Star Trek Into Darkness


Action / Adventure / Sci-Fi


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 538,181 times
August 26, 2013 at 09:07 PM



Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk
Zoe Saldana as Uhura
Chris Pine as Kirk
3D 720p 1080p
1.95 GB
23.976 fps
2hr 12 min
P/S 2 / 6
922.79 MB
23.976 fps
2hr 12 min
P/S 45 / 275
1.95 GB
23.976 fps
2hr 12 min
P/S 54 / 401

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Movie Samurai 3 / 10

Boldly Going... Nowhere!

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

Reviewed by alison-465-684768 10 / 10

Watch it and ignore the critics!

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!

Reviewed by Hudsons_Skull 2 / 10

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

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.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment