JJ Abrams and writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof deliver a Star Trek adventure so fun even fundamentalists will enjoy it until the third act.

Rating: 8/10 (20 May 2013)

The Good:
The "Best of Star Trek:" In keeping with the elements that made its predecessor "Star Trek" a general mainstream success ---barring the fundamentalist naysayers who complain about starships being built on Earth among other things--- "Into Darkness" is a salute to the science fiction institution that is Star Trek. In doing this, classic catchphrases, plot points and themes for which Trek is famous are tied into the fabric of the film and are done in such detail that audience members may overlook the fact that this film was produced virtually without a script. Yes, this film was made with a first draft script adaptation of a 70 page story treatment. The writers wrestled with the script so much that they had to delay the film's production by an extra year and had a script that was barely functional enough to film. However, when one takes into account the obvious "Trek Tributes" as well as the other "Easter eggs" hidden in dialogue and plain sight, this cardinal sin of cinema might be overlooked. From the opening title cards to virtually the credits, "Star Trek Into Darkness" catapults itself into the frontiers of adventure and humor creating a fun journey to otherworldly realms with some semblance of a topical message that ties into modern times which is more than what was delivered from the first one.
Balancing Action with Character Development: While new additions to the ensemble, such as Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), are left out in the cold; the classic characters each get their time to shine and grow in this film. Each is done with an acceptable degree of intelligence, except for Uhura (Zoe Saldana) in the third act. The writers took a calculated risk in demonstrating that while the Enterprise crew was brought together at the end of the first film, there's still a little ways to go before they become the famous crew to trek to the stars. This calculation, for all intents and purposes, works. Each senior officer of the Enterprise has their own respective arcs with the biggest belonging to Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) who exchanges some of his reckless tendencies for responsibility when commanding a starship. The filmmakers also bring Kirk and Spock's relationship to the foreground and give it opportunities to grow in a natural way. Again, considering this was done with a shoddy script, this is very commendable and shows the general competency of Abrams and the writers as storytellers. They may not have been able to develop a well-developed script but they understand the mechanics of storytelling well enough to build a serviceable story from a series of action sequences. This is more than can be said about other filmmakers in the action and science fiction genres.
Benedict Cumberbatch's Acting: This goes without saying from the Golden Globe nominated ---and definitely future Oscar winning--- actor. Benedict Cumberbatch does a tremendous job portraying the character of John Harrison, a Starfleet operative who turns against the Federation for reasons he finds immoral. Cumberbatch's acting capacity puts his character easily among the greatest villains in Trek mythology. In addition to Urban's McCoy and Zachary Quinto's Spock, Cumberbatch's performance is the best of the film.
The Bad (Forgivable flaws):
Self-conscious story elements: This is a minor point that audience members may overlook but there are times in this film where Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci provide "safety hatches" for the story in order to say "yes, we know this is silly but please work with us." One of the most obvious "hatches" is conveyed by Scotty (Simon Pegg, ironically through an airlock hatch) about some of the nonstandard capabilities of the Enterprise. Another "hatch" is presented by Kirk in his criticism of Dr. McCoy's (Karl Urban) use of metaphors in describing a situation faced by the crew. While on the one hand these "hatches" maintain a connection with the audience in saying they acknowledge the potential absurdity of the situation, they also serve as a detriment to the film because it implies that those parts of the film are places that the filmmakers have little confidence. These elements are few and far between, audience members may not catch them all but they're there.
The Ugly (Critical flaws in the movie):
"Everything but the kitchen sink" storytelling: On the surface "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a fun space adventure in the spirit of a decent episode of the original series with a budget of $185 million. Beyond the superficial level, however, audience members may be able to see how the storytellers threw every element of the "Star Trek" universe that could remotely service the plot, whether they belonged or not. Nowhere is this more evident than in the third act when "Star Trek Into Darkness" becomes "Star Trek Into Plagiarism." A dramatic plot twist happens in the middle of the movie where friends become enemies and enemies become friends (?) which completely negates the plot's momentum up to that point. From this revelation, all of the originality that was used to build up the plot rapidly collapses as the story shifts gears and ventures into very familiar "Trek" territory. This is the part where the 70 page story treatment for the film evidently ran out of gas and forced the filmmakers to retreat into the archetypes of Trek mythology. The ultimate tragedy is the story that was being built up until that point and even some of the genuinely original elements discussed afterwards were building up to a very fascinating story which could have led directly to an epic sequel that would have written itself. There is a fine line between nostalgia and ripping off material and in the third act the filmmakers cross that line in an attempt to capitalize on the supposed brand recognition of the material. The jury is still out as to whether it will pay off.