Write descriptive essay about Star Trek Into Darkness movie 2013, write an essay of at least 500 words on Star Trek Into Darkness, 5 paragraph essay on Star Trek Into Darkness, definition essay, descriptive essay, dichotomy essay.
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
Reviews
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
A decent action adventure film that uses Star Trek iconography
I guess I always knew Star Trek could potentially be taken and made into a Spiderman/Iron man sort of action adventure film. No true Star Trek fan will recognize much of what happens in this "Star Trek" movie. Spock is seriously blubbering towards the end when Kirk "dies" (he is revived of course). Spock also has a full-on romance going with Uhura!?

Simply put, this film is a cheap imitation of Star Wars (as in Star Wars without the substance). I am sure Abrams is going to do a better job with the Star Wars franchise (I am a fan of that genre too). That is clearly more his style. I am sure this will also make many tens of millions of Dollars, probably more than any other Trek movie because Trek can finally appeal to the masses. So what's the problem you ask? Nothing really. It just has little to nothing to do with Star Trek and so as long as they're willing to change the name to Space Wars or Space Attack or something like that I'm good.
2013-05-14
20 dollars to watch special effects from a video game
20 dollars to watch the special effects of a level below that of a video game. At least with a video game a player has the ability to interact. Not so with this movie.

I would have given this a zero, but it is impossible.

This had no plot that could be followed. It had no characters that would interest anyone with an IQ over 45. It had no theme that I was aware of. It had no suspense because this is a prequel, so we know all the good guys will be around for yet another disaster movie, and so will the one good actor -- the bad guy Khan. It had music that was overpowering as though it should add to all the cacophony of what passed for dialogue. It had no wit and no charm and no depth.

In short it had nothing at all and if that's all Star Trek can do, it's time for another series. Let this one rest. It has been an honourable series up to this point.

Leave it be.
2013-05-17
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
Forgettable bad sci-fi. Not Trek, meh.
This second Abrams film continues the new paradigm of boldly taking bad science to new frontiers that it's never been before in the Star Trek universe. A forgettable story is Abrams scaffold for lens flares, handycams and special effects sold to investors based upon the number of explosions per 10 minute interval. The contrived special effects made no sense in the context of surrounding volcanic, ocean bottom and weightless environments sure to astound the kiddies.

Being a fan of the original ST, of course I don't like to see what is happening as Paramount fracks the Star Trek universe to exploit the last drop of crude action potential while ignoring the sustainable and more abundant imaginative philosophical and scientific wonder-story potential Roddenberry/Fontana used to build the first Star Trek universe. Instead of creating, Paramount and Abrams simply rob from the dead. The director was doubtless chosen by Paramount for the Franchise because Abrams would focused on the unimaginative target anti-science audience market segment that knows nothing of Newtons laws.

The absurd parallel universe created in the first Abrams ST film had an opportunity to boldly go to new places and confront philosophical issues as Roddenberry did. The broken cliché alternate universe time paradox "deus ex machina" places the youthful good actors in likable characters in a universe in which they don't belong. The priority was to call on market maker tags such as Kahn, tribbles, and Klingons that identify the film with the Star Trek franchise and tap a new market for old productions to enhance DVD sales/rental revenues.

The acting wasn't a failure. The story was.
2013-08-20
Feels like a bad version of Die Hard 2 in Space...
Pros - slick - seems that non-trekkie, non-scifi lovers love it - visually grand - great music - nice homages to the Original Series

Cons - Too many absurd plot holes. - the storyline is really over-dramatised/over-done and lazy. - action scenes too fast and so far beyond the laws of physics its ridiculous.

Before you shoot me down, just listen. I love good Science Fiction. I love good storytelling. Action in Sci Fi is OK if it serves a good purpose.

But bang crash, run for kilometres and never get puffed out, ignore the Prime Directive, freeze a volcano, get demoted, get repromoted, ooh there's a bad admiral in star fleet (Star Trek VI) blow up, smash, do the Millennium-Falcon-sideways-to-escape-the badies, die and come back to life using super-human blood (Battlestar Galactica), jump 30meters and don't brake an ankle...

A great SciFi movie can get away with a few things that are beyond reality IF there's enough good story telling/acting/drama to help you make that leap. Christopher Nolan does that for me. The story of Batman makes no-sense logically, but through the carefully structured drama I can make that leap-of-faith. In this movie I can't.

Khan - brilliantly played and nicely developed and the backstory cleverly brought this character into the Abrams universe.

But the rest just felt like Die Hard in the 23rd Century.
2013-05-09
A Senseless Waste of Time and Money
There is nothing new or interesting in this movie despite the hype of the reboot and a thousand opportunities to move in a new direction. The writers/director and studio sadly chose to go with a sad rip off of 1982's The Wrath of Khan and one of the most successful Star Trek movies made. The actors who are good in their own rights are forced to play comic-bookish, super hero representations of the main characters. The story has more plot holes than swiss cheese. C'mon Orci & Kurtzman, the Sol system would arguably be one of the least likely places to build a super secret base if you wanted it to go unnoticed. The Enterprise is NOT a submarine (Go to hulu and download Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea if you need to discover the difference) it IS, however, a STARSHIP. Crashing a ship (ala Revenge of the Sith) with a functional warp core, why didn't it blow up the city or at best half the planet? The death scene stolen from The Wrath of Khan was cheesy the way it turned out and quite frankly hard to watch without laughing. And finally, I also find Khan's "magic blood" to be a hard pill to swallow. All manufactured ooo and ahh moments at best intended for a Playstation/Xbox/Wii generation with the attention span of gnats. Star Trek is about the human adventure and I saw none of that adventure here. To paraphrase the Federation President from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ; Save your time! Save your money! Avoid Into Darkness at all costs! That is all.
2013-06-15
This is NOT Star Trek -- Boo! Hiss!
If you're looking for a modern action movie, it's not bad (although it is a little slow in a couple places). But it's NOT Star Trek If you know & care about the original story line, forget it. J.J. Abrams appeared on The Daily Show & said that he hadn't liked Star Trek as a kid. It really showed. He changed all the old story lines. The flow of history is totally different, with no way to logically fit the stuff together. I'm so disappointed. What's up with Spock & Uhura? And we know that that's not what happened to Christopher Pike! The history of Vulcan -- what? The role reversal between Kirk & Spock? And future Spock? But the whole Khan thing is SO different from the original histories, & he is played so differently. Why is Carol Marcus there & why is she British? And really, all of the characters are just caricatures of how they were originally played. Abrams said he studied up on the old stuff, but he didn't get it. Boo! Hiss! I wonder how Abrams will screw up Star Wars next.
2013-05-16
Very disappointing
After seeing the rating and reading the reviews, I was sure I'm in for an awesome movie. I have never been so wrong. The movie is, at best, a parody of the original Star Trek. It's full of clichés and try hard characters pretending they're the original heroes with every second sentence. The acting is awkward and childish, the story is boring and predictable, the effects are cheap and unrealistic and the soundtrack is a comedy. I almost walked out of the cinema on three separate occasions. The only emotion you will feel is a regret of the time wasted watching this. I give a high rating of five because the movie might have an appeal to 13 year old viewers who are not familiar with the original series.
2013-07-08
JJ Abrams killed Star Trek
JJ Abrams killed Star Trek. There, I said it. This wasn't a Star Trek movie, this was a Star Wars movie. JJ Abrams, who is also making the next Star Wars movie, apparently had the plots for the two movies mixed up. Whereas Star Trek is about human development, about humanity, exploring, complicated issues that are mainly resolved by thinking and arguing, Star Wars has always just been some shootouts in space. Don't get me wrong: I like action movies every now and then, especially in a Sci-Fi setting. I watch Star Wars as well.

But like I said: this is not supposed to be Star Wars. This is Star Trek. After the first 'new' Trek movie I wanted to give the creators the benefit of the doubt, but I was wrong. I could have known: the setup in the previous movie was like in every superhero movie these days: introduction of characters, background stories, introduction of some bad guy, a few fights, person/country/planet/universe saved. Second movie: worse bad guy(s), bigger fights, more explosions, BIGGER EXPLOSIONS, something saved again.

This was a formula movie. Another one. Movie theaters are flooded with them. The Hangover III, Fast and Furious V, Iron Man III, Scary Movie V, and that's just what's playing in theaters here in Holland *right now*.

Please please... somebody save Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry would have HATED this movie. It's everything Star Trek is nót about.

Boy do I miss Picard and Sisko.
2013-06-08
Write descriptive essay about Star Trek Into Darkness movie 2013, Star Trek Into Darkness movie essay, literary essay Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek Into Darkness essay writing, narrative essay, Star Trek Into Darkness 500 word essay, argumentative essay Star Trek Into Darkness.
×