🎦 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
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
Star Trek for the masses? More like Star Trek for morons.
Where do I start?

I'm a huge fan of the original movies and I admit, I enjoyed the 2009 film. Why? Because the well got dry and it seemed there wasn't anywhere left to go with the franchise. So, seeing as Abrams alluded to everyone that by taking the franchise back to where it all began and altering the time line, it was his intention to re-tell stories from the original "series" and breathe new life into them. Naturally, I thought he was talking about the original "TV series" from the 60's. Fine by me, because the original TV series was cool, but it's pretty much outdated.

This latest movie has shown me that it's obvious he just wants to do the "films" of the 80's and 90's all over again, but in his own image, which is... an abundance of lens flares and people who are only good at looking pretty on screen. And that, in my opinion, is not what Star Trek is about. He even stated in an interview with Jon Stewart recently on The Daily Show, that he never was a fan of Star Trek as a child because he didn't get "the philosophy" of Star Trek. This movie is proof that he still doesn't get it. If he wants to make flashy sci-fi movies with no depth or substance, fine, there are plenty of scripts out there for him to make this kind of bland movie that attracts dimwitted people. So please Mr. Abrams, leave Star Trek alone, you are only making it worse.

Abrams might be trying to get "non-Trekkers" to enjoy the franchise, but in order to do so, he is replacing everything that made Star Trek what it was in the first place. I'd love for more people to get into Star Trek, but not at the expense of my enjoyment of it. This movie has nothing more to offer than Transformers did, snazzy special effects and a story line riddled with plot holes and love/hate relationships between the characters that seem forced and unauthentic.

Which brings me to my next point. Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. Where did these men learn to write? They use the technology of Star Trek only to advance the plot or create tension when needed. For instance, a transporter that the enemy uses can transport him light years to another planet, but the transporters on the Enterprise have a hard job locking onto a person on the planet they are orbiting, a hand-held communicator that can call someone in a bar on Earth from the Klingon home world light years away, infiltrating a top secret military base with a shuttle craft without being spotted by sensors, and the list goes on.

The last part of the movie they just got so lazy that they re-created the whole death scene at the end of Wrath of Khan, but mirrored it by reversing the roles. And if that's not enough, the writers blatantly do a copy/paste of most of the dialogue like "If we go in there we'll die, the radiation will kill us" and "The decontamination process is not complete, you'll flood the whole compartment."

Later on they even forget that the attributes that makes Khan's blood special, and which is needed to revive Kirk, also flows through the veins of the other 72 augments sitting in cryogenic tubes in McCoy's sick bay, the same cryogenic tubes that McCoy himself says earlier in the movie he could not risk opening without possibly killing the person inside, which could have been a solid reason to send Spock chasing after Khan in a foot- chase through downtown San-Francisco to retrieve a sample of Khan's blood, but instead, they have McCoy open a cryogenic tube and remove it's occupant in order to freeze Kirk so he can preserve his brain functions, I believe his exact words were "Get this guy out of the cryo-tube, keep him in an induced coma." but still, poor McCoy doesn't realize he could use that person's blood to revive Kirk. So now we are led to believe that McCoy, the same McCoy who based most of his arguments on ethics throughout the series and movies, is perfectly capable of opening one of the tubes, risking another being's life in the process, all to save another man? A little unethical if you ask me. These guys obviously don't know what the hell they are doing when it comes to writing Star Trek movies.

This movie is, in my opinion, the worst in the entire series. Yes even "The Final Frontier", because at least Shatner had the guts to go where no other writer or director had gone before or since with that movie, by doing a story about God.
2013-05-17
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
A movie made for everyone,but the Star Trek fans.
I just went to see this movie,hoping it will turn out to be something more then just another action movie located in space. But,sadly for me,it didn't. If Bruce Willis had got a lead role,this could easily be Die Hard 34. There's more action then SF to be found in here. A Star Trek movie is not supposed to be a pack of fight scenes every 10 min.,followed by a few wannabe smart-humorous lines between the supporting characters,and as a cherry on top,a half naked blonde showing her goods to Kirk,just for the hell of it. Captain of the Enterprise is not a trigger happy cowboy,breaking the Prime directive as he pleases,because he started some stupid rescue mission,where his 1. officer is lowered into a volcano(couldn't't that device be beamed in?),while he and his medical officer(what is he doing there?) steal some scriptures(for what?) only to do some(again unnecessarily)scuba diving. Throughout the whole movie,story only lays out the excuses for another action scene,logic and common sense are not obligatory. This movie will,of course,be a smash-hit,because it's made to be visually appealing,to please wide masses,mostly young,perhaps create new armies of Trekkie's,ones that don't really need more from a Star trek movie then a good space blast once in a while,Spock and Uhura getting married,a bit of kung-fu,and some T&A. I grew up on Star Trek,so this movie is obviously not made for me,but for some new generation of Star trek fans.

P.S. I really doubt the phrases''Dear God'',and ''for the love of God'',will still be in use by the 2300-s. Star Trek has always been deprived of religion,so this really makes me sick. How typically American.
2013-05-12
Didn't make it for me
I have been watching Star Trek since the 1960's. Abrams went boldly down the wrong path with Into Darkness. While I fully realize that this is a new Star Trek franchise, and I did like the 2009 reboot, this one didn't cut for me. The opening scene was ridiculously lame and nonsensical. Planetary orbit and transporters were abandoned in favor of turning the Enterprise into a submarine (like the planet inhabitants wouldn't have seen THAT when they went underwater) and using a "cold fusion" device to create cold when in fact REAL cold fusion creates heat, not cold. The non-action scenes were fairly well done, in fact they are the only reason I wasn't completely bored with the movie and why I gave it a 3. I was expecting much, much more from Cumberbatch, but I found his performance to be robotic, dispassionate, and just downright not creepy enough. The best scene he had in the entire movie was his encounter with the Kingons, but other than that he was pretty blah. The action scenes were either too predictable or upscaled, blatant ripoffs from previous ST movies such as Nemesis. The gratuitous profanity was neither needed nor appreciated and actually detracted from the dialogue. The scenes of Alice Eve in her undies and the one with Nimoy could have been left out as they added nothing. If you have seen Wrath of Khan, the scene of Kirk in the radiation chamber will make you absolutely cringe.

Overall, the movie simply lacked the edge, passion, and creative thinking needed to recreate the Khan story.
2013-05-20
Plot holes, plot holes, and even more plot holes galore. Awfully unintelligent.
I'm truly ridiculed by the high ratings this movie got. An 8.2??? It clearly pays to air absolute ridiculous dribble with a whole lot of even more ridiculous 100%-non-stop-action in it, and the masses just love it. I'm no Trekkie and I actually enjoyed the previous movie, but this one feeds you utter and complete crap and just requires you to completely abandon your brain on entry to be able to enjoy it, let alone log in here to rate it highly. This movie is an utter insult to anyone with an IQ above 80 willing to think for just mere seconds at a time. And I'm not even kidding with that.

Just a few questions highlighting the ridiculous plot and even more ridiculous plot holes:

*SPOILERS FOLLOW*

- Why the *piieep* does Kirk hide the Enterprise within the ocean of an undeveloped planet? He could have just orbited it. Since when do Enterprise class *space*ships also have a *submarine* function by the way?

- How does Khan get a top level Starfleet officer to blow up himself plus his super top secret Starfleet agency AFTER saving his daughter? By asking nicely?

- After the blowing up of the archive, how does Khan get flying to a top secret Starfleet (MILITARY!!) meeting with ALL TOP DOGS present.. completely unnoticed, with the perimeter completely *unguarded and defenseless*? Are you kidding me??

- Instead of simply using a missile which would have killed anyone present instantly Khan uses some kind of phaser machine gun on the room, gunning for minutes but leaving many alive and even unharmed? Art thou joking or something?

- After his ship gets blown up by Kirk with a fire extinguisher (is that a joke or what?) how the *piieep* does Khan beam out with a standard issue *portable* beamdevice to a Klingon planet *lightyears* away? While just before an *Enterprise-class* beamdevice can't even get a normal fix on Spock in a volcano a few *miles* away? Please.

- How the hell does Khan get access to his 72 man crew, putting them in 72 torpedoes, while exactly that crew was used by the admiral to blackmail him in the first place? Why the hell would Khan put them in torpedoes in the first place if he had access to them, in stead of just defreezing them?

- Why would the admiral load all 72 super top secret torpedoes created onto Enterprise, while only 1 or 2 would be needed for the mission? Apparently with the bloody things never even *tested*?? And no-one made the "hey 72 torpedoes -> 72 Khan crew missing" connection?

- Why would the torpedoes created by Khan to save his crew be set sharp to explode 'on touch' in the first place? You'd expect Khan to disable them? And ofcouse just blindly janking out some part of it by some blonde babe that knows nothing about them miraculously stops the detonation 1 second before blow-up..

- Since when do Startrek hand communicators have the ability to communicate over Lightyears distance from the Klingon planet Chronos allllll the way to earth? And at the same time the Enterprise radio can't reach earth for a distress call that they're being shot up by the Big Bad Admiral when it's as close to it as being pulled in by earth's gravity?

- How does the Enterprise mechanic get into an ultra top secret base with a standard issue Starfleet Shuttle unnoticed? How did he even get his hands on the shuttle in the first place, since he resigned his position/function?

- How (and WHY actually?) does the Enterprise mechanic get into an ultra top secret highly secured battleship? How does he get into a minutes long conversation with an undoubtedly commando-class crewman while being found AFTER disabling the ship with EVERYONE looking for an intruder with the order to put him down IMMEDIATELY, giving The Good Mechanic the chance to open the airlock for Kirk to get in?

And so on and so forth. And I'm not even touching character interaction yet.

I have no idea where the writers of this nonsensical dribble learned to write a plot but I'd suggest them to pick up another job. Cleaning toilets or something would be a great start. But oh well, the drone masses just love it, so we'll surely have more of this kind of crap to deal with unfortunately...
2013-06-11
Stink Trek
The film has way too much action. Its Star Trek for crying out loud, the morals, technology, and characters should at least get some screen time? Apparently not.

"To boldly go..."? No.

More like "To run crazily off a cliff".

The characters have no depth, there are way too many explosions (Boring) and embarrassingly, the technology does not fit the time.

The travel time between Kronos (Qo'noS) and earth is not the length of a conversation. Why would anyone fly a starship over an active volcano without shields, and if the shields were on, how did they run the transporter? Stupid.
2013-05-26
Character Review
I was 10 when the first Star Trek series came on TV. I've watch all of the originals, all of Next Generation, all of the movies, a large percentage of the other series, and read several of the books. Regrettably, this movie did not at all feel like Star Trek to me.

I'll review the characters rather than the story:

***WARNING: SPOILERS***

Bones (Karl Urban): Urban's depiction of Bones was played perfectly. He provided the only banter usually seen among Kirk, Spock, and Bones.

Scotty (Simon Pegg): I'm sure James Doohan would have approved and enjoyed the humor.

Uhura (Zoe Saldana): Saldana's part wasn't up to her acting abilities.

The Klingons: Why would anyone cover up a Klingon's face with a full helmet?

The Enterprise (yes, she is a character): She's a Star Ship not a submarine! That was not Engineering I've ever seen on any star ship in the Star Trek universe – it was a stunt set for running.

Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch): unfortunately a great actor can't go beyond the script. Two major character mistakes in the script: (1) Khan Noonien Singh is too much a living tribute to Machiavelli's The Prince to cry - it's just not in his character. (2) Not a single quote from classical literature to flaunt his "superior" intellect, not one. No Melville, no Shakespeare, no Milton…nothing. Where was Khan's venom, "…from Hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"

Kirk (Chris Pine): Pine is a good actor, but he (and the writers) need to remember that the character Kirk always knows more than everyone else (you can see it in his eyes), always holds something back, and always lets the audience know that he's several steps ahead of everyone else.

Spock (Zachary Quinto): A very good depiction of Spock, but I feel as if something is missing – something subtle about the internal struggle between his Human and Vulcan self. Spock is played too young (he's suppose to be about 40 years older than Kirk) in his attitude and his actions. I don't believe he could break down the barriers of decades of Vulcan training and express the emotions he has in the time-line of this movie – especially not any public displays of affection. And he hasn't had time to explore the concept of friendship with Kirk.

The one place that Star Trek has out-shined all other science fiction (especially Star Wars) is in the sheer body of its stories and characters. That's why the die-hard fans refer to a "Star Trek Universe." That volume of work gives the characters depth.

When Spock died in the original Wrath of Khan the impact was a tremendous and heart-wrenching because it felt true, because it's what Spock would have done, because Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner had created their friendship over time, because we knew the characters. And the words "I have been and always shall be your friend" were spoken to the audience as well as the character Kirk.

Unfortunately the new franchise does not have that depth yet – two stories do not make a deep friendship and this Kirk and Spock cannot transfer that emotional connection from the original stories, so try as they might, the actors just couldn't make Kirk's death work nearly as well. The new franchise has not given its Kirk enough time to even be acquainted to Spock and his crew, so the sacrifice does not have the same impact.

I hope the franchise last long enough, and turn away from "Action" enough, to give this new generation of fans that type of character depth.
2013-05-30
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
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
📹 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. 📀
×