🎦 Star Trek Into Darkness full movie english download, Star Trek Into Darkness full movie download mp4 in english, Star Trek Into Darkness full movie free download in english. 🎬
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
Storyline: 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.
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
Completely misses the tone of the enlightened future that Roddenberry envisioned...
So it seems JJ Abrams has traded in too many lens flares for too many closeups. The working title of Star Trek Into Darkness could probably have been "Chris Pine's Facial Pores". Seriously JJ - there is such a thing as long and middle shots too you know, and what's more - if you use them - when you *do* use a closeup, it has more dramatic effect, just sayin'...

Anyway, directorial style flaws aside, my big gripe with STID is that it's "just another" sci-fi movie. What always set Trek apart was that Roddenberry created an enlightened future, a refreshing change of pace to most sci-fi, and the conflict therefore had to come from cleverer places. But with this reboot every character is constantly bickering, I frankly left the theater with a headache as if I'd just been to a teenage kids birthday party. I can get bickering, and grit, and violence from *any* sci-fi feature, and sadly now it seems like Trek has followed suit and lost its original edge. It's not until the very final minute where a little bit of the original Trek feel is re-established, but for me that was far too little, far too late.

There's some giant plot holes too, if you're actually thinking about what's going on. It seems like Abrams hoped that if he put enough glitz and dazzle on the screen, most people would entirely miss the fact that they are there. I guess his gamble was correct, since the film is currently standing at an 8.4 IMDb score.

It's not all bad. Benedict Cumberbatch is an incredible, intense villain and the film is worth seeing for his performance alone. And as with the first, the rest of the cast is exceptional. There's nothing wrong with the acting, music, or look of this film... just a lot wrong with the script and the tone of the whole thing. If you're not a Star Trek fan, you'll likely enjoy it... it's big, frenetic, popcorn munching silliness. But if you are a Trek fan, particularly of the quieter explorations of the human condition that TNG did so well, then you might be pretty disappointed.
2013-05-20
Garbage
JJ, you really are destroying a large piece of scifi history.

Star Trek was never an action based show/movie. It was always a story that had supporting action elements. This movie is completely devoid of any cohesive story and is an action junkies dream come true.

Kirk in the original series was confident, capable, intelligent, suave, etc.... The new and improved JJ version of the character is a moron. Don't get me wrong, I really like the choice of actor, but the character portrayal which is dictated by the writers and directors is everything the original Kirk was not.

Space ships crush under pressure....its physics dumba**es...the Enterprise is not a submarine.

I could go on and on, but I find it all a bit depressing. Star Trek is after all just a piece of fiction. ...now lost to time to only be remembered by a new generation as bad fiction.
2013-05-18
Trekkies and anyone expecting any depth should avoid this mess
If you're a fan of past Star Trek movies and TV series, save yourself $11. Instead, (re)rent Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan. Abrams' re- imagining lacks any of the philosophical and ethical dilemmas of earlier Star Trek, or the clever battle of the wits between Kirk and his nemesis. Instead you have many characters who act in ways very different from the philosophy of Starfleet, unnecessarily (and poorly) re-imagined species like the Klingons, inexplicable plot points, excessive fight scenes, and way too many lens flares. Also, if you have seen Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, you'll see things that are not an homage, but instead a true insult to Star Trek fans. The intriguing back story of the villain explored in earlier Trek is glossed over here resulting in a two dimensional baddie, despite Benedict Cumberbatch's otherwise excellent acting. If you're looking for an intellectually stimulating space adventure, look elsewhere. If you're looking for over the top action, eye numbing visual effects, and goose stepping-inspired uniforms, then it might be just what you're looking for.
2013-05-16
Star Trek The Wrath of Khan Parity
Firstly, let me say that both the visual effects and sound track are both great, but it's all down hill from there.

