First read this io9 review of the film.
The movie Star Trek Into Darkness is a nice film, let down by plot holes especially in the second half. JJ “Lens Flare” Abrams manages to make another visually brilliant movie. It was good not great.
There are possible spoilers ahead, be warned.
Firstly, I saw the movie and later the same day I saw the 2009 Star Trek movie. Only then is it obvious why the older movie was so much better. A better story, great villain, introduction to the characters, etc., etc. The newer film is definitely well made, but does not match up to the first instalment.
What’s with the plot holes?
The 72 torpedoes are carrying cryo pods instead of warheads, right? So what makes them explode? Just the detonators?
If there are 72 other special genetically modified blood donors available, why try to save/capture Harrison?
Having said that the stuff around the Prime Directive and Kirk’s maturation are good to see. Kirk is definitely less of a cowboy in this film though he is willing to go to the edge of the law/cross the line from time to time. Chris Pine, Benedict Cumberbatch and the rest of the cast do a fine job of things. Great casting does help to make a great film.
Overall a fun, very watchable movie. Just ignore the last bit of the film.