is the closest one to how I reacted to the film that I've found so far. I especially like the point about Kirk punching away at Khan to no effect. The reviewer highlights a perspective on that moment that hadn't occurred to me, but fits into what I thought about the movie as a whole.
That is truly a very intelligent analysis of the movie. I don't know how many of the contemporary comparisons Muir makes were intended by the writers, but Muir finds them anyway without making them feel forced or contrived.
I particularly liked the following:
Star Trek: Into Darkness thus suggests that the “good guys” win when they remember their true values, not when they descend to the level of barbarian, or give in to passing surges of blood-thirst or vengeance.
This subtext represents a very Star Trek-kian principle, and I am happy to see it enunciated in an age of such thoughtless violence. Every other blockbuster movie is about a hero meting revenge for some terrible wrong. It's nice to see a blockbuster, for a change, where the heroes stop short of vengeance, take a breath, and remember who they are.
I also agree with Muir that the success in Cumberbatch as Khan came mostly from Cumberbatch's performance than from how the character was written. Muir really gives the best reason for how Cumberbatch could've been just anybody and not Khan. It wouldn't have hurt to give Cumberbatch a few lines to show us that this is indeed the very broadly learned and well-read Khan we've met before.
Muir isn't afraid to point out that title of the movie is dreadful. It's highly commericial and unimaginative (almost cynically so, given it doesn't even describe the movie or its tone at all). The title should've openly and unabashedly captured the core values of the movie. I've been thinking maybe just a simple change of direction to, Star Trek Out of Darkness