Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
784 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Good story - great fun
ThomDerd16 January 2021
Yes it's just pure fun. Not a Star Trek fan but I loved the action, the acting and the story. Good visuals and great entertainment. Recommended, 8/10
154 out of 186 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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?
357 out of 502 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Completely misses the tone of the enlightened future that Roddenberry envisioned...
The_Dead_See20 May 2013
So it seems JJ Abrams has traded in too many lens flares for too many closeups. The working title of Star Trek Into Darkness could probably have been "Chris Pine's Facial Pores". Seriously JJ - there is such a thing as long and middle shots too you know, and what's more - if you use them - when you *do* use a closeup, it has more dramatic effect, just sayin'...

Anyway, directorial style flaws aside, my big gripe with STID is that it's "just another" sci-fi movie. What always set Trek apart was that Roddenberry created an enlightened future, a refreshing change of pace to most sci-fi, and the conflict therefore had to come from cleverer places. But with this reboot every character is constantly bickering, I frankly left the theater with a headache as if I'd just been to a teenage kids birthday party. I can get bickering, and grit, and violence from *any* sci-fi feature, and sadly now it seems like Trek has followed suit and lost its original edge. It's not until the very final minute where a little bit of the original Trek feel is re-established, but for me that was far too little, far too late.

There's some giant plot holes too, if you're actually thinking about what's going on. It seems like Abrams hoped that if he put enough glitz and dazzle on the screen, most people would entirely miss the fact that they are there. I guess his gamble was correct, since the film is currently standing at an 8.4 IMDb score.

It's not all bad. Benedict Cumberbatch is an incredible, intense villain and the film is worth seeing for his performance alone. And as with the first, the rest of the cast is exceptional. There's nothing wrong with the acting, music, or look of this film... just a lot wrong with the script and the tone of the whole thing. If you're not a Star Trek fan, you'll likely enjoy it... it's big, frenetic, popcorn munching silliness. But if you are a Trek fan, particularly of the quieter explorations of the human condition that TNG did so well, then you might be pretty disappointed.
167 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Watch it and ignore the critics!
alison-465-6847689 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!
763 out of 1,358 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I can boldly embrace both
kitzkats19 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.
487 out of 863 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
J.J. Doesn't Get It
kitchent7 October 2013
I know I'll sound like an old guy, but J.J. Abrams just doesn't get Star Trek. Maybe that's just fine because he is searching for a new and younger audience that probably doesn't get Star Trek either.

Star Trek was never about the special effects or action. Most of the best Trek stories from all of the television shows (TOS through Enterprise) didn't rely on either. Action and special effects were always there, but they were used to tell a story instead of becoming the story.

To be fair, there is one thing to like about the new Star Trek reboot. The cast is great, and it is easy to see the original actors through them. After that, I'm over this thing. It is just an action movie series using Star Trek's name to sell tickets.

If you think this is great science fiction in the Star Trek universe, then enjoy it. If you are looking for something more and want to really understand what Star Trek is about then queue up "Measure of a Man" from TNG, just one of many classic Star Trek episodes that expose this new "reboot" for the sham that it is. Gene Roddenberry would be ashamed.
109 out of 183 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the dumbest flicks I've ever had to suffer through
brhjr23 January 2020
I don't usually use the word "flick" to describe a movie but it seems appropriate here. I have no idea why so many people rated this schlockfest so highly. It is insultingly stupid; almost like an action parody of Star Trek. The story is ludicrous and completely disjointed, the characters act like morons 99.999% of the time, and the ending was a lame ripoff of a much better Trek film. The screenwriter (Roberto Orci) is a 9/11 truther which is probably why nothing makes any sense and no attempt is made to connect one plot point to another. Things just happen, the scene changes, and more things happen. This was the beginning of the end for intelligent, thoughtful Trek. Thanks a lot, Alex Kurtzman. You're a complete hack and I wish you'd stop ruining genre properties.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"star trek for people who hate Star Trek"
Rob-O-Cop31 August 2013
If you love the star trek franchise because it consistently delivers thought provoking interesting stories without the brutality and violence that Hollywood seems hooked on, you're going to be as disappointed as I was with this movie.

