Better than the first "reboot" film, but that isn't saying much

Rating: 5/10 (20 May 2013)

Viacom/Paramount made a calculated gamble in giving the Trek franchise to J.J. Abrams. The gamble was that his being an intellectually unsophisticated director known best for empty cleverness and slick visuals -- and who additionally didn't give a sh*t about the original Trek material -- could work in their favor. With a slick enough coat of paint, he could make it look like he was "reviving" the franchise instead of hollowing it out into a witless, mediocre version of its former self.
With the first movie, the gamble worked: even many a dedicated fanboy poured drool over that plot less and mostly-insulting mess because they were thrilled about how new it all looked. I'm heartened to see that at least some of these have started to get wise to the empty trickery that's being offered up to them under the wrapping of the Trek franchise.
Ironically, this has the effect of creating a harsher reaction to what is actually much the better of the two Abrams films. Abrams' Trek is still ridiculous, mind you: its technology and universe inhabiting rubber rules that break suspension of disbelief routinely, its Starfleet still cartoonish and laughable, its cocktail of references to the old films and series serving as reminders of how little its creators "get" any of that material (and that's before we get to "Khan"). It is still Trek for people who never gave a sh*t about Trek -- it's no accident that half of those raving about it usually preface it with "I never really was into Trek, but" -- and just as with the first installment has decided to sacrifice the franchise's unique aspects to make it a contender in the brainless-actioner market. Apparently not understanding that the "I never really was into Trek" audience won't have any more loyalty to this series of brainless actioners than any other.
Having said that: at least "Into Darkness" *had* a plot. Its pieces fit together logically in a way that just can't be managed with its predecessor. Granted, much of that plot was cadged from the far better film "The Wrath of Khan" -- but there was at least fleeting entertainment to be had in watching them reverse the old "beautiful death scene" from that film, and I actually quite enjoyed Quinto's call- out to the old "KHHAAAN!" yell. Of course all the action could have come from any other action franchise (like the "Millennium Falcon" chase on the surface of Kronos) and the wearily-inevitable Leonard Nimoy cameo can go die in a fire along with Scotty's rock-monster sidekick, and the action is unfocused and frenetic and poorly-paced and fades even a performance as good as Cumberbatch's into the background... but what was anyone expecting? We know by now that the Abrams version of the franchise is the Fast and the Furious in Space.
The really great strength of the Abrams films has been not the effects, but the cast. Everyone -- even Yelchin, this time -- does their absolute best with their screen time and with the uninspiring material they're given to work with. These people can act, and clearly love their roles and clearly try to make some emotional impact; it's not their fault that the scripting and pacing is so mediocre. One keeps seeing flashes of what could have been in the hands of a better directing and writing team: like the power Cumberbatch could have brought to his *own* villain role instead of being forced to serve up a retreading of Khan in minimal screen time.
Oh yeah: the effects are great, and the action set-pieces are visually spectacular. But we know it takes more than either of those things to make a movie, right?