Read Mixed User Reviews for Star Trek Into Darkness

5

FurrygopherMay 20, 2013

Bad trek, bad science fiction, bad direction, good action.

Adjust your expectations this is a action film that plays lip service to trek by lifting entire scenes and elements from wrath of khan jumbles them up and sprinklesBad 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

16 of 24 users found this helpful168

All this user's reviews

4

VNVNationMay 17, 2013

I'm a big fan of the original 'reboot' and I expected this to be a pretty decent sequel. Massive disappointment. The 'plot' is unintelligible and seriously lacking. Effects and CG is okay but nothing we haven't seen before. Overall, IntoI'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.… Expand

17 of 43 users found this helpful1726

All this user's reviews

5

Just_MeJan 6, 2014

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 compareI 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

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

6

StarTrekScienceMay 25, 2014

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,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!… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

MrMovieBuffJul 21, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is a massive step below its predecessor in terms of its story. This film takes everything that would have been so great about this franchise, and turns it on itself.

We see James Kirk (Chris Pine) return along with his crew including; Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), but Kirk is removed from the USS Enterprise after saving the Nibiru from a volcanic eruption and getting their ship exposed to the population there.

The main plot of the film revolves around a mysterious man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), who ends up killing Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), and Kirk vows revenge on him. Kirk and his crew travel to find Harrison in Kronos, and hold him as prisoner where he is able to tell the crew about the torpedoes that they are not meant to fire simply because there are people frozen inside of them.

It becomes clear that Harrison is someone he doesn't want one to think that he is, he reveals that he is Khan (an iconic "Star Trek" villain from "The Wrath of Khan") and that this shocking revelation, doesn't seem so shocking the more you think about it. Cumberbatch is a good actor to be playing a villain, but his performance mostly channels that of Alan Rickman when he was Professor Snape in the "Harry Potter" franchise. Cumberbatch is almost not so memorable, as well as underused in this role.

It also turns out that the USS Enterprise is compromised as the USS Vengeance is attacking them, the leader of that ship, Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) wants the crew to bring Khan to him.

The Enterprise is now in some form of danger, and Kirk tries everything he can to bring the ship back into function, in the exchange for his own life. After witnessing Kirk die, Spock, in angst, vows revenge on Khan and goes after him. It turns out that Bones discovers that Khan's blood can revive a dead being when tested on an animal. They soon realize that Khan's blood can do the same to Kirk, so they need him alive. Spock brings Khan back, alive, and they were able to use his blood to revive Kirk as well as freeze Khan inside a torpedo.

The film can still be a great, visually dazzling and fast-paced experience for fans of this new take, but the way the plot gets resolved and the overall solution feels a bit of a step down from any form of struggle. The fact that the villain's blood can bring a dead being back to life seems a little off, and is the easiest solution for any film plot, whatsoever. The screenwriters; Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof try so hard to create an intense third act, and try hard to end it as quick as they can, but result in just rushing the solution and everything is resolved quickly and easily. Don't forget Bones' cheesy lines of dialogue like "Damn it, I'm a doctor! Not a..." and so on. The dialogue for some reason sounds forced and unreal.

J.J. Abrams' direction is still as fantastic as ever, and the cast of actors still do a tremendous job of committing to their roles. The script is what let this film down...it will please casual sci-fi fans and maybe some "Star Trek" fans, here and there...but for most dedicated "Star Trek" fans...this will not suffice.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

berkoughJun 14, 2013

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 isJ.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

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

5

Brutus54May 29, 2013

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, lotsBit 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

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

5

skinybarfJun 10, 2013

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 aThis 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.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

6

greygooseMay 22, 2013

This movies LOOKS GREAT. The special effects are some of the best I've seen in awhile. It looks like space, it feels like space. Costumes and sets are used in the tradition of the original Star Wars movies, and any CGI is not distracting, ifThis movies LOOKS GREAT. The special effects are some of the best I've seen in awhile. It looks like space, it feels like space. Costumes and sets are used in the tradition of the original Star Wars movies, and any CGI is not distracting, if noticeable at all. On a visual level JJ nailed it. I just wish I gave a about anything that happened to the characters etc. My friend and I looked over at each other after about an hour and a half of constant action and said, "I'm not invested in this at all." A bummer, cause the first movie was pretty fun. Suspense seems to be missing from recent blockbusters. Especially since anything that makes enough money overseas or here, gets a sequel so we know we don't have to worry about any of the character's fates. They're all gonna live and be back in 2 or 3 years to do this again, worse.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

