Somewhat disappointing

Rating: 6/10 (20 July 2013)

Star Trek into Darkness does not boldly go where no one has gone before. It's a decent film, very close in spirit to Star Trek history and lore, but offers no surprises. The plot is predictable all the way through, the messages are clean-cut and straightforward, the secondary characters transparent. Most irritating, for me, was the writers' scientific illiteracy. Yes, large scale science fiction can't usually be very accurate in its science, and lots of things here are the series' legacy, so they're untouchable. But Spock's volcano freezing device at the start of the film, for example, or the c-movie resurrection via blood transfusion after a casual stroll in a nuclear reactor core at the end, are pushing it a little too far. Especially the latter is as cliché a plot device, as it is a bad one. Another, minor, point of criticism, is that there is little in the visual sector - alien planets, space, etc. But since the Enterprise hasn't yet embarked on its mission, this is logical.
On the other hand, despite my criticism, this is still a more enjoyable film than the majority of sci-fi blockbusters (I'm looking at you, After Earth). The action scenes are excellent, the cast is very good as a whole, even when they're just imitating the original series (though I think Chekov's heavy accent has aged badly as a character trait), and of course, Benedict Cumberbatch is an excellent choice for the villain. Again, however, while I find the praise for his performance justified, I think his role was much smaller than it ought to have been to make him one of the all-time great villains.
All in all, it feels like JJ Abrams is navigating the Enterprise without taking any risk - he doesn't want to crash it, so he does everything by the book. In that sense he is most unlike Cpt. Kirk.