Back to IndieWire

The First Reviews of ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Are Out

The First Reviews of 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Are Out

Yep, “Star Trek Into Darkness” reviews. 

Yep, already. 

No, I know the movie doesn’t open in U.S. theaters until May 17th. I know that’s still almost a month away.

No, there’s no time travel involved. 

No, not the slingshot effect. 

Yeah, I know it’s also called the light-speed breakaway factor.

(Yeah, I know I’m a nerd. Thanks.)

No, I’m telling you: nothing that impressive. The movie just premiered in Australia, so reviews (and hilariously awkward photos featuring the cast standing around with “Star Trek” surfboards) are beginning to appear online.

The first is from IGN‘s Lucy O’Brien, who gives the movie a score of 8/10. She says that while “it may not be the most sophisticated of sci-fi spectacles you’ll see this year, ‘Into Darkness’ will certainly be one of the most fun:”

“‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ is a hell of a lot of fun, maintaining such constant velocity that by the time you’ve half-formed a criticism in your head it’s swept away by the next plot-twist or action sequence. It still has that urgency that made the first film so appealing, those big, optimistic messages of right vs wrong in a world at war.”

At 3News, David Farrier strikes a similar note, praising just about everything in the movie except for “one of the most ridiculous titles in recent memory:”

As dark as it is, it’s fun. You could liken J.J.’s ‘Trek’ films to the ‘Iron Man’ films, although again, this is darker territory here — a perfect blend of action, humanity and humour. At one moment, I became annoyed by Bones’ puns — one rolling in after another. The moment I had that thought, Kirk interrupts, telling Bones he’ll boot him off the ship if he continues.”

Graffiti With Punctuation‘s Blake Howard provided a slightly less positive take in a 3.5/5 star review. “This isn’t the franchise defining ‘middle’ picture that this reviewer was hoping it to be,” he wrote. “It’s not the ‘Empire Strikes Back’ of an Abrams trilogy; and consequently it didn’t quite hit the emotional crescendo of that kind of film:”

“‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ isn’t ready to stretch to the unknown pockets of the universe just yet; instead it relishes in the evolution of the key characters in the wake of their defining challenge. It’s a rousing adventure and Abrams has laid the platform for a healthy and long lasting franchise.”

Sounds to me like “STID” is very much a sequel to the last “Star Trek;” a big, spectacular adventure, heavy on action and effects and light on old school “Trek” philosophizing. But we’ll find out more when the movie premieres — barring any further time continuum incursions — next month.

Read more “Star Trek Into Darkness” reviews.

This Article is related to: News and tagged



Abrams doesn't get the Vulcan concept at all.


hello i am friend barkat ali i nationality algeria i kiiiss you i am happy you i skypo: barkat.ali.msila.algeria5


Eowyn, It must be nice to have all the answers. i am sorry they did not pick you to direct the film, since I am sure you could have done it better. You could have acted for Cumberbatch, since you are obviously so much better.

Way to denegrate a movie without EVER giving it a chance, all while knowing NOTHING about it. Good job.

I personally cannot wait!

Eowyn rohan

Star Trek could be a good, great or even excellent movie, if only for the inept plot, direction, script and the insane time travel plot hanging over from Star Trek 2009.

As for Cumberbore…. please. Miss Piggy could have a more humane and animated piece of ham acting than Cumberbore could ever dream of.


The stand out performance in these reviews was Cumberbatch.

IGN "But it is with John Harrison that the film truly ignites. The narrative weaves around him like a weasel, teasing us with his ambiguous loyalties and indeed, his ambiguous identity. It is he who tempers the film’s cheesy humour and lends it its brutality. Indeed, while mostly bloodless, I was surprised at the skin-on-skin ferocity of some of the fight scenes he is featured in.

Cumberbatch himself has never been better. While he has proven his ability at volatile emotional-detachment with his role in Sherlock, he is, here, a true snake; an expressionless, sliver of a man whose mask only slips when he lunges for his prey. The Enterprise crew look trivial against him, their uniforms retro and goofy against his men’s magazine sleekness. Even Spock, once a regal figure, is thrown into stark relief." What this film has over 2009’s Star Trek is Benedict Cumberbatch. Now, Cumberbatch fans are similar to fans of Sam or Dean from TV’s Supernatural; they obsess over him. Many write fan fiction. In this case, it’s fair enough because Cumberbatch is awesome. He’s a bad guy. I’m not going to say what bad guy, neither confirming nor denying the K-theory – and he’s an excellent villain. He out-bads Eric Bana. He’s handsome, strong, threatening and utterly convincing as a hugely smart adversary to Kirk and his team. He steals the show, possessing a voice eerily similar to that of Patrick Stewart.

Grafitiwithoutpunctuation site "Benedict Cumberbatch’s villain is an inspired piece of casting. Cumberbatch’s ‘Morgan Freeman level’ iconic voice has a frequency and purpose in his delivery that will have you hanging on every syllable. "

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *