Several critics are writing at great length about how Star Trek Into Darkness is not the last generation's Star Trek. The film, writes Claudia Puig in USA Today, may not go boldly back to the archives, but it serves up an exhilarating spectacle. Joe Neumaier in the New York Daily News comments that this go-all-out sequel really does try to go where no one has gone before. And Ann Hornaday in the Washington Post says, Star Trek Into Darkness leaves the hatch open to countless possibilities, whether brand-new story lines or visits to familiar faces and places from the past. But Roger Moore in the Orlando Sentinel, who has acknowledged that he's a longtime Trekker, and concluded in his last Star Trek review that it left him with the feel of a lost romance rekindled, writes that this one left me cold. He complains that the movie's a muddle, a piece that [director J.J.] Abrams seems to want to turn into a Lost puzzle that makes more sense in his head than on the screen. Lou Lumenick in the New York Post agrees: The only darkness here -- besides the dingy-looking images dimmed by 3D glasses, he remarks, is the murky plot, which is as silly as it is arbitrary. Other critics voice relatively minor qualms. Betsy Sharkey in the Los Angeles Times observes, for example that at times, the movie feels as if the director has pulled a page out of the Michael Bay playbook, taking some of the action to exhaustive extremes. At other moments, all that bravado collapses into safer-than-necessary choices. Nevertheless, she concludes, So many things are done right that even with the bombast, Into Darkness is the best of this summer's biggies thus far. And Richard Roeper in the Chicago Sun-Times also gives it a passing Grade -- perhaps a B-minus -- writing that it amounts to a solid but unspectacular effort that sets the stage for the next chapters.