Star Trek (2009) Poster

(2009)

User Reviews

Review this title
1,617 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Very Bad (But not Disappointing)
nyvajiwk24 November 2017
I really enjoy the Star Trek TV series (original, TNG and DS9) and admit that I am late to this review. As much as I enjoy Star Trek and its ideals I had watched Star Wars The Force Awakens by JJ Abrams and I hated that. Star Wars rebooted with completely non-plot for pre-teens and one-liners, wise-cracks and plot holes so big that even Donald Trump's ego could drive through them was not for me.

So, anyway with a certain amount of hesitation I finally watched the reboot of Star Trek.... and it was as bad as I feared. Since it was expected I was not disappointed, but by gosh what is with the people who hire the director JJ Abrams? He makes every character a cartoon character. Never mind that the utopian and progressive society of the Federation is completely glossed over and ignored, but these characters with the formulaic backgrounds and corny lines and false tensions is just terrible. The Vulcans and Romulans' feud has never been as cliché-ridden I would say.

Look, I get it. People pay for reboots and remakes and sequels and so Hollywood serves them up (or is it the other way around?), but use some imagination, have one novel or original idea at least. I am too old for cartoons... which explains why I won't be watching the next Star Trek or fifteen Star Wars coming out. Obviously the director JJ Abrams is specialized in reboots and remakes and sequels and not original ideas.
35 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No Wonder It Is So Shallow And Stupid
oqw-7885028 August 2018
It is by Jar Jar Abrams. Please marketing people put his name/advertise his name on film posters and DVD covers prominently. people like me who like good films and entertainment can easily avoid and skip it that way. Jar Jar Abrams made Star Trek into a 'bad brat does good' typical Hollywood film
31 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Stop J/J., Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman. Please... just stop
anitsuj7 October 2018
No spoilers here. I just want to say that this movie is, to put it nicely, horrendous. I don't really have much to say other than it is a complete waste of time. For me, this was written for a six to twelve year old audience. However, due to the level of violence, it has been rated outside of the audience I think this is aimed at. A lot of things were coincidental... unreal, and just plain silly. The writers need to work towards a much more mature and much more intelligent audience. This was very disappointing for me.
27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Ja Jar Abrams
draedynkouper29 March 2019
A.k.a. Mr Rip Off a.k.a. the most uncreative (so-called) director a.k.a. Mr reboot/remake/rip off strikes again!

He is a copycat with zero original or interesting bones in his body or anywhere near him. Seriously. He messed up Star Wars, but is it him or is he just a studio instrument who acts like it's him and it's us who keep feeding him? This film was boring, has no majesty, nothing new and the directing was obvious.
24 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What Does JJ Abrams Have On The Hollywood Brass?
m-486642 July 2018
I know he is the Hollywood brass now, but what does this supreme hack have on the Hollywood brass that makes them give him all these assignments? Does he have compromising photos? Is his new wife (now that he is divorced) one of them? Does he have a gun he points at people? JJ Abrams is such an unoriginal, uncreative tool yet he gets to rip off Spielberg, gets Star Trek, gets Star Wars and more and yet he is so devoid of any integrity, any clue about the projects and brings no merit to his work. Star Trek is here turned to Star Wars (but a bad one), Star Wars was destroyed by our buddy JJ here and everything else he touches is a script from the treasury department. How does Mr Rip Off operate?
37 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hollywood Hack JJ Abrams Boldly Goes Where The Studio Accountants Want him To Go
edm-7555313 June 2018
This film is so stupid, so tacky, so cheesy and so non-Star Trek that one has to ask: 'Does JJ Abrams even know what Star Trek is?' or 'Does JJ Abrams have any familiarity with Star Trek?' What does this guy have on Hollywood bosses that they let him rip and tear films like this? The cheap effects just compound the problem.
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Standard Reboot Offal
landreeshahid13 July 2019
Disappointing goofball action comedy

This is a goofball Mission Impossible comedy, that contains highly campy and pantomime so-called villains, endless cheesy jokes and one-liners at the expense of any actual Star Trek ideals. I personally do not like it and think it is a step in the wrong direction.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Standard Jar Jar Abrams Reboot Once Again Serves The Treasury Department
gnjuzpyr16 December 2018
And gives the middle finger to the original concept of a universe.

