Frantic, sometimes entertaining, quite dumb

Rating: 5/10 (9 June 2009)

It's already been a few weeks since I saw this movie, which is kind of a bummer when it comes to writing a review because the nature of this flick is one of rapid, almost continuous action sequences, hurled at the viewer with warp speed. Coupled with few, if any, scenes of emotional significance, it creates a sense of having looked into a kaleidoscope for a few minutes and attempting to recall specific patterns. The retained memory is that of a jumble of pretty colors, but little describable coherence.
I am giving this movie five stars for its pure entertainment value generated by some decent attempts at humor and some inventive action sequences. To be honest, I would rate this movie a star or two lower if I haven't been desensitized by the truly awful blockbuster movies released in the past few years (Matrix 2/3, Dark Knight, Terminator 4, Transformers). Way to keep lowering the bar, Hollywood.
Now, let's get on with the nitpicks, shall we? I think I will use the good old bullet-point technique for this one as I just feel to lazy to write transitional paragraphs.

The time travel plot - Time travel usually amounts to asking for trouble because of the innumerable paradoxes involved and it's typically a sign that the writers just didn't have a good idea for how to setup the action. In this case, it's almost certain that they were looking for a way to plug Leonard Nimoy (and possibly Shatner as well) into the movie to tap into the rapturous fan boy sentiments. It was a bad idea and the plot is weak. Besides, time travel has been used on numerous occasions in Star Trek movie/series' so it feels very derivative.

The weak villains - They look fine, all thuggish and ruthless, and their ship is actually really cool (there's a funny scene when Kirk and Spock are beamed onto the villain ship), but the plot fails to provide a decent justification for their desire to create carnage. OK, their planet was destroyed and it sucks, but it was destroyed by a natural phenomenon. Spock honestly tried to save that planet and failed simply because it was already too late. It's not like he caused the explosion through some careless experiments in his science lab. Therefore, it's a stretch for Nero and his crew to harbor such strong sentiments against Spock and chase him through space and time to finally blow up his home planet. One could argue that villains aren't always the most reasonable of folk and one would be technically correct, but that's just a cop out. Movie plots require well-defined motivations for character behavior, otherwise the creators can argue away any script weakness saying: uhmmm, yeah, we actually meant for it to be vague and nonsensical.

Dweebish, irresponsible Kirk's stratospheric career rise - I don't think this needs a particularly detailed explanation how dumb it is for an inexperienced cadet, who made his way onto a military ship as a stowaway and should have been summarily court-martialed or executed on the spot, to become a captain of said ship within the span of one day. Honestly, the only justification of that should have been if the entire crew suddenly died out from space-fever and the ship computer, certainly more qualified than Kirk, suffered a Hal9000-like cyber-dementia. What bothers me is the type of precedent set for the viewers, that you don't need to put in honest hard work to become successful. You can just flaunt the rules, act unreasonably cocky, because somehow you are better than everyone else, and then just hang around to reap the immediate rewards. Yeah, that's just the kind of example that people need to see, especially in the crumbling US.

Impossible action sequences - I basically repeat it as a mantra after watching every action flick since the original Matrix. Virtually all film makers have given up on trying to create realistic and immersive action in lieu of the most ridiculous stunts the mind can conjure. I find it notoriously exasperating that the art of creating fantastic. but internally cohesive and plausible action seems to be lost. There are some examples of that in ST as well, such as the very first scene where kid Kirk jumps out of a car and hangs on by his fingertips over a deep chasm. I mean, really?!? What's that supposed to illustrate exactly, other than trying to draw in the most easily impressed and gullible audience out there? Similarly when Sulu and Kirk fight the two guys on the drilling platform. First of all their dive out of the sky was ludicrous, but it was somewhat interesting so that can slide. But it gets downright lame, when exactly two bad guys emerge from the platform, conveniently wielding melee combat weapons (now that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Sulu stated a couple of minutes earlier that he's a fencing expert now would it? I thought not).

Uhura (sp?) - What a strange character. I still haven't figured out what was the point of introducing her. Sure she was decent enough eye candy, but the movie bounced between trying to portray her as ambitious and competent, and an emotional manipulator. Her attempts to seduce Spock were rather immoral given the fact that he was her commanding officer and she was just fresh on the job. Also, using sex appeal to get onboard the Enterprise in the first place was rather low class. Once again, the main issue here is the kind of example that is being set for the viewers, mostly female in this case.

Overall, the movie was somewhat entertaining, but it continues the trend of rather awful Blockbusters who continue to rack in the cash on the strength of rehashing old, once great franchises, and aggressive, in-your-face advertising campaigns.