Read Mixed User Reviews for Star Trek

5

Basilsik1991Mar 9, 2011

Well this movie strips out all the smarts of the original IP and replaces it with brainless action, I didn't watch Star Trek for it's action scenes, I watched it so I could enjoy the escapades of the crew and their adventures in space, sureWell this movie strips out all the smarts of the original IP and replaces it with brainless action, I didn't watch Star Trek for it's action scenes, I watched it so I could enjoy the escapades of the crew and their adventures in space, sure in the original series the only "Real" characters were McCoy, Spock, & Kirk, and this movie just does horrible things to them. I'm not here to say that's it's a bad movie per se, but it fails to do the IP justice, wand assassinates the characters along the way.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

SpartanEdgeJun 21, 2011

As a long time Trek fan,i was really looking forward to this movie,especiially after watching the full trailer with the rousing music by Two Steps from Hell.Have to say though,i found the movie completely underwelming.. I know its supposed toAs a long time Trek fan,i was really looking forward to this movie,especiially after watching the full trailer with the rousing music by Two Steps from Hell.Have to say though,i found the movie completely underwelming.. I know its supposed to be a reboot,but why make a Trek movie,if your going to ignore the whole history of ALL the series,with events like the Vulcan home planet getting destroyed?! Dont get me wrong,the film has its moments,& is quite slickly shot,But Kirk trying to get it on with Uhuru? Spock IN a relationship with Uhuru? Kirk taking command the way he did was lame.The cast were prett good on the whole,but Notably good in the film was the guy who played Spock(I forget his name),& Karl Urban as Dr Mcoy i thought.The effects were pretty good on the whole,but there was far & away not enough space sequences/battles,& what there was,was lackluster.These are supposed to be big lumbering ships,with alot of crew members doing all sorts of tasks on board,so why is this never really capitalised & done justice in the Trek movies to make tense & prolonged battles between starships?.. The ones that came the closest to this was The Wrath of Khan,& Nemisis,both better movies for it.Though my favourate Trek movie stll has to be First Contact BY FAR,followed by Nemisis,then Wrath of Khan.I hope the next movie(if there is one),has a proper space battle you can sink your teeth into & enjoy,cos this movie didnt,Far from it.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

JohnTYAug 17, 2014

A little bit more heart, substance and dare I say it – logic – and I might have enjoyed the fun parts where the things blew up and the people yelled at each other.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

Epik_NinnjaMay 23, 2015

I give this movie a 6.5/10. My reaction to it was, "...meh." I just din't really care for it. It wasn't as exciting or well written as I had hoped but it certainly wasn't a bad movie. Maybe I'd liek it more if I were a die hard Star Trek fanI give this movie a 6.5/10. My reaction to it was, "...meh." I just din't really care for it. It wasn't as exciting or well written as I had hoped but it certainly wasn't a bad movie. Maybe I'd liek it more if I were a die hard Star Trek fan but this was actually the first movie of it I saw. I prefer Into Darkness over this movie by far, but that's not to say this isn't a pretty decent movie.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

johnslegersJan 3, 2016

As a child and teenager, I grew up with the "Star Trek: The Next Generation". While I was never a hardcore Star Trek fan, I did enjoy quite a few seasons of that series as well as "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". Still,As a child and teenager, I grew up with the "Star Trek: The Next Generation". While I was never a hardcore Star Trek fan, I did enjoy quite a few seasons of that series as well as "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". Still, the original series never really appealed to me. They always came off as outdated in so many ways I guess I outgrew them before I had the chance to get into them.

"Star Trek: The Future Begins" didn't really manage to impress me, largely because it's basically nothing but barely disguised "fan service" for the fans of the original series stretched in a thin two hour plot.

That plot evolves around two heroes : Spock and James T. Kirk. After a couple of scenes depicting their childhood, both meet each other as Starfleet cadets during a pretty contrived conflict and end up in a couple more conflicts until they realize they need to overcome their differences and collaborate to save the future of the earth. That pretty much sums up the whole plot.

Several supporting characters from the original series are also included in the movie, although they're given so little screen time and character development you barely get to know them at all. All the attention goes to Spock and James T. Kirk, and even these characters are barely developed beyond caricatures. The main protagonist of the story has been given a back story not just very thin but so far-fetched and random he felt more like an afterthought than an integral plot of the movie.

While the visual effects were as professional as one would expect of a movie with this budget, I also wasn't impressed by the movie when I tried to forget about all the plot holes and just tried looking at pretty pictures. Too much shaky cam, a ridiculous amount of annoying lens flares, awkward close-ups and an ADHD pacing gave the movie not nearly the amount of eye-candy I most definitely did expect of a movie like this, leaving me mostly disappointed by the time the credits passed the screen.

I did very much appreciate the movie's sense of humor, though, but jokes were too few and too far in between to be a redeeming factor.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

pauljohnsonDec 7, 2011

Overall, this could have been any C grade science fiction movie. Let's break this down. Here's what was bad about this movie:
The script - it was so horribly cliched, and full of massive plot holes that render some major scenes inert. TheOverall, this could have been any C grade science fiction movie. Let's break this down. Here's what was bad about this movie:
The script - it was so horribly cliched, and full of massive plot holes that render some major scenes inert. The pacing was too well done, no time out is taken to get to know these characters particularly well, and we get the bare minimum of development. On the whole, this film is just a Transformers style action film punctuated with bursts of emotion in ways that are so obviously contrived I don't know how anyone fell for this.
The villain - has the worst motivations for doing what he is doing in any film. Future Spock did his best to help him, and failed in his attempt. So its logical to assume that because of that, cliche villain will now destroy all the Federation planets, so in the future, nobody can help him. And before anyone tries to tell me he's crazy, Bana's performance and the dialogue given to him does not suggest someone who is crazy. Heath Ledger's Joker is crazy. This guy isn't. Kirk - What an **** At the end of the movie we get no sense that he is any different from the pompous prick who crashed his step dad's car for fun at the beginning of the movie. What awful character development. The cinematography - EVERYTHING has to be shot from within 10 feet of the **** subject. Whoever the DoP for this film was, don't hire them again. They don't know how to set up a goddamn shot, everything was shot so close and with the camera shaking so much like it was sat on a giant vibrator, it got difficult to tell what was supposed to be happening. Also, take out all the lens flares. Yeah, they look nice for some shots, but not every shot in the film. Unexplained things - So, this red matter can destroy a planet. Or it can be completely harmless to ships so they can be sent back in time so we can have this film. And then later on, it destroys the ships. Thanks for the explanation guys. Oh yeah, that's right, the plot says it has to happen, so it does.

Having said that, there are a few things that were good in this film. Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban both did a good job with what they had to work with, Quinto especially. I didn't like Zoe Saldana in this film, she just seemed to come off as arrogant as Uhura, and Chris Pine as Kirk didn't go very well, though at times he really showed off his acting ability with what awful material he had to work from. The design overall was nice, I loved the new look for engineering, its how I'd imagine the engine room of a vast starship to look like. Just little subtle things like these made this film pop up a bit more. It's definitely not an intelligent movie, but it sort of serves as a bridge between the best of Trek films and the worst of Trek films. It's a movie that you can enjoy with your buddies while eating a pizza and having some beer, but its not a film to watch if you want something intelligent. And that is the problem - Star Trek is capable, and has to be about big ideas. This isn't Star Trek at all.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

PWBApr 12, 2011

Seriously, haven't we seen this plot before? A villan from future comes back to destroy the past ala 'Borg Queen' using time travel once again as a cure all for bad writing. It's just an excuse to 'reboot' everything and frankly, it didn'tSeriously, haven't we seen this plot before? A villan from future comes back to destroy the past ala 'Borg Queen' using time travel once again as a cure all for bad writing. It's just an excuse to 'reboot' everything and frankly, it didn't succeed in being convincing. It's tired, sad and so overused. It's such a bad plot device I wish they'd stop using it. The acting was good, not great but then what can you expect? The rest, well average to poor at best.… Expand

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

All this user's reviews

5

EliasC.Dec 9, 2009

I wish I could have better liked this movie. The acting was very good, the SFX was mind-blowing ... but ... it simple is not Star Trek. I can understand why the studio and J.J. Abrams felt the need to upgrade the concept for new younger I wish I could have better liked this movie. The acting was very good, the SFX was mind-blowing ... but ... it simple is not Star Trek. I can understand why the studio and J.J. Abrams felt the need to upgrade the concept for new younger audiences. But in the process of concept transformation, they left the older trekkers in the dust. The use of fast editing techniques, shaky camera, and an overabundance of lens flare may work for the video game generation, but older trekkers, who delighted in the Star Trek universe since the late 1960's, will find nothing but disappointment. The problem is that Star Trek's appeal to many fans was that it written and staged as a traditional drama. In fact, plot lines were almost Shakespearean in form and content. The best of the Star Trek films and television episodes, for example, were all scripted in such a fashion, even to the point of using lines lifted directly from the bard himself. This version of Star Trek is totally missing any dramatic structure. It has a plot of sorts but it passes through the viewer conscious like grease through a goose; to quickly to absorb. This is probably a good thing because if you had the time to think very much about plot points you would discover a lot of holes. The film was designed to be an audio-visual experience and not a traditional thoughtful and multi-layered Star Trek script. Too bad. I assume it made a lot of money anyway and perhaps the next film will will actually tell a story.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

5

JoeBloMay 9, 2009

All the critics liked this picture lots, but it left me cold. Maybe I'm getting old, but it seemed rather gen-y for my taste. I didn't find Kirk charismatic; in fact, I found his simpering frat-boy superiority off-putting. Also, All the critics liked this picture lots, but it left me cold. Maybe I'm getting old, but it seemed rather gen-y for my taste. I didn't find Kirk charismatic; in fact, I found his simpering frat-boy superiority off-putting. Also, the character doing 'Bones' seemed constantly on the verge of blowing his accent. And I thought the plot was thin. I felt the story gratuitously celebrated its more aggressive impulses in the form of constant (often unnecessary) fist-fights etc. The thing that made the first Star Trek so legendary was its message of hope, which it addressed while asking more serious questions about human nature. Although well executed, this picture seemed to be more spectacle than substance.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful

5

KrisA.May 10, 2009

This film features very slick effects, and plenty of action. Its storyline, however, is so astonishingly weak that it occasionally offends. The leaps one is asked to take in order to follow along can hardly be believed. This picture is This film features very slick effects, and plenty of action. Its storyline, however, is so astonishingly weak that it occasionally offends. The leaps one is asked to take in order to follow along can hardly be believed. This picture is filled with ridiculous contrivances, and laughable caricatures of supporting characters from the Star Trek mythos. There is a dash of interesting development for Kirk and Spock in the mix, but it does not save the film. With the exception of these precious bits, this film is entirely disposable.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful

5

MichaelDMar 13, 2011

I thought the movie was boring. There wasn't really anything that grabbed my full attention.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

imthenoobMay 14, 2013

I liked the cast, Thought the film had some solid acting. I wish Nero, the film's villain, had a bigger presence though, Felt he was barely in the film at all, Which is rather disappointing. Also, The film was a bit too fast paced. II liked the cast, Thought the film had some solid acting. I wish Nero, the film's villain, had a bigger presence though, Felt he was barely in the film at all, Which is rather disappointing. Also, The film was a bit too fast paced. I understand that you can only pack so much into a film and that Star Trek is a massive series, Heck I am shocked that they packed so much into this film, but still it sort of hurt the movie. That being said, It wasn't a bad movie. I enjoyed it enough to give the sequel a chance.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

tonyGreenNov 20, 2010

There are some good scenes but just too many silly action sequences, silly plot turns, self referential winks. At 120 mins it's a grind to get to the end.

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

5

BathmatJan 5, 2011

When my family and a friend went to see this movie and since two of them are Star Trek junkies, I thought they loved this movie, as I have never been really interested in Sci-Fi. When I asked them about the movie, they were prettyWhen my family and a friend went to see this movie and since two of them are Star Trek junkies, I thought they loved this movie, as I have never been really interested in Sci-Fi. When I asked them about the movie, they were pretty disappointed with this movie. And this is coming from total Star Trek junkie. TOTAL. Here's the bad parts: The violence is random and unnecessary. Captain Kirk ha a drink, then gets beaten up. The characters are as bland and tasteless as supermarket own brand sweets. The special effects are over the top and I suffered a mild headache. There's this green guy who looks like it was an exact copy of Yoda. Most of the acting is poor, some actually do a decent job. This movie has no tension whatsoever. Most of the scenes play out like a soap opera, or like a couple of British ladies discussing money and fashion over a cup of tea and a biscuit. I DID like the part with the young Captain Kirk: well acted and it was funny. Overall, it's like a car that does a good job of going up a hill until the battery died and it makes it's long journey down the hill before the back goes into a tree.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

4

EdwardKMay 12, 2009

This film is very poorly written. It has very good acting overall, but this cannot save the film. The idea that a cadet is promoted to Captain without even graduating and given command of the most powerful ship in the fleet is just absurd. This film is very poorly written. It has very good acting overall, but this cannot save the film. The idea that a cadet is promoted to Captain without even graduating and given command of the most powerful ship in the fleet is just absurd. It is also ridiculous that a black hole is generated near Earth and the solar system is not destroyed. Further, Nero commands a mining ship, which apparantly is the most powerful ship in the galaxy. How does this make any sense? The film has destroyed the entire Star Trek timeline. This means that nothing that happened in the previous six series and ten films actually occured. Don't feed me that alternate timeline nonsense either. This is fiction that has a 43 yeatr history and rich backstory which are now gone. They can never be referenced again, unless the alternate reality advocates actually believe that Paramount will do stories in both realities. Exactly! It isn't going to happen. So, in reality, 43 years of developed timeline are destroyed forever. This is unconscienable. To add to this cavalier destruction of franchise history poor writing and a ridiculous plot is just too much! I am amazed at critics who slammed Nemisis as a bad film but excuse similar poor writing in this film simply because they love the non stop action. This film just confirms my suspicions that J. J. Abrams cannot direct films. He has turned Star Trek into Mission: Impossible in space. The franchise is just another MTV video paced action franchise. R.I.P.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

KenE.May 7, 2009

The first 20 minutes are an absolute disaster--laughably bad acting, obvious and failed attempts at establishing an emotional connection with the audience. from there, things get a little better, but the fast pacing that the reviewers point The first 20 minutes are an absolute disaster--laughably bad acting, obvious and failed attempts at establishing an emotional connection with the audience. from there, things get a little better, but the fast pacing that the reviewers point out (ha, warp speed, get it?) was self-sabotaging. All of the characters stay two dimensional, plot is thrown in buckets (and we're supposed to care), and mildly entertaining fights between the Enterprise crew and middle aged European males with tattoos play out as you'd expect. I really, really didn't care about anything that was going on. I did cry, but that happened during a failed attempt to hold back laughter during the final five minutes. A wholly 'eh' film.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

4

TomK.May 9, 2009

All Style and No Substance This movie is short-attention-span theater- if you think about what you're watching for even a minute, you'll notice plot holes and bad story logic, in addition to 1-dimensional characters. I enjoyed it All Style and No Substance This movie is short-attention-span theater- if you think about what you're watching for even a minute, you'll notice plot holes and bad story logic, in addition to 1-dimensional characters. I enjoyed it while I watched it, for the most part. Afterward it left a terrible taste in my mouth because of its don't-change-the-channel! style of storytelling. If you have ADD/ADHD you'll love it. It's a bunch of 'awesome' scenes pasted together from JJ Abrams and the dullards who wrote Transformers. There's definitely nothing re-watchable about it. The Metascore of 84 has to be a case-in-point against the quality of modern movie criticism. Sweet CGI and a franchise reboot should not give you 40 bonus points. The score should be somewhere in the yellow, maybe 44.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

DavidD.May 10, 2009

[***SPOILERS***] First off, I will say that I am a huge fan! Not the kind that dresses up and makes a fool of himself, but the kind that loves the in depth stories and Characters that only Star Trek can bring in. I agree with several people [***SPOILERS***] First off, I will say that I am a huge fan! Not the kind that dresses up and makes a fool of himself, but the kind that loves the in depth stories and Characters that only Star Trek can bring in. I agree with several people that they made this into a movie that Young A.D.D people would love. Or that non Star trek fans would like. What Hollywood doesn't realize is that there are plenty of real Star Trek fans that would make them plenty of money if they just knew how to write a good story!! My God, what the hell was this?!! Yes, the acting and the special effects were good but the story was inexcusable!! They just took Star Treks 40 year history and pissed it away in one movie! And what in the hell is up with the camera movement?! Can Hollywood please stop this already!!! And as for all the plot holes? Blowing up Romulus and Vulcan was just idiotic! Killing Spocks mom was just stupid also! There were a 1000 different ways they could have written this without involving time travel. And one drop of red matter can create a planet destroying black hole but a whole crap load of it at the end couldn't suck in a ship?! lol! I think I will leave the rest of the plot holes to Andrew C who said it best. I am just going to pretend this movie is just a stand alone and has nothing to do with the rich history of Star Trek. sigh!… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

AramisG.May 10, 2009

Looks great, nice casting... totally retarded and insulting plot holes and illogical science. In other words, more like the original Star Trek, less like anything since Next Generation.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

GOE42May 11, 2009

I can't understand how this movie is being massively applauded for being utterly predictable and mainstream. The story is the most derivative I have seen so far. A Standard action comedy flick - getting undue attention duw to it's I can't understand how this movie is being massively applauded for being utterly predictable and mainstream. The story is the most derivative I have seen so far. A Standard action comedy flick - getting undue attention duw to it's name. There isn't a shadow of originality in the script.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

AramisgjrMay 11, 2009

Do any of these dolts (critics included) realize that this movie ended with a black hole being created right outside of Earth's atmosphere? That means the end of our solar system. This is one of maybe one hundred stupid things that Do any of these dolts (critics included) realize that this movie ended with a black hole being created right outside of Earth's atmosphere? That means the end of our solar system. This is one of maybe one hundred stupid things that happen in this movie that everyone seems to be overlooking. The new Star Trek is one of the sloppiest written sci-fi movies ever. I'm only giving it a 4 for casting and visuals.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

JosephB.May 10, 2009

This movie was by far the worst written movie in the franchise history. The timeline makes no sense, the plot lines are forced. The special effects are incredible, but flawed. The back story is silly and extremely flawed. Gene Rodenberry This movie was by far the worst written movie in the franchise history. The timeline makes no sense, the plot lines are forced. The special effects are incredible, but flawed. The back story is silly and extremely flawed. Gene Rodenberry would NEVER have accepted this script. But J.J. does every week on Lost. Pander to the advertisers (Nokia and Bud, only to mention two of many) - distract them with eye candy. This movie is simply lazy writing thrown to a hungry SciFi market. But the producers don't want to hear this. Many of the fans and critics don't want pay any attention to the obvious flaws. And too many of the Trekkies just want their beloved franchise back on the big screen, regardless of the cost to Gene Rodenberry's legacy. I want much, much better! So I'm here to say, at the top of my lungs: "The King has NO cloths."… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

MichelleNMay 14, 2009

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

HumprtPumMay 15, 2009

Poor Dr. Spock. They´ve made him so stupid. Like the whole movie.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

AdamB.May 9, 2009

Formulaic, mindless, and poorly written. The only good acting comes from how half the characters perform nearly identically to the original cast. Special effects are laughably over the top but entertaining nonetheless. Fans of the series and Formulaic, mindless, and poorly written. The only good acting comes from how half the characters perform nearly identically to the original cast. Special effects are laughably over the top but entertaining nonetheless. Fans of the series and people who like big explosions and green girls in bikinis will probably overlook it's numerous flaws.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

williamc.Jun 20, 2009

In short, the new Star Trek 2009 captured some of the idiosyncratic magic that made up the original cast of 1960s Star Trek. The story was complex enough for a full-length feature but there are faults to be found in its discriminatory humor In short, the new Star Trek 2009 captured some of the idiosyncratic magic that made up the original cast of 1960s Star Trek. The story was complex enough for a full-length feature but there are faults to be found in its discriminatory humor towards difference and also it… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

LarrySJul 1, 2009

A HUGE disappointment! Poor acting, lousy script and the special effects were surprisingly average. The movie was so predictable and so unbelieveable. The tongue in cheek script is best suited to 13 year olds!!! WAY OVERRATED!!! Critics A HUGE disappointment! Poor acting, lousy script and the special effects were surprisingly average. The movie was so predictable and so unbelieveable. The tongue in cheek script is best suited to 13 year olds!!! WAY OVERRATED!!! Critics should be ashamed. This is a poor movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

NMacMay 22, 2009

Pretty movie, but weak characters and a weaker plot fail to be covered up by horrible action. Some of the most laughable action I've ever seen. And with all that lense flare it felt like a visit to the optometrist. Would not see again.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

ChiKJun 12, 2009

A mass delusion of greatness on this scale hasn't been since last summer...the Dark Knight. My opinions on last year's public darling aside, at least that film seemed to have a brain and apparent artistic aspirations. Are we so A mass delusion of greatness on this scale hasn't been since last summer...the Dark Knight. My opinions on last year's public darling aside, at least that film seemed to have a brain and apparent artistic aspirations. Are we so starved for anything with a faint pulse that we'll lionize a soulless, empty-headed, pre-fab, committee-approved product like this? Hollywood is dead.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

6

adhamhanyNov 17, 2013

This is the first time i watched a Star Trek movie, or a Star Trek anything for that matter. The visuals are great. So is the performances. The story is okay; nothing amazing. There is some action and humor from time to time.
So overall, itThis is the first time i watched a Star Trek movie, or a Star Trek anything for that matter. The visuals are great. So is the performances. The story is okay; nothing amazing. There is some action and humor from time to time.
So overall, it was a decently entertaining movie. But nothing awesome.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

Delta_AssaultSep 28, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's... very different from previous Trek films. There's some things that stay the same, and a lot that changes. Definitely not gonna replace Wrath of Khan, heh.

The CGI's amazing, of course. That's kinda the most obvious at-a-glance difference. See, this is really hard. My head is swimming with all the crazy stuff that I just saw, but... most of it's gonna be spoilers.

I will say, you should prepare yourself for a lot, I mean a lot of lens flare in this film. It was some sort of cinematic look they were going for, but sometimes the amount of it was just overwhelming. Like, a character will look out of a window, and the sun just pours through the window and completely blots out the screen with yellow flare for a good two to three seconds. That was just kinda "Ok, that's a bit much, thanks."

Yea... the timeline really changes...

They **** DESTROY VULCAN, WITH SIX BILLION VULCANS! AND AMANDA GREYSON! HOLY ****

Which is mind boggling, but I didn't really feel the impact because you're aware of the time travel, so... maybe it's just me, but I felt myself not reacting to the change when it happened because I was sure that they would use the time travel again at the climax to undo what had happened. It seemed really telegraphed. But then they don't do that at all, which was cool. But by then, the emotional impact of Vulcan being gone was uh, gone. It was just a CGI effect. Did anyone else feel this way?

They do show the Kobayashi Maru, which was really really funny. Maybe a bit too over the top, depending on your mood.

I mean, Kirk's **** eating a goddamn apple in the scene... that's just insanely over the top. It does work in a comedic manner, but if you've envisioned it happening a different way since 1982 when Wrath of Khan came out, obviously this is gonna take some getting used to.

Just all throughout the film, there are these callbacks to the old series that we know and love. That was really cute and worked for me. Scotty actually saying "I'm giving it all I've got, Capn!" and uh, Spock uttering "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

We even find out how McCoy got the nickname "Bones."

Not sure how I feel about the new guy playing Spock. It's just really hard to see Spock being played this way. It's much more emotional then we're used to, so that was a shock. And of course, because we actually have Leonard Nimoy playing him too. And the new guy's just got a huge nose. There'd be these closeups of Kirk and Spock eyeing each other, and I'd just focus on how Spock's nose is so much bigger then Kirk's normal sized one. It was just weird.

And yea, it's definitely been a while since I've watched TOS episodes. But I think it's also that when we see Spock being emotional before in TOS, it was usually emotional in a friendly, camaraderie sort of way. Here, he's mostly emotional in an angry way.

Right now I'm looking up who played the Orion girl, cause she was **** hot. You know how Kirk is...

But uh... that's just minor. Now, there is one relationship in this film that was uh... completely out of nowhere, nothing in canon to support it.

Spock and Uhura? Holy **** That totally came out of left field for me. Just uh... WTF. I don't think I was the only one in my audience to react that way, either. Not saying that it's a terrible decision though. Just a shocker cause we'd never seen this before in TOS. We'll have to see how the sequels handle this relationship. Still, right now... it's just a huge seismic change.

Nero's not a great villain. Kinda wasted in the story, I think. Just uh... not very memorable.

And his great villainous ship turns out to be just a mining ship. Which doesn't really jive with it being this sinister spidery juggernaut. Seriously, it dwarfs every other ship... I'd estimate it's somewhere from a half to one Borg Cubes in size. No idea why a mining ship needs to be that big. And the inside of it kinda reminded me a little of V'ger. Just a really crazy layout. Again, not sure why a mining ship would look like that.

Oh, know what I didn't expect? New Chekov's accent got almost unbearably comical to listen to. It's strange, cause I've never blinked at old Chekov's thick accent. But hearing it coming out of this young new actor was really grating. I actually burst out laughing when he first talked. Simon Pegg's Scotty was great, he was funny in that same sorta Jimmy Doohan manner back in the day. Just a joy in every scene. McCoy too, Karl Urban really seemed to have researched Kelly's acting mannerisms. Don't believe he ever said "He's dead, Jim" though.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

AndrewC.May 10, 2009

[***SPOILERS***] Disappointed - that's how I feel. The new Star Trek film promised so much, and in some ways delivered, but in others fell oh so short. Firstly the most positive thing - thae actors. They all faced a difficult task in [***SPOILERS***] Disappointed - that's how I feel. The new Star Trek film promised so much, and in some ways delivered, but in others fell oh so short. Firstly the most positive thing - thae actors. They all faced a difficult task in picking up established characters. They all did a good job, being instantly recognizable as who they were supposed to be. Secondly the pacing was good for an action movie, and to bring in non-trekkies. Having said that there were some bits that were pointless - the car going off the cliff, the monster chase (one of the monsters looked quite badly evolved for an ice planet BTW) served no purpose than to get Kirk to bump into old Spock. From there on in though the problems really start. The set design is way off the mark. The new bridge is sterile and engineering looks more like an oil refinery than the bowels of a starship. The biggest problem though is the script. OK, I completely understand that there was a difficult task here in trying to reinvent the franchise, but too many liberties have been taken. The moving of the Enterprise's construction to Iowa I can just about cope with. Romantic involvement for Spock? Destroying Vulcan? These are just steps too far. Then we get into the scientific holes. Like they wouldn't have spotted that a star was about to go supernova, like that wouldn't have affected Vulcan (which is just around the corner from Romulus) too. Why do none of the black holes formed have any time dilation effects? Why would the black hole have to be at the centre of a planet, when it would be just as effective anywhere near? Then there's the plot holes. What was Nero doing for 25 years, and why didn't he age? Once he realises when his is, wouldn't he just warn the Romulans what would happen in the future? Taking revenge for something that hasn't happened yet makes no sense. Why throw kirk off the ship in an escape pod? What's wrong with the brig? Isn't it a bit too much of a coincidence that he lands on the planet where Spock is hiding (and wanders into his cave) and where Scotty has been working? Then there's the interplanetary beaming - something that wasn't even possible in the ST:TNG era. Ooh, the transporters, Why can a 17 year old cadet get a transporter lock when experienced techies and the computer can't? Why is Vulcan, one of the founder members of the federation, defenceless when Earth has a defence system that Nero needs information on? So, all in all? It's a long long way from the best Trek ever. Treks 2,3,4,6 and 8 are all light years ahead of this. Before the next film they need to employ some script writers who actually know something about Star Trek and who can write a plot that makes sense.… Expand