Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
1,194 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
2/10
The movie got Trek cannon wrong, got basic 21st century science wrong and in no way contributed to Gene Roddenberry's dream of a better world
fish153420 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The film was horrible.

With that said I'll start with the good. Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy was the one shining star in the film. His deadpan line, "He'd let you die Jim" was perfect. It showed the struggle between compassion and logic that was so well portrayed by Kelly and Nimoy in the original series.

First, the film completely disregards Star Trek cannon. Christopher Pike does not live through the movie to end up as a quadriplegic on Talos IV. The Klingon home world, Kronos, appears to have a moon, Praxis, that has exploded, except this doesn't happen until Star Trek VI. All this is forgivable however; new movies for a new generation that knows nothing about Star Trek

Second, what isn't forgivable is that basic Newtonian physics and science is so poorly understood by the film makers that it distracts from the movie. Some examples of plainly not understand that the world around you is governed by science and not magic are: the heat from the volcano is attributed to damaging shuttle craft Galileo yet the heat caused by de-orbiting the shuttle craft would far exceed any heat caused by a volcano. In the same sequence, the Enterprise is parked underwater. Are we to believe that a star ship that must be constructed in space and is designed to be used for interstellar travel also doubles as a submarine? When was the last time that you boarded a 747 to go on an undersea adventure? And why in the hell would they park the Enterprise underwater when they could be invisible in orbit directly above the volcano and use sensors and transporters?

Other big issues are that the crew of the starship Enterprise does not know the distance of the moon's orbit. Ask Neil Armstrong, I bet he figured it out 300 years earlier. I think the first question on starship helmsman's exam should be, "Where is the moon and so you don't hit it?" Next when the ship can no longer hold orbit, it falls back to earth in a few minutes like a stone dropped into a pond. Newton? Never heard of him! What laws of motion? I think movies reflect a lot upon a generation. This new generation claims nerds are cool, but has no manned space program. Your parents' generation actually walked on the moon.

Third, when the script however fails to make common sense, it throws you outside the movie and this makes the movie 'unfun'. After a secure, secret Starfleet facility is attacked, Starfleet Command decides to meet in an unprotected high rise. I guess in the 23rd century, rank isn't correlated with intelligence or experience. Next, the Klingons are a war like race equally as advanced as humans that have developed space travel but they don't bother to guard their entire home world. They actually sound pretty easy to conquer. That's okay because humans are just as dumb; two Federation ships appear in earth orbit to duke it out and there are no other Federation ships around. Please, will one ship randomly fall on San Francisco? We sound pretty easy to conquer too.

Let's not forget about the unnecessary, obligatory, giant tittied girl in skimpy underwear to make all the 14 year old boys have happy wet dreams. I love nude women as much as the next guy but porn has it's time and place and this wasn't it… Unless you are a 14 year old boy with $10.50 for a movie and no other access to porn.

When Kirk died, why did Dr. McCoy need Kahn's blood to save him? He had 72 genetically engineered humans from the eugenics war frozen in front of him. The Eugenics Wars are well documented. He actually had to thaw one of those guys out to put Kirk in the life support tube. Why not use his blood or one of the other 71 samples of super blood?

Fourth, I remember when Spock died in Star Trek II, people cried, it was debated if he could really be dead. It was an emotional heartfelt moment that asked the audience to way, "the needs of the many, versus the needs of the few." Did anyone really think Jim was dead in this movie? He was dead for all of five minutes! It was a completely wasted scene because it was devoid of emotional connection. I believe it was 30 seconds wedged in the middle of two action sequences. This may be because modern movie audiences lack the social skills such as empathy which are necessary for bonding with others. So the film makers simply recreate a scene from the past devoid of emotion and the audience believes it has the received the same spellbinding moment that their parents received.

The only emotion portrayed in the whole film is the Caulfield like teenage angst of Captain Kirk. Great men are no longer portrayed as being challenged with great responsibility or moral questions but now face the pubescent problems of spoiled teenagers. This is the greatest reason why this new Star Trek movie fails. Gene Roddenberry created a future where men had moved beyond many of humanities vices. He created a series of moral plays in his "Wagon train to the sky"; the original series is more like twilight zone episodes than anything else. Where in this movie did you feel good about humanity? Did this movie make you feel like we could end the Iraq War? That's how the old series made you feel about Vietnam and the Cold War. Did it make you feel that bigotry toward gays would end? That's how the original series made you feel about racism. The movie is an epic fail that reflects a generation that is an epic failure.
115 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Dumbed down from a highly intelligent and thoughtful franchise.
cdettlinger17 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
629 out of 888 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Garbage
robertjastrow18 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
JJ, you really are destroying a large piece of scifi history.

Star Trek was never an action based show/movie. It was always a story that had supporting action elements. This movie is completely devoid of any cohesive story and is an action junkies dream come true.

Kirk in the original series was confident, capable, intelligent, suave, etc.... The new and improved JJ version of the character is a moron. Don't get me wrong, I really like the choice of actor, but the character portrayal which is dictated by the writers and directors is everything the original Kirk was not.

Space ships crush under pressure....its physics dumba**es...the Enterprise is not a submarine.

I could go on and on, but I find it all a bit depressing. Star Trek is after all just a piece of fiction. ...now lost to time to only be remembered by a new generation as bad fiction.
135 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Brutally bad.
incaustic24 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
No lie, this was one of the worst movies I've seen in awhile.

Thin, dull plot that's already a rehash from a prior film. Paper thin characters. Zero intellectual or emotional depth. There was nothing challenging about this story, nothing thought provoking or even intriguing. Basically, bad guy wants to blow some *beep* up and after a bunch of explosions and hand-to-hand fights and crappy one liners, he's stopped by our heroes. The end. This kind of formula occasionally produces an awesome movie or two, but those movies are usually fresh and intelligently made in some way that makes them stand out.

This movie was not intelligently made, not at all.

Seriously, the writing here seemed like a seventh-grader's rendition of how adults are supposed to act: the Uhura / Spock 'fight' was like a scene you'd overhear in a middle school hallway or something. It was laughable. The few moments that should have been stirring sucked because they were just straight rips from Wrath of Khan.

On screen, it seemed like explosions, gunfire, and lens flare dominated probably 80% of the shots, and the effects looked like something from a B-grade Xbox game. There was so much CG "action" that it all ended up being pretty boring. I never felt any sense of danger. Worst of all was that constantly swelling score with the same series of notes over and over and over again. You know what I'm talking about. I mean, damn, it was cool the first couple of times, but when the 18th minor protagonist triumph was accompanied by this same bombastic progression, I was curled up in a fetal position. Please, just make it stop.

Beyond all of these issues, Star Trek was never supposed to be about endless violence and effects and one liners. It seems like Abrams has turned the series into a moderately more upscale version of Transformers, and it's too bad. There was so much more that could have been done.

So yeah, this movie sucked. A lot. I can't believe the rating it has on here. I'm starting to wonder if most of the voters work for the studios or if they've received lobotomies or something...
102 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.
dillydrop8 August 2013
We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.

In the movie theatre I heard a complaint from an old school Trekkie that the second installment of the Star Trek reboot had too many "Little Archie and Veronica" moments.

This is true and it would be OK if that were just the icing on the cake. The real problem with the movie is that it runs like a typical SciFi action plot inserted under a Star Trek banner.

This movie is missing the hallmark epiphany moments Star Trek is famous for. Mainly, it is missing the philosophical "WOW" factors that don't just blow your mind but rather expands it, making you realise that everything you thought you knew is wrong and that everything you thought the Federation had figured out is also wrong. These expansions used to pave the way for the audience to mentally and emotionally take that next step to, "Boldly go where no man has gone before..."

