Star Trek Into Darkness
Year:
2013
Country:
USA
Genre:
Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
7.9
Director:
J.J. Abrams
John Cho as Hikaru Sulu
Amanda Foreman as Ensign Brackett
Noel Clarke as Thomas Harewood
Jon Lee Brody as Enterprise Crew Security
Elly Kaye as Star Fleet Officer
Felicity Wren as Starfleet Officer
Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan (rumored)
Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov
Chris Pine as James T. Kirk
Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime
Bruce Greenwood as Christopher Pike
Karl Urban as Bones
Zoe Saldana as Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg as Scotty
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 11722 Mb h264 1536 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 1382 Mb mpeg4 1458 Kbps avi Download
DVD-rip 640x272 px 943 Mb mpeg4 995 Kbps avi Download


Reviews
An inventive, unpredictable, mesmerising space voyage! Spectacular!!!!
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!
2013-05-09
Didn't make it for me
I have been watching Star Trek since the 1960's. Abrams went boldly down the wrong path with Into Darkness. While I fully realize that this is a new Star Trek franchise, and I did like the 2009 reboot, this one didn't cut for me. The opening scene was ridiculously lame and nonsensical. Planetary orbit and transporters were abandoned in favor of turning the Enterprise into a submarine (like the planet inhabitants wouldn't have seen THAT when they went underwater) and using a "cold fusion" device to create cold when in fact REAL cold fusion creates heat, not cold. The non-action scenes were fairly well done, in fact they are the only reason I wasn't completely bored with the movie and why I gave it a 3. I was expecting much, much more from Cumberbatch, but I found his performance to be robotic, dispassionate, and just downright not creepy enough. The best scene he had in the entire movie was his encounter with the Kingons, but other than that he was pretty blah. The action scenes were either too predictable or upscaled, blatant ripoffs from previous ST movies such as Nemesis. The gratuitous profanity was neither needed nor appreciated and actually detracted from the dialogue. The scenes of Alice Eve in her undies and the one with Nimoy could have been left out as they added nothing. If you have seen Wrath of Khan, the scene of Kirk in the radiation chamber will make you absolutely cringe.

Overall, the movie simply lacked the edge, passion, and creative thinking needed to recreate the Khan story.
2013-05-20
This is not STAR TREK !
Jar Jar Abrams keeps destroying Gene Roddenberrys dream of a better world. This film got NOTHING from Star Trek but the names of the Characters and some stolen plot parts.

This film is kinda illogical that it's hard to describe. Plot holes are as big as Borg cubes can fly through it.

Spock is no longer a vulcan, he acts more like a romulan or even Klingon. Klingons look like Zombies and have no honor at all... everything that TNG and DSN build up has been destroyed here.

Kirk dies and will be revived with Kahns magical blood? WTF?? Are you serious?

Jar Jar Abrams keeps on raping Star Trek. This film is a slap in the face of every Star Trek fan and everybody who helped to bring Gene's dream on Screen.

Shame on you Abrams, shame.
2013-08-06
A Death By Any Other Name
This movie has its strengths and its weaknesses. Building friendships, and staying true to them, it a fundamental theme of Star Trek. This movie did fine in that, though had it not, it would have been a huge betrayal of the franchise.

What this story is in its essence is a cover band singing an old classic song. Others have raved about its newness, its fresh look on characters and relationships, but I am compelled to give this movie failing marks as both a critical lover of all movies and as a fan of the Star Trek franchise. It lacks originality.

Alright, I wanted to go on and on about the failings of this one, but ultimately what I hate is Abrams camera style, the incessant need to have characters killed by way of being sucked into space, but more towards the writers: at least the first movie tastelessly obliterated the Star Trek universe with a new character, but to re-do a movie (the second movie at that) with Khan was sickly stupid.

To their credit, the actors were fine. However, there seems to me something wrong with Chris Pine's face. His lips and nose look really puffy. And while I am at it, the new spin on Kirk's attitude seems like is was written by a teenage girl who just started getting her period.

Because this movie borrowed way too much, turned Kirk into a ditsy bumbler, and tried to cover it up with music that is actually from the original movie -- seeing these things -- I pay for new and original thinking, good writing, material that works without the need for shaky camera work, quick cuts, and loads-o-special effects. And, I would say this for the Original Series as well. While at it, the Original Motion Picture was not that great, so there. But, at least it was original.
2013-06-15
Plot Holes Galore
Since I am discussing bad plotting, this review is chock full of spoilers.

There is a simple way to check a plot for holes. Simply look at the characters' motives and see if their actions result from those motives. It is particularly important to check this for the villains, because the sloppy or lazy writer just uses the villains to set up obstacles for the heroes without regard for logic or motivation.

The two villains here are Khan and General Marcus.

Khan's goals are (1) reassemble his crew (2) get a starship (3) dominate the galaxy. So what does he do? He blows up a Starfleet archive, attacks Starfleet command and then .... flees to an uninhabited sector of the Klingon Empire. Now why does a super-genius think that this furthers his immediate goals of unfreezing his crew and acquiring a vessel, or better yet, a fleet?

But here's where the unbelievable General Marcus comes in. General Marcus' goals are (1)secretly assemble a massive Starfleet military force in preparation for war with the Klingons (2) provoke said war with the Klingons ... even before his awesome armada is built except for one ship (huh?) (3)protect his lovely daughter.

To this end he enlists Khan to help him design his superbattleship of space (which weirdly can be controlled by just one crewman). Then, when Khan escapes and decimates the Starfleet Command which is vital to his projected war, Marcus decides now is the perfect time to provoke the Klingons.

So he sends Kirk to fire long-range photon torpedoes from neutral space to kill Khan. And he makes sure the Enterprise is crippled in neutral space, so that the Klingons discover and presumably capture the Starfleet vessel bombarding them. EXCEPT...for no reason whatsoever, the torpedoes are loaded with the cryogenically frozen bodies of Khan's crew. Which means the Enterprise is firing duds and the Klingons will only discovered a disabled Enterprise just outside their space. Which is hardly the causus belli Marcus wants to create.

Naturally enough, Kirk of the Enterprise does not fire the weapons. Because of nice speech about how it is wrong to kill vicious terrorist assassins with drones on foreign soil rather than bringing them back to stand trial (gee, wonder what present day parallel the writers are thinking about). So, Marcus has to send his supership, not to start the Klingon war himself, but to kill Kirk, Khan and the Enterprise crew. Because... I don't know, just because he is eeeeeevil.

But he screws even this up and Khan gets control of the superbattleship of space, which, by sheer damn good luck, one man can run. So, Khan goes on a rampage and smashes his flying vessel into some skyscrapers on Earth (hmmm, wonder what events inspired the writers). Yes, I wonder, particularly in view of more dull speechifying that there will always be those trying to destroy us, but we mustn't lower ourselves by, you know, retaliating.

Preachy, yes. PC, fer shur!

Plot logic? Naaah!
2013-05-27
J.J. Doesn't Get It
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.
2013-10-07
The Cheapening of Star Trek
There have now been twelve Star Trek movies, including "Into Darkness." The "re-boot" Star Trek of 2009 that preceded this movie was probably the 2nd worst out of all twelve movies. Into Darkness was a definite improvement. Instead of being the 2nd worst out of 12, it moved up to being only the 3rd worst out of 12. At least JJ Abrams is moving in the right direction - sort of. A little.

Into Darkness is a re-vamping of the classic Khan story from the 1980s movie, "The Wrath of Khan" (which many fans would call the greatest Star Trek movie ever made), which was also a continuation of the story from the 1960s episode, "Space Seed", both of which starred Ricardo Montalbahn as Khan Nunien Singh. The Wrath of Khan featured a highly personal conflict between Kirk and Khan that made the sci-fi and the special effects take a back seat to a very powerful story. Audiences were inevitably shattered emotionally by the time that movie was over.

Into Darkness, unfortunately, reduces Khan to merely another sci-fi villain who needs to be knocked down. There is a very lackluster attempt to insert a "personal" conflict between Kirk and Khan in this movie by arranging for Khan to be responsible for the death of a senior officer that Kirk looks up to, but it's so shallow compared to the decades-long story in the 1980s version that it actually would have been better if JJ Abrams hadn't even tried.

Then there is the biggest problem with the previous 2009 "re-boot", which continues unabated in this movie: Before 2009, Starfleet, supposedly the most elite military force the Earth has ever seen, was always presented as (mostly) impeccably professional soldiers who followed strict military protocol (in a Star Trek way), and held to a very high moral standard of personal conduct. Even William Shatner's Kirk, as much as a renegade as he sometimes was, had certain moral principles that he would die before he would compromise them. Subsequent captains, Picard, Janeway, Sisko, and Archer, took those moral principles and standards of conduct and raised them to an even higher level, giving Starfleet a consistently very high moral ground throughout the franchise.

The re-booted Starfleet, however, is nothing at all like this. Regulations are routinely treated as if they were written for the specific purpose of being ignored or outright violated. The Federation's Prime Directive, not to interfere in the development of younger civilizations, is treated by "Into Darkness" as if it's just some pesky playground rule that has no business stopping Kirk and his gang from doing whatever they want - and the senior admiralty seems to feel the same way! Orders are issued and routinely ignored. A commanding Fleet Admiral makes a personal decision to destroy one of Starfleet's finest capitol ships to cover up a "mistake" (his word) that he made, and nobody in his entire crew seems to have the thought occur to them that hmm, it might be wrong to go along with the admiral's decision to unilaterally murder the entire crew of the other ship.

Senior officers who, in the old Starfleet, took their responsibilities to their crew and the Federation very seriously, now seem to have a very difficult time thinking about anything other than finding their next bed partner. (There's a scene where Alice Eve strips down to her underwear in front of Kirk, but the story gives no reason whatsoever for her to do this. They're not even sleeping together! She just takes off her clothes for no reason, and then the story abruptly, bewilderingly moves to the next scene. Don't get me wrong, she looks great, but it's one of the most gratuitous, badly written scenes that I can recall seeing.)

So while Into Darkness is visually very impressive (especially with the 3-D), it still profoundly fails in its understanding of what the 23rd/24th Centuries are supposed to be all about in the Star Trek universe. It IS possible, after all, to still make a JJ Abrams movie while keeping the moral high ground that Starfleet was always so good at in the past. But this sure didn't happen with Into Darkness.

I give it a 4/10 - and that's being very kind.
2013-05-26
For ST Fans, a big disappointment
The new STID is a big disappointment to ST fans: no ST, no new exciting unexplored worlds, no new exciting aliens, flat ST characters, and an infantile script. In fact, most of the "action" is in office buildings and shopping malls on earth.

It is a non-stop mindless mayhem and violence characteristic of today's Hollywood garbage, with nothing of the nobility and uplifting spirit of ST and its characters, the feeling of a ST "family", or the exciting, open minded culture or Rodenberry's inspiring vision of the future.

Instead, we have 2 hours of gratuitous killing, killing, and more killing, with lots of special effects substituting for plot or acting. I feel sorry for the talented ST actors who are debased in this cheap, worthless imitation of ST; while Mr. Abrams might make lots of money with it catering to the masses lowest common denominator, to the ST aficionados, INMHO it is an abomination.

Don't waste your time on it.
2013-05-25
Star Trek in name only
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.
2013-06-28
20 dollars to watch special effects from a video game
20 dollars to watch the special effects of a level below that of a video game. At least with a video game a player has the ability to interact. Not so with this movie.

I would have given this a zero, but it is impossible.

This had no plot that could be followed. It had no characters that would interest anyone with an IQ over 45. It had no theme that I was aware of. It had no suspense because this is a prequel, so we know all the good guys will be around for yet another disaster movie, and so will the one good actor -- the bad guy Khan. It had music that was overpowering as though it should add to all the cacophony of what passed for dialogue. It had no wit and no charm and no depth.

In short it had nothing at all and if that's all Star Trek can do, it's time for another series. Let this one rest. It has been an honourable series up to this point.

Leave it be.
2013-05-17
Download Star Trek Into Darkness movie (J.J. Abrams) - loadedmovies.com, the lowest price, high speed.Star Trek Into Darkness full movie online.Star Trek Into Darkness HD movie are available too (720p and 1080p). Star Trek Into Darkness Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi . Star Trek Into Darkness movie download, Star Trek Into Darkness movie hd download, Star Trek Into Darkness full movie download, Star Trek Into Darkness movie download 2013, watch online Star Trek Into Darkness movie, Star Trek Into Darkness movie download, Star Trek Into Darkness movie DIVX download, Star Trek Into Darkness movie download hd, Star Trek Into Darkness 2013 hollywood movie download, download Star Trek Into Darkness full movie
×