek to expand on their alternate Star Trek timeline and dig deeper into this version of the Enterprise crew members (along with the larger movie universe). Casual filmgoers flocked to the 2009 “reboot,” reigniting interest in the beloved sci-fi property, but in spite of the positive response, certain die-hard Trekkies were less smitten with the resulting variations of fan-favorite characters. Does Star Trek Into Darkness build upon the success of its predecessor and present a fun adventure that also pays homage to the classic series with smart additions to the expanded Star Trek canon?
Overall, Star Trek Into Darkness benefits from a much more focused storyline than its predecessor since the franchise is no longer saddled with bringing the crew together, establishing each person’s respective duties, while also juggling an inter-connected time-traveling arc. Surprisingly, the film actually evolves key themes and character dynamics, via a journey that includes engaging riffs on the classic source material. As a result, Star Trek Into Darkness will easily please the same moviegoers who enjoyed the 2009 effort but there are definitely going to be a few controversial choices that will irk longtime fans of the series who are not already onboard with Abrams’ rebooted take on the franchise. The battle between Kirk and Khan is brilliant and well constructed. Much like its 2009 predecessor, Star Trek Into Darkness prioritizes character and sci-fi world-building over large-scale action beats. There are plenty of eye-popping effects and tense set-pieces, but compared to similar blockbusters, certain sequences are a bit more restrained. That said this is a Star Trek film, so even when action is depicted through ship-versus-ship destruction and crumbling CGI environments (instead of in-your-face hand-to-hand brawls or large-scale battle sequences), the film still offers an engaging blend of big-budget spectacle, humor, and heartfelt character moments.… Expand
May 15, 20138This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Following the 2009 reboot of the Star Trek franchise, J.J. Abrams had a lot to live up to after it's success. But with the additions of Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve and Peter Weller, Star Trek Into Darkness hits on all fronts. With Benedict Cumberbatch's startling performance as the infamous Star Trek villain, Khan, to the sensational visual effects and the flawless portrayal of emotions in this blockbuster sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness is still not without it's flaws. With the sudden and lackluster finale, and the at times drawn out storytelling, Star Trek Into Darkness is by no means a masterpiece but is still an event that very few moviegoers will miss out on.… Expand
May 15, 20136Star Trek Into Darkness promises a more gripping story, but ultimately fails to reach any great heights. Not a bad film its just a cliched high budget film. One issue i found annoying was when watching the movie in 3d items in the foreground were blurred and distracting. Final point see the movie don't buy the game
May 16, 20136The long and short is that Into Darkness did not reach nor exceed its predecessor's glory. It does have enough meat and potatoes to make it an above average movie, but once you sink in the cracks start to appear.
There is no doubt that Into Darkness is more focus on action and adventure rather than character development. Such theme shifts aren't bad as long as it is executed properly. My qualm however, is that the trailers present the movie as a development arc for Kirk and Spock to become legends. By the time the movie is over, I'd swear that the development seemed more focused on Spock and somehow aborted for Kirk.
Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison was quite extraordinary, some say even outstanding. Personally, I felt that he pulled a good performance, but compared to Sherlock (TV series), its not quite the spell-binding performance expected from such a prolific actor. The problem was more of a writing issue rather than the actor himself. Into Darkness perhaps wasn't the breakthrough role that could earn him accolades.
The main cast was fairly above average, nothing particularly outstanding to note. Part of the problem was, unlike 2009, the focus was on Kirk, Spock, Harrison and the villain. It wasn't an ensemble so much as it once was, where the previous movie use ensemble casting as a method to establish effective character breakthroughs. One quip I must mention is the occasional random camera shots to random extra characters across the Enterprise's bridge. While I appreciate it as a method to establish the diverse species in this universe, it was very lazy and unexpectedly thrown out at random times.
Thankfully, the lens flare effects that hurts my eyes in the previous movie was trimmed down. This though meant that panning shots on a particular character (hence causing the flares) are few and far between.
