User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1265 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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. MichelleN
    May 14, 2009
    4
  14. HumprtPum
    May 15, 2009
    4
    Poor Dr. Spock. They´ve made him so stupid. Like the whole movie.
  15. AdamB.
    May 9, 2009
    4
    Formulaic, mindless, and poorly written. The only good acting comes from how half the characters perform nearly identically to the original cast. Special effects are laughably over the top but entertaining nonetheless. Fans of the series and people who like big explosions and green girls in bikinis will probably overlook it's numerous flaws.
  16. williamc.
    Jun 20, 2009
    4
    In short, the new Star Trek 2009 captured some of the idiosyncratic magic that made up the original cast of 1960s Star Trek. The story was complex enough for a full-length feature but there are faults to be found in its discriminatory humor towards difference and also it
  17. LarryS
    Jul 1, 2009
    4
    A HUGE disappointment! Poor acting, lousy script and the special effects were surprisingly average. The movie was so predictable and so unbelieveable. The tongue in cheek script is best suited to 13 year olds!!! WAY OVERRATED!!! Critics should be ashamed. This is a poor movie.
  18. NMac
    May 22, 2009
    4
    Pretty movie, but weak characters and a weaker plot fail to be covered up by horrible action. Some of the most laughable action I've ever seen. And with all that lense flare it felt like a visit to the optometrist. Would not see again.
  19. ChiK
    Jun 12, 2009
    4
    A mass delusion of greatness on this scale hasn't been since last summer...the Dark Knight. My opinions on last year's public darling aside, at least that film seemed to have a brain and apparent artistic aspirations. Are we so starved for anything with a faint pulse that we'll lionize a soulless, empty-headed, pre-fab, committee-approved product like this? Hollywood is dead.
  20. Nov 20, 2010
    4
    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.
  21. Jan 5, 2011
    5
    When my family and a friend went to see this movie and since two of them are Star Trek junkies, I thought they loved this movie, as I have never been really interested in Sci-Fi. When I asked them about the movie, they were pretty disappointed with this movie. And this is coming from total Star Trek junkie. TOTAL. Here's the bad parts: The violence is random and unnecessary. Captain KirkWhen my family and a friend went to see this movie and since two of them are Star Trek junkies, I thought they loved this movie, as I have never been really interested in Sci-Fi. When I asked them about the movie, they were pretty disappointed with this movie. And this is coming from total Star Trek junkie. TOTAL. Here's the bad parts: The violence is random and unnecessary. Captain Kirk ha a drink, then gets beaten up. The characters are as bland and tasteless as supermarket own brand sweets. The special effects are over the top and I suffered a mild headache. There's this green guy who looks like it was an exact copy of Yoda. Most of the acting is poor, some actually do a decent job. This movie has no tension whatsoever. Most of the scenes play out like a soap opera, or like a couple of British ladies discussing money and fashion over a cup of tea and a biscuit. I DID like the part with the young Captain Kirk: well acted and it was funny. Overall, it's like a car that does a good job of going up a hill until the battery died and it makes it's long journey down the hill before the back goes into a tree. Expand
  22. AndrewC.
    May 10, 2009
    6
    [***SPOILERS***] Disappointed - that's how I feel. The new Star Trek film promised so much, and in some ways delivered, but in others fell oh so short. Firstly the most positive thing - thae actors. They all faced a difficult task in picking up established characters. They all did a good job, being instantly recognizable as who they were supposed to be. Secondly the pacing was good [***SPOILERS***] Disappointed - that's how I feel. The new Star Trek film promised so much, and in some ways delivered, but in others fell oh so short. Firstly the most positive thing - thae actors. They all faced a difficult task in picking up established characters. They all did a good job, being instantly recognizable as who they were supposed to be. Secondly the pacing was good for an action movie, and to bring in non-trekkies. Having said that there were some bits that were pointless - the car going off the cliff, the monster chase (one of the monsters looked quite badly evolved for an ice planet BTW) served no purpose than to get Kirk to bump into old Spock. From there on in though the problems really start. The set design is way off the mark. The new bridge is sterile and engineering looks more like an oil refinery than the bowels of a starship. The biggest problem though is the script. OK, I completely understand that there was a difficult task here in trying to reinvent the franchise, but too many liberties have been taken. The moving of the Enterprise's construction to Iowa I can just about cope with. Romantic involvement for Spock? Destroying Vulcan? These are just steps too far. Then we get into the scientific holes. Like they wouldn't have spotted that a star was about to go supernova, like that wouldn't have affected Vulcan (which is just around the corner from Romulus) too. Why do none of the black holes formed have any time dilation effects? Why would the black hole have to be at the centre of a planet, when it would be just as effective anywhere near? Then there's the plot holes. What was Nero doing for 25 years, and why didn't he age? Once he realises when his is, wouldn't he just warn the Romulans what would happen in the future? Taking revenge for something that hasn't happened yet makes no sense. Why throw kirk off the ship in an escape pod? What's wrong with the brig? Isn't it a bit too much of a coincidence that he lands on the planet where Spock is hiding (and wanders into his cave) and where Scotty has been working? Then there's the interplanetary beaming - something that wasn't even possible in the ST:TNG era. Ooh, the transporters, Why can a 17 year old cadet get a transporter lock when experienced techies and the computer can't? Why is Vulcan, one of the founder members of the federation, defenceless when Earth has a defence system that Nero needs information on? So, all in all? It's a long long way from the best Trek ever. Treks 2,3,4,6 and 8 are all light years ahead of this. Before the next film they need to employ some script writers who actually know something about Star Trek and who can write a plot that makes sense. Expand
  23. DaveS
    May 20, 2009
    6
    Sadly, I left this movie that was more frenetic than anything else. The plot was dense yet didn't make much sense, was sort of pointless. The production values/effects were amazing, though, but I hated the guys they cast as Scotty and Chekov. A weird experience that left me a little disappointed.
  24. JeremyC.
    May 8, 2009
    5
    Bad writing leads to an amalgamation of mediocre sequences. This film fails at both recreating the original Star Trek by avoiding any sort of moral or ethical conflict in the story and it fails at establishing a newer realistic portrayal of the Star Trek world. You are regularly asked to to suspend disbelief, not merely to afford over-the-top action, but often so that you can accept basic Bad writing leads to an amalgamation of mediocre sequences. This film fails at both recreating the original Star Trek by avoiding any sort of moral or ethical conflict in the story and it fails at establishing a newer realistic portrayal of the Star Trek world. You are regularly asked to to suspend disbelief, not merely to afford over-the-top action, but often so that you can accept basic aspects of the plot. This film is Galaxy Quest with better special effects but less funny. Expand
  25. LizzieBeth-1
    May 8, 2009
    6
    Heartless, largely humourless, a bit Nazi, this "Lost" in Star Trek plays like it was created by an Asperger's Syndrome sufferer. It hits all the right marks without having any gifts, and is forgettable eye candy 1/2hr later. At least it didn't kill the franchise. Uhura's love for Spock is stupid; Simon Pegg is an uncomfortable fit for Scotty; and the plot is too buried for Heartless, largely humourless, a bit Nazi, this "Lost" in Star Trek plays like it was created by an Asperger's Syndrome sufferer. It hits all the right marks without having any gifts, and is forgettable eye candy 1/2hr later. At least it didn't kill the franchise. Uhura's love for Spock is stupid; Simon Pegg is an uncomfortable fit for Scotty; and the plot is too buried for the sake of action. Heartless pap that's too fast and too flashy for people with short attention spans. Frustrating. No longevity. Talk to me in 3yrs. Lizziebeth-1, IMDb Expand
  26. ZackP.
    Oct 11, 2009
    6
    Great action scenes with excellent CGI, coupled with Pine and Quinto's performances, were the highlights. Most of the other bridge crew and the plot at large were badly thought out with poor pacing. Having Nimoy try and sneak by flimsy excuses in a mind meld monologue failed completely too - waste of the best actor in the film, similar complaint with Greenwood playing Pike. It comes Great action scenes with excellent CGI, coupled with Pine and Quinto's performances, were the highlights. Most of the other bridge crew and the plot at large were badly thought out with poor pacing. Having Nimoy try and sneak by flimsy excuses in a mind meld monologue failed completely too - waste of the best actor in the film, similar complaint with Greenwood playing Pike. It comes down to this; if you're young and never heard of Star Trek before, this will be one of the best films you've ever seen. If not, it's an above-average action movie with the Star Trek name on it, complete with all the usual cliched dialogue you'd expect from the genre. I liked X-Men Origins: Wolverine better and that was no masterpiece either, but amazingly the story made more sense and there weren't massive lens flares all over the place. Expand
  27. SteveV.
    May 10, 2009
    5