4

samichsupernovaMay 15, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film was all over the place, and not in a good way. There's not a single interesting moral or philosophical idea or crisis to be found in its entire plodding run time. It felt like four stretched-out episodes of an artless TV series with the budget of BSG, until screenwriters Lindelof, Kurtzman, and Orci ran out of ideas and decided to spend half the movie remaking (one of) the most beloved of Trek films without having earned any of its heart or soul.

Spock x Uhura falls flat this time around; their romance could have been so much more interesting than the bickering taking place onscreen. Pegg's Scotty is great, but Urban's Bones, Cho's Sulu, and Yelchin's Chekhov (all fantastically cast in the first outing) don't have enough to do. For all the Sherlock fangirls out there, Cumberbatch's talents are sadly wasted. We never get enough of his motivations, but then when his exposition dump rolls around, anyone who's seen the Trek film this material was based upon can guess how the rest of the film will play out. It's a far cry from the original, much better portrayal of this character, and the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the film's lazy screenwriters. If the movie gets one thing right it's the bromance between Kirk and Spock Pine and Quinto try their very best. But not even the best performers can polish subpar material. J.J. and his partners in crime clearly don't care enough about this universe (or didn't have the time) to fix numerous plot holes, (i.e. why would all of the top brass need to meet in person with holographic technology? Oh, because it's a plot convenience that allows us to cram more events into a film that has no room to breathe).

The 2009 film (which I also disliked) is better in almost every way. Perhaps most telling is that even Michael Giacchino's score this time around sounds rushed. I have never once before taken a disliking to one of Maestro Giacchino's tracks, but this is not his best stuff here.

Also, the action scenes and even the CGI are not as well filmed as those in the 2009 film.

Sadly, there's no sense of the humanitarian/colonial themes of the original Trek series anywhere. As a character puts it, since the events of the first film Starfleet has become more of a military force, which means stocking the Enterprise with mysterious warheads.

Dear fellow filmmakers, why were you denying the rumors regarding you-know-who? As it turns out, you just knew that once the cat was out of the bag, we'd all see the Emperor's new clothes for what they were. Guess what, screenwriters? You're officially writing AU slash fanfic.

To be perfectly honest, I love Star Trek (my fave is TNG) but Star Wars is closer to my heart. To me it's infuriating to think that these schmucks are going to be in charge of Star Wars now (officially, Michael Arndt's writing the script to that one based on a story by George Lucas, but Abrams will almost certainly have Lindelof advising him.)

PS: Mr. Abrams, I know there is good in you. Get back in gear.… Expand

11 of 22 users found this helpful1111

All this user's reviews

5

CailoreMay 19, 2013

J.J. Abrams has achieved his goal of making Star Trek for people who weren't smart enough for the original series there is no science in this fiction and don't think too much about anything anyone says or you will start to ask questionsJ.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

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

All this user's reviews

4

rocketpackpandaMay 21, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Orci, Kurtzman and LIndelhof need to go back to the drawing board. Given a freeslate to work with and they come up with a product that is horribly maligned. Add to that the fact that Abrams tries to pull a Bay with his direction and style and you have a recipe for a disaster, thats before mentioning that the lens flare shenanigans have only gotten worse. The dialogue in particular is horribly dull and cliched with their delivery off base most of the time. The melodrama between spock and uhura is so poorly done that it reeks throughout the movie long after the scene has passed. The actors do their best, Pine, Quinto Cumberbatch and Urban (Urbans Bones is by far the best part of the film, the only part to stay consistently good the whole time) but the scripts dialogue is just so bad. Cumberbatch's character suffers the most out of the four, with not only having to deal with terrible lines but also uneven direction. This is before we even get to the plot of the film which is so incredibly uneven and unappreciative of its clean slate in the star trek universe. It boils down to the fact that its treated more like a transformers esque action film than the adventure of star trek and lets be clear, Abrams can't direct action, he does adventure. Its painfully evident as the action scenes themselves are quite nice, but due to the weak script they have no weight, no consequence making it all seem so MEH! Paramount needs to let go of the writing team in favour of people who are willing to bring life to the franchise (keep Abrams, its not his fault the script was shoddy). And also Spock crying "KHAAAAAAAN!" is so out of place that its a parody of itself, not Wrath of Khan mind you but of Into Darkness. If you really want to watch this train wreck, dont waste your money on this cash grab, stream it or torrent it.… Expand

5 of 10 users found this helpful55

All this user's reviews

5

Acceler8nMay 20, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This second installment of Star Trek just doesn't flow as smoothly as the first one. Good action and visual effects like one would expect from JJ Abrams but in my opinion, this movie was not as engaging as the first one. The story and sequence of events just was not as exciting as the first one. It is still a good movie to watch for sci-fi fans as well as the Star Trekkie. A couple of flaws in the story but maybe I just didn't quite fully understand the history of the Star Trek universe. For example, why need to draw blood from Kahn when you have 72 frozen bodies to draw blood from on the starship, all of whom are genetically engineered superhumans?… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

6

screenplayhouseMay 21, 2013

I'm sure J.J. Abrams and his smug writing team felt bad that poor Gene Roddenberry didn't leave to see STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS, but as irony would have it, he did.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

EmmaFayMay 28, 2013

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 thisI'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

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

TheEnderJun 21, 2013

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.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

DukeJonMar 2, 2014

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",Star Trek at its finest; Great story, strong villain, excellent special effects, self-sacrifice by a leading character. Yes, "The Wrath of Khan" is generally thought of as the best Star Trek film for very good reasons. "Into Darkness", however, is basically a clone of a much better film. It's ok, and certainly better than the other "Khan" clone film "Nemesis", but the fact that they copied the plot and much of the dialogue word-for-word is pretty sad when you think of it. Not as good as the first film in the reboot.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

NotonlytheendMay 30, 2013

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 ofThis 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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

TheDiscernerMay 24, 2013

JJ Abrams has no idea how to stage an effective action sequence, which renders this action-packed film rather redundant. Its fair enough that they decided to focus less on ideas and more on spectacle, but there was no flair in the conceptionJJ Abrams has no idea how to stage an effective action sequence, which renders this action-packed film rather redundant. Its fair enough that they decided to focus less on ideas and more on spectacle, but there was no flair in the conception or execution of any set-pieces in fact there were no real set pieces, just a relentless barrage of changing locations and flying CGI objects, all filmed with an artlessly roving shaky camera. A good action sequence is predicated on suspense, environment, and clear objectives, and it does matter whether the viewer can clearly discern what exactly is going on in any frame.

The positive reception towards this kind of film makes me worry that modern audiences are forming a kind of pavlovian response to fast cuts and loud bangs. Thankfully directors like Alfonso Cuaron still know how to construct a decent action sequence so I guess there's still hope after all.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

SKELETOR420May 20, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Just... not good. ABRAMS!!! The guy is a hack in creative terms but pretty talented regarding his production company. He should stick to what he knows and especially keep his hands out of space. the best thing he ever did as a sole creative endevour was writing Armageddon.

This IS a bad remake of Star Trek 2. Star Trek 2 is Star Trek 2. There is little positive to say about it. It's a functional summer action movie. The new Superman is more important than this, and that's just because of the people involved alone.

Paramount should trilogy this out for good and then do a TNG reboot! haha. Trek is dead, long live the Trek.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

ThylbanusMay 25, 2013

Having been a fan of the previous incarnation, I was impressed by the first outing (understanding that it was an origin story and was going to be a bit of a slog). I had higher hopes for this film, but it doesn't live up to it's predecessor.Having been a fan of the previous incarnation, I was impressed by the first outing (understanding that it was an origin story and was going to be a bit of a slog). I had higher hopes for this film, but it doesn't live up to it's predecessor. The plot seemed forced and contrived at times. Left me with big questions that they never answer. And just left me feeling more hollow than I would have expected. With the last movie, I had felt hope and maybe this would help evolve the crew into a true ensemble. While it tried, and at some points succeeded, it failed in many others. Part of the problem is tackling some of the classic mythos as they did, they should have considered that the fans would want more. We need to see how past TOS episodes that they used tied into this movie. Some are passed on as simple one or two line explanations, but others are glossed over and ignored all together. Unless you were a REAL huge fan of the entire series, it leaves you a little Lost.
Yes, I capitalized that on purpose. It brings to mind all the unanswered and unresolved plot lines from Lost. It had so much potential and yet when I watched it, it almost seemed like there were too many chefs to spoil the soup. The plot could have easily wrapped up some questions that you would have had, except that it would have probably extended the movie by 30-60 minutes. So I wonder if it was proposed, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It's what I HOPED happened, otherwise I'm going to have some reservations about his ability to handle Star Wars.
Lens flare has been reduced in this, which is nice. (Though there are a few points where it is overplayed, but not like the last time) Technical aspects are well executed. Something that I think J.J. has a pretty good handle on. Visually it is quite beautiful, but in the end, when all is said and done, it's still a pretty hollow experience. The plot and pacing is still something that J.J. needs to work on. There are certain answers that are owed to fans of a mythos this extensive. As long as he alienates those fans, this franchise will end much like "Enterprise." You have to make the Moms and Dads proud to introduce their kids into this world if you want it to continue. With this last outing, I'm not so sure I'll be watching it with my kids.
Right now, this movie falls into the "Nemesis" class of Star Trek films. Great unrealized potential.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

metacritic131Jun 4, 2013

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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

KaienShibaMay 19, 2014

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, writingToo 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.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

JunghovaMay 16, 2013

As someone who grew up with star trek, I had some high hopes for this movie, especially considering how enjoyable the reboot was. So imagine my disappointment with a half baked script (with some good ideas) combined with cheesy acting.As someone who grew up with star trek, I had some high hopes for this movie, especially considering how enjoyable the reboot was. So imagine my disappointment with a half baked script (with some good ideas) combined with cheesy acting. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were decent, but the rest of the crew seemed like window dressing. I have seen this movie before and it was and still is far superior......

Having said that, I just feel that Trek deserved better.… Expand

14 of 29 users found this helpful1415

All this user's reviews

5

wrtworthyMay 15, 2013

The trailers & title for the film made it out to be far more epic and grad then it actually was, if your after a action space movie then this is for you, but if your after a film with a bit more depth to it (i.e a story) then this film is notThe 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.… Expand

11 of 23 users found this helpful1112

All this user's reviews

5

TotalBiscuitXXXMay 16, 2013

'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'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

10 of 21 users found this helpful1011

All this user's reviews

4

SirEddieCookMay 19, 2013

The best movie JJ Abrams hasn't made is probably how he pulls it off to manage Star Trek, Star Wars and make homages to 80s Spielberg all at the same time. This new one has some good ideas after a clunky first act, with a very good actor inThe best movie JJ Abrams hasn't made is probably how he pulls it off to manage Star Trek, Star Wars and make homages to 80s Spielberg all at the same time. This new one has some good ideas after a clunky first act, with a very good actor in Benedict Cumberpatch and a dramatic revival from Peter Weller. The Kirk and Spock chemistry is super lacking, even though the dramatic choices and homage-laden finale lays entirely upon emotional investment that there is a deep connection between the two. Both Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine are blocks of wood, so it really hurts the overall impact of the movie. Though I didn't like this movie very much, it's better than the 2009 version. The movie has improved SFX, and some cool stuff in terms of scope, but it's not really clever in terms of tactical space battles and the lack of emotional investment hurts the overall impact. And the movie is overly fast-paced, with too many abrupt all-of-a-sudden moments.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

4

Ronyo30May 20, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. ***SPOILERS***

I like the first (2009) movie, however I completely dislike this recent attempt. One, Cumberbatch as Khan simply does not work. They went through great lengths to find plausible actors for the main crew, why not the same treatment for Khan? He looks, sound, and acts nothing like the original. I could call the Excelsior the Enterprise, it doesn't make it true. I will say that Cumberbatch makes a good antagonist, but a crappy Khan. Other than that, the plot holes and head-scratching moments are far too abundant. For instance, what was the point in the scene with Marcus and Kirk when she was indisposed? I found the movie to be a good action film, but a poor Star Trek film. It lacks the sophistication and intellect I expect. After all, Star Trek is a sci-fi "DRAMA", it relies on better writing, casting and acting than this movie received.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

5

Koog72May 18, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Good points:
Effects are superb, Pine is excellent as Kirk, CGI is also excellent.

Bad points:
Khan should be ruthless, virtually unbeatable he isn't.
Scotty is a major annoyance esp that accent!
Spock FFS can't believe they actually have him crying that's a major cringe point, this alone managed to detract from what was an entertaining movie.
It's a real pity as I thought this was going to be a hit.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

5

McParadigmMay 19, 2013

JJ Abrams continues to be the quintessential factory-farm movie guy. He doesn't want to create his own voice, so much as he wants to show you how remarkably well he can mimicking Spielberg at his mid-80's peak.

It's a different era,JJ Abrams continues to be the quintessential factory-farm movie guy. He doesn't want to create his own voice, so much as he wants to show you how remarkably well he can mimicking Spielberg at his mid-80's peak.

It's a different era, though, and the attention spans aren't what they were, so no plot point is considered too significant to interrupt the action for more than one or two minutes.

Basically, this is a fun movie that has nothing to do with what Star Trek was. It's a mindless summer thrill ride in every sense of the word but one...the actors are seriously in it to win it this time around (and good for them...they shine). There's nothing wrong with being a mindless thrill ride, of course. My only real complaint is that I miss, beyond any hope of communication, the days before CGI.

This isn't because I think effects looked better, back then, but because creating special effects within the primary filming process required directors to think about something other than "How cool can you make it look, my software junky slave labor crew?" These days, the characters can destroy an entire city center, wiping out innumerable lives, and then sprint barely half a city block over to continue the fight in a place where the populace is still casually strolling to work and where the glass isn't even cracked. It separates you from the film.

And why do lazy mistakes like this happen? Because the director thinks you're an idiot? No....because the special effects are a far greater and more invasive component to the film than they ever could have been twenty-five years ago, but they are often no more a part of the discussion when plotting out the story than they were at that time.

The other thing that struck me is that Abrams tried to engage Star Trek in this movie simply by using sense memory (visuals and audio reminiscent of the past) and by copy-pasting text from older movies. That's fine, when you're making a reboot movie that can easily be deleted from the "fan canon" later on and carries no franchisal threat....but I sure hope he doesn't take the same approach when he makes Star Wars. That brand may be at the point where anything is up, but if Abrams brings it up from prequel level to "Into Darkness" level, then he's missed a real opportunity.… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

6

AchaernMay 19, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The downfall from moral tale about a uptopian future continues in this installment. There is not much of Roddenberry's creation left amongst the summer movie popcorn movie making here. The dialogue is never allowed to sink in, Kirk is never in control of anything and continues to be buffeted about by every other character, and the action sequences are all given the same level of intensity and editing. A gentle touch on the shoulder is treated the same as a spaceship spinning out of control. There was no love in this movie. The writers and producers appear either to actively disrespect Star Trek, or they do not care and see this as less of an artistic outing as it is a cash grab. This is a decent summer action movie and nothing more. As far as a Star Trek film, it is a failure.… Expand

3 of 9 users found this helpful36

All this user's reviews

5

NikolayGJun 5, 2013

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, isThis 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

