Gladys Hamilton (Seattle) i was told that I can migos Star Trek Into Darkness free download, but I did not believe, especially the year 2013 New York. Michael Whitehead (Lexington) J.J. Abrams Star Trek Into Darkness free download Bluray at high speed, and even in the USA Cambridge.
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
This is NOT Star Trek -- Boo! Hiss!
If you're looking for a modern action movie, it's not bad (although it is a little slow in a couple places). But it's NOT Star Trek If you know & care about the original story line, forget it. J.J. Abrams appeared on The Daily Show & said that he hadn't liked Star Trek as a kid. It really showed. He changed all the old story lines. The flow of history is totally different, with no way to logically fit the stuff together. I'm so disappointed. What's up with Spock & Uhura? And we know that that's not what happened to Christopher Pike! The history of Vulcan -- what? The role reversal between Kirk & Spock? And future Spock? But the whole Khan thing is SO different from the original histories, & he is played so differently. Why is Carol Marcus there & why is she British? And really, all of the characters are just caricatures of how they were originally played. Abrams said he studied up on the old stuff, but he didn't get it. Boo! Hiss! I wonder how Abrams will screw up Star Wars next.
2013-05-16
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
Eh
I want to qualify my review by saying that I'm an old-school Trek fan. I also want to say that I didn't like the 2009 Abrams "Star Trek" movie very much, although I didn't absolutely hate it.

They managed to make the franchise even dumber and more ADD than the 2009 Trek movie.

Lots of action, pretty actors and actresses, and cool special effects. Those were the only real redeeming qualities of this movie.

Story and character motivation were severely lacking. A brief cameo appearance by an old-school Trek character is used to further the plot in the least subtle way; the character bonks the audience over the head with information about the antagonist, rather than the script leading us to the information.

Benedict Cumberbatch was severely underutilized as an actor. There was only one marginally good scene between Kirk and Cumberbatch's character in which he explains his motivations. Otherwise, the character was one-dimensional and was going through the action-packed motions from that point on with requisite snarling.

Overall, I hope J.J. Abrams gives up the Star Trek franchise when he makes the new Star Wars movie. He's taken all of the thinking out of Star Trek. While old Trek was never hardcore sci-fi, and sometimes was kinda cheesy, at least it had elements of politics, religion, and social issues.
2013-05-20
Crash and Burn
******SPOILERS BELOW******

When I saw the starship Vengeance crash into San Francisco, I thought, "This is what J.J. Abrams has done to Star Trek."

Already, some of you might be sneering, "Another bashing from someone who knows nothing about Star Trek." I reiterate what I wrote 4 years ago about the previous movie (review #347, posted 5/9/2009): I was a Star Trek fan since The Original Series was on NBC. I have seen every episode of every TV series, including The Animated Series, and all 12 movies. I found the previous movie repulsive, but hoped that Abrams would deliver a better 2nd act. Instead, this movie was even worse.

I shall begin by listing the few positives in this movie. Once again, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto gave very good performances. Once again, ILM produced very good visual effects.

End of positives. Here come the negatives, in random order.

The dress uniforms were comical. They looked like parodies of Nazi German uniforms. The standard uniforms still looked like cheap knockoffs I would find in a second-rate costume shop.

Once again, the Enterprise's Bridge looked like a disco. Once again, Abrams included irritating shots of glare to make the movie more "realistic." Once again, Engineering looked like an oil refinery. Once again, this Enterprise is a pale shadow of the original NCC-1701.

Once again, we had a very loud and very forgettable soundtrack.

Once again, we saw Scotty's pint-size companion, Keenser - a.k.a. Cabbageface, a.k.a. Rockface, a.k.a. the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek.

We saw Doctor Carol Marcus, but now she's British?? And a weapons specialist?? Now Chekov is not only an Engineer, but (temporarily) the ship's Chief Engineer?? Apparently, Paramount is allowing J.J. Abrams to turn the Star Trek universe upside-down and inside-out.

