Star Trek

User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1315 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. Jun 7, 2015
    2
    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 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
    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 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
  2. Feb 14, 2014
    3
    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 yet born when even The Next Generation was on air. Dreck.
  3. 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!!!
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. O.Henry
    Sep 4, 2009
    1
    How very ironic that this gratuitous sci-fi film with an incomprehensible plot should be rated as 'good'.
  25. Rus
    Jan 18, 2010
    0
    Disgustingly and absurdly dumb movie.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. Apr 24, 2013
    0
    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.
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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?
  37. 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.
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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.
  43. 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, (
  44. 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.
  45. Stephen
    Aug 2, 2009
    0
    This film was made for retards. No plot at all. Only good acting came from the McCoy actor.
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. JackBlack
    May 15, 2009
    1
    JJ Abrams does it again
  55. JC
    May 7, 2009
    1
    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 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
  56. CM.
    May 8, 2009
    3
    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 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
  57. Marcus
    May 9, 2009
    0
    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.
  58. AaronD
    Jun 7, 2009
    3
    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 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
  59. AlanS
    Jun 8, 2009
    2
    I have almost always been a Star Trek fan, but this 2009 is a real disappointment
  60. FireA.
    Sep 21, 2009
    3
    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.
  61. AlexM.
    Nov 16, 2009
    0
    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.
  62. keitha
    Sep 26, 2009
    1
    Mind-crushingly boring. Im a star trek fan too.
  63. Apr 11, 2013
    1
    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.
  64. Apr 28, 2013
    0
    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
  65. Jan 3, 2016
    3
    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 2 specific current day issues without the pragmatic constraints of our current day world. It was often hopelessly idealistically naive (from our point of
    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 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
Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 46 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 46
  2. Negative: 0 out of 46
  1. Reviewed by: Bill Goodykoontz
    Dec 17, 2015
    80
    The movie is fun, it's smart and there's plenty of action. There are enough knowing nods to old-school fans to satisfy them, but the nods don't get in the way. In fact - and a feel for this kind of thing is what makes Abrams so good - they're perfect, nice accents that won't slow down the uninitiated.
  2. Reviewed by: Jeff Shannon
    Dec 17, 2015
    75
    This is easily the best “Trek” movie since “Khan,” giving the rebooted franchise ample reason to proceed at warp speed.
  3. Reviewed by: Aubrey Day
    Dec 17, 2015
    80
    Buoyant, buffed and with the promise of even better to come, this is the freshest Trek in decades.