Star Trek

5

pauljohnsonDec 7, 2011

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

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

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

JohnTYAug 17, 2014

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

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

DawdlingPoetNov 27, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a sci-fi film, with themes including survival, time travel and destiny. It starts in a very grand way, seemingly in the middle of a plot of some sort, with a lot going on - special effects and the whole she-bang. I can't claim to be a Trekkie, although im very much aware of them - I like some sci fi, mostly earth based sci fi shows but I wanted to watch this film as I was intrigued to see how a modern day full, big budget film adaptation would go, particularly given the decent cast line up (which I'll elaborate on later). Of course this isn't a film to be analysed in any kind of large detail, although as far as realism goes, I was really quite impressed with the visual effects side of things. This is more of a 'sit, watch and be entertained by the effects (incl. action sequences)' type of a film.

Cast wise, I thought that Zachary Quinto was very well chosen to portray Spock. From what I know of old TV show clips, he very much looks the part and plays the slightly brooding and thoughtful captain quite convincingly. Leonard Nimoy, who played Spock in the original TV shows also makes an appearance in this film, as Spock Prime. Meanwhile, Chris Pine plays the other main character, James T. Kirk, with Eric Bana (yes, Incredible Hulk himself! well, sort of) playing Nero and Scotty played by Simon Pegg (who, I have to say, really didn't convince me with his rather bad forced Scottish accent - och-aye-the-clearly-not-Scot(!) sigh), plus John Cho as Sulu and Zoe Saldana as Uhura.

I felt that there were some seemingly unnecessarily cheesy moments in the film, in terms of the plot becoming a little obvious and maybe it felt slightly forced but I did enjoy it overall. Its fairly easy to follow if your not 'up' (i.e. knowledgable) on the whole Star Trek universe prior to seeing it. I thought it was quite an energetic film, with perhaps less emphasis on the overall plot and fine minutiae of things but the young cast and crew and the more general setting of it went down well with me. Of course this is a personal thing, so it may not overly appeal to others. There is the perhaps inevitable use of strong, sombre sounding music - with deep, sometimes slow drum beats and low, menacing booms, it makes you feel (if sub-consciously) that there must be something dodgy looming right around the corner. Thankfully, this film isn't too bad when it comes to being able to hear dialogue over the music - it is louder than some may like, particularly in between scenes (when scene setting, as a new landscape or area comes in to view) but it isn't the earbashingly excessive music that can be found in some films. At least at those moments you can turn the volume down, if but temporarily.

I felt the film did well in being quite immersive - the realism and use of dramatic music (if anything, it being slightly too loud but not too bad), I feel, did help it to seem a surprisingly atmospheric watch, which helped me to stop wanting to switch it off. I have been intrigued to watch films and shows like this but found them too hard to really 'get into' but this I felt worked well for me, personally. Some of the scenes are more dialogue based and less action focussed but it didn't outright bore me overall and if I had to choose between the two, I'd still say that there's more of an emphasis on the action sequences.

The only other comment I can think to make is that I did notice the camerawork was quite shaky at times - I suppose you could argue that it made the more, perhaps, worrying and desperate scenes (plot wise), seem more tense and edgy but I'm not sure it was entirely necessary and could be an irritating distraction to some (a little like Pegg's excruciating not Scottish sounding Scottish accent but I tend to like his performances, so I'll politely slightly over look that) but that, the ocassional cheesy moment, a slightly long winded ending and sometimes slightly too loud music aside, its a pretty decent film, which regardless of these criticisms, I still felt to be quite good overall. Given the number of disadvantages I've noted, you'd think I'd give it a lower score but I feel that I can't not rate it as a good film as it was entertaining and visually immersive, hence my rating.

Yes, I'd recommend this film as being a fairly immersive watch - its entertaining and features some impressive visual effects. It isn't constantly dialogue heavy and I didn't feel I had to know every in and out of the Star Trek universe, so to speak, in order to enjoy it. The cast seem to do a good job and so I felt it to be a decent film adaptation.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

EdwardKMay 12, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

KenE.May 7, 2009

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

0 of 2 users found this helpful

4

TomK.May 9, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

DavidD.May 10, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

AramisG.May 10, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

GOE42May 11, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

AramisgjrMay 11, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

JosephB.May 10, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

MichelleNMay 14, 2009

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

HumprtPumMay 15, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

AdamB.May 9, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

williamc.Jun 20, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

LarrySJul 1, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

NMacMay 22, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

ChiKJun 12, 2009

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

4

tonyGreenNov 20, 2010

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

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

3

RobertP.May 12, 2009

I wanted to like this Star Trek outing but it just did not deliver for me. I have no qualms with the cast or acting. I especially liked Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Pike but this movie is not well written and it is hard to get past this. The I wanted to like this Star Trek outing but it just did not deliver for me. I have no qualms with the cast or acting. I especially liked Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Pike but this movie is not well written and it is hard to get past this. The revenge aspect of the plot is based on an event that makes no sense at all. They throw in a backstory for the villian that is short and could not have happened. Plus you don't even learn what it is until half way through the film. I was disappointed, hopefully the sequel will be better.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

3

JoeBLowMay 12, 2009

I don't get the positive reviews and ratings. The action scenes were a herky-jerky mess. The plot blazed along so quickly, with so little exposition, that the characters felt paper thin. The setting was the typical Trek blah, with no I don't get the positive reviews and ratings. The action scenes were a herky-jerky mess. The plot blazed along so quickly, with so little exposition, that the characters felt paper thin. The setting was the typical Trek blah, with no sense of culture, time or place. Most of all, it didn't look like a MOVIE, it looked like an overgrown TV episode -- and I saw it on an IMAX screen! For all their many (MANY) weaknesses, when you watch a Star Wars movie, at least you feel like you're seeing a real movie. The plot contrivances were so massive that you gave up any pretense of reality before the second half. Consider what a coincidence it was that Kirk happened to confront the man who killed his father, as a newly commissioned captain, just like his father. Wow, how significant. The reviews are all wrong, sorry.… Expand

3 of 10 users found this helpful

3

PeteSMay 14, 2009

There was no grace or glamor to this film whatsoever. It sped from scene to scene with very little clarity. The jokes seemed forced and slapstick. The plot was vague. The cinematics were anything but. The soundtrack was nothing more than the There was no grace or glamor to this film whatsoever. It sped from scene to scene with very little clarity. The jokes seemed forced and slapstick. The plot was vague. The cinematics were anything but. The soundtrack was nothing more than the same 3 notes being played over and over again. All in all, it was a poor Star Trek. I am stunned that the critics bought in so completely into the hype.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

3

JEFFJMay 22, 2009

I JUST SAW IT YESTERDAY AND SPEAKING AS A LONG-TIME STAR TREK FAN: Like most movies made recently, it was a special-effects extravaganza. Also like most movies made today, the plot seems like it was written for a comic book. Star Trek I JUST SAW IT YESTERDAY AND SPEAKING AS A LONG-TIME STAR TREK FAN: Like most movies made recently, it was a special-effects extravaganza. Also like most movies made today, the plot seems like it was written for a comic book. Star Trek purists will be especially disappointed. The actors selected to portray the characters were OK, but the film suffered from an unbelievably moronic story line. I… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful

3

NickMay 7, 2009

A two hour setup for a sequel. The plot consists of recycled Star Trek (and Star Wars) cliches and the dialogue seems to mostly be wink and nod quotations for the fans. I'm not a hardcore Trekker and I couldn't care less if they A two hour setup for a sequel. The plot consists of recycled Star Trek (and Star Wars) cliches and the dialogue seems to mostly be wink and nod quotations for the fans. I'm not a hardcore Trekker and I couldn't care less if they mess with the Star Trek universe but this was a bad movie. Maybe it is time to bury it once and for all.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful

3

CM.May 8, 2009

Being a Hard Core Star Trek fan - The only thing going for this Movie was the Special Effects and its laughable, story line.... I felt this movie, was too made up and not true to the Original series or story line that made Genes baby come to Being a Hard Core Star Trek fan - The only thing going for this Movie was the Special Effects and its laughable, story line.... I felt this movie, was too made up and not true to the Original series or story line that made Genes baby come to life in the 1960's. Spock was on the Enterprise with Captian Pike - when Kirk was in the Academy.... the list of errors goes from there - MC coy was not the Physian in the first show with Kirk as Captain, etc. It would have been nice, If they would have made it towards - how The Captain & crew of the Enterprise, all met either on the Star Ship or before since many were of Different Ages and on Different ships.... I must face the facts, the original Star Trek, is now somethng to be misused and Non actors - but pretty boys play parts, that take on Han Solo's charectistics.......… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful

3

AaronDJun 7, 2009

Simple put, the film is a mess, the camera work is all over the place, never truly building up a scene. The script is sad, it's like they wanted to make a cheesy Hollywood action film...that would make a whole lot more sense. The music Simple put, the film is a mess, the camera work is all over the place, never truly building up a scene. The script is sad, it's like they wanted to make a cheesy Hollywood action film...that would make a whole lot more sense. The music is constant, it sounds like generic Hollywood score...it gets really annoying. This film is created with a formula that has fooled audiences for a long time, this film receiving acclaim is huge @#$% you to film as art, and a pay check for paramount.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful

3

FireA.Sep 21, 2009

If you're not a sci-fi geek do NOT watch it. It's a waste of time and money, and is some piece of shit made just to drag money from sci-fi geeks.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

3

EdwardR.Jul 19, 2009

Just how the Next Generation movies failed to capture the spirit of TNG, this move failed to capture the spirit of Trek is general. Despite having a stunning opening, you eventually realise that this is a generic action movie with little Just how the Next Generation movies failed to capture the spirit of TNG, this move failed to capture the spirit of Trek is general. Despite having a stunning opening, you eventually realise that this is a generic action movie with little plot. Oh, an things don't make sense. Why do Kirk and Spock hate each other so much that they fight on the bridge? Why does Nero blame Spock for all his problems? Why is Nimoy in this film? Why have a scene where Kirk drives a car of a cliff? When did black holes become time travel portals (har, har)? Still, if you want a generic action movie...… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful

3

MiKEDec 23, 2009

Looks liked I missed something, but to me this movie was awful!!! I found it so boring, it reminded me of the old star trek, just with new special effects. Why do all the other aliens have to have a humanoid shape?

3 of 12 users found this helpful

3

gimmedatsammichOct 7, 2012

I only needed twenty minutes to know the next one hundred would be garbage. A trite, melodramatic script that aggressively violates the "show, don't tell" rule, passable CGI ruined by a baffling decision to drench EVERYTHING in sun glare, andI only needed twenty minutes to know the next one hundred would be garbage. A trite, melodramatic script that aggressively violates the "show, don't tell" rule, passable CGI ruined by a baffling decision to drench EVERYTHING in sun glare, and editing so brisk it makes one feel as if they are watching a collection of (poorly made) short films instead of one fully fledged story. Pass.… Expand

4 of 11 users found this helpful47

All this user's reviews

3

AlienSpaceBatsFeb 14, 2014

Painfully dull clichéd action fare, Star Trek is not Star Trek. Transposed aspects of the original are diluted, stripped-down, downright illogical and nonsensical. Appropriate for 'teen' audiences, the mentally deficient and those not yetPainfully dull clichéd action fare, Star Trek is not Star Trek. Transposed aspects of the original are diluted, stripped-down, downright illogical and nonsensical. Appropriate for 'teen' audiences, the mentally deficient and those not yet born when even The Next Generation was on air. Dreck.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

3

SpangleAug 22, 2016

Star Trek is really awful. The original series was known for being cheesy and stupid, which is also why it never resonated with me too much. Sadly, so is this one. Packed with stupid quips that are supposed to be funny but are not, Star TrekStar Trek is really awful. The original series was known for being cheesy and stupid, which is also why it never resonated with me too much. Sadly, so is this one. Packed with stupid quips that are supposed to be funny but are not, Star Trek is also maligned by many other faults. The entire cast is dreadful, the story is beyond stupid, convoluted, and ruined by the time travel element. The time travel element, instead of being interesting, is really poorly executed and makes no sense whatsoever. It adds a layer of complexity to a plot that did not really need another layer of complexity. The resolution comes far too quickly and easily. Sure, some people die, but the crew is never really threatened. The plot is packed with filler that really adds nothing other than an opportunity to play 80's music. The dialogue is horrifically cringe-inducing and, even worse, it looks fake. The set design is blatantly obvious and is so bad it is reminiscent of a 50's movie when somebody is "driving" a car - it is that obvious. The only saving grace here is the special effects, which are incredible. Unfortunately, the look of the film is ruined by JJ Abrams' hard on for lens flare, which is distracting and wildly overused. Overall, Star Trek may have stunning space visuals and some cool designs, but the film is like the hot girl with no personality.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

3

PanchogulJun 27, 2022

El único producto bueno de Star Trek, que de por si es una franquicia aburridisima.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

rederpJan 3, 2016

Where to begin. How to compare the reboot to original trek and whether to compare it to TNG?

Firstly, what made trek trek? Above all, star trek had at its core a humanistic theme and vision. It was often a story of how to tackle 1 or 2Where to begin. How to compare the reboot to original trek and whether to compare it to TNG?

Firstly, what made trek trek? Above all, star trek had at its core a humanistic theme and vision. It was often a story of how to tackle 1 or 2 specific current day issues without the pragmatic constraints of our current day world. It was often hopelessly idealistically naive (from our point of view) but always thought provoking and sometimes (mainstream) ground-breaking. This is what set the star trek franchise apart from generic sci-fi and space adventure like Star Wars.

Sadly, this movie utterly failed to capture that essence of trek.

The first 20 mins of opening sequence are a beautiful and somewhat emotional alternate/new back-story to Captain Kirk. If all the movie were like this it would get 9 or 10 stars from me. From there on however this movie primarily trades on nostalgia quotes and references in-between modern cgi explosions and fisticuffs. By the middle of the movie this is starting to wear thin and you are starting to notice the omnipresent lens-flares. A pointless scene shot in an obvious distillery marks the low-point and realisation that this is all it has to offer.

This is a cheap, popcorn action flick trading on the beloved franchise in name and nostalgia only. Worse than that, the time taken by the shallow and transparent throwbacks leaves the characters feeling very 2 dimensional and there isn't any room for a plot worth speaking of (except by the many plot contrivances). It manages to have less gravitas than the average stand-alone, high-budget, Hollywood action movie.

In short; it's just loud, fast and dumb, exactly what classic trek was deliberately and notably not.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

2

AndrewP.May 8, 2009

Terible, terible film. It was unsure if it was parody, homage or reboot and it is very clear that Abrams was a Star Wars not a Star Trek fan. It takes an iconic brand and converts it into a generic sci-fi/action film. The plot is terrible Terible, terible film. It was unsure if it was parody, homage or reboot and it is very clear that Abrams was a Star Wars not a Star Trek fan. It takes an iconic brand and converts it into a generic sci-fi/action film. The plot is terrible and doesn't hold up to even minor scrutiny and turning Kirk into the main character from Top Gun was unforgivable. Too many action scenes that are only punctuated by some forced dialogue and endless exposition.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful

2

StephenXAug 2, 2009

Plot was so thin it was see through. Nothing but special effects. Makes the old star trek films look good.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

2

NigelG.May 8, 2009

There is no snippet of hope in this film. It is worse than even I had felt possible and symbolizes everything that is currently wrong with the Hollywood film industry and its treatment of Science Fiction in particular. The final minute gives There is no snippet of hope in this film. It is worse than even I had felt possible and symbolizes everything that is currently wrong with the Hollywood film industry and its treatment of Science Fiction in particular. The final minute gives us the immortal Trek tagline, spoken wistfully by Leonard Nimoy. As the words echoed around the cinema, (… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful

2

KarlB.May 8, 2009

Trying to grind old eaten hamburger will not make a good meal. This film reaks of trying to make a buck and the route taken is a failure.

0 of 4 users found this helpful

2

NathanR.May 9, 2009

Awful. Just awful. Let's start from the beginning. . . what's with the Beastie Boy's "Sabotage" doing in a Star Trek film? I knew this movie was bogus from about that point on. The character development was poor. The villain Awful. Just awful. Let's start from the beginning. . . what's with the Beastie Boy's "Sabotage" doing in a Star Trek film? I knew this movie was bogus from about that point on. The character development was poor. The villain was not menacing. Poor acting all around. Each fight scene is predictable. Horrible score. At certain points I felt like I was watching a college drama in space. . .complete with sex scenes and plenty of make outs. Wtf was Winona Ryder doing in this?!? Were we supposed to care about ANY of these characters? I sure didn't! The only thing I cared about was checking my watch in hopes that this flop was almost done with. And how about the final battle that was practically lifted from Star Wars?? I kept waiting for Han Solo to yell "You're all clear kid, now let's blow this thing and go home!" However, the film does deserve a couple points for great visual effects. Unfortunately even the effects were sometimes cheesy. I wasn't sure if I was watching a movie or playing a game of Halo. This one is a stinker!… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful

2

JCGJun 19, 2009

Action? Yes, in abundance. Special FX? Obviously, being a movie about outer space and the future. Story? NO, zero story - zilch. I mean dragging out the temporal distortion alternate future time traveling episode filler is nothing new for Action? Yes, in abundance. Special FX? Obviously, being a movie about outer space and the future. Story? NO, zero story - zilch. I mean dragging out the temporal distortion alternate future time traveling episode filler is nothing new for ST, but couldn't they come up with something more original? Lot's of eyecandy but no research into the ST universe at all. And Scotty... what ludicrous ACID-snorting twit came up with the idea to make that guy scotty? sure he's a good actor (to some extent) but he aint and never will be scotty. I mean it's one thing getting used to Syler being (a very emotional) Spock (I swear at times I could hear the ticking timepieces!) And then to end the most profound meeting there could be between the two spocks ends, not with a vulcan Live Long and prosper greeting but, with a goodbye. That's not innovation. It's heresy. All REAL trekkies should band together and go put the director (or as he will from now on be known - T.A.C.) to the torch. Or the phaser or whatever.. Ps. If they insist on adapting Star Trek into an action thrill ride for the Mindless-want-it-now! generation of today... rather call it some else and let ST die a quiet and dignified death.… Expand

5 of 12 users found this helpful

2

AlanSJun 8, 2009

I have almost always been a Star Trek fan, but this 2009 is a real disappointment

0 of 2 users found this helpful

2

HowardWMay 19, 2009

If you like a mindless story line, lots of meaningless explosions and summer stock acting, I urge you to see this thorough waste of two hours. If you are over twelve, ignore my advice and stay home.

3 of 6 users found this helpful

2

h.bMay 22, 2009

I gave this a 2 - for the 2 reasons that did make some impression. Mr. Leonard Nimoy. You are still the best, sir. And the ending of this awful movie full of contridictions of the original t.v. show. Mr. Nimoy and the ending was the only two I gave this a 2 - for the 2 reasons that did make some impression. Mr. Leonard Nimoy. You are still the best, sir. And the ending of this awful movie full of contridictions of the original t.v. show. Mr. Nimoy and the ending was the only two good things about this wannabe rip off.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

2

AgentJohnsonJan 16, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is the "Twilight: Bitter Moon Redux-Sparkles Edition" of the Star Trek movie universe. Lots of sexy kids running around and not making much sense along with plot holes you could pilot two death stars through side-by-side.