The main problem with Into Darkness has to be its story. The first two acts was established as an original writing, with this random backdrop of imminent war, terrorism, acts of subterfuge, and Kirk's personal vendetta against Harrison interspersed with manipulations by a higher power. The establishing of such facts was hurried, but not to the point of being headscratching. Given the film's lack of focus on story, this might be forgiven if you lower your expectations on storytelling.
However, the third act totally put me off the movie. In what can be described as the worst use of time travel ever known to film, Leonard Nimoy basically made an act of pandering to the original Trekkies by hearkening back to the old movies. The whole act actually played like an inversion (hint: role reversal) of that particular movie, and indeed some elements of the second act could retrospectively be seen as such inversions. When your previous movie did everything it could to divorce itself from the mainstream and even used Nimoy as an effective tool to that purpose, this was a disgusting and shocking 180 turn by the writers. Either the writers seriously thought they were making an homage, or JJ really authorised the film to be directed as pandering tool to those he ostricised.
Furthermore, as said, Kirk's development as a character was hinted in the trailers. Even the first two acts did so. By the third's conclusion I was scratching my head thinking "What the hell did we learn here??". It's like they dropped the ball and forgotten that particular story arc in favour of inversions. Worst still, it felt like Spock was the one who evolved, even though it was rather limited. Coupled with a deus ex machina, and you'd think that Kirk would progress from a Messianic role, right? I don't think so.
In short, Into Darkness tries to balance out action with slip-shod but workable story, at least until the end of the second act. By the third act, to keep you on the cinema seat, you may want to just turn off your brain and enjoy the action without picking every single past film reference. Do not however, watch the film on the assumption that there is going to be a good personal development, or even something with the same lustre as the previous film. You will be disappointed.… Expand
May 16, 20139This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was very satisfied with the new Star Trek film--JJ Abrams has created an alternative world Star Trek that works well, and this film contains multiple nods to the original TV series and the previous films. I did catch one moment of Star Wars, a little voice in my head said "use the force, Jim", but all in all, the Star Trek curse is alive and well, this was Film #12 in the series. Will the whales return in the next incarnation or will we see the new Klingon war? I will be looking forward to the next film.… Expand
May 17, 201310I think this film is something for Trekkies and non-trekkies alike. Lots of references for the Trekkies (like me) to enjoy and lots of action and nice special effects for the rest as well :)
Can't wait for the next one which is supposed to come in 2016 afaik
May 17, 20136While J.J. Abrams’ direction is as flashy as expected, his constant need to explore every off-the-wall camera angle possible doesn’t really do anything to propel the movie into warp speed (see what I did there?). What does work, is the reprisal of Zachary Quinto’s magnificently dry depiction of Spock, who, along with a lively supporting cast which includes, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho a Cho as Sulu, Karl Urban as Bones, Anton Yelchin as Chekov, Zoe Saldana as Uhura and a surprisingly ultra-comedic script, are the only reasons as to why “Star Trek Into Darkness” is entertaining at all.
Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan: I am a huge Cumberbatch fan (just to get that out of the way) but his performance here honestly left me of cold. Let me rephrase that. The way Cumberbatch was utilized within the confines of this storyline was what left me cold. “Star Trek Into Darkness” contains one of the most underutilized villains in any science fiction film to date. During the first half of this movie, Khan is seen and described to be a superhuman-like being, who is touted to be nearly indestructible. But when Cumberbatch finally gets some heavy screen time, all Khan does is spend a few scenes speaking with a stern inflection and then a few more scenes punching people and getting punched, and then it’s over. What a letdown.
Even though the comedic moments in “Star Trek Into Darkness” move this two hour plus movie forward, sadly this “action film” contains only a few action sequences (and by that, I mean two) which were memorable or made me lean forward in my seat. And therein lies the main issue at hand. I don’t want to say that anything visually about this film was poorly constructed, because it wasn’t. This is also not a Michael Bay movie which contains an annoying overload of explosions. All of the action sequences here have their respective place. There are even moments (during the last hour) when Abrams creates an atmosphere of suspense, which promises potential, but (even with its highly eventful score) soon recedes into another bland or simply shrug inducing action sequence. I guess what I’m trying to say is, not much in “Star Trek Into Darkness” was all that impressive. And I am including the final battle sequence in that discussion.
