Entertaining but amateurish

Rating: 7/10 (22 August 2013)

I generally don't like J.J.Abrams. I think he is a phony who thinks he is the king of science fiction. As a science student, I do think sci-fi requires some imagination and some artistic freedom that enables the Writer/Director to create an enchanting tale which while being "a little" scientifically inaccurate is enjoyable and often serves as an inspiration to future generations of technology as well as film making. Star Trek Into Darkness does not come into that category. While the story and special effects are engaging enough to keep the audience in their seats, I wonder if the movie was able to keep the viewer's mind of questions like "Is that possible?", "Ohh...Come on..There is no way that could happen. Could it?". The only experience I have with this franchise is this movie along with its predecessor which was not that great as well. I have seen parts of J.J.Abram's so called sci-fi work like Lost, Super 8, MI 3, Fringe etc. and my conclusion is that he is very bad at science. The blatant use of plot devices that make no sense to any person who may be remotely familiar with science can be seen in his every work. STID is not an exception. Though it suffers from the Director's vision and competence, the film is not repulsive at all. In fact, I felt that I should disregard whatever faults the film carried in order to enjoy the film and I did. Benedict Sherlock does well to portray a dangerous villain. Apart from that acting is mostly average. Incredible things could have been achieved with that budget and a premise such as Star Trek. But, Abrams fails to produce anything original except a few things that help him get out of corners that he writes himself into. See the film if you have an eye for special effects and the British Sherlock. As I said, it is entertaining but amateurish, which is better than most of Abrams work.