L'equipaggio dell'Enterprise deve mettersi a caccia di un uomo diventato un'arma di distruzione di massa.L'equipaggio dell'Enterprise deve mettersi a caccia di un uomo diventato un'arma di distruzione di massa.L'equipaggio dell'Enterprise deve mettersi a caccia di un uomo diventato un'arma di distruzione di massa.
- Candidato a 1 Oscar
- 7 vittorie e 58 candidature totali
Zoe Saldana
- Uhura
- (as Zoë Saldana)
Jonathan Dixon
- Ensign Froman
- (as Jonathan H. Dixon)
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizLeonard Nimoy's final film role (and by extension, his final time portraying Spock) before his death on February 27, 2015 at the age of 83. It's also the first in the Star Trek franchise (either movie or TV series) after the death of Majel Barrett.
- Blooper(at around 1h 24 mins) While planning the space jump, Sulu's display incorrectly labels the Enterprise as NCC/0514, which is the registry for the USS Kelvin from Star Trek (2009). It should read NCC/1701.
- Citazioni
James T. Kirk: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Spock: An Arabic proverb attributed to a prince who was betrayed and decapitated by his own subjects.
James T. Kirk: Well, still, it's a hell of a quote.
- Curiosità sui creditiThere are no opening credits in the film except for the title card, making this the third consecutive Star Trek film that does not list its cast at the beginning.
- ConnessioniFeatured in The One Show: Episodio #7.133 (2012)
- Colonne sonoreTheme from 'Star Trek' TV Series
Written by Alexander Courage & Gene Roddenberry
Recensione in evidenza
We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.
In the movie theatre I heard a complaint from an old school Trekkie that the second installment of the Star Trek reboot had too many "Little Archie and Veronica" moments.
This is true and it would be OK if that were just the icing on the cake. The real problem with the movie is that it runs like a typical SciFi action plot inserted under a Star Trek banner.
This movie is missing the hallmark epiphany moments Star Trek is famous for. Mainly, it is missing the philosophical "WOW" factors that don't just blow your mind but rather expands it, making you realise that everything you thought you knew is wrong and that everything you thought the Federation had figured out is also wrong. These expansions used to pave the way for the audience to mentally and emotionally take that next step to, "Boldly go where no man has gone before..."
This movie has no epiphany. Where is the deepness that Star Trek is synonymous with? This movie gives us what? A federation struggling with internal corruption and terrorism, a la the typical disgruntled ex employee, who in this case was cryogenics frozen for 300 years, as is the plot. Big deal. These are familiar themes we've all seen in movies before. Just trade the Federation for any corrupt financial, medical, educational, government and or religious institution. Trade the "John Harrison" character for any Bond villain and you have a movie that sounds like a bunch of other movies or what the news broadcasts. Boring.
To me the Federation meant a time in the future when Humanity had finally gotten its act together and to a certain extent had rooted out all this corruption and terrorism. Unless a Klingon or Romulan shows up, things are supposed to be refreshingly illuminating. Not something that degrades into ordinary, mainstream, average caveman fist fight showdowns.
How can we boldly go where no man has gone before in the future unless we have thrown off the shackles of the past? What a sad/shamey day it is when a Star Trek movie presents a not so optimistic future just as dark as today's headlines. I can read/watch the news/The Matrix if I want that. IS THERE NO ESCAPE?!!! IS THERE NO HOPE?!!!
Obviously, Gene Roddenberry's spirit could not find a way to keep the franchise on track. Will, (Vulcan fingers crossed) Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike know the difference between the wealth of deepness and the poverty of darkness?
In the movie theatre I heard a complaint from an old school Trekkie that the second installment of the Star Trek reboot had too many "Little Archie and Veronica" moments.
This is true and it would be OK if that were just the icing on the cake. The real problem with the movie is that it runs like a typical SciFi action plot inserted under a Star Trek banner.
This movie is missing the hallmark epiphany moments Star Trek is famous for. Mainly, it is missing the philosophical "WOW" factors that don't just blow your mind but rather expands it, making you realise that everything you thought you knew is wrong and that everything you thought the Federation had figured out is also wrong. These expansions used to pave the way for the audience to mentally and emotionally take that next step to, "Boldly go where no man has gone before..."
This movie has no epiphany. Where is the deepness that Star Trek is synonymous with? This movie gives us what? A federation struggling with internal corruption and terrorism, a la the typical disgruntled ex employee, who in this case was cryogenics frozen for 300 years, as is the plot. Big deal. These are familiar themes we've all seen in movies before. Just trade the Federation for any corrupt financial, medical, educational, government and or religious institution. Trade the "John Harrison" character for any Bond villain and you have a movie that sounds like a bunch of other movies or what the news broadcasts. Boring.
To me the Federation meant a time in the future when Humanity had finally gotten its act together and to a certain extent had rooted out all this corruption and terrorism. Unless a Klingon or Romulan shows up, things are supposed to be refreshingly illuminating. Not something that degrades into ordinary, mainstream, average caveman fist fight showdowns.
How can we boldly go where no man has gone before in the future unless we have thrown off the shackles of the past? What a sad/shamey day it is when a Star Trek movie presents a not so optimistic future just as dark as today's headlines. I can read/watch the news/The Matrix if I want that. IS THERE NO ESCAPE?!!! IS THERE NO HOPE?!!!
Obviously, Gene Roddenberry's spirit could not find a way to keep the franchise on track. Will, (Vulcan fingers crossed) Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike know the difference between the wealth of deepness and the poverty of darkness?
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Star Trek: En la oscuridad
- Luoghi delle riprese
- The Getty Center - 1200 Getty Center Drive, Brentwood, Los Angeles, California, Stati Uniti(Star Fleet Headquarters)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 190.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 228.778.661 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 70.165.559 USD
- 19 mag 2013
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 467.365.246 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore 12 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti