Star Trek
Paramount Pictures | Release Date: May 7, 2009
7.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1640 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,330
Mixed:
148
Negative:
162
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
8
bfoore90Apr 30, 2020
Similarly to what he accomplished with "The Force Awakens," Abrams did a really superb job hitting the reset button on this franchise and bringing it back to a new generation. While, I'm more of a Star Wars fan, this was an entertainingSimilarly to what he accomplished with "The Force Awakens," Abrams did a really superb job hitting the reset button on this franchise and bringing it back to a new generation. While, I'm more of a Star Wars fan, this was an entertaining piece of sci-fi and a promising start to this new vision for Star Trek.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Voodoo123Nov 13, 2022
Far more action focused than previous entries in the film series, star trek marks the beginning of a new era for paramounts franchise stepping away from the original creators intent and focused lore and writing style towards a more flashyFar more action focused than previous entries in the film series, star trek marks the beginning of a new era for paramounts franchise stepping away from the original creators intent and focused lore and writing style towards a more flashy dramatic action based sci-fi feel(admittedly this is done at the expense of the quality of the writing normally attributed to star trek times gone).The cast are great and the tight screenplay and superb soundtrack bring the simple plot to life.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
adpirtleAug 1, 2016
Star Trek is true enough to its name to provide a satisfying quasi-reboot for the decades-old franchise. The science of this sci-fi action film is very thin, but the heart's still there, in no small part because of the participation ofStar Trek is true enough to its name to provide a satisfying quasi-reboot for the decades-old franchise. The science of this sci-fi action film is very thin, but the heart's still there, in no small part because of the participation of Leonard Nimoy, who has a surprisingly substantial role.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
MrMovieBuffJul 20, 2016
A "Star Trek" movie truly for the next generation, director J.J. Abrams takes on an iconic science fiction franchise and injects it with some fresh, new energy that might even bring in fans not familiar with the legacy of "Star Trek".

TheA "Star Trek" movie truly for the next generation, director J.J. Abrams takes on an iconic science fiction franchise and injects it with some fresh, new energy that might even bring in fans not familiar with the legacy of "Star Trek".

The movie begins where we see the birth of our main hero, James Kirk, as his father, George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) die during a storm that hits the USS Kelvin. We then see that, as a child, James is a bit of a rebellious daredevil. We also get a glimpse of Spock's background as, in the planet Vulcan, he has been accepted into the Science Academy, even though many see that his father (played by Ben Cross) marrying his "human mother" (Winona Ryder) can be seen as a disadvantage. Instead, Spock decides to join Starfleet.

Meanwhile, we see that Kirk (now played by Chris Pine) has been acquainted by Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) of the Enterprise to join the Starfleet Academy. Kirk seems unsure at first, but tags along since he begins to know more and more about what his father did and how he risked his life to spare his own and his mother's.

The main enemy of the film is Captain Nero (Eric Bana), a Romulan villain, who has placed a drill into the planet Vulcan, destroying everything in its path, and costing the many innocent lives there. Determined are our main heroes, Kirk and Spock (Zachary Quinto), they must do everything they can to stop Nero at his tracks.

The film is visually stunning, fast-paced, exhilarating, and surprisingly funny, at times. I will admit that there are many times where the jokes occasionally stall the movie which can be seen as a distraction. It might not be taken as seriously as one might have hoped, but only the occasional joke here and there are misplaced, the rest are timed perfectly.

Actual "Trek" fans may have some issues regarding the film's plot, execution and characters, but you cannot deny that it is great to see J.J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman try to re-invigorate some new life into the aging franchise. Actors, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana and the rest do a tremendous job of making us believe that they are actual Star Trek characters. Their screen presence is all the more welcoming in that sense. The film might have some pacing issues here and there as well, but it is a thrill-ride from start to finish.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
TheDude-Jul 29, 2015
Star Trek is a surprisingly good reboot with a great cast and performances I really loved the development the characters got while also delivering some great action sequences Star Trek is a clear example of when the person who loves theStar Trek is a surprisingly good reboot with a great cast and performances I really loved the development the characters got while also delivering some great action sequences Star Trek is a clear example of when the person who loves the material makes a re- imagining it turns out fantastically my only flaws with the film is that there was one plot hole and that the Leonard Nemoy cameo felt forced other than that its a great movie
8.5/10… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
8
BoogeeFilmGuyJul 22, 2015
We were all a bit self-aware about this flick. Whether it would be a major flop or a huge success. I am pleased to say it was the latter. This movie introduced a lot of people to Star Trek and got more people interested in it. If you're aWe were all a bit self-aware about this flick. Whether it would be a major flop or a huge success. I am pleased to say it was the latter. This movie introduced a lot of people to Star Trek and got more people interested in it. If you're a sci-fi fan, I recommend seeing this movie.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
RvwFromUpHereMay 24, 2016
Who: Chris Pine, Sylar, Gary King, Pam Dawson, The 2003 Hulk, and Kyle Reese as Pavel Chekov
What: A fantastic re-branding of an already fantastic franchise
Where: The Final Frontier When (Can I watch again): Whenever you need proof J.J.Who: Chris Pine, Sylar, Gary King, Pam Dawson, The 2003 Hulk, and Kyle Reese as Pavel Chekov
What: A fantastic re-branding of an already fantastic franchise
Where: The Final Frontier
When (Can I watch again): Whenever you need proof J.J. Abrams is god
Why: Even if your somehow not a fan of the franchise this is a perfect adventure blockbuster that you can completely get sucked into while forgetting about all of life's problems.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
EpicLadySpongeJan 26, 2016
Now... for Star Trek, it's only a matter of time before this movie finally gets a good score from me. As expected, we all thought Star Trek could've been better. It's the only 'better' we could get.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
gameguardian21Mar 24, 2016
I have never been a fan of star trek,cas it related to science, and had terrible action and effects. But now that I saw the star trek reboot, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. It has action, a new and enjoyable story, and effects are great.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
SrPepeJan 5, 2018
Una historia interesante que me llamó la atención mucho, agradezco que hagan un reboot de esta saga.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Antgiog1202Jul 29, 2016
Star Trek had me intrigued from the minute it began. With it's epic visual and special effects, it manages to create magnificently beautiful scenes. This is not a film where it enthralls you with it's tremendous CGI, it's a film where itStar Trek had me intrigued from the minute it began. With it's epic visual and special effects, it manages to create magnificently beautiful scenes. This is not a film where it enthralls you with it's tremendous CGI, it's a film where it entertains you with stellar performances and storytelling. It has character development that was impeccable to watch. You actually feel emotion for each character which was surprising given the fact that Spock was such a stuck-up. This is one of JJ Abrams' finest films and I can't wait to see what he has to offer next!