When the Enterprise visited Nibiru, she was underwater, and Spock (and, eventually, Starfleet Command) were worried about the Nibirans seeing the ship emerge from the sea. Objection #1: Why was the ship underwater? Couldn't the mission be conducted with the Enterprise in orbit? Objection #2: Considering the water pressure on the ship's hull, why didn't we hear any creaking in the hull or see any breaches caused by the pressure? The shields weren't up because Scotty complained about the sea water corroding the hull. Objection #3: How did the ship enter the water without any Nibirans seeing her? Was the Enterprise invisible during descent? Are all the planet's humanoids in that one small village?

What I did in the previous paragraph is called Thinking About What I'm Watching. This is what we should do when watching any Star Trek story. But in J.J. Abrams' version of Star Trek, we are expected to stop thinking and just watch the loud, frantic action.

Now we come to Khan Noonien Singh. Abrams has transformed Khan from a Sikh Indian into a Brit. (Is Abrams obsessed with Brits?) Also, Khan's blood can resurrect the dead! So now Khan is like Robert Neville in The Omega Man (1971), or - dare I say it - Jesus Christ. (This Is The Cup Of My Blood, The Blood Of The New And Everlasting Covenant, etc.) Obviously, Starfleet Medical should extract blood samples from those 73 superhumans so that Starfleet personnel who are killed can be resurrected. (Again, we are supposed to stop thinking.)

This movie had two scenes that may be disturbing - even traumatic - to some viewers: the explosion in London, and the crash of the Vengeance in San Francisco. Many people in the Boston area (after 4/15/2013), the New York City area (after 9/11/2001), and the London area (after 7/7/2005) may be appalled by this exploitation of massive tragedies. Abrams might be trying to assuage such objections by dedicating the movie to first-responders and military personnel "after 9/11." But this still looks like exploitation.

I'm not the only veteran Star Trek fan who saw the ripoff of Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek III - The Search For Spock. The minor changes: Kirk enters the radiation-filled warp-core chamber; Spock gets to bellow, "KHAN!!" (which was almost comical); instead of The Genesis Effect, the resurrection agent is Khan's blood. Also, Kirk's death gives Spock another excuse to act like a brutal savage (what would Sarek say?), and Abrams an excuse to stage an absurd high-altitude fight scene.

Let's debunk the basic defense of J.J. Abrams; i.e., that he saved Star Trek. He has replaced Gene Roddenberry's version with his own version. In the pre-Abrams chapters of Star Trek, we saw intelligent stories with strongly-defined characters. But Abrams has replaced that with movies loaded with loud, frantic action but thin on story and logic. Obviously, this is appealing to the only movie fans who count: teenagers, who expect every movie to resemble a 3-D video game. I saw the 2-D version (on the night of May 19), and noticed that the theater was only half-full and devoid of teenagers. Apparently, the Target Audience gathered in the 3-D theater. We can expect every future Star Trek movie to follow the Abrams Canon: virtually non-stop, loud, 3-D action, with very little intelligence.

Paramount's weak excuse is, "We still have Star Trek." We still have Saturday Night Live, too. But both have become pale shadows of their original selves. Thanks to J.J. Abrams, I am no longer a Star Trek fan.
2013-05-20
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
Boldly Going... Nowhere!
The Star Trek universe, resplendent in Gene Roddenberry's vision of a future wherein mankind has finally "got its act together," while its social and economic problems are generally a thing of the past. Not in JJ Abrams' universe however, in which a corrupt Starfleet Admiral and a freshly revived genetically engineered 'John Harrison', an alias for a more familiar Star Trek adversary, take it upon themselves to create havoc with savage acts of treason and terrorism respectively.

With seeming discount made to Roddenberry's unique take of Star Trek, evolving around the prevalent Hollywood ethos of filling seats at the local multiplex, Abrams' crafts, what I would term, a popcorn movie with plot-holes aplenty. With its target audience seated in place however, doubtlessly willing to overlook the obvious whilst simultaneously blinded by the startling visuals and 'tacked-on' 3-D (the film wasn't originally shot in 3-D, instead the process being added in post-production) this 'casual' viewer can safely check their brain at the door and, in all likelihood, enjoy...