These included a dreadful sword fighting scene, a dreadful ice-planet chase scene by a CGI-generated monster that was mostly membrane and protoplasm- hardly suited for cold weather, but ideal for THIS movie, and a lackluster Spock from the old series who was far more concerned with how much fun it was to be Kirk's friend than 6 billion Vulcans dying.

This movie had a tongue-in-cheek (I think) reference to Galaxy Quest and its infamous, sake-inspired Chompers- obstacles that don't make sense that our heroes must navigate and which contribute to a silliness that sharp movie-goers should sense. Our example here is clear, fluid-filled tubes that lead to a shredding mechanism (better to endanger intrepid characters) equipped with a trap door and a lever for saving hapless humans that managed to get trapped inside-in the nick of Time!!!

This movie is a joke. The fact that critics universally failed to notice is depressing. At least there are a few trekkies out there that took a hard look and came up with the right answer.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

2

RayfinderJun 7, 2015

This one, just like the second movie, is taken so far away from what Star Trek was supposed to be - an interesting, exciting and dramatic sci-fi, that drifts along in a slow, gentle pace, where character development, exploration, intrigue andThis one, just like the second movie, is taken so far away from what Star Trek was supposed to be - an interesting, exciting and dramatic sci-fi, that drifts along in a slow, gentle pace, where character development, exploration, intrigue and character interactions are given a lot of space.
I know this was a movie, so it's not capable of filling as much of that in, but JJ Abrams didn't even try. He didn't want to try, as he's mentioned in interviews, with Jon Stewart for example, that Star Trek was always "too philosophical". You need to think too much, apparently, to like Star Trek in his mind, so he turned it into action schlock, where some of the in-universe science has just been thrown out the window (I mean c'mon, there's nitpicking and then there's stars that THREATEN THE ENTIRE GALAXY).
Star Trek had proceeded towards its death for a long time though. But Abrams and his team didn't want to try to resurrect it, instead they stabbed the corpse.… Expand

8 of 9 users found this helpful81

All this user's reviews

2

GamecubeLoverJul 22, 2016

Star Trek is one of those stupid series that geeks love for no reason. It is not exciting or awesome. The formula is bland after well the first movie but geeks still love it. This movie is only for geeks.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

2

GarethBOct 21, 2018

Dreadful bastardisation of star trek, spock is smooching people, engineering looks like a brewery, vulcan? WGAF about that place? warping all over the place in 2 seconds. The Star Trek that was thinking mans sci fi is gone replaced by overDreadful bastardisation of star trek, spock is smooching people, engineering looks like a brewery, vulcan? WGAF about that place? warping all over the place in 2 seconds. The Star Trek that was thinking mans sci fi is gone replaced by over the top action and weak plot.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

dingleberryjackMay 21, 2023

No, JJ. Just no.

Until this film, Star Trek had always been about the progress of humanity and its ascension to a higher plane, one where it lives in harmony with itself and helps found an interstellar union. Like most good science fiction,No, JJ. Just no.

Until this film, Star Trek had always been about the progress of humanity and its ascension to a higher plane, one where it lives in harmony with itself and helps found an interstellar union. Like most good science fiction, the protagonist was often an idea as much as it was a character.

Then JJ came along. And he decided that Star Trek was now going to be about James T. Kirk's personal journey to overcome his reckless youth to become a man. And he decided as well to throw in some troped-up plots about planet killing technology. All in all a disappointment, and one that presaged his even worse vandalization of Star Wars.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

DennisRMay 20, 2009

Poor excuse for a Star Trek movie, ok as a generic action/adventure flick, should be regulated to a b movie status.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

JonZ.May 9, 2009

Awful movie if you're a trekkie. There is very little in this movie that makes Star Trek special-- no morality, no intelligent problem solving, etc. JJ Abrams has turned Star Trek into a bad Star Wars replica.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

KnightsofniMay 7, 2009

Plot makes no sense. Acting was Ok, effects were good, character motives also made no sense. The film is basically a series of high powered CG explosions. The odd numbered star trek movies have developed a reputation as being bad and this Plot makes no sense. Acting was Ok, effects were good, character motives also made no sense. The film is basically a series of high powered CG explosions. The odd numbered star trek movies have developed a reputation as being bad and this one (as Star Trek XI) certainly adds to that trend.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful

1

MarkDNov 21, 2009

Unwatchable. J.J. Abrams hates Star Trek and it shows. Full of Bugs Bunny/Loony Toons gags and action scenes without the humour or entertainment. Kirk hanging on a precipice could be a drinking game in this movie it happens so many times. Unwatchable. J.J. Abrams hates Star Trek and it shows. Full of Bugs Bunny/Loony Toons gags and action scenes without the humour or entertainment. Kirk hanging on a precipice could be a drinking game in this movie it happens so many times. There is no story to speak of. There is, however, 122 minutes of the classic Star Trek characters squabbling with each other, tiresome fist fights and Uhura being up skirted by the camera as a nonsensical "plot" unfolds. Dialogue is laughably bad. Kirk's mother being rushed to a shuttle craft while in labour is right out of Mystery Science Theatre 3000. The visual effects are frenetic and cluttered. Many interiors of the ships are wildly out of scale and were filmed in what are obviously existing factories and other industrial locations. There were better engineering room sets in Star Trek The Motion Picture from 1979! In this movie you will be blinded by the ceaseless lens flares and be nauseated by the constantly spinning, twirling, twisting camera. McCoy is performed as a mocking impersonation of DeForest Kelly. Abrams has pulled down his pants and mooned movie goers. An appalling mess from start to finish.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful

1

AndrewL.May 11, 2009

Wow... what a disappointment. To be fair, excellent special effects and casting (with 1 or 2 exceptions). But, very weak plot and too many corny moments to mention. This remake was eerily reminiscent of Starship Troopers, but it a bad way. Wow... what a disappointment. To be fair, excellent special effects and casting (with 1 or 2 exceptions). But, very weak plot and too many corny moments to mention. This remake was eerily reminiscent of Starship Troopers, but it a bad way. How X-Men Wolverine gets nailed and Star Trek gets incredibly great press reviews is a mystery.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

1

GeorgeMMay 13, 2009

About as deep as "The A-Team in Space." Lots of explosions and fistfights signifying *nothing*. Heinous product placement and a disrespectful rip of Spock's death line from Wrath of Khan on top of herky-jerky abrasive cinematography.

