Star Trek Into Darkness
Year:
2013
Country:
USA
Genre:
Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
7.9
Director:
J.J. Abrams
John Cho as Hikaru Sulu
Amanda Foreman as Ensign Brackett
Noel Clarke as Thomas Harewood
Jon Lee Brody as Enterprise Crew Security
Elly Kaye as Star Fleet Officer
Felicity Wren as Starfleet Officer
Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan (rumored)
Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov
Chris Pine as James T. Kirk
Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime
Bruce Greenwood as Christopher Pike
Karl Urban as Bones
Zoe Saldana as Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg as Scotty
Storyline: When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Type 1080p
Resolution 1920x800 px
File Size 11722 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 1536 Kbps
Format mkv
Download
Type HQ DVD-rip
Resolution 720x304 px
File Size 1382 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 1458 Kbps
Format avi
Download
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 11722 Mb h264 1536 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 1382 Mb mpeg4 1458 Kbps avi Download


Reviews
Eh
I want to qualify my review by saying that I'm an old-school Trek fan. I also want to say that I didn't like the 2009 Abrams "Star Trek" movie very much, although I didn't absolutely hate it.

They managed to make the franchise even dumber and more ADD than the 2009 Trek movie.

Lots of action, pretty actors and actresses, and cool special effects. Those were the only real redeeming qualities of this movie.

Story and character motivation were severely lacking. A brief cameo appearance by an old-school Trek character is used to further the plot in the least subtle way; the character bonks the audience over the head with information about the antagonist, rather than the script leading us to the information.

Benedict Cumberbatch was severely underutilized as an actor. There was only one marginally good scene between Kirk and Cumberbatch's character in which he explains his motivations. Otherwise, the character was one-dimensional and was going through the action-packed motions from that point on with requisite snarling.

Overall, I hope J.J. Abrams gives up the Star Trek franchise when he makes the new Star Wars movie. He's taken all of the thinking out of Star Trek. While old Trek was never hardcore sci-fi, and sometimes was kinda cheesy, at least it had elements of politics, religion, and social issues.
2013-05-20
An inventive, unpredictable, mesmerising space voyage! Spectacular!!!!
Truly spectacular, one of those rare amazing, inventive and often unpredictable blockbusters. The acting was great all round, especially Cumberbatch - wow, he was superb. The direction, cinematography and visual effects were all greatly innovative and brilliant; the screenplay fun, often humorous and has a lot of heart for all its characters which are all really well developed.

The film has some cliché moments which can't be avoided often with a film this scale however they make use of them well and still pack plenty of surprises. As well as this, despite not being a proper Trekkie myself, some moments gave me goosebumps from the awesomeness from seeing the Enterprise for the first time for example, which greatly honoured the original series. J.J. Abrams' lens flares helped create more realism in a lot of the scenes despite the fact he often overuses of them.

The villain was very interesting and the development, dialogue and motivations of his character were very convincing and inventive, Cumberbatch's fantastic acting greatly helped bring this character to life. Also the way he executed his plan showed a lot more cutting edge creativity than especially most modern blockbusters, not to say it's done nearly to the same level of genius but something I haven't felt in a villain's characterisation/acting since The Dark Knight.

Overall, a mesmerising film with nice homages to the original series, one filled with heart, grace, innovation, superb characters and acting and some impressive, clever visuals and immersive 3D, one of the only times I can say that. Up there with the 2009 one, not sure which I prefer, possibly the previous one largely due to the more clever story, despite this one having a much better villain, still not sure though. Still a very strongly recommended film, may hit my top 100 simply because how much I was impressed by it. 9/10!
2013-05-09
very disappointing and bewildering
I really couldn't wait to get out of there. I am a Star Trek fan from the original, emphasis on the word 'original', TV series and found the first remake in this series enjoyable, but this was just abysmal. Simon Peggs Scottishness just drove me up the wall - of course, he is not actually a Scot. The constant attempts at humour became nauseous - this is not supposed to be a comedy, but it bordered on it at times. The constant bam bam bam fisticuffs ridiculous. The throwback to an earlier Star Trek movie a first-order groan inducer. I really have no idea what the hell this was all about. I truly despair. There is so much great scifi material out there and these guys have to rehash and rehash. Please give us something original and exciting and thought-provoking. This definitely was not it. I am being generous giving it 2 out of 10.
2013-05-22
Stupidly Goes Exactly Where Everyone Went Before: Into Dumbness
Star Trek is one of the only television successes to contain some actual science fiction concepts, especially from 3rd season forward in Next Generation, but this movie, like it's crappy reboot predecessor is an action movie with spaceships. Into Darkness has about as much science fiction and boldly going as the recent James Bond, Skyfall, which is to say ... sadly ... none.

This terrible writing team (the guy who couldn't figure out what to do with the show Lost or the movie Prometheus and the idiots behind Transformers) has contrived a tapestry of action with artificial amped-up crisis after crisis--- the entire movie is essentially action scenes with a couple of pauses for clichéd dramatic beats--- "You're a loose cannon!" "This time ... it's personal!" "Vulcans should be more emotional."

Most of the cast is terrible cartoon caricature (Scotty & Bones are abysmal Saturday Night Live sketch performances), except Greenwood as Pike (this actor is directorproof, great in Exotica) and Kirk and Spock are good enough to keep me interested at a level of almost a 4.

The things lifted from Wrath of Khan are numerous and embarrassing and exemplify everything that is wrong with Hollywood and the remake/reboot machine: No CREATIVITY anywhere. Too much attempt to please the crowd, without any thought, challenge or boldly going anywhere.

Looks like JJ Abrams is well set up to continue making Star Wars movies exactly as cluttered and contrived and silly as The Phantom Menace.

Cluttered Action Sequences + Thievery (aka "homages") + Caricatures = Into Darkness

It's sad that an innovative franchise is now a dumb, loud and thoughtless lowest common denominator junk. Sci-fi should make you think, but this pile of noise shuts down the thinking process.
2013-05-18
Driving down the star trek franchise: what is this movie? only action? absolutely, this is not what star trek historically was. TNG, please, come back.
It is sad to realize what this movie comes out as a result of a dead franchise, but not owing to original ideas of star trek creators are out of time. I believe that after failure of "Enterprise"series on TV, the actual owners of ST franchise decided not to run any risk in the future: they planned to make action movies, with no ST philosophy inside and with no respect to ST history. This movie is about entertainment in the worst sense. The lack of sense into this film remains in a poor history, a wrong sense of what is action and no idea about what ST means for those who love Science fiction. To writers and Director: please, have a look to TNG films and books.
2013-10-09
Crash and Burn
******SPOILERS BELOW******

When I saw the starship Vengeance crash into San Francisco, I thought, "This is what J.J. Abrams has done to Star Trek."

Already, some of you might be sneering, "Another bashing from someone who knows nothing about Star Trek." I reiterate what I wrote 4 years ago about the previous movie (review #347, posted 5/9/2009): I was a Star Trek fan since The Original Series was on NBC. I have seen every episode of every TV series, including The Animated Series, and all 12 movies. I found the previous movie repulsive, but hoped that Abrams would deliver a better 2nd act. Instead, this movie was even worse.

I shall begin by listing the few positives in this movie. Once again, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto gave very good performances. Once again, ILM produced very good visual effects.

End of positives. Here come the negatives, in random order.

The dress uniforms were comical. They looked like parodies of Nazi German uniforms. The standard uniforms still looked like cheap knockoffs I would find in a second-rate costume shop.

Once again, the Enterprise's Bridge looked like a disco. Once again, Abrams included irritating shots of glare to make the movie more "realistic." Once again, Engineering looked like an oil refinery. Once again, this Enterprise is a pale shadow of the original NCC-1701.

Once again, we had a very loud and very forgettable soundtrack.

