Movie Reviews

Star Trek Into Darkness

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana

Release Date: Thu, May 16, 2013

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Buy Now Amazon
email Email

Comments (43)

Leave a comment
  1. Jeff  •  May 18, 2013 at 12:20 am

    I would perfer “Medved on movies” to have Medved! Not ‘some other guy’ on Movies for ‘Medved on Movies’. Tomlin did ok, but I am looking for Medved’s insights… Thanks

  2. Bill  •  May 18, 2013 at 1:49 am

    Where is Michael Medved? Who cares about the opinion of this moron?

    • Elizabeth  •  Jun 28, 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Bill, what is wrong with you that you have to call him a moron? Seriously obnoxious, immature comment.

  3. ryan  •  May 18, 2013 at 2:04 am

    I disagree with the imposter. Please come back Michael.

    • Julie  •  May 18, 2013 at 2:14 am

      Guest Reviewer? All due respect to Rockstar Greg, but is this Tomlin on Movies or Medved on Movies? And the Star Trek review was clearly not from the perspective of someone who understands the franchise and it’s long history. You don’t have to be a trekkie to appreciate Trek but the review completely misses the context.

  4. Kick  •  May 18, 2013 at 6:27 am

    Star Trek ended with “Enterprise.”

    The “Star Trek” 2009 reboot was Luke Skywalker transmogrifies into angst driven “dog” James T. Twerp.

    In 2013 It sounds like based upon this review the “dog” returns to eat its vomit.

    Exactly what I expected.

  5. Mark Vogel  •  May 18, 2013 at 7:48 am

    I haven’t seen the movie yet, but this guy gave the new trek 1 and half stars. I think I heard Medved once say he gives a 1\2 star to movies that keep the camera in focus. This guy complemented the acting of the villain. This guy also complimented a lot of the action sequences as well staged. The reviewer made no comment about the overall story and the effectiveness of director, actors, crew in telling that story. I don’t think this guy knows how to review movies.

  6. Kevin Stay  •  May 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    The implications of the prime directive and how it is interpreted (established in the first 15 minutes of the show) alone merits at least 2 stars. (Moral relativism in a godless Darwinian universe vs. the moral foundation that comes from a Judeo-Christian foundation.) Of course detecting those types of themes that have always been the hallmark of Star Trek (indeed all good sci-fi) and are seen throughout this film for those with eyes to see is quite evidently beyond the limited perception of this reviewer.

    Michael, in the future please simply delay or even skip reviews rather than hand them off to those so ill qualified to fill your shoes.

  7. Kris  •  May 18, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    Be nice to “Rock Star Greg!” Michael is honoring the Jewish holiday Shavuot. You negative people should listen to the show once in a while. Thanks for the review, Greg, you did a great job and you’ve obviously been learning from the boss

    • Elizabeth  •  Jun 28, 2014 at 5:22 pm

      Kris, you’re awesome for defending Greg!

  8. davidr  •  May 18, 2013 at 7:50 pm

    Saw this film last night and it was GREAT. Not sure how this reviewer got to his conclusions, but for anyone familiar with the original tv series and films, this was very well done and action/scenes were pretty riveting. I’d say both this one and Ironman III give their first of their series a run for their money in being pretty darn close to as good as if not better.

  9. c webb  •  May 18, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    Medved’s job is secure. 1 1/2 stars for the new Star Trek?!? This dimwit’s review was into darkness…should surrender his credentials.

    • Mike  •  May 29, 2013 at 2:22 am

      Michael M. gave Ironman 3 two stars and “Rockstar” Greg gave Startrek one and a half? Stick to music, Greg.

      • Tim  •  Jul 10, 2013 at 7:58 am

        Exactly what I was thinking. How did Star Trek fare worse than IM III??
        I like Rockstar Greg and all, but disagree with him on this one.

        I’m wondering how many stars Michael would give this movie.

  10. Mark  •  May 19, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Thank you for the review. I think someone older might have had more to say about this picture, which is in fact a nostalgia fest for boomers who want to take their grandchildren to something without cringing at the bad language or bad behavior.

    I got a kick out of the new McCoy’s constant “Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a….” filling in the blank with whatever was at hand–fry cook, tree surgeon, 10mm wrench. But in the end I left feeling deflated, wondering why I had spent so much of my life involved in this sophomoric exercise, and sad too that I was watching a marketing tool to resell the same bill of goods to a new generation who would boldly go where every nerd had gone before.

