User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1261 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 30, 2013
    10
    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 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!
  2. Aug 27, 2013
    9
    Star Trek is actually a really good action sci-fi film and I feel really bad with myself that I haven't watched this excellent film these years. It has great action and really good special effects and even though I saw the film in my computer the it felt like I was at the cinema which was a great experience for me. I've never watched before Star Trek and my first impression is reallyStar Trek is actually a really good action sci-fi film and I feel really bad with myself that I haven't watched this excellent film these years. It has great action and really good special effects and even though I saw the film in my computer the it felt like I was at the cinema which was a great experience for me. I've never watched before Star Trek and my first impression is really positive. I liked the characters and the actors were great too. J.J.Abrams made a really good film after Lost which was a great tv show and I'm really looking forward watching the sequel of that film and I hope that it's even better than this film which was really good. A must-watch! Expand
  3. GodComplex
    May 7, 2009
    10
    It's amazing! The writers have balls! Finally the reset button is hit and all that cannon can start over!
  4. MichaelF.
    May 7, 2009
    10
    In a word: perfect. And I feel the need to point out that I'm -not- a Trekkie, and I -am- a really harsh critic. I know that sounds lame, but go see this and say I'm wrong.
  5. Aug 21, 2010
    8
    now for jj abrhams the guy who was involved in my worst movie ever seen . that movie being Cloverfield i was very suprised at how well he did with this film . now im not a big treky i did enjoy star trek the next gen , and have seen some of the original films with shatner and most of the original series . so im not hardcore enough to where some are mad at him altering the whole story linenow for jj abrhams the guy who was involved in my worst movie ever seen . that movie being Cloverfield i was very suprised at how well he did with this film . now im not a big treky i did enjoy star trek the next gen , and have seen some of the original films with shatner and most of the original series . so im not hardcore enough to where some are mad at him altering the whole story line . which i think even if i was he did it in away that made sense and if they did a sequel it would be new and interesting (hopefully) . its the branching time line deal where some thing was changed in the past that follows the original star trek time line and creates a new one and thats the one we are now following . i thought eric bana did a good job as the romulan captin . as well as most of the other actors who did the main roles of the crew of the enterprise . its not great acting but it was good enough . this new plot line makes us wonder more not ever being sure whats gona happen next . it has some nice visuals and some pretty decent story telling . so old JJ redeams himself alittle for that abombinashon known as cloverfield . so if this is the future of the series then i say all ahead warp factor 8. Expand
  6. Sep 23, 2010
    7
    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, 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 aStar 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
  7. [Anonymous]
    May 7, 2009
    9
    A thrilling ride from start to finish. An outstanding ensemble cast embarks on an epic mission paired with superb special effects and numerous laugh out loud moments. 2 things bothering me: physics got flushed down the toilet and the new alternative universe.
  8. TS
    Dec 23, 2009
    7
    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.
  9. Jan 6, 2013
    8
    Impressive Hollywood product, exciting story, outstanding acting performances! This one is an excellent sci-fi movie, stunning and much more spectacular than usually we may see any other fantastic tale!
  10. NicholasF.
    May 8, 2009
    0
    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!!!
  11. RobertH
    Dec 31, 2009
    10
    The best Star Trek movie yet! Even without the Borg, this movie was well written and well-executed through and through! Bravo!!
  12. BobN
    Dec 25, 2009
    0
    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, 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
  13. JudyT
    May 15, 2009
    0
    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.
  14. EliasC.
    Dec 9, 2009
    5
    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 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
  15. PeteS
    May 14, 2009
    3
    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.
  16. SuzetteM.
    May 7, 2009
    9
    Just: wow. I think this one finally beats the StarTrek movie-grail "Wrath of Khan" (which gets a *winkwink* shout-out in this film, chock-full of such tasty tidbits). It's great because it's not just geek-friendly -- tho sure, they'll be out in force -- it also opens a huge door for others to (re-)discover this legend. Like StarWars, LOTR and HarryPotter, I hope this will Just: wow. I think this one finally beats the StarTrek movie-grail "Wrath of Khan" (which gets a *winkwink* shout-out in this film, chock-full of such tasty tidbits). It's great because it's not just geek-friendly -- tho sure, they'll be out in force -- it also opens a huge door for others to (re-)discover this legend. Like StarWars, LOTR and HarryPotter, I hope this will spawn a boom in the shared mythology that is StarTrek. And the great part is, the seriously FEW ticks at which you might quibble, let you feel superior while still enjoying the be-whatzis out of the rest of this fantastic ride! Get a LARGE popcorn, WITH butter. What are you waiting for?? GO! Expand
  17. ewwLifesucks
    Jun 13, 2009
    0
    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 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
  18. DadBrandWhiskey
    Jun 13, 2009
    0
    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 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
  19. IanC
    Jun 18, 2009
    0
    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 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
  20. AkiR
    Jun 25, 2009
    0
    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 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
  21. HowardW
    May 19, 2009
    2
    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.