3 of 8 users found this helpful

1

JackBlackMay 15, 2009

JJ Abrams does it again

0 of 2 users found this helpful

1

JCMay 7, 2009

Frenetic series of cliches (Kirk hung impossibly by his fingertips with an enemy above twice) where the camera never rests, the almost all the characters have zero depth and are just irritating and dysfunctional. Even on the Imax screen what Frenetic series of cliches (Kirk hung impossibly by his fingertips with an enemy above twice) where the camera never rests, the almost all the characters have zero depth and are just irritating and dysfunctional. Even on the Imax screen what could have been grand scenes with a big wow factor because of the scale and grandeur where simply dull. It was kind of like Rambo and the worst of the Star Wars series combined. Love Star Trek and scifi and I really wanted to like this, but this just sucked and was a loud and flashy waste of time. One of my least favorite movies ever. Might be good if you have ADHD.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful

1

O.HenrySep 4, 2009

How very ironic that this gratuitous sci-fi film with an incomprehensible plot should be rated as 'good'.

3 of 8 users found this helpful

1

JohnJDec 2, 2009

I can't believe that any Star Trek fan enjoyed this movie. It failed, in every aspect, to capture the spirit of what made Star Trek great. Even without the Star Trek grievances, it was still a bad movie. So the special effects were cool I can't believe that any Star Trek fan enjoyed this movie. It failed, in every aspect, to capture the spirit of what made Star Trek great. Even without the Star Trek grievances, it was still a bad movie. So the special effects were cool and the acting was pretty good, but the script was lame and horribly cliched and the plot was just utter nonsense. Not to mention the pacing, which was so fast it was physically draining. The only reason I watched the whole movie was so that I could make an informed criticism. Had it not been a Star Trek movie, I would have stopped watching after the first 20 minutes or so. But I'm not surprised; it did share the same writers and director as Mission Impossible 3 and I walked out of that in the second scene.… Expand

8 of 19 users found this helpful

1

keithaSep 26, 2009

Mind-crushingly boring. Im a star trek fan too.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

1

BobboApr 11, 2013

I'm not a trekkie fan or a Star Wars fan, I like them both more or less. With that said: this movie is a perfect representation of this soul-less ADHD generation. This movie is so forgettable I had to read the reviews to be reminded of theI'm not a trekkie fan or a Star Wars fan, I like them both more or less. With that said: this movie is a perfect representation of this soul-less ADHD generation. This movie is so forgettable I had to read the reviews to be reminded of the plot. I'd normally give it a zero, but I think I'll give it a 1 for Orion chic boobs; apparently that's all I remember about the movie.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

1

TARDISlore7Aug 2, 2012

A depressingly shallow and moronic action/explosions fest masquarading as a star trek film. The character limit is simply far too small for me to list all of this film's flaws, but I'll have a go at it anyway: the pointless and non-sensicalA depressingly shallow and moronic action/explosions fest masquarading as a star trek film. The character limit is simply far too small for me to list all of this film's flaws, but I'll have a go at it anyway: the pointless and non-sensical destruction of Vulcan. Warping Kirk into some kind of Twilight-esque pretty boy thug and thief who beats people up in seedy bars. Making Kirk and Spock enemies, for no other reason than to provide some "dramatic tension". Romulans that weren't even recognisable as Romulans. The pretentious, in-your-face overuse of shaky camera and lense flare. And a plot that can be summed up in one sentence: Blow up the Romulans. And all of these flaws conveniently hidden by Abrams with the lazy, cliche'd excuse: "but it's a parallel world, so it can be different." To a point, maybe, not so different that it becomes unrecognisable and turns into star wars. To quote another reviewer, Gene Roddenberry must indeed be rolling in his grave, while Rick Berman tears his hair out and has an anurism. In conclusion: avoid this film like you would avoid Justin Beiber's new single.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

1

ollymckinleyApr 8, 2018

Cliched action and awful characters. Misses everything that makes Star Trek interesting.

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

0

BobNDec 25, 2009

Huge disappointment! I've watched Star Trek since the 60's and am a great fan. I was really psyched for this movie but hugely let down after watching it. As other critics here have mentioned, wonderful SFX, but contrived, formulaic Huge disappointment! I've watched Star Trek since the 60's and am a great fan. I was really psyched for this movie but hugely let down after watching it. As other critics here have mentioned, wonderful SFX, but contrived, formulaic and predictable plot and (except for Kirk, Spock, McCoy) virtually non-existent character development for the others. Plot also has inconsistencies, is not believable and diverging from established Star Trek 'history' is very unsatisfying. This is one of the few movies I've purchased.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

0

WadeP.May 7, 2009

They have some balls, to do this to such a great franchise. The last 50 years worth of movies and tv shows never even happened in this new, rebooted, startrek universe. It is not a prequel, it's a sh.tty attempt at a remake ment to They have some balls, to do this to such a great franchise. The last 50 years worth of movies and tv shows never even happened in this new, rebooted, startrek universe. It is not a prequel, it's a sh.tty attempt at a remake ment to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Not to mention the use of the cheap modern "shaking the camera" trick to avoid any artistic input into the shooting. A real sin. This is the first startrek movie and or show that negates everything else. Terrible.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful

0

StephenAug 2, 2009

This film was made for retards. No plot at all. Only good acting came from the McCoy actor.

0 of 3 users found this helpful

0

JudyTMay 15, 2009

Thank God I can give this movie a zero here. On IMDB I had to give it a one. This movie was comedic and pitiful, a disgrace to the whole Star Trek series. William Shatner should be grateful that they didn't ask him to appear and Leonard Thank God I can give this movie a zero here. On IMDB I had to give it a one. This movie was comedic and pitiful, a disgrace to the whole Star Trek series. William Shatner should be grateful that they didn't ask him to appear and Leonard Nimoy must need a paycheck really bad. I was done when they resorted to Alien Monsters and Tyler Perry.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