    I understand the need to create an alternative Star Trek universe to kickstart the franchise so new actors, characters and storyline were required. Some of the characters were spot on causing you to reminisce for the old series others were simply distracting and took you immediately out of the story. Chekov seemed to be more for comic relief than any serious attempt at an honest I understand the need to create an alternative Star Trek universe to kickstart the franchise so new actors, characters and storyline were required. Some of the characters were spot on causing you to reminisce for the old series others were simply distracting and took you immediately out of the story. Chekov seemed to be more for comic relief than any serious attempt at an honest portrayal. Uhura - enough already. And although J.J. Abrams has demonstrated some outstanding talent he has also demonstrated that he can be equally bad - Mission Impossible 3, Cloverfield, and now this. To paraphrase Tim Burton "I am not sure I could identify a good script if it bit me in the face" Listen to Tim J.J. - Great action, cinematography, and good actors cannot overcome this kind of uninspired and ridiculous writing. As the Executive Producer you should have fired whoever whoever pitched this script to you. Additionally track down and ceremonially fire anyone who has ever encouraged them or lied to them by even implying that that had a talent for screenwriting. Expand
  28. Rangeboy
    May 25, 2009
    5
    Now, I've always been a Star Wars fan but admired Star Trek for its detailed depiction of wider issues and realism. Consequently I had massive reservations about Lucas' trilogy prequels and JJ Abrams seems to have done the same here with ST. Taken a 'universe' with its own unique history, characters and 'feel' and tinker with it to update it to fit in with Now, I've always been a Star Wars fan but admired Star Trek for its detailed depiction of wider issues and realism. Consequently I had massive reservations about Lucas' trilogy prequels and JJ Abrams seems to have done the same here with ST. Taken a 'universe' with its own unique history, characters and 'feel' and tinker with it to update it to fit in with what they think modern viewers like. It DOESN'T WORK!! Product placement, contemporary music (why would a young Kirk kisten to Beatie Boys? oh yeah, h's supposd to be a rebel, thankyou JJ for pointing that out) a bar-room brawl, pathetic coincidences trying to explain character motivations/origins. Cringe inducing boy Spock fighting with other Vulcans, appauling monster chase scene on a clichéd ice-world, no real explanation of Spock and Uhura's relationship and so much more other complete crap! I enjoy a summer blockbuster, i really do, but they have to have at least some substance to get above a 5 or 6 out of 10 surely!!? 5 for the visual and audio effects but beacause are both from the same people who did Star Wars (ILM and Ben Burtt) it seems a bit too Star Wars prequel-ish. Leave your brain at the pocorn stand. Expand
  29. RobS.
    May 7, 2009
    5
    Too much effect driven. Doesn't have enough character drive or development. The only new plots are spock and uhuruh. It could have been so much more without that much work
  30. NeilK.
    May 7, 2009
    6
    Star Trek is visually entertaining, but less intellectually interesting. I felt J.J. Abrams almost brought too much of his television expertise to this film, as I found many of the characters too one-dimensional and extreme in their portrayals: they felt too much like stereotypes and not enough like believable humans (or vulcans). The plot itself made little sense and didn't even try Star Trek is visually entertaining, but less intellectually interesting. I felt J.J. Abrams almost brought too much of his television expertise to this film, as I found many of the characters too one-dimensional and extreme in their portrayals: they felt too much like stereotypes and not enough like believable humans (or vulcans). The plot itself made little sense and didn't even try to hide it. I am not a huge Trekkie, but the divergences from the established timeline did bug me at some parts. All in all I consider it more a failure on the part of the writing team not fleshing out characters and creating a cohesive plot rather than Mr. Abrams, who delivers a fast paced (perhaps too much so) summer blockbuster. Expand
  31. BillS.
    May 8, 2009
    5
    Really disappointing after reading all the glowing reviews. Really to fast paced - there was no time to develop a story that the audience would care about. Too many close-up shots and not enough interaction between the characters. There was no star fleet philosophy. The masses might like it but the fan won't. The fan will see it as perfunctory - JJ does channel a little bit of the Really disappointing after reading all the glowing reviews. Really to fast paced - there was no time to develop a story that the audience would care about. Too many close-up shots and not enough interaction between the characters. There was no star fleet philosophy. The masses might like it but the fan won't. The fan will see it as perfunctory - JJ does channel a little bit of the old characters through the actors, but only very shallowly. The only good thing is that because the action will make the masses like it I hope it restarts the franchise. Expand
  32. SeannF.
    May 8, 2009
    5
    Characters were good (except for Uhara), dialogue was witty in places, cinematography and special effects were beautiful but the story was incredibly (poor).
  33. RichardJ.
    May 9, 2009
    5
    As a summer blockbuster action movie, Star Trek is excellent. The action scenes are intense and exciting, and the story of Kirk and Spock's origins was very compelling. Newcomers to the Star Trek universe will be very entertained, however many fans will be very disappointed. In the interests of opening up Star Trek to a wider audience, J.J. Abrams has taken many liberties with the As a summer blockbuster action movie, Star Trek is excellent. The action scenes are intense and exciting, and the story of Kirk and Spock's origins was very compelling. Newcomers to the Star Trek universe will be very entertained, however many fans will be very disappointed. In the interests of opening up Star Trek to a wider audience, J.J. Abrams has taken many liberties with the story which many fans might find too much to swallow. Expand
  34. MathieuD.
    Aug 26, 2009
    6
    A technically competent sci-fi production that fails to live up to the tact and thoughtfulness that fans have come to expect from the franchise. This is not an extension of the mythology, it's an MTV friendly re imaging.
  35. roberti
    Dec 20, 2009
    6
    Good, even better than it should be, but not worth the hype of the critical reviews.
  36. JayD
    May 14, 2009
    6
    I've never been a huge sci-fi fan, but the outstanding reviews caused me to go out and see this movie (excited to see it even). Sadly, I felt that it was one ultra convenient event after another. I dare someone to answer this for me: How do people get all these high ranking jobs simply be hopping on a ship??? The effects were good, but effects alone do not make a movie good. The I've never been a huge sci-fi fan, but the outstanding reviews caused me to go out and see this movie (excited to see it even). Sadly, I felt that it was one ultra convenient event after another. I dare someone to answer this for me: How do people get all these high ranking jobs simply be hopping on a ship??? The effects were good, but effects alone do not make a movie good. The story new time-line story-line was acceptable, but certainly nothing worth writing home about. On the plus side, most of the acting was above par. The best praise I can give to this film is that at least it wasn't directed by Michael "Ruiner of Movies" Bay. Expand
  37. Oosh
    May 15, 2009
    5
    What should have been a genuine reboot (ala Batman) descended in to a poor pastiche of the original full of clumsy plot devices. Even if a little stilted It's not a bad action movie but wait for DVD/TV.
  38. andrzejr
    May 21, 2009
    5
    I left disappointed. I'm by no means a Trekkie, but I am a lover of sci-fi, and I am an engineer. The delivery of the young Kirk felt a bit overzealous in its attempt at "I'm so bad I'm the Fonz". The rest of the crew felt 'right' however, at least in comparison to all the previous flicks. Overall, the movie felt a little too 'clean', but then again that I left disappointed. I'm by no means a Trekkie, but I am a lover of sci-fi, and I am an engineer. The delivery of the young Kirk felt a bit overzealous in its attempt at "I'm so bad I'm the Fonz". The rest of the crew felt 'right' however, at least in comparison to all the previous flicks. Overall, the movie felt a little too 'clean', but then again that is part of the Star Trek lore I suppose, so I can't blame them for at least maintaining that, even though i wish they hadn't. Definitely NOT buying a blu-ray of this one. Expand
  39. bobboba
    May 22, 2009
    5
    Lost it half-way through. Kirk is entertaining but the plot turned dry and plodding. I thought Nimoy was a much better actor in his early days but here his turn was amateurish at best. What a waste.
  40. BobH.
    May 8, 2009
    6
    I am mourning the passing of original story line..... it's kind of like waking up from a dream and knowing that everything that happened in the dream never happened.
  41. StigO.
    May 8, 2009
    5
    Too much "Cloverfield." Not enough "Lost." A constantly moving whirligig camera is not a substitute for either acting or story-telling. Just hold the thing still, for Pete's sake, so we can see what's happening.* And the film literally strips the classic characters of their dignity.
  42. GregS.
    May 9, 2009
    5
    Dazzling effects and some excellent casting for McCoy and Uhuru especially. The Kirk and Spock characters were suitably underdeveloped as they should be in a prequel.. Chekhov and Scott were just fun. But the overall presentation struck me as "Star Trek for Dummies," which is to say, much more like the Star Wars franchise. As a stand-alone movie, it was very enjoyable. As part of the Star Dazzling effects and some excellent casting for McCoy and Uhuru especially. The Kirk and Spock characters were suitably underdeveloped as they should be in a prequel.. Chekhov and Scott were just fun. But the overall presentation struck me as "Star Trek for Dummies," which is to say, much more like the Star Wars franchise. As a stand-alone movie, it was very enjoyable. As part of the Star Trek canon, it was not there. Expand
  43. PhilH.
    May 9, 2009
    5
