User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1375 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 16, 2013
    0
    Not 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 haveNot 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
  2. May 20, 2013
    1
    It'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, theIt'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
  3. May 16, 2013
    3
    Star 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'sStar 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
  4. May 16, 2013
    3
    If 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,If 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
  5. Feb 15, 2014
    3
    The voyages continue: Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek. A big, dumb summer popcorn flick with zip, wiz, bang action, lots of explosions, fist-fights and running around. One of the most beloved 'Trek instalments (The Wrath of Khan) gets the prison shower treatment by the conclusion of Into Darkness. Unintelligent, formulaic, forgettable.
  6. Apr 3, 2014
    1
    What do you get when you mix a clunky 20th century particle accelerator and an Anheuser Busch brewery? The engine of a 24th century starship. Best thing about this movie is Honest Trailers, it's why I give it a 1 instead of a 0. This bud's for you Honest Trailers.
  7. Jun 8, 2014
    0
    I'm glad JJ Abrams was able to promote Lt. Uhura from communications officer to "eye candy completely irrelevant to the plot".

    Her two scenes in the entire movie are kissing a guy and then screaming at her boyfriend to stop punching a guy. The original Lt. Uhura was such an inspiration that when she wasn't sure if she should keep doing the show, actress Nichelle Nichols was implored
    I'm glad JJ Abrams was able to promote Lt. Uhura from communications officer to "eye candy completely irrelevant to the plot".

    Her two scenes in the entire movie are kissing a guy and then screaming at her boyfriend to stop punching a guy.

    The original Lt. Uhura was such an inspiration that when she wasn't sure if she should keep doing the show, actress Nichelle Nichols was implored by civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to continue the role so that Americans could see a future in which one's sex and race are not restrictions to just how far you could go in society and through the galaxy.

    I'm so glad JJ Abrams was able to suffocate this inspiring piece of civil rights and cinema history by completely smothering the Lt. Uhura character.
    Expand
  8. Feb 23, 2014
    2
    Star Trek as nothing but an endless series of action shots, if you want a war movie set in the Star Trek universe than this is for you. It's not Star Trek, it's a over done over utilized ghost of what the series should be. Lots of shooting, blowing things up and fist fights, lots and lots and lots. I found my sympathies going for those apposed to Kirk and in support of Khan and those whoStar Trek as nothing but an endless series of action shots, if you want a war movie set in the Star Trek universe than this is for you. It's not Star Trek, it's a over done over utilized ghost of what the series should be. Lots of shooting, blowing things up and fist fights, lots and lots and lots. I found my sympathies going for those apposed to Kirk and in support of Khan and those who thawed him out. Do not spend money on this, if you want to still see it, wait for it to come out on cable for free. Expand
  9. Aug 1, 2014
    3
    What do you want from a film? Well, I want, when I leave the movie theater or turn off my DVD player, to have keep something of the film inside me, a message, an emotion, something. "Star Trek Into Darkness" fails the same way as the first to do it. Spectacular but empty.
  10. Jun 23, 2013
    3
    There is no consistency in the plot at all: while some prompts are given during the film, no explanation on the most interesting hints are made: what's the role of the Klingons? What's behind those Federation treason? Which is the argument between Uhura and Spock? Just: Spock I saved you. Well: Kirk let me just do the same. In between: 120 minutes of harassment and the topic clearly copiedThere is no consistency in the plot at all: while some prompts are given during the film, no explanation on the most interesting hints are made: what's the role of the Klingons? What's behind those Federation treason? Which is the argument between Uhura and Spock? Just: Spock I saved you. Well: Kirk let me just do the same. In between: 120 minutes of harassment and the topic clearly copied and pasted (backwards) from the most appreciated Star Trek movie ever. Expand
  11. Jun 2, 2013
    2
    Here they are rebooting the series (TOS and movies), and for no reason at all the makers of this film obviously felt compelled to re-write Wrath of Kahn, and they did not even do a good job of it. Also, too much of characters talking about the personality traits of Kirk and Spock when, in one of the few things they did right, they had Kirk and Spock display their respective personalities.Here they are rebooting the series (TOS and movies), and for no reason at all the makers of this film obviously felt compelled to re-write Wrath of Kahn, and they did not even do a good job of it. Also, too much of characters talking about the personality traits of Kirk and Spock when, in one of the few things they did right, they had Kirk and Spock display their respective personalities. And, like a lot of "science fiction" over the last decade or so, "into Darkness" treats its live action characters as "impervious to injury" cartoon characters. Expand
  12. May 22, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Absolutely insulting in every possible way, even if you approach watching it with clean slates. Full of plot holes, ridiculous action scenes and useless characters. The first movie was actually likable even though it had its fair share of problems but this one... Oh my...

