IMDb > Star Trek (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Star Trek
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Star Trek More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 157: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 1570 reviews in total 

88 out of 118 people found the following review useful:

Trek fans avoid at all costs!

Author: ( from USA
17 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all let me start out by saying I am a Trek fan. I love the original series. Not the kind of fan that knows everything that happened to everybody in every episode on every stardate type of fan, but a fan nonetheless. The last few movies were dull and I never even bothered to watch The Enterprise TV series. When I heard a new movie was in the works I was very happy. Once I heard JJ Abrams was directing my heart sank (still can't forgive him for what he turned Lost into).

First of all the plot is so full of holes the whole starfleet could fly through. Why is it that a cadet crew (some not even cadets yet) are the only ones who can save a planet or two? The movie relies too much on visual effects and too little on plot. The effects got boring after awhile. The time travel thing has been done and done so many times it's obvious the writers can't come up with new ideas. Even if we are to accept this is some alternate universe/timeline, it still doesn't explain how Chekhov aged so closely to Kirk. In the original series he was only 22 and Kirk in his 30's. In the original series no one knew what Romulans looked like or that they were similar to Vulcans, yet it's common knowledge in the film. None of the movie makes sense. You have to have a lack of imagination to truly enjoy this film. Leonard Nimoy doesn't even seem like his old character.

I saw this with both trek and non trek fans and everyone agreed it dragged on too long, was boring & they couldn't wait for it to be over. Star Trek needs to take another long rest and any future movies must not involve JJ Abrams. This is not Star Trek reimagined, it is Star Trek rewritten.

Was the above review useful to you?

90 out of 124 people found the following review useful:

Star Dreck...A Mission To Boldly Rip You Off With no Remorse.

Author: pete1-2 from Canada
14 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Honestly, this is the worst franchise exploitation train wreck since the dreadful Alien vs. Predator: Requiem disaster. I really wish the producers of this film would have just called this crud "Space Wars" so as not to tarnish the good name of Star Trek. This movie reminded me of Saturday morning cartoons where anything goes for no apparent reason but to insert a laugh or a stupid stunt. There is no logical, comprehensible storyline or continuity here. Kirk behaves like an obnoxious self-centered jerk who doesn't deserve to be in charge of anything let alone the Federation's flagship. Spock always looks like he's not in control of his emotions & apparently he thinks it's logical to be making out with his communications officer whenever possible. The black hole science is absurd. Thanks to instant black holes ( just add red matter ) one can either travel in time or crush an enemy ship or destroy a planet in a singularity. You're going to have to regress your brain, BIG TIME, in order to stomach this film's physics. If you are able to dumb down your brain to the point that, say, you not only believe that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are cool but you believe they actually exist, then you can enjoy this inane story. Otherwise keep your popcorn bag close by in case you feel the urge to vomit. I never thought the Star Trek movies were anything more than average popcorn fare, save for maybe The Wrath of Kahn, which probably best captures the essence of Gene Roddenberry's vision. This movie is a just a vile pile of Hollywood crap. You won't suck me in again all you fake reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes!

Was the above review useful to you?

85 out of 119 people found the following review useful:

A comic book, not a drama.

Author: tkent375 from United States
13 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, the Star Trek movie wasn't what we were expecting. (SPOILER ALERT)


-My wife and I liked the actors who portrayed Kirk, Spock, and McCoy -- we could imagine them as younger versions without too much trouble. Much less so for Uhura, Checkov, Sulu, and especially Scotty.

-We liked a lot of the in jokes and back references. For instance, seeing how Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru, or Spock's hassles as a kid and his refusal to join the Vulcan Science Academy. How Kirk learns early (from Spock) to bait Spock when it suits his purpose. Spock's dad finally admitting that he loved Amanda. Iowa wild man farm boy.


-We didn't like the frenetic intercutting.

-We've all seen movies with gratuitous sex and violence. But gratuitous plumbing? The cargo bay was filled with pipes and that sequence with Scotty in the tubes was so dumb it was offensive. The whole Scotty-as-comedy-relief thing didn't work for us. Neither did his Star Wars sidekick.

-The young Spock was distinctly pink in close-ups, not green as his cupraglobin-based blood would make him.

-Physicists have long maintained that a black hole smaller than a pea could, if it intersected with a planet, collapse it to nothing in a matter of seconds. But such a black hole would have to have the mass of 100 planets, so a ship with malicious intent would have to be able to tow 100 planets worth of mass. And of course the ship would be sucked up too. The business of drilling a hole was nonsense. A black hole would sink through bedrock far more easily than a knife cuts through soft butter.

-The transporter effect reminded me of a silkworm cocoon. Everybody knows transporters don't work like that.

