Technically Bigger. Emotionally Smaller.

Rating: 6/10 (10 May 2013)

JJ Abrams delivered a neatly-woven prequelboot in 2009 which admirably established already iconic characters with a new perspective and vision. What worked for that movie was that it was a refreshing take on the franchise, and maintaining the old roots.
Now he returns with a sequel, and as the case is with most of the sequels, they tend to be grander and bigger than its former instalment.
Star Trek Into Darkness is grander and bigger (also grittier, because we live in a post-the Dark Knight world), but unfortunately, it is mostly in relation to the action and technicality instead of emotional investment. And that's kind of ironic considering Abrams' TED Talk, where he insists on emotional depth with technical grandeur for entertainers with a giant budget. I do think he was trying for that approach as it's apparent from the amount of confrontations and conversations between characters amidst all the chaos and boom-bang! The effort is evident, but it is too lazily done.
The film starts off with a promise of intriguing mystery, but the final reveal falls short of the worthiness of build-up. This also gets me back to the Abrams TED Talk where he talks about 'the mystery box'–I won't go in depth of that talk, see the video for yourself–and he's right about 'the mystery box' being in every work of his–LOST, MI:3, Cloverfield. The advantage of this idea is that you have the audience already anticipating something groundbreaking. You have practically already made a promise that it is going to be awesome. And the key here is that the promise has to be delivered. That's exactly where this films falls short. We have this compelling mysterious figure terrorizing the Star Trek Universe, but when the curtains go up, the drums don't sound as loud as they did before. It's just as predictable as it gets, in some aspects, for the better, but mostly for the worse.
It helps that it has Benedict Cumberbatch being all badass and menacing– savagely terrifying. His voice is so evil cold that it sends chills down the spine. It also helps that Simon Pegg's Scott has his own shining moments. It helps that despite of its predictability, there are a few surprises in the bag. It also helps that Abrams' Lens Flare fetish is in more control than ever before. But all of this gets drowned in the disappointing bigger picture. There were a few occurrences where Michael Giacchino's weeping violin score was suggesting me to be really moved by what was going on the screen, but I just wasn't. The characters just seemed distant from me. What's ironic is that the movie's most heavily emotional moment is downright unoriginal, and is in fact lazily lifted from one of the older movies in the franchise, possibly meant as a homage. Homages, I feel, should not be an excuse for building up a story that's been told before. They also shouldn't be shoved in the story just for the sake of fan-service. There are so many references in the movie (good ones, some of them) that it is nearly a remake.
I would add that the movie is visually breathtaking. I would suggest to watch it in IMAX, if possible, since some parts of the movie are shot on actual IMAX cameras, and carry images with immersing resolution. I would also suggest to tone the expectations down. It's fun, but not exactly an improvement over the first one.