उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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

As much as I liked Abrams' 2009 re-boot of the Star Trek series, I liked this second installment better. I think that's because there was less of an obligation to fill up back-story, and more ability to go deeper both into plot, and into the emotions of these new, younger versions of the characters we now (re) know. Add to that Benedict Cumberbatch makes a complex and compelling villain, even if the character does borrow from other sources, including Rutger Hauer in "Blade Runner".

The humor is funny, the emotional scenes have a real impact, the battles are exciting, the acting is excellent, the plot twists are clever, and the more epic 'big' moments are really effective.

There are flaws; some plot twists can be seen coming a mile off, there are a few painful cheats or jumps in logic, and a handful of too-easy coincidences. But for a big summer blockbuster this has more smarts, style, punch and humanity than most.

Golly I think my title sums up everything I wanted to say. As far as basic plot goes, there's nothing particularly new here: a psycho super being plans to kill people and blow up things while the Enterprise is, for the millionth time, "the only ship in the quadrant". This movie is very lazily written, sort of like that homework assignment you slapped together on the bus to school but with a multi zillion dollar budget. But before you transport off this page, bear in mind the film's saving grace...

There are a ton of groan-worthy, yet very effective, references to the old Star Trek universe, making this a pretty entertaining watch even though I sound like I'm slamming it harder than a shuttle craft making Emergency Landing Plan B ("B! As in BARRICADE"). That plus a ton of dazzling special effects and nonstop action prompt me to rate this movie a definite WORTHWHILE WATCH, even though my inner Trek nerd is screaming for you to avoid it like that episode "Spock's Brain".

No, this is NOT a remake of the incomparable "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982) although it does feature the characters Khan as well as Dr. Carol Marcus.

No, Khan does not show off his bulging pecs as only the late great Ricardo Montalban could do.

YES, there is a sneaky remake of the famous radiation "you'll flood the chamber" scene which is fun to watch.

YES, Chris Pine does an admirable job of playing Captain Kirk as the charmingly arrogant young captain who doesn't like to lose.

YES, Zachary Quinto does an admirable job of playing the stoic Mr Spock, and YES there is a cameo by Leonard Nimoy as the original Spock.

YES, Dr, McCoy says "Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a ---!"

and lastly, YES, at a certain point in the movie someone does, in fact, yell: "KHAAaaAaAAAAAaaANNN!!!"

So what more needs to be said. Great popcorn flick. Fun little nods to the old Trek series. It doesn't require too many brain cells. But then again, neither does "Spock's Brain" and we still love it.

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.

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!

After violating the Prime Directive of the Federation interfering with the primitive inhabitants of Planet Nibiru, saving their lives from a volcanic eruption and exposing the Enterprise to them to save Spock (Zachary Quinto), Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine) is summoned by Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and loses the command of the Enterprise.

Meanwhile, a Starfleet facility in London is bombed and the high-command has a meeting where the identity of the responsible, the former agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), is disclosed. However, Harrison attacks the commanders; kills Spike and flees to Kronos, the land of the Klingons. Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) assigns Kirk to kill Harrison and brings seventy-two torpedoes to the Enterprise to accomplish the mission. Chief Engineer Montgomery Scotty (Simon Pegg) refuses to receive the weapons and Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) is relocated to his position and Dr. Carol Wallace (Alice Eve), who is a science officer specialized in weapons, joins the Enterprise crew. When they arrive in Kronos, they are attacked by Klingons but out of the blue, Harrison kills the Klingons and surprisingly surrenders to Kirk after knowing that the torpedoes are on board of the Enterprise. Then he discloses that he is Khan, a superhuman that was awakened by Marcus from a cryogenic pod to prepare the star-ships with powerful weapons for a war against the Klingons. When the Enterprise is intercepted by a mysterious starship commanded by Admiral Marcus, Kirk asks Khan to help him to save his crew.