    In all honesty the movie deserves a 3/10 but I gave it a 1/10 simply because of the degree of incompetence demonstrated at the end. I mean you create a whole new timeline just to be able to answer every cannon related question with "its a whole new timeline and anything can happen" but then all you can come up in your rebooted version is recycling content from the original movies?

    It hurts even more if you are a Trekkie. If you expect a movie to deliver anything that Star Trek stood for (moral and philosophical themes wrapped within an immersive and interesting story) then stay away from this one because the only thing it will deliver is a two hour kindergarten fun. You wan't to enjoy Star Trek Into Darkness? Then simply rent "Star Trek: Wrath of Khan" instead.

    Live long and prosper but don't expect to see another good Star Trek movie in the near future (at least until Abrahms is shaping them).
    Expand
  13. pvs
    May 20, 2013
    1
    Please 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!
  14. May 24, 2013
    0
    The movie starts out well but quickly degrades into a mess of bad writing and out right copying of Wrath of Kahn. This movie is an insult to one's intelligence.
  15. Jun 8, 2013
    0
    "Bromance" invades Star Trek in a bad manner. The number of characters "about to die" is too high and idiotically operatic, since WE KNOW they are not going to die. The confrontation with the "bad guy" did not live up to its resolution. Special effects are good, but not worth $11.00. There HAS GOT to be a point when Leonard Nimoy will hang his Vulcan Ears and retire with dignity It"Bromance" invades Star Trek in a bad manner. The number of characters "about to die" is too high and idiotically operatic, since WE KNOW they are not going to die. The confrontation with the "bad guy" did not live up to its resolution. Special effects are good, but not worth $11.00. There HAS GOT to be a point when Leonard Nimoy will hang his Vulcan Ears and retire with dignity It doesn't matter, last Star Trek movie I ever watch. Back to the DVD's of older installments of the series. Expand
  16. May 17, 2013
    0
    This 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
  17. May 17, 2013
    0
    Absolutely 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
    Absolutely 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
  18. May 17, 2013
    2
    Whoa 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,
    Whoa 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
  19. May 17, 2013
    0
    This 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
  20. May 23, 2013
    3
    Ugh. Nice special effects, pretty decent score, pretty actors. Oh, and, as usual, the Cumberbatch was excellent. But... a terrible plot full of holes and inconsistencies, no character development whatsoever, a semi-fascist Star Fleet, repeatedly demonstrated lack of understanding of physics ("science" fiction it ain't) and the constant forced laugh-lines and chase-scenes make this anUgh. Nice special effects, pretty decent score, pretty actors. Oh, and, as usual, the Cumberbatch was excellent. But... a terrible plot full of holes and inconsistencies, no character development whatsoever, a semi-fascist Star Fleet, repeatedly demonstrated lack of understanding of physics ("science" fiction it ain't) and the constant forced laugh-lines and chase-scenes make this an unmitigated disaster. Also, what is it with spaceships falling out of orbit and people jumping out of their broken windows post-crash lately?! This movie might have been not too shabby if they had picked the first big sub-plot, stuck to that for say a double feature and then moved on to some of the more traditional Trek material. Instead, shot their wad on this turd. So sad. Expand
  21. May 24, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This was the best Star Wars movie I've ever seen!

    As a movie person, as a Star Trek fan, this movie was incoherent, flashy trash. As people better than I (that is, the boys at Red Letter Media) put it, it was as if the writers of the movie made a list of things they wanted to reference in the movie (Tribbles, Klingons, etc.) and played screenwriting connect the dots. It was just a series of Star Trek references, one after another and called a movie, and there's very little that's original about it. All in all it was just something to make the fans go "OH LOOK SHE SAID SOMETHING IN KLINGON!" and something for non-Star Trek fans to drool at explosions over.

    As a movie, it wasn't that interesting. There was no plot. Think about it. What was the plot of this movie? In the beginning, Kirk violates the Prime Directive, so they bring him back to Earth, where lot's of shooting happens, which leads to Klingons, which leads to more shooting, etc. etc. etc. The characters aren't very deep: Kirk is a reckless youth, and all his actions reflect that. Spock is an unemotional rock except when he isn't. Scotty is whacky, Uhura is concerned, and Bones is there. We're given no reason to care about any of these people, and this whole thing about Spock learning to deal with his emotional side and Kirk learning how to be a leader happened already in the last movie.

