Have to give it an F and rank it the worst Star Trek
film. The dialogue of the protagonists was mediocre, the action boring and the plotting very convoluted and unbelieaveable.
Count Zero wrote:
What he did on Nibiru was against regulations and against the Prime Directive but was it morally wrong? After all, he saved a civilisation from extinction and the presence of the Enterprise was only revealed because he chose to save Spock instead of letting him die.
He seemed overly cavalier about his decision compared to how others regarded the Prime Directive and it didn't make sense that Spock wouldn't have objected, let alone to the point of playing the major role, and then not try to defend the decision later.
There's a difference between reusing a story and thematic idea and blatantly trying to remake much of a story; I thought Enterprise "Terra Nova" and Nemesis
were much too close to past works and thus some of my least favorite (although "Friendship One" was very recent and bad to begin with).
As for the Eve in underwear scene, it seemed pointless but worse because I didn't like Kirk ignoring her telling him to turn around; the original Kirk would never do that but it seemed, unfortunately, like only a small stretch for Abrams version.
STAR TREK IS: Space opera, action and adventure, playing fast and loose with real science to make it fit whatever serves the plot. Character chemistry, interaction, making the story play well onscreen. Characters are the focus.
Did you find it believable that Uhura would love Spock but be so unaccepting, almost not even understanding, about his reserved, logical nature or that Spock wouldn't alert Kirk about Carol's identity earlier (or that he would contact his alternate self from the bridge)?