This movie has no epiphany. Where is the deepness that Star Trek is synonymous with? This movie gives us what? A federation struggling with internal corruption and terrorism, a la the typical disgruntled ex employee, who in this case was cryogenics frozen for 300 years, as is the plot. Big deal. These are familiar themes we've all seen in movies before. Just trade the Federation for any corrupt financial, medical, educational, government and or religious institution. Trade the "John Harrison" character for any Bond villain and you have a movie that sounds like a bunch of other movies or what the news broadcasts. Boring.

To me the Federation meant a time in the future when Humanity had finally gotten its act together and to a certain extent had rooted out all this corruption and terrorism. Unless a Klingon or Romulan shows up, things are supposed to be refreshingly illuminating. Not something that degrades into ordinary, mainstream, average caveman fist fight showdowns.

How can we boldly go where no man has gone before in the future unless we have thrown off the shackles of the past? What a sad/shamey day it is when a Star Trek movie presents a not so optimistic future just as dark as today's headlines. I can read/watch the news/The Matrix if I want that. IS THERE NO ESCAPE?!!! IS THERE NO HOPE?!!!

Obviously, Gene Roddenberry's spirit could not find a way to keep the franchise on track. Will, (Vulcan fingers crossed) Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike know the difference between the wealth of deepness and the poverty of darkness?
275 out of 389 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Plot holes, plot holes, and even more plot holes galore. Awfully unintelligent.
Andrew Geerlings11 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm truly ridiculed by the high ratings this movie got. An 8.2??? It clearly pays to air absolute ridiculous dribble with a whole lot of even more ridiculous 100%-non-stop-action in it, and the masses just love it. I'm no Trekkie and I actually enjoyed the previous movie, but this one feeds you utter and complete crap and just requires you to completely abandon your brain on entry to be able to enjoy it, let alone log in here to rate it highly. This movie is an utter insult to anyone with an IQ above 80 willing to think for just mere seconds at a time. And I'm not even kidding with that.

Just a few questions highlighting the ridiculous plot and even more ridiculous plot holes:

*SPOILERS FOLLOW*

  • Why the *piieep* does Kirk hide the Enterprise within the ocean of an undeveloped planet? He could have just orbited it. Since when do Enterprise class *space*ships also have a *submarine* function by the way?


  • How does Khan get a top level Starfleet officer to blow up himself plus his super top secret Starfleet agency AFTER saving his daughter? By asking nicely?


  • After the blowing up of the archive, how does Khan get flying to a top secret Starfleet (MILITARY!!) meeting with ALL TOP DOGS present.. completely unnoticed, with the perimeter completely *unguarded and defenseless*? Are you kidding me??


  • Instead of simply using a missile which would have killed anyone present instantly Khan uses some kind of phaser machine gun on the room, gunning for minutes but leaving many alive and even unharmed? Art thou joking or something?


  • After his ship gets blown up by Kirk with a fire extinguisher (is that a joke or what?) how the *piieep* does Khan beam out with a standard issue *portable* beamdevice to a Klingon planet *lightyears* away? While just before an *Enterprise-class* beamdevice can't even get a normal fix on Spock in a volcano a few *miles* away? Please.


  • How the hell does Khan get access to his 72 man crew, putting them in 72 torpedoes, while exactly that crew was used by the admiral to blackmail him in the first place? Why the hell would Khan put them in torpedoes in the first place if he had access to them, in stead of just defreezing them?


  • Why would the admiral load all 72 super top secret torpedoes created onto Enterprise, while only 1 or 2 would be needed for the mission? Apparently with the bloody things never even *tested*?? And no-one made the "hey 72 torpedoes -> 72 Khan crew missing" connection?


  • Why would the torpedoes created by Khan to save his crew be set sharp to explode 'on touch' in the first place? You'd expect Khan to disable them? And ofcouse just blindly janking out some part of it by some blonde babe that knows nothing about them miraculously stops the detonation 1 second before blow-up..


  • Since when do Startrek hand communicators have the ability to communicate over Lightyears distance from the Klingon planet Chronos allllll the way to earth? And at the same time the Enterprise radio can't reach earth for a distress call that they're being shot up by the Big Bad Admiral when it's as close to it as being pulled in by earth's gravity?


