Sorry, but JJ Abrams just cannot direct for a big screen

Three years ago, I complained about JJ Abram's claustrophobic direction style in Mission Impossible 3. I just got back from the Star Trek movie, and I reckon Abrams hasn't learnt a thing. Everything I said in 2006 still stands:

It seems he is inordinately fond of close to medium length shots, where it looks like the camera is no more than a few meters from the actors.

This is fine for some sequences, where it can help rack up the tension, especially in the opening scene. But after 30 minutes or so, I really found myself wondering why this movie was shot so tight for so long. Especially during the action sequences, I longed for wider shots to make better sense of what was going on around Cruise.

There is also a quasi-handheld sort of style for all of the action sequences. It's not exactly jittery, but I did start longing for smoother camera movement in many sequences, and less choppy editing.

The point is, he simply seems to insist on composing shots like he's shooting TV (in fact, for TV of 20 years ago before it went all supersize and widescreen.) Longer shots are never held for very long before it's back to giant faces filling the screen. I swear, any actress with concerns about the size of her pores ought to avoid working him at all costs.

Why do so few critics seem to notice this? Why doesn't crap editing of action sequences (again in abundant evidence here) get up more noses? Full marks to Jim Schembri in The Age though for saying it clear:

... Star Trek sports some of the worst cinematography ever featured in a blockbuster as crash zooms, swish pans and epileptic-like editing reduce many of the action scenes to indistinct blurs.

Did I enjoy it despite this? Well, it was just OK. The actors did pretty well, but sadly I did not find the story particularly innovative or touching. (Bryan Appleyard found himself tearing up during it. I am sure medication could help.)

But the main lesson is: keep Abrams away from that widescreen format.