Tripe, not Trek

Rating: 3/10 (16 July 2009)

This movie is bad on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.
First off, it's lousy Trek; Gene Roddenberry would have hated it. It has NOTHING to do with "going where no one has gone before" or "seeking out new life and new civilizations." It has everything to do with blowing stuff up real good. But never mind - let's assume it's perfectly okay for a 'reboot' to dump *everything* that made the original worthwhile. That still leaves the inescapable fact that this new "Star Trek" doesn't work even as trashy melodrama. Let me itemize just a few points:
* Basing a film titled "Star Trek" on time travel is a textbook example of 'jumping the shark.' If our entire galaxy seems too small to provide sufficient plot hooks, screenwriters Orci and Kurtzman should seek some other line of work, better suited to boring dimwits totally devoid of imagination...
* ... and incapable of concocting even a rudimentary storyline. "Nasty guy destroys planets" isn't a story, it's just a really, really tired cliché. It's also exactly the sort of feeble plotting that killed the Enterprise series. You'd think someone would have noticed.
* Assuming you're short of ideas, why omit Kirk's three years at Star Fleet Academy? This is exactly the part of his life we know least about. (And while we're at it: why have Kirk beaten up, over and over and over? I count four or five separate pummelings. If it's some sort of in-joke, it's not funny... just distracting and tedious.)
* Getting down to plot: why does Star Fleet suddenly put all its cadets into active service? So... they have *ships*, apparently... but no crews??
* Why does Spock maroon Kirk on an obviously deadly planet? Doesn't the Enterprise have a BRIG?? And is this sort of ad hoc death sentence actually approved by Star Fleet regulations?
* How is it that Kirk arrives at a random spot on a random planet, then gets chased by a monster until he's thoroughly lost... then suddenly bumps into the one person in the galaxy who can solve all his problems??
* Isn't it just *slightly* implausible that Spock should abruptly resign his command, in favor of someone he apparently hates (and whom he recently sentenced to death), just because he loses his temper for a moment?
* Why does the Enterprise have ridiculously convoluted water pipes in its engine room, leading inevitably to a huge blender? This sequence with Scotty made me think of the far better film Galaxy Quest - which at least knew it was a spoof.
* And WHAT is it with the decor? None of the Enterprise interiors even remotely suggest a spacecraft of any kind. The new Bridge looks like a Hong Kong disco.
* When we get to the ending, didn't ANYONE else feel nauseous watching Kirk's obvious glee at the death of the Romulans?? At that moment, my sympathies were overwhelmingly with Nero, given that the Star Fleet jerks were being no less vengeful, and way more self-righteous about it. Never mind Roddenberry's grand vision of the future - the message here is that it feels SO GREAT to kill, when you're sure you've got the Right on your side. Just what the world needs: lynch-mob morality for the 21st Century.
* And then, the final insult: cadet Kirk gets his very own starship, day one. Without serving as, say, an Ensign, or a First Officer. Has this sort of thing *ever* happened in the history of the world's navies?? Fortunately, by this point there really isn't any credibility left to demolish.
When I heard JJ Abrams was doing a Star Trek movie, I knew it would not be like the traditional Trek. Boy, was I wrong. This movie fits perfectly into the tradition of goofball space opera, alongside such previous big-screen embarrassments as The Search for Spock, or The Voyage Home. (All of which fall light-years short of any of the TV shows.) What I DIDN'T expect, given Abrams' track record, is that the movie would fail on the level of basic storytelling.
I also have to say that reading through the IMDb trivia listings for this film really made me angry. Given that the film's creators obviously care nothing for the Trek tradition, the endless sly Trek references they've inserted can only be seen as a condescending effort to seduce the serious fans. Wake up, Trekkies: these guys are flaunting their utter contempt for you and everything you care about. They're not laughing with you, they're laughing at you... all the way to the bank.
Ultimately, I suppose this "Star Trek" isn't worth getting upset about - just one more bad pseudo-SF movie in an endless stream of brainless Hollywood space operas. But what really galls is this particular film's insane popularity, and the seemingly endless list of 10/10 ratings. I guess the movie-going public really will lap up anything with enough explosions in it. I'd thought that Trekkies might have higher standards, but again, use the names "Kirk" and "Spock" and I guess any sort of garbage becomes acceptable.
Slap all the perfect scores on it you like, garbage remains garbage. I give this film three stars purely for the obvious talent of its young cast. Too bad they're all going to be stuck repeating this cinematic disaster for the next ten years.