JJ Abrams' Space Wars

Rating: 1/10 (15 May 2009)

Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek is a tale of diplomacy and peace littered with ethical and moral dilemmas developed to make you think, to wonder about what future humanity is moving towards.
This was not Star Trek and it infuriates me that they would try to pass it off as such.
Why couldn't they simply make up new names for the characters or at least give the film a subtitle instead of allowing JJ Abrams to prove his arrogance and ignorance to the real themes behind the Star Trek name? Unnecessary is the most accurate word to describe this film, with its paper thin plot and cardboard cut-out characters. But I realize that is what makes a summer blockbuster these days: big explosions, juvenile humor, and the standard "bad guy must die" scenario.
Young Kirk listening to the Beastie Boys and talking on his Nokia phone??? Give me a break, give me The Undiscovered Country any day. At least that film had a message beyond trying to sell me merchandise.
And why did Sulu have a katana if he was an expert in fencing??? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to use a rapier since a katana would be useless with a fencing background? I heard George Takei - in the original series - refused to use a katana because he thought it was too racist and that was why they made Sulu a fencing expert in the first place.
Though I think the most annoying thing about the film - for me - was the cinematography. Even if I ignored how little this movie cared about the substance of the original series or any subsequent Star Trek series, it was still a terrible film. Constant close-ups and a shaky camera anytime the screen isn't completely CG does not substitute for cinematography, it's just lazy film making.
I don't understand why this film needed to be made. JJ Abrams is not a director, he is my childhood's rapist.
Oh and watch for Abrams' Cloverfield monster to make a nice appearance on the ice planet Hoth, I guess that's one creature I can check off my "Where are they now?" list.