Ex Astris Scientia
  Home  Info  Starships  Fleet Yards  Treknology  Episodes  Database  Fandom  Community    Classical Music   FAQ   Site Map 
 

Star Trek (2009) Guest Reviews, Page 3

Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4

 

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
All of the contributing factors listed below, led me to the final rating of 7.5, it is not my favorite movie in the world and it is not my least favorite. The film did well in the merchandising aspect and perhaps this might persuade Paramount to launch a series in the right timeline. But still, Star Trek II is my favorite no matter what. Star Trek lived up to what I thought it would be... a jerky camera action film, not Sci-fi or Star Trek... That is just my honest opinion, I encourage you to make your own conclusions...
Character: The Villain was never developed and he seemed shallow and also he seemed to be a Carbon Copy of Shinzon from Nemesis, and Nemesis was definitely the worst Star Trek Film to date, in my opinion.
Plot: The Climax was terrible, and it was also predictable. Spock crashes his future self's timeship into the ship and it blows up.. ho hum... it was not very moving and it left me saying, "That was it?"
Music: The whole music score was terrible... there was no clear theme, and the Star Trek Motif that was used in all films to date, and was never used once. The Music was terrible, even my dad, the person who doesn't really care about a movie's soundtrack said it was terrible, and he thought the movie was great. The score was just a mishmash of the generic action movie music and a pit of random themes from other Star Trek themes, that did not go well together. Such as the string part that sounded like the beginning of the Star Trek II theme.
Opening: There were no opening credits, this created a problem because there was no clear ending of the prologue and the start of the actual film, also this is the area that the Movie's main theme is played and is for me one of the most important parts of the film. It sort of gives an atmosphere of the movie. The Star Trek II/III theme still gives me goosebumps and I've seen the movie 30 times and I listen to the score often.
Plot: The fact that this timeline is able to continue unsettled me. This means that TOS, TNG, all the movies, DS9 and Voyager no longer exist. Abrams rewrote history and destroyed 40+ years of Star Trek and I won't forgive him of that. Gene must be turning in his capsule. I seriously hope that eventually they kill of this timeline because for me, this movie is not worth forty years. Yes is surpassed 1, 5 and 10. But those can be beat by any movie and I am almost sorry I've seen those movies. It also did better than IX, but the story was pretty predictable there. And I guess it beat Generations, because Kirk could have died better...
Camera techniques: I did not like the jerky camera through out the whole movie, it looked to me as though the whole film that the cameramen were amateurs. I also did not like at how bright some of the scenes were, it was like staring at the sun for 5 minutes it hurt my eyes like hell. The camera angles of the film were pretty bad...
Rating: 7 (Kurt Keller)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2258: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I'm torn apart here. As a Trekkie I have to say this is not "my father's Trek" and definitely not my Trek. But as a movie (action sci-fi movie) it was great. I’ve watched it with a few non-trek friends and they liked it, they even asked me to lend them my Star Trek DVDs. So that part, to catch new Fans has worked well. But now to the criticism:
Good: I liked the many hints and references to "my" Star Trek. The effects were well done and I love the soundtrack. I loved Urban as McCoy and Quinto as Spock. The rest of the cast was somewhat between good and okay. Through the many references the movie is really funny for a Trekkie. (I liked the Tribble and Archer’s dog). Also Paul McGillion is in the movie.
Bad (or not so good): I don’t like the new design of the constitution class, especially the iBridge. The Narada looked nothing like a Romulan ship.
Somewhat fuzzy: The story wasn’t groundbreaking, but acceptable (we have to wait what they will do with the next film(s), I hope we see our loved timeline restored). Most of the changes in the timeline is a result of Nero's time travel and therefore understandable.
Uhura dating Spock? Okay this is interesting, but is he experiencing Pon Farr during the movie?
So my conclusion: Every Star Trek Fan should give it a try, I don't think everybody will like it, but hey, we are supposed to be very tolerant ;)
If this movie succeeds, we could save Star Trek. Yes, I think (even and especially)) with this movie, it is worth saving.
