User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1200 Ratings

User score distribution:

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. Jan 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.
  2. Dec 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, 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
  3. B_G
    Jan 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
  4. Aug 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-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
  5. Oct 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, 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.
  6. Nov 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.
  7. Apr 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 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.
  8. Apr 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. No boldly going, just kill and shot.
  9. Apr 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
  10. Feb 14, 2014
    Painfully dull clich├ęd 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.
  11. Aug 1, 2014
    "Star Trek" is merely a sci-fi action film. It's even inferior to the "Star Wars" prequels in terms of originality and meaning. Ok, there are some pretty visuals and decent direction, but, seriously, these exist in almost any film nowadays. There has to be something more than action.

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
    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.