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
Star Trek hijacked by Hollywood terrorists
An old WWII movie on TV just now had the lines, "Just think about the peaceful past," "I've almost forgotten it." Right.

Went to see a Star Trek movie and a sequel to the last one, which I recollect as alright. Hollywood, though has not only forgotten the peaceful past, the Rodenberry vision that set Trek part from any other space operas. They've deliberately hijacked the characters, made them into a terrorist sleeper cell now activated in our midst to bring us explosions, Star Fleet on steroids, Spock jumping from the roof of one in-flight vehicle to another to show us he's not really that intellectual wuss Hollywoood hates-- he's a tough street fighter--get ,im, Spock!

All 3D and action clichés, no ideas or vision, cartoon characters not worth...no wait, this is no accident or lazy business. The terrorists are on the bridge and they're going to land this ship where they damn well planned to--straight down the lowest common denominator path, shearing off the tops of buildings, sucking the wallets out of the pockets of customers satisfied with overpriced popcorn special effects, and landing right in the money. Kaboom.

If you want big popcorn, go get it.
2013-05-25
Leave your brain at the door.
The movie was a rip off of The Wrath of Khan and has action just for actions sake and had very little story and character development and none of the philosophy that made Star Trek great.

There are so many things wrong with this movie when compared to the original series and movies. Yes it's in a different timeline but many things should remain the same.

-When the Enterprise traveled to the edge of the neutral zone in order to torpedo Kronos the planet could easily be seen from their position which would place it in the neutral zone.

-When they took the trader ship down to the surface of Kronos you can see the moon, Praxis, partially destroyed. The movie begins in 2259 but Praxis is supposed to be destroyed 34 years later in 2293.

-They really messed up the look of the Klingons. I can't really describe it, you'd have to see it to understand but they look horrible.

-There are cars on Earth. 99% of humans in Star Trek don't even know what a car is. They use trains, shuttles, and transporters, but not cars.

-How close is Kronos to Earth? It's supposed to be 4 days away at warp 4.5 but it seemingly takes less than an hour to get to and back from there in this movie.

There's other things wrong that has nothing to do with Star Trek's history.

-When Pike calls in Kirk and Spock to chew them out for breaking the prime directive he says that it's based on Spock's report. He mentions that the inhabitants of the planet they saved now worship the Enterprise. How did he know? It wouldn't have been in the report because it happened after they left the planet.

-The engines of the Enterprise now leave some kind of vapor trail. This was never in any of the original series or the 2009 movie.

-Why didn't the Klingons know that the Enterprise was on the edge of the neutral zone when it was within eyesight of Kronos, the Klingon home planet?

-Why could the Enterprise contact New Vulcan which is several light years away but not Earth which it was orbiting?

-Why didn't Starfleet know about this huge battle happening in orbit between two of it's own ships? If they did know they would have attempted contact and sent other ships to investigate.

I know I'm missing some things in my list but it shows that this movie has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

Also, no "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few" quote when Kirk's dying or even a "second star to the right and straight on till morning" quote at the end when they start their 5 year mission and were deciding on which direction to go. Myself and other people were disappointed when these were not said.

I sincerely hope that they do not base a new series on this F'ed up reboot. It would be a huge disappointment if they do.

All that being said, it did look good even though it was originally shot in 2D, not 3D. It's looks and a few (too few) good moments are the only reason I'm giving it a four out of ten.
2013-05-29
There was a lot more Star Trek in this Star Trek movie
While I gradually came to accept 2009's Star Trek as mindless fun, I remember sitting in the theater when I first saw it and just getting this sinking feeling, like a balloon with the air slowly being released. My reaction was the complete opposite this time around. Into Darkness surpasses its predecessor by leaps and bounds. This is a movie that should appeal as much to most Trekkies as it will to general audiences just looking for a cinematic thrill ride.

JJ Abram's inaugural foray into this franchise kind of seemed to leave loyal fans in the dust in the rush to attract a wider demographic. Even before Abrams, I'm pretty sure there were complaints that Trek movies had become too much about space battles and the like and had gotten away from going boldly where no one has gone before. I feel like the writers of Into Darkness must have taken some of those criticisms to heart and set out to address them in what I think is a fairly clever way.

The people behind this film got to have their cake and eat it too: they made the most action-packed Star Trek movie ever, but at the end of the day, it's also a reaffirmation of the core ideals of Star Trek and is a lot more reverential to the canon. Having said that, however, the question still remains whether it's possible to craft a movie that is actually about seeking out new life and new civilizations rather than simply paying lip service to that concept.