Rating: 8/10

A+ = 10
A = 9
A- = 8
B+ = 7
B = 6
B- = 5
C+ = 4
C = 3
C- = 2.5
D+ = 2
D = 1.5
D- = 1
F = 0… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
Muskrat147Jul 26, 2016
A fast-paced adventure with just enough heart and emotion, Star Trek uses the most out of its expansive cast and script to deliver a solidly-crafted reboot of the once terrific franchise.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
TheArchetypesSep 9, 2016
We were pleasantly surprised with this well polished and incredibly entertaining instalment of movie genius. Great casting and stunning visuals a real treat on the big screen. Love the character development and it stayed true to the originalWe were pleasantly surprised with this well polished and incredibly entertaining instalment of movie genius. Great casting and stunning visuals a real treat on the big screen. Love the character development and it stayed true to the original series but was easily enjoyed by those that aren't all that familiar with the Star Trek format. Top notch work and a must see!… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
Jk9785Apr 5, 2017
Though J.J. Abrams gives it his all, this film ultimately lacks the excellence that I expected. It feels too much like Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars, as a matter of fact I like it better than Star Trek, but when I go to seeThough J.J. Abrams gives it his all, this film ultimately lacks the excellence that I expected. It feels too much like Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, I love Star Wars, as a matter of fact I like it better than Star Trek, but when I go to see a Star Trek film, I want it to be a Star Trek film. That said, I do like this film. It features great performances from Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Zoe Saldana.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
8
wiiy71Dec 30, 2017
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
MPReviewsSep 21, 2019
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Pros:
-Good characters.
-Great performances, especially from Leonard Nimoy and Zachary Quinto as Spock.
-Solid visuals
-Really good music.
-Solid action scenes.
-Engaging story that manages to connect this film to the original Star Trek series despite being a reboot in a way that actually makes sense, which is a really cool way of paying tribute to the original series without being heavily tied down to it’s continuity.
-Really good pacing

Cons:
-Certain scenes have a bit too much shaky cam
-James Kirk comes off as a bit too arrogant for most of the movie. I’m not certain if it’s because of how he is written or if it’s because of Chris Pine’s performance, but it is something I noticed.

Final verdict: A much, MUCH, better start to a series of Star Trek films than Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It is far better paced than the 1979 film, which was about as long as this movie but felt like it was 5 hours long, it has solid visuals, good music, great characters, an engaging story, and it still manages to tribute to the original Star Trek series despite being a reboot. It goes to show how much care J.J. Abrams and the rest of his team put into this movie. Worth a watch if you are looking to get into the Star Trek franchise or even if you are already a Star Trek fan but haven’t seen this yet.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
ErikTheCriticOct 14, 2018
J.J.Abrams invigorates this new reboot with spectacular visuals, a clever storyline, and brings back the familiar characters that we know and love.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
BrunoT.May 8, 2009
This is as good of a resurrection as one could reasonably expect, but it does border on overly cheesy at times. Still, it has superb moments, in particular the first 20-30 minutes is particularly riveting and a near perfect way to reopen This is as good of a resurrection as one could reasonably expect, but it does border on overly cheesy at times. Still, it has superb moments, in particular the first 20-30 minutes is particularly riveting and a near perfect way to reopen this franchise. Some of the action and time travel plot points are unoriginal (every Star Trek villain will forever pale next to Khan), and the entire Spock-on-Ice-Planet-Hoth sequence is overly contrived, but it's overall solid.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TheBaronMay 8, 2009
When I first left this movie, I felt a certain confusion. How did I feel about this remake. Was it truly one of the best Star Treks? What I can say is that it's the BEST of the odd numbered Treks. It's also way better than the When I first left this movie, I felt a certain confusion. How did I feel about this remake. Was it truly one of the best Star Treks? What I can say is that it's the BEST of the odd numbered Treks. It's also way better than the abomination STX. Is it better than TWOK? No. Is it better than TVH? No. Is it better than TUC or FC? No. STXI is a really good film. It brings the characters together, gives us some shock scenes that we'd never think to see, and has great character interaction. Some plot holes, but a great feeling that future Treks will be well handled. I'm not sure it will bring in hordes of new fans, but it's a positive step to a star trek rebirth.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SteveM.May 8, 2009
Star Trek has returned. JJ Abrams directs a movie that is designed to reboot a franchise. After over 40 years and at least one generation it needed some renewal. After watching and enjoying another reboot Battlestar Galactica my simple Star Trek has returned. JJ Abrams directs a movie that is designed to reboot a franchise. After over 40 years and at least one generation it needed some renewal. After watching and enjoying another reboot Battlestar Galactica my simple conclusion is that the film is very entertaining but it falls short in small but noticed places. All the parts are great. The early life of Kirk and Spock was well done. The part with the Romulans and Spock was also great. etc The casting was excellent. There are action scenes that are worth the price of admission. Yet when you merge all the parts the whole package looks not quite right. Like a painting repainted you can see where one artist has painted over the original. The story is about another universe that has been changed by a vengeful Nero. (aka JJ Abrams ) Spock tried to stop the inevitable but failed. How he meets Kirk and advises him. This creates the first hole. It is here the script falls short. The plot is a nice work throughout but it has it's weak parts. JJ Abrams directs like someone in a hurry . One we get all the parts right we have to put it all together. This left this reviewer feeling as if this film is for a new generation. I may have have seen the future of a franchise but I will not be going there. The movie goers who ever they may be will decide. My generation saw the franchise start and watched it slowly age. The reboot was needed but if it is successful I doubt it will bring more than one generation of fans a long. I have seen it once and will keep in mind to check out any sequel. Of all the Star Trek movies it is somewhere in the middle. From the Wrath of Khan to Nemeisis JJ. Abrams should have taken a little more time to perfect the plot and to develop the characters. Where the plot looks joined together and the speed of the film is where most of the marks were lost.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
LynnA.May 11, 2009
Saw Star Trek & Wolverine on successive days this weekend and liked Wolverine better ... too many WTF bits in ST. Also to many action shots much to close to figure out what is actually happening (a MAJOR complaint w/ my partner & me in Saw Star Trek & Wolverine on successive days this weekend and liked Wolverine better ... too many WTF bits in ST. Also to many action shots much to close to figure out what is actually happening (a MAJOR complaint w/ my partner & me in action flicks over the past 10-15 years). See ST & then Wolverine & see if you don't really like the X-men flick better.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JohnH.May 10, 2009
Great action, but very weak story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
EJAMay 12, 2009
[***SPOILERS***] First off this movie is really fun and exciting to watch. The writing is plenty passable and the acting was fine. The only issues were someof the logic in the plot. Just a couple things: 1) Nero would probably attempt to warn[***SPOILERS***] First off this movie is really fun and exciting to watch. The writing is plenty passable and the acting was fine. The only issues were someof the logic in the plot. Just a couple things: 1) Nero would probably attempt to warn the romulans of the future then get all hell bent on revenge for something not even done yet. 2) Why does spock have to pod kirk to an unhospitable ice planet just for being disobedient? And I saw that planet, its HUGE. What a coincidence he runs into spock's cave of all places to further the plot. 3) Lastly, a gigantic drill that goes into a planet? why didn't the vulcans send one tiny spacecraft to shoot the lengthy thin drilling device down? thats all young spock did to stop the drilling. Hell any modernday jet could have torpedo'ed the drill apart to prevent the drilling. But hey, its summer, and its fun so enjoy the ride… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
A.NonymousMay 19, 2009
Dumb, cliche-ridden sci-fi blockbuster, which bears as much relation to the franchise as it does to any other space film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DanG.May 8, 2009
Update rather then a rejuvenation. Good film, but some ridiculous coincidences
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AntonisZSep 26, 2009
A good sci fi film but nothing really outstanding.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TSDec 23, 2009
If you're looking for just good entertainment and no more, that's what it delivers. Entertaining, occasionally exciting, but completely forgettable. Any episode of Battlestar Galactica is as exciting AND 100 times more memorable If you're looking for just good entertainment and no more, that's what it delivers. Entertaining, occasionally exciting, but completely forgettable. Any episode of Battlestar Galactica is as exciting AND 100 times more memorable and resonant.… Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful
7
MattAMay 12, 2009
Ok... so more like a 6.5. But, I think it has potential to be great, come a sequel....so i'll bump it up. Star Trek proved to be an often fun, if not predictable and boring, Origin story to a take on Star Trek. The Effects were amazing, Ok... so more like a 6.5. But, I think it has potential to be great, come a sequel....so i'll bump it up. Star Trek proved to be an often fun, if not predictable and boring, Origin story to a take on Star Trek. The Effects were amazing, as well as the sound. The characters were all there, nostalgic as they are (for better or worse), and they are charming. The plot... was a tad "been there, done that." It didn't break away from the classic Hollywood 'Rise of the Hero' story that the orginial "Star Wars" attained decades ago. I found myself slightly bored during the last 30 minutes of the film because nothing held me on the edge of my seat. Very by the numbers. Should Star Trek be tarnished for giving the audience what they want?... Yes and a bit no. Abrams had the hard task of giving a fantastic original space opera, but cator to the nostalgia of previous fans. This made the film fall into the category of "safe." Not meant to step across boundaries to new comers and loyal fans... Horrible? No... Revolutionary? Not even close.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DaveCMay 13, 2009
Entertaining movie, not quite worthy of the hype. Sugar coats every movie cliche going and just about gets away with it. A modern Sci-fi soap opera.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ClifC.May 9, 2009
I am surprised to read all the good reviews for this movie. I mean... it's entertaining, the actors are quite good (but far from being excellent), the special effects are grandiose... but the plot, PLEASE, the plot! Seems like Hollywood I am surprised to read all the good reviews for this movie. I mean... it's entertaining, the actors are quite good (but far from being excellent), the special effects are grandiose... but the plot, PLEASE, the plot! Seems like Hollywood productions have problems on creating a good plot. I was disappointed to see that "Star trek" was far from being original and far from the excellence a lot are saying of it. "Candy-eyed and visually generous" that's all I'd say for this movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ScottHJun 12, 2009
An incredibly exciting movie. From a person who knows a fair amount of Star Trek storyline, there was a good amount of references. The movie wasn't filled with references, but just enough to make you chuckle. The younger alternate An incredibly exciting movie. From a person who knows a fair amount of Star Trek storyline, there was a good amount of references. The movie wasn't filled with references, but just enough to make you chuckle. The younger alternate shipmates were done in a way that flatters the older counterparts, but still hold personality differences to be acceptable as an alternate reality. Now that I've mentioned it, this movie involves time travel and the alternate reality that is caused by it. Do not expect this to be a historically correct movie in regards to the known storyline. Now for gripes, of which I only have minor. The camera angles were amazingly showy. Always tilted, shaky, and downright annoying. The camera always caught some glare of light from somewhere, or they added it in editing for some reason. And though they correctly captured space battles in some scenes, I wish they'd done more with it. What I mean is the fact that there is no sound in space. In some scenes, they captured that point, but quickly changed back to normal. I truly wish they could have kept with that for a little longer. Overall, worth the money.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
CarlJun 15, 2009
Nice action movie. However, not in sync with the original Star Trek. Where's the science? This is Star Trek not Star Wars. Star Trek has always been (for the most part) based on plausible Science. A Scientist Science fiction. For Nice action movie. However, not in sync with the original Star Trek. Where's the science? This is Star Trek not Star Wars. Star Trek has always been (for the most part) based on plausible Science. A Scientist Science fiction. For instance, what is this red matter and how does it create a Black Hole? In the next installment I hope the Science is added back along with some depth. then it would truly be a great movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ceejMay 18, 2009
This movie was a pretty good space opera considering there were zero instances of realism. But it was more interesting than the last 3 Star Wars films by far. It wasn't as good as any season of The Wire, but nobody expects it to be that This movie was a pretty good space opera considering there were zero instances of realism. But it was more interesting than the last 3 Star Wars films by far. It wasn't as good as any season of The Wire, but nobody expects it to be that good. Buy some popcorn and enjoy the drama. Also, am I the only one that saw the introduction of Bones and was completely fooled into thinking that Jack Nicholson's disembodied ghost took over his body?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
WalkerSMay 18, 2009
The film looks and sounds terrific, with sumptuous shots, great sound effects and visuals, and a compellingly winning ensemble of actors that, more often than not, hit the mark as ringers (in a good way) for the original cast. Too bad I had The film looks and sounds terrific, with sumptuous shots, great sound effects and visuals, and a compellingly winning ensemble of actors that, more often than not, hit the mark as ringers (in a good way) for the original cast. Too bad I had to turn off my brain for so much of it - silly pseudo-science ("Red Matter"? PLEASE!) and character backgrounds that stretch credibility (especially how Kirk enlisted in Starfleet) cheapens the grandeur of the film. I think I speak for many fans of the original series when I say that the groundwork has been laid for a potentially fantastic next Trek. Alas, in the pantheon of Star Trek movies, outside of the sheer spectacle of it all and the acting, this one lands squarely in the middle of the pack.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ThomasRMay 22, 2009
It was a good flick, but disappointed with spocks relationship with Uhura which was not in the original series.Or Kirks reaction with the kubiaski maru senerio, which could have been made with more passion to acting like he was really It was a good flick, but disappointed with spocks relationship with Uhura which was not in the original series.Or Kirks reaction with the kubiaski maru senerio, which could have been made with more passion to acting like he was really beating it rather than just sitting and eating an apple.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
plf5403Jan 16, 2011
Very entertaining, excellent casting. Showed another dimension to the franchise by updating it, but still paying homage to the original. Excellent work. My only quibble was with its predictability, but hey, you can't have everything. SeeVery entertaining, excellent casting. Showed another dimension to the franchise by updating it, but still paying homage to the original. Excellent work. My only quibble was with its predictability, but hey, you can't have everything. See it on big screen if possible.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
theinspectorApr 19, 2011
Star trek 2009, as I call it, Star Trek: the MOVING Picture is a fast paced thrill ride that leaves it brain at the door. Donâ
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
7
thedarkorbSep 23, 2010
Star Trek is, generally speaking, a good movie that appeals to both established fans and outsiders alike. The acting is enjoyable, the actors are very well cast for their iconic roles, the special effects are great, the score is rousing, andStar Trek is, generally speaking, a good movie that appeals to both established fans and outsiders alike. The acting is enjoyable, the actors are very well cast for their iconic roles, the special effects are great, the score is rousing, and there are tons of great little details only long time Star Trek fans will notice. Unfortunately the biggest problem this movie has is that it is a reboot of the series and as such disregards much of the established lore and history. While it goes about this in an interesting way in the end it opts to stand apart from almost fifty years of Star Trek rather then adding to the universe millions have come to love.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
7
TheVoidFeb 20, 2011
This is a good movie. If you're interested in sitting down and watching an exciting film with a lot of great actors and action, you won't be disappointed. Also, if you're a fan of Star Trek, it doesn't leave you in the dust, either. ItThis is a good movie. If you're interested in sitting down and watching an exciting film with a lot of great actors and action, you won't be disappointed. Also, if you're a fan of Star Trek, it doesn't leave you in the dust, either. It maintains some great fan service elements, including seeing all of your old, favorite characters as kids, seeing the Enterprise, and some other classic aspects of the old series. It's nice to see a franchise that had fallen so hard with The Next Generation movies pull up out of the dirt.

