Read Negative User Reviews for Star Trek Into Darkness

0

OzTrekMay 16, 2013

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). BoringNot 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

19 of 33 users found this helpful1914

All this user's reviews

1

g_r_a_yMay 20, 2013

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. IIt'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

20 of 38 users found this helpful2018

All this user's reviews

3

amazingrandoMay 16, 2013

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 ofIf 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

33 of 66 users found this helpful3333

All this user's reviews

3

Richard_OntarioMay 16, 2013

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 BenedictStar 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

18 of 36 users found this helpful1818

All this user's reviews

0

Tim007May 15, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Another paint by numbers movie that simply has the Star Trek name on it. The fact that Benedict looks nothing like the character he is supposed to be playing makes NO SENSE. The changes to the timeline would not have affected Khan. No attempt was made to honour the original source material inany meaningful way. Then again no meaningful attempt was made in the last movie or the one after this either.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

AlienSpaceBatsFeb 15, 2014

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 ofThe 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.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

0

MaestroVolpeJun 8, 2014

I'm glad JJ Abrams was able to promote Lt. Uhura from communications officer to "eye candy completely irrelevant to the plot".

Her two scenes in the entire movie are kissing a guy and then screaming at her boyfriend to stop punching a guy.I'm glad JJ Abrams was able to promote Lt. Uhura from communications officer to "eye candy completely irrelevant to the plot".

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

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

I'm so glad JJ Abrams was able to suffocate this inspiring piece of civil rights and cinema history by completely smothering the Lt. Uhura character.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

2

ShaulGarFeb 23, 2014

Star Trek as nothing but an endless series of action shots, if you want a war movie set in the Star Trek universe than this is for you. It's not Star Trek, it's a over done over utilized ghost of what the series should be. Lots of shooting,Star Trek as nothing but an endless series of action shots, if you want a war movie set in the Star Trek universe than this is for you. It's not Star Trek, it's a over done over utilized ghost of what the series should be. Lots of shooting, blowing things up and fist fights, lots and lots and lots. I found my sympathies going for those apposed to Kirk and in support of Khan and those who thawed him out. Do not spend money on this, if you want to still see it, wait for it to come out on cable for free.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

3

MascalzoneJun 23, 2013

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 argumentThere 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

6 of 8 users found this helpful62

All this user's reviews

2

IraSJun 2, 2013

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 aboutHere 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

6 of 8 users found this helpful62

All this user's reviews

1

holodocMay 22, 2013

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

7 of 11 users found this helpful74

All this user's reviews

0

alex77005Jun 8, 2013

"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."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

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

0

crispinMay 24, 2013

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.

6 of 10 users found this helpful64

All this user's reviews

1

pvsMay 20, 2013

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 youPlease 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!… Expand

14 of 27 users found this helpful1413

All this user's reviews

3

norseMay 23, 2013

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,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

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

0

Max_HuntingMay 17, 2013

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 effectsAbsolutely 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

13 of 27 users found this helpful1314

All this user's reviews

0

BrianWardMay 17, 2013

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

10 of 21 users found this helpful1011

All this user's reviews

2

ArklenMay 17, 2013

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 pulledWhoa 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

9 of 22 users found this helpful913

All this user's reviews

1

BobboApr 3, 2014

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. ThisWhat 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.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

0

jsharbourJul 9, 2016

I hate this movie with a passion that I have never before experienced as a moviegoer. I despise this movie in the same manner that Data despises Forcas III Whiskey. It defies explanation. I simply hate it at a root chakra level of karmicI hate this movie with a passion that I have never before experienced as a moviegoer. I despise this movie in the same manner that Data despises Forcas III Whiskey. It defies explanation. I simply hate it at a root chakra level of karmic rage. Not really. But, it is insulting to Trek fans, to Roddenberry, and not worth watching again. I would rather watch Starcrash ten times in a row than watch this steaming pile of burnt Humpback whale flubber. Why? Its insulting. JJA is absolutely insulting the "old" fans. He doesn't even deny it. He even apologized for this film when it was released. And the same sort of idiot who gives this a rave review is likely to have watched and enjoyed Baywatch. Pretty things to look at and have a little laugh and enjoy yourself and HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Weren't those 'splosions great! I'm not communicating my emotions properly here, because, like I said, it's root chakra...the stuff you can't put into words.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

1

DukeWellingtonMay 17, 2013

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, andStar 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

7 of 19 users found this helpful712

All this user's reviews

0

cdettlingerMay 17, 2013

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

4 of 11 users found this helpful47

All this user's reviews

2

30laMay 15, 2013

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 perfectI 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… Expand

13 of 37 users found this helpful1324

All this user's reviews

2

GreatMartinMay 17, 2013

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 aFull 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

5 of 15 users found this helpful510

All this user's reviews

2

TatrTotzMay 24, 2013

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

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

0

WitqueenMay 27, 2013

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 ofI 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

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

0

user206Sep 12, 2013

This film is an utter joke and an insult to the name Star Trek. It's not exactly a bad movie... on its own it is a fast paced, forgettable summer action flick with flashy visuals and over simplified dialogue (don't want those young brainsThis film is an utter joke and an insult to the name Star Trek. It's not exactly a bad movie... on its own it is a fast paced, forgettable summer action flick with flashy visuals and over simplified dialogue (don't want those young brains straining now, do we). Nothing wrong with that, I watch and even enjoy those from time to time. But as a Star Trek film, telling interesting stories while tackling difficult questions and moral dilemma? Nah.

