Star Trek Into Darkness [** SPOILERS FROM POST 452 **]

As someone who - shame on me - has never looked upon Star Trek as anything more significant than a bit of cheesy sci-fi fun every now and again, the first Abram's film ticked all the boxes for me - a straightforward, thrilling spectacle film that delivered exactly what it set out to do, albeit with some undeniable script shortcuts along the way. Thought this was pretty much on the same level - neither significantly better nor worse. The freshness has unsurprisingly worn off, and there are moments that retread past ground (both Star Trek '09 and wider franchise). I can't imagine many critics of the first hopping giddily on-board this time, and could easily see how some fans would be frustrated by the lack of evolutionary ambition. But for this viewer anyway it was still a thoroughly enjoyable and engaging thrill ride. I've come to increasingly loathe the trajectory of the Hollywood blockbuster, but when presented with a film as rollicking as this, resistance is futile.

Most of this is down to Abrams, who easily remains the most effective director working in the blockbuster realm (with the exception of Nolan, of course, and it's a position that will likely be challenged by some of the other films coming later this year. But I digress.). Critics repeatedly point to his over-fondness for lens flair, and as pointless as that visual quirk of his is, it IMO does not undermine his near peerless ability to make his films absolutely roar with sheer visual force. Now, of course a lot of this is down to his collaborators in the camera, editing and design departments, but there's a sharpness and clarity to the images he puts together and he never forgets about the audience. Framing is dynamic although at the same time clearly defined, while the colouring choices ensure everything leaps off screen - even the lens flair, when employed correctly (and there's a few absurd incidences of it here), can add to that sense of dynamism and energy. Even the oft-neglected 'background' (or, as Mark Cousin calls it, the z-axis) is full of life and detail in this film.

It says a lot for modern blockbusters that simple coherence is such an admirable trait, but Abrams is at the moment anyway peerless in the way he can make CGI heavy, fantastical set pieces come alive. Even if it's just another attack on the Enterprise, the action is always imaginatively presented (and that prologue is just gorgeous). The home stretch here IMO made nearly forty minutes straight of escalating action seem suitably fresh and excited - a compliment I would not pay to any of the other recent efforts at a prolonged third act climax.

I'm focusing too much on Abrams here, because he's backed up by a willing and able cast who never seem less than wildly enthusiastic - few films are gifted such a watchable ensemble, and they make their iconic characters seem credible and interesting again. The script, meanwhile, is undoubtedly lacking in the intellect department - a thematically complex piece of writing this is not. But, in spite of myself, I forgive it, given that every single dialogue exchange is so lively and engaging - assisted, of course, by the talented players and a director whose prime objective is to ensure we're never bored. And, speaking for myself here, I certainly wasn't. Iron Man 3 for me was a slog that seemed around two times longer than it actually was - this, comparatively, flew by as a result of its tightly controlled pacing and endearingly relentless momentum.

Having watched Wrath of Khan in the relatively recent past, I thought this walked the various lines between remake, re-imagining, homage and sequel comfortably. As a viewer casually familiar with the overall scope of the film series but not feeling a particularly strong emotional or nostalgic connection to it, I was kept interested as it ticked along even when I was a couple of steps ahead (there was around twenty minutes when I was just thinking 'use Khan's blood already. Jeez!'). Cumberbatch made for a strong, charismatic screen presence, but it's the interaction between the members of the Enterprise crew that continues to make this new generation so worthy of our attention.

Michael Giacchino's score is firmly in the 'if it ain't broke...' camp, but given it's one of the few blockbuster soundtracks if this young millenia to recapture that sense of innocent, hummable excitement, I'm not complaining.

With a couple of exceptions, I don't think it takes as many questionable scripting and narrative shortcuts as its predecessor, but I'm not under any illusions whatsoever that this is a tale where 'logic' is best put aside for two hours or so. Deep analysis is an exercise in the purest futility. I'm also extremely conscious of the fact that, despite the nice things I have to say about, Into Darkness' goals and artistic ambitions are limited to providing a steady burst of thrills and some simple but involving character work. Perhaps on a Friday night after a tiring week in work it caught me in an ideal and forgiving frame of mind.

Star Trek Into Darkness is nothing more than a rollercoaster or other funfair ride of your choice (I'll stop with the metaphors now), but **** it, I cannot possibly deny that I enjoyed the hell out of it.