  11. Matthew Lombardy  •  May 19, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    SPOLIER ALERT!!!! There are several spoilers in this review although I do not reveal the entire plot nor any of the surprises.

    All conservatives should boycott this film. The Liberals in Hollywood cannot keep their hands off anything. This is no exception. This film is a first class and obvious attack on the Bush Administration and the War on Terror.

    First a terrorist bombs a major city (wonder when that happened). The bomber is repeatedly referred to as a criminal rather than a terrorist. This is reminiscent of the ongoing saga in the months shortly after the Twin Towers when the left was screaming we must not treat the attack as act of war and we should treat Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as common criminals.

    Shortly thereafter we receive a lecture about how it is evil to just kill the bomber rather than try him in a court of law. This is reminiscent of the continuing left wing tantrum against both the Iraq War and Afghanistan War because Al Qaeda is being killed or quarantined (think Gitmo) without Trial.

    Additionally we learn that the Commander of Starfleet was behind the whole thing the entire time. He hoped to artificially cause a war with the Klingons. Might as well have called him Commander Bush. This is reminiscent of the nonsensical cries by the left that Bush only went to war to avenge his father…or for oil…or for Haliburton…or for whatever ignorant conspiratorial jewel crossed the left’s collective mind.

    TALK ABOUT THE BORG!!!!! We are living it.

    This movie blindly and automatonishly reinforces all the false conspiracy theories so paranoidally harbored by the left. It almost seems as if J.J. Abrams prevailed upon the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University to craft the perfect false retelling of the War on Terror.

    The greatest insult is in the middle of the credits. After the writers spend a little more than 2 hours directly attacking the dedication and sacrifice American warriors have made in defense of this nation, the writers dedicate the whole left wing screed to the troops that fought on behalf of the country after 9/11/01. They insert this dedication in a manner that makes one think the writers were cognizant of their deliberately offensive message. The insertion of the dedication makes one think the writers hoped to offset the hateful message with a mere dedication to the men and women they just spent two hours defaming and calling criminals.

    Scotty even RESIGNS because, horrors, the ship was turning into a military vessel.

    The Entreprise has ALWAYS been a military vessel. Starfleet is the Federation’s Navy!

    This movie was clearly a political hit piece written specifically to reinforce a tired and stale conspiracy theory against George Bush and the United States military. Those of us on the right must boycott it and send a message.

    • sully v  •  May 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm

      MATTHEW–I hope you have your shelter supplied and ready, read your comments, all I can say is WOW, and yes that bwas a black helicopter from the NSA that was hovering over your bunker…yikes

    • Mark Vogel  •  May 20, 2013 at 4:57 pm

      I didn’t see any of those liberal messages, because they simply were not there. To tell the truth, I saw the Admiral Marcus the corrupt star fleet guy as more of an Obama figure than a Bush figure. It was Obama who is anonomously sending drone missiles at enemy combatants like Marcus wanted to send the those 72 proton torpedos at his villain. At least when the military under Bush caught Saddam Hussein, there was a chance for a trial for Hussein. It was the newly installed Iraqui government that chose to execute Hussein without a trial. When the military under Obama went after Osama Bin Laden, it was Obama who ordered seal team six to shoot to kill on sight an unarmed Bin Laden without giving him a trial. There is simply no difference between the way Bush executed the war on terror and the way Obama is executing the war on terror. If anything Obama’s war on terror policies are Bush policies on steroids. The only difference is the silliness and noise the main stream media made against Bush policies and the deafening silence the main stream media is making against Obama policies. With the exception of doing away with enhanced interrogation techniques and his insistance that terrorist caught on our soil be read their Miranda rights I have no problem with the way Obama is conducting the on going war on terror, because I had no problem with Bush war on terror policies. If the lefty clowns and bozos in this country exercised a minimal amount of moral consistency, they would be calling for Obama and Bidden to tried as war criminals in the same way they said Bush and Cheney should be tried.

      • Matthew Lombardy  •  May 20, 2013 at 9:55 pm

        Food for thought I suppose.

      • Matthew Lombardy  •  May 22, 2013 at 9:41 pm

        I was right: “It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era,” Cumberbatch told the BBC America.

    • Jeff  •  May 25, 2013 at 12:59 pm

      Oh come on man. This is not true. If this was a review of Avatar I would agree. Star Trek in all honesty does not get that deep into anything. Yes there is moral questions. Blindly follow orders to kill someone or give them a fair trial?

      I could have easily said this is a slap in the face to Obama and his Drone program. In ST they were going to send in drones (Photon torpedoes) to kill the bad guy in a foreign land! Kirk (Who is played by Rand Paul) Ignores the President of Star Fleet and arrests the guy instead..

      All liberals should boycott! Because there is no heavy handed preaching of gloBULL warming. Earth looks nice in the future instead of a wasteland that will be the future if we continue to allow people to drive SUVs! Also They had to use guns to solve their problems! We all know that all true peaceful solutions can be talked over!

      Good day sir!

    • JK Bell  •  Jun 3, 2013 at 9:16 pm

      Well said. I noticed the same thing. I hated the movie but I must admit, my wife loved it

  12. sully v  •  May 19, 2013 at 11:21 pm

    Not sure what movie the reviewer was watching, but this is a good movie, very entertaining, worth the price of admission–if you like Star Trek you will definitely like this movie, I highly recommend it…the official Medved substitute reviewer is clueless…

    • sully v  •  May 20, 2013 at 3:18 pm

      …by the way I took my teen-agers, that not only like the 1st in this series they thought the 2nd was even better (8.9 out of 10)…I remember when I had a substitute in any discipline in high-school it usually meant “study-hall”, nothing of any substance ever happened…

  13. Matty C.  •  May 20, 2013 at 1:25 am

    Yeah, one needs to have some background knowlege of the early ‘Trek storyline to understand how this instalment works with the previous movie. Medved would have understood the layers of “history” behind this chapter and would have given, I believe, a more favorable review. And regarding the percieved political underpinnings of this movie, I don’t see any more glaring editorial pontificating than is to be expected in any contemporary flick. I’m as right leaning as any Tea Partier, yet I wasn’t offended in the least. Remember Mr.Lombardy, its science FICTION. Cheers

    • Matty C.  •  May 20, 2013 at 1:28 am

      Oh and by the way, I saw this movie with my 16 y.o. son and we both enjoyed it. 8.5 out of 10.

      • Matthew Lombardy  •  May 20, 2013 at 7:56 am

        Matty, maybe you are correct. But I think Spock’s insistence they bring Khan to justice rather than just eliminate him is much to familiar.

  14. Mark Vogel  •  May 20, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    What I liked is Abrams openly admitted when making the first trek movie is he asked himself the question, “what can I learn from Star Wars??”. In this movie he was clearly making a Trek movie that is an homage to the Indianna Jones movies.

    • matty  •  May 21, 2013 at 12:04 am

      Speaking of Star Wars: With R2D2 making a brief appearance floating across the screen in the ’09 film, has anyone seen any similar characters from past scifi classics doing cameos in “Darkness”?

  15. Matthew Lombardy  •  May 22, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    I was right: “It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era,” Cumberbatch told the BBC America.

    • Matty  •  May 25, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      Whatever……..So Hollywood is political. So Hollywood is infested with lock-step socialist minions. Normal Americans get it. Its best to not look for a Commie under every rock and film can, and just be aware that they will always be there and have power. Its the duty of all “RIGHT” thinking Americans to win over the hearts and minds of the vast uninformed populace. It takes time and persistance. Do it with good will and patience. WIN THEM.. We can’t sound too alarmed but we need to be steady in conveying conservative philosophy on its logical merits without being needlessly combative. A little honey……..

  16. kick  •  May 23, 2013 at 12:41 am

    Star Wrek – Into Twerpness

    Captain Twerp, where are you?

    Captain Twerp, I can’t help you.

  17. Kyle Crews  •  May 23, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    Just came home from paying $10.25 and seeing the new Star Trek and I think my money was well spent. However, Susan Oliver will be rather upset over a certain outcome in the film which was completely unnecessary to me. And while I know the Klingon Empire is large, where did those guys come from? Bones and Spock continue to nail their parts. I await the next episode.
    Finally, when in doubt, always blame George W. Bush. Hollywood does.

  18. James  •  May 25, 2013 at 3:33 am

    Who is this reviewer? Dude, you suck. Nothing personal, but that movie review was just terrible! Totally missed the boat on what movie I saw. Wow… Micheal, don’t sub out your movie reviews…Crazy.

