“Beyond the darkness, lies greatness.”
When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
In theaters now
May 16, 2013
In theatersDigital release
Unknown
tanty
Jun 16, 2014
Weak story for a movie with a huge budget. Honestly, I think you will only like it if you are a Treky. In no other way you will be able to get any logic out of it and the fact that the Captain of the space ship is the first to get out to do field work.
Ruuz
Oct 4, 2018
**The following is a long form review that I originally wrote in 2013.** Star Trek: Into Darkness, or STID, as the kids are calling it (which makes me sad 'cause it's akin to both STI's and STD's) is, in my unprofessional opinion, a step up from the previous instalment (which I did still quite enjoy). Both J.J. Abram's 2009 film, as well as Into Darkness did both, however, seem to have an issue I couldn't overlook in common. And that is that both essentially feel like an incredibly drawn out episode of a TV show. And I've seen next to nothing of the old Star Trek series, so it's not from that sort of a view I've come to have this feeling. It's just a sort of unshakable notion I developed after a few minutes from the start during each film. Even in this aspect, Into Darkness is a slight improvement on its forebear. This new Star Trek film is, unfortunately, riddled with plot holes. Some... Or at least one, is completely unforgivable. They're not enough to ruin the film per se, but it does make me wonder about Abram's ability to be a showrunner in the future if he can't even handle Star Trek. Right from the get go I had questions that could have easily been answered with only a couple of lines of dialogue's worth of effort. Which was sad, because it cast a pall over what was, at its heart, an enjoyable piece of cinema. Despite these issues worsening as the movie progressed, a congratulatory word does again have to go out to Abram's and his team for their tweaked timeline. Working a way in which to successfully reboot the franchise, without belittling the integrity of the original was a great move (moreover, they've left themselves open for more deviations in the future, now that the concept is established). Very smart. Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho and Anton Yelchin returning is of course a big plus for me. Completely unsurprisingly there just as fantastic as ever. But, that kind of Tumblr user would I be if I didn't give a special bit of praise to Benedict Cumberbatch (which all levity aside, is actually well earned from the Brit, who makes for a spectacular villain). 65% -Gimly
Karl Urban
Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy
Geronimo1967
May 30, 2024
I will own up to actually quite enjoying this. It has less of the holier-than-thou moralism of some of the "Star Trek" features and is basically just a sci-fi adventure that pitches Chris Pine ("Kirk") and his crew against enemies as they say - both foreign and domestic! The dynamic between Pine and "Spock" (Zachary Quinto) still doesn't quite work for me; but Karl Urban makes for quite a good "McCoy" complete with all his daft metaphors. (The less said about Simon Pegg's "Scotty", the better - but fortunately, he features sparingly). The "Enterprise" must track down the arch-criminal "Khan" (Benedict Cumberbatch) - responsible for a bombing in London and then an attack on Starfleet Command - in dangerous Klingon territory and off they set armed with some distinctly dodgy torpedoes. There's a bit of jovial banter between the unlikely couple of "Uhura" and "Spock" which raises a smile, and Anton Yeltsin still has trouble with the computer comprehending his "w's". It's got plenty of phaser fights, the shirts get ripped quite a few times and the story has a bit of definition to help it move along. The last fifteen minutes do, however, drag out the ending just a bit too much - but hey, if you are looking for some high-end science fiction with a few twists in the plot and a good look to it, then you could do worse than this
vylmen
Dec 7, 2024
**JJ Abrams should never make anything Trek related again** This is an absurd piece of cinema. Another review said that only trekkies would like this, but the opposite is true. He creates action sequences that build up some momentum, but its resolution is never shown. Chekov (the skinny geek) holds Kirk who holds Scotty from falling down, in a ship that is in a failing orbit entering Earth's atmosphere. Cut to 5 second bridge talk, cut back and they're walking the corridor. Are you joking? This feels like a McG wannabe, that doesn't know how to create the over the top resolutions. But then again, no trekkie wants McG to touch Star Trek either. This approach undermines both the ethos of Star Trek and Abrams’ own attempts at tension-building. By failing to lean into either intelligent problem-solving or fully-committed absurdity, these moments feel hollow. The frustrating part is that Star Trek has proven over decades that thoughtful storytelling can be just as thrilling—if not more so—than high-octane sequences. Abrams’ refusal to trust the intelligence of his audience or his characters is a major reason why his take on the franchise divides fans so sharply. Absurd. Even more absurd that the movie made a profit.
Log in to join the discussion.
No comments yet — be the first!
