Star Trek Into Darkness

🎬2013132h 0mसंयुक्त राज्य अमेरिकाएक्शन, एडवेंचर

English,Filipino,Français,Indonesian,Kiswahili,Português,Русский,اَلْعَرَبِيَّةُ,اُردُو,هَرْشٜن هَوْس,বাংলা,ਪੰਜਾਬੀ,中文

7.7/10508,517 लोगों ने रेटिंग दी

वीडियो देखें

विवरण

The एक्शन film Star Trek Into Darkness, starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, etc., directed by J.J. Abrams, was released on May 16, 2013 in संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका. It tells the story of एंटरप्राइज़ के चालक दल को अपने स्वयं के संगठन के भीतर से आतंक की एक अजेय शक्ति मिलने के बाद, कैप्टन किर्क सामूहिक विनाश के एक व्यक्ति के हथियार पर कब्जा करने के लिए युद्ध-क्षेत्र की दुनिया में एक मैनहंट की ओर जाता है।. This is a एक्शन, एडवेंचर, विज्ञान-फाई film with a runtime of 132 minutes and its worldwide box office is not listed in the available detail data. It has received a rating of 7.7/10 from 508,517 viewers.

मुख्य कलाकार

J.J. Abrams

के रूप में Director

Chris Pine

के रूप में Kirk

Zachary Quinto

के रूप में Spock

Zoe Saldana

के रूप में Uhura

Leonard Nimoy

के रूप में Spock Prime

Karl Urban

के रूप में Bones

Simon Pegg

के रूप में Scotty

John Cho

के रूप में Sulu

Benedict Cumberbatch

के रूप में Khan

Anton Yelchin

के रूप में Chekov

Bruce Greenwood

के रूप में Pike

Peter Weller

के रूप में Marcus

Alice Eve

के रूप में Carol Marcus

Noel Clarke

के रूप में Thomas Harewood

Nazneen Contractor

के रूप में Rima Harewood

Amanda Foreman

के रूप में Ensign Brackett

Jay Scully

के रूप में Lieutenant Chapin

Jonathan Dixon

के रूप में Ensign Froman

Aisha Hinds

के रूप में Navigation Officer Darwin

Roberto Orci

के रूप में Writer

Alex Kurtzman

के रूप में Writer

Damon Lindelof

के रूप में Writer

Gene Roddenberry

के रूप में Writer

कहाँ देखें

fzmovies.netIsaac peeps

उपलब्धता देश, भाषा और रिलीज़ अवधि के अनुसार अलग-अलग हो सकती है। कुछ फिल्में प्लेटफ़ॉर्म सब्सक्रिप्शन में शामिल होती हैं, जबकि अन्य के लिए किराये, खरीद या ऐप-आधारित पहुँच की ज़रूरत हो सकती है। स्ट्रीमिंग कैटलॉग और लाइसेंसिंग समझौते नियमित रूप से अपडेट होते हैं, इसलिए प्लेबैक विकल्प समय के साथ बदल सकते हैं। सबसे सटीक देखने के अनुभव के लिए, अपनी चुनी हुई सेवा पर नवीनतम लिस्टिंग देखें और शुरू करने से पहले क्षेत्रीय समर्थन, सबटाइटल विकल्प और डिवाइस संगतता की पुष्टि करें।

फ़िल्मांकन स्थान

127A Smithfield Road, Frederiksted, Virgin Islands

निर्माण

Castle Rock Entertainment

पुरस्कार

कुल 21 जीत और 43 नामांकन

MovieBox / FM / TV APK प्राप्त करें

मोबाइल, FM बिल्ड और TV-संगत APK संस्करणों के लिए नवीनतम MovieBox पैकेज डाउनलोड करें। अपने डिवाइस और क्षेत्र से मेल खाने वाला पैकेज चुनें, फिर सर्वोत्तम संगतता और सुरक्षा के लिए आधिकारिक इंस्टॉल गाइड का पालन करें।

उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षा

Kalyan Das04/05/26 07:00

nice

Enock Muswaya10/08/25 00:15

SCI-FI

🇲🇦ولد الشرق🇲🇦18/06/25 03:20

बढ़िया फिल्म!

Theresia Lucas29/05/23 20:10

source: Star Trek Into Darkness

LuzetteLuzette122/11/22 10:03

No lie, this was one of the worst movies I've seen in awhile. Thin, dull plot that's already a rehash from a prior film. Paper thin characters. Zero intellectual or emotional depth. There was nothing challenging about this story, nothing thought provoking or even intriguing. Basically, bad guy wants to blow some *beep* up and after a bunch of explosions and hand-to-hand fights and crappy one liners, he's stopped by our heroes. The end. This kind of formula occasionally produces an awesome movie or two, but those movies are usually fresh and intelligently made in some way that makes them stand out. This movie was not intelligently made, not at all. Seriously, the writing here seemed like a seventh-grader's rendition of how adults are supposed to act: the Uhura / Spock 'fight' was like a scene you'd overhear in a middle school hallway or something. It was laughable. The few moments that should have been stirring sucked because they were just straight rips from Wrath of Khan. On screen, it seemed like explosions, gunfire, and lens flare dominated probably 80% of the shots, and the effects looked like something from a B-grade Xbox game. There was so much CG "action" that it all ended up being pretty boring. I never felt any sense of danger. Worst of all was that constantly swelling score with the same series of notes over and over and over again. You know what I'm talking about. I mean, damn, it was cool the first couple of times, but when the 18th minor protagonist triumph was accompanied by this same bombastic progression, I was curled up in a fetal position. Please, just make it stop. Beyond all of these issues, Star Trek was never supposed to be about endless violence and effects and one liners. It seems like Abrams has turned the series into a moderately more upscale version of Transformers, and it's too bad. There was so much more that could have been done. So yeah, this movie sucked. A lot. I can't believe the rating it has on here. I'm starting to wonder if most of the voters work for the studios or if they've received lobotomies or something...

Mercy Eke22/11/22 10:03

So it seems JJ Abrams has traded in too many lens flares for too many closeups. The working title of Star Trek Into Darkness could probably have been "Chris Pine's Facial Pores". Seriously JJ - there is such a thing as long and middle shots too you know, and what's more - if you use them - when you *do* use a closeup, it has more dramatic effect, just sayin'... Anyway, directorial style flaws aside, my big gripe with STID is that it's "just another" sci-fi movie. What always set Trek apart was that Roddenberry created an enlightened future, a refreshing change of pace to most sci-fi, and the conflict therefore had to come from cleverer places. But with this reboot every character is constantly bickering, I frankly left the theater with a headache as if I'd just been to a teenage kids birthday party. I can get bickering, and grit, and violence from *any* sci-fi feature, and sadly now it seems like Trek has followed suit and lost its original edge. It's not until the very final minute where a little bit of the original Trek feel is re-established, but for me that was far too little, far too late. There's some giant plot holes too, if you're actually thinking about what's going on. It seems like Abrams hoped that if he put enough glitz and dazzle on the screen, most people would entirely miss the fact that they are there. I guess his gamble was correct, since the film is currently standing at an 8.4 IMDb score. It's not all bad. Benedict Cumberbatch is an incredible, intense villain and the film is worth seeing for his performance alone. And as with the first, the rest of the cast is exceptional. There's nothing wrong with the acting, music, or look of this film... just a lot wrong with the script and the tone of the whole thing. If you're not a Star Trek fan, you'll likely enjoy it... it's big, frenetic, popcorn munching silliness. But if you are a Trek fan, particularly of the quieter explorations of the human condition that TNG did so well, then you might be pretty disappointed.

Mustapha Ndure22/11/22 10:03

Viacom/Paramount have got to pull the JJ Abrams team (writers Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman) from the next one ... anyone could do a better job First and foremost the Abrams team did not make Star Trek either with their 2009 film or this one, and if they get to do the next one after the under-performance of Into Dreckness it won't be until 2017 that it sees a release since Abrams, et al, are off to do what they do to the Star Wars franchise for Lucas and Disney *Spoilers* Into Darkness is a typical action-adventure Mission Impossible kind of thing (it's what Abrams does), but this one is even more hackneyed and grasping than their first effort. They don't respect the source material and couldn't come up with any ideas so the reverted to the Plot Scrambler again and trot out an amalgam of forger female characters and a stupid new secret society found only in the novels and comic books and long after the audience has figured it out reveal that Brit actor-of-the-moment Benedict Cumberbatch is indeed KKHHHAAAAAAAAAAANNN The stupid brewery is still there as if Abrams wanted to thumb his nose at those who called him out on how dumb it was the first time ... and that idiotic little rock-monster sidekick is still around Viacom/Paramount ... quietly let the deal the for the 3rd installment by Abrams and his team go kaput and hire Dean Parisot to do the next one since he's arguably done the best one already anyway (GalaxyQuest)

Meliss'ok22/11/22 10:03

this review definitely contains spoilers!!! we park the enterprise at the bottom of the sea (awful) - we stop a volcanic eruption floating on hot lava (awful) - we design our ships (awful) all those pipes (awful) - the earth is a dark, dull and rotten place (awful) - captain pike miraculously recovers just to get killed (awful) - the clingons look (awful) the new bathlets (awful) - we battle at warp speed, collapse, and are orbiting... - earth (awful) - and quite a coincidence! - the whole of starfleet academy watch two friendly ships battle (awful) - in orbit (awful) - surprise! one of them goes down (awful) everyone unprepared (awful) - i think the story ends here, not that it matters where is the science fiction in it? i'm outta here...

lakshmimanchu22/11/22 10:03

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.

Mwalimu Rachel22/11/22 10:03

JJ, you really are destroying a large piece of scifi history. Star Trek was never an action based show/movie. It was always a story that had supporting action elements. This movie is completely devoid of any cohesive story and is an action junkies dream come true. Kirk in the original series was confident, capable, intelligent, suave, etc.... The new and improved JJ version of the character is a moron. Don't get me wrong, I really like the choice of actor, but the character portrayal which is dictated by the writers and directors is everything the original Kirk was not. Space ships crush under pressure....its physics dumba**es...the Enterprise is not a submarine. I could go on and on, but I find it all a bit depressing. Star Trek is after all just a piece of fiction. ...now lost to time to only be remembered by a new generation as bad fiction.

मिलती-जुलती फिल्मों की अनुशंसाएँ

ब्लॉग

Movie Box के मुफ्त विकल्प ढूंढना

हाल के मूल्य परिवर्तनों, उपयोगकर्ता अपने देखने के सेटअप पर पुनर्विचार क्यों कर रहे हैं, और अपनी खोज आदतों को खोए बिना वैकल्पिक तरीके का मूल्यांकन कैसे करें, इसका विस्तृत विश्लेषण।

Movie Box APK कैसे डाउनलोड करें: पूर्ण सेटअप गाइड

Movie Box APK इंस्टॉल करने का सही तरीका जानें: पहले संस्करण की मूल बातें, फिर साफ इंस्टॉलेशन चरण, और अंत में TV, iOS, वेब और ऐप उपयोग पथों में से कैसे चुनें।

Project Hail Mary समीक्षा: दुर्लभ साइंस-फाई ब्लॉकबस्टर जो सोचती और महसूस कराती है

एक विस्तृत समीक्षा जो बताती है कि 2026 में Project Hail Mary क्यों अलग दिखती है: रूपांतरण की गुणवत्ता, वैज्ञानिक कहानी, भावनात्मक गहराई और दर्शकों की प्रतिक्रियाएँ।

सामान्य प्रकार

कॉमेडी

कॉमेडी कहानियाँ हास्य के ज़रिये मनोरंजन के लिए बनाई जाती हैं। लोकप्रिय प्रारूपों में स्थितिजन्य कॉमेडी, स्केच-शैली का हास्य, कार्यस्थल कॉमेडी और रोमांटिक कॉमेडी शामिल हैं।

एक्शन और एडवेंचर

एक्शन फिल्में उत्साह, शारीरिक संघर्ष, वीर पात्रों और तेज़ कहानी पर ज़ोर देती हैं। एडवेंचर फिल्मों में अक्सर खोज, अस्तित्व या महाकाव्य यात्राएँ होती हैं।

क्राइम और मिस्ट्री

क्राइम ड्रामा जाँचकर्ताओं, जासूसों, वकीलों या पत्रकारों का अनुसरण करते हैं जो आपराधिक मामले सुलझाते हैं। मिस्ट्री कहानियाँ दर्शकों को पात्रों के साथ सुराग खोजने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करती हैं।

साइंस फिक्शन

साइंस फिक्शन भविष्य की तकनीक, अंतरिक्ष यात्रा, कृत्रिम बुद्धिमत्ता, वैकल्पिक वास्तविकताओं और वैज्ञानिक कल्पना की खोज करता है।

हॉरर

हॉरर कहानी मनोवैज्ञानिक तनाव, अलौकिक घटनाओं, राक्षसों या अस्तित्व के परिदृश्यों से सस्पेंस पैदा करती है।

रोमांस

रोमांटिक कहानियाँ मुख्य रूप से पात्रों के बीच रिश्तों, प्रेम-यात्रा और भावनात्मक विकास पर केंद्रित होती हैं।

एनीमेशन

एनीमेशन में बच्चों, परिवारों और वयस्कों के लिए शैक्षिक सामग्री से लेकर जटिल नाटकीय कहानी तक के काम शामिल हैं।

रोमांस

रोमांटिक कहानियाँ मुख्य रूप से पात्रों के बीच रिश्तों, प्रेम-यात्रा और भावनात्मक विकास पर केंद्रित होती हैं।