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
Poor remake for die hard fans, and poor on standalone merits **SPOILERS**
This "remake" is a poor attempt at the original movie that was made in 1984. As a remake, it shows no creativity, and/or originality. As a standalone film, it is uninspiring, and again, lacks creativity/originality. It felt as if the writers were lazy, and just half rehashed elements of the original movie.

The portrayal of Kahn was weak, and no where as sinister as the original Kahn. The original movie showed a truly evil Kahn, and this movie traded physicality, and fight scenes, for real acting. If you want to see a better version of this movie, go find the DVD of the 1984 version. If you want the low mentality, popcorn version, go see the new one, and spend up to $20 for nothing but amazing visuals, poor acting, and a mediocre, rehashed, plot.
2013-05-18
Star Crap: Into Moral Darkness
Spoilers Ahead:

Let's start with ethics 101: Is it moral to save your little baby to kill say 50 people who did you no harm? Have the screenwriters ever even had an ethics class? Maybe it is because he has such a cute baby? The whole work has moments of utter ethical retardation that drew gasps of awe from me. Yes, Pine's Kirk says YOU ARE A MURDERER. I am sorry; please forgive me I started laughing loudly drawing angry stares from other patrons. Yes, uh, excuse me Kirk? What were you just doing on Kronos? What with that fifteen minute orgasmic blood lust kill festival highlighted by you yelling like some cannibal atavist at a missionary cook in? Jim, uh, you cannot kill say eight Klingon's yelling and screaming with glee and then lecture people on their morality.

First, I detest Star Trek; let's get that out of the way. I grew up with the films; there was nothing funnier for my friends and I then to go see Star Trek 3: The Search for Harve Bennett's Brain and laugh our asses off at the fruits dressed up in the outfits. Hey, get laid please, it is a TV show; give us all a break. That said, this is not Star Trek. Look, did we need Khan stomping on a woman's knee while she screams in agony? How about skull crushings? I do not know about you; I just do not remember a lot of skull crushings while Patrick Stewart put us all to sleep with his 3rd grade ethics in Insurrection? Sorry, Jean Fluke 150 people cannot have something that would help billions please pick up some ethics books before you give that head another coat of sheen?

Yes, the usual items that say J.J. Abrams: yelling, spitting, screaming, knee stomping, skull crushing, peek a boo semi nudity non stop explosions kung fu shootings and stabbings bring the whole family. Hey, maybe this is why we cannot go out of our houses at night, you think? When did the paragon of rationality SPOCK turn into RAMBO? Was that him on top of that airship snapping Khan's arm over his shoulder? How about beating a prone man like a berserker? Has Abrams even seen a Star Trek film? Look, the one were they pick up the whales is drop dead funny; I do not mean that in a complimentary way. This is supposed to be humanistic: hello, you know how savage, murdering maniacs were all having bad days at Auschwitz, Stalin's purges and Mao's Great Leap Forward. Misanthropes like me always make a hand gesture I cannot share with you when we say Star Trek; but, hey, it makes them feel better. This is not Star Trek.

Great reviewers have pointed out the plot canyons like, do not kill Khan Spock we need his super blood to save Jim. Gee, how about the other 63 torpedoes containing his mass killing maniacs? Did inertia cause the ship to drift in sub light thruster speed from the moon to earth's orbit? That is a little ways? Look, Nicholas Meyer was no Stanley Kubrick but let's leave his movie alone? If you are going to steal the death scene from the only watchable film in the Star Trek library, try to imitate it well. Please do not have the Icon of the 60's Kirk crying like a little girlie? Yes, I know we are all supposed to be castrates, I am sorry, sensitive or we offend our wonderful feminine friends. You crapped all over Kirk. Roddenberry would sue if he were alive I assure you. Yes, I laughed to at Ricardo's oiled up pec's in Wrath Of Khan too; please, leave other peoples' works alone?

The lack of character development is breathtaking; the non stop violence put me to sleep. Like Man of Steel, these imbeciles need to have constant violence to awaken them from their lobotomized comas. I am learning to stuff cotton in my ears before one of their films. What Abrams did to Star Trek cannot be written I refer readers to the South Park episode showing what Spielberg and Lucas did to Indiana Jones with that Crystal Skull piece of crap. Good going, hey really life affirming J J? I really felt that Roddenberry feeling; maybe we are not all murderous, self destroying maniacs? I had this epiphany right when Khan was skull crushing poor admiral Marcus. BRING THE KIDS
2015-05-16
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
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
Same Story Different Day
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT Please do not read this review unless you have seen the movie or do not plan to see the movie. I do not want to ruin anyone's movie going experience.

I saw this movie in 3D and Imax I want to look at the movie with out the wrapping all the flashy stuff and exploding stuff and as many say the lens flair moments. This is a hard review for me to write I love Star Trek the TV shows and most of the movies but this second in the "reboots" just left me wondering.

First the Imax was great the 3D I can not comment on due to a vision problem that does not allow me to see 3D. Now on to a breakdown of the movie.

The movie opened with what I call the Raiders of the Lost Ark scene it was almost lifted right from raiders and at that time my worry set in was I going to see anything new or was what I call the George Lucas effect going to step in and sadly we got the Lucas effect.

The reboot the new time line was to give ST it's own legs the freedom to go where no other ST has gone before. And where do we find the story we are dropped right in to The Wrath of Kahhn Yes JJ did a great job hiding at least from me the fact that Kahhn was back. I stayed away from reading about the movie so I may have been one of few that was like oh he is Kahnn . So now we are going to rehash the story that we already know about. But wait there is more let's throw in a dash of ST Undiscovered country in to the mix and let's play a game of trading places with Spock and Kirk this time let's kill Kirk but at the same time let's give away how he is saved half way into the movie. This movie held nothing new nothing to boldly go where no man had gone before. We took the opening from one movie and the base story from to others. I really expected more a lot more from this second movie.

We have a completely new time line do you think we can get a completely new story???
2013-05-19
I hoped they would stop after the 2009 movie
After 33 minutes of "Star Trek: Into Darkness" I could not bear to to let it wreak havoc with any more of my brain cells.

Apparently, in 23rd century one can teleport to distances that entirely negate the need for spaceships, Kirk is a 13-year-old in a 30-year-old's body, and Spock is a dumber version of Data.

Star Trek is now just another brand name to be slapped on a crappy teen flick with millions of dollars' worth of SPLOZHUNS. These SPLOZHUNS are connected by a thin line of are-you-oks and lets-get-out-of-heres, interspersed with flat "it's still Star Trek, guys!" gags that accenuate further how every character is an action-figure parody of themselves.

Star Trek: The Video game: The Movie.

It's got SPLOZHUNS. It's what the kids crave.
2013-09-01
Worst Star Trek Movie made
What is happening to movies lately? Its all good graphics and no story. Where is the charm of the Star Trek franchise in this movie?

This is the worst Star Trek movie made.

The franchise itself has become a joke. It is all about how much audience it will get, and how much profit it will achieve. It has become a race who does better special effects.

I hope that it comes back to what it was. Exploration...fantasy...a world that thrives to improve, people that work together...and live together without money, and rather focus on improvement of the species.

3 out of 10, just because I'm a fan of the series.

.
2013-05-30
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 worst Star Trek since Generations
Star Trek Into Darkness is one of the most flawed, stupid and shallow experiences I ever had when watching a movie. In literally every scene I asked myself "really?", saw a missed opportunity, or was just bored, because I didn't care about anything happening or any character in it. The dialog is cheesy, the story makes no sense and there is no chance to connect to anything. This is basically because no one has to do any decision in this movie, no one has to be really clever, no one has to really sacrifice or risk anything. Every single slightly interesting scene and every single dangerous situation is resolved by something unexpected happening or someone unexpectedly arriving at the scene as a deus ex machina. Literally. Every. Scene. This leads to a plot driven mess where everything happens just because the script says so. On top of this sits a layer of stupid phrases and forced and incoherent character development. Kirk understands responsibility, Spock learns to know friendship, Bones stands around and is cynical, Uhura knows languages. Nothing new, nothing of interest.

Besides all that this movie is just a collection of special effects and poorly executed references that will not please a single Star Trek fan and will not appeal to anyone who didn't saw the old movies and therefore doesn't get the references at all.

Instead of writing to much abstract stuff, I will just list some of the several things that came to my mind while watching this flick (you always know it's a bad movie if you have too much time to think about it while you're watching):

SPOILER TERRITORY STARTS HERE

The film starts with the Enterprise being hidden underwater so it can't be seen by the people who live on the planet. Didn't they see the ship when they landed? Wouldn't they see it if it starts anyway? Why did they not use their transporters as usual? Is the Enterprise designed to land on a planet? Why didn't they use their shuttles? This scene is just in there to show Kirk and his buddy jump from a cliff into water and to show a nice effect when the Enterprise flies out of the water.

Kirk looses the command of the Enterprise. And then gets it back ten minutes later without doing anything for it.

Travelling to Kronos now takes about 10 seconds. And Klingons doesn't scan the neutral zone anymore, even if they prepare for a war, so our heroes can enter Kronos airspace undetected pretty easy.

The federation doesn't scan their territory either, even if traveling to Kronos just takes 10 seconds nowadays. They also build their situation rooms now with a big panorama window, so terrorists can shoot through with the cannons of their helicopters that can approach important star fleet buildings undetected. They also don't intervene when two star ships fight to death between earth and moon. Also, if someone (Scotty) just flies into their secret weapons facility at Jupiter, they just let him do that without asking what he wants there. And if this someone sneaks into their new prototype starship (painted black, because it's evil) they also just let him do this without asking stupid questions. Luckily this isn't shown on screen so the viewer isn't able to ask stupid questions about plausibility himself. It is shown on screen though how security personnel finds the intruder out of pure luck and hesitates way too long so there is a good chance of getting killed. Luckily they didn't detected Scotty talking to Kirk on his phone or detected him fiddling around the door controls.

Phone calls from the neutral zone to London are possible now.

When Uhura has the chance to tell Spock of her feelings, Klingons attack and interrupt her. When she has the opportunity to show her language skills in front of some dangerous Klingons, Khan attacks, rescues her and therefore interrupts her. If Kirk and Scotty are hanging from a bridge in the machine room, ready to die, Tchekov appears out of nowhere to rescue them just in the nick of time. If Kirk nearly dies in outer space, Khan suddenly reappears (disappears first for no reason so he is able to reappear) to rescue him just in the nick of time. When the evil spaceship of the evil admiral nearly destroys the Enterprise, Scotty switches off the weapons of the evil spaceship just in the nick of time.

Khan's plan is so complicated and only told dialog-wise, that me and my friends couldn't explain it to ourselves after we saw the movie. Parts of that plan: after working on secret weapons for the star fleet Khan thought his best friends were dead. He did terrorist attacks because he was angry. But his friends weren't dead at all. He then put them into torpedoes he made for the star fleet to keep them safe (think about that for a moment), anticipated they would be brought to Kronos but would not be shot at him so he could recollect them and... I still don't get it.

There's plenty of more stupid stuff going on in this flick. Apart from the logical problems and inconsistencies, so much potential was wasted. If you introduce Kronos and the Klingons, do something interesting with them. If you have an interesting antagonist such as Khan, let him scheme a good plan and be clever. Don't build up a showdown where he just has to fight against Spock and is shot down by Uhura with twenty phaser shots. Spock and Khan are two physical characters in a way, yes, but they are also logical thinking ones that could outwit each others. It would have been far more interesting.

The list goes on and on...

1 star for the effects, 1 for the good score. It's not more than that.

You better watch "Wrath of Khan".
2013-05-18
See Also
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.
×