User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1318 Ratings

User score distribution:

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 18, 2013
    10
    As 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.
  2. 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, 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
  3. May 17, 2013
    8
    When 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
  4. 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, 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
  5. May 17, 2013
    4
    I'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.
  6. 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 have short term memory loss. Expand
  7. 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'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
  8. May 16, 2013
    5
    As 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
  9. May 15, 2013
    9
    Star 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
  10. 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
  11. May 15, 2013
    10
    First 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
  12. May 20, 2013
    5
    Bad 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
  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 15, 2013
    4
    This 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
  15. May 15, 2013
    5
    The 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.
  16. 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
    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
  17. May 16, 2013
    5
    '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
  18. May 15, 2013
    8
    I 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
    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
  19. 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,
    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
  20. 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
  21. May 16, 2013
    9
    Epic 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.
  22. May 16, 2013
    9
    Not a perfect movie, but a really fun ride through the Trek Nu-Universe. The twists in the movie were unfortunately, expected and we have nothing but the internet to blame for it. Can't wait for the next outing.
  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 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
    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
  25. May 19, 2013
    5
    J.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
  26. May 16, 2013
    9
    I 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
  27. May 17, 2013
    8
    This 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.
  28. May 21, 2013
    4
    This 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
  29. May 16, 2013
    9
    I 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
  30. 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
    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
  31. May 17, 2013
    10
    Fast 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
  32. May 17, 2013
    9
    Great movie, the only thing that I didn't like was leaving the theater thinking about how jerks on the internet were going to tell me why I shouldn't have enjoyed it. Don't trust my review, go watch the move or download it like I know you will.
  33. 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
  34. May 17, 2013
    9
    Star 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
  35. May 19, 2013
    4
    The 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
  36. May 20, 2013
    4
    This 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
  37. May 18, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Good points:
    Effects are superb, Pine is excellent as Kirk, CGI is also excellent.

    Bad points:
    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
  38. May 16, 2013
    7
    Let'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
  39. May 16, 2013
    6
    What 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
  40. 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
  41. May 19, 2013
    6
    This 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
  42. May 19, 2013
    5
    JJ 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
  43. 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 copied and pasted (backwards) from the most appreciated Star Trek movie ever. Expand
  44. May 17, 2013
    10
    This review contains spoilers. 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. Collapse
  45. May 16, 2013
    9
    What 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
  46. May 17, 2013
    8
    If 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
  47. May 19, 2013
    9
    Once again, J.J. Abrams delivers an utterly magnificent maelstrom of awesomeness. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a brilliantly paced, written, staged, acted, and obviously directed piece of art.
  48. 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.
  49. 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. 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
  50. 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
    Cheese 10
    Generic Love Plotlines 10
    Money Back Guarantee 1
    Future Typecasting for Actors 10
    Expand
  51. May 20, 2013
    5
    This 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
  52. May 22, 2013
    6
    This movies LOOKS GREAT. The special effects are some of the best I've seen in awhile. It looks like space, it feels like space. Costumes and sets are used in the tradition of the original Star Wars movies, and any CGI is not distracting, if noticeable at all. On a visual level JJ nailed it. I just wish I gave a about anything that happened to the characters etc. My friend and I looked over at each other after about an hour and a half of constant action and said, "I'm not invested in this at all." A bummer, cause the first movie was pretty fun. Suspense seems to be missing from recent blockbusters. Especially since anything that makes enough money overseas or here, gets a sequel so we know we don't have to worry about any of the character's fates. They're all gonna live and be back in 2 or 3 years to do this again, worse. Expand
  53. May 20, 2013
    6
    These 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
  54. 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 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
  55. 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
  56. 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 doesn't matter, last Star Trek movie I ever watch. Back to the DVD's of older installments of the series. Expand
  57. May 23, 2013
    8
    This 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
  58. Jun 5, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Disappointing. Too ridiculous. Too many inconsistencies. How is it possible that the shuttle craft cannot stand the heat from the volcano, but Spock, protected only by his space suit, is fine standing in the middle of it??? A space ship can't handle it. A space suit can??? Cold fusion produces heat, so it can't cool a volcano. Saving the natives is a violation of the Prime Directive, so why is Spock so concerned about the much more minor violation of letting the natives get a look at the ship? Why hide the ship under water when they could have just stayed in out of sight in orbit? Why beam Spock down when they could've just beamed the device down? That opening scene was a huge mess.