  19. Jeff  •  May 25, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    1 1/2 stars? Are you serious? This is why I ignore the “Smart Guys” when it comes to movies like this. STID was an amazing and very fun movie to watch. Abrams is a beast! I saw it twice and would gladly see it again! The crew is starting the gel in this movie. I think there is good things ahead for Star Trek! No, it will not win a Oscar but it will be a great evening to anyone that goes!

  20. Dale  •  May 28, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    I think most of you are being too hard on Greg. His review is no worse than I would expect from Michael. I love the Medved radio show but I learned a long time ago not to listen to his movie reviews, at least not until after I see the movie. Reviews are a matter of opinion and I’ve found that my movie opinions more often than not are different than Michael’s. But worse, he often gives away too much. So I turn the dial before reviews of any movie I may want to see. Greg’s Star Trek review reinforces my opinion. He clearly lacks any understanding of Star Trek, perhaps even the sci-fi genre. This was an excellent movie. Excellent story, excellent action, excellent actors, excellent references to Star Trek history. A must see for Star Trek or sci-fi fans.

  21. Johnny  •  May 28, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Michael, please give us your review. Come on!

  22. Randall  •  May 30, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    Greg is way off on this one. I have no idea what movie he was watching. This movie was start-to-finish awesome. To give this the same abysmal star rating as The Hangover III, is utterly absurd.

    Please, from now on no more fill-ins for Michael on the movie reviews.


  23. Toni  •  Jun 7, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    I can’t stand it! Movie reviews are subjective like art, I get it, but this one is so lacking in even the slightest hint of logic, points, or merit, it’s basically objectively wrong; so off it’s akin to saying 2+2=banana.

    This movie was imperfect, but it was thoroughly enjoyable. If there was nothing else to redeem the movie, Cumberbatch’s performance puts this movie at 2 stars. The well-paced action, likeable, relatable characters, and engaging mix of tension and humor made this movie quite the trip to the movies and should give this a very easy 3 stars. 1.5 is ridiculous.

    It was bad and obnoxious the first time, but they KEEP REPLAYING it on the air. It’s driving me a bit batty. Every time I hear this, I literally have to take off my headphones to keep from eating the headset. Even if Michael will not review this movie and right this heinous wrong, this affront to movie-goers and, dare I say it, justice, at least do us the courtesy of taking this review which is almost a lie off the air. Play other movie reviews, I implore you, because I would like to stop cringing everytime I hear the music in a commercial break for “Medved on Movies”. I used to enjoy it, now I have a mini-panic attack. Greg’s got his good points I’m sure, but for the love of all that is filmed, Michael, he’s a rockstar, not a movie reviewer!

  24. lisa  •  Jun 8, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    Just went and saw this in 3D at an iMAX theater. Yes, special effects were fantastic, yes, it was an edge-of-seat thriller, yes, it was fun to watch. But the reviewer is not a moron and is not wrong. The villain was superbly scripted and acted. The rest of the characters were acted well, but script and casting were an attempt at resurrection which came across as stilted, distracting and kinda fake.

    I was sad after watching it, not just because of flaccid scripting. Good and evil were so enmeshed that “truth” and “rightness” are left as fluid and debatable.

  25. Brandon  •  Jun 16, 2013 at 5:07 am

    Michael was retarded on this review I thought this was the best Star Trek yet what the hell is he thinking. He’s give’s After Earth a higher rating then this movie good god what a horrible review. He’s been right on many occasions but this one is worst it’s the worst review I have seen since Leonard Nimoy gave Forrest Gump one of the worst movies of the year review, needless to say I think his career pretty much ended that day.

  26. Melissa  •  Aug 31, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    Hey Greg, I think this is one of those times you can say– “these are all the merits of the film but I personally disliked it” and give it 2 1/2 stars. When you are a beginning reviewer, it’s easy to give in to the urge to be overly critical, but in your future reviews try to be a little more detached. It is possible to dislike watching a movie that is well made and well acted. You undercut yourself by giving it such a low star rating when it didn’t merit it.

  27. diseñoproducten monterrey  •  Sep 14, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    I’m extremely inspired with your writing abilities and also with the structure in your weblog. Is that this a paid topic or did you customize it your self? Either way stay up the excellent quality writing, it’s uncommon to look a nice weblog like this one nowadays..

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn