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 25, 2014
    6
    While much better than the 2009 film (which was an AWFUL Star Trek film), it still lacks the intelligence of the original films / series. It too, while fun to watch, has a few homages to the originals ... which some could feel insulted by, but I liked them. Not for every Trekkie; for the general audience; sure!
  2. May 19, 2014
    4
    Too bad they thought to improve it, guess the writers thought they knew more than Gene Roddenberry knew, movie was sort of ok, but trying to rewrite the episode with Khan was both foolish and an insult to Gene. Stick to what you know, writing jingles for ads.
  3. 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 copiedStar 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
  4. 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 andI 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
  5. Dec 30, 2013
    6
    Having never even heard of Star Trek, I have to say this movie does a decent job at appealing to non-fans. The pacing is pretty much perfect, and the characters are great. There wasn't a great deal of storytelling but still the movie didn't feel dragged out. There's nothing special here, and you wouldn't be missing out if you didn't watch it, but if you're new to Star Trek it's OK I guess.
  6. Dec 24, 2013
    4
    It could have been so much better! There were moments but there was so much dumb stuff going on (starship under the ocean,,,???) that it really detracted from the story, 30% cool. 70% stupid.
  7. Dec 2, 2013
    5
    The direction and visual effects are very good, the villain is sinister and makes you wonder what he plans to do. However, the second half is worse than the first and the movie fails to deliver what you expect: there is no star trek (the Enterprise is immobilized for a long time) and no darkness (no one dies and some secondary characters function as comic reliefs). Moreover, the villain isThe direction and visual effects are very good, the villain is sinister and makes you wonder what he plans to do. However, the second half is worse than the first and the movie fails to deliver what you expect: there is no star trek (the Enterprise is immobilized for a long time) and no darkness (no one dies and some secondary characters function as comic reliefs). Moreover, the villain is defeated in a silly way (he should have checked the cargo), the Klingons appear only to have their butts kicked and Kirk is missing from the climax, as if the writers could not decide who the protagonist is, him or robotic Spock.
    argonautis.eu
    Expand
  8. Nov 3, 2013
    5
    Horrible. Completely misses the point behind Star Trek and fail to live up to even the worst of the TV series. No thinking is required. Despite the amount of whizzes, bangs, and booms in this movie it is actually unexciting. The entire movie is basically one unbroken chain of action sequences and special effects with flurries on fan service and shallow parodies of beloved characters. AlsoHorrible. Completely misses the point behind Star Trek and fail to live up to even the worst of the TV series. No thinking is required. Despite the amount of whizzes, bangs, and booms in this movie it is actually unexciting. The entire movie is basically one unbroken chain of action sequences and special effects with flurries on fan service and shallow parodies of beloved characters. Also the special effects are horribly overproduced and the customs and alien designs are sub par even the TV series had better effects. Expand
  9. Oct 26, 2013
    5
    Just not very good, starts off with a ripoff of the classic Indiana Jones chase scene and continues with a re-telling of the Wrath of Khan, banal dialogue, a weird, sterile romance between Spock and Uhura, an out-of-place hot blonde, Scottie running around scot-free (ha, pun) on an enemy vessel, an extremely improbable inter-ship gambit, super-soldier Khan who knows everything, a visitJust not very good, starts off with a ripoff of the classic Indiana Jones chase scene and continues with a re-telling of the Wrath of Khan, banal dialogue, a weird, sterile romance between Spock and Uhura, an out-of-place hot blonde, Scottie running around scot-free (ha, pun) on an enemy vessel, an extremely improbable inter-ship gambit, super-soldier Khan who knows everything, a visit from future-spock, 110-lb Checkov saving 300-lbs of Kirk and Scottie deus ex machina much?! Ending with further schmaltz with "where do you want to go" as if their every move wouldn't be governed by Starfleet strategy. Orci & Kurtzman are usually dependable for scripting decent action/plots but I think they sold their standards out for this one, disappointing. Expand
  10. Oct 24, 2013
    6
    I'm not a big fan of Star Trek. I'm just a newcomer who loves to enjoy some movies. So I was about to get into Star Trek even more and find out what it is and what all the fuss about. Because of that, I watch the 2009 Reboot by J.J. Abrams which was actually pretty good.

    But this one... eh.... Straight to the point, the movie isn't really that bad. The characters do their job right.
    I'm not a big fan of Star Trek. I'm just a newcomer who loves to enjoy some movies. So I was about to get into Star Trek even more and find out what it is and what all the fuss about. Because of that, I watch the 2009 Reboot by J.J. Abrams which was actually pretty good.

    But this one... eh....

    Straight to the point, the movie isn't really that bad. The characters do their job right. They are relatable and likeable.

    But let's start off with the good things. The villain of the reboot isn't that memorable or relatable to say in the least. His motivations doesn't make sense and he's just a bit off. But the villain in this movie played by Benedict Cumberbatch has done a fantastic job. He's menacing, threatening, dangerously intelligent, and basically a superhuman.

    My problem with the movie is the plot and that is a major problem.

    The first 30 minutes of the movie is very interesting. It builds up a lot into the villain and there's a motivation for Kirk of why he should pursue the guy. There's a clear indication that there will be a character development for Kirk. There IS but I'm just disappointed in how little there is.

    The intro is a bit unrelated though. It's just there just for the sake of showing some actions and some conflicts with Kirk and Spock that is basically resolved in the middle of the movie which is rather disappointing. The movie introduces so many interesting conflicts that could build up into a resolution and thus developing more interesting characters, but they got resolved too quickly which is quite the bummer.

    The plot of this movie is surprisingly predictable and I'm noting that as one of the negative points of this movie. Halfway through the movie, I've seen plot points and what's going to happen. It's nice and everything on making the viewers to actually think of what's going to happen, but the thing is the predictable plot points are childishly simple which is rather unfitting.

    And the movie concludes in some of the most awkward ways I couldn't think of.

    A lot of peoples have said that the ending is basically destroying JJ Abram's Star Trek Franchise. I'm not going to spoil it, but the ending is basically a mixed bag between sad and motivational with insulting and lame. Now, speaking as just a movie fan and not a Star Trek fan (in which they despised the ending), I thought the ending was just fine. It's surely a bit rushed but I thought it was fine.

    But overall, Star Trek Into Darkness was a disappointment. It's not really the best summer movies out there, but I enjoyed it despite of the flaws. It's a 6/10. At least it's not the same pattern that the older movies had which is basically bad-good-bad-good-bad-good and so forth. But at least good-okay is better than good-bad.
    Expand
  11. Oct 7, 2013
    4
    Great if you are a hard core fan of the original series, but sorely lacking for people that aren't. A lot of action, pretty special effects, and goodies for the fans, but the extremely unrealistic action sequences, the boring script and uninspired story mean that this film will probably be quickly forgotten. I love the idea of star trek I just wish they could come up with something new. DoGreat if you are a hard core fan of the original series, but sorely lacking for people that aren't. A lot of action, pretty special effects, and goodies for the fans, but the extremely unrealistic action sequences, the boring script and uninspired story mean that this film will probably be quickly forgotten. I love the idea of star trek I just wish they could come up with something new. Do we really need to keep making prequels with a close to dead Lenard Nimoy showing up randomly? Why can't we come up with something new? This is the future we are talking about. This is the entire universe as a sandbox for film makers to play in, and we can't move past these gene roddenberry characters?? Come on people!!! This film sucks! Wake up Sheeple!! Expand
  12. Sep 29, 2013
    6
    .
    While another cameo stirred emotions and jolted the film upward rapidly boosting momemtum and offering good odds at a high score, it fizzled. Another boost arrived when it appeared one of the secondary crew may have encountered doom... but this, too, was only short-lived.
    With Zoe Soldana involved, most films carry strong chances to achive the 7 to 7.5 tier. With Bana's good,
    .
    While another cameo stirred emotions and jolted the film upward rapidly boosting momemtum and offering good odds at a high score, it fizzled. Another boost arrived when it appeared one of the secondary crew may have encountered doom... but this, too, was only short-lived.
    With Zoe Soldana involved, most films carry strong chances to achive the 7 to 7.5 tier.

    With Bana's good, hard villian in I, plus Simon Peg as Scotty along with Spock and the alternate time-line idea, they all culminated to produce a nice 8.5555
    Hopes were high going into II:
    "How can you go wrong with Harrison, A.k.a the villain involved?" Maybe it was the video game sequence employing a long shot and mimicking a Skywalker seuqnce. Abrams was going for that effect since at the time, the Star Wars writing job was still open and Abrams knew how to secure it for the person who secures that job is SET FOR LIFE. Well, he did it, good for him, but as a result, we, the viewer ultimately suffered.
    HIs win is our loss, at least here.

    Cumberbatch played Harrison well.
    In the end the film was a failure,,,

    .

    Final Rating: 6.6666; film falls well short of its title, anand even with pleasant cameo's, mistakes abound.
    Expand
  13. Sep 20, 2013
    4
    I never felt involved or interested until the end. When the best part of the movie is the credits, that is not a particularly good sign. It was not that exciting or creative of a storyline.
  14. Sep 3, 2013
    5
    'My name is Khan'; Benedict Cumberlatch is the only any thing near 'great' 'awesome' or actor worth mentioning. (other then CGI n tech stuffs).

    I can't express how much glad i was to see Kirk dead. i was so relieved and was like 'phew' don't have to see this annoying character (or rather the actor) in the next movie. But alas! Bottom line, It is one of the best blockbuster of the
    'My name is Khan'; Benedict Cumberlatch is the only any thing near 'great' 'awesome' or actor worth mentioning. (other then CGI n tech stuffs).

    I can't express how much glad i was to see Kirk dead. i was so relieved and was like 'phew' don't have to see this annoying character (or rather the actor) in the next movie. But alas!

    Bottom line, It is one of the best blockbuster of the year 2013 (unfortunately), agree with many that its way better then recent superhero stuffs and contemporary blockbusters.
    Expand
  15. Aug 25, 2013
    6
    I have not seen Wrath of Khan but even with that being said ST: ID was disappointing. I am a big fan of JJ Abrams' work, with Heroes, Lost, Fringe, Felicity, and the 2009 Star Trek and I know he is a good director but the script was average in terms of storytelling at best. The film suffers from insufferable pacing and action scenes, among other things it was intense scene, after scene,I have not seen Wrath of Khan but even with that being said ST: ID was disappointing. I am a big fan of JJ Abrams' work, with Heroes, Lost, Fringe, Felicity, and the 2009 Star Trek and I know he is a good director but the script was average in terms of storytelling at best. The film suffers from insufferable pacing and action scenes, among other things it was intense scene, after scene, after scene, after scene, so much so that there is not much breathing room. Almost every scene is a mix of humor, emotion, and action, almost as if the writers had thought they'd created a "fool-proof formula" for what they considered to be a "good scene". The downside is it gets old after awhile and I was left yearning for even one solid, long, uninterrupted scene of action instead of a mix of small amounts of everything. The other major disappointment is John Harrisson. Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely amazing as John but his backstory and screen time were both severely lacking. They flesh out neither of those aspects enough which ultimately leads to Khan being not as villainous as I'd hoped and not reaching his full potential as an antagonist, which is not his fault but the writers'. The acting is really solid though and nobody was an outlier. The effects are also top-knotch. Oh, and kudos for the political commentary and Leonard Nimoy's cameo. I wish that the story wasn't so poorly written but overall, I enjoyed it as a summer blockbuster even though I wish it could have reached its full potential.

    Oh, and PS Magical resurrection blood? Really? Really.
    Expand
  16. 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 inStarting 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
  17. 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.
  18. Jun 20, 2013
    5
    This movie has many good things going for it, great special effects, and a storyline that definitely holds up. Sadly though, it's falls terribly short with the acting. There are scenes where the acting is so forced, scenes that are meant to be deeply dramatic but they come off as cheesy and awkward. Another criticism (one it shares with many hollywood films these days) is once the actionThis movie has many good things going for it, great special effects, and a storyline that definitely holds up. Sadly though, it's falls terribly short with the acting. There are scenes where the acting is so forced, scenes that are meant to be deeply dramatic but they come off as cheesy and awkward. Another criticism (one it shares with many hollywood films these days) is once the action has started it just doesn't stop. Fast shots, expositions, chases, dramatic music. Watching a movie these days is pretty full-on. And what happened to suspense? Look at the first Alien movie, you see an alien for the first time half way through the movie, and by the end you've only seen it about 5 times, but it's still an amazing movie, the suspense it creates is amazing. One of the great directors of the past (I forget his name) one said "suspense is when the time-bomb under the table doesn't go off''. I think many of the contemporary screenwriters and directors should consider the concept and art of creating suspense, it's much more challenging to grab your audience without the action overkill of modern-day films... (I'm 28 so this is not coming from senile irritation) Expand
  19. 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 takesJ.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
  20. 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.
  21. Jun 5, 2013
    5
    I'm trying something a bit different to the other reviewers out there: a pithy review a doodle! I've got a few up so far, including one of STID:

    http://sketchy-reviews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/new-release-review-star- trek-into.html

    Thoughts/ruminations/random (ideally uncouth) comments, are more than welcome.
  22. 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. SavingThis 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
  23. Jun 4, 2013
    6
    I will begin by stating that I am not a Star Trek fan which may invalidate my opinion to fans of the series, which I understand being that I am a Star Wars fan and have already gone through the painful process of having the cannon of a franchise I love turned to utter Basically it's a dumb action franchise with a beloved name attatched to it, if you can get past that, you can enjoy it (II will begin by stating that I am not a Star Trek fan which may invalidate my opinion to fans of the series, which I understand being that I am a Star Wars fan and have already gone through the painful process of having the cannon of a franchise I love turned to utter Basically it's a dumb action franchise with a beloved name attatched to it, if you can get past that, you can enjoy it (I did) if you can't stand the thought of a sacred cow being butchered and sold at a discount, then for the love of God spare yourself the agony. Expand
  24. Jun 4, 2013
    6
    I saw this movie in 3D a few weeks ago. It was good but I was expecting more. However, it does not mean that the movie is bad. It is a very good follow up to the first movie.
  25. Jun 4, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'll give STID a 5, but I may be being too generous at that...I don't disagree with most of the things that users here who gave 0-4 points had to say about this movie.
    I am 52 years old. I am of the ilk who thought that the ORIGINAL Star Trek series was BY FAR one of the best things to ever hit the small screen, before or since. I came from an age when elementary school kids rushed home after school to watch Let's Make A Deal with Monty Hall and Dark Shadows in the afternoon. I absolutely couldn't miss Dark Shadows--and if I did for any reason, I was seriously bummed. People my age who did the same thing know exactly what I'm talking about....
    Then in the early '70's, it was Star Trek reruns every afternoon after school. Couldn't miss them, either, and I was on my couch, fixated on that show with my grilled cheese sandwich, my glass of milk, and my cookies, (if there happened to be any in the house). If you are not from this generation, you probably won't be able to relate to some of my comments here. That's understandable. You had to be there....
    IMO, this "incarnation" of the Star Trek franchise using all of the characters form the original series (in the 2009 movie and now, STID) is pretty much an abomination. The new guy who plays Spock is actually the only "redux" character that I buy into in the least. The rest of 'em fail to nail the look or essense of the characters that they are trying to portray--in a way that is atrocious. I so wish that Hollywood would have gone to much more stringent lengths to keep the integrity of the new cast intact--but instead, I must agree that most of the "new" cast members comprise nothing more than a totally cheeseball attempt to re-do the roles with new faces and personas that fall pitifully short of measuring up. Worse yet, as far as the "alternate timeline" is concerned regarding events that happen in the new movies, I categorically refuse to even acknowledge their validity, and I reject them as being a TOTAL LIE.
    In the original series, Khan (who is a guy of LATIN descent, played by Ricardo Montalban) and his crew were cryogenically frozen in the 20th century, and a couple of centuries later, they are discovered drifting around in space on some fossil of a spaceship from the 1990's by the Enterprise. Khan and his crew of frozen stiffs are then thawed out by Kirk and the Enterprise crew. Then Khan--having some superhuman capabilities-- eventually tries to hijack the Enterprise and steal it away from Kirk. Kirk gains the upper hand against him at the end of the episode, and ends up stranding him and his little band of misfits on some desolate planet. THE END.....THAT is the story of Khan. The storyline was revived in the Star Trek movie "The Wrath Of Khan" back in the '80's, where it basically picked up where it left off in the original TV series. The story going forward at that point was executed quite nicely in that movie, using all of the original cast members (including Montalban as Khan). It was a pretty seamless continuation of the plotline, woven together in a way that made sense, and that had few, if any flaws.....
    THIS Khan movie??......NOT SO MUCH.....
    Who is this pale-looking character who's about 14 shades lighter than the original Khan, and who speaks with a British accent (for God's sake!), and who looks like he was plucked straight out of his role as the villian in a James Bond movie, and borrowed as a fill-in for this role--and NOT a convincing one as Khan, in any way, shape, or form?? I DO NOT recognize this guy as Khan. HE IS NOT KHAN--and I don't care how many movies they make with him as an impostor; HE IS SIMPLY NOT KHAN. CASE CLOSED!!!!
    You can't do that Hollywood. You've tried, but it doesn't wash. Not to someone who knows better. The fashioning of this alternate "Khan" in your "alternate timeline" of events is an absolute SHAM, and a MOCKERY of the TRUE story of Khan. There is no "alternate timeline" of that story. You can sell millions of worth of movie tickets to newbies who weren't even born when the last Khan movie was made (let alone the original series), and of course, everyone understands that that's why you're trying to rewrite the story, but one thing that you CAN'T do is REWRITE THE STORY!!! NOT TO SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE REAL STORY!!! IT JUST DOESN'T WORK!!! STID IS A LIE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!
    That said, I do not have enough room here to even begin to cite the many flaws and absurdities in this flick. Spock's unbelievable entry into the volcano was one such offense. Was I the only one practically laughing out loud at how preposterous it was that they wanted us to believe that he could actually withstand the level of heat that he would have experienced when the lava was furiously bubbling all around him in volumes that could have been measured in the thousands of cubic tons--and yet, not a drop of it ever landed on his spacesuit (or melted it)?? Try again, Hollywood--minimize the unbelievable special effects, and tell a REAL story!
    Expand
  26. 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 andDon'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
  27. 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 areThis 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
  28. 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 andBit 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
  29. May 28, 2013
    6
    Though I am not a trek fan, this movie did entertain me a but. I did not have a bad time, or felt like I wasted my time, but I was not interested much and was okay with the ride for more of the laughs then the dramatics.
  30. 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
    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
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?