Paramount Pictures | Release Date: May 7, 2009
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1449 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,191
Mixed:
121
Negative:
137
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)
2
RayfinderJun 7, 2015
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 andThis 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
5 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
10
GodComplexMay 7, 2009
It's amazing! The writers have balls! Finally the reset button is hit and all that cannon can start over!
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
MichaelF.May 7, 2009
In a word: perfect. And I feel the need to point out that I'm -not- a Trekkie, and I -am- a really harsh critic. I know that sounds lame, but go see this and say I'm wrong.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
7
theinspectorApr 19, 2011
Star trek 2009, as I call it, Star Trek: the MOVING Picture is a fast paced thrill ride that leaves it brain at the door. Donâ
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
Basilsik1991Mar 9, 2011
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, sureWell 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
MichaelDMar 13, 2011
I thought the movie was boring. There wasn't really anything that grabbed my full attention.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
SpartanEdgeJun 21, 2011
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 toAs 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
pauljohnsonDec 7, 2011
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
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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
SpangleAug 22, 2016
Star Trek is really awful. The original series was known for being cheesy and stupid, which is also why it never resonated with me too much. Sadly, so is this one. Packed with stupid quips that are supposed to be funny but are not, Star TrekStar Trek is really awful. The original series was known for being cheesy and stupid, which is also why it never resonated with me too much. Sadly, so is this one. Packed with stupid quips that are supposed to be funny but are not, Star Trek is also maligned by many other faults. The entire cast is dreadful, the story is beyond stupid, convoluted, and ruined by the time travel element. The time travel element, instead of being interesting, is really poorly executed and makes no sense whatsoever. It adds a layer of complexity to a plot that did not really need another layer of complexity. The resolution comes far too quickly and easily. Sure, some people die, but the crew is never really threatened. The plot is packed with filler that really adds nothing other than an opportunity to play 80's music. The dialogue is horrifically cringe-inducing and, even worse, it looks fake. The set design is blatantly obvious and is so bad it is reminiscent of a 50's movie when somebody is "driving" a car - it is that obvious. The only saving grace here is the special effects, which are incredible. Unfortunately, the look of the film is ruined by JJ Abrams' hard on for lens flare, which is distracting and wildly overused. Overall, Star Trek may have stunning space visuals and some cool designs, but the film is like the hot girl with no personality. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
JohnTYAug 17, 2014
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
Epik_NinnjaMay 23, 2015
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 fanI 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. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
johnslegersJan 3, 2016
As a child and teenager, I grew up with the "Star Trek: The Next Generation". While I was never a hardcore Star Trek fan, I did enjoy quite a few seasons of that series as well as "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". Still,As a child and teenager, I grew up with the "Star Trek: The Next Generation". While I was never a hardcore Star Trek fan, I did enjoy quite a few seasons of that series as well as "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". Still, the original series never really appealed to me. They always came off as outdated in so many ways I guess I outgrew them before I had the chance to get into them.

"Star Trek: The Future Begins" didn't really manage to impress me, largely because it's basically nothing but barely disguised "fan service" for the fans of the original series stretched in a thin two hour plot.

That plot evolves around two heroes : Spock and James T. Kirk. After a couple of scenes depicting their childhood, both meet each other as Starfleet cadets during a pretty contrived conflict and end up in a couple more conflicts until they realize they need to overcome their differences and collaborate to save the future of the earth. That pretty much sums up the whole plot.

Several supporting characters from the original series are also included in the movie, although they're given so little screen time and character development you barely get to know them at all. All the attention goes to Spock and James T. Kirk, and even these characters are barely developed beyond caricatures. The main protagonist of the story has been given a back story not just very thin but so far-fetched and random he felt more like an afterthought than an integral plot of the movie.

While the visual effects were as professional as one would expect of a movie with this budget, I also wasn't impressed by the movie when I tried to forget about all the plot holes and just tried looking at pretty pictures. Too much shaky cam, a ridiculous amount of annoying lens flares, awkward close-ups and an ADHD pacing gave the movie not nearly the amount of eye-candy I most definitely did expect of a movie like this, leaving me mostly disappointed by the time the credits passed the screen.

I did very much appreciate the movie's sense of humor, though, but jokes were too few and too far in between to be a redeeming factor.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
AlienSpaceBatsFeb 14, 2014
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 yetPainfully 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. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
9
[Anonymous]May 7, 2009
A thrilling ride from start to finish. An outstanding ensemble cast embarks on an epic mission paired with superb special effects and numerous laugh out loud moments. 2 things bothering me: physics got flushed down the toilet and the new A thrilling ride from start to finish. An outstanding ensemble cast embarks on an epic mission paired with superb special effects and numerous laugh out loud moments. 2 things bothering me: physics got flushed down the toilet and the new alternative universe. Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful
3
rederpJan 3, 2016
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
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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
0
NightbringerATApr 24, 2013
The Movie that killed Star Trek,

unlogical Vulcans, oddly size changing ships (from 320m to 700m, dvd extras), no explanation why tech evolved so quickly apart from the prime-timeline. Way too much Star Wars effect in a Star Trek movie.
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.
Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
10
mymediaSep 30, 2013
We were pleasantly surprised with this well polished and incredibly entertaining instalment of movie genius. Great casting and stunning visuals a real treat on the big screen. Love the character development and it stayed true to theWe were pleasantly surprised with this well polished and incredibly entertaining instalment of movie genius. Great casting and stunning visuals a real treat on the big screen. Love the character development and it stayed true to the original series but was easily enjoyed by those that aren't all that familiar with the Star Trek format. Top notch work and a must see! Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
7
TSDec 23, 2009
If you're looking for just good entertainment and no more, that's what it delivers. Entertaining, occasionally exciting, but completely forgettable. Any episode of Battlestar Galactica is as exciting AND 100 times more memorable If you're looking for just good entertainment and no more, that's what it delivers. Entertaining, occasionally exciting, but completely forgettable. Any episode of Battlestar Galactica is as exciting AND 100 times more memorable and resonant. Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful
5
PWBApr 12, 2011
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'tSeriously, 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
6 of 12 users found this helpful66
All this user's reviews
0
NicholasF.May 8, 2009
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 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!!! Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful
10
RobertHDec 31, 2009
The best Star Trek movie yet! Even without the Borg, this movie was well written and well-executed through and through! Bravo!!
4 of 8 users found this helpful
0
BobNDec 25, 2009
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 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful
0
JudyTMay 15, 2009
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 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. Expand
3 of 6 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
3
PeteSMay 14, 2009
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 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. Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful
9
SuzetteM.May 7, 2009
Just: wow. I think this one finally beats the StarTrek movie-grail "Wrath of Khan" (which gets a *winkwink* shout-out in this film, chock-full of such tasty tidbits). It's great because it's not just geek-friendly -- tho sure, Just: wow. I think this one finally beats the StarTrek movie-grail "Wrath of Khan" (which gets a *winkwink* shout-out in this film, chock-full of such tasty tidbits). It's great because it's not just geek-friendly -- tho sure, they'll be out in force -- it also opens a huge door for others to (re-)discover this legend. Like StarWars, LOTR and HarryPotter, I hope this will spawn a boom in the shared mythology that is StarTrek. And the great part is, the seriously FEW ticks at which you might quibble, let you feel superior while still enjoying the be-whatzis out of the rest of this fantastic ride! Get a LARGE popcorn, WITH butter. What are you waiting for?? GO! Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful
0
ewwLifesucksJun 13, 2009
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 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful
0
DadBrandWhiskeyJun 13, 2009
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. 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful
0
IanCJun 18, 2009
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 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful
0
AkiRJun 25, 2009
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 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
3 of 6 users found this helpful