    As a Star Trek movie it was awful. Khan is white, Leonard Nimoy was in it for seemingly no reason, Khan is white, there's an android in it who isn't Data, there's only one warp speed now, Khan is white, they ripped off the Wrath of Khan's most important scene, overall it cheapens all the original characters, and Khan is white! At best, it felt like poorly-written Star Trek fanfiction.

    I could go on but I think you get the gist. It get's a 2 because it had nice special effects.
    Expand
  22. May 17, 2013
    1
    Star 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
    Star 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
  23. May 17, 2013
    1
    Unmotivated 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.
  24. May 15, 2013
    2
    I 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
  25. May 17, 2013
    2
    Full 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
    Full 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 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.
    Collapse
  26. May 27, 2013
    0
    I wonder how Abrams and Lindelof would feel if someone remade LOST and changed storylines with such abandon, that their entire series would have had an alternate ending. I don't mind the idea of looking at the series from the young days of Star Fleet for Kirk and Spock, but it is an abomination to let them rewrite story lines, switch characters destinies, and put their ham fisted pen toI wonder how Abrams and Lindelof would feel if someone remade LOST and changed storylines with such abandon, that their entire series would have had an alternate ending. I don't mind the idea of looking at the series from the young days of Star Fleet for Kirk and Spock, but it is an abomination to let them rewrite story lines, switch characters destinies, and put their ham fisted pen to paper. Please do us all a favor and back away from the Star Trek series, and stick their own destruction of their original series. Expand
  27. May 18, 2013
    0
    I 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
    I 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 Cheese 10
    Generic Love Plotlines 10
    Money Back Guarantee 1
    Future Typecasting for Actors 10
    Expand
  28. May 18, 2013
    0
    This 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
  29. Sep 7, 2013
    0
    Once the final credits appeared, everything was explained: "J. J. Abrams", the most "over-(beyond moral ethics)-rated" person in the planet Earth. Now, he managed to become a true Series/Movies Assassin...
  30. Oct 4, 2013
    3
    Two words: lens flare.

    But because that will not fulfill metacritic's 150 character minimum, let me add that as a fan of the original series, I am offended by this rebooting, which cheapens the original series concept by re-imagining it as a big-budget rock 'em sock 'em blockbuster for teenage boys. Seriously, how many fist fights are we expected to endure? Even stoic, logical Mr Spock
    Two words: lens flare.

    But because that will not fulfill metacritic's 150 character minimum, let me add that as a fan of the original series, I am offended by this rebooting, which cheapens the original series concept by re-imagining it as a big-budget rock 'em sock 'em blockbuster for teenage boys. Seriously, how many fist fights are we expected to endure? Even stoic, logical Mr Spock gets into the act.

    Not to mention the lens flare.

    Please, next time, spare us another unimaginative, mediocre, Earth-bound spectacle without a trace of grandeur.
    Expand
  31. Aug 8, 2013
    1
    Star Trek Into Dumbness! The final nail in the coffin of the Star Trek franchise, this movie suffers a nonsensical plot replete with holes and some truly irritating performances from the cast. Of special note in Chris Pine who is thoroughly unlikeable as Kirk.
  32. Dec 26, 2013
    1
    Garbage writing. Too many plot holes to mention (google them if you want more detail). My main complaint is this: there are 2 "schemes" carried out by 2 villains in this movie that are lacking in logic and full of flaws. How this crap writing got past the critics is beyond me. I can only guess that the critics were pressured by the Hollywood mafia to give this movie good reviews. I can'tGarbage writing. Too many plot holes to mention (google them if you want more detail). My main complaint is this: there are 2 "schemes" carried out by 2 villains in this movie that are lacking in logic and full of flaws. How this crap writing got past the critics is beyond me. I can only guess that the critics were pressured by the Hollywood mafia to give this movie good reviews. I can't believe this is what passes as movie writing these days. How was this script approved? How do these writers get work? They must "know some people in the business" if you know what I mean. Not a fan of the Lindelof/Abrams posse. After Prometheus, I have to peg Lindelof as a guy who fancies himself a genius. He attempts these convoluted plots and they always just end up full of plot holes. I'm not sure he's smart enough to tackle the complex storylines that he attempts. Maybe they need to spend a few more weeks in the writer's room to fill in those plot holes before moving forward with these garbage movie scripts. TV writing is so much better these days. Expand
  33. Sep 13, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. what a bad film this is. Abrahms did a good job on the first but failed miserably on the second. Spock & Ohura's romance & argument with Kirk, Spock's fight scene, the blondie getting her kit off for no reason other than to give a few geeks a boner. Poor. Why use Klingons and show them for 5 minutes? Oh as if Kirk was going to die and end the franchise. Poor on so many levels. First film see the first 2 1/2 series of Lost. Second film see the remaining series of Lost. Expand
  34. Sep 15, 2013
    3
    They really jumped the shark when Kahn teleported from Earth to Kronos. That was not Trek science and was really unacceptable. They did not have any Trekers working on this film. Very bad movie for me after that part.
  35. Nov 3, 2013
    2
    Only few points for effects trekkies, please...
    This version is made for teenagers, and lost all StarTrek magic and science/peace mood.
    They dont even pretend they read physics book at first class...
  36. Sep 12, 2013
    0
    This film is an utter joke and an insult to the name Star Trek. It's not exactly a bad movie... on its own it is a fast paced, forgettable summer action flick with flashy visuals and over simplified dialogue (don't want those young brains straining now, do we). Nothing wrong with that, I watch and even enjoy those from time to time. But as a Star Trek film, telling interesting storiesThis film is an utter joke and an insult to the name Star Trek. It's not exactly a bad movie... on its own it is a fast paced, forgettable summer action flick with flashy visuals and over simplified dialogue (don't want those young brains straining now, do we). Nothing wrong with that, I watch and even enjoy those from time to time. But as a Star Trek film, telling interesting stories while tackling difficult questions and moral dilemma? Nah.