It looked big, the acting was really good, but JJ Abrams for some unknown reason decided it was necessary to remove the essence of what makes Star Trek different and replace it with some Michael Bay antics. At times it was like watching someone play a video game.

It was a really well made waste of time. No insight into the human condition, no thinking necessary, just eye candy and forgettable events.

And that's a shame, cos there was some great acting going on here. all the cast delivered well especially Cumberbatch and Quinto, some great looking effects, but why bother? When interviewed on the daily show Abrams actually said he wanted to make this movie for all the people who didn't like Star Trek. Isn't that just the stupidest thing you've ever heard?
35 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An inventive, unpredictable, mesmerising space voyage! Spectacular!!!!
mina_legolas9 May 2013
Truly spectacular, one of those rare amazing, inventive and often unpredictable blockbusters. The acting was great all round, especially Cumberbatch - wow, he was superb. The direction, cinematography and visual effects were all greatly innovative and brilliant; the screenplay fun, often humorous and has a lot of heart for all its characters which are all really well developed.

The film has some cliché moments which can't be avoided often with a film this scale however they make use of them well and still pack plenty of surprises. As well as this, despite not being a proper Trekkie myself, some moments gave me goosebumps from the awesomeness from seeing the Enterprise for the first time for example, which greatly honoured the original series. J.J. Abrams' lens flares helped create more realism in a lot of the scenes despite the fact he often overuses of them.

The villain was very interesting and the development, dialogue and motivations of his character were very convincing and inventive, Cumberbatch's fantastic acting greatly helped bring this character to life. Also the way he executed his plan showed a lot more cutting edge creativity than especially most modern blockbusters, not to say it's done nearly to the same level of genius but something I haven't felt in a villain's characterisation/acting since The Dark Knight.

Overall, a mesmerising film with nice homages to the original series, one filled with heart, grace, innovation, superb characters and acting and some impressive, clever visuals and immersive 3D, one of the only times I can say that. Up there with the 2009 one, not sure which I prefer, possibly the previous one largely due to the more clever story, despite this one having a much better villain, still not sure though. Still a very strongly recommended film, may hit my top 100 simply because how much I was impressed by it. 9/10!
360 out of 693 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Star Trek hijacked by Hollywood terrorists
E Canuck25 May 2013
An old WWII movie on TV just now had the lines, "Just think about the peaceful past," "I've almost forgotten it." Right.

Went to see a Star Trek movie and a sequel to the last one, which I recollect as alright. Hollywood, though has not only forgotten the peaceful past, the Rodenberry vision that set Trek part from any other space operas. They've deliberately hijacked the characters, made them into a terrorist sleeper cell now activated in our midst to bring us explosions, Star Fleet on steroids, Spock jumping from the roof of one in-flight vehicle to another to show us he's not really that intellectual wuss Hollywoood hates-- he's a tough street fighter--get ,im, Spock!

All 3D and action clichés, no ideas or vision, cartoon characters not wait, this is no accident or lazy business. The terrorists are on the bridge and they're going to land this ship where they damn well planned to--straight down the lowest common denominator path, shearing off the tops of buildings, sucking the wallets out of the pockets of customers satisfied with overpriced popcorn special effects, and landing right in the money. Kaboom.

If you want big popcorn, go get it.
54 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Easily one of the best Star Trek Movies ever.
grantscullard9 May 2013
As a long term trek fan, who has been a HUGE fan of all things this franchise has to offer, and knows a fair amount of the extra background this movie is great. Its great for regular non fans too. I will not spoil it but the story is a very good movie, contemporary and of its time without being irreverent to the prime universe. In fact there are so many nods to the original series it seems that JJ actually must listen to fans of the genre.

No spoilers here, but even if you have seen the trailers there will be surprises for all but the most analytical fans.

407 out of 812 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
To boldly make more noise than anyone before
chaos-rampant20 August 2013
Abrams is merely an efficient technician, uninteresting as a man of vision. But we need guys like him, conservative and mechanical in their efficiency, who will hold down the paradigm as others more adventurous fight to shift it, who will remind us by the arbitrary limits they impose that there must be a broader space. It's always the routine and familiar that kindles dreaming.

And this is just so routine. Abrams takes the Spielberg-Lucas model of climax after climax, starting with an Indiana Jones prologue. A few simple moral dilemmas form the backbone, inherited with a wink from the Trek genealogy. The hamfisted 9/11 allegory, enforced by terrorist bombings and a final 'plane crash' in Starfleet hq, is that we may covet revenge but we are dehumanized in the process. Khan as a vengeful mujahedeen, 'trained' by the secret military which is headed by a cowboy admiral hellbent on preemptive war. (Interestingly, everything about Khan's handling here bears Nolan's influence.)


So it is fitting that this guy is spearheading the next generation of established cinematic imagination, taking over from Lucas who is now retired, and Spielberg who is 'respectable'. I'm sure that in 20 years time he will be making his own respectable war movies. That kids growing up on stuff like this will fondly elevate the memory. And that his idea of artistry, Welles' action camera dotted by twinkles of color, lasers and flares, will be elaborated on in essays about his aesthetics, maybe.

All of which is just a natural state of things, nothing to get up in arms about. It just means that the interesting stuff will be defined by contrast to him.
21 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not as good as the first, but still great!
gregaus10 May 2013
The previous Star Trek movie is a tough one to beat. It was (in my eyes) close to perfection (lens flares and all). So this movie had a tough up-hill battle ahead of it. I am happy to report that the writing, direction, cinematography and acting were all terrific. But it's not quite flawless. There are a couple of minor plot holes that distract viewer attention to some degree.

Cumberbatch is brilliant. I won't divulge any spoilers, but I will say that the throw back to the earlier movies is very very clever and well executed. The added depth we see in the characters of Kirk and Spock are icing on an already delicious cake!
222 out of 436 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Further proof of the 'Death of Craft'
adamreid-694-73416724 May 2013
There comes a point in time in the life of any cinephile when you realize that the majority of films are being made and targeted towards a generation now younger than yourself. As depressing as this realization is, it becomes doubly demoralizing when you realize the demographic being targeted has the digital age attention span of someone badly in need of a Ritalin roofie.

If you've seen the original Wrath of Khan film, it's virtually impossible not to hold this movie and the people who made it in contempt. This is a film utterly devoid of originality, creativity and soul. The shameless fashion in which Abrams has recycled a film from a previous generation (and in fact, verbatim dialogue passages) and repackaged it wrapped in a glossy CGI bow for his tween audience is reminiscent of watching an American Idol contestant butcher a jazz standard.

Style over substance - could it be the mantra for this generation?

It certainly would be for the two teenage girls who sat in front of me while I watched this cartoon. They giggled ceaselessly at every predictable pun, sighed ardently whenever Chris Pine flexed his hair, and will wonders never cease, were reduced to tears when their generation's Captain Kirk committed the unthinkable action – a selfless act. Never mind that the scene was directly plagiarized from a far more talented and original screenwriter and Abram's directorial execution is more comparable to a shampoo commercial. We're living in the digital age where calling something a reboot gives you the artistic 'license' to steal.

The box office receipts confirm it. Hollywood knows its audience. They line up like lemmings for vacuous fare like 21 Jump Street, Mission Impossible and Star Trek - Into Darkness, and this current generation of movie goers never once stops to consider why Hollywood exhibits zero fear in foisting this mediocre dreck on its hapless consumers.

Movies like this confirm that, in this era of immediate digital gratification, we are experiencing the death of craft. Say goodbye to films like Goodfellas and Apocalypse Now. Bid adieu to albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Quadrophenia. The modern consumer/digital pirate has spoken with their wallets and voted in favour of a never ending stream of artistic pabulum.

Those who settle for mediocrity will get the world they deserve. Enjoy.
127 out of 244 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Star Trek in name only
craigman-herring28 June 2013
Here is what I don't understand: If you didn't like a show, as Abrams mentioned, why "reimagine" said show? Why have the same characters? Why not have an ORIGINAL movie with a whole new set of characters and back story? Oh, I know why. Because YOU ARE A HACK WITHOUT AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT! Because you want to attach the name of something great to your unimaginative derivative crap in order to make more money, and at the same time p*ss off an entire generation, more than one generation of people who hold the original Star Trek dear to their hearts for reasons you wouldn't understand. What the original Star Trek lacked in budget, it more than made up for in great stories, original characters, and a lot of heart and imagination. It seems that a lot of these types of "movies", like "Transformers", "Man of Steel" and such, think that non-stop special effects and CGI action somehow make up for characters you actually care for. I could list all of the things I disliked about this movie, and it's predecessor, but it can be summarized in one sentence (for both "films"): Stupid villain causes a lot of destruction for some stupid reason or another, utilizing massive bloated budget and lots of CGI to the point of CGI overload, then villain is defeated in some stupid way that will be quickly forgotten. "Movies" like this will not stand the test of time, unlike truly great films, which will be remembered for generations to come.
53 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
There was a lot more Star Trek in this Star Trek movie
rocketXpert18 May 2013
While I gradually came to accept 2009's Star Trek as mindless fun, I remember sitting in the theater when I first saw it and just getting this sinking feeling, like a balloon with the air slowly being released. My reaction was the complete opposite this time around. Into Darkness surpasses its predecessor by leaps and bounds. This is a movie that should appeal as much to most Trekkies as it will to general audiences just looking for a cinematic thrill ride.

JJ Abram's inaugural foray into this franchise kind of seemed to leave loyal fans in the dust in the rush to attract a wider demographic. Even before Abrams, I'm pretty sure there were complaints that Trek movies had become too much about space battles and the like and had gotten away from going boldly where no one has gone before. I feel like the writers of Into Darkness must have taken some of those criticisms to heart and set out to address them in what I think is a fairly clever way.

The people behind this film got to have their cake and eat it too: they made the most action-packed Star Trek movie ever, but at the end of the day, it's also a reaffirmation of the core ideals of Star Trek and is a lot more reverential to the canon. Having said that, however, the question still remains whether it's possible to craft a movie that is actually about seeking out new life and new civilizations rather than simply paying lip service to that concept.

Of course, not all Trekkies will agree with my assessment, but it's impossible to please everyone and fanboys are notoriously difficult to please. In my opinion, though, it's one of the best films I've seen this year.
152 out of 299 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Open-Minded Non-Trekky Unimpressed by this Mess
russ-692-83845622 May 2013
I am not going to mention Star Trek itself a lot in this review but rather talk about what I saw in terms of how good a movie it is in general and whether it is worth going to see it.

It isn't worth it.

Seriously I'm not going to judge all of Star Trek by this extremely awful movie but if I did I would be forced to conclude that it is utter garbage. For a start who is this movie actually for? It's not impossible to include decent dialog in the action genre (as seen in Iron Man) so why has this been written solely for unimaginative children? I haven't even written any reviews on IMDb before despite being a die-hard movie lover but I just have to warn people – pay for this and you're going to regret parting with your money.

If you have no attention span and can see it for free you may at least enjoy the video game effects. I did, and to be honest I'm too lazy to play video games. That's why I've given it 2 stars. Other reviewers have said the effects aren't that good but the 3D is obviously quite well done in places.

The worst thing about this film (apart from the acting which is woeful) is that if you're unfamiliar with the general Star Trek narrative it's easy to assume that the pathetic attempts at interactions between these 'characters' are nothing but simplistic portrayals of the 'goody' / 'baddy' dynamics in kindergarten nursery rhymes. While these rhymes have their place (namely child-care centers) a 38 year old father like me who's forked out $30 for the Gold Class 3D version now expects some kind of 'reverse-ratings' system to warn me to keep well clear of such trash in the future.

Other reviews have delved into the actual 'plot' in a way I am unable to but it surprises me just how astonishingly bad the writing has been in this and Prometheus by Damon Lindelof who's work I enjoyed massively on Lost. I'm never going to enjoy his success even though I dabble with writing but it has obviously gone to his head.

I found myself emotionless and bored throughout this movie which has nothing in common with good science fiction pieces from the recent-past such as Event Horizon or even newer works such as Sunshine by Danny Boyle.

If I were a Star Trek fan I would be affronted by this rubbish which, personally, I find myself being unable to give only 1 star only due to 'flashing-of-cash' special effects which may be boldly going somewhere but not anywhere – well – special.

However, remove the nice graphics and some of the action sequences, and you are left with nothing but a straight-to-video, 'Worst 10 Films of All Time' TV show contender which bored my socks off and made me question whether it's even worth actually paying to go and see any Hollywood movies ever again.
31 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Action, action, endless action...
netizenk-252-16386626 August 2013
That's what this one is all about and that is unfortunate because throughout its history the franchise was always more about the story, thoughtful and thought provoking, with meaningful dialog, well developed characters and a great plot. Sure, there was always some action but the action was there with the purpose of advancing the plot and it was never the central tenant of the whole structure.

This installment is all about endless, spectacular action, the plot is nearly non-existent and the skull is numb after wards making you wonder what exactly is it now about the Star Trak that makes it unique, makes it stand out from all the other action packed movies and franchises? What? As it is, absolutely nothing...

In short, JJ Abrams managed to destroy something good and I'm sure he'll be remembered for, something I'm sure he'll be proud of.
35 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Trekkies and anyone expecting any depth should avoid this mess
amrando16 May 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 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) re-imagined species like the Klingons, inexplicable plot points, excessive fight scenes, and way too many lens flares. Also, if you have seen Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, you'll see things that are not an homage, but instead a true insult to Star Trek fans. The intriguing back story 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 goose stepping-inspired uniforms, then it might be just what you're looking for.
89 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A typical modern action movie
undsoft-693-84279623 May 2013
Here's my guide to evaluating movies. Call it the Bruce Willis criteria. No offense to Bruce - I like him and his works.

* If you can replace main hero with Bruce Willis (as seen in Die Hard) and it doesn't do much harm to the plot, you got yourself a modern mindless action movie. *

And unfortunately Into The Darkness is just it - lot's of special effects, action scenes and a very little soul.

It definitely doesn't bring any good feelings that series had to offer.

The saddest part about it all is that no one seems to care. People rate movie high, just because it entertains them enough with jokes and visual effects, companies get their revenue.

This means there're gonna be more movies utilizing the same old formula: good guys vs. bad guys, world domination as a motivation for villain + superhero that saves the day.
64 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Boldly going back for more of the same - but better!
In the time between this movie and the end of JJ Abrams' spectacular 2009 reboot the crew of the Enterprise have been enjoying a bit of galaxy hopping. However after a questionable decision on their last mission, Kirk finds himself out of favour with Starfleet command. Enter John Harrison, a rogue Starfleet operative with a taste for the melodramatic and a penchant for things that go boom.

Kirk volunteers himself and crew to track down Harrison and bring him to justice but along the way Kirk discovers that not everything he believes in may be true.

To go any further would be wrong and evil and spoil your enjoyment of the movie but let's just say there are some fantastic revelations which may take you by surprise.

The tone remains much the same as the first movie although the secondary characters seem to get a bit more screen time on this mission. Chris Pine is a solid Kirk, displaying the bull-headed nature and incredible ego that Shatner bestowed upon his creation. Zachary Quinto nails Spock, getting the underlying struggle between his human and Vulcan origins just right.

Newcomer to the series, Benedict Cumberbatch has an amazing screen presence, oozing menace yet at the same time capturing the essence of an arch manipulator who is just as deadly with his mind games as with a bomb.

The movie belts along close to warp speed and the action sequences are slick and polished. The interplay between the crew of the Enterprise is entertaining and believable, giving nods to fans of the original TV show as well as keeping things contemporary.

There is one moment in the film which Trek fans will either love or hate. I'm not going to spoil it but there is a section of the film where.....well I'm not going to say but if you are a fan you'll know it when you get to it!

This is near enough the best film that I've seen this year and it pretty much lives up to the hype. If you loved the first one then you're definitely going to enjoy this. If you didn't like the first movie - what's wrong with you? Go and watch it again and then go and watch this one.

Just for the record I saw this in 2D and it looked amazing. I don't really like 3D so you'll need to check out someone else's opinion on that.
138 out of 272 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
JJ Abrams killed Star Trek
KirstenVerdel8 June 2013
JJ Abrams killed Star Trek. There, I said it. This wasn't a Star Trek movie, this was a Star Wars movie. JJ Abrams, who is also making the next Star Wars movie, apparently had the plots for the two movies mixed up. Whereas Star Trek is about human development, about humanity, exploring, complicated issues that are mainly resolved by thinking and arguing, Star Wars has always just been some shootouts in space. Don't get me wrong: I like action movies every now and then, especially in a Sci-Fi setting. I watch Star Wars as well.

But like I said: this is not supposed to be Star Wars. This is Star Trek. After the first 'new' Trek movie I wanted to give the creators the benefit of the doubt, but I was wrong. I could have known: the setup in the previous movie was like in every superhero movie these days: introduction of characters, background stories, introduction of some bad guy, a few fights, person/country/planet/universe saved. Second movie: worse bad guy(s), bigger fights, more explosions, BIGGER EXPLOSIONS, something saved again.

This was a formula movie. Another one. Movie theaters are flooded with them. The Hangover III, Fast and Furious V, Iron Man III, Scary Movie V, and that's just what's playing in theaters here in Holland *right now*.

Please please... somebody save Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry would have HATED this movie. It's everything Star Trek is nót about.

Boy do I miss Picard and Sisko.
85 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Star Trek: Into Cr*pness!
What a mess. Chases, jumps, explosions, more jumps, terrorism, deaths, resurrections, more explosions, microwaved reheated old enemies, old scenes, clichéd starship battles, reversals of old scenes, demotions, promotions, bikini-xploitation scenes, 9/11 exploitation scenes.

Designed by cynical marketing auto-writing bots for the OCD-suffering crowds apparently.

But: no trek, no mystery, no humanity, no thrill, no wonder, no pacing, no build up of tension, no suspense, no originality, no character development...

Star Wars fans:

Brace yourselves for your turn. The JJAbramsgernot is coming for you...
119 out of 233 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not For The Serious Science Fiction Fan
Tyger-Flynn18 May 2013
Huge disappointment. Shallow fare. I realize this is a derivative film - but while the first one of this re-cast was a clever re-spin, factoring in a changed time-line - and hence suggesting intriguing possibilities for all future story-lines - this film is a re-hash, making the past banal. I was bored by the time the dying character appeared on the screen - and that was pretty early on in the film.

All smash-bang with inordinate moments of 'meaningful feeling' - what a waste. Where was the character driven story? This could have been so much better given the outstanding beginning made with the very good 2009 "Star Trek". Even the excellent actor Benedict Cumberbatch fails to animate this nostalgia-drenched turn of the Star Trek franchise.
24 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Forgettable bad sci-fi. Not Trek, meh.
zampaz20 August 2013
This second Abrams film continues the new paradigm of boldly taking bad science to new frontiers that it's never been before in the Star Trek universe. A forgettable story is Abrams scaffold for lens flares, handycams and special effects sold to investors based upon the number of explosions per 10 minute interval. The contrived special effects made no sense in the context of surrounding volcanic, ocean bottom and weightless environments sure to astound the kiddies.

Being a fan of the original ST, of course I don't like to see what is happening as Paramount fracks the Star Trek universe to exploit the last drop of crude action potential while ignoring the sustainable and more abundant imaginative philosophical and scientific wonder-story potential Roddenberry/Fontana used to build the first Star Trek universe. Instead of creating, Paramount and Abrams simply rob from the dead. The director was doubtless chosen by Paramount for the Franchise because Abrams would focused on the unimaginative target anti-science audience market segment that knows nothing of Newtons laws.

The absurd parallel universe created in the first Abrams ST film had an opportunity to boldly go to new places and confront philosophical issues as Roddenberry did. The broken cliché alternate universe time paradox "deus ex machina" places the youthful good actors in likable characters in a universe in which they don't belong. The priority was to call on market maker tags such as Kahn, tribbles, and Klingons that identify the film with the Star Trek franchise and tap a new market for old productions to enhance DVD sales/rental revenues.

The acting wasn't a failure. The story was.
57 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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

Recently Viewed