As you are about to see, I have some issues with Star Trek Into Darkness, but because of J.J. Abrams's annoying dedication to his mystery box (everything he does has to be treated as some secret or mind blowing spoiler when in actuality he's just over-hyping something simple), I can't fully explain why. As such, some of this review will be in a spoiler hider-thing, but just so you know, it really isn't a spoiler worth keeping and most of those following this movie have probably already figured it out.

Also, while I wouldn't call myself a Trekkie, or Trekker, or whatever is less offensive to those fans, I am a fan of the franchise, so keep that in mind while reading this review.

Abram's Star Trek movies are the Bayformers of the franchise. Not to say they are as bad as any one of those movies. Let it be known that Into Darkness is an all around okay movie that provides two hours of entertainment. But in order to really enjoy it requires that you, as the common folk say, "turn off your brain".

Not that I actually find that statement or the movies that use it as a defense agreeable (if I have to cease to utilize basic logic and overlook any glaring flaw in a film just to watch it, it probably isn't my cup of tea), nor do I find Abram's argument that "This isn't your father's Star Trek" very palatable (it's that Star Trek I became a fan of), but I digress. The series was in desperate need of rejuvenation, and while I don't think the 2009 reboot is the bet representation of what made the original series unique and great (less of a focus on action and violence and more on exploration and intelligence, aside from the occasional fight between Kirk and the villain-of-the-week), eh, I like it. Not as much as I used to, but I think it's a well-made movie, aside from the freaking lens flare.

And I'm willing to forgive a deviation from the series's regular tone and structure if they forged ahead and made this sequel its own separate beast.

But it didn't. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Instead of just doing it's own thing, it squanders any potential it has on pandering fan service (a lot of this will probably go over the general public's head, Trekkers will notice the shout-outs and they will get old really fast) and a needless retread of one of the franchise's shining moments.

And all this comes to a head in the second half of the movie, when the big secret they've been keeping is revealed.

From then on out, the movie starts stumbling over convoluted plot structure, an anti-climax, and deus ex machina after deus ex machina, the last of which feels straight out of Transformers 2 (and it's even accompanied by the same glaring plot hole).

But again, I should stress that the movie isn't horrible. It's a great looking film, the action scenes are visceral and exciting (the devastation and plummeting of the Enterprise in particular is great), Michael Giacchino's score is fantastic, and the cast, for the most part, is solid, (especially Simon Pegg, who just steals every scene he's in as Scotty), thought at this point, it just feels like they're just going through the motion because the movie doesn't give them anything interesting to do.

But the script just messes it up for me in the second half. I dunno, you guys may be able to overlook that and just enjoy the movie as it is, but I can't. It just gets way too sloppy for me to just not focus on its faults.

I've been feeling trepidation since Abrams was revealed to be directing Star Wars: Episode VII, and this movie did not help matters.

6/10

P.S. A bit of advice: when making a Star Trek movie, you should never invite comparisons to Wrath of Khan. That never works out.

P.S.S. The Klingons in this movie suck.

P.S.S.S. There's no more lens flare, which is cool and everything, but that's not really a compliment.

"At least the movie didn't assault my retina".

P.S.S.S.S. It's kind of cool seeing Mickey Smith as a Starfleet officer.