Let me plain as day: this series should not have been rebooted so badly and so out of context and so against its original ideal and with such a cheap writing 'attempt.' It should not.

The generic and very stupid Mission Impossible (movies not the original serial) style action sequences are done so badly one wonders if they spent more than an hour on them. The effects look like they are done on a Commodore 128. The acting is so 'brats rock your world' tacky that prove Jar Jar here hates hates hates Gene Roddenberry.

There is no redemption for Abrams.
23 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
stop this!
pseudoimp23 July 2018
JarJar Assbrams! Stop this!

I have NO Idea what StarTrek is You have NO Idea, what Physiks ist and you have NO plan, what you can do in Space, and what NOT!

Idiot!
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Review from comicbookculture.net
jason-22812 May 2009
Star Trek. When someone speaks this name, various images, ideas, characters and phrases come to mind. I know they certainly do with me. Characters such as Kirk, Spock, Picard, Data, Janeway, Seven of Nine; ideas like the prime directive; phrases like "Live long and Prosper", "Good God Jim, I'm a doctor not a….". I wouldn't consider myself a "Trekkie", but I do have a deep affection for this series and world.

To my great delight, I was fortunate enough to see an advanced screening last night of JJ Abrams re-imaging of "Star Trek". I must admit that I was skeptical at first about taking such iconic characters and recasting them, even in younger iterations, because most people think of the characters of Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov with the actors that originally portrayed them. These portrayals are engrained in the pop culture consciousness of the world and hence my skepticism arose. Fortunately, my doubts were unnecessary.

This is not your father's "Star Trek". From the moment the movie begins, so does the action and it never lets up. However, this movie has more than just incredible and intense action, it also pays homage to the series of old. Sure, they wanted to bring us a Trek for the 21st century, but they also realized that they needed to respect the source material and fans of a series that has been around more than 40 years. However, you don't need to know much about Star Trek to enjoy this movie. Each character has been given a background and history that lets you know a little something about each one. There's a lot to be told in an origin movie and it is handled deftly by both the writers and the director.

But, what really made the movies for me were the actors chosen to play these roles, especially Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock and Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, aka "Bones". This movie would not have worked if the casting of these three characters had not been spot on. Both Mr. Quinto and Urban uncannily channel their predecessors, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley. They took on some of their inflections, mannerisms and expressions to really give you a sense that they are just younger versions of the originals. Chris Pine, however, takes on the most memorable role in Trek history and makes it his own. This Kirk is not only the womanizer, lover, and captain that you already know, but as portrayed by Mr. Pine also has a swagger, bravado, intelligence, and is a complete adrenaline junkie. We could not have asked for a better Kirk in this movie.

They have laid a solid foundation for a new series, with new life, perfect cast and a director with a true vision. If the first movie can be this good, my expectations for further adventures have risen exponentially.

This is my first review for our website and as such might not be very good since I have no experience at writing reviews. I intentionally didn't reveal any plot points so as to not spoil anything for whoever may read this. I may in the future reveal areas that may have spoilers but mark these sections so you can skip over them. I'll be seeing Wolverine tomorrow and hope to have a review up by tomorrow night. Until we meet again, "Live long and Prosper!"
754 out of 1,164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
JJ Abrams' Space Wars
G-Headon15 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek is a tale of diplomacy and peace littered with ethical and moral dilemmas developed to make you think, to wonder about what future humanity is moving towards.

This was not Star Trek and it infuriates me that they would try to pass it off as such.

Why couldn't they simply make up new names for the characters or at least give the film a subtitle instead of allowing JJ Abrams to prove his arrogance and ignorance to the real themes behind the Star Trek name? Unnecessary is the most accurate word to describe this film, with its paper thin plot and cardboard cut-out characters. But I realize that is what makes a summer blockbuster these days: big explosions, juvenile humor, and the standard "bad guy must die" scenario.

Young Kirk listening to the Beastie Boys and talking on his Nokia phone??? Give me a break, give me The Undiscovered Country any day. At least that film had a message beyond trying to sell me merchandise.

And why did Sulu have a katana if he was an expert in fencing??? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to use a rapier since a katana would be useless with a fencing background? I heard George Takei - in the original series - refused to use a katana because he thought it was too racist and that was why they made Sulu a fencing expert in the first place.

Though I think the most annoying thing about the film - for me - was the cinematography. Even if I ignored how little this movie cared about the substance of the original series or any subsequent Star Trek series, it was still a terrible film. Constant close-ups and a shaky camera anytime the screen isn't completely CG does not substitute for cinematography, it's just lazy film making.

I don't understand why this film needed to be made. JJ Abrams is not a director, he is my childhood's rapist.

Oh and watch for Abrams' Cloverfield monster to make a nice appearance on the ice planet Hoth, I guess that's one creature I can check off my "Where are they now?" list.
169 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The plot makes no sense whatsoever. (SPOILER ALERT)
jmiller203211 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not going to hit this from a scientific perspective. That would be too easy and would just invite others to castigate me for not "suspending disbelief" during a fun summer sci-fi. No, this movie sucks on a very base level. The first, and most disturbing part of the movie is the villain, Nero, who I think is the worst villain Hollywood has given us, and Hollywood once gave us Arnold as Ice Man. Nero is awful because his motivation makes no sense whatsoever.

As the story goes, Nero is furious at Spock, and by extension his whole race of Vulcans, because Spock did not get to Romulus' star in time to save it from super nova, which destroyed his planet and all those he loved and cared for. In the process both he and Spock are sucked into a black hole and spit out the other side well in the past, except at different times, Nero 25 years before Spock. In waiting 25 years for Spock to come through the black hole as he had, Nero and his crew seethe with rage and plot their revenge against Spock and his evil race of Vulcans.

But why? Did Spock create the super nova? No. That was explained as a natural disaster. Did Spock try to save his planet? Yes. In fact, he had every reason to believe that he was going to die in the process. After failing to stave off the super nova, he was sucked into a black hole, which is assumed to destroy anything entering it (after all, black holes literally crush atoms to the point of not existing). Personally I think that makes Spock a hero to the Romulans! Having a vendetta against Spock and the Vulcans would be like tracking down and killing the family of a fire fighter who died in your house while he tried to save your wife and kids. That makes no sense. None. Last, Nero is now in the past, no? Why doesn't he just go about saving his planet from destruction? He's got the "red matter" to do it.

The other thing that ticked me off was the silly string of "accidents" that put a gang of 22 year-olds in command of the Federation's flagship. Do they not have even a single 40 year-old who has actually been in space before? It's even worse than that if you think about it. Before the ship takes off Kirk is about to be booted out of Starfleet—but now he's put in charge?

I'm willing to suspend disbelief in sci-fi movie, but there's a difference between suspending disbelief and watching a movie like I'm a 3-year old. 3 stars out of 10.
358 out of 550 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Is this a Joke??
robnels20009 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A true disappointment

I had large reservations about this movie that only became larger as the previews gave more details. I am in no way a Trekkie and I have found my share of flaws in the Star Trek movies and TV shows, but even I couldn't stand the errors in this movie.

To me it was like a cross between Galaxy Quest and Starship Troopers.

And what star was going supernova and endangering the whole galaxy? It would have to have been enormous millions of times larger than any star we can see to directly threaten any worlds outside its own system let alone the whole galaxy. You don't need a degree in stellar physics to know that. We have seen the effects of several stars that have gone supernova in our galaxy and in nearby galaxies and none have been anywhere near that big.

None of the actors had the character they were playing right and Chris Pine seemed to think the role of Kirk was nothing but a joke, Kirk was cavalier but just plain stupid was not part of the character, he wouldn't get a job as dish washer let alone ship's captain. Scotty was nothing like in the TV shows or movies; He had little or no technical abilities and was just the joke of the scenes he was in.

The only character I think they had right was Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy; Karl Urban had it perfect right down to the insults and paranoia.

This was more like a Star Trek parody than anything else. Did Abrams ever watch any of the Star Trek shows or movies, I haven't been this disappointed by a Star Trek movie since Star Trek the Motion Picture.
265 out of 404 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
loud, fast and dumb
atoothbrush3 January 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 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.
29 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Gene Roddenberry is Rolling in his Grave
frontrange12 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'll start my review with the disclaimer that I am indeed a hardcore Star Trek fan. The Trekkie in me wanted to give this a rating of 0/10, but I gave it a 3/10 for a few reasons: Good acting, good special effect, good action.

