Yep, INS is a straightforward morality tale like plenty of TNG episodes (some TNG fans seems to disavow that INS was the most TNG-ish movie) which is indeed no better than what I b*tched about, Abrams' mystery style. Personally I like these simple Trek morality stories and I will gladly watch an average or even bad horror or mystery movie (yes, even Cloverfield) but objectively speaking this stuff is bad. We all know that theatre became good with Shakespeare, when medieval morality and mystery plays became extinct.
Darmok or The Inner Light are simply better than dry-ish courtroom drama like Measure of a Man or The Drumhead. The former can be watched several times whereas the latter fall apart as drama after you got the point about civil liberties.
I think the point is not complexity but lucidity. Kurosawa flicks are simple to understand because they are lucid, not because they lack complexity. And I think Trek has always been fairly lucid as well. Now if we talked e.g. about Lynch or a sci-fi film noir like Bladerunner clarity would be a liability.
But Trek is not cyberpunk or surrealistic cinema. The lack of clarity in the last three movies, be it about villain motivations in NEM and ST09 or basic story issues like in STID (I could be wrong but the questions raised by many folks in here do not seem to have anything to do with stupid plot hole buggery; there is a difference between not understanding basic elements in a story and intentionally deconstructing what you call the nuts and bolts), is caused by bad writing. I gotta repeat Sam's point here, don't give fans a pen. Yeah, I know that fans have contributed some great scripts for the TV series but if they write movies it always seems to degrade into a fanwank festival.
Talking about fanwank, while I coined the term Tattoomulan I loved the two cut-out scenes with the Klingons, the brutal guards and a cunning intelligence agent, in ST09. Were the Klingons also this awesome in STID?