-No Star Fleet officer would strand another on an arctic planet. Especially not on Delta Vega, a desolate planet near the edge of the galaxy, containing only a lithium cracking station. (This is used to manufacture the dilithium crystals that moderate the flow of power from the warp drive antimatter converters). Oh, but wait, this is a different Delta Vega, one that just happens to be in orbit around 40 Eridani, close to Vulcan.

-Star Fleet vehicles do not burn 10-foot-deep holes into ice when they land.

-Spock and Uhura? Come on -- Spock is only interested in romance every seven years.

-I was perhaps most offended by the bad guy's ship. Everybody knows you can't have warp drive without separating the engine's nacelles from the rest of the ship, since they produce toxic radiation while in use. This ship, with its absurdly non-functional pointy barbs and no nacelles, should win the Silliest Starship award. The Romulans make nice starships. They wouldn't make a ship that looks like a porcupine.

-And speaking of Romulans, since they share relatively recent common ancestry with the Vulcans, they look like Vulcans. They don't look like Vin Diesel and tattoo themselves like 21st century rogue bikers.

-A green Orion slave girl as a cadet at Star Fleet? They hadn't yet been emancipated.

-Red matter? Looks like blood, and is removed with a huge hypodermic? Get real!

-Spock's "pinwheel ship"? Who would design a ship to spin around as it flew? What were they thinking???

-Slow-moving, easily destroyed missiles launched from the Romulan porcupine ship? More nonsense! The Romulans had a very formidable plasma weapon at that time.

-The Enterprise didn't look right, or sound right.

-The Enterprise was on a five year mission in the original series, three years of which were (presumably) covered by the original three years of shows. This means that somehow in the first two years the crew went from being fresh-faced cadets to mature travelers.

In summary, this was a comic book, not a drama. We were deeply offended. We've seen the future and we know what it's like. And don't give us any of that alternate timeline crap, we know better.

This is somewhat tongue and cheek, but we really were disappointed.

Was the above review useful to you?

239 out of 430 people found the following review useful:


Author: Hayfax_Jo from United Kingdom
21 April 2009

As someone with a longstanding fondness for most things Trek (I've seen most of the movies and quite a few of the shows), I have to say that JJ & Co did a fine job with this picture; the character dynamics were broadly satisfying, the action scenes entertaining and the set pieces well put together. Most of all I was impressed with the lightness of touch of the whole venture - it would be very easy to criticise the picture for making what could be considered significant changes to certain parts of Trek lore, but given that the changes were accomplished with such comfort and confidence makes them, in my view, perfectly acceptable.

With regards to the acting characterisation, everyone was pretty much solid, with perhaps the exception of Sulu, who I thought didn't have much to do. Kudos, though, to Zoe Saldana's loveliness as Uhura and also, especially, to Chris Pine as Kirk - I had always thought Spock was my favourite character, but it looks like I may have to reassess; Pine lives and breathes that Kirk moxie exquisitely and he'll be great fun to watch in future instalments.

With regards to plot, it's pretty good; there is a decent sense of internal logic to it, without it being too overwrought. True, there are a number of points where you might think, "Blimey, that's serendipitous," but as I'd already suspended my disbelief to accept the possibility of time travelling green-blooded alien from the planet Vulcan, these things really didn't bother me at all. Plus there were a number of points in the movie where they were saying, "We were pulling this kind of shtick 20+ years ago, and you loved it then; run with us on this one," and I was happy to.

Oh, and most importantly of all, the movie is fun; it has the good sense to not take itself too seriously, despite remaining well aware of that sense of pomp and importance that all great character dramas should have, and that isn't a bad thing at all.

How this movie will bear up to repeat viewings, I'm not certain yet, but at the premiere, it was a blast.

Addendum: It's a month plus since I originally wrote this and I have seen the film three times in total now - the opening ten minutes remain a manipulative marvel that the remainder of the film struggles to match, the coincidences and conveniences seem even more far fetched than ever and the jokes seem even more silly BUT I still fancy seeing it again, so I guess it must work for me.

Was the above review useful to you?

71 out of 97 people found the following review useful:

Few redeeming characteristics - Trashes Gene Roddenbury's vision

Author: jjthmpsn from United States
18 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had arrived at this movie with high hopes after having heard a favorable review by a friend. It turns out that my friend was giving a favorable review of his date, I am quite sure that he paid no attention to the movie, because anyone watching this filth that owns half a brain could not possibly enjoy it.

Right out of the gate, they Jump the Shark on the Spock character turning him into an impulsive, brash, horny Vulcan youth with a heart full of angst. Then they turn Kirk into a stone-jawed loudmouth playboy from a Michael Bay style Cars-n'-Sluts flick, complete with multiple pointless car chases, hopeless henchmen, comedic extras and sweaty bar fights over girls.