3 of 9 users found this helpful36

All this user's reviews

6

jeremypMay 20, 2013

These days a movie has to have more than the usual CGI mechanics. It has to have a story. This one was weak and barely good enough for a TV episode. Cumberbatch is great, but none of the other characters caught fire. Pine does a good youngThese days a movie has to have more than the usual CGI mechanics. It has to have a story. This one was weak and barely good enough for a TV episode. Cumberbatch is great, but none of the other characters caught fire. Pine does a good young Kirk-he's more likeable-and Quinto does Spock well, but doing Spock well is like falling off a truck. Just look thoughtful and don't use your facial muscles. Uhuru shagging Spock? C'mon girl, you need passion!… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

namelessJun 2, 2013

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 hadDon'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

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

SpankyMay 22, 2013

This is just marginally better than the first one. It seems they can't come up with an exciting, NEW or original script for this series. Instead, they rely on time travel(once again) and introducing villains from the old series. I guessThis is just marginally better than the first one. It seems they can't come up with an exciting, NEW or original script for this series. Instead, they rely on time travel(once again) and introducing villains from the old series. I guess we'll keep seeing Leonard Nemoy in each one of these films as well until he dies. This is truly a shame as I would have thought they would have gotten all this extraneous bull over with in the first film.

It's definitely time to get out there and explore bold NEW worlds and situations.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

imthenoobJul 29, 2013

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 hoursStarting 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

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryMay 20, 2013

Watching this movie felt like déjà vu. The plot (an evil power bent on destroying the Star Fleet) is certainly nothing new. The dialogue seemed cobbled together from every cliché in the series: annihilation is imminent with every decision,Watching this movie felt like déjà vu. The plot (an evil power bent on destroying the Star Fleet) is certainly nothing new. The dialogue seemed cobbled together from every cliché in the series: annihilation is imminent with every decision, each crew member must take a stand (using the inevitable cliché) and Kirk/Spock spar/smooch. The futuristic Earth has cool architecture and the big crash is spectacular, but most of the combat is all noise and flash without much cool action. Fans will dig the endless drama, but I'd rather see "Iron Man 3" again.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

EwanDaveyKeefeMay 16, 2013

What made me pay attention to this series, was the perfect blend of what made the original series and early movies so great and the dark undertone to which carried the first movie. How the alternate reality event was so well done it feltWhat made me pay attention to this series, was the perfect blend of what made the original series and early movies so great and the dark undertone to which carried the first movie. How the alternate reality event was so well done it felt entirely plausible within this universe.

The title of the movie felt some what questionable as i believe the original movie was far darker. What separated this film from other mindless Sci-fi action movies out there is the rather ominous performance from Benedict Cumberbatch due to his alluring screen presence, Yet i felt what made the original villain to whom Cumberbatch WAS playing so great was the balance he had with Kirk and Spock. Yet throughout its clear both actors are being heavily out done and it feels more of a cop out than an actual victory in the final moments.

I felt that alot of the secondary characters became simple plot devices rather than interesting, with the overplaying on comedy which removed what little elements of darkness, which made the original so good.

To summarise what made this film good, was exiting action sequences likeable characters and beautiful CGI. The downfalls are unbalanced acting pared with a lack luster script and disappointing ending which felt an insult to what the original film had set up.… Expand

4 of 17 users found this helpful413

All this user's reviews

6

JamesLMay 23, 2013

This film lacked originality and I fear for the future of the series. If it took four years to come up with a plot that was basically borrowed from a previous film. how unoriginal will the third film be? Frankly, I am already bored with theThis film lacked originality and I fear for the future of the series. If it took four years to come up with a plot that was basically borrowed from a previous film. how unoriginal will the third film be? Frankly, I am already bored with the Spock /Kirk battle and hope that they get on to the mission of the Enterprise. Eliminate the battles scenes or at least minimize them and have a smart plot with some other worlds and some real science fiction.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

lilkillpappyOct 7, 2013

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 andGreat 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

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

6

David_HMay 19, 2013

Chris Pine is again excellent as James Kirk, as are the exceptional cast in the new series. I was pleasantly surprised because so often when a new series comes on so incredibly strong, the sequel often disappoints. Having said that the reasonChris Pine is again excellent as James Kirk, as are the exceptional cast in the new series. I was pleasantly surprised because so often when a new series comes on so incredibly strong, the sequel often disappoints. Having said that the reason for my less than stellar scores simply the casting selection of the villain. Yes we understand the timeline is now shifted but the villain from whence he is derived absolutely drives the need for a Latino actor. For example Javier Bardem would have been an excellent choice.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