  • How does the Enterprise mechanic get into an ultra top secret base with a standard issue Starfleet Shuttle unnoticed? How did he even get his hands on the shuttle in the first place, since he resigned his position/function?


  • How (and WHY actually?) does the Enterprise mechanic get into an ultra top secret highly secured battleship? How does he get into a minutes long conversation with an undoubtedly commando-class crewman while being found AFTER disabling the ship with EVERYONE looking for an intruder with the order to put him down IMMEDIATELY, giving The Good Mechanic the chance to open the airlock for Kirk to get in?


And so on and so forth. And I'm not even touching character interaction yet.

I have no idea where the writers of this nonsensical dribble learned to write a plot but I'd suggest them to pick up another job. Cleaning toilets or something would be a great start. But oh well, the drone masses just love it, so we'll surely have more of this kind of crap to deal with unfortunately...
56 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Star Trek for the masses? More like Star Trek for morons.
Hudsons_Skull17 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Where do I start?

I'm a huge fan of the original movies and I admit, I enjoyed the 2009 film. Why? Because the well got dry and it seemed there wasn't anywhere left to go with the franchise. So, seeing as Abrams alluded to everyone that by taking the franchise back to where it all began and altering the time line, it was his intention to re-tell stories from the original "series" and breathe new life into them. Naturally, I thought he was talking about the original "TV series" from the 60's. Fine by me, because the original TV series was cool, but it's pretty much outdated.

This latest movie has shown me that it's obvious he just wants to do the "films" of the 80's and 90's all over again, but in his own image, which is... an abundance of lens flares and people who are only good at looking pretty on screen. And that, in my opinion, is not what Star Trek is about. He even stated in an interview with Jon Stewart recently on The Daily Show, that he never was a fan of Star Trek as a child because he didn't get "the philosophy" of Star Trek. This movie is proof that he still doesn't get it. If he wants to make flashy sci-fi movies with no depth or substance, fine, there are plenty of scripts out there for him to make this kind of bland movie that attracts dimwitted people. So please Mr. Abrams, leave Star Trek alone, you are only making it worse.

Abrams might be trying to get "non-Trekkers" to enjoy the franchise, but in order to do so, he is replacing everything that made Star Trek what it was in the first place. I'd love for more people to get into Star Trek, but not at the expense of my enjoyment of it. This movie has nothing more to offer than Transformers did, snazzy special effects and a story line riddled with plot holes and love/hate relationships between the characters that seem forced and unauthentic.

Which brings me to my next point. Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. Where did these men learn to write? They use the technology of Star Trek only to advance the plot or create tension when needed. For instance, a transporter that the enemy uses can transport him light years to another planet, but the transporters on the Enterprise have a hard job locking onto a person on the planet they are orbiting, a hand-held communicator that can call someone in a bar on Earth from the Klingon home world light years away, infiltrating a top secret military base with a shuttle craft without being spotted by sensors, and the list goes on.

The last part of the movie they just got so lazy that they re-created the whole death scene at the end of Wrath of Khan, but mirrored it by reversing the roles. And if that's not enough, the writers blatantly do a copy/paste of most of the dialogue like "If we go in there we'll die, the radiation will kill us" and "The decontamination process is not complete, you'll flood the whole compartment."

Later on they even forget that the attributes that makes Khan's blood special, and which is needed to revive Kirk, also flows through the veins of the other 72 augments sitting in cryogenic tubes in McCoy's sick bay, the same cryogenic tubes that McCoy himself says earlier in the movie he could not risk opening without possibly killing the person inside, which could have been a solid reason to send Spock chasing after Khan in a foot- chase through downtown San-Francisco to retrieve a sample of Khan's blood, but instead, they have McCoy open a cryogenic tube and remove it's occupant in order to freeze Kirk so he can preserve his brain functions, I believe his exact words were "Get this guy out of the cryo-tube, keep him in an induced coma." but still, poor McCoy doesn't realize he could use that person's blood to revive Kirk. So now we are led to believe that McCoy, the same McCoy who based most of his arguments on ethics throughout the series and movies, is perfectly capable of opening one of the tubes, risking another being's life in the process, all to save another man? A little unethical if you ask me. These guys obviously don't know what the hell they are doing when it comes to writing Star Trek movies.