  22. h.b
    May 22, 2009
    2
    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.
  23. AndrewJ
    Jul 13, 2009
    0
    "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 "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
  24. JoeBlo
    May 9, 2009
    5
    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 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
  25. KrisA.
    May 10, 2009
    5
    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 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
  26. DanL
    May 7, 2009
    9
    I was lucky enough to get tickets to an early preview screening of this movie on Tuesday and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to Trekkies and regular moviegoers alike. I usually only review films that are so bad I have no choice but to go online and rant about their crappiness. Star Trek, however, delivered the goods :) This is the Star Trek movie that the franchise sorely needed and I was lucky enough to get tickets to an early preview screening of this movie on Tuesday and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to Trekkies and regular moviegoers alike. I usually only review films that are so bad I have no choice but to go online and rant about their crappiness. Star Trek, however, delivered the goods :) This is the Star Trek movie that the franchise sorely needed and blows all the others away with the exception of Kahn. The casting is spot on for pretty much every major character. Pegg, I was dubious of at first, but he actually did a great job. Every actor pulled off their respective characters superbly, in particular, Pine as Kirk as I believe he had the hardest task of reviving Kirk while not "doing a Shatner". Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty etc. all put in excellent performances. Oh, Bana's very good too as Nero. The visual effects are beautiful and the look of the movie manages to remain true to the old series as does the script but in a fresh, modern way. Not everyone will get all of the Trek references throughout the film (which by the way, somehow manage to avoid being cheesy at all and are often very funny). That being said, the film is full of humour that everyone will appreciate anyway as the dialogue is snappy and very funny at times. The story is compelling and manages to introduce the characters and establish their roles and relationships with each other in a convincing and meaningful way and they all get their moment in the sun. Action-wise you've got fisticuffs, space battles, shootouts, explosions and plenty more so there's no excuse for people sending up Z's during the flick ;) Okay so to sum up; spot on casting, good story, great performances, lots of action, sharp dialogue and plenty of laughs. What are you waiting for? See it. PS: I just saw that two users gave this a really low score. I Expand
  27. Sep 3, 2010
    9
    This is an outstanding reboot of the classic sci-fi series we all know and love, partly because it introduces new and fresh ideas into the series while still paying homage to the original films.
  28. Oct 19, 2011
    10
    A very enjoyable action extravaganza. I loved it pretty much from start to finish and laughed out loud in parts. Chris Pine did a great job as Captain Kirk and Simon Pegg as Scotty!!!
  29. FaytH.
    Jan 3, 2010
    10
    I'm not a sci-fi person and I rarely enjoy this genre but Star Trek convinces me otherwise. With surprisingly great acting and solid (but enjoyable) plot, they managed to pull it off with such dominance I have to name it Best Film of 2009. Now waiting for the sequel.
  30. MarkD
    Nov 21, 2009
    1
    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 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
  31. JEFFJ
    May 22, 2009
    3
    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
  32. EdwardR.
    Jul 19, 2009
    3
    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 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
  33. Feb 20, 2012
    9
    Star Trek is intelligent, funny, witty, visually dazzling, surprisingly well acted, and the story is told with a surprising amount of depth. It benefits from its mesmerizing action and true heart. I give this movie 89%.
  34. JohnJ
    Dec 2, 2009
    1
    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 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
  35. JCG
    Jun 19, 2009
    2
    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 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
  36. NathanR.
    May 9, 2009
    2
    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 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
  37. PWB
    Apr 12, 2011
    5
    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'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, notSeriously, 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
  38. LeeW.
    May 11, 2009
    0
    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 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
  39. KeeganH.
    May 7, 2009
    0
    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.
  40. HaroldP
    Jun 28, 2009
    0
    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.
  41. GeorgeM
    May 13, 2009
    1
    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.
  42. O.Henry
    Sep 4, 2009
    1
    How very ironic that this gratuitous sci-fi film with an incomprehensible plot should be rated as 'good'.
  43. Rus
    Jan 18, 2010
    0
    Disgustingly and absurdly dumb movie.
  44. ALFAV.
    Sep 30, 2009
    0
    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 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
  45. Nick
    May 7, 2009
    3
    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.
  46. MichaelaG.
    Jul 8, 2009
    0
    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.
  47. CharlesT.
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Had all the heart and soul of the original series!
  48. LondonAntonio
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Story, action, cassic lines cleverly inserted without cheesiness all make for a wonderful eye-candied amazing movie.
  49. ChristopherG
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Absolute masterpiece - saw it at IMAX and would have happily walked straight back in and watched it again.
  50. KevD.
    May 7, 2009
    10
    This is a fantastic film, not only does it have classic nods to the orignal and does not over do them, but it focuses on the relationship between Spock and Kirk in a new interesting way. The CGI is fantastic and it looks like the film has been made made trekkies as they seem to have looked at what was cheesy and moved away from it. The rapport between Kirk and Spock is fantastic and the This is a fantastic film, not only does it have classic nods to the orignal and does not over do them, but it focuses on the relationship between Spock and Kirk in a new interesting way. The CGI is fantastic and it looks like the film has been made made trekkies as they seem to have looked at what was cheesy and moved away from it. The rapport between Kirk and Spock is fantastic and the film is very pacey. I think the best film of the year. Expand
  51. AtticusD
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Easily one of the most satisfying films ever, not to mention the best prequel I've ever seen.
  52. BryanW.
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Easily one of the best films I've seen in the past few years - non stop action, accessible for everyone, and everyone left the screening beaming with joy and happiness - the way a great movie should leave you feeling. Even after seeing it early, Ill be the first in line to see it again tonight when it opens.
  53. AdamC.
    May 7, 2009
    9
    Loved it, but i didnt feel it epic enough on the battle scenes it felt more of a pilot for a series tbh still great though
  54. Moche
    May 7, 2009
    9
    Pine really is a revelation as Kirk. Not a slavish homage, but a fresh look that capture the spirit and some of the manerisms. Quinto is awesome as Spock and the whole cast shines in a whipcrack paced fun film. This is what Bond should be doing after the dull Quantum; embrace what made the series famous and run with it. Done well there is no need to be ashamed of its roots.
  55. Dec 4, 2010
    10
    Kirk is Star Trek and in this movie they not only get you fired up about him you know it's in his genes. I've seen plenty of movie's where the opening sequence was brilliant. Casino Royale sans Craig, The Fifth Element, Mission Impossible, to name a few but none have taken the Hero call to this level. The tone from the start is exactly what Roddenberrry's vision was all about, the crusadeKirk is Star Trek and in this movie they not only get you fired up about him you know it's in his genes. I've seen plenty of movie's where the opening sequence was brilliant. Casino Royale sans Craig, The Fifth Element, Mission Impossible, to name a few but none have taken the Hero call to this level. The tone from the start is exactly what Roddenberrry's vision was all about, the crusade of hegemony into space and how that construct behaved with alien contact. This movie has it all and then updates everything. You don't have to be a Star Trek freak to enjoy this rocket ship into the future. Expand
  56. JoeBLow
    May 12, 2009
    3
    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 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
  57. FrankL.
    Jul 20, 2009
    0
    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 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
  58. Jan 16, 2011
    2
    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
  59. Dec 17, 2011
    0
    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, 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 withThe 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
  60. B_G
    Jan 3, 2012
    0
    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
  61. Aug 2, 2012
    1
    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-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 SpockA 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
  62. MiKE
    Dec 23, 2009
    3
    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?
  63. Oct 7, 2012
    3
    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, 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.
  64. WadeP.
    May 7, 2009
    0
    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 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
  65. TomG
    May 7, 2009
    9
    As many trek fans knew, this film was not going to follow the same path as other trek films however even the most biased trekkies can relate to JJ's Star Trek. The cast are absolutely superb with Karl Urban standing out for me and Chris Pine doing an excellent job of adding his own spin to Kirk Michael Ginacchio's score is perhaps the biggest let down for me, while still an As many trek fans knew, this film was not going to follow the same path as other trek films however even the most biased trekkies can relate to JJ's Star Trek. The cast are absolutely superb with Karl Urban standing out for me and Chris Pine doing an excellent job of adding his own spin to Kirk Michael Ginacchio's score is perhaps the biggest let down for me, while still an excellent soundtrack for the film it fails to add that epic, majestic feeling former trek films have had. the film was also too short in all the wrong places with the climatic battle ending far too swiftly, regardless this film is still up to or on par with the Wrath of Khan, even better than First Contact and one definately not to miss by stubborn trekkers. JJ has a fantastic little set up here and the next film should be mind blowing. Expand
  66. JamesT.
    May 8, 2009
    0
    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 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
  67. DennisR
    May 20, 2009
    1
    Poor excuse for a Star Trek movie, ok as a generic action/adventure flick, should be regulated to a b movie status.
  68. PatrickT.
    May 8, 2009
    10
    Absolutely thrilling! Star Trek left me in awe as I left the theater; I was completely blown away by the epic scale of this incredible masterpiece.
  69. AndrewP.
    May 8, 2009
    2
    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 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
  70. StephenX
    Aug 2, 2009
    2
    Plot was so thin it was see through. Nothing but special effects. Makes the old star trek films look good.
  71. NigelG.
    May 8, 2009
    2
    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, (
  72. JonZ.
    May 9, 2009
    1
    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.
  73. Stephen
    Aug 2, 2009
    0
    This film was made for retards. No plot at all. Only good acting came from the McCoy actor.
  74. EJA
    May 12, 2009
    7
    [***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[***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
  75. EdwardK
    May 12, 2009
    4
    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 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
  76. RobertP.
    May 12, 2009
    3
    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 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
  77. JoeM
    May 18, 2009
    0
    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 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
  78. DennisM.
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Until know - for me the best Action Movie in 2009! Brilliant, really, I love it... also for poeple who didnt liked Star Trek until now - watch it, it's absolutely awesome!
  79. KenE.
    May 7, 2009
    4
    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 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
  80. PdMemeo
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Through tears and fire and darkness, the future is reborn. Excellent movie. Just one two hours-long adrenaline rush. I'm still exhilarated at the pure awesomeness of it. Some nitpick here and there (manic editing, contrived coincidences, rushed expositions), but it's all forgiven. Great adventure flick, and totally and utterly Star Trek. The cast nailed the character in a way I Through tears and fire and darkness, the future is reborn. Excellent movie. Just one two hours-long adrenaline rush. I'm still exhilarated at the pure awesomeness of it. Some nitpick here and there (manic editing, contrived coincidences, rushed expositions), but it's all forgiven. Great adventure flick, and totally and utterly Star Trek. The cast nailed the character in a way I couldn't think possible, and the production values are superb. Excellent musical score. A fast-paced trip into the wonderful unknown, gut-wrenching but at the same time incredibly satisfying. JJ Abrams is my new hero. Wow. Expand
  81. Knightsofni
    May 7, 2009
    1
    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.
  82. KarlB.
    May 8, 2009
    2
    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.
  83. MeganJ.
    May 8, 2009
    0
    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 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
  84. BrianA.
    May 8, 2009
    10
    I had high expectations for the film after seeing all the reviews, and I have to say, they were met and beyond. Like one reviewer said, it's the greatest prequel ever made. Visually stunning, great story, and above all, pitch perfect acting. See this film (and see it in IMAX if you can - it's worth a longer drive and/or paying more).
  85. TomK.
    May 9, 2009
    4
    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 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
  86. DorisB.
    Feb 2, 2010
    10
    It is one of the best i have seen this should get an Oscar.
  87. MikeS
    Dec 9, 2009
    10
    One of the best pictures of the year. There was a sense of "family" that I loved. They took a risk with a sci-fi film and they've succeeded.
  88. DavidD.
    May 10, 2009
    4
    [***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 [***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
  89. AndrewL.
    May 11, 2009
    1
    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.
  90. AramisG.
    May 10, 2009
    4
    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.
  91. GOE42
    May 11, 2009
    4
    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.
  92. sasam
    May 11, 2009
    0
    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.
  93. Aramisgjr
    May 11, 2009
    4
    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 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
  94. EugeneO
    May 12, 2009
    0
    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 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
  95. JosephB.
    May 10, 2009
    4
    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) - 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
  96. MichelleN
    May 14, 2009
    4
  97. HumprtPum
    May 15, 2009
    4
    Poor Dr. Spock. They´ve made him so stupid. Like the whole movie.
  98. JackBlack
    May 15, 2009
    1
    JJ Abrams does it again
  99. MichealO.
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Awesome movie, the cast is very good!
  100. DonaldW.
    May 7, 2009
    10
    Absolutely love this movie. Its a MUST see or any trekkie. This unbelievable movies will leave you begging for more.
Metascore
83

Universal acclaim - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 0 out of 37
  1. Paced at warp speed with spectacular action sequences rendered brilliantly and with a cast so expert that all the familiar characters are instantly identifiable.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    100
    Blasting onto the screen at warp speed and remaining there for two hours, the new and improved Star Trek will transport fans to sci-fi nirvana.
  3. 75
    Ultimately, when the end credits roll, we're left with the sense that Star Trek represents a good beginning. As a film tasked with getting all the characters together, re-booting a timeline, and finding a way to return a veteran actor to his beloved role, Star Trek works.