Still, the film is not perfect. There are an abundance of plot holes and the action and the climactic elements are undercut at times. The film has such an exciting, fast-paced development that you may not notice these, and more likely than not, you wouldn't care anyways. This film wasn't designed to be completely consistent or solid, but meant to bring you in for a fast, enjoyable ride and make you think of Star Trek fondly (whether you're a nerd or not). And it does just that. Definitely go see it.

http://thotsforthot.blogspot.com/2011/02/star-trek-2009-successes-and.html… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
EssenceOfSugarJun 13, 2012
This film is quite surely, a surprising piece of sci-fi entertainment. It did bore me sometimes, but the characters themselves were extremely interesting to watch - especially the way the actors portrayed the characters as they did in theThis film is quite surely, a surprising piece of sci-fi entertainment. It did bore me sometimes, but the characters themselves were extremely interesting to watch - especially the way the actors portrayed the characters as they did in the 60's. This is particularly on terms with Chris Pine playing James T. Kirk, even trying a bit of overacting as William Shatner did. I also loved Simon Pegg's accent as he played Scotty. The development of the characters are quite possibly the key part of this film, but they are the most significant element that I praise. I just love how characters get on with each other.
Often, it is difficult when doing remakes, because it depends on the success of the original. The interior designs of the spaceships were well done and the graphics of space itself were beautifully fascinating. Overall, this film provides some good entertainment and mainly very good character development. I just think the pacing needs a little tweaking, as sometimes it skipped forward or dragged on for a while. Still, I enjoyed it. Can't wait for the sequel, which I hope will be just as good or even better.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
HyperboleJan 17, 2012
Oh my, time travel? Again? Rather than actually have to work at creating the Star Trek universe from the past JJ Abrams has opted for the lazy route; to retcon everything with the mentioned time travel plot. That said the film isOh my, time travel? Again? Rather than actually have to work at creating the Star Trek universe from the past JJ Abrams has opted for the lazy route; to retcon everything with the mentioned time travel plot. That said the film is surprisingly decent. The cast are good, Chris Pine pulls off Kirk well and it would of been a lesser film without him. He takes the main facets of Kirk; Intelligence, emotion, empathy, equality, imagination and ego and makes his own Kirk, as apposed to just trying to copy Shatner. Kudos to him. Like I said, I wasn't keen on the plot but I liked the motivation for the villains. I also liked Eric Banner's mix of matter of fact casual attitude mixed with acute hate and rage. I liked that the villains were former miners and their ship was an actual mining vessel, rather than them being trained soldiers on a warship etc. The pacing is decent and the action sequences are exciting and filmed well. There are some nice nods to fan boys also such as the Kosbayashi Maru test scene. Some moments in the film however just seem too self aware and winky though. All in all I thought it was a good film, not lazy in personality but lazy in conception.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
csw12Nov 26, 2015
don't know too much about the Star Trek series but i found the movie very enjoyable with its stunning visuals and decent story. Star Trek might be forgettable but it was good while it last
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
7
A_NorthernerJun 16, 2012
In my opinion, Star Trek was never quite as cool as Star Wars and I remember some of the feature films being particularly poor. J.J Abrams does his best to equal things up by giving the much-loved franchise a much needed modern update withIn my opinion, Star Trek was never quite as cool as Star Wars and I remember some of the feature films being particularly poor. J.J Abrams does his best to equal things up by giving the much-loved franchise a much needed modern update with this 2009 reboot.

By setting the action in the infancy of the Enterprise (a prequel to the original TV series), the writers are not only able to base the story around familiar characters but younger, more energetic versions of those seen before. No doubt slightly unpopular with Star Trek die-hards, this results in a film that will attract younger viewers to the franchise. This is summed up by the scene where Kirk is shown in bed with a scantily clad busty green alien at the academy, a scene unlikely to have appeared in any previous Star Trek film. However, Abrams gives enough props to the franchise with some finer details like the transporting CGI and sound effects and Spock using a Vulcan death grip without giving in to the clichéd catchphrases that I had expected.

The film itself is a fast paced action-er with an enjoyable plot, and would be capable of being a decent space action film without all that being a Star Trek film brings to it. Chris Pine's Kirk is **** but likeable and his rivalry with the young Spock is a source of some of the films funnier moments. I loved Zachary Quinto in Heroes and he is superbly cast as the legendary Spock, who finds himself confused between his Vulcan upbringing and human emotions.

It was great to see Leonard Nimoy make more than a cameo appearance as the older Spock, but as often the case with action film villains, it was shame that Eric Bana wasn't really given much to work as Nero.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
Compi24Oct 23, 2020
Taking a brief detour into contrarian territory, I actually prefer the latter two Kelvin Timeline "Star Trek" films to this one. That's not to say 2009's "Star Trek" isn't damn entertaining, featuring solid action, effects and emotionality (ITaking a brief detour into contrarian territory, I actually prefer the latter two Kelvin Timeline "Star Trek" films to this one. That's not to say 2009's "Star Trek" isn't damn entertaining, featuring solid action, effects and emotionality (I dare anybody to try getting and through that opening scene with Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison without feeling anything). There's something about the established character relationships and circumstances of "Into Darkness" and "Beyond" that really feel a lot more tight. Obviously, the point of this film was to show how Kirk met Spock, how Kirk met Bones, how Kirk met Scotty and so on, but some of it's a bit forced and clumsy, much like the obligatory (?) inclusion of several iconic phrases from the "Star Trek" canon — i.e. "I'm giving her all she's got, captain," "I'm a doctor not a __________," etc. Also, as someone who saw "Into Darkness" and "Beyond" first, there's an almost crippling lack of Scotty in this. Again, I understand the whole "establishing the new canon" thing and maybe that's just the Simon Pegg fan in me talking, but the movie only really started to feel aerodynamic once the entire gang was brought together. Still, "Star Trek" is an unmitigated success in breathing fresh life and panache into one of the sci-fi's genres longest running IP's.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Rox22Sep 25, 2013
To be fair. I though this was decent reboot. I really love how all the die-hard fans are hatin this for not following ST-lore to the letter. It's a reboot, the whole point was to give it a fresh start, using something familiar.

But themTo be fair. I though this was decent reboot. I really love how all the die-hard fans are hatin this for not following ST-lore to the letter. It's a reboot, the whole point was to give it a fresh start, using something familiar.

But them aside, effect were good, Pine is a better Kirk than Shatner (my opinion, so relax, and NO! I will not change it!)

Zachary Quinto does a far better job at being Spock than I expected, nowhere near as good as Nimoy, but I doubt anyone could be.

John Cho as Sulu? While I will always prefer Takei, Cho is a decent choice but I was surprised.

Simon Pegg is too high profile to be Scotty. He plays the part well enough, but it's really hard to not see him as Shaun of the Star Trek.

Anton Yelchin is a VERY different Chekov, but, to be honest, I prefer this Chekov to the old one. He's adorable.

Sadana more or less is a modern Uhura. Not really very compelling and tends to be a bit too up-to-date in terms of her personality. But, she plays the part well, and how she plays Uhura fits with this universe's Star Trek.

The movie is a little too slow at times and a little too fast in others, so pacing is a bit uneven. Story is interesting and does open up the ST franchise to countless new possibilities.

Overall:
For a reboot, it is one of the better ones and the new Star Trek universe is an interesting one. I look forward to future installment and hope someone decides to do another TV show in THIS universe.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
ypomoniJul 5, 2013
I really enjoyed this film! There was action, there were great special effects, there was humour, and a lot of nostalgia for those familiar with the original series. All the characters were entertaining, although some could have beenI really enjoyed this film! There was action, there were great special effects, there was humour, and a lot of nostalgia for those familiar with the original series. All the characters were entertaining, although some could have been developed a bit more (Eric Bana was excellent as Nero, I wish we could have seen more of him).
The plot was nothing too complicated, making it easy for all to follow. Even if you had never seen a Star Trek film/episode before, you could still find this film a good sci-fi adventure. If, on the other hand, you loved the original Star Trek, then I can't see how you could not like this film. Zachary Quinto did justice to the character of Spock, and there were loads of inside jokes and references that will appeal to the avid fans. Not to mention that we finally hear Uhura's first name mentioned on screen!
Go see the film!… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
Longo12Feb 10, 2014
I really enjoyed this movie. Eric Bana steals every scene he's in as Nero. The dialogue is sometimes a little too cheesy but it certainly doesn't damage the movie too much. It's a fun, action-packed movie that never really takes itself tooI really enjoyed this movie. Eric Bana steals every scene he's in as Nero. The dialogue is sometimes a little too cheesy but it certainly doesn't damage the movie too much. It's a fun, action-packed movie that never really takes itself too seriously which I think is pretty rare nowadays. If you want to experience a fun movie then I would recommend it, just don't expect and Oscar contending movie.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
kyle20ellisMar 17, 2022
While it was not a perfect series (William Shatner's overacting, less than great production values and an iffy Season 3), the original 'Star Trek' series was a genre landmark and hugely influential and ground-breaking, also a mostly greatWhile it was not a perfect series (William Shatner's overacting, less than great production values and an iffy Season 3), the original 'Star Trek' series was a genre landmark and hugely influential and ground-breaking, also a mostly great series in its own right especially for the characters, the relationships and Leonard Nimoy's Spock.

The films based on the original series were a mixed bag. A few great ones with 'The Wrath of Khan', 'The Voyage Home' and 'The Undiscovered Country', one in-between film with 'The Search for Spock' and disappointments with 'The Motion Picture' and particularly 'The Final Frontier'. There were ten 'Star Trek' films before this 2009 reboot, four being based on the 'Next Generation series where the only outstanding one was 'First Contact'. 'Generations to me was another in-between film and 'Insurrection' and 'Nemesis' were two other particularly problematic ones.

'Star Trek' (2009) is neither one of the best of the films or one of the worst, if anything it's another in-between effort while being marginally better than the other two in-between films. There are a lot of impressive elements and some major flaws that stop it from being the great prequel that it had potential to be.

Visually, the film mostly looks great. Particularly good is the set for the Enterprise which not only amazes visually but one of the elements that sticks close to the original series. The special effects are mainly fantastic and leave one in awe, while there is audacious and suitably moody cinematography and atmospheric lighting. By all means it is not perfect visually, there is the distracting overuse of lens flares that was in serious need of a toning down, it was a technique that was abused somewhat, didn't feel necessary in some scenes and is not particularly comfortable sometimes to look at.

Michael Giacchino delivers another winner of a music score, don't remember ever being disappointed by this man. Sure it is familiar, but it fits very well with the film and its mood and is unmistakable Giacchino, a beautiful score to listen to and has a lot of atmosphere.

There are some thought-provoking moments in the script and it doesn't feel too talky which is true in spirit to the original series. Where it doesn't fare so well is the comic relief, there is a little too much of it and some of it wasn't particularly funny and seemed superfluous as well.

Regarding the story, 'Star Trek' (2009) evoked mixed reactions from me. It is rich in atmosphere and has some thrilling moments and truly exciting action, while the interplay between Kirk and Spock is brilliantly written and makes one feel quite nostalgic. Most of it is easy to follow. Less good are some bogus science, some parts that are convoluted and could have benefited from more explanation and Nero's plan and motivation being underdeveloped, confused and inconsistent. It is also too big and noisy in spectacle and could have quietened down to give room for more characterisation. One of the original series' strengths too was the characters and how they were developed and interacted, other than Kirk, McCoy and Spock there wasn't enough of that with most of them like Nero being far too one-dimensional.

Casting is mostly good but with a couple of misses. Zachary Quinto in particular nails it as Spock with huge shoes to fill, capturing perfectly what was so iconic about the character in the first place. Another great contribution is a suitably cantankerous Karl Urban, who remains loyal to DeForrest Kelley's interpretation without being an impersonation. Chris Pine did very well and is certainly more subtle than William Shatner, the character isn't likable at first but evolves and Pine brings that out. Zoe Saldana is fiery and sexy and Bruce Greenwood is good fun. It was nice to see Nimoy again as Old Spock and brought a nostalgic and affectionate element. Bana has some menace and does his best, but there are admittedly far more interesting villains in other 'Star Trek' films.

Not everybody works. Simon Pegg, who is usually a very entertaining guy, is beyond irritating comic relief with Scotty coming over as a caricature. Anton Yelchin has also given much better performances, he badly overdoes it as Chekhov.

In conclusion, fun and impressive often but with some major flaws at the same time. Nothing comes over disastrously though. 6.5-7/10 Bethany Cox… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
YellowKirbyMar 25, 2016
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. While it does destroy fifty years of canon with time-travel mumbo jumbo, J.J. Abrams' 'Star Trek' is nevertheless a brilliant origin story with great performances and direction.

Simon Pegg is still as funny as ever, and Leonard Nimoy returns as a callback to the show in the form of 'Old Spock', which is great.

But 'Star Trek' is not without flaws; the villain is underdeveloped and has some nonsense plan about drilling holes in planets or something like that, and as I said above, it deems the show non-canon with a confusing plot about time travel.

But in short, 'Star Trek', although not without flaws, is a great origin story to one of the most popular science-fiction shows of all time.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
7
FilipeNetoAug 22, 2018
The film franchise "Star Trek" began in the seventies at the expense of the enormous popularity of a TV series. Films have succeeded and, if we think about it, we can consider two cycles of films (the Kirk cycle and the Picard cycle) but, noThe film franchise "Star Trek" began in the seventies at the expense of the enormous popularity of a TV series. Films have succeeded and, if we think about it, we can consider two cycles of films (the Kirk cycle and the Picard cycle) but, no matter how much they change, they have always tried to maintain that inspirational connection with the source, the TV series. This movie is finally breaking with that. The series is no longer in the memory of the overwhelming majority of the audience and only the staunchest fans will challenge what this movie did: write a new story for "Star Trek", as if we could spend an eraser on everything that has been said and done so far and recreate everything from the scratch. Well, I usually take these exercises with caution but, I confess, I enjoyed the final product. I'm not from the generation that saw the series, so it doesn't shock me seeing the characters being reinvented with a brand new story. It can even be refreshing for new audiences.

Despite previous films, this film bets heavily on special effects and CGI. This made it visually terrific, even when these CGI seems quite unrealistic (the effect created when "Enterprise" reaches warp seems more and more like a submarine navigating fast forward). The actors did a very positive job and the least positive point was the romance between Spock and Uhura, with Kirk trying to make a triangle with them. This always seemed strange in the plot, even considering Kirk's womanizing, irresponsible and stubborn behavior. I enjoyed revisiting Leonard Nimoy in the character that earned him fame and success. The soundtrack is, by far, more interesting than the previous films, blending themes from the movies and the series into a unique and unmistakable soundtrack, that is in the ear.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
glommanNov 29, 2019
I'm not that familiar with Star Trek as a franchise, but I still very much enjoyed watching this movie. I would probably watch it again under certain circumstances, but it's not one of my favourite movies of all time, anyway, I think itI'm not that familiar with Star Trek as a franchise, but I still very much enjoyed watching this movie. I would probably watch it again under certain circumstances, but it's not one of my favourite movies of all time, anyway, I think it should be a must-watch for every fan of Star Trek!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
NickTheCritickApr 24, 2022
James Tiberius Kirk was born among the stars and raised in Iowa, rebellious and stubborn wants to know the name of the beautiful Uhura, honor his father's memory, serve a cause, explore new worlds and go where no man has gone before. SpockJames Tiberius Kirk was born among the stars and raised in Iowa, rebellious and stubborn wants to know the name of the beautiful Uhura, honor his father's memory, serve a cause, explore new worlds and go where no man has gone before. Spock was born on the planet Vulcan from a human mother and a Vulcan father, rational and controlled he practices the discipline of Kolinahr to purify himself of emotions, loves Uhura with virtuous transport, dominates his human half and enlisted in Starfleet. It is on the Enterprise, a prestigious spaceship governed by Captain Christopher Pike, that the two young men meet and clash to face a fearsome enemy from the future. A good film that of a Abraham's who gets away with the arduous task of adapting one of the most famous science-fiction series on American television into a film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Jesus_SavesApr 27, 2023
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I've never really been a Star Trek fan in the past, so I tried going into this movie with an open mind, and I thought it was pretty good. Kirk is a mixed lead. I do not care how he is a womanizer, but I liked parts of his charisma. Spock is an interesting character. I liked how you could tell the slight but noticeable difference between the younger version of himself, which is mainly stoic, save for one scene, whereas the future version of himself is more slightly more emotional, feeling a deep attachment to Kirk. The older version of Spock gives a very subtle performance in this regard, and I liked how the original actor for Spock retook his role for this movie. All the other characters are mostly static and one note, but I liked them regardless.

The writing can take a backseat at times. It is not all mindless action like some have said, but it does have some contrived moments. For example, when Vulcan was devoured by a black hole, they said that if they didn't leave immediately then they would get sucked in, more or less, yet they didn't. Also, to me it doesn't make since why Nyota would be attracted to Spock, since as said before, he is pretty emotionless. Speaking of Spock, it is contrived how he just happened to be at the cave that Kirk found on the ice planet, since the future is different in his timeline, so he couldn't have known that he would be there. In addition to this, despite being brilliantly smart, he was late to save an entire planet from annihilation? Finally, since this story has time travel in it, there are going to be some plot holes with it, but this is hardly a Star Trek exclusive problem.

The CGI, set pieces, and music are all really good, and you can tell that the film makers cared about this movie. This film is good overall, with some flaws here and there.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DaveSMay 20, 2009
Sadly, I left this movie that was more frenetic than anything else. The plot was dense yet didn't make much sense, was sort of pointless. The production values/effects were amazing, though, but I hated the guys they cast as Scotty and Sadly, I left this movie that was more frenetic than anything else. The plot was dense yet didn't make much sense, was sort of pointless. The production values/effects were amazing, though, but I hated the guys they cast as Scotty and Chekov. A weird experience that left me a little disappointed.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
LizzieBeth-1May 8, 2009
Heartless, largely humourless, a bit Nazi, this "Lost" in Star Trek plays like it was created by an Asperger's Syndrome sufferer. It hits all the right marks without having any gifts, and is forgettable eye candy 1/2hr later. At least Heartless, largely humourless, a bit Nazi, this "Lost" in Star Trek plays like it was created by an Asperger's Syndrome sufferer. It hits all the right marks without having any gifts, and is forgettable eye candy 1/2hr later. At least it didn't kill the franchise. Uhura's love for Spock is stupid; Simon Pegg is an uncomfortable fit for Scotty; and the plot is too buried for the sake of action. Heartless pap that's too fast and too flashy for people with short attention spans. Frustrating. No longevity. Talk to me in 3yrs. Lizziebeth-1, IMDb… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ZackP.Oct 11, 2009
Great action scenes with excellent CGI, coupled with Pine and Quinto's performances, were the highlights. Most of the other bridge crew and the plot at large were badly thought out with poor pacing. Having Nimoy try and sneak by flimsy Great action scenes with excellent CGI, coupled with Pine and Quinto's performances, were the highlights. Most of the other bridge crew and the plot at large were badly thought out with poor pacing. Having Nimoy try and sneak by flimsy excuses in a mind meld monologue failed completely too - waste of the best actor in the film, similar complaint with Greenwood playing Pike. It comes down to this; if you're young and never heard of Star Trek before, this will be one of the best films you've ever seen. If not, it's an above-average action movie with the Star Trek name on it, complete with all the usual cliched dialogue you'd expect from the genre. I liked X-Men Origins: Wolverine better and that was no masterpiece either, but amazingly the story made more sense and there weren't massive lens flares all over the place.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
NeilK.May 7, 2009
Star Trek is visually entertaining, but less intellectually interesting. I felt J.J. Abrams almost brought too much of his television expertise to this film, as I found many of the characters too one-dimensional and extreme in their Star Trek is visually entertaining, but less intellectually interesting. I felt J.J. Abrams almost brought too much of his television expertise to this film, as I found many of the characters too one-dimensional and extreme in their portrayals: they felt too much like stereotypes and not enough like believable humans (or vulcans). The plot itself made little sense and didn't even try to hide it. I am not a huge Trekkie, but the divergences from the established timeline did bug me at some parts. All in all I consider it more a failure on the part of the writing team not fleshing out characters and creating a cohesive plot rather than Mr. Abrams, who delivers a fast paced (perhaps too much so) summer blockbuster.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MathieuD.Aug 26, 2009
A technically competent sci-fi production that fails to live up to the tact and thoughtfulness that fans have come to expect from the franchise. This is not an extension of the mythology, it's an MTV friendly re imaging.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
robertiDec 20, 2009
Good, even better than it should be, but not worth the hype of the critical reviews.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JayDMay 14, 2009
I've never been a huge sci-fi fan, but the outstanding reviews caused me to go out and see this movie (excited to see it even). Sadly, I felt that it was one ultra convenient event after another. I dare someone to answer this for me: I've never been a huge sci-fi fan, but the outstanding reviews caused me to go out and see this movie (excited to see it even). Sadly, I felt that it was one ultra convenient event after another. I dare someone to answer this for me: How do people get all these high ranking jobs simply be hopping on a ship??? The effects were good, but effects alone do not make a movie good. The story new time-line story-line was acceptable, but certainly nothing worth writing home about. On the plus side, most of the acting was above par. The best praise I can give to this film is that at least it wasn't directed by Michael "Ruiner of Movies" Bay.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BobH.May 8, 2009
I am mourning the passing of original story line..... it's kind of like waking up from a dream and knowing that everything that happened in the dream never happened.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ZacharyJMay 14, 2009
Really, 100s? Not only did they totally change the personalities of the characters, but they came up with a lame "excuse" to legitimize it! Alright, I understand that this is focused at a younger crowd, but why tarnish something so sacred? Really, 100s? Not only did they totally change the personalities of the characters, but they came up with a lame "excuse" to legitimize it! Alright, I understand that this is focused at a younger crowd, but why tarnish something so sacred? Why not just come up with a new, hip Sci-Fi movie instead of dumbing down a classic series that very few young-folk care about anyway? I'll put my trekkie tendencies aside and look at this differently: What a stupid movie! Why are the Romulans all bald? With all their "future" technology, can they still not handle lice? I'm tired of bald villains and hereby declare that I refuse to watch any film with a bald baddie from this day forward...unless I really want see it-- And the camera drove me nuts! Hold it still! I get that you want to beef-up the intensity and/or make it feel more reality-TVish in the moment-like, but it makes it hard to pay attention to silly, over-dramatic acting when the camera keeps bouncing up and down. And what about that "shoot-out?" Did they just film Kirk and Spock walking down a hallway then let second unit take care of death-shots? It was pathetic. So--that said, it's a pretty fun movie with some good laughs, but no sign of intelligence or nostalgic worth.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DM.Jun 15, 2009
This Star Trek was better than the last two movies in terms of its pacing and direction. While it is a good movie this vision of Star Trek by JJ Abrams is not my cup of tea. Yes change in the Star Trek universe is possible witness the death This Star Trek was better than the last two movies in terms of its pacing and direction. While it is a good movie this vision of Star Trek by JJ Abrams is not my cup of tea. Yes change in the Star Trek universe is possible witness the death of Admiral Janeway in some recent novels. I think that JJ Abrams could have brought the original crew together w/o totally disregarding the 5 TV series. I had no problem with the actors they did a fine job. There were way too many plot holes and continuity problems. While JJ Abrams seems from interviews to a nice guy it is very obvious that he never was a Star Trek fan. He has totally disregarded the Star Trek universe. He has turned Star Trek into a video game.One of the best aspects of Star Trek was this rich history to work with and build upon. I am sorry but this movie doesn't do anything for me. So many bitched about Rick Berman and Enterprise-this movie is far worse in many ways.Considering that one of the script writers was a fan of Star Trek I have to think did they really watch the show after all?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JB.Jul 14, 2009
I think this movie is a bit overated by people hoping for a huge sci-fi flick to follow for years to come. ST was not bad, but it was not that great either. I'm sure they will make a few sequels that will be even worse than this though I think this movie is a bit overated by people hoping for a huge sci-fi flick to follow for years to come. ST was not bad, but it was not that great either. I'm sure they will make a few sequels that will be even worse than this though just like transformers managed to go from fun special effects boom-boom to pure rot.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PhilSAug 17, 2009
Despite being yet another example of Hollywood's lack of imagination and a typically impossible Star Trek storyline, the film is a hoot to watch. It's not unlike cotton candy - tastes good and provides a fun experience for a little Despite being yet another example of Hollywood's lack of imagination and a typically impossible Star Trek storyline, the film is a hoot to watch. It's not unlike cotton candy - tastes good and provides a fun experience for a little while, but ultimately has no nutritional value.… Expand
0 of 0 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
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
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
TyranianApr 13, 2019
Definitely channelling Star Wars in its operatic tone but holds up decently on its own though doesn't really excite.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
6
Jailhouse_McGeeOct 24, 2012
What a fresh action-comedy... But hey, I was expecting a science-fiction movie! What went wrong? Star Trek takes 30 boring minutes to set itself up like a teenage comedy, explaining that Kirk is Kirk and Spock, well, Spock. Then the actionWhat a fresh action-comedy... But hey, I was expecting a science-fiction movie! What went wrong? Star Trek takes 30 boring minutes to set itself up like a teenage comedy, explaining that Kirk is Kirk and Spock, well, Spock. Then the action kicks in, and it gets a lot better. It's a lot of fun, and the actors, effects and score are pretty damn good. But the story is thin and the script rather heavy-handed. Where are the ideas and ideals? Would I be a real star trek geek, I would probably be offended by this.

Poor Gene Roddenberry...… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
6
CoreGamer1408Dec 9, 2018
They tried and failed to Star Wars a Star Trek oh deary me what more can I comment hey?
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
liamexeOct 31, 2022
The action movie that we've come to expect from J.J. Abram is here dressed as Star Trek. But don't worry, it's not dull and nerdy like Star Trek; instead, it's cool and sexy and makes little sense. Set pieces occur at random, much like in aThe action movie that we've come to expect from J.J. Abram is here dressed as Star Trek. But don't worry, it's not dull and nerdy like Star Trek; instead, it's cool and sexy and makes little sense. Set pieces occur at random, much like in a video game! The effects are still quite fantastic, and occasionally you can see them through lens flares! Your favourite characters are all speaking some of the same lines! It manages to be just a little bit more troublesome than a genuine 1960s TV programme! ...as well as other such stuff. If you disregard what it's pretending to be, it's a punchy contemporary sci-fi movie that did so well that the director was given the opportunity to destroy another cherished sci-fi brand thereafter.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JeremyC.May 8, 2009
Bad writing leads to an amalgamation of mediocre sequences. This film fails at both recreating the original Star Trek by avoiding any sort of moral or ethical conflict in the story and it fails at establishing a newer realistic portrayal of Bad writing leads to an amalgamation of mediocre sequences. This film fails at both recreating the original Star Trek by avoiding any sort of moral or ethical conflict in the story and it fails at establishing a newer realistic portrayal of the Star Trek world. You are regularly asked to to suspend disbelief, not merely to afford over-the-top action, but often so that you can accept basic aspects of the plot. This film is Galaxy Quest with better special effects but less funny.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SteveV.May 10, 2009
I understand the need to create an alternative Star Trek universe to kickstart the franchise so new actors, characters and storyline were required. Some of the characters were spot on causing you to reminisce for the old series others were I understand the need to create an alternative Star Trek universe to kickstart the franchise so new actors, characters and storyline were required. Some of the characters were spot on causing you to reminisce for the old series others were simply distracting and took you immediately out of the story. Chekov seemed to be more for comic relief than any serious attempt at an honest portrayal. Uhura - enough already. And although J.J. Abrams has demonstrated some outstanding talent he has also demonstrated that he can be equally bad - Mission Impossible 3, Cloverfield, and now this. To paraphrase Tim Burton "I am not sure I could identify a good script if it bit me in the face" Listen to Tim J.J. - Great action, cinematography, and good actors cannot overcome this kind of uninspired and ridiculous writing. As the Executive Producer you should have fired whoever whoever pitched this script to you. Additionally track down and ceremonially fire anyone who has ever encouraged them or lied to them by even implying that that had a talent for screenwriting.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RangeboyMay 25, 2009
Now, I've always been a Star Wars fan but admired Star Trek for its detailed depiction of wider issues and realism. Consequently I had massive reservations about Lucas' trilogy prequels and JJ Abrams seems to have done the same Now, I've always been a Star Wars fan but admired Star Trek for its detailed depiction of wider issues and realism. Consequently I had massive reservations about Lucas' trilogy prequels and JJ Abrams seems to have done the same here with ST. Taken a 'universe' with its own unique history, characters and 'feel' and tinker with it to update it to fit in with what they think modern viewers like. It DOESN'T WORK!! Product placement, contemporary music (why would a young Kirk kisten to Beatie Boys? oh yeah, h's supposd to be a rebel, thankyou JJ for pointing that out) a bar-room brawl, pathetic coincidences trying to explain character motivations/origins. Cringe inducing boy Spock fighting with other Vulcans, appauling monster chase scene on a clichéd ice-world, no real explanation of Spock and Uhura's relationship and so much more other complete crap! I enjoy a summer blockbuster, i really do, but they have to have at least some substance to get above a 5 or 6 out of 10 surely!!? 5 for the visual and audio effects but beacause are both from the same people who did Star Wars (ILM and Ben Burtt) it seems a bit too Star Wars prequel-ish. Leave your brain at the pocorn stand.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RobS.May 7, 2009
Too much effect driven. Doesn't have enough character drive or development. The only new plots are spock and uhuruh. It could have been so much more without that much work
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BillS.May 8, 2009
Really disappointing after reading all the glowing reviews. Really to fast paced - there was no time to develop a story that the audience would care about. Too many close-up shots and not enough interaction between the characters. There was Really disappointing after reading all the glowing reviews. Really to fast paced - there was no time to develop a story that the audience would care about. Too many close-up shots and not enough interaction between the characters. There was no star fleet philosophy. The masses might like it but the fan won't. The fan will see it as perfunctory - JJ does channel a little bit of the old characters through the actors, but only very shallowly. The only good thing is that because the action will make the masses like it I hope it restarts the franchise.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SeannF.May 8, 2009
Characters were good (except for Uhara), dialogue was witty in places, cinematography and special effects were beautiful but the story was incredibly (poor).
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RichardJ.May 9, 2009
As a summer blockbuster action movie, Star Trek is excellent. The action scenes are intense and exciting, and the story of Kirk and Spock's origins was very compelling. Newcomers to the Star Trek universe will be very entertained, As a summer blockbuster action movie, Star Trek is excellent. The action scenes are intense and exciting, and the story of Kirk and Spock's origins was very compelling. Newcomers to the Star Trek universe will be very entertained, however many fans will be very disappointed. In the interests of opening up Star Trek to a wider audience, J.J. Abrams has taken many liberties with the story which many fans might find too much to swallow.… Expand
0 of 0 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
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
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
OoshMay 15, 2009
What should have been a genuine reboot (ala Batman) descended in to a poor pastiche of the original full of clumsy plot devices. Even if a little stilted It's not a bad action movie but wait for DVD/TV.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
andrzejrMay 21, 2009
I left disappointed. I'm by no means a Trekkie, but I am a lover of sci-fi, and I am an engineer. The delivery of the young Kirk felt a bit overzealous in its attempt at "I'm so bad I'm the Fonz". The rest of the crew felt I left disappointed. I'm by no means a Trekkie, but I am a lover of sci-fi, and I am an engineer. The delivery of the young Kirk felt a bit overzealous in its attempt at "I'm so bad I'm the Fonz". The rest of the crew felt 'right' however, at least in comparison to all the previous flicks. Overall, the movie felt a little too 'clean', but then again that is part of the Star Trek lore I suppose, so I can't blame them for at least maintaining that, even though i wish they hadn't. Definitely NOT buying a blu-ray of this one.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
bobbobaMay 22, 2009
Lost it half-way through. Kirk is entertaining but the plot turned dry and plodding. I thought Nimoy was a much better actor in his early days but here his turn was amateurish at best. What a waste.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
StigO.May 8, 2009
Too much "Cloverfield." Not enough "Lost." A constantly moving whirligig camera is not a substitute for either acting or story-telling. Just hold the thing still, for Pete's sake, so we can see what's happening.* And the film Too much "Cloverfield." Not enough "Lost." A constantly moving whirligig camera is not a substitute for either acting or story-telling. Just hold the thing still, for Pete's sake, so we can see what's happening.* And the film literally strips the classic characters of their dignity.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
GregS.May 9, 2009
Dazzling effects and some excellent casting for McCoy and Uhuru especially. The Kirk and Spock characters were suitably underdeveloped as they should be in a prequel.. Chekhov and Scott were just fun. But the overall presentation struck me Dazzling effects and some excellent casting for McCoy and Uhuru especially. The Kirk and Spock characters were suitably underdeveloped as they should be in a prequel.. Chekhov and Scott were just fun. But the overall presentation struck me as "Star Trek for Dummies," which is to say, much more like the Star Wars franchise. As a stand-alone movie, it was very enjoyable. As part of the Star Trek canon, it was not there.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PhilH.May 9, 2009
Tom K. is right, all style no substance. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed myself in the theater, and it was worth my money for that enjoyment. But this is not a serious Star Trek film, like some of the earlier movies were. It's like Tom K. is right, all style no substance. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed myself in the theater, and it was worth my money for that enjoyment. But this is not a serious Star Trek film, like some of the earlier movies were. It's like watching a typical episode from the original series on the big screen. Fun, action-packed, but little depth and no intelligence. P.S., like most movies made in the past ten years, the action sequences were too frenetic. If I'm watching a fight scene, I want to see whats actually happening, not flashing colors and close ups of fists.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
billC.Jun 3, 2009
Lots of action and for the most part the casting was very good.BUT , Why in this pre-quil are all the equipment /devices on the Enterprise way more complex and advanced? From computers to weapons everything looked very much in the furure not Lots of action and for the most part the casting was very good.BUT , Why in this pre-quil are all the equipment /devices on the Enterprise way more complex and advanced? From computers to weapons everything looked very much in the furure not the past if you consider any past Star Trek episode or movie.And the action seemed to be there not to tell a morality paly , but to pump it up. It's a botched effort. It could have been better.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DávidK.Jul 24, 2009
Absolutely average. A movie that wouldn't be remembered if it wouldn't have the name "Star Trek" in it. The example of what is wrong with cinematography today. Foreseeable story, characters and etc. It tries to be us clear as Absolutely average. A movie that wouldn't be remembered if it wouldn't have the name "Star Trek" in it. The example of what is wrong with cinematography today. Foreseeable story, characters and etc. It tries to be us clear as possible leaving no room for thoughts just dumb starring. When someone kiss it doesn't have to mean its romantic, or when someone says something with Russian accent it doesn't mean its humor. And since when does it is that films that include "action, romance, humor for everyone" are good movies? The effects were good, wont be in 5 years. The effects in old star trek movies still do it. So no it was NOT great, just average.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
GregFordMay 12, 2009
[***SPOILERS***]Spock and Uhura---wrong Spock losing his cool---wrong. In your face fight scenes---wrong Future meeting the present---very wrong Giving it a 5 is generous.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MikeMMay 14, 2009
Leave brain at door. Bring Back The Kirk in the next one. Anything goes now!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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
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
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
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
Page:
More From This Movie

82 Critic Reviews

7.8 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL