🎦 Star Trek Into Darkness full movie HD download (J.J. Abrams) - Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi. 🎬
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
JJ should be banned from touching Star Trek....
I am a huge Star Trek fan, and really did enjoy the first instalment of this re-boot when it came out a few years ago. So it was with very high expectations that I went to the theatre on Saturday night to see "Into Darkness". I saw it in 3-D IMAX.

Well, what a disappointment. And it is pretty much completely the fault of the director, Jar Jar Abrams. Abrams is a classic example of someone that got too popular too quickly, as sooner or later his inexperience and immaturity were going to screw it up for him… unfortunately, Into Darkness is where he finally messed up (although some might say Super 8 was that film).

Basically, Abrams only knows how to make one thing: "Lost". Everything else he has done since then has essentially been Lost, re-badged.

The style of this one-trick-pony has just become tiresome, and oh so predictable. Injecting drama into everything is hardly the right formula for a sci-fi action flick, but it is like he couldn't help himself.

The resulting plot and dialogue was so very lame.

I can't remember the exact lines, but let me paraphrase some for you:

Kirk: "Spock! Damn you, why can't you feel any emotions???" Spock: "I do Kirk! But I hide them coz my mother died and I was so sad". Kirk: "You have always been my bestest friend!" Spock: "Don't die Kirk! You are my bestest friend too!"

Basically the entire film was ruined with terrible dramatic scenes and tears and just really uncomfortable acting – this definitely ain't how Star Trek should be.

Abrams over-played the Kirk-Spock relationship so much I was almost expecting them to have sex. Seriously.

And of course there are some completely useless and WTF characters e.g. Dr. Carol Marcus. I know she was in the original, but in this one she basically had no role other than large boobs.

Here is praying that Abrams doesn't get to direct the next one….
2013-05-12
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
Should have been called the "Wrath of Khan-Remix" do not read if you have not seen the movie yet
This film was a disappointment. The plot was from the Wrath of Khan from back in the 80's. I really like Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock, but as Khan he misses the mark. Ricardo Montalban was the perfect Khan. Smart, good looking, good strong body, and menacing. Cumberbatch did not fit that role. I can think of any number of male actors that could have fit the role better. Khan was supposed to be a superman, not a tall skinny guy. Chris Pine did a good job in his role. So did Zachary Quinto. I was disappointed as well (spoiler alert) of the Spock calling Spock scene. Every time the Enterprise runs into a bad guy is Spock going to call Spock? And again (spoiler alert) the scene of the radiation death is just a copy of the Wrath of Khan death scene. It was hard to get choked up about the death scene, when you knew it was not permanent. It was a predictable shadow of a copy of the Wrath of Khan. I guess in the next few movies, they will fight Klingon's, and then go rescue some whales...
2013-05-16
Oh gawd please make it stop !!!!
Oh dear, oh dear.

Just goes to show that squillions of dollars and a shed-load of cgi effects can't make up for a totally loopy, over-blown,juvenile 'plot'.

It wasn't all bad - Spock and Harrison/Khan were actually pretty good, and the aforesaid cgi was exciting (albeit in a derivative kinda way).

But...

Pine was hopeless (except when being 'bad ass' he just looked goosed),whilst the excellent Urban, Soldana and Pegg were woefully under-used.

The story made no freaking sense, having more holes in it than a Tetley teabag. There was little in the way of dialogue and less in the way of character development. The 'climax', with Spock and Khan going three rounds on the back of a flying dustcart, came straight out of a 1950s 'Flash Gordon' matinée.

The musical score was of the DAHN-DAHN-DAHHHHHHNNNNNN variety, heavily underscoring any emotional sub-text that we dullards might have failed to notice.

Please tell me JJ Abrams has left the building.Please make it stop.

Perhaps then somebody good could take on the Trek franchise - Joss Whedon anyone?
2013-05-13
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
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
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
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
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
Awful
I just sat through the whole entire film and it reminded me of star wars phantom menace but that film was good compared to this and btw i hated phantom menace

I did write a full long page on this then i thought why should i even bothered because that is how i felt through this film. they really didn't put any effort in the film but thought yea explosions explosions explosions yes its visually stunning and the cast are awesome but the STORY lacked sooooo much and to make it even more Worse they decided to basically rip of a scene from the wrath of Khan where Spock dies. J.J. Abrams that is just a NO NO.

if you like star trek and enjoyed the first reboot seriously avoid this one.

J.J. Abrams let Kirk go down with the ship now or do this film properly
2013-05-18
📹 Star Trek Into Darkness full movie HD download 2013 - John Cho, Nolan North, Amanda Foreman, Alice Eve, Noel Clarke, Peter Weller, Heather Langenkamp, Nazneen Contractor, Jon Lee Brody, Elly Kaye, Felicity Wren, Benedict Cumberbatch, Anton Yelchin, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Jay Scully - USA. 📀
×