0

JoeMMay 18, 2009

I approached this film with modest expectations. It did not need to be great to satisfy me, and indeed I was pleasantly entertained by Wolverine, with which the new Star Trek has been compared. But where Wolverine succeeds (satisfactorily, I approached this film with modest expectations. It did not need to be great to satisfy me, and indeed I was pleasantly entertained by Wolverine, with which the new Star Trek has been compared. But where Wolverine succeeds (satisfactorily, if not brilliantly) in filling in the back-story of its universe, Star Trek simply shirks the matter altogether. Rather than trouble themselves by displaying actual creativity, the writers immediately escape into an "alternate timeline", then flagrantly usurp aspects of several previous sci-fi movies (including Trek and Star Wars), before finally pasting them together with something called "Red Matter" -- a mysterious substance which seemingly consists of the gray matter extracted from this film's inexplicably enthusiastic audience. There are countless instances where the script contradicts itself. Perhaps more than any film I've seen in the last 20 years. A handful that would have otherwise been noticed by toddlers are patched by some haphazardly added sections of dialog, uttered by a cast perpetually drunk on Red Bull (which curiously, unlike other products, did not enjoy a shameless promo inside the film). Little, if anything, of this film's plot is ever reasonably explained: not the magical "Red Matter" that behaves one way at one moment, and another entirely just 20 minutes later; not what the villain and his crew have done for the two and a half decades during which the writers do not need them; and certainly not the reasons why a group of untested rookies with particularly juvenile behavioral tendencies immediately lands seniority on what we're told is one of the most advanced vessels ever made. Gimme a frigging break! Rather than address the film's issues, the producers simply distract viewers with frenetic pacing, applied to a disorienting cacophony of shaky cameras, gratuitous fight scenes, and explosions. These shallow gimmicks failed to hypnotize me. This is a film to make "Aladdin" feel deep and "Terminator" dull. It seems that thought, experience, hard work, and personal sacrifice mean nothing in a new Star Trek universe masterfully crafted for today's audience. Roddenberry's constant undertones regarding duty, morality, and a vision for a better future are jettisoned faster than the warp core of a doomed Enterprise. The result is simply an insult to our intelligence. SUMMARY: Nothing more than Cloverfield in space -- with an identical monster and a lot more explosions. J.J. Abrams urinates on Gene Roddenberry's grave and thanks him for the opportunity, to roaring applause.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

MeganJ.May 8, 2009

Very poor film due to incoherent script. At the end, Captain Kirk orders his crew to open fire on a crippled ship full of civilians, making him a war criminal. This is after he tries to use "compassion" as a cynical ruse against his Very poor film due to incoherent script. At the end, Captain Kirk orders his crew to open fire on a crippled ship full of civilians, making him a war criminal. This is after he tries to use "compassion" as a cynical ruse against his opponent. The script is flimsy and illogical; Nero's motivations make no sense. There is virtually no science fiction element; this is an action film set in space. Very, very poor.… Expand

0 of 8 users found this helpful

0

NicholasF.May 8, 2009

A Star Trek movie for people who don't like Star Trek? Fine. But what about the people that do? Couldn't they find younger actors to portray the crew? And what's with the sex scene? This is taking the 60s show a bit too far A Star Trek movie for people who don't like Star Trek? Fine. But what about the people that do? Couldn't they find younger actors to portray the crew? And what's with the sex scene? This is taking the 60s show a bit too far into the 2000s when it didn't need to. Stay away!!!… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful

0

ALFAV.Sep 30, 2009

I dont care how good the director is, I dont care how good the plot is, I even dont care how good the SFX are in this movie. In the STAR TREK franchise I only care about the cast, becouse STAR TREK has one and only thing that matters for I dont care how good the director is, I dont care how good the plot is, I even dont care how good the SFX are in this movie. In the STAR TREK franchise I only care about the cast, becouse STAR TREK has one and only thing that matters for recieving its message. The Star Trek franchise is mainly based on the chatacters visual impact on the wiever, you will almost immediately recognise who must be the Captain J.T.KIrk, who is Mr. Spock, who is Dr. Bones and ecetera. But this new STar Trek ruined everything for characters comprehension. The new STAR TREK is full of wanna be actors that belong to the infamous cheap third world Soap Operas subgenre, they do not have charismatic unique faces as th eoriginal cast, they just have strange faces, and not even fanny. WHen I watched the wanna be Kirk, Spok, Bones and other crew members, I couldnt believ how badly they ruined the franchise of TOS STAR TREK. There are things that is best never try to fix, becosue they still work as they are timeless. We were all ok with the old crew from TV series, and living our short live unaware of the great shock of seeing somebody so ignornat and crazy enough to destroy the franchise by putting absolutely wrong cast in place of real charismatic living legends.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful

0

RusJan 18, 2010

Disgustingly and absurdly dumb movie.

3 of 9 users found this helpful

0

LeeW.May 11, 2009

This movie is utter trash. I must say, the beginning scene stood out as pretty damn epic, but after that, the film quickly deteriorated. There is little to no character development with the exception of Kirk, Spock, and Bones, only one of This movie is utter trash. I must say, the beginning scene stood out as pretty damn epic, but after that, the film quickly deteriorated. There is little to no character development with the exception of Kirk, Spock, and Bones, only one of whom (Bones) had an astounding actor (Karl Urban). Uhura was there for romance scenes, Scott was put in to spout one-liners, and Chekov was obviously just a waste of space filled in order to make the audience chuckle at the actor's (Anton Yelchin's) horribly fake Russian accent. The story behind the criminal's intentions aren't revealed until the fourth quarter of the film, and the backstory is truly abysmal with enough pseudoscientifc nonsense to make any Enterprise fanboy cringe and the worst criminal reasoning in Star Trek since Soran from "Generations." The time paradoxes are badly thought out and make little sense. During said first three quarters of the film, the cast of the film chase the bad guy around and try to stop him. This is utterly boring so the director and writers and such try to make up for this by "pace faking" by making characters argue and be violent and have romance scenes in-between the boring conflicts. The directing thoroughly lacks in logic, as bringing phasers along instead of fist-and-sword fighting Romulans on an orbital platform with gigantic fiery exhaust ports is obviously highly illogical. Another stupid thing that I didn't understand at all is why the film opened up with a fight. They have a little utilitarian ship in the middle of space and a portal opens and a big dark spiky ship comes out so they start firing at will without checking if the mysterious enemy has shields powered or weapons ready. They just go by "It's big and dark and it just appeared in front of us. We didn't try hailing it because every ugly thing in space is obviously evil." It of course does actually turn out to be evil, but that is not Star Trek. There are also the canon and plausibility concerns, which are wrecked entirely, so it doesn't deserve to be called Trek. Everything else mentioned here (excluding Karl Urban) just made it even worse.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful

0

sasamMay 11, 2009

Worst star trek movie ever! Mindless trill ride and destroying 30 years of canon! JJ should never direct this, afterall he said by himself is STAR WARS fan.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

EugeneOMay 12, 2009

A huge pile of dumb, similar to the latter-day Star Wars movies. I'd rather play a video game than pay and watch the equivalent in a theater. This 'alternate reality' Star Trek is insulting to anyone reasonably intelligent. I A huge pile of dumb, similar to the latter-day Star Wars movies. I'd rather play a video game than pay and watch the equivalent in a theater. This 'alternate reality' Star Trek is insulting to anyone reasonably intelligent. I paid $15 for an imax experience that achieved in imax-ing the ritalin camerawork, a crap storyline and script, thin character development and shameless product placement (they had 150 mil budget and the producers needed product placement?!). Stay away if you value the themes, humor, and the thoughtful sci-fi of the original and Next Gen series. There must have been an item in the budget to buy critical opinion. No integrity left for critics and these hack filmmakers.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

KeeganH.May 7, 2009

The worst movie I have seen in awhile. I went into this movie without any prior feelings on star trek. I left never wanting to see another piece of media from the property again.