    If you hold Star Trek in any kind of esteem, avoid this movie like plague. It's an empty shell, flashy and polished, but ultimately soulless and well... unnecessary.

    This film and its predecessor twists Gene Roddenberry's vision into a perverted mockery of itself and I'm fairly certain poor Mr. Roddenberry is spinning in his grave at 30,000 rpm right now.
    Expand
  37. Oct 6, 2013
    3
    A timid movie at its core, Star Trek: Into Darkness cynically milks the Star Trek cash cow with another bare bones kill-the-monster plot, propelled with melodramatic danger scenes. It is designed to please two large groups of moviegoers: obsessive geeks giddy over references to previous Star Trek installments, and those casually looking for a special effects spectacle. We don't find anyA timid movie at its core, Star Trek: Into Darkness cynically milks the Star Trek cash cow with another bare bones kill-the-monster plot, propelled with melodramatic danger scenes. It is designed to please two large groups of moviegoers: obsessive geeks giddy over references to previous Star Trek installments, and those casually looking for a special effects spectacle. We don't find any science in the science fiction, not even fantasy physics, just Cowboys and Indians in space, with any kind of arbitrary magic used to serve any plot point. The fanboy references ruin this version of Star Trek as a standalone universe, as they invite undesirable comparisons to earlier incarnations of the characters, which makes everyone seem like either a cartoonish facsimile or an inauthentic knock-off. Nothing holds the film together thematically. Thankfully, outstanding acting from the ensemble prevents a total disaster. Expand
  38. Apr 12, 2015
    2
    Choosing one word to sum up our rating for this movie would be difficult. It was simply disappointing, cheesy, fake, and not something we were able to take seriously.

    The cast seemed completely wrong, especially for Kirk and Spock. Besides being out of character throughout the majority of the film, both actors just didn't seem right for their characters. The romance with Spock and
    Choosing one word to sum up our rating for this movie would be difficult. It was simply disappointing, cheesy, fake, and not something we were able to take seriously.

    The cast seemed completely wrong, especially for Kirk and Spock. Besides being out of character throughout the majority of the film, both actors just didn't seem right for their characters. The romance with Spock and Uhura seemed out of place and random. While I liked some parts of Khan's character and performance, other parts were not believable, and just ridiculous. Most of the cast was acceptable, but still could have been done better.

    The entire film as a whole seemed disjointed and choppy. The flow was all off, and the transitions between situations and plot twists was painful, at best. There were several areas that had mistakes worthy of the original Star Wars trilogy, which made the whole thing seem cheap and lacking the proper care or effort.

    For as much hype as this film had before it's release, we were expecting a whole lot more from it. This isn't a movie we'll be watching again any time soon, and is not one we would recommend to anyone, especially a fan of other Star Trek versions.
    Expand
Metascore
72

Generally favorable reviews - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 43
  2. Negative: 1 out of 43
  1. Reviewed by: Matt Zoller Seitz
    Jun 11, 2013
    63
    Abrams and his screenwriters (Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof) are so obsessed with acknowledging and then futzing around with what we already know about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty and company that the movie doesn’t breathe.
  2. Reviewed by: Anthony Lane
    May 21, 2013
    40
    You 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]
  3. Reviewed by: Lawrence Toppman
    May 17, 2013
    75
    Is it too much to ask that he take a risk next time and kill somebody off, however much we’re used to having them in the “Trek” universe?