Directed by:
J.J. AbramsCinematography:
Dan MindelComposer:
Michael GiacchinoCast:
Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Benedict Cumberbatch, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Peter Weller, Alice Eve (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
In Star Trek Into Darkness, Captain Kirk and the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise are called back to Earth after a devastating force from within their organisation leaves the planet in chaos and Starfleet in pieces. Determined to settle the score, Kirk embarks on a manhunt with the rest of his crew including Spock, Scotty and Chekov to find the party responsible before their whole world is laid to waste. (Paramount Home Entertainment)
(more)Videos (36)
Reviews (15)
Star Trek for the whole family. Whereas the first modern Star Trek movie established bonds (not only between the characters, but between the characters and viewers unfamiliar with Star Trek), the sequel’s plot is built on the danger of those bonds being broken. Several of the alternative family models find themselves in peril. Kirk and Spock are driven by a thirst for revenge after their surrogate father is killed before their eyes. Carol is seeking a new, more trustworthy family onboard the Enterprise and Harrison’s crew has become his family as well. Thanks to the strong family subtext, Into Darkness is emotionally rich, but it doesn’t manage to directly face up to its melodramatic leanings (glycerine tears, Spock bellowing the villain’s name) and relativises them in every possible way through childish joking and placing them in a context that prevents the expression of emotion (Spock’s reaction, for example, is primarily a quote). The attempt at a constantly brisk narrative pace hinders the logical consistency of the story. The characters break or disregard regulations as it suits the screenwriter, some motivations are unclear and a lot of decisions are dubious. On the other hand, Abrams makes excellent use of every piece of the provided information, whether in the dialogue or action scenes (with shots that say more in one go than is common in today’s action movies). He continuously raises the stakes in the build-up of the action sequences: higher probability of error/greater loss, if errors occur/multiplication of objectives to be achieved through action. The final battle is an excellent example of how to overwhelm viewers with spectacle and, at the same time, make them think about the possible impacts of the actions that they have watched. Though it happens on the basis of an unconvincing chain of events, the scene itself is gripping. The dubious significance of similarly self-indulgent episodes in the narrative as a whole repeatedly points out to us that the film follows the narrative logic of television series (or video games). Many events have no consequences and stick out like a sore thumb, though they will thrill the mind of any nerd (a key scene from The Wrath of Khan turned upside down, Alice Eve in her underwear). It is not clear from the presented facts why some things happen in an exceedingly complicated way, or rather why some useless information is being provided to us (the circumstances leading to the explosion in the Archive). Other, more valuable information was left out for the sake of convenience (the improbably quick “modification” of 72 torpedoes before Harrison appropriates them, the premature cut-off of the rescue scene using a human chain, which doesn’t look solid at all). The new Star Trek would need to fill a lot of holes, but even with those holes, it is a top-rate summer blockbuster with a thrilling pace, a humanly monstrous bad guy and tremendous value added for everyone who has spent a fair amount of time in Gene Rodenberry’s world. 85%
()
(less)
(more)
I loved the first movie of this restarted Star Trek series. It was full of action, good effects and it was fun, which is something I was grateful for. Four years ago, it was fun to discover a movie like this, but now these blockbusters are a dime in a dozen and it’s hard to find a really good one. But this one was great. It might not match up to the first movie’s quality, but it definitely comes close. Because Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely perfect as a villain. And J.J. Abrams is an amazing director, so apart from digital orgasms, you also get plot twists and you get to build an even stronger relationship with actors such as Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto or Simon Pegg, which all makes me happy as a clam. You can clearly see the Star Trek fans in this movie. It’s just a shame that this movie has too little in common with the original decent Star Trek and a good portion of the fans can’t forgive the creators for that. If they only looked past it, they would enjoy a pleasant popcorn fun that has a message behind it, you just have to open up to it enough.
()
If you really wanted to, you could say that Abrams created a multi-layered, sophisticated revival of Star Trek, in which he strengthened and updated all aspects of the classic series, not only its idealism and ethos, but also its campiness. However, it is rather more appropriate to admit that the second new Star Trek has some fundamental problems that make its unintentionally ridiculous elements stand out, with the terrifying replay of all of the main participants at the fore. The script is the film’s Achilles heel, as it is built around a single major twist connected with the revelation of the main antagonist’s name and the resulting variations on the iconic moments of the classic Star Trek films. Other than those elements, however, the film offers nothing else that would attract the viewer’s attention and thus strengthen the effectiveness of those moments. If with the new Star Wars Abrams sponsored the creation of great fan fiction, which inventively varied, overturned, updated and enriched the canon, Star Trek Into Darkness is a prime example of sloppy fanfiction that merely varies its template in a non-conceptual way, but does not bring anything new or independently functional into it. We could theoretically be thankful that Star Trek has thus paradoxically become a frightening example from which the folks at Disney learned and therefore entrusted only the first of the new sequels to Abrams. The second Star Trek showed that Abrams is great at creating new and clever variations of old worlds, but he unfortunately does not know what to do with them the second time around.
()
Star Trek shattered the traditional concept of space opera with all its naivety and old rituals and boldly stepped toward the younger generation and those who had remained outside the world created by Gene Roddenberry. It resulted in an entertaining blockbuster that is modern, dynamic, and full of action, battles, memorable lines, and tension - simply a likable popcorn movie for mass audiences. The sequel follows a similar spirit, although it reduced the number of memorable lines and humor, replacing them with pathos and, in some cases, pure sentiment (yes, brave space heroes are not ashamed of shedding tears), and overall the film slightly lost the lightness of its predecessor. On the other hand, it is by no means a failure; many sequels struggle to even come close to the original film's quality (Guy Ritchie could tell you all about that). The film's generous production, breathtaking special effects scenes, the action following one after another, and the fast pace prevent viewers from noticing the gaps in logic and the simplicity of the story. This type of blockbuster is not meant for contemplation or reflection, but for quick consumption, and it fulfills this role more than adequately. Overall impression: 80%.
()
Massive disappointment from J.J. Abrams, the first time ever. Effective eye candy, but it didn’t bring me any pleasure at all. The story is told so sloppily that I actually don’t know what it was about. Everything is ancillary to the glossiness and the pace – before the dust can settle after a twist, there comes another twist, and everything is now different; the movie won’t allow you to understand that turn of events because the plot never goes very deep. Important decisions that would need hours if not days of pondering here are made in a few microseconds. Just whoosh here, whoosh there, it doesn’t matter after all. At its most basic, from one scene to the next, it does work (you can follow the short-term motivations of the characters), but who wanted to do what long-term is something that I’m unable to put together and I fear it simply doesn’t make any sense; not even a bit. The fact that everyone speaks in dull one-liners doesn’t help either. The second Star Trek cheered me up a little only by the end, when it managed to arouse some emotions (I loved the first one, though), but it took me only a few seconds to realise that nothing had really happened, and I guessed exactly the gimmick the movie will use next to reach its nonconflicting goal. So, overall, I'm quite bitter. A film with a very charismatic villain played very charismatically by a very charismatic actor until you realise you don’t know anything about him and you only remember a couple of psychopathic grimaces doesn’t deserve a higher rating.
()