Once again, we saw Scotty's pint-size companion, Keenser - a.k.a. Cabbageface, a.k.a. Rockface, a.k.a. the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek.

We saw Doctor Carol Marcus, but now she's British?? And a weapons specialist?? Now Chekov is not only an Engineer, but (temporarily) the ship's Chief Engineer?? Apparently, Paramount is allowing J.J. Abrams to turn the Star Trek universe upside-down and inside-out.

When the Enterprise visited Nibiru, she was underwater, and Spock (and, eventually, Starfleet Command) were worried about the Nibirans seeing the ship emerge from the sea. Objection #1: Why was the ship underwater? Couldn't the mission be conducted with the Enterprise in orbit? Objection #2: Considering the water pressure on the ship's hull, why didn't we hear any creaking in the hull or see any breaches caused by the pressure? The shields weren't up because Scotty complained about the sea water corroding the hull. Objection #3: How did the ship enter the water without any Nibirans seeing her? Was the Enterprise invisible during descent? Are all the planet's humanoids in that one small village?

What I did in the previous paragraph is called Thinking About What I'm Watching. This is what we should do when watching any Star Trek story. But in J.J. Abrams' version of Star Trek, we are expected to stop thinking and just watch the loud, frantic action.

Now we come to Khan Noonien Singh. Abrams has transformed Khan from a Sikh Indian into a Brit. (Is Abrams obsessed with Brits?) Also, Khan's blood can resurrect the dead! So now Khan is like Robert Neville in The Omega Man (1971), or - dare I say it - Jesus Christ. (This Is The Cup Of My Blood, The Blood Of The New And Everlasting Covenant, etc.) Obviously, Starfleet Medical should extract blood samples from those 73 superhumans so that Starfleet personnel who are killed can be resurrected. (Again, we are supposed to stop thinking.)

This movie had two scenes that may be disturbing - even traumatic - to some viewers: the explosion in London, and the crash of the Vengeance in San Francisco. Many people in the Boston area (after 4/15/2013), the New York City area (after 9/11/2001), and the London area (after 7/7/2005) may be appalled by this exploitation of massive tragedies. Abrams might be trying to assuage such objections by dedicating the movie to first-responders and military personnel "after 9/11." But this still looks like exploitation.

I'm not the only veteran Star Trek fan who saw the ripoff of Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek III - The Search For Spock. The minor changes: Kirk enters the radiation-filled warp-core chamber; Spock gets to bellow, "KHAN!!" (which was almost comical); instead of The Genesis Effect, the resurrection agent is Khan's blood. Also, Kirk's death gives Spock another excuse to act like a brutal savage (what would Sarek say?), and Abrams an excuse to stage an absurd high-altitude fight scene.

Let's debunk the basic defense of J.J. Abrams; i.e., that he saved Star Trek. He has replaced Gene Roddenberry's version with his own version. In the pre-Abrams chapters of Star Trek, we saw intelligent stories with strongly-defined characters. But Abrams has replaced that with movies loaded with loud, frantic action but thin on story and logic. Obviously, this is appealing to the only movie fans who count: teenagers, who expect every movie to resemble a 3-D video game. I saw the 2-D version (on the night of May 19), and noticed that the theater was only half-full and devoid of teenagers. Apparently, the Target Audience gathered in the 3-D theater. We can expect every future Star Trek movie to follow the Abrams Canon: virtually non-stop, loud, 3-D action, with very little intelligence.

