Review this movie
May 18, 201310As a big Trek fan, I truly enjoyed this alternate timeline's second installment. There was never a slow moment. I was certainly surprised by several developments but ultimately a very satisfying experience. I look forward to more adventures with this crew.
May 17, 20138When I saw the reviews that were coming in for Star Trek Into Darkness, I rolled my eyes. The first one got good reviews and in my opinion, that movie was a mess. So my expectations were low going into this film; "just another stupid popcorn movie that will sully the name of Star Trek". I was even ready to go get a refund and go watch Iron Man 3 if need be. Boy was I wrong. This outing was thoroughly entertaining, flowed logically (a huge issue with the last film), and even had some good character moments. People also acted like people in this film, and Kirk was less of an idiot this time around and actually grew as a character. Story was pretty solid; some of technical details were off but I can't complain. Reveals were well paced and the action was handled well. There was one moment near the end that had me rolling my eyes and wondering what the hell the writers were thinking (hint: it isn't very original). However, upon reflection it made sense, and the reactions of the characters was believable. Though, one will have to accept that time has passed between this movie and the last, so the non-nonsensical character dynamics in the last film have evolved and been fine tuned into something sane and rational. Also, the main villain has been given a lot more menace and demonstrates why he's a major threat (you'll see what I mean when you watch the film). Overall, 8/10. A lot better than the first.… Expand
May 17, 20134I'm a big fan of the original 'reboot' and I expected this to be a pretty decent sequel. Massive disappointment. The 'plot' is unintelligible and seriously lacking. Effects and CG is okay but nothing we haven't seen before. Overall, Into Darkness is uninvolving and uninteresting.
May 16, 20133If you're a fan of past Star Trek movies and TV series, save yourself $11. Instead, (re)rent Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan. Abrams' re-imagining lacks any of the philosophical and ethical dilemmas of earlier Star Trek, or the clever battle of the wits between Kirk and his nemesis. Instead you have many characters who act in ways very different from the philosophy of Starfleet, unnecessarily (and poorly) reimagined species like the Klingons, inexplicable plot points, excessive fight scenes, and way too many lens flares. The intriguing backstory of the villain explored in earlier Trek is glossed over here resulting in a two dimensional baddie, despite Benedict Cumberbatch's otherwise excellent acting. If you're looking for an intellectually stimulating space adventure, look elsewhere. If you're looking for over the top action, eye numbing visual effects, and goosestepping-inspired uniforms, then it might be just what you're looking for.… Expand
May 16, 20135As someone who grew up with star trek, I had some high hopes for this movie, especially considering how enjoyable the reboot was. So imagine my disappointment with a half baked script (with some good ideas) combined with cheesy acting. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were decent, but the rest of the crew seemed like window dressing. I have seen this movie before and it was and still is far superior......
Having said that, I just feel that Trek deserved better.… Expand
May 15, 201310First Star Trek from JJ was rather good, but obviously not perfect.
After a series of rather obscure trailers, and really strange posters, I've expected to be worse, or even not Star Trek at all.
And I'm so happy to be absolutely wrong!
Its intense, beautiful, a lot of action and explosions, but has a lot of character development (new Kirk is now my favorite one! seriously, better than Shatner!), and a great plot with lots of skilfully placed Trek references.
A very good Star Trek movie. Maybe the best.… Expand
May 15, 20139Star Trek Into Darkness isn't just a great movie, but also a great addition to the Star Trek franchise. Along with stunning visuals and somewhat suitable 3D, the audience experiences brilliant acting from all the cast and a villainously brilliant performance by the one and only Benedict Cumberbatch. Since I don't remember much of the first film (which was great), so I cannot really compare the two. But I am sure that this sequel is certainly up there with all the other great films in the franchise. The film does have a couple flaws in it such as being a little predictable at times and even a little cheesy. Star Trek Into Darkness is a massive event film that fans with surely enjoy and audiences with surely love.… Expand
May 15, 20132I did not like the movie. It was ordinary, nothing special. The visual effects you can find them everywhere now, and I guess that was what the director was hoping to catch public's eye on. The only thing I enjoyed evil "Sherlock" in perfect performance of Benedict Cumberbatch. Add +2
May 15, 20138I suppose it’s only logical that after the success of the “Star Trek” reboot, back in 2009, we see a sequel to it enter “Star Trek: Into Darkness” a bigger and bolder sequel, but does that guarantee success?
Like the movie’s predecessor it follows the adventures of Kirk and Spock. The movie starts off pretty fast with Kirk and Spock already on a mission on primitive alien planet. After anet. After the mission Kirk is relieved from duty and at the same time John Harrison, the movie’s main bad guy, blows up a Starfleet library this kicks in the movie’s main plot and this is where I’ll stop, because that would mean to go into spoiler territory.
I wouldn’t call the plot mind-blowing, because it doesn’t reinvent the formula if you’ve seen movies like “The Dark Knight Rises” or “Iron Man 3” you’ll find a handful of similarities here. Though, the plot does have a few nice moments taken from the original films which would make a fan smile.
The part which “Star Trek: Into Darkness” nails are the characters, for the most part at least. Chris Pine feels like a different Kirk by having to face the fact that people can die during his mission and that there won’t be anything he can do to save them. Zachary Quinto is also a different Spock due to his relationship with Uhura. Though, the standout performance here is from Benedict Cumberbatch. His character (“John Harrison”) is the thing that was missing from the previous film a strong main antagonist. Despite being a quiet dreadful villain he still has his moments of sympathy where you feel sorry for him.
I think J.J.Abrams’s work should be also noted here. It was really nice seeing all the big and small nods to the original films and also it seemed as if the lens flares were toned down this time around. Good work Abrams.
One thing that I sort of didn’t like was the ending. At one point it felt that the movie would actually have the balls to do something that big, but “nope”, said the movie 10 minutes later and pulled a “Bruce Wayne”. Another (smaller) thing that I didn’t like, was the lack of depth which the older "Star Trek" movies had.
To sum things up, “Star Trek: Into Darkness” isn’t only a great sequel, but also a great standalone film, because you don’t necessarily need to have seen the previous movie to enjoy this one.… Expand
May 16, 20135'How do you choose not to feel' kirk. 'I dont know but right now im failing' -spock. Watching that for the 2nd time made me crack up laughing!
POPCORN MOVIE PURE AND SIMPLE! Old school Star Trek fans like me maybe feeling let down and jilted over this movie. I personally feel quiet angry Star Trek was not brought back to the TV medium as it would be better suited.
Turning Star Trek into* generic Sci-Fi for all its feelings and emotions cheapens the effort in comparison.
And yes! I know Star Trek on the TV is far from perfect, however what it makes up for in bucket loads is vision.
As for the movie its got emotion and feeling in droves. I found the actors emotions conveyed even in there eyes. All the actors had that look into my eyes moment, I didnt mind it.
Pacing suffered quiet a bit but I felt that was down to Damon Lindelof compulsion to answer everything and give a bit too much scope.
I didn't like a few of the short cuts made in the film but again that boils down to vision and my
previous comments about lack there of TV medium, not to mention the TV series were always guilty of the same short cuts but its 2013 It can be done better.
Benedict Cumberbatch was overall great in this movie lacked a bit of added ommpth but guess what boils down to the same TV vs Blockbuster movies.
Peter Weller was a fairly strong character in this movie I especially liked his lines and vocal performance.
People will feel one of the last scenes was cheap, I saw it as a parallel, one I found a bit too funny the 2nd time watching the movie.
"how do you choose not to feel" -k "i dont know right now i am failing" -s hahahahahaha
I'm conflicted about this movie.… Expand
May 15, 20135The trailers & title for the film made it out to be far more epic and grad then it actually was, if your after a action space movie then this is for you, but if your after a film with a bit more depth to it (i.e a story) then this film is not for you.
May 15, 20134This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film was all over the place, and not in a good way. There's not a single interesting moral or philosophical idea or crisis to be found in its entire plodding run time. It felt like four stretched-out episodes of an artless TV series with the budget of BSG, until screenwriters Lindelof, Kurtzman, and Orci ran out of ideas and decided to spend half the movie remaking (one of) the most beloved of Trek films without having earned any of its heart or soul.
Spock x Uhura falls flat this time around; their romance could have been so much more interesting than the bickering taking place onscreen. Pegg's Scotty is great, but Urban's Bones, Cho's Sulu, and Yelchin's Chekhov (all fantastically cast in the first outing) don't have enough to do. For all the Sherlock fangirls out there, Cumberbatch's talents are sadly wasted. We never get enough of his motivations, but then when his exposition dump rolls around, anyone who's seen the Trek film this material was based upon can guess how the rest of the film will play out. It's a far cry from the original, much better portrayal of this character, and the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the film's lazy screenwriters. If the movie gets one thing right it's the bromance between Kirk and Spock Pine and Quinto try their very best. But not even the best performers can polish subpar material. J.J. and his partners in crime clearly don't care enough about this universe (or didn't have the time) to fix numerous plot holes, (i.e. why would all of the top brass need to meet in person with holographic technology? Oh, because it's a plot convenience that allows us to cram more events into a film that has no room to breathe).
The 2009 film (which I also disliked) is better in almost every way. Perhaps most telling is that even Michael Giacchino's score this time around sounds rushed. I have never once before taken a disliking to one of Maestro Giacchino's tracks, but this is not his best stuff here.
Also, the action scenes and even the CGI are not as well filmed as those in the 2009 film.
Sadly, there's no sense of the humanitarian/colonial themes of the original Trek series anywhere. As a character puts it, since the events of the first film Starfleet has become more of a military force, which means stocking the Enterprise with mysterious warheads.
Dear fellow filmmakers, why were you denying the rumors regarding you-know-who? As it turns out, you just knew that once the cat was out of the bag, we'd all see the Emperor's new clothes for what they were. Guess what, screenwriters? You're officially writing AU slash fanfic.
To be perfectly honest, I love Star Trek (my fave is TNG) but Star Wars is closer to my heart. To me it's infuriating to think that these schmucks are going to be in charge of Star Wars now (officially, Michael Arndt's writing the script to that one based on a story by George Lucas, but Abrams will almost certainly have Lindelof advising him.)
PS: Mr. Abrams, I know there is good in you. Get back in gear.… Expand
May 16, 20130Not so boldly going where we've already gone before. Dumbed down from a highly intelligent and thoughtful franchise. More cliche characters. Inconsistent with 45 year old characterisation (No, split reality does not excuse everything). Boring plot with "homages" which are word-for-word and judging by the "twist" in the last act JJ Abrams and his writers either think we're stupid or have short term memory loss.… Expand
May 16, 20133Star Trek Into Darkness isn't just a bad movie, it also a poor addition to the Star Trek franchise. Along with over the top visuals and poor 3d, the audience experiences bad acting from all the cast, and a finesse performance by Benedict Cumberpatch. I know the first film by heart, so I know that this film isnt going to make it with the greats of film history. Here's why; The film's emphasis is predictable and cheesy, you will notice this within the first 20 mins, don't be fooled as it attempts to overshadow all the bad plot-lines with great effects, but the effects look the same as everything else now days. And there is a sprinkle of "camp" and "cheese" throughout the film, where every character is generic and resembles more of a comic book. Sex, Visual Effects, Ego is all you will see at the end. Goodbye Star Trek TOS nice knowing you.… Expand
May 16, 20139Epic is an understatement. Probably one of the best Star Trek movies ever and certainly about the best movie out this year. Superb. Sharp witty dialog, excellent use of past "trekkie" lore, fantastic acting (love Sulu's "scene")... all in all a fantastic ride.
May 17, 20130Absolutely wretched, gone are the movies of the past with complex character and deep plots. Even a well timed cohesive plot with poor character could have out-shined this dud by J.J. Abrams. Prepare to be sidetracked with a special effects bonanza that will surely steer one away from the broken plot and "Nothing new under the Sun" plot.
A Bozo who resembles Khan from the original star trek (also the first Star Trek New movie had a singular "bad guy") Will destroy the federation with his master mind and intelligence. Chaos and forced Drama ensue between main characters in an attempt to prop this proposed script up as a "masterpiece". Im not fooled and no one else should be either. Look closely at how the movie is put together behind the special effects, pay close attention the "Bad Guy" and plotline, and dare tell me its never been done before.… Expand
May 16, 20139I'm more than happy to say that this film in the long-enduring and popular sci-fi franchise is every bit as entertaining and perfect as its predecessor from 2009! Director J.J. Abrams is quickly becoming one of my favorite sci-fi filmmakers! Everything in this film was handled perfectly! The visuals were better than ever! The acting was also superb, as there was once again plenty of humor to many of the characters. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto once again make the perfect duo of heroes! However, I must say that Benedict Cumberbatch's sinister performance was the main highlight! Alice Eve also made a worthwhile addition to the crew. Even the story was really impressive! Despite it borrowing and tweaking a few parts from "Wrath of Kahn", it still turned out not too bad. Overall, I can't say enough good things about this movie! I absolutely loved it! Trekie or not, I think that a lot of people are going to enjoy this movie just as they did with the first one! Bravo J.J. Abrams!… Expand
May 17, 20132Whoa is me! For I do not even have to use my mind these days to bare witness to the shock and flaw that is Hollywood production. Ill make this quick.
In an effort and successful effort to make Gazillions of Star Trek, Abrams has pulled over a special effects masterpiece, glaring visuals, awesome mind numbing explosions, and....well...thats actually about it.
Expect nothing much else, the character plot is essentially the same as the first Stark by Abrams, glaring plot holes that resemble the Greek Version of Tartar-us and there is no hope of escape throughout the movie, the hole is there, makes itself comfortable and will baffle even the highest IQ's on what the scriptwriters were thinking. Spock is no longer Spock, but a Bi-Polar maniac with unbridled lust, Kirk was about the same, and Scotty.....spends his time using "cliché" character dialogue.
I was not impressed and will not bow down for the sake of special effects.… Expand
May 20, 20131Please JJ, if you can't keep your crayon within the borders, don't consider the resulting scribble to be "art". I don't buy your "alternate timeline" bs. You have managed to make a cheap, throwaway version (or two) of "Star Trek", and you are ruining its heritage in the process. Roddenberry must be aghast! Please, JJ, leave Star Trek to people who actually care. What a shame!
May 19, 20135J.J. Abrams has achieved his goal of making Star Trek for people who weren't smart enough for the original series there is no science in this fiction and don't think too much about anything anyone says or you will start to ask questions around which the poorly pillaged plot will quickly unravel.
The effects are pretty, no denying it's a great looking film.
I only wish this quality cast had quality scripts to run with, they make a valiant attempt at saving the film from itself, but in the end you have a poorly scripted car chase movie in space.… Expand
May 20, 20135Bad trek, bad science fiction, bad direction, good action.
Adjust your expectations this is a action film that plays lip service to trek by lifting entire scenes and elements from wrath of khan jumbles them up and sprinkles underwear,running around and action on top without understanding or even caring about its source material, plot consistency, physics or even potentially its own future as a film series.
Leaving out the obvious about how the film is made to make a good trailer for a film not a good film, its total rehash of ST2 and going straight in on the lack of consistent use of plot, the film attempts to broaden the scope of the action introducing a room full of captains whose ships are available and are never used even when the finale is unfolding within spitting distance, takes iconic trek tech and continues to bastardise it, like beaming direct from Earth to Qo'nos effectively means that tech will need suppressing for future movies or you won't even require a star fleet if you can beam bombs across the galaxy.
Warp drive continues its unabated exponential speed increases, Janeway would give her left leg to get a hold of it and would have been home in days.
The ship itself continues to get dumber, in addition to engineering in the first film being a death trap in case of emergency decompression now the saucer section is too with internal open spaces riddling the ship existing only to add tension to later scenes, the only logical reaction would be to don your space suit and wear it constantly for fear of sudden death.
Moving away from the fantasy physics of Star Trek to just fantasy physics of film, everything is spread up 1000x for effect and plot tension an object falls unpowered from the moon to earth in minuets anti gravity going offline causes ceilings to become floors while in free fall, even accounting for rotation that's dumb.
That said I am giving it a 6, perfectly watchable dumb action film Scotty is solid, Pike is perfect, sulu gets the biggest character progression of anyone, everyone else retraces their arcs from the first film.
Oh wait a minuet, the plot hook is magic blood, that loses a mark your getting 5 into darkness.… Expand
May 16, 20137Let's get this straight. I am not a fan of the previous movie in this reimagining/alternative timeline setting.
But this movie? It really is the Wrath of Khan of this series so far. It even seems to be designed that way! And while the plot is a little spartan and predictable, and some of the scenes are hilariously hammy, I enjoyed myself a lot watching this movie. Its just plain enjoyable, on the whole.
Only real downside to this movie (without being a niggling Star Trek nerd that I often am) was some of the scenes were too long. They could have shaved 15 minutes off the movie and it would have been improved either that or replace them with some extra characterisation and plot dialogue. But its not enough to make me really count it against it people love their action scenes after all.
This movie knows when its being silly. I can't imagine some of the actors not bursting into laughter multiple times while attempting their lines one in particular. No spoilers, but when it happens you'll know (even if you're not a diehard Star Trek fan).
All in all, a basic plot that a first seems more complicated then it is, more likeable characters (Kirk especially has dropped most of the childish douchebag he was carrying around during the entire first movie), an actual villian (amazing, I know!) and some acceptable reimaginings to go with this new timeline. You know they did a decent job when a picky Trekkie like myself isn't going on about all the minor plot errors!
Also, please note that my score of 7 is a 'very good' from me. Few movies get more then that. I imagine if I was one to give inflated scores this movie would score an 8 or maybe 9. But I'm honest to my belief that everything can be improved upon so a solid 7 I give it.… Expand
May 17, 20130This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Into Darkness and the 2009 film which preceded it represent much more than simply the abandonment of almost 50 years of meticulously-maintained canon. Instead, something far less tangible and far more devastating has been lost.
What is it about this show that compels people (like me!) to obsess over it? And why is it so difficult to explain to others why it means so much to us? Or why we think that there is something unique and special in Star Trek.
It’s not easy to articulate an answer for that question. I’ve seen many interviews where even the actors who play the characters in the shows have trouble explaining it in a way which really outlines the totality of the premise.
I think the biggest problem is that we currently lack the shorthand language needed to express certain ideas represented by Star Trek at its best to other people in a way which is clear and simple to understand.
Star Trek showed us the world through a very wide angle lens, so we saw much more. I’m not speaking of the physicality of the place, but of the ideas. Star Trek brought us out of the pettiness of our own small daily lives to consider ideas different than those we might normally encounter. After watching at length, one might begin to realize that it’s actually a way of thinking; a different approach to the world.
There is a certain amount of optimism about our ability to solve our own problems together as a species. Because many of our contemporary problems have been solved, there are new problems to face. While they live in a utopia from our present day vantage point, I think the crew of the Enterprise would argue that they face problems all the time theirs is not a perfect world. They do have problems, but theirs are different.
Although Star Trek has fallen short in many ways over the years in presenting this idea. It had seemed that the core thought had managed to survive for a while. It was very clear from very early on what the basic idea was. A good summation about the mission of the show was given in a very early episode by a character named Keeler:
“One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energy maybe even the atom. Energy that could ultimately hurl men to other worlds in some sort of spaceship. And the men that reach out into space will find ways to feed the hungry millions of the world, and to cure their diseases. They’ll be able to find a way to give each man hope and a common future. And those are the days worth living for.”
While very interesting, taken on its own, Keeler’s charter probably didn’t resonate as easily with people as “…to seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before.”
In the 1960s, Keeler’s was a message that you just did not see on television. You had your all-American families, your spy shows, and your mysteries. Science fiction itself was confined to the domain of strange aliens who always seemed hellbent on killing the Earthlings.
Even today, we still haven’t appeared to move much beyond this place in our media. When people think of science fiction, it is seen as either being an action adventure in space or some esoteric about a madman who wants to change the nature of being human or otherwise offend our present day sensibilities.
