Generations could have been done better, but the basic premise was fine with me.
And that's the thing...at the time, it was
probably fine with everyone. TOS was dead, TNG was the future. Let's represent that symbolically by killing Kirk. And while we're at it, we're all tired of looking at the Enterprise-D for seven years, right? So let's just destroy it in the most pitiful way possible so we can get a brand-spanking new ship for the next film!
But how has this attitude stood through the test of time? Well for me personally, it doesn't age well. Killing Kirk was silly (or at least the way they did it). Thinking that we were tired of the Ent-D was wrong; we had seven years invested in that lovingly-designed ship, just so it could be replaced by some soulless John Eaves product (John, I think you're a nice guy and all, but your designs all tend to look the same...)
First Contact was good, in fact great when I first saw it, it was awesome, but has some issues with aging in some parts of the movie, now.
Again, liked the film at first, but in retrospect, I don't like how they portrayed Cochrane, and don't like the whole concept of a Borg Queen. For insects, a queen is necessary to create more drones. For the Borg, drones are created by assimilating other species. So why have a queen?
Insurrection was more like a typical TNG episode, that the only thing horrible was the Pintafore singing crap.
Insurrection was the only Trek movie I never saw in the theaters. Take that for what it's worth.
Nemesis just was a failure on all fronts, especially introducing B4 out of thin air, without even referencing Lore at all. Tom Hardy was fine as Shinzon, but his motivations for revenge seemed misdirected. Neither Earth nor Picard did anything bad to him. It might have been better if instead of Earth, Picard was trying to keep Shinzon from destroying Romulus (of course with Star Trek 2009, it is moot, now).
Agreed on almost all points; however, I don't think Hardy was all that great. The character's motivations notwithstanding, his acting was just too over-the-top for me.
I agree with most everything with you said, save for just minor points.
I agree, killing Kirk was not necessary to pass the torch. Personally, I was always of the opinion that rather than kill Kirk, that he somehow, in order to prevent the destruction of the planet, did "something heroic" (I leave that for an actual writer to figure out), that both prevents the destruction, as well as pulls him back into the Nexus, thus leaving his final fate open for interpretation. Ironically, the way he is pulled into the Nexus on the Enterprise-B, was the more fitting end for Kirk.
I also was sad to see the Enterprise D go, especially in such an ignominious way, but I understand if they wanted to introduce another ship for the movies. Besides, one criticism the E-D always had (I am not one, just saying that I heard the criticism) was that it was very un-Enterprise looking. THe Enterprise E returned to a more similar Constitution Class silhouette.
I didn't mind the Borg Queen. I can see how that somewhat contradicts previous TNG Borg canon, and is sort of a retcon, I thought the portrayal was just fine.
Again, I didn't mind Shinzon per se. He was a little over the top, yes, but I chalk that up more to poor writing, than the actor. Not to mention, the total transparent reference to Excalibur the movie when Shinzon, while impaled, drags himself through further in an attempt to kill Picard totally took me out of the movie (in Excalibur, which Patric Stewart was in BTW, it was almost opposite roles but a similar scene, as Arthur was impaled on Mordred's lance, and drags himself across the lance to kill Mordred).