In this befuddled story, with its foot stuck firmly in Trek's The Wrath of Khan (1982), Into Darkness hauls its audience onto a seeming roller-coaster ride, dragging the viewer from one outrageous action set-piece to another, while its central characters are barely given a chance to 'grow' into their respective roles.

In a likely nod to Trek VI – The Undiscovered Country, Sulu is afforded a brief turn in the captain's chair (a role which at least offered the actor some nifty poker-faced dialogue), whilst Chekov is contrastingly tucked away within the pipework-strewn bowels of the Enterprise' engine room. Scotty, meanwhile, refusing to sign for a delivery of conspicuously 'shielded' torpedoes, resigns himself into the background with his unusual but interesting little alien friend. This is clearly Kirk's film however, while his relationship with Spock (and by extension Spock's relationship with Uhura) being about the only things explored here. Worst of all however is Karl Urban's Doctor 'Bones' McCoy, who is virtually confined to pitching nostalgic-tinged quips: "My God man, I'm a doctor not a nuclear torpedo technician," a character so painfully underused here – particularly given the actor's obvious talent in this role.

Evolving around two villains, each of whom possessing completely different agendas, 'John Harrison' (Benedict Cumberbatch) and a warmongering Starfleet Admiral (Peter Weller), the latter of whom taking command of a freshly constructed battleship class vessel named USS VENGEANCE. Despite a promising start however, having chased Harrison to his conspicuous Klingon hideout, Kirk is somehow 'manipulated' into seeking the terrorist's help; an inconceivable decision given the character's explosive introduction - which also ignores the obvious danger he poses. And let's not forget the supposed personal anguish felt by Kirk, of which Harrison had been its mastermind. Oh well, things disintegrate further when its finally realised just how incredibly stupid Kirk has been, trusting a known terrorist whilst the viewer, during the film's final reel, is woefully pulled along during their frantic re-attempts at his capture.

With an ending pulled directly out of The Wrath of Khan, albeit with Kirk and Spock on opposite sides of the radiation screen doors, I was beginning feel as though I had been robbed of my admission: the contrived nature of this protracted scene, deriving itself virtually word-for-word from its thirty-year-old original, played out while the audience undoubtedly watched in astonished déjà vu. I use the term 'contrived' given that, not unlike the life-restoring 'Genesis Planet' seen in Trek's The Search for Spock (1984), the answer to Kirk's mortal dilemma was really only a hypo-spray away...

As a Trek fan, I was bitterly disappointed here: the filmmakers might well have just re-shot Nicholas Meyer's film entirely. Sincerely what an utterly shameful and wasted opportunity all this hokum was.

When I emerged from the cinema, I was somewhat stunned; processing what I had just witnessed on-screen. And after having slept on it, I was finally able to articulate the next day. What I had seen wasn't so much Star Trek – a series I so dearly love and consider myself a lifelong fan of – but some cheap (albeit very expensive, costing well over £120 Million) and certainly pale imitation of a film series that deserved far better scripting and storyline than this. These wonderful characters – legendary even – each of whom a household name, whilst some having inspired many a fan to seek similar professions in the real world, reduced here to mere caricatures' of their namesakes.

Over-shadowed by the film's ample and certainly showy special effects, these characters seemed stunted and confined instead of simply being allowed to develop properly.

Such a shame. 3 out of 10
2013-05-10
Star Crap: Into Moral Darkness
Spoilers Ahead:

Let's start with ethics 101: Is it moral to save your little baby to kill say 50 people who did you no harm? Have the screenwriters ever even had an ethics class? Maybe it is because he has such a cute baby? The whole work has moments of utter ethical retardation that drew gasps of awe from me. Yes, Pine's Kirk says YOU ARE A MURDERER. I am sorry; please forgive me I started laughing loudly drawing angry stares from other patrons. Yes, uh, excuse me Kirk? What were you just doing on Kronos? What with that fifteen minute orgasmic blood lust kill festival highlighted by you yelling like some cannibal atavist at a missionary cook in? Jim, uh, you cannot kill say eight Klingon's yelling and screaming with glee and then lecture people on their morality.