J.J. Abrams’ understanding of Star Trek appears to fall within these bounds. Gone are the stories about unmasking self-proclaimed gods, or the stories wherein the abandonment of the future’s ideals is seen as a wrong rather than a somehow heroic and necessary evil but not totally evil because our hero is infallible.
His vision of Star Trek is more about some nebulous battle and seemingly unending war between good and evil a theme which seems to resonate well in our culture. It’s a very simplistic message: Our guy (Kirk) is good, the other guy (this time, Khan) is bad.
But Star Trek is about bigger things than this round-robin. Said Gene Roddenberry: “Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.”
We cannot go out into the universe and try to impose our will upon it with the gut certainty of being absolutely right. This will only lead to more conflict and probably our destruction by some far more powerful species.
Star Trek was an appeal to us to look at things as they could be and to ask… why not?… Expand
May 19, 20136This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The downfall from moral tale about a uptopian future continues in this installment. There is not much of Roddenberry's creation left amongst the summer movie popcorn movie making here. The dialogue is never allowed to sink in, Kirk is never in control of anything and continues to be buffeted about by every other character, and the action sequences are all given the same level of intensity and editing. A gentle touch on the shoulder is treated the same as a spaceship spinning out of control. There was no love in this movie. The writers and producers appear either to actively disrespect Star Trek, or they do not care and see this as less of an artistic outing as it is a cash grab. This is a decent summer action movie and nothing more. As far as a Star Trek film, it is a failure.… Expand
May 16, 20139I sure do like Star Trek and I'm in the camp where I can accept these movies even though they're little more than Star Trek in name.
The movie takes the mythology of the old films and constructs a fun action romp that plays around with fan's expectations. For me, I was happy to see what they did with the characters.Things make sense for the most part, which is surprising because Damon Lindelof had a hand in its writing.
The effects and audio are off the scale so it's hard to find any gripes there. Acting is solid, with the only issue being that some characters are 'one-liner' generators due to the fast pace at which the film moves.
If you liked the Start Trek film from 2009, you will like this one. Into Darkness contains the same positives and negatives as 2009, but with the positives slightly amplified, I would say. Thus, it makes the better picture.… Expand
May 17, 20138This movie had plenty of great action from start to finish. The plot is twisted but once you realize who's who it all falls into place. A lot of great references to past Trek episodes and a plot twist that will make you say WHOA!!!! instead of WHAT??? Best movie of the summer so far.
May 16, 201310I was blown away by not only the intense action and thrills, but also the remarkable storyline with amazing characters. It was packed with emotion much of the essence of Star Trek and contained some incredible twists. It is an extremely good approach to this much loved franchise, as by using an alternate timeline doesn't exploit its own advantages, but allows other people to enjoy it as much and it takes pride in its ability to stretch itself to new levels.
The villain, played by the venerable Benedict Cumberbatch, commanded much attention through his mesmerising baritone voice but also his physicality. When he wasn't in scenes, you could still feel his threatening presence, and when he was, he was spectacularly manipulating and hyper-intelligent. He was cold, calculating and rational, with kick-ass moves and hypnotizingly sympathetic motives with destructive methods. The crew had to so much grow incredibly in order to face up to who could be described as one of the best villains I've ever seen. Delivering the fact that he provides the film aplenty with moral dilemmas, he contributes wit alongside his fellow actors, possibly more, without an overload of special effects and action.
Enthralling as well as thrilling, it is an interesting and extremely entertaining addition to the Star Trek that doesn't lack the essence but puts a new twist on it, it is something I could watch multiple times and still would want more. When a film does that, you know it's good.… Expand
May 17, 20131Unmotivated characters, in-cohesive plot, and archaic execution.
JJ Abrams: Okay. The first Star Trek was good. Let's make the second one better!
Studio: Meh. People will still watch anything with your name and the brand of Star Trek attached to it. Just make the film as fast you can so that we can make money.
40You wind up feeling doubly bullied -- first by the brutal enormity of the set pieces, and then by the emotional arm-twisting of the downtimes. [20 May 2013, p.122]