Star Trek Into Darkness backdrop
Star Trek Into Darkness poster

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

2013 US HMDB
May 5, 2013

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.

Directors

Cast

👍 👎 🔥 1 🧻 👑 (1)

Comments

Comments (0)

Crew

Production: Bryan Burk (Producer)David Ellison (Executive Producer)Alex Kurtzman (Producer)J.J. Abrams (Producer)Roberto Orci (Producer)Jeffrey Chernov (Executive Producer)Dana Goldberg (Executive Producer)Paul Schwake (Executive Producer)Damon Lindelof (Producer)
Music: Michael Giacchino (Original Music Composer)
Cinematography: Dan Mindel (Director of Photography)

REVIEWS (1)

Marco Saraga
The earth is shaken by a series of terrorist attacks carried out by a mysterious man linked to the star fleet. Institutions waver and war is ever closer. To hunt him down, Captain James T. Kirk and his entire crew are called. Excuses accepted, let's move on. The risk of making mistakes or losing parts of the audience is very high when attempting to touch the universe of Star Trek, the first film by J.J. Abrams was too bold, the race to reinvent took over the director who gave life to an apocryphal film, too far from that feeling that permeates the Trekker universe. Then the explosion of Vulcan, Spock's home planet, too gratuitous and unjustified to go unnoticed. Time corrects the bad starts and perhaps the "genius" Abrams has understood that a film is not beautiful just because there are many spectacular sequences, besides "Star Trek" is not like the cousin of the "galaxy far, far away". Star Trek is content, narration, and action, subtracting one of these variables would make the concept that is at the base of the vision of its creator Gene Roddenberry explode. Therefore, you need to know how to calibrate everything, dose the components with alchemical wisdom, subtract and add elements in coherence with those that preceded them. In this second film, there is much of that original formula, J.J. Abrams has done a good job, continuing the saga of the alternative universe of "Star Trek" and returning very close to the original spirit. Introspective scenes, special effects functional to the story, and well-characterized characters, long monologues, and the much-loved high-level meetings that make "Star Trek" what it is and not something else. Everything updated with wisdom and moderation. Zachary Quinto as Spock is much more convincing than he was in the previous film, he clowns around much less and almost correctly interprets the role that in the past was Leonard Nimoy's. The strong point of "Star Trek – Into Darkness" is the presence of two very convincing villains who directly link to the classic series and the numerous television incarnations of "Star Trek". Khan was a bold choice, it takes a good dose of audacity to retake the exploits of a character who is beloved by fans and who gave life to the most beautiful film of the entire original series, "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan". The sortie succeeds, also because the story is rewritten within the story, keeping the human and emotional coordinates fixed while varying the events. Khan directly connects to the second villain, a member traceable to Section 31, a deviated organization within the star fleet, who turns out to be even more enigmatic than the historic enemy and interpreted by a Peter Weller in a state of grace. The story proceeds with deliberation, a visit to the world of the Klingons, a dark and post-apocalyptic planet, where entire areas are uninhabited and the skies crossed by hawks that seem to come from the universe of Terminator. The Klingon Empire, even if only hinted at, is present throughout the film, the cold war dictates its agenda, and the political-military choices revolve around this central and indispensable fact to understand the entire saga invented by Gene Roddenberry. This time it went well, we can breathe a sigh of relief, the film is successful. For those who wanted to write the epitaph of Star Trek, because it's too old, too exploited, too out of time, or simply because nothing lasts forever so it's better to end it, with this film they can reconsider and put their soul at peace. Long live and prosperity to Star Trek.
👍 👎 🔥 🧻 👑

Comments

Comments (0)

Where to Watch

Stream

Sky Go Sky Go
Now TV Now TV
Timvision Timvision
Paramount Plus Paramount Plus
Paramount+ Amazon Channel Paramount+ Amazon Channel

Rent

Apple TV Apple TV
Amazon Video Amazon Video
Rakuten TV Rakuten TV
Google Play Movies Google Play Movies
Chili Chili

Buy

Apple TV Apple TV
Amazon Video Amazon Video
Rakuten TV Rakuten TV
Google Play Movies Google Play Movies
Chili Chili

COMMUNITY REVIEWS (4)

Andres Gomez

3 /10

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.

Gimly

Gimly

6 /10

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

CinemaSerf

CinemaSerf

7 /10

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

2 /10

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.

Reviews provided by TMDB