"Star Trek into Darkness" is a great sci-fi with a good story of Kirk and his crew and a powerful villain. The good acting and direction associated to top-notch special effects make a highly entertaining movie. Surprisingly there are bad reviews in IMDb that must be ignored by those that like this franchise. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Star Trek Além da Escuridão" ("Star Trek beyond the Darkness")

While it was not a perfect series (William Shatner's overacting, less than great production values and an iffy Season 3), the original 'Star Trek' series was a genre landmark and hugely influential and ground-breaking, also a mostly great series in its own right especially for the characters, the relationships and Leonard Nimoy's Spock.

The films based on the original series were a mixed bag. A few great ones with 'The Wrath of Khan', 'The Voyage Home' and 'The Undiscovered Country', one in-between film with 'The Search for Spock' and disappointments with 'The Motion Picture' and particularly 'The Final Frontier'. There were ten 'Star Trek' films before this 2009 reboot, four being based on the 'Next Generation series where the only outstanding one was 'First Contact'. 'Generations to me was another in-between film and 'Insurrection' and 'Nemesis' were two other particularly problematic ones.

Don't think 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is as good as the generally positive critical reception makes out, despite some really impressive elements (more so than those who dislike the film have made out), it is a heavily flawed film and does disappoint as a 'Star Trek' film. At the same time, as a film on its own 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is pretty decent but admittedly it could have been much better. While the disappointment is understandable and personally concur with a lot of the criticisms, it is nowhere near as bad as 'Star Trek' fans who hated it have said, coming from a subjective person this is not a 1/10 film.

Visually, the film mostly looks great. The special effects are mainly fantastic and leave one in awe, while there is audacious and suitably moody cinematography and atmospheric lighting.

Michael Giacchino delivers another winner of a music score, don't remember ever being disappointed by this man. Sure it is familiar, but it fits very well with the film and its mood and is unmistakable Giacchino, a beautiful score to listen to and has a lot of atmosphere.

Where 'Star Trek Into Darkness' scores highly is in the action, it is staged in a way that generates a huge amount of thrilling excitement, tension and suspense. It's well shot too, and JJ Abrams knows how to deliver on the action and spectacle. The sound effects have a lot of authenticity.

Regarding the story, 'Star Trek Into Darkness' evoked mixed reactions from me. It is rich in atmosphere and has some thrilling moments and truly exciting action, while the interplay between Kirk and Spock is brilliantly written and makes one feel quite nostalgic. The casting is in crucial parts bang on with some great performances. Chris Pine has garnered mixed reactions, to me he was more relaxed here and has a charisma that commands the screen.

Zachary Quinto once again nails it as Spock, with huge shoes to fill, capturing perfectly what was so iconic about the character in the first place. Karl Urban is suitably cantankerous, Zoe Saldana is sexy and fiery and Leonard Nimoy makes a moving cameo. Best of all is Benedict Cumberbatch, who is sensational as Khan and is the best thing about the film, Khan is also the most interesting and most developed character and Cumberbatch gives him menacing intensity and sympathetic melancholy, a character who you fear but in some way understand his point of view.

'Star Trek Into Darkness' has a lot of faults though. The script has some clunky moments, has comedy that really doesn't gel and is not very funny and fails to provoke much thought or have much depth, some of it feels dumbed down. Character development, something that 'Star Trek' at its best was particularly good in, is mostly lacking, outside of Khan, most of the cast actually are criminally underused and are very bland in personality (Urban was fine but was too much in the background), Alice Eve is little more than a window dressing plot device that felt incidental to the story and Simon Pegg (who is very funny in other roles) is irritating comic relief.

Despite some good moments, the story was very problematic. That it has a lot of inconsistencies and continuity errors is just one problem, more of an issue was that some of it was in need of much more clarity because some of it is convoluted and under-explored, the big reveal is clumsy and far too obvious and the romance is shoe-horned, forced, underdeveloped and completely unnecessary.

Although most of the film was well made, a few of the techniques that distracted a lot in 'Star Trek' (2009), especially the lens flares, still distract and look cheap. Abrams does action and spectacle well, but fails on what is a large part of 'Star Trek's' appeal when at its best which is the writing and the characterisation, both problematically executed and robs the film of heart and soul. The film is all big and noisy, but the brains and heart are missing.

Overall, nowhere near greatness but hardly the franchise's darkest hour. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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!

Star Trek: Transformers 4 would fit best to this, because it is not the Star Trek we are used to. This is simply an action movie, that happens to have phasers instead of guns, and beaming instead of taking a plane/car. I was expecting to see some science and understanding, instead I got the 1970s captain again, with the fist fighting enemies and kissing the girls. What happened to the optimistic bright future where money is not an issue and people work to better themselves? What happened to the Earth that was heaven? What happened to the engineers who make improvements to the ship using alien technologies, and not try to fix it all the time? What happened to technological competition and diversification? Where is the strategy? Smart ship tactics? All seems to be brute force in this movie. As a trekkie, I am quite disappointed.

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.

11/10.

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?

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!

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.

A reckless young battleship commander hunts down the assassin of his mentor, but needs the assassin's help to counter a threat from within.

Flashy action story with a confused concept. The opening sequence addresses the clash between the ethics of the organisation and the swashbucklng of our hero, but it makes a mockery of the thoughtful side of Star Trek and doesn't tie in with the rest of the plot. After that we're left with something like Top Gun - a barely disguised homage to American military might without any insight on the responsibilities of power or the potential of human collaboration. There is nothing to explain how the organisation could become so corrupted that it promotes war, and the threat from the villain seems to come from nowhere - I don't know much about the Star Trek universe, so I'm just commenting on the internal logic of the story, but the year 1945 seems to have significance.

The drama is limited, with simple-minded relationships, and the actors don't need to do much. Best performances are from the villain, with the usual icy British superiority, and a bit of steam rising from Uhuru's passion.

The director fits the pieces together fairly tight and throws in plenty of punch-ups, but there's not much of interest.

Overall: nothing to distinguish this from a dumb action movie.

Boldly going where no man (or woman or gender fluid) has gone before, climb aboard the Enterprise and let it fly and soar, as old friends gather, reunite, off to battle and to fight, strange new worlds, civilisations to explore.

A renegade from the future rewrites his score, it's as if he wandered through another door, it's a better incarnation, riven through with lamentation, leaves Ricardo full of wrath just like before.

Embrace it or you'll lose it, change is good, just let your imagination take you away, it's only a story after all.

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.

Zachary Quinto as Mr. Spock shows more emotion in Star Trek Into Darkness than Leonard Nimoy did during the entire run of the series and the various big screen incarnations. Considering the stress that he and Chris Pine as Captain Kirk are under in this one it is understandable.

It's hard to tell who the enemy is in this one. We've got a Star Fleet Admiral played by Peter Weller who is sending the Enterprise on one dangerous mission and it seems more and more like its real purpose was to provoke the Klingons into an all out war.

Their mission was to essentially assassinate a man named John Harrison who has defected to the Klingon Empire. But the last time such an assassination was ordered it was for either Admiral Yamamoto and for Osama Bin Laden. And the people carrying those missions out did not have the weaponry of the Enterprise.

Instead Kirk takes Harrison alive which fouls up the plans of a lot of people. And Harrison whose real name is Khan and is played by Benedict Cumberbatch has really got an agenda all his own.

By the name you'll recognize this as kind of a remake of the classic Star Trek, The Wrath Of Khan. But if you think you know then as a good Trekkie what's coming then you're in for a surprise. Important variations are made to the plot.

The high standard of good science fiction and characters of idealism and fortitude that all the incarnations of the Enterprise have shown are faithfully retained here. This is truly the next generation of Star Trek.