Star Trek Into Darkness

Golly I think my title sums up everything I wanted to say. As far as basic plot goes, there's nothing particularly new here: a psycho super being plans to kill people and blow up things while the Enterprise is, for the millionth time, "the only ship in the quadrant". This movie is very lazily written, sort of like that homework assignment you slapped together on the bus to school but with a multi zillion dollar budget. But before you transport off this page, bear in mind the film's saving grace...

There are a ton of groan-worthy, yet very effective, references to the old Star Trek universe, making this a pretty entertaining watch even though I sound like I'm slamming it harder than a shuttle craft making Emergency Landing Plan B ("B! As in BARRICADE"). That plus a ton of dazzling special effects and nonstop action prompt me to rate this movie a definite WORTHWHILE WATCH, even though my inner Trek nerd is screaming for you to avoid it like that episode "Spock's Brain".

No, this is NOT a remake of the incomparable "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982) although it does feature the characters Khan as well as Dr. Carol Marcus.

No, Khan does not show off his bulging pecs as only the late great Ricardo Montalban could do.

YES, there is a sneaky remake of the famous radiation "you'll flood the chamber" scene which is fun to watch.

YES, Chris Pine does an admirable job of playing Captain Kirk as the charmingly arrogant young captain who doesn't like to lose.

YES, Zachary Quinto does an admirable job of playing the stoic Mr Spock, and YES there is a cameo by Leonard Nimoy as the original Spock.

YES, Dr, McCoy says "Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a ---!"

and lastly, YES, at a certain point in the movie someone does, in fact, yell: "KHAAaaAaAAAAAaaANNN!!!"

So what more needs to be said. Great popcorn flick. Fun little nods to the old Trek series. It doesn't require too many brain cells. But then again, neither does "Spock's Brain" and we still love it.

Yes it's just pure fun. Not a Star Trek fan but I loved the action, the acting and the story. Good visuals and great entertainment. Recommended, 8/10

As much as I liked Abrams' 2009 re-boot of the Star Trek series, I liked this second installment better. I think that's because there was less of an obligation to fill up back-story, and more ability to go deeper both into plot, and into the emotions of these new, younger versions of the characters we now (re) know. Add to that Benedict Cumberbatch makes a complex and compelling villain, even if the character does borrow from other sources, including Rutger Hauer in "Blade Runner".

The humor is funny, the emotional scenes have a real impact, the battles are exciting, the acting is excellent, the plot twists are clever, and the more epic 'big' moments are really effective.

There are flaws; some plot twists can be seen coming a mile off, there are a few painful cheats or jumps in logic, and a handful of too-easy coincidences. But for a big summer blockbuster this has more smarts, style, punch and humanity than most.

Boldly going where no man (or woman or gender fluid) has gone before, climb aboard the Enterprise and let it fly and soar, as old friends gather, reunite, off to battle and to fight, strange new worlds, civilisations to explore.

A renegade from the future rewrites his score, it's as if he wandered through another door, it's a better incarnation, riven through with lamentation, leaves Ricardo full of wrath just like before.

Embrace it or you'll lose it, change is good, just let your imagination take you away, it's only a story after all.

We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.

In the movie theatre I heard a complaint from an old school Trekkie that the second installment of the Star Trek reboot had too many "Little Archie and Veronica" moments.

This is true and it would be OK if that were just the icing on the cake. The real problem with the movie is that it runs like a typical SciFi action plot inserted under a Star Trek banner.

This movie is missing the hallmark epiphany moments Star Trek is famous for. Mainly, it is missing the philosophical "WOW" factors that don't just blow your mind but rather expands it, making you realise that everything you thought you knew is wrong and that everything you thought the Federation had figured out is also wrong. These expansions used to pave the way for the audience to mentally and emotionally take that next step to, "Boldly go where no man has gone before..."

This movie has no epiphany. Where is the deepness that Star Trek is synonymous with? This movie gives us what? A federation struggling with internal corruption and terrorism, a la the typical disgruntled ex employee, who in this case was cryogenics frozen for 300 years, as is the plot. Big deal. These are familiar themes we've all seen in movies before. Just trade the Federation for any corrupt financial, medical, educational, government and or religious institution. Trade the "John Harrison" character for any Bond villain and you have a movie that sounds like a bunch of other movies or what the news broadcasts. Boring.

To me the Federation meant a time in the future when Humanity had finally gotten its act together and to a certain extent had rooted out all this corruption and terrorism. Unless a Klingon or Romulan shows up, things are supposed to be refreshingly illuminating. Not something that degrades into ordinary, mainstream, average caveman fist fight showdowns.

How can we boldly go where no man has gone before in the future unless we have thrown off the shackles of the past? What a sad/shamey day it is when a Star Trek movie presents a not so optimistic future just as dark as today's headlines. I can read/watch the news/The Matrix if I want that. IS THERE NO ESCAPE?!!! IS THERE NO HOPE?!!!

Obviously, Gene Roddenberry's spirit could not find a way to keep the franchise on track. Will, (Vulcan fingers crossed) Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike know the difference between the wealth of deepness and the poverty of darkness?