Paramount's weak excuse is, "We still have Star Trek." We still have Saturday Night Live, too. But both have become pale shadows of their original selves. Thanks to J.J. Abrams, I am no longer a Star Trek fan.
2013-05-20
Should have been called the "Wrath of Khan-Remix" do not read if you have not seen the movie yet
This film was a disappointment. The plot was from the Wrath of Khan from back in the 80's. I really like Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock, but as Khan he misses the mark. Ricardo Montalban was the perfect Khan. Smart, good looking, good strong body, and menacing. Cumberbatch did not fit that role. I can think of any number of male actors that could have fit the role better. Khan was supposed to be a superman, not a tall skinny guy. Chris Pine did a good job in his role. So did Zachary Quinto. I was disappointed as well (spoiler alert) of the Spock calling Spock scene. Every time the Enterprise runs into a bad guy is Spock going to call Spock? And again (spoiler alert) the scene of the radiation death is just a copy of the Wrath of Khan death scene. It was hard to get choked up about the death scene, when you knew it was not permanent. It was a predictable shadow of a copy of the Wrath of Khan. I guess in the next few movies, they will fight Klingon's, and then go rescue some whales...
2013-05-16
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Paramount Pictures, director JJ Abrams and writers, Orci, Lindelof, and Kurtzman have once again proved that they figure Trekkies will go see anything as long as it's got the name "Star Trek" on it.

If you set out to write a prequel to an existing work, then there can be nothing in the prequel which prevents the original from happening. It's simple, logical, cause-and-effect.

Yet the 2009 movie contained story elements which effectively precluded at least one of my favorite episodes of TOS, "Journey to Babel". I'd hoped they'd learned how to write by now, but "Into Darkness" creates new paradoxes that mean that several other episodes cannot now occur (and more than just one particular episode, and its movie sequel, which have been mentioned in several other reviews).

The claim that Abrams' version of Star Trek represents an "alternate universe" is nothing but a cheap cop-out explanation, made up after the fact, in an attempt to excuse extremely sloppy writing. "Alternate universe"? Well, maybe there's an alternate universe "me" who'll go see the next Star Trek movie. The "me" in this universe isn't going to be fooled a third time.
2013-05-19
A movie made for everyone,but the Star Trek fans.
I just went to see this movie,hoping it will turn out to be something more then just another action movie located in space. But,sadly for me,it didn't. If Bruce Willis had got a lead role,this could easily be Die Hard 34. There's more action then SF to be found in here. A Star Trek movie is not supposed to be a pack of fight scenes every 10 min.,followed by a few wannabe smart-humorous lines between the supporting characters,and as a cherry on top,a half naked blonde showing her goods to Kirk,just for the hell of it. Captain of the Enterprise is not a trigger happy cowboy,breaking the Prime directive as he pleases,because he started some stupid rescue mission,where his 1. officer is lowered into a volcano(couldn't't that device be beamed in?),while he and his medical officer(what is he doing there?) steal some scriptures(for what?) only to do some(again unnecessarily)scuba diving. Throughout the whole movie,story only lays out the excuses for another action scene,logic and common sense are not obligatory. This movie will,of course,be a smash-hit,because it's made to be visually appealing,to please wide masses,mostly young,perhaps create new armies of Trekkie's,ones that don't really need more from a Star trek movie then a good space blast once in a while,Spock and Uhura getting married,a bit of kung-fu,and some T&A. I grew up on Star Trek,so this movie is obviously not made for me,but for some new generation of Star trek fans.

P.S. I really doubt the phrases''Dear God'',and ''for the love of God'',will still be in use by the 2300-s. Star Trek has always been deprived of religion,so this really makes me sick. How typically American.
2013-05-12
Awful film
Sorry, but I really don't see what others did in this film.. except special effects and dramatic music. I loved the original Star Trek as a teenager... with it's creative story lines and unpredictability. In each episode I felt that somehow the normal bounds of my reality might recede or even be blown apart as I went boldly with the USS Enterprise crew into unimaginable places and situations. I like JJ Abrams and expected more.. all I got was Hollywood. It may as well have been a console game.. at least I would have been able to set phaser to stun and picked off the crew and cast one by one. Disappointing. Best film I saw last year was Safety Not Guaranteed... a Sci-Fi film for grown-ups. Great effects, funny, great characters and an estimated budget of $750k. Star Trek's is estimated at $190 MILLION. And all for what? Effects we have all seen before. Mass produced rubbish for the idiot masses.
2013-06-05
×