6

screenjabMay 19, 2013

It's all over the place, and more often than not a bit of a confusing frenzy Many aspects don't pertain to the storyline, which should have been left on the cutting-room floor. It does have it's moments, granted, but as a whole, this secondIt's all over the place, and more often than not a bit of a confusing frenzy Many aspects don't pertain to the storyline, which should have been left on the cutting-room floor. It does have it's moments, granted, but as a whole, this second film's a mess.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

5

EludiumQ36Oct 26, 2013

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, ScottieJust 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

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

Trev29Sep 20, 2013

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

hapycampr2002May 27, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Good science fiction allows for a suspension of disbelief. I was enjoying the movie despite some of the early predicaments Kirk gets himself out of (I was in the military, and one of the most important things you learn is to obey your superior officer it's brainwashed into you) until the movie fell apart at the climax. There were several scenes that caused me to lose focus and caused me to discredit the film: when Kirk had to go into the radioactive chamber to realign the warp core (read up a little on what happened to workers at Chernobyl and how quickly they succumbed to the radiation and the effects); the ridiculous fact that he was able to just kick the necessary piece of equipment back into place to make the warp core functional; oh yeah, there's that one handle that can be used to shut down the reactor (or whatever it was) one of the stupidest plot devices there is in Sci Fi movies; Khan, who was previously impervious to pain and so strong that he could fall 30 meters without harm, was somehow beaten up by Spock; and when Kirk died but was brought back to life he sustained no brain damage despite being out for several minutes. It is cheap and lazy screen writing.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

mexrangerMay 15, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness promises a more gripping story, but ultimately fails to reach any great heights. Not a bad film its just a cliched high budget film. One issue i found annoying was when watching the movie in 3d items in the foregroundStar Trek Into Darkness promises a more gripping story, but ultimately fails to reach any great heights. Not a bad film its just a cliched high budget film. One issue i found annoying was when watching the movie in 3d items in the foreground were blurred and distracting. Final point see the movie don't buy the game… Expand

0 of 10 users found this helpful010

All this user's reviews

6

neocomp92May 16, 2013

The long and short is that Into Darkness did not reach nor exceed its predecessor's glory. It does have enough meat and potatoes to make it an above average movie, but once you sink in the cracks start to appear.

There is no doubt thatThe long and short is that Into Darkness did not reach nor exceed its predecessor's glory. It does have enough meat and potatoes to make it an above average movie, but once you sink in the cracks start to appear.

There is no doubt that Into Darkness is more focus on action and adventure rather than character development. Such theme shifts aren't bad as long as it is executed properly. My qualm however, is that the trailers present the movie as a development arc for Kirk and Spock to become legends. By the time the movie is over, I'd swear that the development seemed more focused on Spock and somehow aborted for Kirk.

Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison was quite extraordinary, some say even outstanding. Personally, I felt that he pulled a good performance, but compared to Sherlock (TV series), its not quite the spell-binding performance expected from such a prolific actor. The problem was more of a writing issue rather than the actor himself. Into Darkness perhaps wasn't the breakthrough role that could earn him accolades.

The main cast was fairly above average, nothing particularly outstanding to note. Part of the problem was, unlike 2009, the focus was on Kirk, Spock, Harrison and the villain. It wasn't an ensemble so much as it once was, where the previous movie use ensemble casting as a method to establish effective character breakthroughs. One quip I must mention is the occasional random camera shots to random extra characters across the Enterprise's bridge. While I appreciate it as a method to establish the diverse species in this universe, it was very lazy and unexpectedly thrown out at random times.

Thankfully, the lens flare effects that hurts my eyes in the previous movie was trimmed down. This though meant that panning shots on a particular character (hence causing the flares) are few and far between.

