As a long standing fan of 'Star Trek' I've watched it develop and change over the years but 'Star Trek : Into Darkness' is by far the worst of the genre.This film has nothing of the original Star Trek left. There is none of the moral compass and none of the humour; in fact, there is very little of anything except noise, flashing images, shouting, more noise, impossible 'action', more noise and a quite incomprehensible story line. The characters are paper thin, the acting non-existent and the dialogue nearly so; all has been sacrificed on the altar of cgi, no doubt in order to attract modern audiences who seem to prefer the never-ending 'crash bank wallop' that this allows to anything which is remotely realistic. Kirk, Spock and the rest rush around doing who-knows-what and the whole thing adds up to a pile of nonsensical tripe. Benedict Cumberbatch resurrected as the great villain Khan is a joke; the gung-ho behaviour of Kirk, and even Spock, betrays their original characters and Simon Pegg's Scotty defies description. There is no subtlety, only brashness and violence. I repeat - this is tripe.

A very mixed bag, they essentially made the same movie a second time and it comes off as very stale. The characters go through the motions of their established characters without much care or integrity. The formulaic plot is not aided by the refreshing approach of the first film of this cinematic cycle of star trek. There are lots of well done action set pieces and performances but there is little cohesion or sincerity in the plot to stay invested for the full run time and nothing about the story will stick with you after the day that you see it, especially if you are familiar with the original source material.

I thought this movie was good when I first watched it, but as I thought about it the next day I realized that it makes no sense. Captain Kirk holds Dr. Who the "prisoner" on his ship and protects him because he believed the prisoner's lie, and instead of negotiating logically with the star fleet captain, the star fleet captain opens fire on him...They end up forming an "alliance" to board the star fleet's ship and overthrow them. But then, the prisoner becomes hostile and turns on Captain Kirk. In the end, the prisoner takes control of the supership (instead of Kirk assuming control of the superior ship) and Kirk finds a clever way to destroy the super ship with the prisoner on it...So in the end, both ships were destroyed and the star fleet captain killed (along with his crew and daughter, I think. I don't remember because I fell asleep at some point). And ultimately the prisoner had evil intentions as well! So Captian Kirk essentially made the worst decision he could have made in bargaining with a prisoner and jeopardized the lives of thousands of crew members for an unnecessary and pointless cause (believing a lie). Then he is heralded as some sort of hero, when he could have obeyed his superior's orders and all of this could have been adverted!Of course, this is never addressed in the movie, and instead there is a long and sobby vaccum-chamber scene. I just hated all the slow gushy scenes in this movie and the close-ups of that actor's face all the time. It's like the movie was constructed for women to watch... young women.I'm a fan of science and science fiction though, so I still "enjoyed" this.

A reckless young battleship commander hunts down the assassin of his mentor, but needs the assassin's help to counter a threat from within.Flashy action story with a confused concept. The opening sequence addresses the clash between the ethics of the organisation and the swashbucklng of our hero, but it makes a mockery of the thoughtful side of Star Trek and doesn't tie in with the rest of the plot. After that we're left with something like Top Gun - a barely disguised homage to American military might without any insight on the responsibilities of power or the potential of human collaboration. There is nothing to explain how the organisation could become so corrupted that it promotes war, and the the threat from the villain seems to come from nowhere - I don't know much about the Star Trek universe, so I'm just commenting on the internal logic of the story, but the year 1945 seems to have significance.The drama is limited, with simple-minded relationships, and the actors don't need to do much. Best performances are from the villain, with the usual icy British superiority, and a bit of steam rising from Uhuru's passion.The director fits the pieces together fairly tight and throws in plenty of punch-ups, but there's not much of interest.Overall: nothing to distinguish this from a dumb action movie.