If those things are what you look for in a movie like this, you'll probably rank it a lot higher! From a Trekkie point of view, this movie was awful! Even for a parallel universe (which is a cop-out), I have HUGE issues with the movie. Starting with plot holes and writing issues:

* When children tease other children, they do it to feel superior. It is an emotional thing to do. So the Vulcan children that were teasing Spock, trying to get him to show emotion were doing so out of emotion themselves.

* Sarek (Spock's father) was one of the most logical Vulcan's ever in Star Trek. I can't imagine any universe ever when Sarek would tell Spock it is okay to feel anger and the reason he married Amanda (Spock's mother) was because he loved her.

* Romulus was ultimately destroyed by a star that went supernova. The only star that could destroy Romulus by going supernova would be the star at the center of Romulus' system. If the mysterious "Red Matter" were placed in the star to prevent the supernova, Romulus would be without a star anyway and the planet would freeze and die. Beyond that, a black hole in the center of a solar system would eat all the planets in the system too, including Romulus. So the planet was doomed no matter what.

* Apparently none of the writers or set designers had ever watched an original episode of Star Trek or seen a schematic. The lattice structures and water pipes in the Enterprise were ridiculous. Likewise, the bridge was horrible. A turbo lift where it should be, but a second door that doesn't lead to a turbo lift, but out onto the ship! The bridge is at the top of the ship...you can't have a door that leads to the rest of the ship.

* According to canon, the Enterprise was commissioned in 2245 under the command of Robert April. This would have been when Kirk was 12 years old. April commanded the ship for 9 years before Pike took command in 2254. Surely the destruction of the Kelvin wouldn't have changed these facts! But in the movie, the Enterprise is brand new when Pike takes command.

* A cadet (Kirk) that had not yet graduated from the academy (that was on academic suspension no less) got a field commission to first officer!?

* The hearing at the end of the movie appears to happen days after Nero is defeated. Consequently, Kirk is given command of the Enterprise. So Star Fleet saw fit to promote Kirk from Cadet past Ensign, Lieutenant JG, Lieutenant, Lieutenant Cmdr and Commander straight to Captain and give him command of the Flag Ship of the Federation!? Kirk was born in 2233 and this movie most likely took place in 2254. That would make Kirk 21 when he takes command.

* According to canon, Spock was born in 2232, making him one year older than Kirk. Yet in this movie, Spock is a full fledged Commander at the age of 22.

* Romulans are not first seen until 2266 (TOS: "Balance of Terror"), yet everybody seems to recognize the Romulans as Romulans!

Those are just a few of the larger plot holes that I noted. Second, Star Trek has always been based on science. Warp drive, transporters, tractor beams, etc. They are all based on science. Beyond that, Star Trek science has rules just like real world science has rules. For example, there is a limit on Warp drive and there is a range on transporters. Here are a few of the science issues that I had:

* "Red Matter" – what is that all about? No explanation whatsoever. When it is placed in the center of a massive body (a planet, star, etc), it creates a singularity (black hole). A single drop…yet the massive blob on Spock's ship is stable. And if it is stable because it is being suspended and not touching other matter, how is the hypodermic needle used to extract the red matter explained? At least antimatter has always been based on science. If it comes into contact with matter, the two annihilate each other (destructively). Hence the reason for antimatter containment chambers, warp core breaches, etc.

* Transporters have a range! In "Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country", Kirk and crew need to beam down to Khitomer to stop an assassination. Kirk asked if they are in transporter range and Spock says "not yet" and starts a countdown. They are well within the boundaries of the solar system at this point. In this new movie, Kirk and Scotty beam to the Enterprise from Delta Vega. The Enterprise was traveling at Warp 4, away from Delta Vega. That is roughly 100 times the speed of light: 18.6 million miles/sec or 67 billion miles/hour. If we assume Kirk was on the surface for 3 hours before he and Scotty beamed back to the Enterprise, the ship would be roughly 200 billion miles away from the planet. It is roughly 2.7 billion miles from Earth to Neptune (the outer limits of our Solar System). So they transported to a ship traveling at Warp 4 from a distance equal to almost 75 times the distance from Earth to Neptune. Oh, and earlier in the movie, they were having a hard time locking onto Kirk and Sulu because they were falling (not holding still).