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

This film and its predecessor twists Gene Roddenberry's vision into a perverted mockery of itself and I'm fairly certain poor Mr. Roddenberry is spinning in his grave at 30,000 rpm right now.… Expand

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

0

RogersonMay 18, 2013

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

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

All this user's reviews

0

LordBithroniMay 18, 2013

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 lowI 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

3 of 14 users found this helpful311

All this user's reviews

0

wernermlSep 7, 2013

Once the final credits appeared, everything was explained: "J. J. Abrams", the most "over-(beyond moral ethics)-rated" person in the planet Earth. Now, he managed to become a true Series/Movies Assassin...

2 of 12 users found this helpful210

All this user's reviews

3

adz365Sep 13, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. what a bad film this is. Abrahms did a good job on the first but failed miserably on the second. Spock & Ohura's romance & argument with Kirk, Spock's fight scene, the blondie getting her kit off for no reason other than to give a few geeks a boner. Poor. Why use Klingons and show them for 5 minutes? Oh as if Kirk was going to die and end the franchise. Poor on so many levels. First film see the first 2 1/2 series of Lost. Second film see the remaining series of Lost.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

RoscoetwoSep 15, 2013

They really jumped the shark when Kahn teleported from Earth to Kronos. That was not Trek science and was really unacceptable. They did not have any Trekers working on this film. Very bad movie for me after that part.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

PuciferOct 4, 2013

Two words: lens flare.

But because that will not fulfill metacritic's 150 character minimum, let me add that as a fan of the original series, I am offended by this rebooting, which cheapens the original series concept by re-imagining it asTwo words: lens flare.

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

Not to mention the lens flare.

Please, next time, spare us another unimaginative, mediocre, Earth-bound spectacle without a trace of grandeur.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

2

GileqNov 3, 2013

Only few points for effects trekkies, please...
This version is made for teenagers, and lost all StarTrek magic and science/peace mood.
They dont even pretend they read physics book at first class...

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

1

MKUltramanAug 8, 2013

Star Trek Into Dumbness! The final nail in the coffin of the Star Trek franchise, this movie suffers a nonsensical plot replete with holes and some truly irritating performances from the cast. Of special note in Chris Pine who is thoroughlyStar Trek Into Dumbness! The final nail in the coffin of the Star Trek franchise, this movie suffers a nonsensical plot replete with holes and some truly irritating performances from the cast. Of special note in Chris Pine who is thoroughly unlikeable as Kirk.… Expand

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

2

DesertRoseApr 12, 2015

Choosing one word to sum up our rating for this movie would be difficult. It was simply disappointing, cheesy, fake, and not something we were able to take seriously.

The cast seemed completely wrong, especially for Kirk and Spock.Choosing one word to sum up our rating for this movie would be difficult. It was simply disappointing, cheesy, fake, and not something we were able to take seriously.

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

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

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

ArcticFrenzyAug 6, 2016

extremely boring, mostly even awkward. Since I watched it like two months ago i dont quite remember all those annoying things but one of them was Spock´s wannabe emotional behaviour. I was never fan of this series.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

rederpJan 3, 2016

What to say about this movie. I actually admire the direct attempt to remake what is considered the best trek movie. The combination of 'superior in all aspects but arrogant' genetically engineered augments combined the the 'irrationallyWhat to say about this movie. I actually admire the direct attempt to remake what is considered the best trek movie. The combination of 'superior in all aspects but arrogant' genetically engineered augments combined the the 'irrationally vengeful villain' was an amazing concept the resonated with audiences on both surface and deeper levels.

Some of the previous TNG movies have, in part, tapped into these ideas. Most notably Nemesis which had both a superior enemy ship an arrogant villain.

Sadly, this movie failed to follow through on this winner of a premise.

Nostalgia quotes and references quickly wore thin in st2009, in this film they are gratingly obvious crutches in place of a compelling story, characters and emotion between the action. The essence of classic trek is the focus on a humanistic theme. This and st2009 are cheap, popcorn action flicks trading on the beloved franchise in name only.

In short; it's more of the same 2009 reboot - loud, fast and dumb and trek in name alone.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

1

skim123Dec 26, 2013

Garbage writing. Too many plot holes to mention (google them if you want more detail). My main complaint is this: there are 2 "schemes" carried out by 2 villains in this movie that are lacking in logic and full of flaws. How this crap writingGarbage writing. Too many plot holes to mention (google them if you want more detail). My main complaint is this: there are 2 "schemes" carried out by 2 villains in this movie that are lacking in logic and full of flaws. How this crap writing got past the critics is beyond me. I can only guess that the critics were pressured by the Hollywood mafia to give this movie good reviews. I can't believe this is what passes as movie writing these days. How was this script approved? How do these writers get work? They must "know some people in the business" if you know what I mean. Not a fan of the Lindelof/Abrams posse. After Prometheus, I have to peg Lindelof as a guy who fancies himself a genius. He attempts these convoluted plots and they always just end up full of plot holes. I'm not sure he's smart enough to tackle the complex storylines that he attempts. Maybe they need to spend a few more weeks in the writer's room to fill in those plot holes before moving forward with these garbage movie scripts. TV writing is so much better these days.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

dramaticwordsAug 16, 2020

Terrible remake of Wrath of Khan that takes the best moments and makes them into mockeries, wrapping them in a plot that makes no sense.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

GarethBOct 21, 2018

This marks the moment I gave up on modern star trek... English Khan, unearnt NOOOOOOO after they have been at each others throats for the entire last movie, Khan juice cures everything and the moment I saw the Enterprise parked.... underwaterThis marks the moment I gave up on modern star trek... English Khan, unearnt NOOOOOOO after they have been at each others throats for the entire last movie, Khan juice cures everything and the moment I saw the Enterprise parked.... underwater whilst they were on an away mission I realised that a moron had walked in off the street and written the story for this.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

ahollandMay 29, 2021

A ridiculous script which cannot possibly be saved by the special effects. It is a failure as a Star Trek story, as a science fiction story, and as a movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews