Brilliant At Times, Overblown At Others

Rating: 7/10 (17 May 2013)

It seems the people associated with the legacy of Gene Roddenberry can never find the power themselves "to go where no man has gone before" (which sounds awfully sexist even as I write it)....
Many of the Star Treks are only rehashes of previous Star Trek shows, or rehashes of Star Trek movies, or rehashes of rehashes of either----a common theme to Star Trek movie scripts. This one's no different. And, it's not only a rehash of previous Star Treks, but it also rips off key plot from another movie, K-19 The Widowmaker.
I truly loved 2009's Star Trek movie (NOTE: perhaps the one true exception to the lack of novelty which afflicts the ST genre) which introduced us to the young persona of the TV show cast. It was an excellent movie, though there were times when it stretched credibility. One thing that a movie, even a fantasy sci-fi, ought to respect is biological limitations: when we see a person in a serious fight receiving numerous blows from objects, fists, feet, elbows----and then we see them with virtually NOTHING showing as damaged (no bruises, cuts, scrapes, swelling, etc)...it loses me. I really want some verisimilitude here. Any movie which involves physical harm should show the induced harm and unless there is some form of accelerated healing ---which is part of the cover story Star Trekkers will advance--- the sequelae of the fight ought to be as realistic as possible. Jack Nicholson's character had his nose cut in "Chinatown" and wore a misfitting face bandage for quite a while. It was appropriate, and it engendered more of a sympathy for his kindred humanity. The more we can identify with the sufferings of characters, the more we can feel for their travails....the more we can project ourselves vicariously into their travails.
But ---when there is a terribly violent fight....and the person suddenly stands up and dusts themselves off and looks unscathed....the reality has been compromised at a very visceral level.
I have two primary objections to this movie and both involve the extremely unrealistic nature of recovery after battle damage, both to the characters and to the vessels they occupy.
I refuse to ever give out details that would constitute spoiler for those who haven't seen a movie, and I find myself constrained here to not say more than generalization. Which is too bad. It would be nice to take the real key scenes to which I most object and detail why they so offend. But I won't.
On the very plus side we have some excellent acting. It is difficult to fault any of the acting in this movie, it's that good. Camera work is at times gorgeously beautiful. The opening sequence itself I thought glorious. The city scapes are the stuff of an architect's wet dreams. The CGI digital sequences flawlessly and seamlessly flow. I love the 3D for movies like this.
Overall, what I felt was that the movie started very very well, moved to some very nice plot complications and maintained a high level of tension effectively for the viewer, but ended somewhat weakly-------had they been able to keep that same strength throughout the entirety of the movie I would have given it a 9....but because of the failure to observe simple biological boundaries, and because the plot attenuated toward the end I could only give it a 7.
Liked it a lot, but didn't love it. Vastly preferred Star Trek (2010).