First, I detest Star Trek; let's get that out of the way. I grew up with the films; there was nothing funnier for my friends and I then to go see Star Trek 3: The Search for Harve Bennett's Brain and laugh our asses off at the fruits dressed up in the outfits. Hey, get laid please, it is a TV show; give us all a break. That said, this is not Star Trek. Look, did we need Khan stomping on a woman's knee while she screams in agony? How about skull crushings? I do not know about you; I just do not remember a lot of skull crushings while Patrick Stewart put us all to sleep with his 3rd grade ethics in Insurrection? Sorry, Jean Fluke 150 people cannot have something that would help billions please pick up some ethics books before you give that head another coat of sheen?

Yes, the usual items that say J.J. Abrams: yelling, spitting, screaming, knee stomping, skull crushing, peek a boo semi nudity non stop explosions kung fu shootings and stabbings bring the whole family. Hey, maybe this is why we cannot go out of our houses at night, you think? When did the paragon of rationality SPOCK turn into RAMBO? Was that him on top of that airship snapping Khan's arm over his shoulder? How about beating a prone man like a berserker? Has Abrams even seen a Star Trek film? Look, the one were they pick up the whales is drop dead funny; I do not mean that in a complimentary way. This is supposed to be humanistic: hello, you know how savage, murdering maniacs were all having bad days at Auschwitz, Stalin's purges and Mao's Great Leap Forward. Misanthropes like me always make a hand gesture I cannot share with you when we say Star Trek; but, hey, it makes them feel better. This is not Star Trek.

Great reviewers have pointed out the plot canyons like, do not kill Khan Spock we need his super blood to save Jim. Gee, how about the other 63 torpedoes containing his mass killing maniacs? Did inertia cause the ship to drift in sub light thruster speed from the moon to earth's orbit? That is a little ways? Look, Nicholas Meyer was no Stanley Kubrick but let's leave his movie alone? If you are going to steal the death scene from the only watchable film in the Star Trek library, try to imitate it well. Please do not have the Icon of the 60's Kirk crying like a little girlie? Yes, I know we are all supposed to be castrates, I am sorry, sensitive or we offend our wonderful feminine friends. You crapped all over Kirk. Roddenberry would sue if he were alive I assure you. Yes, I laughed to at Ricardo's oiled up pec's in Wrath Of Khan too; please, leave other peoples' works alone?

The lack of character development is breathtaking; the non stop violence put me to sleep. Like Man of Steel, these imbeciles need to have constant violence to awaken them from their lobotomized comas. I am learning to stuff cotton in my ears before one of their films. What Abrams did to Star Trek cannot be written I refer readers to the South Park episode showing what Spielberg and Lucas did to Indiana Jones with that Crystal Skull piece of crap. Good going, hey really life affirming J J? I really felt that Roddenberry feeling; maybe we are not all murderous, self destroying maniacs? I had this epiphany right when Khan was skull crushing poor admiral Marcus. BRING THE KIDS
2015-05-16
JJ Abrams sucks all that's special out of Star Trek
JJ Abrams has managed to drain the life, the spark, the joy that was the original series, and to a less extent, the spin offs, and re-animate the hollow corpse into a blundering zombie of a movie.

Nothing original, this travesty could have had the title and characters names changed, and it would have been indistinguishable from any of a dozen sci-fi action movies from the last 4 years.

The awe and joy of a possible future, the thrill of exploration, the wonder of the universe is totally lacking in this film. Scientists the world over have credited Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek for inspiring them to go into the sciences, because they wanted to help create the world he envisioned. This movie will inspire no one but insipid directors and bean counters.
2013-08-08
Roland J. Tran (Saint Paul) i was looking for a movie free Star Trek Into Darkness download, as 720p to download it in 2013, one of the first J.J. Abrams Tallahassee. Clara J. Lovett (Buffalo) i love how they play 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 from the movie director J.J. Abrams 2013 Miami.
×