IMDb > Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Star Trek Into Darkness
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Star Trek Into Darkness More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 109:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1086 reviews in total 

489 out of 708 people found the following review useful:

Dumbed down from a highly intelligent and thoughtful franchise.

1/10
Author: cdettlinger from United States
17 May 2013

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

452 out of 692 people found the following review useful:

The entire franchise is now in 'Darkness'

1/10
Author: Leafman from Las Vegas, NV
16 May 2013

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

398 out of 595 people found the following review useful:

Star Trek for the masses? More like Star Trek for morons.

2/10
Author: Hudsons_Skull from Canada
17 May 2013

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

647 out of 1114 people found the following review useful:

Watch it and ignore the critics!

10/10
Author: alison-465-684768 from Great Malvern, UK
9 May 2013

We watched ' Star Trek - Into the Darkness this afternoon (May 9th 2013).

I am not going to reveal specific details because this film is so new that I am aware that many people still have not had the opportunity to watch it, and I do not wish to ruin their experience.

Having read the points raised in the 'maddog' review I just wanted to say that we found it to be a truly absorbing and brilliant film, and our views are so diametrically opposed to 'maddog' that I genuinely wonder if he/or she actually watched the same film - or slept through it and took a wild guess as to its quality.

Star Trek - Into the Darkness is mainly a fast paced action film interspersed with scenes of human interest which facilitates the deeper development of the main characters and their inter-relationships. The phrase 'bonding under fire seems appropriate.

I would urge people not to be dissuaded from watching this film because a reviewer cannot see the link between Gene Roddenberry's much vaunted ideals and therefore trashes J.J. Abrams work. Let me just say that as I am in my 66th year, I have watched ALL the Star Trek series and films and can advise that this film combines a serious reflection of William Shatner's portrayal of James T. Kirk but also matures Chris Pine as the film progresses. As Roddenberry was closely involved with original Star Trek series I therefore believe that he would approve the direction that Abrams is taking the latest incarnation of Star Trek.

Star Trek - Into the Darkness is aptly named. It is rich in plot detail and exciting to watch. It will have many people sitting on the edge of their seats, willing those embroiled in battle to succeed. Even the villain (stunningly portrayed by Benedict Cumberpatch) warrants a certain amount of sympathy from all fair minded people.

My advice - Go, Watch - and be thrilled by a brilliant film. We will go and see it again!!

Our thanks to all those involved in bringing this to our screen - great job!

Was the above review useful to you?

350 out of 563 people found the following review useful:

Boldly Going... Nowhere!

3/10
Author: Movie Samurai from United Kingdom
10 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Star Trek universe, resplendent in Gene Roddenberry's vision of a future wherein mankind has finally "got its act together," while its social and economic problems are generally a thing of the past. Not in JJ Abrams' universe however, in which a corrupt Starfleet Admiral and a freshly revived genetically engineered 'John Harrison', an alias for a more familiar Star Trek adversary, take it upon themselves to create havoc with savage acts of treason and terrorism respectively.

With seeming discount made to Roddenberry's unique take of Star Trek, evolving around the prevalent Hollywood ethos of filling seats at the local multiplex, Abrams' crafts, what I would term, a popcorn movie with plot-holes aplenty. With its target audience seated in place however, doubtlessly willing to overlook the obvious whilst simultaneously blinded by the startling visuals and 'tacked-on' 3-D (the film wasn't originally shot in 3-D, instead the process being added in post-production) this 'casual' viewer can safely check their brain at the door and, in all likelihood, enjoy...

In this befuddled story, with its foot stuck firmly in Trek's The Wrath of Khan (1982), Into Darkness hauls its audience onto a seeming roller-coaster ride, dragging the viewer from one outrageous action set-piece to another, while its central characters are barely given a chance to 'grow' into their respective roles.

In a likely nod to Trek VI – The Undiscovered Country, Sulu is afforded a brief turn in the captain's chair (a role which at least offered the actor some nifty poker-faced dialogue), whilst Chekov is contrastingly tucked away within the pipework-strewn bowels of the Enterprise' engine room. Scotty, meanwhile, refusing to sign for a delivery of conspicuously 'shielded' torpedoes, resigns himself into the background with his unusual but interesting little alien friend. This is clearly Kirk's film however, while his relationship with Spock (and by extension Spock's relationship with Uhura) being about the only things explored here. Worst of all however is Karl Urban's Doctor 'Bones' McCoy, who is virtually confined to pitching nostalgic-tinged quips: "My God man, I'm a doctor not a nuclear torpedo technician," a character so painfully underused here – particularly given the actor's obvious talent in this role.

Evolving around two villains, each of whom possessing completely different agendas, 'John Harrison' (Benedict Cumberbatch) and a warmongering Starfleet Admiral (Peter Weller), the latter of whom taking command of a freshly constructed battleship class vessel named USS VENGEANCE. Despite a promising start however, having chased Harrison to his conspicuous Klingon hideout, Kirk is somehow 'manipulated' into seeking the terrorist's help; an inconceivable decision given the character's explosive introduction - which also ignores the obvious danger he poses. And let's not forget the supposed personal anguish felt by Kirk, of which Harrison had been its mastermind. Oh well, things disintegrate further when its finally realised just how incredibly stupid Kirk has been, trusting a known terrorist whilst the viewer, during the film's final reel, is woefully pulled along during their frantic re-attempts at his capture.

With an ending pulled directly out of The Wrath of Khan, albeit with Kirk and Spock on opposite sides of the radiation screen doors, I was beginning feel as though I had been robbed of my admission: the contrived nature of this protracted scene, deriving itself virtually word-for-word from its thirty-year-old original, played out while the audience undoubtedly watched in astonished déjà vu. I use the term 'contrived' given that, not unlike the life-restoring 'Genesis Planet' seen in Trek's The Search for Spock (1984), the answer to Kirk's mortal dilemma was really only a hypo-spray away...

As a Trek fan, I was bitterly disappointed here: the filmmakers might well have just re-shot Nicholas Meyer's film entirely. Sincerely what an utterly shameful and wasted opportunity all this hokum was.

When I emerged from the cinema, I was somewhat stunned; processing what I had just witnessed on-screen. And after having slept on it, I was finally able to articulate the next day. What I had seen wasn't so much Star Trek – a series I so dearly love and consider myself a lifelong fan of – but some cheap (albeit very expensive, costing well over £120 Million) and certainly pale imitation of a film series that deserved far better scripting and storyline than this. These wonderful characters – legendary even – each of whom a household name, whilst some having inspired many a fan to seek similar professions in the real world, reduced here to mere caricatures' of their namesakes.

Over-shadowed by the film's ample and certainly showy special effects, these characters seemed stunted and confined instead of simply being allowed to develop properly.

Such a shame. 3 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

213 out of 318 people found the following review useful:

I really wanted to like it, but....

4/10
Author: vandykeu
11 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really wanted to like "into darkness". I'm not a die-hard trekkie, but I like original series/movies well enough, and I really enjoyed the entire original Khan storyline. As soon as I heard the Khan rumors, I was both excited and anxious. Unfortunately, I think the anxious side won out.

Don't get me wrong. It's a solid action flick, and the acting by pretty much everyone is fine, and Cumberbatch is amazing. But it's not star trek, and it especially is not wrath of khan, no matter how much it wants to be. Other reviews have focused on the good, so I'm going to focus on the bad (as I see it).

First, in the originals, Khan is from central Asia and was played by a Mexican. In this movie, Khan is as English as the queen herself. Cumberbatch's excellent performance notwithstanding, why is he called "Khan Noonien Singh" if he's Engilish? The time travel event in the first movie would not have caused a fundamental change in Khan's race, accent, etc. It's a minor point, I know, but it really dragged me out of the movie.

Second, key parts of the plot are uncomfortably repetitive of the original, with special effects added for the sake of hyperbole and all of the thoughtfulness of the original removed for simplicity. Though Kirk's journey into maturity is obviously meant to be introspective, it couldn't have been less subtle with a sledgehammer, particularly at certain key points in the plot. Parts of London and San Francisco are destroyed just to make the effects and reinforce what a bad guy Khan is, but the consequences of the horror go unrealized. Khan himself is the mechanism of a really cheesy reincarnation that follows a really cheesy exploitation of the original film.

Third, although the acting by the crew is fine, the dialogue is sophomoric and obvious. McCoy is meant to be the conscience of the crew, the thoughtful one holding everyone back from rash decisions. Here, Karl Urban is given nothing but shoddy one-liners. Simon Pegg and Anton Yelchin are similarly disused.

Abrams thankfully doesn't use as much camera shake as last time, but there are still plenty of lens flares, fast zooms, and weird angles, as well as nods to star wars. They're cheap, hack, and do nothing to advance the story. As a fan of both franchises, I hate that they will all soon suffer from these faults. Cut the redundancy and hack cinematography and try to come up with some creative original plots, JJ!

Was the above review useful to you?

399 out of 692 people found the following review useful:

I can boldly embrace both

10/10
Author: kitzkats from United States
19 May 2013

As someone who has grown up with the franchise, watched every show and every movie (I've watched the entire DS9 series at least twice!), suffered through characters/actors who I didn't care for (Tasha Yar, seriously?), I realize we all have opinions about what makes Gene Roddenberry's vision so lasting.

That being said? I LOVED this movie. I even capitalized it I loved it so much. The play between the characters, the more human version of Spock, the absolutely delightful "Scotty" (although his sidekick is one of those throwaway characters I dislike) as well as a much better crafted plot this time made for a completely enjoyable movie. The action is intense, the friendship deepened between the characters, the twists and turns are a bit predictable at times, but that is reminiscent of the franchise as a whole. I am already excited for the next movie. I tremendously respected and appreciated the ties in this movie to the elements that make Star Trek great - strong story line, deep connection to the characters and a philosophical element. In some of the older Star Trek episodes the moral/philosophical element can be oppressively heavy handed. No so in the new Trek movie. The ideas of friendship, family and humanity are woven through this movie with subtly and I will outright admit I more than teared up during the climactic scene in the engine room. EVEN though I had already figured out what was going to happen, I have already come to care about, respect and enjoy the new actors in their iconic roles.

So yes, ten out of ten. And let the haters, hate. Those who can not embrace change can go sit and watch old Star Trek reruns and bemoan the 'good old days' and spout off all the reasons why 'Star Trek ain't what it used to be'!!!!

I, on the other hand, will boldly go and embrace the new with a continued reverence for the old. This movie makes it possible to love both.

Was the above review useful to you?

198 out of 291 people found the following review useful:

Star Trek: Into Bad Fan-Fiction...

1/10
Author: LafinAtchu from Wisconsin
18 May 2013

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

307 out of 513 people found the following review useful:

Star Trek The Wrath of Khan Parity

2/10
Author: paulgab from Australia
11 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Firstly, let me say that both the visual effects and sound track are both great, but it's all down hill from there.

The opening scene, I completely agree with Scotty when he says "You know how completely ridiculous it is to hide a starship on the bottom of the ocean?" Yes this ridiculous, it is a spaceship not a submarine. The ship could have stayed in orbit and either beamed the cold fusion device directly into the volcano or beamed Spock with the device down and then beamed him up. This entire scene feels like it was an excuse to get the cast into 23rd century swimmers.

Next, the effect when the ships go into warp has changed since the last film. Why do the ships leave a trail of shiny star dust at warp? When Star Trek was rebooted in the last film, the warp effect was updated, this was the time to add this (I still wouldn't have liked this effect). They should have kept this effect consistent for both films.

Though this film comes after the Enterprise series, making it canon, the appearance of the Klingons, the design of the Bat'leth and the Bird of Prey have all been changed. These are all key Star Trek components are shouldn't be tampered with.

Having Dr. Carol Marcus change uniforms in a shuttle while Kirk is asked to turn his back, is just a pathetic excuse to see Alice Eve in her underwear, and is completely unnecessary to the story.

Many parts of the story were predictable and were taken directly from The Wrath of Khan with a slight twist. Having Benedict Cumberbatch's character of John Harrison ending up to be Khan was no surprise. Having Kirk die while saving the ship instead of Spock and having Spock yell KHAN instead of Kirk, these parts were just swapped from The Wrath of Khan. The audience I was with, was shocked in horror that these scenes were rehashed again. When Bones was experimenting with Khan's blood to resurrect a dead tribble, it was obvious that this was going to be used to bring back Kirk.

The design of the Enterprise has as been tampered with. When falling to Earth, since when did the Enterprise have 10+ thrusters in the underside of the saucer section of the ship? Secondly, why does the Engineering section have torpedo tubes down both sides to firer the long range torpedoes? This made me think of a pirate ship with canons along both sides. These should have been fired via the existing fore or aft torpedo tubes.

The Wrath of Khan is possibly the best film of the first ten and should never have been touched upon again. 2 of the 3 three writers claim to be long time trek fans, if so, they should have known that this would not be taken well from existing fans. The previous film also had a few issues that I wasn't happy with (Enterprise being constructed on Earth instead of in orbit, a Cardassian beverage though we don't meet the Cardassians for about another 100 years and having a Orion (the green women) members in Star Fleet as the Orion Syndicate were enemies of the Federation), but as the story was original and good, these few issues I can turn a blind eye to. Unfortunately, Into Darkness has too many issues for me to forgive. The writers have an universe of new stories they could write, don't go rehashing content from previous films.

Was the above review useful to you?

168 out of 237 people found the following review useful:

We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.

Author: dillydrop from Bahamas
8 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?

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 109:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history