2 of 5 users found this helpful

0

JamesT.May 8, 2009

This is a travesty and an insult to the memory of Star Trek. Especially egregious: as any Trekker (fan of the original series) knows, far from being a rebel, Jim Kirk was a straight-laced, uptight, over-achiever type in his pre-Enterprise This is a travesty and an insult to the memory of Star Trek. Especially egregious: as any Trekker (fan of the original series) knows, far from being a rebel, Jim Kirk was a straight-laced, uptight, over-achiever type in his pre-Enterprise days. This is referenced in several episodes and is a continuing facet of his character throughout some of the most important plotlines. The SNL skit with Belushi and Chase was far better Star Trek.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful

0

MarcusMay 9, 2009

As this is NOT star trek i have to rate it as 0, it's a generic scifi space move with star trek references. Everything that makes Star Trek Star Trek is missing.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

ewwLifesucksJun 13, 2009

What garbage. This is true bull-sh**. It success is unknown. The same people must being going to the theater every week. The female characters in this movie are the most pathetic representation of women I've seen in a movie in a long What garbage. This is true bull-sh**. It success is unknown. The same people must being going to the theater every week. The female characters in this movie are the most pathetic representation of women I've seen in a movie in a long time. The main actor, chris pine, is really horrible and is only existing in movies cuz of his looks, like mark wahlberg. This movie is sewer with poor fans living in it. Its nothing like the original.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

0

DadBrandWhiskeyJun 13, 2009

A list of things the director was thinking -never go more than 3 minutes without a sequence of explosions. -don't skip the cheese when introducing the main characters. -get leonord nemoy in there as old spoc but also have a young spoc. A list of things the director was thinking -never go more than 3 minutes without a sequence of explosions. -don't skip the cheese when introducing the main characters. -get leonord nemoy in there as old spoc but also have a young spoc. Write the plot around that. -make every other scene an action scene, even if it has nothing to do with the plot. If you can't think of a way to get the bad guys zapping at the good guys, throw some ice monsters in there. -any characters who seem boring should have a funny foreign accent so their scenes can be entertaining -red matter looks and sounds cool -the laws of physics don't matter. Not just quantum physics but third grade you-can't-dive-through-the-atmosphere-or-you'll-burn-up-physics. -americans just want action action action. They don't think and if you throw in some sex appeal and cheap comic relief they will see your movie again and again. This is logical.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

0

IanCJun 18, 2009

I could have forgiven, the non-existent plot, the time travel fallacies, the departures from cannon...I could have forgiven almost everything except bad special effects. These rank as some of the worst special effects Trek fans have ever had I could have forgiven, the non-existent plot, the time travel fallacies, the departures from cannon...I could have forgiven almost everything except bad special effects. These rank as some of the worst special effects Trek fans have ever had to endure, maybe its good that the entire movie was shot in ultra close-up so that making out the special effects is nearly impossible...no I'm just kidding that just made it worse.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

0

AkiRJun 25, 2009

The trailers told the truth, this is NOT your fathers trek, and it's not mine either. This movie is in no way Star Trek, save for the title and the names of the characters, and this appears to be completely coincidental. This movie is The trailers told the truth, this is NOT your fathers trek, and it's not mine either. This movie is in no way Star Trek, save for the title and the names of the characters, and this appears to be completely coincidental. This movie is built on a flimsy and well worn premise that defies logic and tells no story. It sells itself as an origin story and reboot and complete wipe of a franchise that merely needed minor resuscitation. All while still attempting to remain true to forty years of Trek with empty posturing that doesn't even fit with the preposterously inane plot and telling the audience that it's all taking place in an alternate reality. JJ Abrams, and the writers Orci and Kurtzman, clearly wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Trekkies paid for it, and all three are laughing all the way to the bank. I can't stress this enough; the plot exists only to move the action along, there's no story. But, there's plenty of action, however unlike even the atrociously silly Star Trek V, this star trek has clearly had no THOUGHT put into it, and impolitely asks it's audience not to think either. What's worse than this disservice, is the insulting nature of the camera work itself. Lens flares, blurry action, and laser shows that are more Star Wars than Trek. JJ Abrams demonstrates his inability to tell a story even through pictures in every seizure inducing scene. The only positives that come from this movie, is that many non-trekkies may become trek fans if they bother to watch what's come before, and they'll soon realize what garbage this movie was. The only actual positive point in the movie itself, was the guy who played McCoy, who should clearly be in serious movies, and not mindless action romps like this one.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

0

HaroldPJun 28, 2009

I think I remember a movie incredibly similar to this done back in 2005. It had the same violence, the same bright special effects, and the same angry group of characters. It was called Doom. Except, I think it was better because there were I think I remember a movie incredibly similar to this done back in 2005. It had the same violence, the same bright special effects, and the same angry group of characters. It was called Doom. Except, I think it was better because there were less lens flares, the action was better paced, and Karl Urban had a bigger roll.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful

0

FrankL.Jul 20, 2009

Something mentioned in few reviews (including most of those on this site) is how relentlessly DUMB this film is. Previous Trek films have had plot holes, to be sure, but this one is essentially two hours of end-to-end plot holes. Yes, the Something mentioned in few reviews (including most of those on this site) is how relentlessly DUMB this film is. Previous Trek films have had plot holes, to be sure, but this one is essentially two hours of end-to-end plot holes. Yes, the acting is good, and the (drastically revised) characters are moderately interesting. But the story is so incredibly senseless - and so breathlessly paced - that no real character development is possible. One gets the feeling that Roddenberry's Trek has been deliberately dumbed-down and had its higher aspirations eviscerated to suit the mentally and morally deficient tone of our times. The film's amazing popularity is thus a sad comment on who its audience has become. Far from being a 'reboot' of the franchise, this Star Trek is more like a demonic changeling that's murdered the original and been left in its place. I'd give it a 1 for the talent of its stars, but that might imply that if this abomination were the last film in the world, it might, however remotely, be worth seeing. It wouldn't. This film goes beyond 'bad' all the way to 'evil' - and should be avoided at all costs.… Expand

3 of 10 users found this helpful

0

MichaelaG.Jul 8, 2009

Horrid film---no true fan of Star Trek would recognize this as being part of the ST legacy. It's formulated for the 2009 audience, i.e. nothing but the anger, action, violence that's demanded of the (mostly pubescent male) video Horrid film---no true fan of Star Trek would recognize this as being part of the ST legacy. It's formulated for the 2009 audience, i.e. nothing but the anger, action, violence that's demanded of the (mostly pubescent male) video gamer crowd, its intended demographic.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful

0

AlexM.Nov 16, 2009

A ufanist pastiche, derived from a society that prides itself from your belic toys and project the hole galaxy speaking the same language, your own.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

0

AndrewJJul 13, 2009

"It's Star Trek Jim, but not as we know it." "But Spock, with alternate timelines anything is now possible! Remakes of Ben-Hur fighting Romans with phasers; John Wayne could be the man who nuked Liberty Valance; the Orcs could use "It's Star Trek Jim, but not as we know it." "But Spock, with alternate timelines anything is now possible! Remakes of Ben-Hur fighting Romans with phasers; John Wayne could be the man who nuked Liberty Valance; the Orcs could use transporters to capture the ring of power from Frodo in Lord of the Rings; or imagine Casablanca where Humphrey Bogart flies off with, what's her name?" "Bergman, Captain. Ingrid Bergman." "Yes Bergman. Much better if she went off with Bogart rather than Victor Laszlo. And with an alternate timeline, maybe they could cut the smoking. And fight those Klingons rather than the Germans. And maybe there need be no world war two anyway! Think of all the lives saved Spock!" "That would indeed be Casablanca Jim, but not as we know it." "But Spock. If we had enough computer-generated special effects, the critics would give it a 10. Who would care whether it was faithful to the original... Spock? Spock! Put that phaser down Spock!" "An alternate timeline Captain...".… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful

0

BillyBobBeavisDec 17, 2011

The movie by itself deserves maybe a 5 out of 10 just for being another semi-entertaining one size fits all action flick that doesn't have any real artistry to bolster it. It's cliche and it's designed mainly for teenagers. However, theThe movie by itself deserves maybe a 5 out of 10 just for being another semi-entertaining one size fits all action flick that doesn't have any real artistry to bolster it. It's cliche and it's designed mainly for teenagers. However, the **** that used the Trek label to sell this kind of smut should be tarred and feathered for dealing the final blow to a beautiful legacy that peaked with TNG. Trek is now dead and lives on as a twisted, reanimated, disgusting corpse. Sucks.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

0

B_GJan 3, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The writing was atrocious. This movie felt like it was just filled with a bunch of lines from classic Star Trek so reviewers would say its Star Trek. Instead of making me hark back to any classic Trek they just made me feel ripped off with such cheap gimmicks when none of the characters felt like they were in the series like Spock yelling, choking, and marooning Kirk and Scotty and Chekov are reduced to mere comic reliefs. Red matter was some magical blob that did what the writers wanted to whenever they wanted the plot to do something, it was not science fiction. But that should be expected from the same writers who wrote such Hollywood "greats" like Transformers and The Island. The Star Trek franchise has now stooped so utterly low that for humor it now needs cartoons and bestiality jokes, now uses "your mommy was a whore" insults, and is now totally reliant on special effects, fistfights, endless shouting for "entertainment." Mr. Abrams promises much but like his mystery in Lost it they're pretty empty despite all the initial hype. He says its a prequel to the series, but then he uses a cheap trick that its an alternate universe to avoid creative thought and so he can just put in whatever he wants to still claim he didn't wipe anything. This movie shamelessly tries to milk every last penny out of the Star Trek name instead of letting it die with the miniscule dignity it had left.… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

0

vintagegamer16Apr 28, 2013

enough of the BS! this game is broken. Namco employess creating fake accounts to help promote them game. Not fininding any co-op support for days. Just and awful experience

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

NightbringerATApr 24, 2013

The Movie that killed Star Trek,

unlogical Vulcans, oddly size changing ships (from 320m to 700m, dvd extras), no explanation why tech evolved so quickly apart from the prime-timeline. Way too much Star Wars effect in a Star Trek movie.The Movie that killed Star Trek,

unlogical Vulcans, oddly size changing ships (from 320m to 700m, dvd extras), no explanation why tech evolved so quickly apart from the prime-timeline.

Way too much Star Wars effect in a Star Trek movie. No boldly going, just kill and shot.… Expand

5 of 7 users found this helpful52

All this user's reviews

0

BroyaxMay 24, 2023

Trahison ! Hérésie !! au bûcher !!! cette pantalonnade n’a rien à voir avec l’esprit et la saga Star Trek originale, ni de près ni de loin. C’est monté comme un clip MTV, ça bouge dans tous les sens, c’est filmé comme de la merde avecTrahison ! Hérésie !! au bûcher !!! cette pantalonnade n’a rien à voir avec l’esprit et la saga Star Trek originale, ni de près ni de loin. C’est monté comme un clip MTV, ça bouge dans tous les sens, c’est filmé comme de la merde avec évidemment le tocard Abrams aux commandes. Seul Zachary Quinto (Monsieur Sylar Spock…) tire son épingle du jeu mais il ne peut à lui seul tirer le film de la mélasse où il s’est abîmé lamentablement.

Quant à ce jeune Kirk, il est incarné par un petit connard (rien que son nom d’ailleurs, est un indice…). Quant à la standardiste, ils lui ont donné un rôle beaucoup trop important, afin de satisfaire à un agenda progressiste racialisé.

D’autant que de toute façon, elle joue comme un pied. Dans ces conditions, on se fout que les effets spéciaux en mettent plein la vue quand l’histoire est aussi nulle que celle d’un téléfilm M6. Laissez reposer Star Trek en paix, messieurs d’Hauliwoude : ce reboot fait passer les daubasses avec le Capitaine Picard pour des chefs-d’oeuvre en comparaison, un comble !… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

Tim007May 15, 2020

Terrible Star Wars wannabe movie with a forgettable summer blockbuster paint by numbers plot.

Full of T and A lacking any of the intellect or heart of the original Star Trek.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

MrSpock2230Sep 14, 2020

As a stand-alone film, it's really good. But as part of the Star Trek universe, it's utter rubbish.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Star Trek

User Reviews