Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

I will own up to actually quite enjoying this. It has less of the holier-than-thou moralism of some of the "Star Trek" features and is basically just a sci-fi adventure that pitches Chris Pine ("Kirk") and his crew against enemies as they say - both foreign and domestic! The dynamic between Pine and "Spock" (Zachary Quinto) still doesn't quite work for me; but Karl Urban makes for quite a good "McCoy" complete with all his daft metaphors. (The less said about Simon Pegg's "Scotty", the better - but fortunately, he features sparingly). The "Enterprise" must track down the arch-criminal "Khan" (Benedict Cumberbatch) - responsible for a bombing in London and then an attack on Starfleet Command - in dangerous Klingon territory and off they set armed with some distinctly dodgy torpedoes. There's a bit of jovial banter between the unlikely couple of "Uhura" and "Spock" which raises a smile, and Anton Yeltsin still has trouble with the computer comprehending his "w's". It's got plenty of phaser fights, the shirts get ripped quite a few times and the story has a bit of definition to help it move along. The last fifteen minutes do, however, drag out the ending just a bit too much - but hey, if you are looking for some high-end science fiction with a few twists in the plot and a good look to it, then you could do worse than this

**JJ Abrams should never make anything Trek related again**
This is an absurd piece of cinema. Another review said that only trekkies would like this, but the opposite is true. He creates action sequences that build up some momentum, but its resolution is never shown. Chekov (the skinny geek) holds Kirk who holds Scotty from falling down, in a ship that is in a failing orbit entering Earth's atmosphere. Cut to 5 second bridge talk, cut back and they're walking the corridor.
Are you joking?
This feels like a McG wannabe, that doesn't know how to create the over the top resolutions. But then again, no trekkie wants McG to touch Star Trek either.
This approach undermines both the ethos of Star Trek and Abrams’ own attempts at tension-building. By failing to lean into either intelligent problem-solving or fully-committed absurdity, these moments feel hollow.
The frustrating part is that Star Trek has proven over decades that thoughtful storytelling can be just as thrilling—if not more so—than high-octane sequences. Abrams’ refusal to trust the intelligence of his audience or his characters is a major reason why his take on the franchise divides fans so sharply.
Absurd. Even more absurd that the movie made a profit.