To go where everyone has went before

Rating: 1/10 (18 June 2009)

As many have said before; I don't know what this was, but it wasn't Trek.
I know they called it a reboot (what a great excuse to hide the fact that they just didn't want to bother with writing a good film, isn't it?), but when the only similarities with the original lore and characters are names and, very crudely, the overall looks, why the hell even call it Star Trek? Only to sell more, nothing else. But let us ignore all the shameless plot holes and continuity errors, a Star Trek fan already knows about it and nobody else cares, and let us also ignore the errors in science etc, and just judge this as a movie in itself. I'll try not looking at it from a Trek fans view, and just look at it.
The acting was god awful in the case of oh so many actors, "Kirk" and "Spock" was among the worst ones. Simon Pegg and Leonard Nimoy is not enough to make a movie great. And the writers? HORRIBLE dialogues, lame plots filled with more holes than a Jarlsberg cheese. They wrote characters with no soul, and tried to cover it up by turning them into douche-bags and giving them the worst love-story subplots I've seen in ages. Usually they at least manage to get a semi-interesting villain, but even that was out of the question apparently. The directing was horrible, the editing and mix of genres was... bad, just really, really bad. You never got a sense of what was going on or what it was supposed to be. Not because it's hard to understand the movie, not at all, but because it was just so all over the place in so many ways. The effects were good but used way too much. Like a bowl of cereal, a little sugar can make it great, but once you've covered it all completely in sugar you know you'll throw up if you eat the whole thing. And what was with all the light-effects? I felt as if I almost had an epileptic seizure from watching this movie. The light shining through every single object whenever it had the chance, just another cheap, and poorly disguised, way of trying saving money on choreography (it happened during several fight-scenes) and hide poor acting. Not to mention all the blurring. Yes, I know, this is, in no way, anything new in modern cinema, but it is still as useless, annoying and idiotic as it has always been, and now it's overused as well. And to save even more money on the choreography during fight-scenes (hand to hand or ship to ship alike), they used the worst trick in the book; Shaky camera and quick view-switching. The editors must have been smoking something, or just doing what they all do now: Try to make money instead of a good movie. When a Steven Seagal movie is better, you know you done fudged up right? The score though had some great moments, which is the probably the only really great thing I can say about it.
Why does everyone, Abrahms and Bay are prime examples of this, try to make popcorn-movies. As everyone I can easily enjoy a movie that doesn't have a deep storyline or brilliant acting, but nowadays these "grand and epic" movies have no substance or value at all. It's all just explosion filled effects with random hormones and poor acting to amuse a popcorn-eating audience that doesn't even care. "CGI killed the movie-value", or something along those lines. This movie offered _nothing_ new, at all. I don't expect every movie to be original or anything, but it never hurts to at least _try_ to cover up the lack of originality.
Wall of text, yes I know. But I can sum this one up in three words: Effects, action, mind-numbing.