Buy Star Trek Into Darkness movie online, buy Star Trek Into Darkness 2013 online, buy Star Trek Into Darkness movie download, Star Trek Into Darkness movie buy online, where can i buy the movie Star Trek Into Darkness, where can i buy Star Trek Into Darkness movie, where can you buy Star Trek Into Darkness the movie, where to buy Star Trek Into Darkness movie?
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
720p 1280x534 px 6541 Mb h264 1536 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 1382 Mb mpeg4 1458 Kbps avi Download
DVD-rip 640x272 px 943 Mb mpeg4 995 Kbps avi Download
Reviews
Star Trek hijacked by Hollywood terrorists
An old WWII movie on TV just now had the lines, "Just think about the peaceful past," "I've almost forgotten it." Right.

Went to see a Star Trek movie and a sequel to the last one, which I recollect as alright. Hollywood, though has not only forgotten the peaceful past, the Rodenberry vision that set Trek part from any other space operas. They've deliberately hijacked the characters, made them into a terrorist sleeper cell now activated in our midst to bring us explosions, Star Fleet on steroids, Spock jumping from the roof of one in-flight vehicle to another to show us he's not really that intellectual wuss Hollywoood hates-- he's a tough street fighter--get ,im, Spock!

All 3D and action clichés, no ideas or vision, cartoon characters not worth...no wait, this is no accident or lazy business. The terrorists are on the bridge and they're going to land this ship where they damn well planned to--straight down the lowest common denominator path, shearing off the tops of buildings, sucking the wallets out of the pockets of customers satisfied with overpriced popcorn special effects, and landing right in the money. Kaboom.

If you want big popcorn, go get it.
2013-05-25
Something is Lacking
This was great to watch, but don't know about 3D as the screen kept having to focus on a lot of shots and also that there were a lot of close ups showing all the creases on all their faces. I waited a long time for this and was unimpressed firstly by the score and how it kept repeating again and again the same tune over and over again. I can't decide if an actual score was made or they just copied it exactly from the first start trek movie. The score needs to be rethought to give the films an edge along with a better looking bridge as it looks like it was created in a holding program in the matrix. There was a rumor that Khan was in the film and we know what happens to him from the original series. What happens to him in this one??? they don't show you! Please come up with an original story line!! If you are going to reinvent or re-imagine films then do not bring back old story lines or characters! Someone was right about Chris Pine in his uniform looking like a ken doll. I enjoyed watching and Mr Spock whose hair kept jumping up and down as he ran. I hope the next movie will be better and I know it will be better as it will be based in deep space and no contact with earth.
2013-05-13
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
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
Star Trek: Into Bad Fan-Fiction...
This would give Prometheus a run for it's money, but at least Star Treks plot made sense. Only problem is it was really reaching to connect the dots. So much that if Gene was alive today, it would have killed him.

In fact I'm calling out anyone attached to this movie as to really being a Trek fan. Star Trek isn't suppose to be about Halo firefights, starting wars, and building warships. It's suppose to be how we as humans came together as technology on earth advanced. Then traveled the stars sharing our wisdom to civilizations who were just like we once were.

If anything this movie is a reflection on today's society and it's sickens me. When the original TV showed aired it was during troubled times ( I'm only 37, but I learned all about that stuff from The Wonder Years). People 30 and under had little hope for the future.

Wars, Cold Wars, Nukes, Political Corruption-- No one at that time thought we as the human race would live to see the year 2000. Then came Star Trek. It showed a future where mankind put its differences aside. We worked together for a common goal. We seek knowledge through exploration and looking back at our own history.

And not only that, but we were the conscience that helped others see the wrongs they were committing. Star Trek gave young people hope.

THEN THERE'S THIS MOVIE

Explosions, Loud music, Gun Fights, Fist fights, head squashing, jumping, running, explosions, explosions, explosions. Did I mention Explosions?!! I'm not sure because this movie probably had more explosions than TOS and TNG combined.

This is an insult to what Trek once was. It pisses on what Star Trek 2 was really about-- The man who never faced death, but stared it in the face-- Only in this one he dies and is brought back to life without a sequel. It crapped all over Kahn as well, who was in essence a remnant of who the human race was in the late 20th century. NOT A FREAKING SUPER SOLDIER WHO JUST MURDER-DEATH-KILLED FOR NO REASON.

AND ABOUT THAT PLOT.

Kahn was a one man army in this movie-- So one would think if he defrosted his people, all 72 of them, they'd be unstoppable-- Instead he puts them in Torpedoes to ruin Robocops plan of starting a war with the Klingons to defrost them later...WHAT THE AM I TALKING ABOUT I DUNNO BUT THAT WAS THE PLOT!!

This movie is for morons who couldn't get into the original Star Trek because they probably see it as old, boring, and full of bad actors. Let's not forget the pride of TOS was the fact all 80 episodes were well written.

Something Into Darkness isn't. This isn't even good fan-fiction. This is an embarrassment. It cost millions to make, it will make over billion at the box office.

Like I said, this is more of a reflection on our society in general and it disturbs me that Star Trek as turned into a mindless 2 hr romp and not a beacon of hope for the future of mankind like the original series did.

The only HOPE these JJ Treks bring is the Star Wars movies he'll make will be just as mindless, which fits perfectly for Star Wars, not for Star Trek.
2013-05-18
JJ should be banned from touching Star Trek....
I am a huge Star Trek fan, and really did enjoy the first instalment of this re-boot when it came out a few years ago. So it was with very high expectations that I went to the theatre on Saturday night to see "Into Darkness". I saw it in 3-D IMAX.

Well, what a disappointment. And it is pretty much completely the fault of the director, Jar Jar Abrams. Abrams is a classic example of someone that got too popular too quickly, as sooner or later his inexperience and immaturity were going to screw it up for him… unfortunately, Into Darkness is where he finally messed up (although some might say Super 8 was that film).

Basically, Abrams only knows how to make one thing: "Lost". Everything else he has done since then has essentially been Lost, re-badged.

The style of this one-trick-pony has just become tiresome, and oh so predictable. Injecting drama into everything is hardly the right formula for a sci-fi action flick, but it is like he couldn't help himself.

The resulting plot and dialogue was so very lame.

I can't remember the exact lines, but let me paraphrase some for you:

Kirk: "Spock! Damn you, why can't you feel any emotions???" Spock: "I do Kirk! But I hide them coz my mother died and I was so sad". Kirk: "You have always been my bestest friend!" Spock: "Don't die Kirk! You are my bestest friend too!"

Basically the entire film was ruined with terrible dramatic scenes and tears and just really uncomfortable acting – this definitely ain't how Star Trek should be.

Abrams over-played the Kirk-Spock relationship so much I was almost expecting them to have sex. Seriously.

And of course there are some completely useless and WTF characters e.g. Dr. Carol Marcus. I know she was in the original, but in this one she basically had no role other than large boobs.

Here is praying that Abrams doesn't get to direct the next one….
2013-05-12
I read the official Star Trek Into Darkness Spoiler FAQ
You had the person providing details to basically every primary scene of the move, every twist and turn in the plot. The movie was nothing more than poppy cock and balder dash, I would say hilarious if it were not for the fact completel unbelievable, pure fantasy in no way true Sci-Fi.. Khan cooperating with a Star Fleet Admiral, freezing lava with a Cold Fusion bomb, ha!, cold fusion bombs do not create cold. Super humans in torpedoes, yet again retarded, super star ship, Enterprise getting the crap beat out of it, after Scotty plugged up all the toilets of Death Star ship , can not recall what he did but creating massive pressure to build until it exploded. The idiot who in his review said he loved this movie must love the way wet cow manure sticks to anything you throw it at, no taste for cinema art whatsoever. Forgot to mention I also loved the part about Bones injecting a dead Tribble with Khan's blood and it coming back to life, and used the same technique to bring Kirk back to life. None of this movie was based on science in any essence of the word, merely bunk, junk, garbage, to quote Johnny 5: "Shiat, where you see shiat", I'll tell you where, watching J.J. Abrams mangled, twisted, bastardized versions of Star Trek.
2013-05-24
A complicated case of uncomplicated story
It is really a bit difficult for me to comment on this movie, because the people I joined in watching it all thought it was excellent. I did not, and I think I know the reason: I love "The Wrath of Khan". For a few hours after watching it, I was sort of preoccupied with the question if knowing the old movie(s) should somehow improve your experience of "Into Darkness". By now I am sure: It doesn't.

"Into Darkness" is a modern action movie with great fighting scenes, effects and a near to perfect acting performance by Benedict Cumberbatch. That proved to be enough to yield a great cinematic experience in the past, if well done, and it should be here. If you do not know Star Trek or what it stands (stood) for.

