Paramount Pictures | Release Date: May 7, 2009
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1444 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,187
Mixed:
121
Negative:
136
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
AndrewC.May 10, 2009
[***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 [***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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DaveSMay 20, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JeremyC.May 8, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
LizzieBeth-1May 8, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ZackP.Oct 11, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SteveV.May 10, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
EdwardKMay 12, 2009
This film is very poorly written. It has very good acting overall, but this cannot save the film. The idea that a cadet is promoted to Captain without even graduating and given command of the most powerful ship in the fleet is just absurd. This film is very poorly written. It has very good acting overall, but this cannot save the film. The idea that a cadet is promoted to Captain without even graduating and given command of the most powerful ship in the fleet is just absurd. It is also ridiculous that a black hole is generated near Earth and the solar system is not destroyed. Further, Nero commands a mining ship, which apparantly is the most powerful ship in the galaxy. How does this make any sense? The film has destroyed the entire Star Trek timeline. This means that nothing that happened in the previous six series and ten films actually occured. Don't feed me that alternate timeline nonsense either. This is fiction that has a 43 yeatr history and rich backstory which are now gone. They can never be referenced again, unless the alternate reality advocates actually believe that Paramount will do stories in both realities. Exactly! It isn't going to happen. So, in reality, 43 years of developed timeline are destroyed forever. This is unconscienable. To add to this cavalier destruction of franchise history poor writing and a ridiculous plot is just too much! I am amazed at critics who slammed Nemisis as a bad film but excuse similar poor writing in this film simply because they love the non stop action. This film just confirms my suspicions that J. J. Abrams cannot direct films. He has turned Star Trek into Mission: Impossible in space. The franchise is just another MTV video paced action franchise. R.I.P. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
RangeboyMay 25, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KenE.May 7, 2009
The first 20 minutes are an absolute disaster--laughably bad acting, obvious and failed attempts at establishing an emotional connection with the audience. from there, things get a little better, but the fast pacing that the reviewers point The first 20 minutes are an absolute disaster--laughably bad acting, obvious and failed attempts at establishing an emotional connection with the audience. from there, things get a little better, but the fast pacing that the reviewers point out (ha, warp speed, get it?) was self-sabotaging. All of the characters stay two dimensional, plot is thrown in buckets (and we're supposed to care), and mildly entertaining fights between the Enterprise crew and middle aged European males with tattoos play out as you'd expect. I really, really didn't care about anything that was going on. I did cry, but that happened during a failed attempt to hold back laughter during the final five minutes. A wholly 'eh' film. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
5
RobS.May 7, 2009
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
NeilK.May 7, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BillS.May 8, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SeannF.May 8, 2009
Characters were good (except for Uhara), dialogue was witty in places, cinematography and special effects were beautiful but the story was incredibly (poor).
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RichardJ.May 9, 2009
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, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TomK.May 9, 2009
All Style and No Substance This movie is short-attention-span theater- if you think about what you're watching for even a minute, you'll notice plot holes and bad story logic, in addition to 1-dimensional characters. I enjoyed it All Style and No Substance This movie is short-attention-span theater- if you think about what you're watching for even a minute, you'll notice plot holes and bad story logic, in addition to 1-dimensional characters. I enjoyed it while I watched it, for the most part. Afterward it left a terrible taste in my mouth because of its don't-change-the-channel! style of storytelling. If you have ADD/ADHD you'll love it. It's a bunch of 'awesome' scenes pasted together from JJ Abrams and the dullards who wrote Transformers. There's definitely nothing re-watchable about it. The Metascore of 84 has to be a case-in-point against the quality of modern movie criticism. Sweet CGI and a franchise reboot should not give you 40 bonus points. The score should be somewhere in the yellow, maybe 44. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JoeBloMay 9, 2009
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, 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
2 of 4 users found this helpful
6
MathieuD.Aug 26, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
robertiDec 20, 2009
Good, even better than it should be, but not worth the hype of the critical reviews.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
EliasC.Dec 9, 2009
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 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful
4
DavidD.May 10, 2009
[***SPOILERS***] First off, I will say that I am a huge fan! Not the kind that dresses up and makes a fool of himself, but the kind that loves the in depth stories and Characters that only Star Trek can bring in. I agree with several people [***SPOILERS***] First off, I will say that I am a huge fan! Not the kind that dresses up and makes a fool of himself, but the kind that loves the in depth stories and Characters that only Star Trek can bring in. I agree with several people that they made this into a movie that Young A.D.D people would love. Or that non Star trek fans would like. What Hollywood doesn't realize is that there are plenty of real Star Trek fans that would make them plenty of money if they just knew how to write a good story!! My God, what the hell was this?!! Yes, the acting and the special effects were good but the story was inexcusable!! They just took Star Treks 40 year history and pissed it away in one movie! And what in the hell is up with the camera movement?! Can Hollywood please stop this already!!! And as for all the plot holes? Blowing up Romulus and Vulcan was just idiotic! Killing Spocks mom was just stupid also! There were a 1000 different ways they could have written this without involving time travel. And one drop of red matter can create a planet destroying black hole but a whole crap load of it at the end couldn't suck in a ship?! lol! I think I will leave the rest of the plot holes to Andrew C who said it best. I am just going to pretend this movie is just a stand alone and has nothing to do with the rich history of Star Trek. sigh! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
AramisG.May 10, 2009
Looks great, nice casting... totally retarded and insulting plot holes and illogical science. In other words, more like the original Star Trek, less like anything since Next Generation.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
GOE42May 11, 2009
I can't understand how this movie is being massively applauded for being utterly predictable and mainstream. The story is the most derivative I have seen so far. A Standard action comedy flick - getting undue attention duw to it's I can't understand how this movie is being massively applauded for being utterly predictable and mainstream. The story is the most derivative I have seen so far. A Standard action comedy flick - getting undue attention duw to it's name. There isn't a shadow of originality in the script. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
AramisgjrMay 11, 2009
Do any of these dolts (critics included) realize that this movie ended with a black hole being created right outside of Earth's atmosphere? That means the end of our solar system. This is one of maybe one hundred stupid things that Do any of these dolts (critics included) realize that this movie ended with a black hole being created right outside of Earth's atmosphere? That means the end of our solar system. This is one of maybe one hundred stupid things that happen in this movie that everyone seems to be overlooking. The new Star Trek is one of the sloppiest written sci-fi movies ever. I'm only giving it a 4 for casting and visuals. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JosephB.May 10, 2009
This movie was by far the worst written movie in the franchise history. The timeline makes no sense, the plot lines are forced. The special effects are incredible, but flawed. The back story is silly and extremely flawed. Gene Rodenberry This movie was by far the worst written movie in the franchise history. The timeline makes no sense, the plot lines are forced. The special effects are incredible, but flawed. The back story is silly and extremely flawed. Gene Rodenberry would NEVER have accepted this script. But J.J. does every week on Lost. Pander to the advertisers (Nokia and Bud, only to mention two of many) - distract them with eye candy. This movie is simply lazy writing thrown to a hungry SciFi market. But the producers don't want to hear this. Many of the fans and critics don't want pay any attention to the obvious flaws. And too many of the Trekkies just want their beloved franchise back on the big screen, regardless of the cost to Gene Rodenberry's legacy. I want much, much better! So I'm here to say, at the top of my lungs: "The King has NO cloths." Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
KrisA.May 10, 2009
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 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
2 of 4 users found this helpful
6
JayDMay 14, 2009
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: 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MichelleNMay 14, 2009
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
HumprtPumMay 15, 2009
Poor Dr. Spock. They´ve made him so stupid. Like the whole movie.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
OoshMay 15, 2009
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
andrzejrMay 21, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful