Watch Star Trek Into Darkness online free 🎦 watch Star Trek Into Darkness free online 🎞️ Star Trek Into Darkness online free 📽️ Star Trek Into Darkness full movie download 📥 Star Trek Into Darkness full movie online 🎥 watch Star Trek Into Darkness online 🎬 download Star Trek Into Darkness 📺 Star Trek Into Darkness download ☑️ Star Trek Into Darkness full movie free.
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 1080p
Resolution 1920x800 px
File Size 11722 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 1536 Kbps
Format mkv
Download
Type HQ DVD-rip
Resolution 720x304 px
File Size 1382 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 1458 Kbps
Format avi
Download
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 11722 Mb h264 1536 Kbps mkv
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 1382 Mb mpeg4 1458 Kbps avi


Reviews
Boldly Going Where It shouldn't
The film has lots of special effects; lens flares (again?!), odd camera angles, new props, and lots of loud noise. What the film lacks is a script that makes any sense and scenes that are offensive, useless, and contradict previous scenes minutes earlier. It is obvious that JJ Abrams and the writers don't care about the franchise as anything other than a way to make money. I won't give away any of the plot, because there really isn't one in this film. It rips off two other Star Trek films from the 1980s and is very badly written throughout the entire time the film is running. I won't be seeing any more films by this director, as he appears to believe and has stated that he wants this Star Trek to be remembered over the others. Believe me, this is one person who will remember the 2009 and 2013 films as being the worst ever made in the history of Star Trek. Save your money, don't see this film and don't buy the DVD.
2013-07-20
very disappointing and bewildering
I really couldn't wait to get out of there. I am a Star Trek fan from the original, emphasis on the word 'original', TV series and found the first remake in this series enjoyable, but this was just abysmal. Simon Peggs Scottishness just drove me up the wall - of course, he is not actually a Scot. The constant attempts at humour became nauseous - this is not supposed to be a comedy, but it bordered on it at times. The constant bam bam bam fisticuffs ridiculous. The throwback to an earlier Star Trek movie a first-order groan inducer. I really have no idea what the hell this was all about. I truly despair. There is so much great scifi material out there and these guys have to rehash and rehash. Please give us something original and exciting and thought-provoking. This definitely was not it. I am being generous giving it 2 out of 10.
2013-05-22
Watch it in 2D - You'll be 33% less disappointed
They should have called this "Star Trek: The Wrath of Yawn".

This movie single-handedly takes the trifecta of bad filmmaking. It is simultaneously: 1) An uninspired sequel, 2) an unnecessary remake of a classic, and 3) a 3D mess. So I'm giving it a 3 out of 10.

I liked the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie, even though I couldn't really follow the plot. This time, I followed the plot just fine, because I've seen it dozens of times on cable in the past 30 years.

The witty repartee between crew members is well done, but everything else falls short. As with Iron Man 3, it's very obvious that most of the action scenes are intended to exploit 3D, which means that clarity and visual coherence mean nothing - all that matters is that a bunch of stuff comes flying at you.

This makes it impossible to appreciate the effects or immerse yourself in the story. Most of the spaceships look uninspired on the outside and preposterously cavernous and complex on the inside.

There was an audible groan when people in the audience realized this was just a rehash of Wrath of Khan.

There are a lot of things wrong with this movie, so you have to dig deep to find the worst one:

Forget that Kirk got his command back about five minutes after he lost it, following a scene pulled straight from Godfather III (not to mention dozens of space-based video games).

Forget the preposterous chase of a Millennium Falcon rip-off through a rebuilt-Death-Star-like maze.

Forget that Scotty somehow single-handedly sabotaged a double-size, weaponized Enterprise rip-off (oh yeah, it was automated for a skeleton crew, that explains it).

Forget that Nimoy Spock made a pointless cameo that broke the fourth wall by practically saying "Here's what we did in the original movie..."

No, the worst part of this movie is the whole Khan backstory and motivation.

In Star Trek II, it was very clear why Khan was so ticked off, and it was possible to empathize a bit with him after he and his crew were left abandoned and forgotten on Ceti Alpha V.

This time around, Khan was thawed out just so they could get a super-genius's opinion on how to start a war. Say what?

And Khan is a ruthless, cold-blooded murderer, but he's only doing it to expose RoboCop as a ruthless, cold-blooded murderer, so he's sort of a good guy?

And the whole chain of events is started by a StarFleet employee who is willing to kill himself and dozens of other people just to cure his daughter from a terminal disease. Who does that?

There are no cool Khan pectorals on display here - real or otherwise. No flowing Fabio hair. No quotes from Herman Melville. Or maybe there are, I don't know. No cool hippie/groupie crew for Khan to interact with. No rich, Corinthian leather. Everything that made Khan's wrath great is absent from this film.

I was really looking forward to this movie. Now I'll be completely uninterested in the next one. It's clear they're out of ideas.
2013-05-19
Something is Lacking
This was great to watch, but don't know about 3D as the screen kept having to focus on a lot of shots and also that there were a lot of close ups showing all the creases on all their faces. I waited a long time for this and was unimpressed firstly by the score and how it kept repeating again and again the same tune over and over again. I can't decide if an actual score was made or they just copied it exactly from the first start trek movie. The score needs to be rethought to give the films an edge along with a better looking bridge as it looks like it was created in a holding program in the matrix. There was a rumor that Khan was in the film and we know what happens to him from the original series. What happens to him in this one??? they don't show you! Please come up with an original story line!! If you are going to reinvent or re-imagine films then do not bring back old story lines or characters! Someone was right about Chris Pine in his uniform looking like a ken doll. I enjoyed watching and Mr Spock whose hair kept jumping up and down as he ran. I hope the next movie will be better and I know it will be better as it will be based in deep space and no contact with earth.
2013-05-13
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 movie got Trek cannon wrong, got basic 21st century science wrong and in no way contributed to Gene Roddenberry's dream of a better world
The film was horrible.

With that said I'll start with the good. Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy was the one shining star in the film. His deadpan line, "He'd let you die Jim" was perfect. It showed the struggle between compassion and logic that was so well portrayed by Kelly and Nimoy in the original series.

First, the film completely disregards Star Trek cannon. Christopher Pike does not live through the movie to end up as a quadriplegic on Talos IV. The Klingon home world, Kronos, appears to have a moon, Praxis, that has exploded, except this doesn't happen until Star Trek VI. All this is forgivable however; new movies for a new generation that knows nothing about Star Trek

Second, what isn't forgivable is that basic Newtonian physics and science is so poorly understood by the film makers that it distracts from the movie. Some examples of plainly not understand that the world around you is governed by science and not magic are: the heat from the volcano is attributed to damaging shuttle craft Galileo yet the heat caused by de-orbiting the shuttle craft would far exceed any heat caused by a volcano. In the same sequence, the Enterprise is parked underwater. Are we to believe that a star ship that must be constructed in space and is designed to be used for interstellar travel also doubles as a submarine? When was the last time that you boarded a 747 to go on an undersea adventure? And why in the hell would they park the Enterprise underwater when they could be invisible in orbit directly above the volcano and use sensors and transporters?

Other big issues are that the crew of the starship Enterprise does not know the distance of the moon's orbit. Ask Neil Armstrong, I bet he figured it out 300 years earlier. I think the first question on starship helmsman's exam should be, "Where is the moon and so you don't hit it?" Next when the ship can no longer hold orbit, it falls back to earth in a few minutes like a stone dropped into a pond. Newton? Never heard of him! What laws of motion? I think movies reflect a lot upon a generation. This new generation claims nerds are cool, but has no manned space program. Your parents' generation actually walked on the moon.

Third, when the script however fails to make common sense, it throws you outside the movie and this makes the movie 'unfun'. After a secure, secret Starfleet facility is attacked, Starfleet Command decides to meet in an unprotected high rise. I guess in the 23rd century, rank isn't correlated with intelligence or experience. Next, the Klingons are a war like race equally as advanced as humans that have developed space travel but they don't bother to guard their entire home world. They actually sound pretty easy to conquer. That's okay because humans are just as dumb; two Federation ships appear in earth orbit to duke it out and there are no other Federation ships around. Please, will one ship randomly fall on San Francisco? We sound pretty easy to conquer too.

Let's not forget about the unnecessary, obligatory, giant tittied girl in skimpy underwear to make all the 14 year old boys have happy wet dreams. I love nude women as much as the next guy but porn has it's time and place and this wasn't it… Unless you are a 14 year old boy with $10.50 for a movie and no other access to porn.

When Kirk died, why did Dr. McCoy need Kahn's blood to save him? He had 72 genetically engineered humans from the eugenics war frozen in front of him. The Eugenics Wars are well documented. He actually had to thaw one of those guys out to put Kirk in the life support tube. Why not use his blood or one of the other 71 samples of super blood?

Fourth, I remember when Spock died in Star Trek II, people cried, it was debated if he could really be dead. It was an emotional heartfelt moment that asked the audience to way, "the needs of the many, versus the needs of the few." Did anyone really think Jim was dead in this movie? He was dead for all of five minutes! It was a completely wasted scene because it was devoid of emotional connection. I believe it was 30 seconds wedged in the middle of two action sequences. This may be because modern movie audiences lack the social skills such as empathy which are necessary for bonding with others. So the film makers simply recreate a scene from the past devoid of emotion and the audience believes it has the received the same spellbinding moment that their parents received.

The only emotion portrayed in the whole film is the Caulfield like teenage angst of Captain Kirk. Great men are no longer portrayed as being challenged with great responsibility or moral questions but now face the pubescent problems of spoiled teenagers. This is the greatest reason why this new Star Trek movie fails. Gene Roddenberry created a future where men had moved beyond many of humanities vices. He created a series of moral plays in his "Wagon train to the sky"; the original series is more like twilight zone episodes than anything else. Where in this movie did you feel good about humanity? Did this movie make you feel like we could end the Iraq War? That's how the old series made you feel about Vietnam and the Cold War. Did it make you feel that bigotry toward gays would end? That's how the original series made you feel about racism. The movie is an epic fail that reflects a generation that is an epic failure.
2013-05-20
A typical modern action movie
Here's my guide to evaluating movies. Call it the Bruce Willis criteria. No offense to Bruce - I like him and his works.

* If you can replace main hero with Bruce Willis (as seen in Die Hard) and it doesn't do much harm to the plot, you got yourself a modern mindless action movie. *

And unfortunately Into The Darkness is just it - lot's of special effects, action scenes and a very little soul.

It definitely doesn't bring any good feelings that series had to offer.

The saddest part about it all is that no one seems to care. People rate movie high, just because it entertains them enough with jokes and visual effects, companies get their revenue.

This means there're gonna be more movies utilizing the same old formula: good guys vs. bad guys, world domination as a motivation for villain + superhero that saves the day.
2013-05-23
A complicated case of uncomplicated story
It is really a bit difficult for me to comment on this movie, because the people I joined in watching it all thought it was excellent. I did not, and I think I know the reason: I love "The Wrath of Khan". For a few hours after watching it, I was sort of preoccupied with the question if knowing the old movie(s) should somehow improve your experience of "Into Darkness". By now I am sure: It doesn't.

"Into Darkness" is a modern action movie with great fighting scenes, effects and a near to perfect acting performance by Benedict Cumberbatch. That proved to be enough to yield a great cinematic experience in the past, if well done, and it should be here. If you do not know Star Trek or what it stands (stood) for.

Things started to get out of hand once I noticed that the plot was some alternative timeline to the Khan-events. But they somehow managed to take out nearly all the aspect making "The Wrath of Khan" a great movie, in my opinion. "The Wrath of Khan" was sort of a chamber drama, mainly starring Kirk, getting older, and Khan, being riven by grief and his wrath. It was intense, Khan hating Kirk from all his heart, and Kirk using all his wits to defeat his foe. It had some clearly defined, evolving characters, but mainly focused on Kirk and his opponent. It had philosophy, and a (though maybe too obvious) meaning. All in all, it was Star Trek.

Now how about "Into Darkness"? If we just forget about Khan for a moment, every dialogue seemed to be devised to either a) have an action scene as a consequence or b) provide comic relief. There was, for example, no depth in Uhura and Spock discussing their relationship or Spock's thoughts about feeling. There could not have been any, because there was no time to elaborate and reflect. It was a fast roller-coaster trip on multiple routes. In other words: The golden thread, so obvious in "The Wrath of Khan", was either lacking or I simply missed it. (If it was just a simple "friendship is great", uh, well...).

Was the repetition of dialogues from "The Wrath of Khan" with different speakers something like a humorous reference to the past? It seems so, because I cannot derive any sensible meaning from, for example, exchanging Kirk and Spock and so on. Carol Marcus? She did not add anything of interest to the plot (just some boobs...). I would have expected a bit more from the woman supposed to be the mother of Kirks son.

As a side note, am I the only one thinking that it is odd that star fleet officers, even captains, sort of behave like schoolboys? I would have thought it would take more maturity to be in command of a spaceship...

In summary, I would have like this movie as an action movie. Maybe even loved it. Maybe I could have accepted it being named "Star Trek" if it had not referred to "The Wrath of Khan" and the other timeline in general too often. But as it is, I do not manage to like it. Sorry.
2013-05-16
Driving down the star trek franchise: what is this movie? only action? absolutely, this is not what star trek historically was. TNG, please, come back.
It is sad to realize what this movie comes out as a result of a dead franchise, but not owing to original ideas of star trek creators are out of time. I believe that after failure of "Enterprise"series on TV, the actual owners of ST franchise decided not to run any risk in the future: they planned to make action movies, with no ST philosophy inside and with no respect to ST history. This movie is about entertainment in the worst sense. The lack of sense into this film remains in a poor history, a wrong sense of what is action and no idea about what ST means for those who love Science fiction. To writers and Director: please, have a look to TNG films and books.
2013-10-09
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
See Also
Star Trek Into Darkness watch online, watch Star Trek Into Darkness free, Star Trek Into Darkness free, Star Trek Into Darkness free full movie, Star Trek Into Darkness free online movie, Star Trek Into Darkness free movie, Star Trek Into Darkness watch, Star Trek Into Darkness movie free, Star Trek Into Darkness full.
×