Things started to get out of hand once I noticed that the plot was some alternative timeline to the Khan-events. But they somehow managed to take out nearly all the aspect making "The Wrath of Khan" a great movie, in my opinion. "The Wrath of Khan" was sort of a chamber drama, mainly starring Kirk, getting older, and Khan, being riven by grief and his wrath. It was intense, Khan hating Kirk from all his heart, and Kirk using all his wits to defeat his foe. It had some clearly defined, evolving characters, but mainly focused on Kirk and his opponent. It had philosophy, and a (though maybe too obvious) meaning. All in all, it was Star Trek.

Now how about "Into Darkness"? If we just forget about Khan for a moment, every dialogue seemed to be devised to either a) have an action scene as a consequence or b) provide comic relief. There was, for example, no depth in Uhura and Spock discussing their relationship or Spock's thoughts about feeling. There could not have been any, because there was no time to elaborate and reflect. It was a fast roller-coaster trip on multiple routes. In other words: The golden thread, so obvious in "The Wrath of Khan", was either lacking or I simply missed it. (If it was just a simple "friendship is great", uh, well...).

Was the repetition of dialogues from "The Wrath of Khan" with different speakers something like a humorous reference to the past? It seems so, because I cannot derive any sensible meaning from, for example, exchanging Kirk and Spock and so on. Carol Marcus? She did not add anything of interest to the plot (just some boobs...). I would have expected a bit more from the woman supposed to be the mother of Kirks son.

As a side note, am I the only one thinking that it is odd that star fleet officers, even captains, sort of behave like schoolboys? I would have thought it would take more maturity to be in command of a spaceship...

In summary, I would have like this movie as an action movie. Maybe even loved it. Maybe I could have accepted it being named "Star Trek" if it had not referred to "The Wrath of Khan" and the other timeline in general too often. But as it is, I do not manage to like it. Sorry.
2013-05-16
Watch it and ignore the critics!
We watched ' Star Trek - Into the Darkness this afternoon (May 9th 2013).

I am not going to reveal specific details because this film is so new that I am aware that many people still have not had the opportunity to watch it, and I do not wish to ruin their experience.

Having read the points raised in the 'maddog' review I just wanted to say that we found it to be a truly absorbing and brilliant film, and our views are so diametrically opposed to 'maddog' that I genuinely wonder if he/or she actually watched the same film - or slept through it and took a wild guess as to its quality.

Star Trek - Into the Darkness is mainly a fast paced action film interspersed with scenes of human interest which facilitates the deeper development of the main characters and their inter-relationships. The phrase 'bonding under fire seems appropriate.

I would urge people not to be dissuaded from watching this film because a reviewer cannot see the link between Gene Roddenberry's much vaunted ideals and therefore trashes J.J. Abrams work. Let me just say that as I am in my 66th year, I have watched ALL the Star Trek series and films and can advise that this film combines a serious reflection of William Shatner's portrayal of James T. Kirk but also matures Chris Pine as the film progresses. As Roddenberry was closely involved with original Star Trek series I therefore believe that he would approve the direction that Abrams is taking the latest incarnation of Star Trek.

Star Trek - Into the Darkness is aptly named. It is rich in plot detail and exciting to watch. It will have many people sitting on the edge of their seats, willing those embroiled in battle to succeed. Even the villain (stunningly portrayed by Benedict Cumberpatch) warrants a certain amount of sympathy from all fair minded people.

My advice - Go, Watch - and be thrilled by a brilliant film. We will go and see it again!!

Our thanks to all those involved in bringing this to our screen - great job!
2013-05-09
We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.
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?
2013-08-08
See Also
Georgina Fisher (Houston) Maybe you are looking J.J. Abrams for where can i buy the movie Star Trek Into Darkness? Here you can download it legally. Anne Tran (Indianapolis) It is very likely that you want to find a website Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi where can i buy Star Trek Into Darkness movie 2013? You are moving in the right direction and are in the right place! Donald Conrad (Brooklyn) Favorite actors: 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 in search of an answer to the question where can you buy Star Trek Into Darkness the movie USA? You have found this Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi genre on this page. Darren Conley (Dallas) Among the huge collection of films in 2013 in the formats mkv, mp4, avi, mov, and flv it was difficult to find where to buy Star Trek Into Darkness movie? But my favorite film director J.J. Abrams shot this film in the USA in 2013.
×