    Overall this movie had too much action, not enough story. The use of Wrath of Kahn didn't hold up. What made Wrath of Kahn was that an older Kirk ruminating on aging, comes face to face with an enemy of his younger days. That is impossible to do here, but there was nothing to replace it. The thing that also made Wrath of Kahn was the emotional quality of one friend of decades sacrificing himself for another. That is impossible here because Kirk and Spock neither know each other well nor even really like each other all that much. So the whole thing really didn't resonate and feel real. It felt forced, hyperactive, and contrived. Next time I would appreciate more character and less action. I do not have ADD.
    Expand
  59. May 16, 2013
    9
    This 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
  60. Jun 14, 2013
    4
    J.J. Abrams should team up with Michael Bay, since now they both seem intent on destroying my entire childhood... This movie is basically Abrams taking a big fat on the entire franchise and re-writing the most well known movie. This is nothing new, it's just a remake. I genuinely enjoyed the first movie because it was fresh and a different perspective. This movie however, blatantly takes scenes and dialog from Wrath of Khan. If you really want to see Wrath of Khan and you haven't, do yourself a favor and do not go to see this movie. Expand
  61. May 15, 2013
    8
    This 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
  62. May 29, 2013
    5
    Bit of a disappointment. I am a Star Trek fan, I liked the last instalment a lot, and I like Benedict Cumberbatch as well. So what is the problem? Fundamentally, this is a Star Trek by the numbers movie. Lots of noise, lots of action, lots of inside jokes but not a lot of soul, to be frank. Altogether too easy to lose interest as the endless banging and clattering and explosions and shouting and improbable plot devices get trotted out one after another. In many respects the plot was a bit incoherent or possibly irrelevant, as the emphasis was mostly on racing to a truly ludicrous punch up with a superman surrogate on top of a flying something or other. And the reverse spin on getting exposed to serious radiation poisoning (as in Star Trek 3) in the ship's core was not all that well handled either. Shame. Could have been better, if anyone had cared enough to put some light and shade in it. Expand
  63. May 15, 2013
    8
    After 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
  64. May 16, 2013
    7
    This 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
  65. May 16, 2013
    9
    The 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
  66. May 17, 2013
    8
    It was never going to be as impressive as the original but 'Into Darkness' is not an only excellent popcorn flick for its stunning special effects and action, its tense and dramatic, making 'Star Trek Into Darkness' a pretty excellent sequel.
  67. May 17, 2013
    10
    Just stunningly good. I went in expecting a movie fairly similar to Star Trek 2009. What I experienced was a movie that went above and beyond all of my expectations as a movie-goer and as a Star Trek fan. My favourite film of the franchise.
  68. May 18, 2013
    10
    Not 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
  69. 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
  70. 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 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
  71. May 28, 2013
    4
    I'm not a Star Trek fan. Maybe that's why I didn't enjoy this; all the little inside jokes and gags flew right over my head. That said, I had a lot of fun watching the first movie, so I can't blame it all on that.
    Is Star Trek usually this sentimental? I appreciate that they were forcing Spock into a character arc, and getting him in touch with his gooey emotional side, but this entire
    film just seemed like one big tumblr post.

    Onto the other characters: Benedict Cumberbatch was a thrill to watch in action. He can breathe life into the lamest of lines (which, unfortunately, comprised most of his dialogue). That one russian dude was funny as all hell, as was the scottish guy. Spock's girlfriend was cute, as per usual. I didn't really like pretty-boy Kirk, but I can't complain about his acting. That's the thing: the movie was stuffed with likeable, terrifically acted characters, and it just made a mess of them. The plot was boring, predictable, and cliched. If that weren't bad enough, it relied on weird, stretched out jumps of logic that didn't really make sense. Very contorted, very yawn-inducing.

    So no, I didn't like the movie, but the three friends I went with really enjoyed themselves. I'd say go and watch it, if only to see Benedict Cumberbatch rocking a hoody.
    Expand
  72. Jun 10, 2013
    5
    This is a semi-coherent 30-minute cartoon adaptation of 50 years of Star Trek, served as a 2 hour package with strong focus on action and soap drama. No science, interesting plot or much moral questioning is to be found. Somebody did a Michael Bay with this one. The concoction delivers a generic 50 percentile action movie. Use Mr. Bays work as a reference if you are undecided.
  73. Jun 21, 2013
    5
    I thought the previous film was ok but this time around abrams tried to repeat the same trick and it didn't really work for me. I gave the first film a 7 but since this didn't change anything which is bad in my opinion I will mark it down to a 5.
  74. May 17, 2013
    9
    This movie was great. Excellent prequel setup that made me want to go back and watch the original franchise movies all over again. Especially the ST2: Wrath of Khan. See this movie!
  75. May 19, 2013
    9
    Star 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
  76. May 20, 2013
    6
    Watching 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 crash 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
  77. Jan 10, 2014
    7
    Star Trek Into Darkness is a decent space adventure for Kirk and Company. Benedict Cumberbatch is especially cool as a re-envisioned Khan. A major downside, however, is the clumsy reworking of scenes from the original Wrath of Khan, which in turn opens up the movie to direct comparisons with the former classic... and that inevitably reflects badly on the Into Darkness.
  78. Jul 16, 2013
    10
    Filled with beautiful cinematography and visual effects, excellent performances, a clever script, awesome humor, and an emotional attachment to the characters, Star Trek: Into Darkness is not only a great summer blockbuster, but also one of the best films of the year. The additions of more Trekkie references, an awesome villain, and beautiful 3D also boost the film to make it even better than its predecessor. Expand
  79. Jun 2, 2013
    4
    Don't be fooled by the high rating. Enjoyed the movie until the last 10 minutes with its 2 false endings. Left a bad taste. Included every bad ending cliche. It was like JJ Abrams couldn't bear to make a choice and threw in everything he had thought of while coming up with the screen play. If you must see, rent so you can fast forward when you figure out the obvious, indulgent endings and still remember the good things about the movie. I definitely won't be going to the next one in the movie theater. Expand
  80. May 27, 2013
    10
    The movie was very well done considering this is a different time line. I felt at home with the new crew, and it felt like I was once again watching my favorite characters from the original series. The action was great, the effects were as it should be. The plot was a great beginning. It wasn't close to Space Seed, but I really get sick of movies trying to re-do the exact same movie, usually always falling short. This was different, and refreshingly so.. if you want an exact replica of Space Seed, or even Wrath of Khan, go rent those and watch em; you won't like this movie. If you want a fresh story of Khan, this was wonderfully done, and the characters were spot on! Expand
  81. Jan 6, 2014
    6
    I really wanted to enjoy this movie. Encouraged by Abrams and company's claims that anything could happen in this new Trek universe, I was looking forward to a new take on an old character. Instead, the movie goes out of its way to compare itself to "Wrath of Khan," to the point of using the same dialogue, and, in the end, it comes up short. "Khan" was thrilling, suspenseful and surprising, leading to a shocking ending. "Into Darkness" ends up being a mere shadow of the original, that not only fails to thrill (because we know where its going), but carefully puts all of the pieces back the way it found them at the end, so as not to upset the audience. It other words, it plays it safe. Too bad, because the first two thirds is actually a decent film. Expand
  82. 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.
  83. Mar 2, 2014
    6
    Star Trek at its finest; Great story, strong villain, excellent special effects, self-sacrifice by a leading character. Yes, "The Wrath of Khan" is generally thought of as the best Star Trek film for very good reasons. "Into Darkness", however, is basically a clone of a much better film. It's ok, and certainly better than the other "Khan" clone film "Nemesis", but the fact that they copied the plot and much of the dialogue word-for-word is pretty sad when you think of it. Not as good as the first film in the reboot. Expand
  84. Jun 4, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Trying to review Into Darkness without spoilers is a pointless exercise so I must say this review will spoil key plot twists and ideas from the film. That being said Into Darkness is a terrific picture that leans too heavily on its Wrath of Khan heritage and should have tried to ease off the allegory in favor of originality. The plot follows what happens when terrorist John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) attacks the federation and then escapes into Klingon territory Kirk (Chris Pine) and the crew of the enterprise are sent to silence him, something that encourages Kirk to investigate Harrison's motives further. As I said above Into Darkness is excellent, its smart, well written and it feels much more like what I imagined a modern day Star Trek would feel like but it also lacks the distinctive voice that the first JJ Abrams Stark Trek. It also lacks the personal story of the first, the deep effects the film had on the central two characters of Kirk and Spock (Zachary Quinto) is gone. Sure the film occasionally finds it but most of the film fells like a generic thriller, a really well constructed and shot thriller with a lot of money behind it. Abrams understands how to show a piece of action but unfortunately this time around he doesn't back it up with enough emotion making Into Darkness more like Mission Impossible 3 than Super 8 although its much better than MI:3. The crew of actors are better than they were in the original and Pine even manages to use some of Shatner's mannerisms and quirks in his own performance to make his Kirk perfect. The original Abrams Trek didn't bring the best out in Spock so its nice to see this new more entertaining version of him. The rest of the crew are excellent except for Zoe Saldana who does exactly the same as the first film and by that I mean she is horrendous. The film ultimately is let down by its devotion to the memory of the Trek that came before. The first film said to hell with the old by resetting the timeline in an inventive and oddly believable way. This Trek thanks to a midway twist which reveals Cumberbatch's Harrison to be Khan chooses to stick closely to the past, in fact this Trek emulates Wrath of Khan so much that the entire 2nd half IS Wrath of Khan. Yes. Into Darkness brings back Khan and reverses Kirk and Spock's roles in his downfall. It's a clever concept and it still has the same emotional power as the original but it doesn't mean you want to watch the same film. I'm sure the old school fans with love this look at what would happen in this new world with an equally as dangerous Khan but it could have been depicted in a different way, not one that caused more groans than hurrahs. Then again it could irritate them just as much as it did this film fan. Finally there seems to be a trend going around where writers fit in obvious clues to a plot twist at the end of the film in some desperate attempt to make the viewer feel more intelligent, much like the auto pilot in The Dark Knight Rises which lacked any kind of subtlety. It just feels like the audience is being spoon fed things and in a film that is trying to get audiences to think in some part about modern day terrorism with some quite well handled allegories to present day events shouldn't be trying to get people to think less, it's just a crying shame that directors, writers and Hollywood in general seems to think we aren't smart enough to understand the intricacies of a pretty simplistic plot twist. Overall the film lacks the punch that the first film had as I consider the opening to Star Trek to be one of the most powerful openings I've seen in a good decade but it improves on almost everything else but fails to resonate completely due to an odd devotion to the original series that Abrams seemed to have avoided in the first and ultimately better picture. Expand
  85. May 18, 2013
    10
    STID is the best film of the year so far. It's witty, action-packed, and beautiful to look at, even though it is not quite as adventurous as the original.
  86. May 22, 2013
    4
    This is just marginally better than the first one. It seems they can't come up with an exciting, NEW or original script for this series. Instead, they rely on time travel(once again) and introducing villains from the old series. I guess we'll keep seeing Leonard Nemoy in each one of these films as well until he dies. This is truly a shame as I would have thought they would have gotten all this extraneous bull over with in the first film.

    It's definitely time to get out there and explore bold NEW worlds and situations.
    Expand
  87. Jul 29, 2013
    4
    Starting off with the acting, It's pretty solid. Cumberbatch is a great villain and easily the star of the film. The action is ok but no where near as suspenseful as I hoped it would be. The plot is very weak as well, You spend 2 hours watching it and you feel like it's gone no where. Pretty much zero back-story what so ever (the minor villain back-story and that's it) and very little in terms of character development. Also a major annoyance is how brutally unrealistic it is. There is a huge explosion near the beginning of the film and roughly 40 people die...40 people. An entire building collapses and only 40 people die? Come on...

    Overall, I really don't care much for Into Darkness. All flash and no substance, It was very disappointing.
    Expand
  88. May 17, 2013
    10
    This 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
  89. Aug 31, 2013
    8
    A movie that has minor flaws and somewhat murky plot but Star Trek into Darkness is one of the most exciting movies of the year with its action and genuine feeling
  90. May 30, 2013
    5
    This isn't a Star Trek movie. It's a bad action movie with fantastic special effects. It has all the fight scenes, close calls, and chase sequences a ADD kid could want. Plus, all the characters are the nearly monochromatic representation of the future we've all come to expect. It's another example of Hollywood rebooting instead of expanding or re-imagining. Kirk is a punk. The women are firmly toned sex symbols, and the rest are just boring. Except Spock. Spock is well played. Plus, Scotty said it best when he argued Star Fleet are explorers not soldiers. Expand
  91. May 22, 2013
    10
    Into Darkness did not disappoint. It's so far my favorite movie of 2013. As with Star Trek 2009, JJ Abrams did an amazing job directing this film. Acting, dialogue, and special effects were top notch and came together to create a very memorable movie. I'll be sure to see this movie in the theaters once more.
  92. 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.
  93. May 24, 2013
    5
    JJ Abrams has no idea how to stage an effective action sequence, which renders this action-packed film rather redundant. Its fair enough that they decided to focus less on ideas and more on spectacle, but there was no flair in the conception or execution of any set-pieces in fact there were no real set pieces, just a relentless barrage of changing locations and flying CGI objects, all filmed with an artlessly roving shaky camera. A good action sequence is predicated on suspense, environment, and clear objectives, and it does matter whether the viewer can clearly discern what exactly is going on in any frame.

    The positive reception towards this kind of film makes me worry that modern audiences are forming a kind of pavlovian response to fast cuts and loud bangs. Thankfully directors like Alfonso Cuaron still know how to construct a decent action sequence so I guess there's still hope after all.
    Expand
  94. May 31, 2013
    10
    one of my 10/10 rating movie,Nice plot without any holes and well directed and dream cast support by the amazing 3D effects. Never felt boring in the whole time filled with thriller and some great jokes as well.The story was so unpredictable and catchy.
  95. May 20, 2013
    10
    This movie has it all. Action, twists, betrayal, revenge, love, and friendship are all present in this suspenseful new installment of Star Trek. It stays true to the foundation of the 2009 film, and it's a must see for all!!!
  96. May 20, 2013
    5
    This 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
  97. May 21, 2013
    6
    I'm sure J.J. Abrams and his smug writing team felt bad that poor Gene Roddenberry didn't leave to see STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS, but as irony would have it, he did.
  98. Mar 2, 2014
    9
    I liked it cause it was fast moving, and no where as slow as I thought it might be. The main villain was really interesting. It was the most interesting movie overall that I have seen in a few months.
  99. May 16, 2013
    8
    Love 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
  100. May 29, 2013
    10
    I have a hard time giving an film or work of art a perfect "10" but to me, I think it is a way of saying that I thoroughly enjoyed whatever was presented to me, flaws and all. Trek has its share, but that they did not detract of my experience is why I think so highly of this film. I was never a big fan of the franchise growing up though I imagine that I would have been had I given the time to watch it (I did enjoy the season of Next Generation that I watched) so it is easy for me to say that I was not offended by the changes I am sure were made (even if the films claim to be an alternate timeline). The pacing was good, the action sequences were fun, the story was compelling (the mental chess-like sequence during the film's climax was fantastic), and having not watched it in 3D made me felt like I dodged a bullet. The next Star Wars film has its work cut out for it because in my opinion, this is the best Star Wars film since the Empire Strikes Back. I am not confusing franchises when I say this because this film was everything I would have wanted out of the prequels but never received. Definitely worth viewing if you love Science Fiction. 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?