There's no character depth or development as suddenly all the characters from the series are thrown together in their twenties starting off as geniuses at each of their respective tasks, as if no one with promise has to rise through ranks, earn knowledge or hone talent to become something. That uniquely American perspective coupled with the tiresome oversexualization or alternatively, casting-into-comedic roles of every single character, followed by constant mindless action sequences drags the script of this movie below the Canned-Tuna quality we see in all the Star Wars prequels. It even comes complete with hoverbikes and giant digitized monster chases.

What happened to the cerebral and highly character-driven plots that Star Trek has come to be known for? Why pollute an otherwise acceptable premise with silly fantasy elements and spoil a carefully thought out universe with a tired old Deus Ex Machina like time travel through black holes? It never came together, and I got really sick of the constantly switching camera angles and lens flare; I felt like I was skydiving during a thunderstorm for the entire movie. Star Trek would have been better as an amusement ride like Star Tours at Disneyland than something seen in a Theatre.

Was the above review useful to you?

104 out of 163 people found the following review useful:

Disappointing addition to the Star Trek franchise...

Author: RingWorld
8 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Disappointing addition to the Star Trek franchise... The production values are Excellent. The acting very good. However, the STORY is yet another "Go Back in Time and Change Things So We Can Get Away With Doing Anything We Want To Do" story.

Don't they realize how dissatisfying that type of story line is? Bringing the Bad Guy from the Future back to create problems only to create an alternate reality that the writers can play in is a very Lazy way to write a Star Trek story. There are many stories already out there that are much better...

In ST: Voyager it was a lame plot device they used in The Year of Hell series of episodes.

In ST: Enterprise the entire series was one big alternate time line... and they wonder why that series couldn't hold an audience ? And how about the destruction of Romulus? The Bad Guy (Nero) comes back and destroys Vulcan? Romulus was destroyed by a SuperNova... destroying Vulcan won't stop that from happening.

Add in... Uhura throwing herself at Spock ?? Please...

I could continue but I think I've already wasted enough time on this movie. They should have selected a better story... but I guess it was good enough to capitalize on the Star Trek franchise so it will probably make 'em a mint - they could have made a lot more if the story was better....

Was the above review useful to you?

70 out of 96 people found the following review useful:


Author: AvonKerr from UK
16 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The story is a pathetic amalgam of the "big thing appears near earth" story that has been used in at least three previous Treks, a bunch of scenes from the various TV series done worse and a load of filler that I think was shot by Michael Bay but he didn't want it because it was too stupid.

The actors who play the adult Kirk and Spock are both good if you ignore the story and script they have to work with. Both look the parts and carry them surprisingly well. The less said about their kid versions the better, but let's just say young Anakin looks a lot better in this light.

The rest of the cast are either horribly mis-cast (Simon Pegg), instantly forgettable or just plain horrible (Uhura).

By and large the action/sfx scenes reminded me mostly of the end of Armageddon - shiny drivel that makes you want to punch people in the neck. The first ten minutes epitomises this (slight spoiler but you won't miss anything, the film has no surprises in it) : teeny tiny research ship vs huge planet-killing machine from a vastly more advanced race AND 150 years in the future, the smaller ship is so boned by the first 5 seconds of the fight, during which the baddies don't even really try, that it's evacuated. It is then flown in a dead straight line at the enemy guns for about 90 seconds with no shields, no defences and no evasive manoeuvres. Despite this it is somehow unharmed and it's pilot manages to happily converse with his wife by radio while presumably the conversation aboard the enemy ship goes something like "I think he's going to ram us sir", "oh?", "shall we do something?", "shoot wildly over his head", "yes sir"..... time passes.... "he's still coming sir, very very slowly", "oh well shoot more just don't hit him that would spoil the moment". I'm sure Futurama had almost this exact scene but it was a joke when they did it.....

It's this kind of lazy, tired, pathetic trash that I expected from Abrams and he delivers it in spades. The whole film is saturated with laziness from top to bottom. Given that the Trek franchise invented and then flogged to death most of the great clichés of sci-fi you might think this is all just tongue-in-cheek homage but it really isn't, this is the best this hackneyed joke of a director has to offer and you can tell he honestly thinks it doesn't stink. The pinnacle of this laziness has to be "Red matter" which is probably the worst McGuffin in the history of cinema. Oh yes and let's not forget that the entire plot hinges on the premise that Spock (something of an icon for learning) has never heard of "velocity equals distance over time".

All of this is from a purely non-Trek perspective. I could point out no end of issues on that front (Cardassians in Kirk's era, Ships built on the surface of the planet, everything about Pike, one of the most advanced species in the galaxy defeated by a ship whose main weapon is a 10 mile long undefended phallus which takes a week to shoot it's load, etc. etc. etc.).

Was the above review useful to you?

404 out of 766 people found the following review useful:

Set your phasers to STUNNING!!!

Author: colin_coyne from London
17 April 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Set your phasers to STUNNING!!!"

It was a terrific atmosphere in a jam-packed cinema … I was SO glad that I saw this at the Empire, Leicester Square, as this is a film that you'll definitely need to see on a BIG screen (preferably with a very LOUD surround sound system!)

This adaptation has "boldly gone" – much further, and better than any previous "prequel" that I've seen …

The action is non-stop … the story line is very strong … the effects are amazing … and of course there is also the "sub-plot" of the prequel factor – that let's you know how the main cast members first met and grew together as a team …

A special mention should go to the Director (J.J. Abrams) for both the way the film moves along – and for the superb casting of Zachary Quinto as Spock, Simon Pegg as Scottie and Eric Bana as Nero was a masterstroke … the rest of the main characters are also strongly cast and are young – suggesting that this team could be together in a series of films that could run and run …

This has certainly breathed new life into this already epic story

This film has cutting edge effects – Story – Music – Action – Aliens … what more could you ask for …?

This was a terrific movie – if you liked any of the Star Trek franchise (T.V or movies) then you'll absolutely love this ! – book your tickets now … !

I think that this is the best of all the Star Trek films …

This film has all the ingredients to take over a planet in a solar system near you …

Was the above review useful to you?

87 out of 133 people found the following review useful:

A Huge Let Down for Trekkies - If only...........

Author: soundtechpro from United States
8 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First let me say that I have been a lifelong Star Trek fan.That being said I was very disappointed with this movie. I had high expectations with JJ Abrams on board. I fully expected this movie to be true to the Star Trek universe instead of the Action/Sci-Fi movie concept. Star Trek has always been first and foremost a show about relationships and moral/social issues. Action is great but only when it is secondary to the characters we love so much and the story line. I know that I was expecting the movie to not only show how the main character met but how those relationships developed. Basically what we got was a quick introduction to the characters and an action movie with a confusing story line that left many unresolved issues that was not in line with the original series events. While Star Trek has always made use of the time travel concept it appeared it was only used in this movie as a way to work Leonard Nimoy into the movie. The "Nero" story was so weak and the movie was not really at all about the development of the characters we have all loved for so many years. As for the "Nero" story, just killing Nero would not have reversed the time line. We know in the original series that Amanda Grayson (Spock's mom) is alive and that the planet Vulcan was never destroyed completely with only a few Vulcans left to colonize another planet. In the original series, the reference was that Vulcans were a waring people who almost destroyed themselves before they gained control of their emotions. I am still trying to figure this confusing story line out. I suppose that some will say the movie was a success because it was action packed, exciting and appealed to a non-trekkie younger audience. However, I personally feel it was a failure. I admit that the casting was good. However, good casting cannot overcome a bad storyline. My advice, If you are a true Trekkie, wait for the DVD. If you just like action/sci-fi then you will love it. But there was nothing special about this movie. It left me very hollow and thinking about "what might have been" had they made a movie with the characters being central instead of the action/fight scenes. I believe this movie was written and marketed to be new, hip and appeal to teenagers. It is definitely not faithful to the Star Trek genre.

Was the above review useful to you?

71 out of 102 people found the following review useful:

Ugh...what did I just watch?

Author: phucitol from United States
12 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

How the original Trek cast began? I think not. First off they couldn't even get decent "young" look-alikes except for Karl Urban who plays McCoy. Simon Pegg who plays Scotty LOOKS older then the supposedly younger cast members and has the personality of an Irish drunk they just picked up off the street. Not to mention the idiotic young Kirk played by Chris Pine whose childhood begins as a rebel and passes his time away getting into bar room brawls, scooping & boffing chicks, and hiding under beds to check out Uhura in her underwear. Oh yeah, did anyone tell you about the Spock and Uhura "love thang" going on in the transporter yet? Come on, Gene Roddenberry is turning in his grave over this mess. They had the audacity to take classic clichés like McCoy's "Dammit Jim", Spock's "Facinating" and Sulu's love for fencing and turned them into REAL Hollywood clichés. Forget about the effects, it's nothing you haven't already seen in any Battlestar Galactica episode. This film has so many holes in regard to the original series and cast it surpasses Swiss cheese yet smells like Limburger. The biggest being how the technology (set design) looks to be about 200 years more advanced then the original. The original mission was to explore new worlds and go where no man has gone before. Although these characters fell together as a crew by coincidence. On account of a rift between the Romulans and Vulcans, and the Vulcan planet being turned into a black hole. Uh-huh....where did that come from Orci and Kurtzman? Your butts? I went to see this with my 14 year old nephew whose never seen an original episode. Afterward he said he didn't want to see any and thought they would be as stupid as this movie. Yes, those were HIS words. I had to reassure him that not everything newer is necessarily better. How true it is, how true it is! Stay light years away from this.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 157: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history