This movie is, in my opinion, the worst in the entire series. Yes even "The Final Frontier", because at least Shatner had the guts to go where no other writer or director had gone before or since with that movie, by doing a story about God.
497 out of 727 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The entire franchise is now in 'Darkness'
Leafman16 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Since it has now become (dilithium) crystal clear that J.J. Abrams and his team of writers have COMPLETELY dismantled the entire Trek universe we once knew -- the one that was built so meticulously by Gene Roddenberry (and later, Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer too) -- we must now embrace a Trek product that will likely insult and disgust most purists, plus any ticket buyer who wants something more than a movie enjoyed by ADHD attention spans.

This "Into Darkness" film continues where the 2009 effort left off, and with much the same approach, but the decibel level is harder on the eardrums this time: more explosions, more stunts, more fisty-cuffs, more chases (both in space and Terra Firma), more phaser shots and more temper tantrums from Kirk and Spock both.

I could rhetorically say something like, "WTF? Why is this STAR TREK? WHY!?!?!?" and then launch into a heated Trek-purist diatribe attacking the intellectually-challenged, comic book-level screenplay penned by Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. But instead, let us try to examine the movie as a space-bound rip-off of the "Die Hard" franchise, which obviously are the terms on which the film hopes to succeed.

The film's plot presents a saturnine, black-overcoated menace named John Harrison (played woodenly by Benedict Cumberpatch), who starts blowing up buildings in London, then shooting at a roomful of Starfleet's top brass during a staff meeting. He then escapes to the Klingon homeworld to hide out, and will presumably resume his mysterious rampage against the Federation later.

But not if James T. Kirk can help it. Even if it means starting a war with the Klingons, our risk-taking Captain gets the green light from Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to warp the Enterprise over to Kronos, armed with some secret missiles and an undercover mission imperative. As Kirk tells his crew over the intercom, "Let's go get the son of a bitch."

Such a standardized, by-the-numbers action yarn has succeeded in efforts produced by the Jerry Bruckheimer stable, for example, or even the second "Aliens" movie. But here, the film feels so overstuffed with chases, phaser beams and mortal combat, it's much like the second Indiana Jones movie from 1984; after a while, we become numb to the "excitement" and viewing this movie is like riding a roller coaster that simply won't stop, even long after the rider has had enough "thrills."

****SPOILERS START HERE ------ Further ruining the film is the decision by Orci and Kurtzman to "unmask" John Harrison as Khan, the genetically-engineered super-baddie from the original Trek that the late, great Ricardo Montalban elevated to legendary Trek status. By forcibly shoving Khan into the "Into Darkness" storyline, the writers seemed almost desperate to include a familiar face as a crowd pleaser, but I found this "unmasking" about as convincing as a cheesy moment in a daytime soap opera, and it is essentially where I gave up on the film (about when the third act began).

From there, the movie worsened (for me) because soon after, we are then supposed to shed tears for our gallant Captain Kirk sacrificing himself in the Enterprise's warp core chamber to save his ship and crew. Orci and Kurtzman try to duplicate the same touching moment from the "The Wrath of Khan" (when Spock dies) by practically duplicating some of the dialogue from that 1982 film. They are reminding us that they know their Star Trek, but I found this moment to be gimmicky and as such, it registered a complete emotional zero.

Spock himself, as written by Orci and Kurtzman, also seems little more than a gimmick in these films now, especially at the film's climax, which uses our ever-logical Vulcan as a John Rambo wannabe, as he mercilessly pounds his fists into Khan's face, all in the name of revenge for the loss of his pal Jim Kirk. Much of the movie portrays Spock in the same simplistic manner, and his point-counterpoint interaction with the all-more human Kirk has none of the old magic that Shatner and Nimoy once provided so effortlessly.

As I said earlier, forget the fact that this movie is a horrifying abomination for Star Trek purists. Instead, just consider the fact that we have a new franchise, one where you check your brain at the door, don't concern yourself with characterization, and just ignore the words, "…to boldly go where no one has gone before." (those words were spoken by Chris Pine at the fadeout, and hearing them after watching THIS film was a moment of bitter irony for me, I might add)

I wish J.J. Abrams would stick to the new "Star Wars" films and leave it at that.
565 out of 842 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
sandya170119 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Paramount Pictures, director JJ Abrams and writers, Orci, Lindelof, and Kurtzman have once again proved that they figure Trekkies will go see anything as long as it's got the name "Star Trek" on it.

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

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

The claim that Abrams' version of Star Trek represents an "alternate universe" is nothing but a cheap cop-out explanation, made up after the fact, in an attempt to excuse extremely sloppy writing. "Alternate universe"? Well, maybe there's an alternate universe "me" who'll go see the next Star Trek movie. The "me" in this universe isn't going to be fooled a third time.
99 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Star Trek: Into Bad Fan-Fiction...
LafinAtchu18 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This would give Prometheus a run for it's money, but at least Star Treks plot made sense. Only problem is it was really reaching to connect the dots. So much that if Gene was alive today, it would have killed him.

In fact I'm calling out anyone attached to this movie as to really being a Trek fan. Star Trek isn't suppose to be about Halo firefights, starting wars, and building warships. It's suppose to be how we as humans came together as technology on earth advanced. Then traveled the stars sharing our wisdom to civilizations who were just like we once were.

If anything this movie is a reflection on today's society and it's sickens me. When the original TV showed aired it was during troubled times ( I'm only 37, but I learned all about that stuff from The Wonder Years). People 30 and under had little hope for the future.

Wars, Cold Wars, Nukes, Political Corruption-- No one at that time thought we as the human race would live to see the year 2000. Then came Star Trek. It showed a future where mankind put its differences aside. We worked together for a common goal. We seek knowledge through exploration and looking back at our own history.

And not only that, but we were the conscience that helped others see the wrongs they were committing. Star Trek gave young people hope.

THEN THERE'S THIS MOVIE

Explosions, Loud music, Gun Fights, Fist fights, head squashing, jumping, running, explosions, explosions, explosions. Did I mention Explosions?!! I'm not sure because this movie probably had more explosions than TOS and TNG combined.

This is an insult to what Trek once was. It pisses on what Star Trek 2 was really about-- The man who never faced death, but stared it in the face-- Only in this one he dies and is brought back to life without a sequel. It crapped all over Kahn as well, who was in essence a remnant of who the human race was in the late 20th century. NOT A FREAKING SUPER SOLDIER WHO JUST MURDER-DEATH-KILLED FOR NO REASON.

AND ABOUT THAT PLOT.

Kahn was a one man army in this movie-- So one would think if he defrosted his people, all 72 of them, they'd be unstoppable-- Instead he puts them in Torpedoes to ruin Robocops plan of starting a war with the Klingons to defrost them later...WHAT THE AM I TALKING ABOUT I DUNNO BUT THAT WAS THE PLOT!!

This movie is for morons who couldn't get into the original Star Trek because they probably see it as old, boring, and full of bad actors. Let's not forget the pride of TOS was the fact all 80 episodes were well written.

Something Into Darkness isn't. This isn't even good fan-fiction. This is an embarrassment. It cost millions to make, it will make over billion at the box office.

Like I said, this is more of a reflection on our society in general and it disturbs me that Star Trek as turned into a mindless 2 hr romp and not a beacon of hope for the future of mankind like the original series did.

The only HOPE these JJ Treks bring is the Star Wars movies he'll make will be just as mindless, which fits perfectly for Star Wars, not for Star Trek.
270 out of 396 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews