Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites

Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg ... see more see more... , John Cho , Benedict Cumberbatch , Anton Yelchin , Bruce Greenwood , Peter Weller , Alice Eve , Noel Clarke , Nazneen Contractor , Amanda Foreman , Jay Scully , Jonathan Dixon , Aisha Hinds , Joseph Gatt , Jeremy Raymond , Tony Guma , Kimberly Broumand , Sean Blakemore , Nick E. Tarabay , Beau Billingslea , Deep Roy , Anjini Azhar , Jack Laufer , Kellie Cockrell , Jason Matthew Smith , Chris Hemsworth , Jennifer Morrison (II) , Seth Ayott , Marco Sanchez , Lee Reherman , Scott Lawrence , Usman Ally , Nolan North , James Hiroyuki Liao , Rob Moran , Berit Francis , Akiva Goldsman , Benjamin P. Binswanger , Christopher Doohan , Andy Demetrio , Gianna Simone , Rene Rosado , Jacquelynn King , Tran Duy Long , Ningning Deng , Jodi Johnston , Colleen Harris , Jeffrey Chase , Monisola Akiwowo , Paul K. Daniel , Ser'Darius Blain , Heather Langenkamp , David Waite , Melissa Paulo , Cynthia Addai-Robinson , Drew Grey , Douglas Weng , Charlie Haugk , Max Chernov , Marc Primiani , Jesper Inglis , Jacob Rhodes , Kentucky Rhodes , Anthony Wilson , Eric Greitens , Melissa Steinman , Adam McCann , Jon Orvasky , Gerald W. Abrams , James H. McGrath, Jr.

In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes 'Star Trek Into Darkness.' When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstop... read more read more...pable 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. (c) Paramount

Flixster Users

90% liked it

303,746 ratings

Critics

87% liked it

247 critics

PG-13, 2 hr. 11 min.

Directed by: J.J. Abrams, Alan J. Abrams

Release Date: May 16, 2013

Invite friends to see

DVD Release Date: September 10, 2013

Stats: 17,530 reviews

Your Rating



clear rating

Flixster Reviews (17,530)


  • January 4, 2014
    This movie is a fun ride from start to finish. It doesn't have all the origin stuff like the first JJ Abrams Trek movie, so can get right into the action. It's Wrath of Khan re-imagined, with plenty of things twisted and flipped from the 1982 classic. Every crewmember is brought ... read moreforward and given a role to service the story. I really enjoyed this thing, from the breathtaking opening mission the exploding volcanic planet to the Starfleet-smashing finale.
  • October 5, 2013
    It only gets better. ;-)
  • October 4, 2013
    Not quite as good as the first movie, but still very enjoyable. Plenty of action. Plenty of humor. Nicely done all around film. JJ Abrams is definitely on a roll!..
  • fb619846742
    September 18, 2013
    fb619846742
    An energetic, well-scripted sequel concerning the crew of The Final Frontier, led by Captain Kirk (Chris Pine), and how a new villain named Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) emerges after a deadly terrorist attack in London. This movie does not really miss a beat, possessing the same ... read moreenergy, action, and sense of humor the first film did, as well as an ability to throw in real doubt concerning the safety of some main characters lives. While it still does not hold the same epic qualities and darkness that the great 'Star Wars' films do, this is still a solid entry into what looks like could be a very promising series for J.J. Abams (who ironically is now heading the 'Star Wars' franchise as well). The acting is fantastic, notably Zachary Quinto as Spock and Cumberbatch, and the action set pieces are pretty thrilling.
  • September 11, 2013
    This was a GREAT movie and watching it on 9/11 increased its meaning, impact and inspires HOPE for the possibility for peaceful existence! We have to be better as individuals to be a better country and better society!
  • September 2, 2013
    With no apologies Abrams simply serves up the crew of the Enterprise and their constant bickering, space cowboys all, now and forever, in all their fan beloved glory. Wait a minute or two, only that, a somehow a reference to the original show pops up like one of those gophers in... read more that smash them over the head with a hammer game. My guess is that the producers are cementing the old bonds before leaping off into the unknown (which is the very end of this movie ... they leap into the unknown), but first lets establish who's who for those new to the series. A rollicking good time with a cool villain and, especially for the old fans - don't raise your hands - a wee twist on a popular episode.
  • September 1, 2013
    The rebooted crew are back and this time they're going into darkness? trekking into darkness? how does this title fit the story? moving on. The first film in this new era reboot was a huge success and rightly so, it was an exciting sci-fi romp, does this remake/re-imagining of 'T... read morehe Wrath of Khan' work just as well?.

    We kick off admittedly with a very nice looking yet clear [i]Indy[/i] rip, all that was missing was a giant rolling boulder. Instantly you can see this film is gonna be a treat visually, modern films have gotten to a point now where they do (can) look extremely polished and slick, and this film is easily top of its game in the effects department, its beautiful. I do especially love futuristic London and the look of future Earth in general, so much detail, so much going on, the newer Star Wars trilogy pales in comparison. I could of course mention the immense use of lens flare but I think everyone knows that now and it merely blends into the background, some looking very nice.

    Lets get down n dirty here, the plot, the main issue of the film is the badly written, disjointed, confusing plot which makes no sense. I'm still not sure what exactly was the point of half of it. 'Marcus' finds 'Khan' and his crew floating around in space I believe, but where exactly? why was Khan in suspended animation in the first place? whose ship was he on? etc...nothing given away there. Now I think about it once Khan was discovered how did anyone know he and his mates were genetically-engineered superhumans? and why awake just one?. Anyhow Marcus wants Khan to develop advanced technology and weapons...but the guy is 300 years old, surely he's gonna be slightly out of touch with modern day tech? right?? guess not.

    There doesn't appear to be any real goals or reasons for anyone in this film, Marcus wants Khan to create new advanced gear and then...? start a war with the Klingon's, why?. He intends to start this war by getting 'Kirk' to fight missiles at Khan who is hiding in an uninhabited area of the Klingon homeworld, but how did he know Khan would hide there? what if he hid on another world?. And why exactly are Khan's crew stuffed in these missiles?? risky place to smuggle them isn't it?...well isn't it?!. And no one suspects the fact there are 72 missiles exactly, not maybe 10 or 20 but 72! odd high number isn't it? well isn't it?!.

    The character story arcs are just all over the place with little sense or connection, its all so vague. The only reason Khan doesn't set off the bomb in London by himself at the start is so they could introduce his super blood into the plot. There is no other reason for that entire sequence with the black man and his daughter. Oh and an exploding ring? eh? wut??. On the subject of Khan's super blood why does everyone tear around trying to get his blood, why not use some of the blood from his crew? surely theirs is super too, isn't it?.

    On the subject of Khan I really must say I don't understand what the fuss was about with Cumberbatch. Now I'm not saying the guy did a bad job, not at all, but as far as I'm concerned his performance on the whole was just very average, his entire range boiled down to over pronunciation of his words. As a character he wasn't particularly interesting either, a very bland generic looking bad guy (or was he? he just wanted to save his crew) who blended into the background, accept when he's killing everyone like an unstoppable superhero (Khan never did that in the original second Trek film).

    I also think Cumberbatch is miscast in the role frankly, he's so dull looking, so uniform, that it destroys the character of Khan. There is nothing special about the guy anymore, no flair, no razzle dazzle, its just a bog standard looking white guy. Why didn't they cast a man from South Asia or at least someone with a clear ethnic background. Old Spock calls him by his full name in the film, 'Khan Noonien Singh', but he's white!! clearly white British with a British accent for pete's sake.

    And while I'm on the subject what exactly is Khan's game? save his crew...check, errrr...and then?. What is his goal?? old Spock reckons to kill everyone inferior to himself, but Khan never says that I believe, I don't think we ever get told what he actually wants to do...after saving his crew.

    On the whole there is so much badly written plot in here it just ruins whatever it was they were trying for..and I'm not sure what really. Khan's super blood cures death and they have him captured so that means no one will ever die in this universe now? there is a cure for most death related injuries and a good supply of blood if they can keep Khan alive. As said old Spock turns up AGAIN!, whenever they are really in the shit he just pops up and tells them everything they need to know almost like a videogame cheat. Yet how the hell does he manage to get in contact with them? its like some kind of Jedi trick. There also seems to be interplanetary transporters now...sooooo doesn't that do away with the need for spaceships?, oh and cold fusion doesn't...ah who cares.

    The idea of a cure for death brings me to the death of Spock in the classic film. That was a shockwave for everybody at the time, I don't think people saw it coming, no one really knew if he was gonna come back, could he come back?, was that it for the lovable legendary Spock?. In this film we see Kirk get killed in a silly play on that iconic sequence. The difference is we know for a fact he won't really be dead because he is the main flipping character and we've only been given two films in the new reboot franchise, so of course he will come back. This makes the entire scene completely devoid of any emotion, in fact its pretty pointless, utter fail of a scene.

    That of course in turn leads me to mention the iconic 'KHAAANNNN!' moment. We all know of the classic version of course but what of this regurgitated version?. Well its kinda silly really, the fact is these two guys have only known each other for a relatively short period of time (two films), so again the emotions don't really bubble much when Spock blubbers over Kirk, zero emotions in fact. Plus of course as I just mentioned we all know that Kirk will definitely be back from the dead somehow (oh wait, we saw how earlier in the film with the Tribble, where did they find a Tribble?) so the whole thing is just plain dumb. These moments are in the new film purely to get the hardcore old school Trekkies wet and a rather weak attempt to be clever simply by reversing stuff when in fact its more of an insult to the 82 film. Spock died in the original so lets make Kirk die here, Kirk screams out Khan so lets...you get the drift, genius writing huh.

    I feel bad giving this a poor write up because there are elements in this I like, loved the new look Klingons and their 'Predator-like' masks, nicely aggressive and intimidating. The main problem is this isn't a Star Trek film, its not a proper Trekkie flick, its merely a generic action flick set in space that just happens to be the Star Trek universe. You could quite easily replace the Star Trek crew with 'John McClane' and call it a Die Hard film. Long gone are the slow moving, character based genuine science fiction Trek films, its all shooting, death, explosions and the obligatory destruction porn which seems to be a complete requirement these days.

    As a stand alone film the first Trek reboot was a fine film, this sequel is simply loud messy action folly with lavish visuals. There isn't really much I can recommend here if you're a true Star Trek fan, regular film goers may enjoy it of course but that's only because this isn't proper Star Trek (which is what they were aiming for). All I can say is I really hope they don't try and reuse more of the classic films, why not try and make you're own classic cinematic moments instead of copying some one else's. A reasonably entertaining watch no doubt but hardly memorable or groundbreaking, wholly average, very lazy, very jumbled, half a mark up for visuals.
  • fb791220692
    July 25, 2013
    fb791220692
    I found the second J.J. Abrams' Star Trek to be far superior to the first, since it cares less about pleasing fans and more about pleasing everyone. Its an air-tight film with quick pacing, eye-popping special effects, and expectedly great direction. Its smart, witty, and contain... read mores reliable performances. Really, the biggest problem is that its hard to find an original idea in any part of the film - besides looking better than most sci-fi movies, its noticeably packed with cliches.
  • July 25, 2013
    "Star Trek Into Darkness" is more interesting in form than content. That is to say, the new JJ Abrams film, taken on its own merits, is merely a better than average summer blockbuster sequel, a relentlessly paced science fiction action film that attempts to build its splashly CGI... read more fireworks around a core of post-9/11 anxiety. Though it puffs out its chest with faux intelligential posturing and disguises its vacuousness with a strong ensemble, its defining trait is a profound absence. However the film is fascinating as an example of modern franchise studio filmmaking.

    As a continuation/reimaging of Gene Roddenberry's inventive but badly dated 1960s TV show, "Into Darkness" does a fairly poor job. Whereas the original series was idea rich but lacked the budget to achieve the verisimilitude of its ambitions, the Abrams reboot has the resources to fabricate a dazzlingly complete future world but has all the complexity of 90s superhero comic. Roddenberry's ethical utopia has been hallowed out to serve as set dressing for an unremarkable hero's journey narrative. Complex moral ruminations and slow burn tension have been replaced with simplistic revenge arcs and precisely applied action movie timing. Though Abrams is a good enough action craftsmen to make emptiness apparent only after the credits roll, he clearly made the film because he wanted to stage some impressive spaceship battles. Of course Roddenberry's series had their fair share of gratuitous fight scenes and silly space monsters, but the phaser duels and shirtless fist fights were a last resort not The Good Part. Simplicity isn't the film's biggest problem, repetitiveness is.

    It's almost admirable audacious that Abrams and his writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof spent $190 making a tribute to 2009's "Star Trek." The film splits its focus between Captain Kirk (Chris Pine), who again learns to temper his arrogance with adult responsibility and Spock (Zachary Quinto), who again learns to balance his cold rationality with human warmth. Again the crew of the Enterprise must battle a vengeful man out of time (Benedict Cumberbatch) who commands a massive and overpowered starship. The death of a loved one is a motivating factor. Skydiving is used in a central set piece. Leonard Nimoy is on hand to offer critical advice. Egregiously, the film often pauses to remind the viewer that yes; they have in fact seen all this before. The thing only thing three of most high-profile screenwriters in Hollywood used to differentiate this film from its predecessor are the addition of Alice Eve's character, who exists only to dispense exposition and titillate the male audience and a half-hearted suggestion that the events of the last film have made Starfleet more militaristic, concepts rendered with such thorough triteness that it's hard to believe one screenwriter was involved let alone three.

    Those other recycled elements pale in comparison to the films biggest reference, the presence of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan's" titular villain. In the film, Peter Weller's Admiral Marcus takes Cumberbatch's superhuman out of suspended animation to build advanced weapons for what he believes to be an inevitable war with the aggressively expansive Klingons but Khan turns on him and attacks Earth with the very warship Marcus commissioned. Though Marcus would be a more thematically resonate villain, he's ultimately an easily duped stooge. The villain is not a manifestation of post-9/11 fears about the government abandoning its supposed values in pursuit of greater security but a self-interested third-party who has no real stake in the film's ideological conflict. A similar setup worked well in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" because Batman's existential struggle against the Joker was a clearly defined structure versus anarchy dichotomy whereas Kirk wants to get Khan because he killed his father figure. The film wants to have it both ways by pitting its heroes against a traditional external evil and more insidious internal one but it fails in the execution of both. So why did the filmmakers include a character who fit in so poorly with their ambitions? Because the fans wanted Khan.

    That steadfast rejection of innovation will be Abrams' "Star Trek" legacy. At every point where he could have blazed a new trail in Roddenberry's wide and diverse universe, Abrams chose the safest and most conservative path possible even though his 2009 film worked so strenuously to assert its independence from the established canon. "Into Darkness" makes it abundantly clear why Disney chose Abrams to helm the first of their "Star Wars" films, no other director could be counted on to update a beloved property for a modern audience with only most superficial of cosmetic changes. There's absolutely no danger than "Episode VII" will dip into the meandering philosophizing that plagued the "Star Wars" prequels because Abrams' guiding philosophy is bright-eyed, breathless artifice. His meticulously designed form holds no content. In this way, he is the preeminent auteur of our time.
  • July 24, 2013
    J.J. Abrams delivers another tour de force production with "Star Trek Into Darkness," a film of tremendous craftsmanship and summer appeal. The crew's all here, this time in a more streamlined, break-neck paced actioner with more digital effects, more pyro, and the always awesome... read more Benedict Cumberbatch. Sure, 2009's "Star Trek" also by Abrams was a better film and a more inventive one, but with entertainment this stellar and this grandiose... you can't really complain much.

Critic Reviews


Anthony Lane
May 20, 2013
Anthony Lane, New Yorker

Most of the logic has leached away from this movie, and with it half of the fun. Full Review

Bob Mondello
May 18, 2013
Bob Mondello, NPR

Happily, there's a good deal of fun if you like things crashing violently into each other and out of warp-drive at regular intervals. Full Review

Christopher Orr
May 17, 2013
Christopher Orr, The Atlantic

For all its chasing and falling and fighting-and the movie supplies a great deal of each-Star Trek Into Darkness is at its best when the Enterprise crew are merely bickering and bantering among themse... Full Review

J. R. Jones
May 17, 2013
J. R. Jones, Chicago Reader

The conceptual sci-fi of the original series is nowhere to be found, though you might enjoy watching the skinny young actors approximate their counterparts from the 60s; Chris Pine is especially good ... Full Review

John Anderson
May 16, 2013
John Anderson, Wall Street Journal

While the action is often electric, it's the relationships that matter. That, and a lippy regard for a cultural legacy. Full Review

Mick LaSalle
May 16, 2013
Mick LaSalle, Hearst Newspapers

The film is, for whatever else it might be, one of the funniest of the Star Trek entries. Full Review

Dana Stevens
May 16, 2013
Dana Stevens, Slate

For two movies in a row now -- and possibly even more in the second than the first -- [Abrams has] caught some of the spark of the first Star Trek without either mimicking or desecrating the original. Full Review

Tom Long
May 16, 2013
Tom Long, Detroit News

The result is a wild piece of entertainment that manages to be about something. Beam yourself up for this one. Full Review

Peter Rainer
May 16, 2013
Peter Rainer, Christian Science Monitor

J.J. Abrams's Star Trek Into Darkness, the sequel to his prequel, delivers the goods, even if some of the goods are less than fresh. Full Review

A.A. Dowd
May 16, 2013
A.A. Dowd, AV Club

Rip-roaring set-pieces aside, the biggest pleasure here is still the yin-yang chemistry between Kirk and Spock, even as the writers sand down the barbed edges of the characters' interactions. Full Review

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

More Like This


Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • Star Trek
    Star Trek (82%)
  • Titan A.E.
    Titan A.E. (100%)
  • The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (82%)
  • 2012
    2012 (50%)

Facts


    • John Harrison: You should have let me sleep!
    • Kirk: Why would a Starfleet admiral ask a three-hundred-year-old frozen man for help?
    • John Harrison: Because I am better.
    • Kirk: At what?
    • John Harrison: Everything. Alexander Marcus needed to respond to an uncivilized threat in a civilized time, and for that, he needed a warrior's mind - my mind - to design weapons and warships.
    • Spock: You are suggesting the Admiral violated every regulation he vowed to uphold, simply because he wanted to exploit your intellect...
    • John Harrison: He wanted to exploit my savagery! Intellect alone is useless in a fight, Mr. Spock. You, you can't even break a rule - how can you be expected to break bone? Marcus used me to design weapons. I helped him realize his vision of a militarized Starfleet. He sent you to use those weapons, to fire my torpedoes on an unsuspecting planet, and then he purposely crippled your ship in enemy space, leading to one inevitable outcome: the Klingons would come searching for whoever was responsible, and you would have no chance of escape. Marcus would finally have the war he talked about, the war he always wanted.
    • Kirk: C'mon Bones. It's gonna be fun.
    • Bones: Five years in the space, God help me!
    • Scotty: Enterprise! Can you hear me?
    • Kirk: Scotty!
    • Scotty: Guess what I found behind Jupiter.
    • Kirk: You're on that ship!
    • Scotty: I snuck on and seeing as I've just committed an act of treason against a Starfleet Admiral, I'd really like to get off this bloody ship. Now, Beam me out!
    • Kirk: You're a miracle worker.
    • Kirk: Khan, Scotty. Scotty, Khan.
    • Kirk: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    • Spock: An Arabic proverb attributed to a prince who was betrayed and decapitated by his own subjects.
    • Kirk: Still, it's a hell of a quote.

Star Trek Into Da... : Watch Free on TV


Movie Quizzes


No quizzes for Star Trek Into Darkness. Want to create one?

Recent Lists


Most Popular Skin


No skins yet. Interested in creating one?