Meant to be Seen

I have never been a trekie. But those fans will be happy with the latest adventure from J.J. Abrams. J.J. has a special nack for lens flares. And he's showing them through out this movie. But J.J. has made a very good movie. For me its the best Star Trek movie yet. So yes J.J. you did a great job. Again, this is a 3D conversion. The 3D is a little week at times. But I still think it added considerably to the enjoyment of the film. Some of these companies doing the conversion really seem to have the process down. I'm sure the large IMAX screen helped with my 3D immersion. Star Trek into Darkness is another 2013 3D show piece. And this gets my highest recommendation, also.


Chief's score card:
Story: 9.0
Acting: 8.0
Special effects: 10
3D: 7.75/8.0

Final Score: 9.25
Wow. Hollywood can really make some great movies at times. With modern visuals, huge screen, great sound, and 3D to top it off we are getting some incredible entertainment these days

cheers

Thanks for the review...really pleased to hear it as I'm due to go to see it tomorrow evening in 3D

Must Watch Flick! Nice Adventure, i liked 2009 Star Treak too its "super reboot" its nice to see young crew and Benedict Cumberbatch steals the show

3D actully made me feel size of USS Enterprice. i enjoyed all space games like Mass Effect 1,2,3 Dead Space 1,2,3 even played in 3D but sense of scale and that hyperspace jump in movie was truly an exotic experience.

Quite Enjoyed highly recomended, of course IMAX 3D

I was able to see this in IMAX 3D and RealD 3D and have to say I was impressed with the superb 3D conversion (Star Wars Episode 1 why didn't you get these guys to do your conversion!? Grrr).
IMAX was the better of the two of course, though the RealD had less crosstalk!

The 3D and effects were nicely done, however as other reviewers have said, this is not star trek. This is a james bond / michael bay style movie set in a star trek setting.

in fear of falling into the "no true Scotsman fallacy", rather, I'll revise and say that "this departs from the spirit of star trek: mystery and wonder of the universe, moral conundrums, thoughts about how humanity may advance and the very rare action scene added towards the very end to spice things up". Instead we have a veneer of a story line and mostly lens flares and explosions. Then again, the previous star trek movies were mostly dull in my opinion. Still, I would much rather see something about exploration: like 50% story, exploration,discovery and awe and 50% "gravity3D" then what we had now. Then again, dumb movies with xplosions do make money...

The first Star Trek movie was twice as long as it should have been, with half the time spent with the enterprise swooshing around to background music, as I recall. A mere TV episode stretched to fit the time allotted, IMHO.

I liked the "save the whales/transparent aluminum" trek better. I even own that on its commercial 8mm video tape release. But then, I still have commercial reel-to-reel country music tapes too, so strange media formats are not unknown to my collections...

This new "darkness" movie was not all that bad, and the notoriety may have propelled the "bad guy" into the great new PBS "Sherlock" series...

This movie set looked clean and the cgi stuff looked real to me. Very good looking Characters who seem like they can calculate decimal division in their minds.

Now I bought this Blu-ray 3d movie and just finished watching it a few days ago. I agree that there is to many fights with Starfleet, But more to the film and that I noticed at the ending part there was a lot of Camera shake. I know they add this cause in some sort of mentality it makes people think they are aboard inside the film. This is one thing I cannot stand is the camera shaking so much, steady and smooth like how the planets move is better.

I have to watch it again for a definite exposure as to the 3D, It was good and exciting and well worth the purchase.