IMDb > Star Trek: Of Gods and Men (2007) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Star Trek: Of Gods and Men
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Star Trek: Of Gods and Men (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 23 reviews in total 

36 out of 49 people found the following review useful:

Proves That The Trek Universe Has Nothing to Do With FX

8/10
Author: dmkalman
19 April 2008

When you get right down to it, Star Trek is about characters. Not CGI. This production offers downright primitive FX, but the characterizations are riveting. Walter Koenig gives a devastating performance -- his best ever -- that actually made me irate when I considered how his immense talent was squandered for so long in corporate Trek. Likewise with Garrett Wang. In Voyager, his Harry Kim was, like many corporate Star Trek characters, bland and generally uninteresting. (That's why alternate time line/universe Trek stories are always superior.) Nichelle Nichols' performance here outshines anything she's done in any of the TOS feature films. Alan Ruck as Harriman oscillates between menacing and hysterical. And JG Hertzler as Koval sets a new standard for menacing Klingons. Chase Masterson (call me!) as the Orion slave girl continues to be the hottest flame in the Star Trek universe. It was great to see Lawrence Montaigne reprise the role of the Vulcan Stonn, and Gary Graham rounds out a truly professional acting ensemble. I'd rather watch cheap productions like this one -- with twisty plots and interesting, passionate characters -- over the slick, simplistic, corporate dreck. Let's see if the upcoming Star Trek prequel -- with its $150 MILLION budget -- can deliver this kind of intense, emotionally engaging adventure. I doubt it.

**UPDATE** OK. I enjoyed Star Trek (2009). It was slick, fast, and fun...and it had two great Spock performances. But I also found the story strained (lacking a coherent plot-line) and derivative (in a bad way). It echoed (strangely) the abysmal Star Trek: Nemesis with its monstrous death-ship and Romulan bad-a$$ baldy. (Maybe in the next film the young Kirk and Spock will go back in time and save some whales.) So, I'd give the big budget flick a 7.9 on its flash and on the strength of Zachary Quinto's performance, but the movie as a whole doesn't hold up well under multiple viewings. I still enjoyed Of Gods and Men more.

Was the above review useful to you?

31 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

Interesting concept.

8/10
Author: nm17750 from United States
26 December 2007

Very good idea and it does move along but at a lesser pace than i would like. The direction shows the smaller budget as does the special effects. But it begs to be asked why it took so long and why did Tim Russ let the actors be so boring for the most part. But again great concept and just a tad shy of what it could be in this reunion made for video. definitely a Trekky flick But with a huge Star Wars influence. The special effects takes me back to the first trek movie but without the gloss. Again it shows the low budget. But the rawness does capture the feel. Seeing the actor who played Jake Sisko was nice. As another put it where is Sulu? it would have been nice to see him there. I look forward to seeing the next part and how they can repair the time space continuim that gets destroyed at the beginning

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

attempt at nostalgia

5/10
Author: a666333 from Canada
7 September 2008

It was interesting that they were able to pull so many of the old bit characters back into the story and in many cases with the original actors. The story was basically stitched together from loose ends lying around and the old alternate reality gambit.

The dialogue is tongue-in-cheek much of the time and the directing dragged noticeably in a few places. The acting ranges from very good to forced and pain inducing.

Despite the many flaws, it compares favourably with a lot of the stuff that has been put out by the full budget Paramount crew (which says something about the inconsistent efforts by Paramount). I am sure this crowd of amateurs had fun making it and it is clear they really want to make a good product that captures the feeling of the original series. All power to them. too bad that nothing that is done now can recover the lost opportunity when the original series was cancelled.

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

Great Idea, Good Cast, LOUSY production

10/10
Author: XweAponX from United States
18 January 2008

I'm surprised that the premise behind this thing never occurred to the producers of any recent Star Trek series. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to see actors from The Original Series, The Movies, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise.

I am also pleased to see William Wellman, Jr. take over the character created by Robert Walker, Jr in the Original Series Episode "Charley X" Although the acting is kind of wooden, the story holds up to any DC Fontana standards, although elements of the story are heavily borrowed from episodes of The Original Series and Star Trek: Generations.

Scotty is mentioned as being "Missing" - Which is in continuity with the Next Generation episode "Relics" where Scotty is rescued from a Dyson Sphere. Spock is mentioned as if he is readily available - A nice trick in case Leonard Nimoy decides to make any cameos in parts II or III of this little production.

This story uses elements from the original series stories "Charlie X," "Mirror, Mirror" and "The City on the Edge of Forever" - Including a clever reproduction of the Guardian of Forever.

The set pieces in this thing all look great, but where this fan film staggers is that the special effects all look like Effects from Pre-Windows computer games- The Enterprise "M" starts and stops in the establishing shots of "Synchronous Orbit" - As if the rendering had defects in it.

This is unforgivable since Star Wars episode III used store-bought A.M.D. Opteron computers to do some of post production, and that work was done in some living room right at Skywalker Ranch. So I will accept no excuses about the special effects and CGI shots, I have seen much better work from people who have much less. These are incredibly lousy shots. The computer models are alright, but the movement and rendering is just horrible- I am hoping that the project gains a technician that can re-create the vomitably horrendous outer space and effects shots- And while they are at it, they can work on the colour palette and make it more consistent. Vulcan looks like any East LA Backyard!

Finally, as far as continuity, I accept most of the story like I would accept any Next Generation story, except for the Guardian of Forever would have kept the three principals on the planet instead of ejecting them into the alternate universe.

But even with this huge continuity flaw, the story moves fine, and I can't wait to see the next II episodes.

I like this film a lot more than "The New Voyages" - Which have hardly any redeeming value beyond the costumes and sets that were recreated with great detail: Making Trek is much more than how good the set looks or how well the costumes fit the principals... The trick of Trek is to make the viewer BELIEVE in this future. I believe this story, whereas "The New Voyages" were only good for a belly laugh.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Well worth viewing despite the low budget. Brilliant story.

10/10
Author: Lee Sanderson from Ayr, Scotland, UK
17 March 2009

This is a fantastic story. Yes the production is a bit rough and nothing like the Paramount standard but all the veteran actors manage to pull off a reasonably good performance. Walter Koenig also turns to his Bester character from Babylon 5 to give depth to the alternate Pavel Chekov. It's absolutely amazing how you're actually drawn into the story within 10 minutes and you begin to forgive the low budget just for the sake of burning curiosity to find out how the story progresses and when it gets to the end, you're left with a feeling of satisfaction and the hope that it will get remade like the Sanctuary series has been. It might have been a good idea to at least have gone to the Babylon 5 production team to polish off the CGI since they were good at low budget production. There's even a kind of blooper reel at the end credits that are extremely amusing.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Great Star Trek with Classic Feeling

9/10
Author: Stephan Ortmann from Hong Kong
2 July 2008

This Star Trek movie is the best fan produced Star Trek feature that I have seen. Others have lacked such great acting and screen writing. This picture has a marvelous script and a truly exciting plot. It brings back lot's of memories of the original show. The movie may lack sophisticated CGI but, instead of being a downside, it actually adds a certain flavor to this movie. I found this very refreshing and actually pretty cool.

I especially liked the performance of Nichelle Nichols, which brought enormous depth to the Star Trek adventure. Also Walter Koenig's performance was superb! A nice treat was also the appearance of Tuvor as played by Tim Russ, who is also a very good director. He can really play the good and bad guy at once. The story of family and the idea of interracial marriage was what made Star Trek so unique in the first place. This is a great tribute to the creator of the Star Trek universe Gene Roddenberry.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

This movie is great

10/10
Author: philipwalsh from United Kingdom
22 April 2008

I have to say that I know it is low budget but if your a real Star Trek fan then you will still enjoy the movie! It has many great actors that you will already know and love.

This for me is a good stop gap before the new movie and it is worth a few hours of your time watching it.

The movie picks a story that is new to us but relates to a story that we might already know about so in that respect it really makes it just a stop gap.

It is good to see some of the old cast from STO but also good to see some of the voyager crew in it.

Sit down and relax with a beer of too and enjoy it! I know I did.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

I was willing to go past the bad direction

6/10
Author: WilliamCQ from Canada
2 April 2011

Seeing the trailer, it's obvious that the direction is lacking but other elements could be entertaining. Even as the film is ongoing the special effects isn't up to mainstream features but still enjoyable if you consider that most people couldn't do any better. The acting was good but the bad direction had a toll on it. I thought it deserved 7 by then.

What drew the line is the story: It's bad at best and confusing most of the time. One shouldn't have to connect the dots through any other thing than than the current story. If there's references to anther story, there should be a hint or flashback to it. But most importantly, the story should be a journey for the viewer either in emotions or knowledge (albeit some is only useful in fandom). In this production, it seem various short stories were put together ; some relating to the film progress while others are filling time and would need reference to be more than the most basic of entertainment.

Overall the non-cohesive story blew it. I thought the film deserved 5, maybe 4, but I felt sympathy toward their attempt at the great Star Trek franchise.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Disappointing, but campy and kinda fun

5/10
Author: savagesteve13 from Tulsa, OK
22 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The plot is rather complex, which is unusual for the simplistic ones of TOS. As an older Trek fan, its great to see a veritable tour de force of actors coming back to reprise their roles from past movies and series, with only a few exceptions. This is unusual in that it is "Uhura-centric", where she plays a core character and of course handles it in a different more female way of doing things. There's still plenty of phaser action and explosions for the guys though, and who doesn't like a green skin slave girl character. Low production values detract immensely, and the CGI is absolutely terrible. I've seen much better stuff from Babylon V and they were using Amiga 2000 computers back in 1994. Pyrotechnics were also missing. Actors didn't have squibs when they got hit by phasers so they just jumped backwards and fell. Going on the cheap. The dialogue also was kind of stilted and forced. Nobody felt comfortable which is usually the hallmark of STTNG. The only one that seemed relaxed was good old Walter Koenig, though his lines were not well written.

It could have been much better. To have been graced with so many veteran Sci-Fi actors and then to nuke the production with cheap CGI and a poor script, well its makes you feel that it could have been great if done right.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Please... make it stop!

5/10
Author: rgcustomer from Canada
27 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had high hopes for this film, but they were pretty quickly dashed. Reading Calk's plot summary that IMDb currently has for this movie, I wonder if I even saw the same one. I must have dozed off in the beginning, because I don't remember most of that stuff happening.

What I do remember is that one of the moments that was supposed to be one of the big climaxes of the film, when Gary dies, was a laugh-out-loud cliché to me. "KITTRICK!!!!!" ROFL.

Again, maybe I missed it, but no reason seemed to be given for Gary suddenly losing his powers. Or why he seemingly couldn't kill people, despite all the electro-rific effects. And what about Charlie's sudden change of heart? We didn't even see that happen. Why wouldn't that have been a key scene in the movie? AND, on reading this, do YOU even know who Gary and Charlie are? They were referred to by name so infrequently and their backstory was so weak that I had to look it up online.

Star Trek isn't supposed to be about the effects. First and foremost, it's about the story and the characters. But that seems to have been forgotten here, as you see fancy ships randomly shooting each other out of space with new weapons. None of the characters are particularly interesting, and the plot just sort of happens for no reason at all. And of course it all happens in an alternative timeline. As usual.

Anyway, this is the last fan film I'll be wasting my time on. I've learned my lesson.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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