Star Trek Into Darkness

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

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

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

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

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

6

Take-it-from-meMay 28, 2013

Though I am not a trek fan, this movie did entertain me a but. I did not have a bad time, or felt like I wasted my time, but I was not interested much and was okay with the ride for more of the laughs then the dramatics.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

kirangeloAug 25, 2013

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

Oh, and PS Magical resurrection blood? Really? Really.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

adpirtleAug 1, 2016

Where Star Trek played fast and loose with science, its sequel throws it (and plot logic) out the window in favor of a high-octane action flick with too much ambition and too little heart. It doesn't help matters that the last act of the filmWhere Star Trek played fast and loose with science, its sequel throws it (and plot logic) out the window in favor of a high-octane action flick with too much ambition and too little heart. It doesn't help matters that the last act of the film is an intentional rip-off of the original Star Trek II. It thinks its being clever, but it's really just sad to watch. There's nothing like trying to remake the most stirring scene the original cast ever pulled off to show the flaws in the new franchise.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

6

CinemaphileJul 29, 2016

Star Trek Into Darkness is the most successful attempt to date, to restore Paramount's franchise to Gene Roddenberry's positive vision of a mature humanity bettering itself through peaceful exploration and personal introspection. SinceStar Trek Into Darkness is the most successful attempt to date, to restore Paramount's franchise to Gene Roddenberry's positive vision of a mature humanity bettering itself through peaceful exploration and personal introspection. Since Roddenberry's death, Star Trek has grown darker with each iteration, relying more and more on gunboat diplomacy and all out war. Into Darkness doesn't exercise those demons, it is the most action packed and the most violent story of the franchise. But, despite these slick, hyper kinetic, hyper realistic, hyperbolic affectations which are more and more common to our cinematic fare these days, JJ Abrams and company return to the staple of the franchise:

The morality play.

Yes, we know this isn't your father's Star Trek. What some also forget, is that this incarnation is more than a garden variety reboot, it's a alternate universe, one that mirrors our current Age and its sensibilities. Despite being tooled to appeal to a wider, non-Trekcentric audience, the producers take a riff from the 2009 reboot and expand on it. The destruction of Vulcan has made Starfleet paranoid and increasingly militaristic. So hard core Trekkers seeking a reintroduction of a classic Trek villain will be sorely disappointed, as Kirk and crew's first encounter with said villain unfolds in a new and unexpected fashion. Kirk and Spock still have yet to form that bond which gave Star Trek The Wrath Of Khan its emotional impact, but the struggle to build that understanding and trust drives this film, in between pyrotechnics and gorgeous money shots. Within the epic spectacle, we are reintroduced to the founding principle of the Star Trek universe, the breaking of which is the theme of Into Darkness. It's easy to miss that theme, as Into Darkness' plot is overly complex, having to rely on more than one deus ex machina to fit the narrative together, in addition to throwing in dozens of wink/nod's for loyal Trekkers. Despite being buried in the muddled plot, the point is clear - it's those wrong choices we make, in hope of positive outcomes that lead Into Darkness.

Much ado has been made about the sloppy plotting of Into Darkness. Ultimately, the lack of focus keeps it from being a great film, let along a great Trek film. Apologists have been dismissing Into Darkness as a popcorn muncher - which it is - but its saving grace as a good Trek film is that it remains true to the spirit of the characters in the series with the snappy back and forth we expect from Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty.

Potentially mirroring the opening sequence and the closing sequence of this film, let's hope that the next installation in the franchise turns the page on 20 years of wayward Trek - perhaps, Star Trek Into Brightness.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Jswizzy84Nov 3, 2013

Horrible. Completely misses the point behind Star Trek and fail to live up to even the worst of the TV series. No thinking is required. Despite the amount of whizzes, bangs, and booms in this movie it is actually unexciting. The entire movieHorrible. Completely misses the point behind Star Trek and fail to live up to even the worst of the TV series. No thinking is required. Despite the amount of whizzes, bangs, and booms in this movie it is actually unexciting. The entire movie is basically one unbroken chain of action sequences and special effects with flurries on fan service and shallow parodies of beloved characters. Also the special effects are horribly overproduced and the customs and alien designs are sub par even the TV series had better effects.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5

SpangleAug 22, 2016

Star Trek Into Darkness is better than the first entry into the new series, but is still aggressively mediocre. The acting here is better, though spotty. The special effects and cinematography are also both very good. The first one hadStar Trek Into Darkness is better than the first entry into the new series, but is still aggressively mediocre. The acting here is better, though spotty. The special effects and cinematography are also both very good. The first one had terrific special effects, yet this one found a way to improve upon those as well and is really striking. It is true eye candy. That said, the lens flare is still awful and distracting. The story is somewhat okay, but I am guessing Khan needed to be stronger. That is certainly not the case, as he is a very weak villain even if Benedict Cumberbatch is very good. He is easily overcome and, though he has superhuman strength, he is apparently easy to trick and beat. This weak villain ties into the very weak resolution and truly terrible ending. The dialogue is also still bad in this one ("KHAAAAAAN") with stupid quips coming from every direction to annoy and cause the audience to cringe. Overall, Star Trek Into Darkness is a step forward, but the film refuses to depart the Trek formula or typical blockbuster formula. For a series that proclaims to go boldly where no has ever gone before, the films really enjoy playing it safe and staying close to base.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5

Dimitris01Dec 2, 2013

The direction and visual effects are very good, the villain is sinister and makes you wonder what he plans to do. However, the second half is worse than the first and the movie fails to deliver what you expect: there is no star trek (theThe direction and visual effects are very good, the villain is sinister and makes you wonder what he plans to do. However, the second half is worse than the first and the movie fails to deliver what you expect: there is no star trek (the Enterprise is immobilized for a long time) and no darkness (no one dies and some secondary characters function as comic reliefs). Moreover, the villain is defeated in a silly way (he should have checked the cargo), the Klingons appear only to have their butts kicked and Kirk is missing from the climax, as if the writers could not decide who the protagonist is, him or robotic Spock.
argonautis.eu… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

CoreGamer1408Dec 9, 2018

Seriously stop making Star Trek a try hard Star Wars will ya. Weak cry baby villain. I suppose this is a sign of our snowflake times. Passable action movie without a Star Trek heart or soul.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4

psyberdelicDec 24, 2013

It could have been so much better! There were moments but there was so much dumb stuff going on (starship under the ocean,,,???) that it really detracted from the story, 30% cool. 70% stupid.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

SchnitzelPoofNov 4, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Spoiler warning: Kirk dies at some point in this movie, but they bring him back shortly after. I suspect that if he knew how bad the movie has turned out, he would've preferred to remain dead.
I get that these are not actually Star Trek films - that the Star Trek elements are just window dressing - but even standing on its on, I found very little to like in the film.
Probably good for kids who can't see the bad/lazy writing, and are impressed by the light-show.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

4

Kai82Feb 2, 2021

In short it is excellent until a twist / reveal that harmed the movie. Then came the saddest and most emotional scene and we started laughing. They used something that will make a comparison unavoidable and that will make this movie lookIn short it is excellent until a twist / reveal that harmed the movie. Then came the saddest and most emotional scene and we started laughing. They used something that will make a comparison unavoidable and that will make this movie look inferior (I am vague because of spoilers). Longer version: After the reboot we were hyped for the next movie. Into Darkness promised to show more of the dark sides of the Federation and Starfleet that all series but especially DS9 and to a bit lesser degree TNG showed existed. For example it is impressive what amount of slavery, mass-murdering, suppression and intolerance the Federation tolerates. Even the first directive is flawed as in some cases you can translate it to “The helpless must die no matter what” (Shown and questioned also in the TNG episode Homeward). But lets get back to the movie. It was a darker and more matured approach and I praise them for the execution and bravery. After a violation of the first directive (I would be proud to do the same as it is my moral duty) Kirk is demoted and should be back to the Academy while Spock would be transferred to another Starfleet ship. But the intervention of his mentor Christopher Pike now Admiral lets both be back on the Enterprise but under Pikes command. Later something terrible happen that hit Starfleet as much as Kirk and now is the hunt for justice or vengeance or maybe a bit of both. Again I am a bit vague because of mayor spoilers. The story and movie itself is really good and would have been in the 8-10/10 territory. If it were not for the following the only complaint would be that it could be to dark for Star Trek for some (not including me). Then comes a reveal that hits hard and takes you out of the immersion. You will instantly recognize it and then make also comparisons and speculations. They set the bars to high with this for them. It is a shame as I was greatly entertained until then. To clarify: I watched it back from a holiday in Japan with friends in a plane on the way home (Great holiday, great country and nice people by the way). We missed it in the cinema before and used this long flight to correct this mistake. When the reveal came we looked at each other in disbelieve. From then on we made comparisons, it could not hold up and took us out of the immersion. I already mentioned that the saddest and most emotional scene made us laugh really hard. We could not take it serious after the reveal and as a sidenote some later events were foreseeable (They made a twist for the most predictable thing to make it not so but the point itself is proven). Again without it it may have worked except you already know this would not be final. It is sad that this destroyed the movie for us and I must admit that it is maybe a bit harsh. For the actors I repeat my judgment from the prequel. They did a fine job in giving us a fresh and good take on beloved characters. Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock and Karl Urban as McCoy deliver and I never doubted them being the iconic characters. This is also true for Zoe Saldanan as Uhura, Anton Yelchin as Chekov (maybe not suited as engineer;-), Simon Pegg as Scotty and John Cho as Sulu. All deliver a good to great performance. For the new once. Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison is really good. He is one of the most underrated actors and is like Morgan Freeman as he always delivers a remarkable performance. However later in the movie he is or becomes mismatched and it speaks a lot that he is not criticized for it as he does still a great performance. Alice Eve as Dr. Carol Marcus does a good performance but I will criticize the director for using her in a fan service scene (Or did it had a deeper meaning / reason I missed). Peter Weller as Admiral Alexander Marcus is great and I wont spoil why. Again such a good cast and great performance. As before the special effects are fine and there are no missteps in visuals and soundtrack. Overall I hate to give this movie such a low rating for a misstep. However it was a misstep or twist that harmed the movie and let us not take the rest serious. Without this I think it is a really good movie with some smaller or ignore-able weaknesses. If you do not know the source of the complaint see my rating as 9/10 but I know then that you are not a Star Trek fan or barely know anything about the lore of it (Which is fine by the way as you cant know everything).… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Rick444Apr 17, 2020

It is way too emo, to the point it kinda seems homoerotic. The first part portrayed a conflict, clash between two individual, rebellious misfits. Part two changed it into an unbearable homoerotic love story. It's way too much, and repeatingIt is way too emo, to the point it kinda seems homoerotic. The first part portrayed a conflict, clash between two individual, rebellious misfits. Part two changed it into an unbearable homoerotic love story. It's way too much, and repeating old scenes with small changes just made the movie into an unbearable mix that was going nowhere and ended up nowhere. No wonder why no-one cared anymore for part 3.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Star Trek Into Darkness

User Reviews