So it seems JJ Abrams has traded in too many lens flares for too many closeups. The working title of Star Trek Into Darkness could probably have been "Chris Pine's Facial Pores". Seriously JJ - there is such a thing as long and middle shots too you know, and what's more - if you use them - when you *do* use a closeup, it has more dramatic effect, just sayin'...
Anyway, directorial style flaws aside, my big gripe with STID is that it's "just another" sci-fi movie. What always set Trek apart was that Roddenberry created an enlightened future, a refreshing change of pace to most sci-fi, and the conflict therefore had to come from cleverer places. But with this reboot every character is constantly bickering, I frankly left the theater with a headache as if I'd just been to a teenage kids birthday party. I can get bickering, and grit, and violence from *any* sci-fi feature, and sadly now it seems like Trek has followed suit and lost its original edge. It's not until the very final minute where a little bit of the original Trek feel is re-established, but for me that was far too little, far too late.
There's some giant plot holes too, if you're actually thinking about what's going on. It seems like Abrams hoped that if he put enough glitz and dazzle on the screen, most people would entirely miss the fact that they are there. I guess his gamble was correct, since the film is currently standing at an 8.4 IMDb score.
It's not all bad. Benedict Cumberbatch is an incredible, intense villain and the film is worth seeing for his performance alone. And as with the first, the rest of the cast is exceptional. There's nothing wrong with the acting, music, or look of this film... just a lot wrong with the script and the tone of the whole thing. If you're not a Star Trek fan, you'll likely enjoy it... it's big, frenetic, popcorn munching silliness. But if you are a Trek fan, particularly of the quieter explorations of the human condition that TNG did so well, then you might be pretty disappointed.
