Better than I hoped, but ...

Rating: 7/10 (10 May 2013)

Right - I grew up watching Trek. I saw the first episode shown on British TV in 1969, and I haven't stopped yet. I am therefore a tough nut to crack with a reboot.
So, how has this got a 7/10 from me when so many others hate it? Let me tell you this - except for a couple of things, it would have been an 8/10, equalling my score for Iron Man 3 last week.
There is a huge amount to like in this film. It is well paced, it neatly pays homage to two of the original films ("Wrath of Khan" and "Undiscovered Country"), and it develops the characters some more. I know some reviewers hear are saying that they don't have enough invested in the characters: well, the number of people wiping their eyes in last night's showing suggests otherwise.
The "new" villain is well drawn, and brilliantly acted by Cumberbatch. He keeps the role just this side of chewing the scenery, and the only thing that will keep this from being a BAFTA-contending performance is the notorious bias awards have against science-fiction.
So, what lost it a whole mark? Warning: here be spoilers!! Firstly, if you are going to mess about with canon, at least be consistent about it. Having the "Enterprise" go into an atmosphere I can (just!) accept on the basis that old Spock may have given technology to the Federation, and starships of Kirk's era have Structural Integrity Fields (tech from TNG). However, you can't then have people sucked out through a hull-breach: the SIF would make that impossible. Regardless of the tech, though, if you are going to change a core feature so much, at least have the decency to give an explanation! Secondly, one deus ex machina in a film is cheesy, having two grates like sand in a sandwich! Calling on old Spock for clues as to the "future" - welllllllll, okay. Having a super-serum that brings the dead back to life - FFS! NO!! That is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle, and is a culture-disrupting event (even allowing the impossibility of Earth tech from 300 years before, i.e. us, being able to do it, and the secret being lost - another irritation). We are now left with the same problem as Iron Man 3 - what are the implications for the recipient of the serum (is he now immortal?) and for the Federation/Star Fleet/other civilisations. However, the chances are that it is going to be forgotten and never mentioned again, unless convenient to the plot.
Thirdly, just like I felt cheated by a Bond film set in Britain, I'm not excited by a ST film set on Earth. It isn't what the franchise is about. Let's hope that the next one does actually "explore strange new worlds, ... seek out new civilisations, (and) boldly go where no-one has gone before". This one didn't.
Fourthly, having Klingons as a mere plot-device is unfair. They are a major part of the Trek universe, and should not be introduced and thrown away inside five minutes. Also, isn't the damage to Praxis that done in "Undiscovered Country"? OK, it's your call, but I'd like future films in the franchise to be done by people who give a damn about what has gone before. The current team have given us a new universe to play with, so let folk with Star Trek in their blood take over.