The main problem with Into Darkness has to be its story. The first two acts was established as an original writing, with this random backdrop of imminent war, terrorism, acts of subterfuge, and Kirk's personal vendetta against Harrison interspersed with manipulations by a higher power. The establishing of such facts was hurried, but not to the point of being headscratching. Given the film's lack of focus on story, this might be forgiven if you lower your expectations on storytelling.

However, the third act totally put me off the movie. In what can be described as the worst use of time travel ever known to film, Leonard Nimoy basically made an act of pandering to the original Trekkies by hearkening back to the old movies. The whole act actually played like an inversion (hint: role reversal) of that particular movie, and indeed some elements of the second act could retrospectively be seen as such inversions. When your previous movie did everything it could to divorce itself from the mainstream and even used Nimoy as an effective tool to that purpose, this was a disgusting and shocking 180 turn by the writers. Either the writers seriously thought they were making an homage, or JJ really authorised the film to be directed as pandering tool to those he ostricised.

Furthermore, as said, Kirk's development as a character was hinted in the trailers. Even the first two acts did so. By the third's conclusion I was scratching my head thinking "What the hell did we learn here??". It's like they dropped the ball and forgotten that particular story arc in favour of inversions. Worst still, it felt like Spock was the one who evolved, even though it was rather limited. Coupled with a deus ex machina, and you'd think that Kirk would progress from a Messianic role, right? I don't think so.

In short, Into Darkness tries to balance out action with slip-shod but workable story, at least until the end of the second act. By the third act, to keep you on the cinema seat, you may want to just turn off your brain and enjoy the action without picking every single past film reference. Do not however, watch the film on the assumption that there is going to be a good personal development, or even something with the same lustre as the previous film. You will be disappointed.… Expand

0 of 9 users found this helpful09

All this user's reviews

6

kevin1616Jun 4, 2013

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

HughishJun 4, 2013

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 aI 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

RecomediaMay 18, 2013

I’m probably the wrong person to write this review. I’m sure, out there, exists a long-time devoted Trekkie who went to see Star Trek: Into Darkness and found it perfectly in tone with the rest of their beloved franchise. I have never seen anI’m probably the wrong person to write this review. I’m sure, out there, exists a long-time devoted Trekkie who went to see Star Trek: Into Darkness and found it perfectly in tone with the rest of their beloved franchise. I have never seen an episode of Star Trek; I’m not sure what Deep Space Nine is or why the Klingon language sounds similar to a toad deepthroating a foghorn. My knowledge of its universe is limited to the first Abrams film released in 2009, a 10 minute segment from the original series with some sort of connection to the Epic of Gilgamesh my history teacher bestowed upon my class during my freshman year of high school, general pop culture, and now, the new JJ Abrams film, Into Darkness. Upfront: I am writing this review completely ignorant of 99% of Star Trek mythology up until this point. Truthfully, I think this blindness grants me an advantage to be able to judge the film objectively and without the taint of hundreds of television episodes, numerous motion pictures, and an endless surplus of fan mania. My non-bias conclusion: Into Darkness has a lot of problems.

Read More http://www.recomedia.net/filmtv/star-trek-into-darkness-review-when-good-enough-isnt-good-enough/… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

expreedMay 19, 2013

Overall this a good film and likely worth seeing at a theatre. However I must say that it lacks in story and character development, and doesn't really give the actors a chance to act.

The movie starts off great! It shows this cool alienOverall this a good film and likely worth seeing at a theatre. However I must say that it lacks in story and character development, and doesn't really give the actors a chance to act.

The movie starts off great! It shows this cool alien race on an M class planet and it really feels like Star Trek, however after that we go into a more casino royale style Kirk with big explosions etc (yawn). I think what made the first one so good was that it was about the life of Kirk and Star trek history, while this one was more or less just an action movie.

The editor included of a lot really cool and epic shots of spaceships and of Earth, however if that time was spent on explaining character motivations, it would have created a more coherent picture of the story than a CGI animation is capable of. I don't want to give spoilers away so I won't say more than that.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

SketchyReviewsJun 5, 2013

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.htmlI'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.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

TimNZJun 20, 2013

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 toThis 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

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

GajonkaSep 29, 2013

.
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....
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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

nafeesSep 3, 2013

'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''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