    Tom K. is right, all style no substance. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed myself in the theater, and it was worth my money for that enjoyment. But this is not a serious Star Trek film, like some of the earlier movies were. It's like watching a typical episode from the original series on the big screen. Fun, action-packed, but little depth and no intelligence. P.S., like most movies Tom K. is right, all style no substance. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed myself in the theater, and it was worth my money for that enjoyment. But this is not a serious Star Trek film, like some of the earlier movies were. It's like watching a typical episode from the original series on the big screen. Fun, action-packed, but little depth and no intelligence. P.S., like most movies made in the past ten years, the action sequences were too frenetic. If I'm watching a fight scene, I want to see whats actually happening, not flashing colors and close ups of fists. Expand
  44. billC.
    Jun 3, 2009
    5
    Lots of action and for the most part the casting was very good.BUT , Why in this pre-quil are all the equipment /devices on the Enterprise way more complex and advanced? From computers to weapons everything looked very much in the furure not the past if you consider any past Star Trek episode or movie.And the action seemed to be there not to tell a morality paly , but to pump it up. Lots of action and for the most part the casting was very good.BUT , Why in this pre-quil are all the equipment /devices on the Enterprise way more complex and advanced? From computers to weapons everything looked very much in the furure not the past if you consider any past Star Trek episode or movie.And the action seemed to be there not to tell a morality paly , but to pump it up. It's a botched effort. It could have been better. Expand
  45. DávidK.
    Jul 24, 2009
    5
    Absolutely average. A movie that wouldn't be remembered if it wouldn't have the name "Star Trek" in it. The example of what is wrong with cinematography today. Foreseeable story, characters and etc. It tries to be us clear as possible leaving no room for thoughts just dumb starring. When someone kiss it doesn't have to mean its romantic, or when someone says something with Absolutely average. A movie that wouldn't be remembered if it wouldn't have the name "Star Trek" in it. The example of what is wrong with cinematography today. Foreseeable story, characters and etc. It tries to be us clear as possible leaving no room for thoughts just dumb starring. When someone kiss it doesn't have to mean its romantic, or when someone says something with Russian accent it doesn't mean its humor. And since when does it is that films that include "action, romance, humor for everyone" are good movies? The effects were good, wont be in 5 years. The effects in old star trek movies still do it. So no it was NOT great, just average. Expand
  46. GregFord
    May 12, 2009
    5
    [***SPOILERS***]Spock and Uhura---wrong Spock losing his cool---wrong. In your face fight scenes---wrong Future meeting the present---very wrong Giving it a 5 is generous.
  47. ZacharyJ
    May 14, 2009
    6
    Really, 100s? Not only did they totally change the personalities of the characters, but they came up with a lame "excuse" to legitimize it! Alright, I understand that this is focused at a younger crowd, but why tarnish something so sacred? Why not just come up with a new, hip Sci-Fi movie instead of dumbing down a classic series that very few young-folk care about anyway? I'll put my Really, 100s? Not only did they totally change the personalities of the characters, but they came up with a lame "excuse" to legitimize it! Alright, I understand that this is focused at a younger crowd, but why tarnish something so sacred? Why not just come up with a new, hip Sci-Fi movie instead of dumbing down a classic series that very few young-folk care about anyway? I'll put my trekkie tendencies aside and look at this differently: What a stupid movie! Why are the Romulans all bald? With all their "future" technology, can they still not handle lice? I'm tired of bald villains and hereby declare that I refuse to watch any film with a bald baddie from this day forward...unless I really want see it-- And the camera drove me nuts! Hold it still! I get that you want to beef-up the intensity and/or make it feel more reality-TVish in the moment-like, but it makes it hard to pay attention to silly, over-dramatic acting when the camera keeps bouncing up and down. And what about that "shoot-out?" Did they just film Kirk and Spock walking down a hallway then let second unit take care of death-shots? It was pathetic. So--that said, it's a pretty fun movie with some good laughs, but no sign of intelligence or nostalgic worth. Expand
  48. MikeM
    May 14, 2009
    5
    Leave brain at door. Bring Back The Kirk in the next one. Anything goes now!
  49. DM.
    Jun 15, 2009
    6