I hope the world of Star Trek will quietly ignore this movie! Seemed to me like a simple excuse to try to shake the money tree once again.
197 out of 297 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
boe_dye sez: how about now we reboot the star wars saga in an alternate reality where Padme doesn't die...
boe_dye10 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
*****SPOILERS BEGIN HERE******** Words cannot describe how utterly disgusted I am at this. The teasers were right, this ain't yo daddy's star trek. This isn't even my Star Trek.

This isn't even Star Trek and has no business being called Star Trek. Oh sure the names are there, and yes it's glitzy and expensive with lots of explosions...

Spocks mom dies...

for the really hardcore, there is a reference of Cardasians...

OH yeah, and there is Uhura making out with Spock on the transporter pad, and before that asking him if, and I quote "just tell me what you want of me and i'll do it" in a turbo lift as a way to console Spock after Vulcan had just been destroyed. What a way to make Uhura a cheap thrill ride...

It's okay though, cause OLD Spock, played poorly by Leonard Nimoy says that is an "alternate time line" and because of that it makes everything better...

Let me put my view into perspective. I watch the Old series, I watch the Next Generation, I watch DS9, I watch Enterprise. And I'm not even one of those guys who wears the uniform and lives the lifestyle...

But you know, I am so tired of Hollywood butchering the things that I grew up on.

And Trekkies? Oh the Trekkies will hate this.

Yeah, sure there is the Kobayashi Maru, which in all honesty is about the only thing canonical to this whole mess of a film, but other wise it was just one slight after another.

Chekhov is suddenly this wiz kid physicist, scotty is basically a garage mechanic, Uhura is suddenly this linguistic genius, Spock is just a tool, Sulu is a ninja, and Kirk... Well, Kirk is apparently the smartest person in Iowa with a genius I.Q. and a pension for being a rebellious wild child.

And for a moment let's talk about the Leonard Nimoy cameo. Why it's got Leonard Nimoys endorsement it must be good! And look he even says some key Spock Quotes! OOOO...

Yeah so what. It is a cheap ploy to get the trekkies to spend their money on something that will very soon be universally known as the absolute worst Star Trek in history.

It's even worse then 5...

In my many years and dollars of going to see movies, I have only walked out on 1. Tonight was my second. I never in a million years thought that I would walk out on a Star Trek movie. Never. But I went in there expecting and knowing it would be a reboot...

I never imagined this being a slap in the face.

People who know nothing of Star Trek will probably love it. However when they go back to watch the originals, they wont get it.

People who love Star Trek will hate this, and be thankful that there will always be the series.

But you know? It's okay that Spocks mom dies! It's okay that Spock and Uhura are lovers, and that she throws herself at like a cheap call-girl, it's okay that Chekhov is even there and all these things are okay! Because it's an alternate time line! And that makes everything better!!!!!!!! True Fans, you have been warned. This is not anything remotely close to the Star Trek that we know and love. It is hurtful and near hateful towards the series that has inspired us to look up into the star and dream of boldly going where no man has gone before.

It is disrespectful towards all of the black woman who were inspired by Nichelle Nichols to rise above the stereotypes of that day and age and become more then what they told they could be.

It is a perversion towards all of us kids who dreamed of being Captain Kirk, and discovering new life and new civilizations. A Kirk who was a seasoned hero and not hot headed firebrand who was given command like being given an expensive sports car by a rich uncle.

And it is an insult to all of us who crave knowledge and that delicate balance between logic and emotion.

**********End Spoilers*********
223 out of 338 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just awful
axis1810 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'll admit I am not a trekkie. I saw the movie because the trailer looked interesting. I want my 10 bucks back.

In a sentence, this movie was idiotic eye candy. Strong, meaningless emotions were intermingled with fancy special effects and a nonsense plot. If you want to see the movie because of the trailer, stick with the trailer; it's all the content you get. Anyone that says this movie was good wasn't paying attention at all. The target demographic of this movie must have been toddlers.

They quickly rushed between scenes ignoring any relevance to, or continuity of, the plot. Characters made bold speeches and impassioned decisions that were either meaningless or simply defied in the next ten seconds. Characters also blatantly threw out their catch lines every chance they got to speak. I got a sense this movie wasn't geared toward trekkies but to people who just knew the catch lines. Awful.

I back up what I say; here's a list..

(spoilers)

-The first scene where the young kirk threw a car off a cliff had nothing to do with anything.. at all.

-The plot was free of any logic. Romulus's planet is destroyed. Why didn't they evacuate? Why was one man (spoc) charged with billions of lives? How did a miner find a way back in time? If it was common knowledge why didn't everyone just go back in time to destroy the supernova? Why didn't he just save his planet when he got to the past? Obviously even if he destroys the federation and the vulcans the supernova will still destroy his planet. And how the hell did he go back in time? Oh he got sucked into a black hole. Just like the one he put in the center of the vulcan planet? Just like the one that destroyed him at the end? Why didn't they all just go back in time at the end and save EVERYONE??

-If you really payed attention, few scenes actually made sense with regard to where they were and what they were doing.

-Kirk makes spock beat his face in and then becomes captain. Spock has a severe emotional breakdown and they're best friends in less than two minutes.

-You don't have to drill to destroy a planet with a black hole. A planet wouldn't be around for minutes if it had a black hole at it's center. At the end they create a black whole with like 10000 times the red matter as before right next to earth.

-Romulus could kill kirk at one point but just doesn't.. for no real reason..

-At some points they're warping around faster than light speed. Sometimes it takes them a few minutes to get somewhere. Sometimes it takes half the movie.

I have more points (like why were the drill operators wielding axes from 150 years in the future, like, they don't have guns in the future??) but suffice to say I felt dumber having watched this movie. I hope it tanks.

(/spoilers)
174 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Blasphemous erasure of all Trek history. --SPOILERS--
MorganRand12 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
On SNL last week I saw the two actors playing young Spock and Kirk declare that they tried very hard "to stay true to Star Trek canon." This is a gigantic lie.

This film completely rewrites 42 years of Trek history. Everything is different, and they used the cheapest of all plot devices (time travel) to do it. As with all time travel plots, the paradoxes and logical inconsistencies batter you about the head until you just give up thinking. TIME TRAVEL IS SCIENCE FICTION FOR MORONS.

I won't bother to list all the specifics - you can read them here in other reviews, and they are legion. Vulcan is destroyed. There are two Spocks, the younger of which is having an affair with Uhura. Spock's mother and Kirk's father (and billions of other current and future people) are now dead or will never exist. The Federation (somehow) knows about Romulans and Cardassians already. It goes on and on.

Oh, and despite the Burger King commercials, there are no Klingons in the film. Klingons are mentioned a couple of times as a minor plot device.

The short version is this: if you liked Trek before this film, you will not like this film. This film brazenly "reboots" everything you ever knew. None of it ever happened.

I'm ashamed of Leonard Nimoy for selling out for this piece of garbage. Kudos to everyone else from the *REAL* Trek who stayed far away. In my opinion, this film will be rejected by fans as never having happened. This "alternate timeline" will never be true Trek to me, just like Greedo still doesn't shoot first. Retcon it all you want - I will ignore it.
135 out of 200 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
And I had such great expectations.....
bbo8111 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit that I had goosebumps at the beginning. Wow, I really love Star Trek, that is, the Star Trek I grew up with.... Picard, Riker, Data...Furthermore, all the past Star Trek movies are great, so this one will also be good...Or will it?!? As a recent thing, I begun watching the original Star Trek series, with Kirk and Spock. You can imagine, when I heard about this movie, I was thrilled :)

So, what about this movie? Well, it is quite bad, with no Star Trek feeling in it. Though, I know why it made so great at the box office. It is because people love this kind of movies. But if you are a hard core ST fan, it's really hard to chew it.

Spoilers, don't read if you haven't seen it!

My personal list of mistakes.

1)First mistake is that you lose half a movie because of character development.

2) Captain Pike had no first officer? The humanity was left with a bunch of raw cadets. Please consider today's armed forces. Where the hell, on this earth, all the experienced troops go out to war leaving their homeland unprotected. Anyway, I would imagine Pike could never promote a cadet like that. BUT hey, the movie has only 2 HOURS and at the end Kirk must be captain, you get the point :)))

3)Then, of course, Chekov loses Spock's mother in the most idiotic scene I have ever seen. By the way, anyone noticed how the transporters take FOREVER to dematerialize?

4)The romulans were digging up the planets with some sort of a chained drill (how ancient is that?). I'm just wondering, maybe(though very unlikely) there were no space ships around to disable that drill, but I would AT LEAST expect some sort of interceptors to be a last line of defense, for any planet. The only defense of Vulcan were 3 cadets jumping with parachutes? Give me a f***ing break please! And you could also stop and think why would a mining drill prevent teleportation and communications? Or was this forced in just to have the "exciting" parachute jump?

5) Kirk's mutiny made him end up on the same planet as the old Spock and Scotty. That is really cool and original...WOW, good call there. They found each other, probably, within hours, on a very hostile planet :)). Again, I must remind you, the movie is short, we must have a full crew by the end. Nevermind on how we do that ;)

6) Red matter?!? I missed that...Never heard of it. Hell, that's some powerful stuff. Again please, how did you come up with it? And if one drop was that powerful, why was Spock carrying like a tone of it?

7) Old Spock failed, to save the Romulan homeland, because...he arrived TOO late. Anyone here thinks they should have come up with a better story?

8) Nero, instead of destroying Earth goes after Spock? Yeah, of course... Anyway, nice looking mining ship you got there Nero, with lots of ammo on board. Apparently it can destroy entire fleets. Not too safe inside though, dangerous walkways, one wrong step and you're gone...

9) Kirk and Spock, they only sent those 2 on the enemy ship, instead of a trained assault team. 10, 20, 30 men...Give them hell, but noooo, instead we get an overrated shoot'em up comedy.

There is other stuff wrong, but hey, if you liked it, no matter what I think.

Good sound and effects in this movie. I must rate it a 3.
133 out of 197 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Star Trek? Try Star Blech.
spamhater-39 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I was excited about this movie coming out. I wanted to like it. I was extremely disappointed.

While some of the casting was spot on (I truly loved Karl Urban's portrayal of McCoy) others were horrible. This movie turned Uhura from the elegant professional she was into an oversexed adolescent. Scotty went from a dedicated professional to a buffoon. The worst, however, is Chris Pine's take on Kirk. Pine's Kirk is just another rubber stamp "action hero" – the same character we've seen in dozens of big budget action movies before. At no time did I believe him as James T Kirk.

The set designer for this movie should be blacklisted from Hollywood for the cheesy crap he/she threw at us. The engineering "set" looked like something from a bad Sci Fi Channel movie! I understand it was filmed in a power plant. They had $150 million to make this movie, and they couldn't build some actual sets? Ditto for Scotty's "outpost". The auditorium at Starfleet Academy looked like (and probably was) a tired and worn college lecture hall; complete with dingy 70's curtains. I could almost smell the mildew. Every time they showed that garbage, I was rudely jerked out of the tiny amount of suspension of disbelief that I was able to muster.

There were so many plot holes you could use this movie as a doily.

It felt as if the producers really hated Star Trek and were going out of the way to wipe out 40 years of canon. When they destroyed Vulcan and killed Spock's Mother, I nearly walked out.

This movie is not Star Trek. There is no heart, no soul. Nothing but over the top effects and violence. I know that this is what adolescent audiences want nowadays, but why pander to the lowest expectations? Why not give us something that wows us, and not just because it has awesome explosions, but because it engages our minds and imaginations. Even if you ignore it being Star Trek and examine it as just another effects laden Sci Fi movie, it comes up short.

This movie had so much potential. It was all wasted.
191 out of 288 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A comic book, not a drama.
tkent37513 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Well, the Star Trek movie wasn't what we were expecting. (SPOILER ALERT)

Pros:

-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.

Cons:

-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.
93 out of 135 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wobbly camera strikes again
mgregory-911 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
After the recently terrible James Bond film, and the equally terrible ending to the Bourne trilogy, it appears that the "wobbly camera" disease has spread to another franchise with similar results. There appears to be a direct correlation between the rate of camera wobble and the "pace" of the action scene being shot. We all know that this camera wobble is artificial and often done during editing and special effect overlay, but the outcome is the same and it is unwatchable. It appears to me to be a "technique" used today in many films to prevent the audience clearly seeing the shot, the special effects and the action occurring. Possibly because the audience would see mismatches between the special effects, the action being overlaid and the poor quality stunt work. I gave this film a rating of one out of ten principally because the wobbly camera technique is something we now see in many films, particularly films with large amounts of special effects and it is cheating the audience out of the opportunity to see if the shot actually flows and to observe how the special effects are melded to the shot and the action. Do we really want to come away from every film thinking we have been in a small boat in a rough swell? I certainly don't and I now add JJ Abrams to the list of Marc Forster who created the worst Bond film of all time with "jiggle camera" and Paul Greengrass who destroyed the Bourne Trilogy with "shaky camera". Hang your head in shame, this trio had the opportunity to make great films, each carrying their franchise forward and each in turn has been unable to achieve an outcome without the use of "shaky camera", which is an automatic turnoff for the audience.
201 out of 304 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An Insult to Our Intelligence
yarborough17 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Just as the 3 "Star Wars" prequels ruined the Star Wars franchise (though I never liked it to begin with), this new "Star Trek" prequel is a damaging blow to the Star Trek movie franchise, and this prequel crap needs to stop now. The pathetic writers of this new Hollywood generation can't come up with any new, creative ideas, so they just keep going back in time (as they did with "Batman Begins") with established franchises, as if we need to see over and over again how the characters we love so much got their start. And the BIG problem with this new "Star Trek" movie is that they TOTALLY foul up the history of these characters and then insult our intelligence by having Spock (Prime - the older Spock) say that his actions altered the course of history (which, we learn, is why Kirk's father dies on the day of his birth this time around). What a lame, poor excuse for why the history of Mr. Spock, Captain Pike, Captain Kirk, Dr. McCoy and even Chekov is so radically different from what it is in the Original Series and its Original movies. What is different? For one, in TOS, Kirk first served under Captain Robert April on a different starship, and had years of experience as a first officer before becoming captain. In this movie, Kirk's serves with Captain Pike of the Enterprise first, right alongside Spock, and on his FIRST day of service he becomes first officer and then on the very same day is suddenly promoted to Captain! Quite a leap up the ladder! In TOS, Spock is supposed to have served under Captain Pike 13 years before he and Kirk meet. Also, Dr. McCoy suddenly becomes Chief Medical Officer on the very same day that Kirk suddenly becomes Captain. Wow, what a coincidence! This movie so ridiculously rushes the whole thing, but it's OK because Spock altered everything, right? In this movie, Chekov is on the bridge as navigator even BEFORE Kirk ever steps foot on the Enterprise. That means he has MORE experience than Kirk! So in TOS how did Kirk become Captain while Chekov was a lowly ensign? Oh yeah, Spock altered history. And Chekov is said to be 17 in this movie. When did he start at Starfleet Academy--when he was 13?! Finally, this movie has no intelligent (or even intelligible) story. It has a ludicrous story of the Romulans (who look like a biker gang in this movie) creating Black Holes out of planets. And this movie is all action and loudness with dizzying camera shaking, which totally goes against TOS's cleverness of playing on ideas rather than action. Abrams has no business in the "Star Trek" franchise, and I hope he never makes another "Star Trek" movie. But I guess as long as they make plenty of $$$$, it doesn't matter. That's more important than being faithful to the characters and history of the show, right?
152 out of 227 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Doubly bad
shanenzinla15 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly: Not only is the writing vapid, you have no empathy towards the two dimensional characters and so the entire movie is missing pathos. The plot is itself thin, it seems that a few explosions and special effects are the limits of depth to this director. I wasted 80 bucks buying tickets to this piffle. And the lapses in logic, (one of many examples: why would any military grant a cadet Captaincy of the Federations most valuable warship?)

Secondly: For those of us with a memory, this movie is an insult. Repudiate years of my interest in a series solely because you have lazy writers is a huge insult to those of us who have wasted four decades watching Star Trek just to have every television program and movie repudiated to give these idiots "creative space"? Only the truly talentless could be so arrogant.

Goodbye Star Trek.
143 out of 213 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie reeked. Save your money and don't go.
Clothahump9 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, I'll admit it. I'm a Trekker. This franchise has been around for 40+ years and has been very successful until now. This movie flushed the whole thing down the toilet.

I'll give credit - they did a great job of finding people that look like younger versions of Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. And there are some funny lines.

But for the love of Pete....

Vulcan is destroyed? Spock is shagging Uhuru? Gimme a break, already. You just don't jump in and rewrite canon on a series like this. It might have worked once they announced the time travel thing, if they had "reset" the universe at the end of the movie. But they didn't.

Do you feel that rumbling noise under your feet? That's Gene Roddenberry turning over in his grave over what has been done to Star Trek. He's up to about 200 rpm, feels like.
162 out of 243 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed