Review of Star Trek (2009) by Anthony G — 02 Dec 2017

I think people were more attracted to the idea that this film was not the old Star Trek; it looked and felt new. Many critics argue that it was more akin to George Lucas' space-opera style Star Wars as opposed to Gene Roddenbury's sci-fi vision of Trek.

With this newer, more attractive look, the general positive consensus seems more based on the anti-retro factor rather than whether or not the storytelling quality was good. Abrams shot the film to look like an amusement park attraction.

And I have no doubt that attraction would be fun in a 10 minute time frame. But after 126 minutes, the circling cameras, jerky movements, and overemphasized effect of what it feels like to ride the Enterprise becomes exhausting for the viewer's eyes.

It's also the laziest writing effort for a sci-fi imaginable. A cast of known characters, representing over 40 years of pop-culture significance, form loose bonds and ascend ranks quickly; Star Fleet must have the worst military ethics in the galaxy, because if you're loud enough you can be on board and operating the docile Enterprise in no time.

The story itself is mostly delivered through rushed dialogue. Comic-relief is cheesey, for kids, and very yesterday. An actual Russian played a Russian character and sounded like he was doing a fake accent.

Plot holes are uncountable, but the worst and most obvious being the story's central turning point when Spock relinquishes command of Enterprise to his rival James Kirk because of code 619, in which a captain can no longer perform duties upon emotional ties to the mission; Spock lost his mother to Nero, did all the writers forget Kirk lost his father to Nero?!