    This Star Trek was better than the last two movies in terms of its pacing and direction. While it is a good movie this vision of Star Trek by JJ Abrams is not my cup of tea. Yes change in the Star Trek universe is possible witness the death of Admiral Janeway in some recent novels. I think that JJ Abrams could have brought the original crew together w/o totally disregarding the 5 TV This Star Trek was better than the last two movies in terms of its pacing and direction. While it is a good movie this vision of Star Trek by JJ Abrams is not my cup of tea. Yes change in the Star Trek universe is possible witness the death of Admiral Janeway in some recent novels. I think that JJ Abrams could have brought the original crew together w/o totally disregarding the 5 TV series. I had no problem with the actors they did a fine job. There were way too many plot holes and continuity problems. While JJ Abrams seems from interviews to a nice guy it is very obvious that he never was a Star Trek fan. He has totally disregarded the Star Trek universe. He has turned Star Trek into a video game.One of the best aspects of Star Trek was this rich history to work with and build upon. I am sorry but this movie doesn't do anything for me. So many bitched about Rick Berman and Enterprise-this movie is far worse in many ways.Considering that one of the script writers was a fan of Star Trek I have to think did they really watch the show after all? Expand
  50. JB.
    Jul 14, 2009
    6
    I think this movie is a bit overated by people hoping for a huge sci-fi flick to follow for years to come. ST was not bad, but it was not that great either. I'm sure they will make a few sequels that will be even worse than this though just like transformers managed to go from fun special effects boom-boom to pure rot.
  51. PhilS
    Aug 17, 2009
    6
    Despite being yet another example of Hollywood's lack of imagination and a typically impossible Star Trek storyline, the film is a hoot to watch. It's not unlike cotton candy - tastes good and provides a fun experience for a little while, but ultimately has no nutritional value.
  52. Mar 9, 2011
    5
    Well this movie strips out all the smarts of the original IP and replaces it with brainless action, I didn't watch Star Trek for it's action scenes, I watched it so I could enjoy the escapades of the crew and their adventures in space, sure in the original series the only "Real" characters were McCoy, Spock, & Kirk, and this movie just does horrible things to them. I'm not here to sayWell this movie strips out all the smarts of the original IP and replaces it with brainless action, I didn't watch Star Trek for it's action scenes, I watched it so I could enjoy the escapades of the crew and their adventures in space, sure in the original series the only "Real" characters were McCoy, Spock, & Kirk, and this movie just does horrible things to them. I'm not here to say that's it's a bad movie per se, but it fails to do the IP justice, wand assassinates the characters along the way. Expand
  53. Nov 17, 2013
    6
    This is the first time i watched a Star Trek movie, or a Star Trek anything for that matter. The visuals are great. So is the performances. The story is okay; nothing amazing. There is some action and humor from time to time.
    So overall, it was a decently entertaining movie. But nothing awesome.
  54. Mar 13, 2011
    5
    I thought the movie was boring. There wasn't really anything that grabbed my full attention.
  55. Jun 21, 2011
    6
    As a long time Trek fan,i was really looking forward to this movie,especiially after watching the full trailer with the rousing music by Two Steps from Hell.Have to say though,i found the movie completely underwelming.. I know its supposed to be a reboot,but why make a Trek movie,if your going to ignore the whole history of ALL the series,with events like the Vulcan home planet gettingAs a long time Trek fan,i was really looking forward to this movie,especiially after watching the full trailer with the rousing music by Two Steps from Hell.Have to say though,i found the movie completely underwelming.. I know its supposed to be a reboot,but why make a Trek movie,if your going to ignore the whole history of ALL the series,with events like the Vulcan home planet getting destroyed?! Dont get me wrong,the film has its moments,& is quite slickly shot,But Kirk trying to get it on with Uhuru? Spock IN a relationship with Uhuru? Kirk taking command the way he did was lame.The cast were prett good on the whole,but Notably good in the film was the guy who played Spock(I forget his name),& Karl Urban as Dr Mcoy i thought.The effects were pretty good on the whole,but there was far & away not enough space sequences/battles,& what there was,was lackluster.These are supposed to be big lumbering ships,with alot of crew members doing all sorts of tasks on board,so why is this never really capitalised & done justice in the Trek movies to make tense & prolonged battles between starships?.. The ones that came the closest to this was The Wrath of Khan,& Nemisis,both better movies for it.Though my favourate Trek movie stll has to be First Contact BY FAR,followed by Nemisis,then Wrath of Khan.I hope the next movie(if there is one),has a proper space battle you can sink your teeth into & enjoy,cos this movie didnt,Far from it. Expand
  56. Sep 28, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's... very different from previous Trek films. There's some things that stay the same, and a lot that changes. Definitely not gonna replace Wrath of Khan, heh.

    The CGI's amazing, of course. That's kinda the most obvious at-a-glance difference. See, this is really hard. My head is swimming with all the crazy stuff that I just saw, but... most of it's gonna be spoilers.

    I will say, you should prepare yourself for a lot, I mean a lot of lens flare in this film. It was some sort of cinematic look they were going for, but sometimes the amount of it was just overwhelming. Like, a character will look out of a window, and the sun just pours through the window and completely blots out the screen with yellow flare for a good two to three seconds. That was just kinda "Ok, that's a bit much, thanks."

    Yea... the timeline really changes...

    They **** DESTROY VULCAN, WITH SIX BILLION VULCANS! AND AMANDA GREYSON! HOLY ****

    Which is mind boggling, but I didn't really feel the impact because you're aware of the time travel, so... maybe it's just me, but I felt myself not reacting to the change when it happened because I was sure that they would use the time travel again at the climax to undo what had happened. It seemed really telegraphed. But then they don't do that at all, which was cool. But by then, the emotional impact of Vulcan being gone was uh, gone. It was just a CGI effect. Did anyone else feel this way?

    They do show the Kobayashi Maru, which was really really funny. Maybe a bit too over the top, depending on your mood.

    I mean, Kirk's **** eating a goddamn apple in the scene... that's just insanely over the top. It does work in a comedic manner, but if you've envisioned it happening a different way since 1982 when Wrath of Khan came out, obviously this is gonna take some getting used to.

    Just all throughout the film, there are these callbacks to the old series that we know and love. That was really cute and worked for me. Scotty actually saying "I'm giving it all I've got, Capn!" and uh, Spock uttering "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    We even find out how McCoy got the nickname "Bones."

    Not sure how I feel about the new guy playing Spock. It's just really hard to see Spock being played this way. It's much more emotional then we're used to, so that was a shock. And of course, because we actually have Leonard Nimoy playing him too. And the new guy's just got a huge nose. There'd be these closeups of Kirk and Spock eyeing each other, and I'd just focus on how Spock's nose is so much bigger then Kirk's normal sized one. It was just weird.

    And yea, it's definitely been a while since I've watched TOS episodes. But I think it's also that when we see Spock being emotional before in TOS, it was usually emotional in a friendly, camaraderie sort of way. Here, he's mostly emotional in an angry way.

    Right now I'm looking up who played the Orion girl, cause she was **** hot. You know how Kirk is...

    But uh... that's just minor. Now, there is one relationship in this film that was uh... completely out of nowhere, nothing in canon to support it.

    Spock and Uhura? Holy **** That totally came out of left field for me. Just uh... WTF. I don't think I was the only one in my audience to react that way, either. Not saying that it's a terrible decision though. Just a shocker cause we'd never seen this before in TOS. We'll have to see how the sequels handle this relationship. Still, right now... it's just a huge seismic change.

    Nero's not a great villain. Kinda wasted in the story, I think. Just uh... not very memorable.

    And his great villainous ship turns out to be just a mining ship. Which doesn't really jive with it being this sinister spidery juggernaut. Seriously, it dwarfs every other ship... I'd estimate it's somewhere from a half to one Borg Cubes in size. No idea why a mining ship needs to be that big. And the inside of it kinda reminded me a little of V'ger. Just a really crazy layout. Again, not sure why a mining ship would look like that.

    Oh, know what I didn't expect? New Chekov's accent got almost unbearably comical to listen to. It's strange, cause I've never blinked at old Chekov's thick accent. But hearing it coming out of this young new actor was really grating. I actually burst out laughing when he first talked. Simon Pegg's Scotty was great, he was funny in that same sorta Jimmy Doohan manner back in the day. Just a joy in every scene. McCoy too, Karl Urban really seemed to have researched Kelly's acting mannerisms. Don't believe he ever said "He's dead, Jim" though.
    Expand
  57. Dec 7, 2011
    5
    Overall, this could have been any C grade science fiction movie. Let's break this down. Here's what was bad about this movie:
    The script - it was so horribly cliched, and full of massive plot holes that render some major scenes inert. The pacing was too well done, no time out is taken to get to know these characters particularly well, and we get the bare minimum of development. On the
    Overall, this could have been any C grade science fiction movie. Let's break this down. Here's what was bad about this movie:
    The script - it was so horribly cliched, and full of massive plot holes that render some major scenes inert. The pacing was too well done, no time out is taken to get to know these characters particularly well, and we get the bare minimum of development. On the whole, this film is just a Transformers style action film punctuated with bursts of emotion in ways that are so obviously contrived I don't know how anyone fell for this.
    The villain - has the worst motivations for doing what he is doing in any film. Future Spock did his best to help him, and failed in his attempt. So its logical to assume that because of that, cliche villain will now destroy all the Federation planets, so in the future, nobody can help him. And before anyone tries to tell me he's crazy, Bana's performance and the dialogue given to him does not suggest someone who is crazy. Heath Ledger's Joker is crazy. This guy isn't. Kirk - What an **** At the end of the movie we get no sense that he is any different from the pompous prick who crashed his step dad's car for fun at the beginning of the movie. What awful character development. The cinematography - EVERYTHING has to be shot from within 10 feet of the **** subject. Whoever the DoP for this film was, don't hire them again. They don't know how to set up a goddamn shot, everything was shot so close and with the camera shaking so much like it was sat on a giant vibrator, it got difficult to tell what was supposed to be happening. Also, take out all the lens flares. Yeah, they look nice for some shots, but not every shot in the film. Unexplained things - So, this red matter can destroy a planet. Or it can be completely harmless to ships so they can be sent back in time so we can have this film. And then later on, it destroys the ships. Thanks for the explanation guys. Oh yeah, that's right, the plot says it has to happen, so it does.

    Having said that, there are a few things that were good in this film. Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban both did a good job with what they had to work with, Quinto especially. I didn't like Zoe Saldana in this film, she just seemed to come off as arrogant as Uhura, and Chris Pine as Kirk didn't go very well, though at times he really showed off his acting ability with what awful material he had to work from. The design overall was nice, I loved the new look for engineering, its how I'd imagine the engine room of a vast starship to look like. Just little subtle things like these made this film pop up a bit more. It's definitely not an intelligent movie, but it sort of serves as a bridge between the best of Trek films and the worst of Trek films. It's a movie that you can enjoy with your buddies while eating a pizza and having some beer, but its not a film to watch if you want something intelligent. And that is the problem - Star Trek is capable, and has to be about big ideas. This isn't Star Trek at all.
    Expand
  58. May 14, 2013
    6
    I liked the cast, Thought the film had some solid acting. I wish Nero, the film's villain, had a bigger presence though, Felt he was barely in the film at all, Which is rather disappointing. Also, The film was a bit too fast paced. I understand that you can only pack so much into a film and that Star Trek is a massive series, Heck I am shocked that they packed so much into this film, butI liked the cast, Thought the film had some solid acting. I wish Nero, the film's villain, had a bigger presence though, Felt he was barely in the film at all, Which is rather disappointing. Also, The film was a bit too fast paced. I understand that you can only pack so much into a film and that Star Trek is a massive series, Heck I am shocked that they packed so much into this film, but still it sort of hurt the movie. That being said, It wasn't a bad movie. I enjoyed it enough to give the sequel a chance. Expand
  59. Oct 24, 2012
    6
    What a fresh action-comedy... But hey, I was expecting a science-fiction movie! What went wrong? Star Trek takes 30 boring minutes to set itself up like a teenage comedy, explaining that Kirk is Kirk and Spock, well, Spock. Then the action kicks in, and it gets a lot better. It's a lot of fun, and the actors, effects and score are pretty damn good. But the story is thin and the scriptWhat a fresh action-comedy... But hey, I was expecting a science-fiction movie! What went wrong? Star Trek takes 30 boring minutes to set itself up like a teenage comedy, explaining that Kirk is Kirk and Spock, well, Spock. Then the action kicks in, and it gets a lot better. It's a lot of fun, and the actors, effects and score are pretty damn good. But the story is thin and the script rather heavy-handed. Where are the ideas and ideals? Would I be a real star trek geek, I would probably be offended by this.

    Poor Gene Roddenberry...
    Expand
  60. Aug 17, 2014
    5
    A little bit more heart, substance and dare I say it – logic – and I might have enjoyed the fun parts where the things blew up and the people yelled at each other.
  61. May 23, 2015
    6
    I give this movie a 6.5/10. My reaction to it was, "...meh." I just din't really care for it. It wasn't as exciting or well written as I had hoped but it certainly wasn't a bad movie. Maybe I'd liek it more if I were a die hard Star Trek fan but this was actually the first movie of it I saw. I prefer Into Darkness over this movie by far, but that's not to say this isn't a pretty decent movie.
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.