Final Thought: “Star Trek Into Darkness” is the type of movie which lives and dies on its audience’s expectations. While “Into Darkness” is big budget, looks nice and is all and all a fine movie, the fact that it never became as engaging as I (along with a room full of men wearing Spock ears) expected it to be, is a problem. So, even though this is not a sci-fi film which will be scoffed at during upcoming episodes of “The Big Bang Theory”, if you aren’t a Star Trek fan, “Star Trek Into Darkness” isn’t the movie that will convert you. In fact, for you the weighted melodrama within this film, may become far too irritating to stand after a while. And if you are a Trekkie, then chances are you’ve stopped reading a while back, upon noticing that this wasn’t a five star review. In short, if you’re a fan of Star Trek, then you’re going to see “Star Trek Into Darkness” regardless of what I have to say.
Written by Markus Robinson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland
Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus… Expand
May 23, 20138This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw it today, and at the risk of my soul, and Trekie status, I have to say...I liked it. One big reason is because I was very wrong about something major. I will spill it, below, because it made a huge difference to me, but it is a spoiler too. You are warned!
I was horrified when I heard the villian was Khan. ST2 is the best movie in the series and I was horrified at the thought of trying to re-do it. Well, this is NOT a remake of ST2, its a remake of the original Space Seed! It keeps intact the conflict between Khan and Kirk who, for a bit different reasons, and has preserved the Khan/Kirk re-match in ST2.
Some people think all the "in-jokes" as silly, but I thought they were a tilt of the head from JJ to the Trekies. They didn't have to be in there, after all.… Expand
May 17, 20139We met with the crew of the USS Enterprise. This time the ship rescues a civilization from destruction, thus interfering with one of the main guidelines of the star fleet. With that scene, full of action and a touch of suspense, begins one of the best blockbusters of the year so far.
The story is very good, the scenes are still the best, the whole movie keeps you on the edge of the seat. The performances in the film are excellent. Chris Pine as Captain Kirk, is all natural and not forced. Zachary Quinto is a worthy heir to the role that became famous by Leonard Nimoy: Spock, one of the most representative of science fiction.
The role of the villain falls into the hands of Benedict Cumberbatch. His interpretation is credible and complete, with well-founded motivations. This factor gives the film the darkness to which the title refers.
The downside that I found this good film is that it is very predictable, in some way as he had just know once you lend attention and also lacking a little bit more seriously, but that does not discredit this good tape as no longer entertained.
As for the special effects, which is essential in these productions, needless to say we are perfect and surely will satisfy fans of the genre, especially scenes like watching the ships reach warp speed and a chase through the streets of San Francisco .
Star Trek still has a long life and much prosperity. You should definitely see it because it is on the same level before and knows how to entertain.
I recommend it in 3D.
My Score: 9.3… Expand
May 17, 20138The thing about the first Star Trek movie, as made by J.J. Abrams, was that it had some big shoes to fill. Star Trek's legacy has lasted nearly 50 years. From it's very beginnings in the 1960s and the constant threat of near cancellation, through 4 consecutive spinoffs, 3 of which lasted 7 years in length. It already had 6 movies with the original cast and 4 with the Next Generation cast. Not to mention all the various video games, books and other content that's out there for people to absorb. Big shoes to fill might be a massive understatement given the circumstances.
Yet J.J. Abrams managed to succeed in giving old and new fans exactly what they want. A film that both respects the legacy of the previous shows, not to mention the one it's based on, and still manages to bring something to it that doesn't require new fans to understand everything about the previous version to enjoy it. J.J. Abrams has often said about the new Star Trek movies that he wanted to bring a sense of Star Wars to the Star Trek universe (a statement that some consider controversial, particularly now that he has been hired to helm the new Star Wars movies) and I think he succeeded on a certain level while maintaining what was great about Star Trek.
Personally, I've always been more of a Star Trek fan then a Star Wars fan. I enjoyed both but what attracted me to Star Trek was the sense of morality that was inherent to the way the shows worked. In the 60s, Star Trek was most often about the morality of race relations and the sense of threat that nuclear weapons posed in the face of the Cold War. With Star Trek: TNG, it focused a lot on the post-Cold War mentality, with DS9 there was talk of religious conflict and uncertainty, Voyager was most often about maintaining ideals without the structure to keep them in place, and Enterprise was about where that type of morality begins.
The first J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie never really had that moral compass behind it that I recall. I watched it again recently and I wasn't able to figure that part of it out. Thankfully, Star Trek Into Darkness didn't have that problem. It had a clear message of morality to it that was the beating heart of the story. Much like the first one however, it kept that sense of adventure and simplicity to it that made the first one a joy to watch regardless of the level of knowledge you have about the characters and the history that it comes from. It also manages to maintain a sense of humor about itself and that history which long time fans will absolutely love.
Particularly when it comes to one aspect of the story which I will not ruin for you and maintain your reason for going to see it if you're a long time Star Trek fan. Suffice to say there are expectations that people have about this film no matter what your level of interest in Star Trek is which are both met and in my opinion exceeded. For the second time J.J. Abrams has created a film that is funny, smart, action packed and emotionally honest. He understands the audience he's catering to and he's not afraid to give them what they want, but he's also not afraid to do the unexpected. He flips some expectations on their head and within the context of the story he's telling it's the best thing he could do.
I was concerned that given the title that they were going to take the story into a dark place and shift things to a place where the things I liked about Star Trek don't really apply. With the exception of a noticeable reduction in lens flairs, they haven't done it and thank god for that. There's a reason why J.J. Abrams is one of the hottest directors in Hollywood right now and Star Trek Into Darkness is proof of exactly why.
How far into Darkness can they go? Just the right amount to give us a great film that's a worthy addition to the Star Trek legacy.
For more of my reviews, go here:
May 17, 20139Star Trek Into Darkness in one word, fantastic! For sure as a Sci-Fi fan I was always going to love this but I believe its that good, that anybody that goes to see it will enjoy it. Like all good Sci-Fi it actually mirrors real life more than people would like to admit, with hunting down terrorists no matter the cost. Even if you don't want to read into it and take it as "Popcorn" movie it has explosive action, good acting, great story and funny well placed comedy. Most important is the emotion and heart beneath the shiny exterior. A must see.… Expand
May 17, 20130This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Star Trek Into Darkness should be renamed Star Trek In Name Only. What has always distinguished Star Trek from other sci-fi is the thoughtful and nuanced way that philosophical and sociological commentary was woven into the stories. Star Trek is not just a lot of sci-fi nonsense but a meaningful exploration of what it means to be human. In the past, Star Trek has been intelligent and character driven. Now it is all fancy CGI and snappy one-liners. Abram’s Star Trek is an action-for-action’s sake Kirk and Spock buddy flick. The “surprises” Abrams plants aren’t surprises if you’re familiar with the Star Trek universe. His preference for violence and political intrigue makes Abrams’ vision more Star Wars than Star Trek.
The fill-in-the-blanks plot is a repetitive onslaught of video-game like CGI sequences separated by brief breaks used to set up the next CGI spectacle. The first half begins with a scene taken from Raiders of the Lost Ark and quickly moves to The Return of the King’s Mount Doom. Cumberbatch’s attack on Starfleet HQ is a scene stolen from Godfather 3. When Cumberbatch is captured, he and Pine briefly become caricatures of Hannibal Lecter and Agent Starling from Silence of the Lambs. The second half attempts to remake The Wrath of Khan but is backwards and upside down. Instead it is practically a beat-for-beat repeat of the identically plotted Star Trek Nemesis.
The cast was the best thing about the last movie but not this time. The other familiar crew members each get a brief moment in the spotlight but for the most part they fixate on comedic asides. The romance between Uhura and Spock is unnecessary and actually diminishes Uhura’s character. Alice Eve is little more than eye candy. Peter Weller’s Admiral Marcus is a disappointment. Karl Urban was eerily good as McCoy last time but stays in the background this time, a third wheel on the Kirk/Spock bicycle. Pine’s beefy frat-boy Kirk is an exaggeration of Shatner’s Kirk. When he is angry he sounds like a bratty child. Cuberbatch’s performance is the best thing this time and overshadows everyone else.
I left the theater thinking that my free passes were over-priced.… Expand
May 17, 20138It's an obvious aspect of the film-making industry that many sequels just don't match up to the originals. J.J. Abrams and the cast of Star Trek: Into Darkness were able to avoid a slump in their sophomore follow-up, and that is impressive in its own right. However, the acting shines through, with truly emotional scenes between intense action sequences, and the film flows extremely well throughout.
J.J. Abrams choices of scenes and environments has always been a strong suit of his, one which he used to full effect in the first Star Trek in 2009. In "Into Darkness", the environments are used to great effect, from the opening scenes to the final shots in the credits.
The soundtrack is wonderful, making the viewer feel the emotions of the scenes. Of course, the theme is the highlight of them all.
The acting is wonderful. Without knowing that Benedict Cumberbatch was going to be in it, nor with the knowledge of the character he portrayed, I was impacted by his performance. Midway through the film his portrayal made me second guess myself every couple of minutes. The relationship between Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirk (Chris Pine) was masterfully done in both dialogue and the performance of said dialogue. Pine and Quinto's on-screen relationship is a wonder to see, creating layers and depth to Spock and Kirk's relationship. In addition, the rest of the cast is well acted again, a testament to how well each actor and actress fits into their role.
It was a great follow-up to the first Star Trek reboot, definitely worthy of continuing the series.… Expand
May 17, 201310I've been a Trek fan for at least 30 years. This film is easily the best Trek and the best movie I've seen in years.
Abrams brings a great respect for the source material and combines it with the perfect vehicle for continuing voyages. I'll admit: I wasn't completely sold on the alternative time line thing at first. Now, I think it was a brilliant move.
I haven't enjoyed a movie this much since I was a child.
And to all the "die hards" with the "0" ratings: all I have to say to you is "Cat's Paw", "Turnabout Intruder" and any other pure dreck from TOS. The new series capture all of the spirit that Roddenberry created and reframed it beautifully. The characters are alive and like the best of old Trek, the new films are about their relationships.… Expand
May 18, 20130I rolled my eyes at the plotline and yawned, and there-in counted the number 232 each. After watching the failure of the Revolution Tv show and the indescribable mess that was the TV show LOST; I went into the movie theater with low expectations, and boy I was not disappointed.
My expectations were as listed 10 highest 1 lowest
CGI overkill 10
Unfortunate Cliché'= 10
Maximum Warp Cheeese 10
Generic Love Plotlines 10
Money Back Guarantee 1
Future Typecasting for Actors 10… Expand
May 18, 20135I’m probably the wrong person to write this review. I’m sure, out there, exists a long-time devoted Trekkie who went to see Star Trek: Into Darkness and found it perfectly in tone with the rest of their beloved franchise. I have never seen an episode of Star Trek; I’m not sure what Deep Space Nine is or why the Klingon language sounds similar to a toad deepthroating a foghorn. My knowledgewledge of its universe is limited to the first Abrams film released in 2009, a 10 minute segment from the original series with some sort of connection to the Epic of Gilgamesh my history teacher bestowed upon my class during my freshman year of high school, general pop culture, and now, the new JJ Abrams film, Into Darkness. Upfront: I am writing this review completely ignorant of 99% of Star Trek mythology up until this point. Truthfully, I think this blindness grants me an advantage to be able to judge the film objectively and without the taint of hundreds of television episodes, numerous motion pictures, and an endless surplus of fan mania. My non-bias conclusion: Into Darkness has a lot of problems.
Read More http://www.recomedia.net/filmtv/star-trek-into-darkness-review-when-good-enough-isnt-good-enough/… Expand
May 18, 20130This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Teenage action nonsense, mindless action blockbuster. The movie applauds military might above all else.
Pure anti Star Trek. The most elegant and smart sci fi tv show deserves more than a Transformerslike film. No ethics, no morals, Stafleeters are violents and imperialistist guys.… Expand
May 18, 20137Mixed feelings here.
Essentially 2009's Star Trek is to this film, what Casino Royale was to Quantum of Solace. Casino Royale remade Bond as something better than ever. Quantum of Solace was just an action flick. Take off the bow tie and you wouldn't even have known it was Bond. This is an exaggeration but not by much.
Abrams twists a prior Trek film's plot (by now you probably know which one) inside-out and backwards, which was fun. But action so overwhelms everything else this time around, that the essence of what has always been best about Star Trek (character interaction and ideas) was lost, despite the nods to the past. This was more of an action flick than sci-fi. Granted, Trek in the movies has always veered more toward action than the TV episodes, but this time it's ridiculous. The excellent characterization and weird enjoyable time bending plot of the 2009 film (which was the best Trek film made so far in my opinion) are gone. Instead we have brief shorthand bits of characterization and repeats of some of the same action sequences from the 2009 film, but lots more of them, with new coats of paint and amped up to the Nth degree of ADD. In fact this film steals a lot more blatantly from the 2009 film (but changing the formula to reduce characterization and expand on action) than from the older Trek film that allegedly inspired it. There are moments when Kirk is flying through the air or jumping that could have been spliced right in from the 2009 movie.
I recommend that you see this movie, but don't expect it to match the quality of Trek from 2009. But go into it with lowered expectations, realizing that Into Darkness takes Star Trek inappropriately into hyper-action territory (something more fit for Star Wars, which at least tells us JJ's next job may be a better fit), and trims back severely on the characterization. It's fun but loses a lot of what has made the best Star Trek distinct.… Expand
May 18, 20138The nerd's nirvana of science fiction series, probably more so than Star Wars, the Star Trek story grows as it actually regresses in its story to the beginning of its five year exploratory mission, as is explained famously in the intro of the two TV series. The first may have taken some getting used to, seeing new actors play much younger versions of the original series, but "Into Darkness" firmly places Chris Pine particularly as James Kirk in the coveted position of a legendary character.
Still rebellious and impulsive, without giving the plot away, we find the Enterprise crew fighting most of the film close to home and in London against a very fresh Khan, or as fresh as you can be for being 300 years old.
I'm not a big trekkie, but my wife adores the series. I was pleasantly surprised by good acting and some very cool special effects, my favorite the planets one space station orbits, much like Jupiter and alien landscapes. This is where visual imagination has no limits and it's done brilliantly, although I do wonder if all planets are so oxygen rich one can just walk off the plank without worrying about the atmosphere or lack of one.
But we assume all that stuff was taken care of and don't sweat the details. Pine is a first rate actor, as are all the cast, and for a summer movie with lots of action, boom booms and a very cool futuristic London, it's a fine choice. Abrams has done a very good job with this movie, and probably will be up for some special effects Oscars at years' end. One thing I must ask: in a world over two hundred years in the future, will they really have old vinyl records and turntables? Not to mention the same kind of music we listen to now.… Expand
May 18, 201310This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie getting 5.0 or less ratings is simply either the rantings of people who have no clue what good science fiction is or trekkies who were going to vote that way no matter what if this movie dared to re-imagine the greatest villain in Star Trek history. To the rest of America I would say that this movie represents the pinnacle of science fiction movies from plot to suspense to action to emotion. How many other science fiction movies will have viewers literally weeping in their seats. Fantastic special effects combined with great sound make this movie even more enjoyable in IMAX 3D. This movie is sure to only add to the legacy of J. J. Abrams and the Star Trek franchise and sets the bar almost insurmountably high for future sci-fi movies. Quite frankly, if Abrams can do this for Star Trek, it is almost unimaginable what he will accomplish with the Star Wars franchise. I think we can finally rest safely knowing that Ewoks and Jar Jar Binks are a thing of the past though we will certainly have more lens flare in our upcoming Star Wars VII.
Star Trek: Into Darkness is a thrilling spectacle that will keep you on the edge of your seats and appeal to viewers of all ages, genders and species!… Expand
May 18, 20138An action filled movie that answers a lot of fan complaints about the first film. It addresses Kirk's unworthiness at being given the keys to a brand new star ship without ever earning it. Not much of a spoiler, but he gets demoted for doing something stupid, and by the end of the movie, it really feels like he's paid for and respects the chair.
It continues the comic book series technique of borrowing elements from the TV series and movies to give you a remix that feels familiar without being predictable. Some of the winks to the first 3 Trek movies do seem a bit forced though, to the point where I almost expected to see a tank in engineering with a whale working a console.
Well worth the $20 admission.
Somebody put the lens flare generator out of its misery. Please.
Since the reboot happened AFTER Enterprise, shouldn't the Klingons be bumpless? Are they wearing toupee's? Not a spoiler because they were in one of the trailers and only barely figure into it.… Expand
May 18, 20138The reviews seem to reflect either a "love it" or "hate it" rating for this movie. Personally, I loved it and felt was even better than the first of these new installments, or "reboot". Great script and even greater acting. I must be getting soft--I never thought I get misty-eyed watching Star Trek, but I did watching a couple 'dramatic' scenes in this movie (e.g., the Pike-Kirk exchange in the bar and the Kirk-Spock exchange right before Kirk (Not gonna spoil it for you.)
Yet the question should be asked: Why such an extreme polarity in the reviews in terms of people either loving it or hating it? For all Star Trek fans like myself, it depends on how you interpret "reboot".
If you look at reboot as a replication of the same thing, i.e., of complete adherence to the original tv series in terms of plot line and character portrayal, then there will be plenty you could find to criticize. For example, you might hate the "new" Spock who exhibits much more 'humanity' and/or much more tension between his vulcan and human sides than Nimoy's original Spock ever did (or his Spock Prime for that matter).
However, if you look at "reboot" like a new 'retrograde' car (e.g., Mustang, Challenger, Camaro, etc.) which has fundamental styling elements easily identifiable/reminiscent of the original muscle car of the 60's while yet adding "new and improved" modernized touches which accentuate the look even more, then you like me will love the "new" Star Trek. You might even love the 'new' Spock, and may think the deeper, more complex portrayal of the character is even better than Nimoy's original (Yes, that is "heresy" to some for me to say, but so be it.) I'm not knocking the original Star Trek in any way. But this is arguably an improvement, not just technologically in terms of the cinematography (which no one can argue), but in terms of the acting as well, provided you get over any expectations of complete adherence to the original Star Trek, which is impossible to pull off just given the new actors trying to play old roles.… Expand
May 18, 20138Very entertaining movie, but what annoyed me were the liberties taken with the original Khan episode and then the Wrath of Khan movie, as well as stuff taken from other S.T. movies. It was as if the writers assumed Trekkies who watched the original series would be too senile by now to remember how the story lines went, which was insulting. I have no problem bringing the past into new movies, but you can't just rewrite the history that everyone knows and loves unless you explain why! (Can't there be new stories that happened "in between" the episodes we all watched over and over again? Come up with an original story for the next movie, please!)… Expand
May 18, 20138This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Let us first imagine that we are truly going where no one has gone before. That being the case, this movie took us to new places while still giving us something old to hang on to. That being said, there were some issues.
Spoilers start here:
Ok, the great mystery villain is Khan. Great anti-Kirk villain. However, those that remember the original series also know that Khan was found in deep space while on the 5 year mission aboard the Botany Bay. However you introduce him, Khan is Khan. Badass and take no prisoners.
Kirk on the other hand is all over the place. emo, angry and valiant in the end. The should-he-be-captain argument was well played in the first movie but lacked a bit of the same punch in this one.
Action was spot on fun. I decided to avoid the 3D as I am not a fan but I can imagine that this movie in 3D would sparkle. The story was a bit....incoherent at times such as the death of Kirk. Yes I said the death of Kirk. Which looking at the film might have truly been my biggest problem. Look, I have grown up around Star Trek and all the movies. Star Trek II TWoK is not to be blasphemed in the eyes of most true Trekkies. So what did JJ do? He turned around the entire scene and we replayed the final moments of that original and turned it around where Kirk dies instead of Spock. Spock screaming the infamous Shatner "Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan" somewhat missed the mark for me and the radiation damage done to Kirk's skin was not there compared to the makeup done for Spock. Speaking of Spock, the enjoyment of the original series was that Kirk was clever enough with the help of his crew to outwit any adversary. I did not care for Spock calling on his older self to seek answers on how to win. Seemed anti-climatic.
This movie was a coming of age movie for Kirk the character and starts the new 5 year mission. I am unsure on how JJ could top himself on a 3rd movie as ST2 was more than adequately robbed of material. But, there are good Trek stories still yet to be told.
I struggle with assigning a numeric rating to this movie because it really was a good movie minus the death of Kirk and the unoriginality of that entire scene. Even with that being said, I still very much liked the movie and I can understand the alternate timeline issues that make this series fresh.… Expand
May 18, 20139tar Trek Into Darkness pretty much hit all the right notes with great acting, moving drama, solid story, and cool action sequences. They definitely focused more on the drama aspect the series is classically known for which was very welcome; regardless however the action was very top notch and not overdone. I think the best part was the story and how everything is interwoven. My only issue is that it is a little predictable at times. Finally, the Spock is clearly the character that makes the movie great for me not only because he is played so well but also his personality is just plain awesome. And I am not a follower of the Star Trek series beyond the new movies but having read about it some after watching this movie I suspect that long-time fans will very much appreciate the homage this movie gives to the old films. All in all go see it. You won't be disappointed.… Expand
May 19, 20138I'm a big Star Trek fan and to see this movie made me feel like I was in another world. The movie was great visually. The story line was interesting and left you on the edge of your seat. I personally was hoping for more in this movie especially with a longer appearance of the true Spock. After finishing the movie I was left with a "is that it" feeling. Personally I enjoyed this movie and wold recommend it to fan out there!… Expand
May 19, 201310Absolutely loved this movie. I was happily surprised when it still had the great humor from the original, something I thought the movie would lose based on its competition. However, aside from the humor, the story was much more dramatic than the original and somehow they managed to make the action even better.
May 19, 201310This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a die hard Star Trek fan and borderline enthusiast I was delight at the approach and energy JJ put into this film. The spin on the story was priceless and simply put JJ did it right, he bought his point of view to the story and I can wait to see what he brings to Star Wars VII. If you are on the fence about seeing the film I encourage you to climb down and go see it. JJ brings the right amount of emotion, passion and action without going overboard and being campy. The way he did just worked everything that makes the movie fits here. Hats off to JJ for having the courage to "Boldly Go Where No One Else Wanted to Go".… Expand
May 19, 201310This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. JJ Abrams sticks close to the franchise in this movie, his first Star Trek movie was a good way to reboot the show with an alternate reality, but it had some flaws, like a weak villain..
Now with this long awaited sequel (at least for my part) he succeeds at mostly everything in this movie. It is such an homage to one of the best Star Trek films, Wrath of Khan, and to me it even surpass it. The cast has great chemistry and truly works as the crew of The Enterprise.
The villain in this movie is also one of the better villains in a long time, Benedict Cumberbatch does a truly amazing job as the villain in this movie. The true stars is still Kirk and Spock, but they do give more screen time for the other characters, which is a great thing.
There are some truly clever references in this movie, and a very well done twist of sorts. And they have true klingons in this movie to that truly are ruthless and brutal.
This is to me the best movie since The Hobbit, and the ending of this movie gave me goosbumbs, one of the best Star Trek movies ever, and actually my second favorite movie after First Contact, and it sits side by side with Wrath of Khan.… Expand
40You wind up feeling doubly bullied -- first by the brutal enormity of the set pieces, and then by the emotional arm-twisting of the downtimes. [20 May 2013, p.122]