The opening scene, I completely agree with Scotty when he says "You know how completely ridiculous it is to hide a starship on the bottom of the ocean?" Yes this ridiculous, it is a spaceship not a submarine. The ship could have stayed in orbit and either beamed the cold fusion device directly into the volcano or beamed Spock with the device down and then beamed him up. This entire scene feels like it was an excuse to get the cast into 23rd century swimmers.

Next, the effect when the ships go into warp has changed since the last film. Why do the ships leave a trail of shiny star dust at warp? When Star Trek was rebooted in the last film, the warp effect was updated, this was the time to add this (I still wouldn't have liked this effect). They should have kept this effect consistent for both films.

Though this film comes after the Enterprise series, making it canon, the appearance of the Klingons, the design of the Bat'leth and the Bird of Prey have all been changed. These are all key Star Trek components are shouldn't be tampered with.

Having Dr. Carol Marcus change uniforms in a shuttle while Kirk is asked to turn his back, is just a pathetic excuse to see Alice Eve in her underwear, and is completely unnecessary to the story.

Many parts of the story were predictable and were taken directly from The Wrath of Khan with a slight twist. Having Benedict Cumberbatch's character of John Harrison ending up to be Khan was no surprise. Having Kirk die while saving the ship instead of Spock and having Spock yell KHAN instead of Kirk, these parts were just swapped from The Wrath of Khan. The audience I was with, was shocked in horror that these scenes were rehashed again. When Bones was experimenting with Khan's blood to resurrect a dead tribble, it was obvious that this was going to be used to bring back Kirk.

The design of the Enterprise has as been tampered with. When falling to Earth, since when did the Enterprise have 10+ thrusters in the underside of the saucer section of the ship? Secondly, why does the Engineering section have torpedo tubes down both sides to firer the long range torpedoes? This made me think of a pirate ship with canons along both sides. These should have been fired via the existing fore or aft torpedo tubes.

The Wrath of Khan is possibly the best film of the first ten and should never have been touched upon again. 2 of the 3 three writers claim to be long time trek fans, if so, they should have known that this would not be taken well from existing fans. The previous film also had a few issues that I wasn't happy with (Enterprise being constructed on Earth instead of in orbit, a Cardassian beverage though we don't meet the Cardassians for about another 100 years and having a Orion (the green women) members in Star Fleet as the Orion Syndicate were enemies of the Federation), but as the story was original and good, these few issues I can turn a blind eye to. Unfortunately, Into Darkness has too many issues for me to forgive. The writers have an universe of new stories they could write, don't go rehashing content from previous films.
2013-05-11
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
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
The entire franchise is now in 'Darkness'
Since it has now become (dilithium) crystal clear that J.J. Abrams and his team of writers have COMPLETELY dismantled the entire Trek universe we once knew -- the one that was built so meticulously by Gene Roddenberry (and later, Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer too) -- we must now embrace a Trek product that will likely insult and disgust most purists, plus any ticket buyer who wants something more than a movie enjoyed by ADHD attention spans.

This "Into Darkness" film continues where the 2009 effort left off, and with much the same approach, but the decibel level is harder on the eardrums this time: more explosions, more stunts, more fisty-cuffs, more chases (both in space and Terra Firma), more phaser shots and more temper tantrums from Kirk and Spock both.

I could rhetorically say something like, "WTF? Why is this STAR TREK? WHY!?!?!?" and then launch into a heated Trek-purist diatribe attacking the intellectually-challenged, comic book-level screenplay penned by Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. But instead, let us try to examine the movie as a space-bound rip-off of the "Die Hard" franchise, which obviously are the terms on which the film hopes to succeed.

The film's plot presents a saturnine, black-overcoated menace named John Harrison (played woodenly by Benedict Cumberpatch), who starts blowing up buildings in London, then shooting at a roomful of Starfleet's top brass during a staff meeting. He then escapes to the Klingon homeworld to hide out, and will presumably resume his mysterious rampage against the Federation later.

But not if James T. Kirk can help it. Even if it means starting a war with the Klingons, our risk-taking Captain gets the green light from Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to warp the Enterprise over to Kronos, armed with some secret missiles and an undercover mission imperative. As Kirk tells his crew over the intercom, "Let's go get the son of a bitch."

Such a standardized, by-the-numbers action yarn has succeeded in efforts produced by the Jerry Bruckheimer stable, for example, or even the second "Aliens" movie. But here, the film feels so overstuffed with chases, phaser beams and mortal combat, it's much like the second Indiana Jones movie from 1984; after a while, we become numb to the "excitement" and viewing this movie is like riding a roller coaster that simply won't stop, even long after the rider has had enough "thrills."

****SPOILERS START HERE ------ Further ruining the film is the decision by Orci and Kurtzman to "unmask" John Harrison as Khan, the genetically-engineered super-baddie from the original Trek that the late, great Ricardo Montalban elevated to legendary Trek status. By forcibly shoving Khan into the "Into Darkness" storyline, the writers seemed almost desperate to include a familiar face as a crowd pleaser, but I found this "unmasking" about as convincing as a cheesy moment in a daytime soap opera, and it is essentially where I gave up on the film (about when the third act began).

From there, the movie worsened (for me) because soon after, we are then supposed to shed tears for our gallant Captain Kirk sacrificing himself in the Enterprise's warp core chamber to save his ship and crew. Orci and Kurtzman try to duplicate the same touching moment from the "The Wrath of Khan" (when Spock dies) by practically duplicating some of the dialogue from that 1982 film. They are reminding us that they know their Star Trek, but I found this moment to be gimmicky and as such, it registered a complete emotional zero.

Spock himself, as written by Orci and Kurtzman, also seems little more than a gimmick in these films now, especially at the film's climax, which uses our ever-logical Vulcan as a John Rambo wannabe, as he mercilessly pounds his fists into Khan's face, all in the name of revenge for the loss of his pal Jim Kirk. Much of the movie portrays Spock in the same simplistic manner, and his point-counterpoint interaction with the all-more human Kirk has none of the old magic that Shatner and Nimoy once provided so effortlessly.

As I said earlier, forget the fact that this movie is a horrifying abomination for Star Trek purists. Instead, just consider the fact that we have a new franchise, one where you check your brain at the door, don't concern yourself with characterization, and just ignore the words, "…to boldly go where no one has gone before." (those words were spoken by Chris Pine at the fadeout, and hearing them after watching THIS film was a moment of bitter irony for me, I might add)

I wish J.J. Abrams would stick to the new "Star Wars" films and leave it at that.
2013-05-16
Space opera turned to soap opera
Space opera has always had a somewhat positive meaning to me. Its an adventure in space, one that does not take itself too seriously, but is still rich with unexpected developments. When done well (Iain M Banks, earlier Star Trek, Star Wars), this can be a hugely enjoyable genre, where the best elements of the classic adventure story are set into the endless imaginative playground of Space for one fun ride.

But JJ Abrams did not want to take the quality space opera look-and-feel of the known Star Trek. Instead, he wanted to stage it his own (oh so recognizable!) way. And without fail, he succeeds in making it completely dumbed down, extra lens flare. The movie has no style, zero flavor; everything is said out loud, no thinking or empathy required from the audience. Dialogue is dripping with emotions that have no depth, the drama is completely overplayed without any actual tension. The tricks of your common 3pm soap opera are taken and just poured into the plot - bad parenting, painful memories of the past, couples fighting, hands touching through the glass, good guy dies then wakes up and smiles.

And just like that, the great story of Star Trek is not played in space opera minor, but in soap opera major instead. I'd give it 4/10, but the effects and stunning visual must be recognized, so 5 it is.
2013-05-16
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
See Also
📹 Star Trek Into Darkness full movie english download, Star Trek Into Darkness full movie with english subtitles free download, Star Trek Into Darkness full movie download with english subtitles. 📀
×