Good space opera, less brilliant 3D

Rating: 7/10 (10 May 2013)

Just seen the latest Star Trek movie, which had wonderful 3D when the camera was close to the actors, combined with a lot of computer game style sequences with debris flying all over the place, not my cup of tea, and sometimes the bandwidth wasn't enough, so the picture stuttered a bit, pitifully, I'd say.
The leading actors were good, very good, and the base story quite OK, the comic relief, a Scotsman called Scotty (inventive scriptwriters, eh?!), why not a Swede called Swede, or ....??? Quite a bit of the film was decidedly made to become computer game material, and a few other details, like going into warp while still in the dock (if not any longer secured to it) gives me technical headaches.
Worst were the, that to me are, cinematographic errors, like showing things close to the camera, say a table in front of the camera, out of focus, as that is not how we see the world. With the help of our stereoscopic viewing, and heavy signal processing, we just don't see things in front of someone we talk to, we see them, and maybe a little of the background, but that isn't how you see a movie, no matter if it is 3D or not. So to be realistic you have to clear the foreground of out-of-focus crap.
The scenes that didn't have the foreground problems worked beautifully, so why not stick to that?!
Another thing: I can't honestly see any reason for all that crap (bits of spacecraft, mostly) the clever CG guys throw at the audience, ragged and out of focus, just to show we can do it.
Not a way to make widely 3D accepted, I can tell you that! Quite often the foreground was 3D, and the background very much 2D, as if they ran out of money for doing believable backgrounds, and used some sprayed backgrounds. The guys behind this movie could learn a lot from 'Life of Pi'- ought to be compulsory viewing, for director and cinematographer, not the least!