Of course, not all Trekkies will agree with my assessment, but it's impossible to please everyone and fanboys are notoriously difficult to please. In my opinion, though, it's one of the best films I've seen this year.
2013-05-18
Action, action, endless action...
That's what this one is all about and that is unfortunate because throughout its history the franchise was always more about the story, thoughtful and thought provoking, with meaningful dialog, well developed characters and a great plot. Sure, there was always some action but the action was there with the purpose of advancing the plot and it was never the central tenant of the whole structure.

This installment is all about endless, spectacular action, the plot is nearly non-existent and the skull is numb after wards making you wonder what exactly is it now about the Star Trak that makes it unique, makes it stand out from all the other action packed movies and franchises? What? As it is, absolutely nothing...

In short, JJ Abrams managed to destroy something good and I'm sure he'll be remembered for, something I'm sure he'll be proud of.
2013-08-26
Empty, felt like a parody on Star Trek
The days when Star Trek was about bold Sci-Fi ideas and originality are officially over.

Con's 1. The story is empty and boring. As if someone from the real-life Idiocracy world wrote and directed the whole movie.

2. Great cast, BUT for some reason surprisingly bad acting!! Chris Pine (Kirk) was overplaying, Zachary Quinto (Spock) was OK (but, hey, anyone can play poker-faced Spock, as long as the person's face features more or less match the old Spock's face), Karl Urban (Bones) was annoying, Simon Pegg (Scotty) was unconvincing and too artificial, others - almost invisible and totally unimpressive. Benedict Cumberbatch (Khan) was an interesting addition, though, after becoming recently famous in Sherlock (TV series).

3. It felt like everyone was TRYING HARD to make a parody on the old Star Trek series.

4. Movie almost randomly filled with special effects. It's like eating ANYTHING, including your shoe, when you are hungry, just to fill your stomach. That's how they tried to bury the empty story into special effects.

Pro's

1. Great special effects.
2013-05-29
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
Star Treck or Fast and Furios, seems like I went to the wrong movie
This was pretty bad. The nuances and subtleties of the original Star Trek have been replaced by dumbed down action. It seems that the director has zero respect for the audience and just shoves mindless fighting scenes down our throats. The 3D action makes you feel like you are watching a video game that someone else is playing. The plot is borrowed mostly from the 1982 Trek movie Wrath of Khan. The characters spend 90% of their time, running, shooting, arguing with each other and punching each other. The bottom line is there is nothing new here. Even the visuals are not convincing. If you are a Star Trek fan, prepared to be horrified. If you are not a fan prepared to be bored.
2013-05-26
Awful film
Sorry, but I really don't see what others did in this film.. except special effects and dramatic music. I loved the original Star Trek as a teenager... with it's creative story lines and unpredictability. In each episode I felt that somehow the normal bounds of my reality might recede or even be blown apart as I went boldly with the USS Enterprise crew into unimaginable places and situations. I like JJ Abrams and expected more.. all I got was Hollywood. It may as well have been a console game.. at least I would have been able to set phaser to stun and picked off the crew and cast one by one. Disappointing. Best film I saw last year was Safety Not Guaranteed... a Sci-Fi film for grown-ups. Great effects, funny, great characters and an estimated budget of $750k. Star Trek's is estimated at $190 MILLION. And all for what? Effects we have all seen before. Mass produced rubbish for the idiot masses.
2013-06-05
A well deserved 1/10 movie
Easily the worst film I've seen in years not to mention the worst (Star Trek?) movie ever. I've been a Star Trek fan for over 25 years and seeing how a Hollywood hotshot-director destroys absolutely everything he touches was especially painful for me in case of Star Trek.

Nevertheless I approached watching this movie with clean slates. That didn't help - the movie is an absolute insult to Star Trek. I could now go over all the stuff that simply didn't feel right but really, why bother? The story was absolutely hideous and full of plot holes which could be easily spotted by a two year old. Some of the characters were simply put in the movie to appeal to older Star Trek fans but in this reboot they are so shallow and distracting that it hurts. The character that really showed potential was the one played by Cumberbatch because for a couple of minutes I really though his rendition of a famous villain could be so good. I was wrong. He was simply wasted in favor of some brainless action and as a result of, yet another, plot hole.

However the most insulting thing in the whole movie had to be the scene at the end which was simply a recreation of the famous death scene from the original "Wrath of Khan" yet with reversed roles. It just showed how lacking the whole idea of rebooting Star Trek was because on one side it insists that it was a separate timeline and everything can happen but on the other side it shows that the best it can come up with is a refined idea from the originals.

To conclude this short review. My 1/10 score is not affected by any kind of rant or feeling that I need to rate the movie so low just to counter all the high scores. No. It is my honest opinion deeply influenced by so many flaws and scenes that any honest Trekkie would deem insulting.
2013-05-21
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
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.
×