Nitpicking/problems: "Polarize the viewscreen" – What the heck? This would do what exactly? - Where are the shields? There are no effects when the Enterprise or the Kelvin was hit (torpedoes as well as wreckage) - What happened to my beloved phaser beams? The Kelvin had them, but the Enterprise goes back to the NX01-plasma weapons or to pulse phasers(?). - Big story issue: What kind of supernova threatens a whole galaxy??? - Also what happened to the warp flash? There are many ships seen jumping to warp but no flash. - I thought the NCC-1701 was launched in 2245. But the movie says it is 2258. So "The Cage" hasn‘t happened because the Kelvin was destroyed? Not likely... - Birthdate of Pavel Chekov doesn’t fit. Now it is 2241 instead of 2245. Also because the destruction of one ship? - If you fight a supernova with a black hole, I suggest you should evacuate all planets in the vicinity, because a singularity is just as dangerous as a nova. So why isn’t Romulus (and not mentioned Remus) evacuated. - The stardate is changed, now it states the year and a fraction. - Who thinks that a (glass) window on the bridge can replace a viewscreen, even with a HUD? Isn't it logical, that this easier breaks than a bulkhead? - The engineering deck looks like a big wastewater treatment plant. - How many warp cores does the Enterprise have? - What is a transwarp-transporter and why can it beam through active shields?
Remarkable quote: Bones: "I'm a doctor Jim, I'm busy." and "I'm a Doctor, not a physicist.", Spock Prime: "I am and always will be, your friend."
Remarkable facts: Engineer Olsen is the first Redshirt - Tribble on Scotty's desk on Delta Vega
Remarkable scene: - The Enterprise flies through the wreckage in Vulcan's orbit, the ship is very maneuverable. - The Enterprise emerges out of Titan. - Kirk and Bones in the shuttle (first meeting)
Rating: 7 (Patrik Burbat)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I am a hardcore Star Trek fan. I was a little nervous about this movie after seeing how everything was different; but after I watched the movie, I loved it. Some people here seem to forget that this is an alternate timeline. With that said, things can be slightly different or radically different. I like how there's a connection between the old timeline via Spock Prime with the new timeline. I love the new possibilities that can happen with this new timeline. Overall great movie and just the type of reboot the franchise needed.
Rating: 10 (JR)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
This movie is utter trash. I must say, the beginning scene stood out as pretty damn epic, but after that, the film quickly deteriorated. There is little to no character development with the exception of Kirk, Spock, and Bones, only one of whom (Bones) had an astounding actor (Karl Urban). Uhura was there for romance scenes, Scott was put in to spout one-liners, and Chekov was obviously just a waste of space filled in order to make the audience chuckle at the actor's (Anton Yelchin's) horribly fake Russian accent.
The story behind the criminal's intentions aren't revealed until the fourth quarter of the film, and the backstory is truly abysmal with enough pseudoscientifc nonsense to make any Enterprise fanboy cringe and the worst criminal reasoning in Star Trek since Soran from "Generations." The time paradoxes are badly thought out and make little sense. During said first three quarters of the film, the cast of the film chase the bad guy around and try to stop him. This is utterly boring so the director and writers and such try to make up for this by "pace faking" by making characters argue and be violent and have romance scenes in-between the boring conflicts.
The directing thoroughly lacks in logic, as bringing phasers along instead of fist-and-sword fighting Romulans on an orbital platform with gigantic fiery exhaust ports is obviously highly illogical. Another stupid thing that I didn't understand at all is why the film opened up with a fight. They have a little utilitarian ship in the middle of space and a portal opens and a big dark spiky ship comes out so they start firing at will without checking if the mysterious enemy has shields powered or weapons ready. They just go by "It's big and dark and it just appeared in front of us. We didn't try hailing it because every ugly thing in space is obviously evil." It of course does actually turn out to be evil, but that is not Star Trek.
There are also the canon and plausibility concerns, which are wrecked entirely, so it doesn't deserve to be called Trek. Everything else mentioned here (excluding Karl Urban) just made it even worse.
Nitpicking: Those lens flares are seizurriffic. They appear from nearly every light source in half the film and take up nearly the whole screen. Oftentimes they even appear from sources off the screen. They gave me a slight headache by the end of the film.
Remarkable dialogue: "Hello Christopher. I'm Nero." -Nero
Remarkable scene: Newly promoted Captain Kirk fighting the suddenly appearing "mining vessel" from the future and ending it with a pretty epic bang.
Remarkable ship: The new Enterprise's stardrive section looks like a disco outfit of some sort.
Remarkable fact: "Red matter" can do one of two things: make a black hole or send things back in time. There is no explanation given as to why it would do one or the other, no matter how it's applied or what it is intended to be used for.
Rating: 0 (Lee Wolfgang)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2258: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I caught the film on Thursday (7 May, 2009) afternoon here in Singapore, ahead of the US release. There were no preview sessions the night before...guess the hype generated for this release just isn't anywhere near the ridiculous levels we saw for the SW prequels or LOTR. I did manage to book a ticket for a digital screening at 1630 local time (UCT+8) and strolled into a near empty hall with only about twenty or thirty other patrons in attendance. Never mind. So was it good? Well, yes and no. It didn't exactly disappoint because I actually had no expectations. Not much anyway. But it definitely didn't seem or feel like the mover and shaker that some early reviews had made it out to be. Allow me to explain.
The good stuff first. This is one ST film that wears its 'Trek-ness' (or at least certain aspects of it) proudly and unashamedly on its sleeve. Which means a reasonable dose of space battles, fist-fights, male bonding, technobabble (toned down somewhat compared to your average ST episode on TV) and an almost naïvely optimistic outlook in equal measure. Maintaining these essential qualities while making sure that any film carrying the 'Trek' brand carries enough attractiveness to the 'mainstream' crowd to ensure a level of commercial viability hasn't always been an easy task. The whole cinematic canon of the Trek universe is littered with lamentable duds. This isn't one of them. For all its weaknesses, 'ST IX' feels every bit like a big-budget success. And it's one heck of a typical summer blockbuster we're talking about...the sort you sit through with your upsized cola and popcorn, emerging through the exit with a big smile and a quiet reminder not to dwell too much on the inconsistencies and utter lack of substance you've just witnessed. Despite what you might think, it's a thrilling ride, overflowing with non-stop adrenaline and action, a journey punctuated by panoramic vistas of extraterrestrial environments and gobsmacking settings saturated with futuristic technological wizardry. The visual effects are certainly awesome...make that 'over-the-top' awesome. Space battles are rendered in excruciating detail...with light and shadow fighting for your attention, the screen awash with the dynamic ferocity of nausea-inducing cuts...and rapidly-shifting angles that try to capture the claustrophobia and dread of deadly combat in the vacuum of space. Though some might disagree with the heavy-handed camera-work and aesthetics that are biased towards contemporary sensibilities, the technical achievements of the film are astounding. And the homage-heavy script works to a large extent...though the constant nods to TOS did feel a bit tiresome after a while. The casting was pretty spot-on and the acting is on the whole, above average too. Pine and Quinto seemed to have slipped into their roles as if they had always been the Kirk and Spock of yore, while adding some new and interesting twists to their characters. Karl Urban was particularly effective at evoking the neurotic charm of the McCoy we all love. Would have loved to see a bit more of him, especially in verbal spars with Spock, though. The rest of the cast were also reasonably effective, but were hampered by time and script constraints...most of them were hardly fleshed out and just blended into the background like the clichés they had always kinda been. A bit harsh perhaps, but given the nature of the film, maybe that was always to be expected. And like every good rendition of Trek, this one has a very human heart at its centre. Grief, loss and vengeance. The search for one's true self. Accepting one's destiny and calling. The meaning and importance of friendship and family. You know...generically heartwarming stuff. While the film never really explores any of these themes in any depth, they are all still there as a presence that is superficial, no doubt, but also in another sense, more than enough. And since J. J. Abrams is helming the action, you can also expect some screen-time to be devoted to colourful showcases of teenage angst...as well as much emo pouting and posturing to give it all some pertinently youthful vigour and sheen. Which isn't necessarily all that bad a thing (although I would have preferred more philosophizing and moral conundrums, rather than just scowls and tempers). Updating the Trek franchise for a new generation can't possibly be something that deserves to be totally condemned. The fans are growing old. It's now or never. So...sure, it isn't a thinking guy's sorta movie (whatever that means) or even anything remotely smart...but I think 'ST:XI' still captures the spirit of Trek pretty well while translating those intangibles into a new idiom capable of speaking and reaching out to a larger audience out there. For that alone, I personally think sci-fi fans in general, and specifically trekkers of any shade, ought to embrace and support this film...if not wholeheartedly, at least cautiously. It wouldn't hurt to give it a chance, right?
I'm not a hardcore Trekker by any count. I know my Constitution-class from my Sovereign-class, my Jem'Hadar from my Kazon. But that's about it. I was never one of those guys in the 'reboot-over-my-dead-body' camp. It's just Hollywood entertainment, a capitalist enterprise, above all. And if the film's makers think a bit of tinkering and rethinking can help realign Trek to today's market demands and rake in the dollars for them, who is really gonna stop them? It's their right, no? As a fan, you can choose not to watch it or even come up with detailed, logical and well-argued treatises that try to explain why this reboot thing is heresy, but if this new franchise ultimately goes on to become a major commercial success, who is to dictate what is right or wrong? The Trek you know and adore will still be the same Trek in your mind and imagination. And that's good enough. Seriously, after the last Trek outing in the cinemas ('ST:N'; Jeez...what's with the Remans? Vampiric goblins?!?), what could be worse? Nonetheless, this film is not perfect. Which one is? Though this one is probably still far from it. Like the vast majority of summer blockbusters, it's not a film that will hold up under any degree of close examination. It's nothing unique or unexpected, of course. Nobody's expecting anything like '2001', 'Solaris' or 'Gattaca', right? As with much of Trek (particularly the films), 'ST:XI' is hampered by a plot which doesn't really make much sense, busloads of truly bad science (even by the standards of the in-universe technobabble that is 'Trek science', it is still pretty atrocious), as well as a tendency to gloss over logical inconsistencies and loopholes the size of Kansas by turning up the speed at which the plot unfolds. This, I guess, is my principal complaint about the film: if you take it as it is without too much consideration, it's a reasonably tight and pleasant action flick...but dwell on it for one second too long and you'd just realise just what a nonsensical mess it all is.
I really cannot understand why they're bothering to deny that this film is a reboot. it IS a REBOOT, whichever way you choose to look at it. Having said that, it must also be mentioned (yet again) that Trek continuity and canon are far from being the unproblematic issues that some assume them to be. Almost every official rendition of Trek has managed to confound the problem. And if you factor in TAS, RPGs, video games, novelisations etc., it just becomes almost ridiculous. Oh sure, we've all heard the oft-quoted excuse that only what we've seen and what has happened in the official films and TV series can be considered rock-solid canon but even if we restrict ourselves to these primary sources without getting into too much nitpicking, much of that is self-contradictory too. Let's face it, the different folks behind the different Trek iterations never really had a master continuity bible to follow...not even Roddenberry himself...so what's next? It's too late to get a Leland Chee, that's for sure. A reboot to set things right, to settle at a new beginning? Unfortunately, that wasn't quite what we got with 'ST:XI' either. One might even say that much of the logical weaknesses of the film actually laid with the decision of Abrams, Orci and their team to somehow reincorporate this film into the existing continuity. Smart? Might have been. Paying some lip-service to the concerns of existing fans worldwide can't be that far off a marketing strategy. But in the end, this misguided attempt just felt like a glib, cheap and lame move to shut the fans up (much like how they incorporated all those plainly obvious and cheesy in-jokes into the script...one too many of these fan-pleasers and it all just felt utterly contrived). And believe me, it was very, very lame. Attempting this continuity mind-meld just created unnecessary problems that magnified existing inconsistencies, ultimately pushing them into the foreground and showing them up to be the potentially show-stopping minefields (for some people) that they were. I will only touch on a few here, just to give an idea of the thoughtlessness of the folks behind the film. The writers' solution to the continuity paradox is actually a very Trek one: time travel. In terms of hard sci-fi (typically more literary than cinematic), time travel is usually quite difficult to resolve intelligently and coherently. But of course Trek is a rather soft space opera so time travel has played a big part in many of Trek's adventures from TOS to ENT. With varying degrees of success, it has to be said. And in this particular case, the entire premise just doesn't quite hold up. Other than violating the physical laws of causality (as with most Trek renditions of temporal tampering), this one also didn't quite sit well with existing in-universe depictions of time travel, even if some of them do already contradict each other. Well, surely Spock has at his disposal, one hundred and one means of effortlessly travelling forward and backwards through time, if only to put things 'right' (it looked simple enough in 'ST:IV' and 'ST:VIII')? Staying behind to fight and deal with the crisis on Nero's terms seem so defeatist, insipid and un-Trek. So is there one master PRIME timeline or a near-infinite assembly of parallel but alternate universes co-existing within a larger multiverse? Is there a 'right' timeline that 'ST:XI' is just an aberration of? None of these points are exactly made clear. And what of the temporal regulation and enforcement authorities in the far future (as depicted in more than a few ST episodes, notably ENT) who seem to have some meta-temporal ability to examine the ebbs and flows of clashing timelines as well as the cause and effect of different events? Where is Daniels (of the 31st century) when he is most needed? Shouldn't his employers have noticed any of this? Surely the meaningless slaughter of billions of sentients deserve some attention? And despite Nero's thirst for vengeance, he ought to have been smart enough to just deliver the relevant information to the Romulans of the earlier era first and foremost...surely, given the head-start that they'd have enjoyed, the sharp end of the pointy-ears would have been able to prevent the catastrophe (or at least, start planning a long-term evacuation of the home worlds...why they didn't quite evacuate Romulus given their fore-knowledge of the impending disaster, certainly long enough for Spock to work on a miracle cure in Nero's original timeline is also anybody's good guess). No destruction of Romulus (and presumably, Remus) equals no loss of family equals no grieving Nero (prime or alternate?) equals a smarter way to deal with life's problem. Violates causality, in some sense. But at least his alternate self in the future of this new timeline would have had a fighting chance of survival with his family intact. Ermmm...so why didn't he? Because he has pointy ears and green blood? Come to think of it, someone in the creative team must hate Vulcanoids...c'mon, they destroyed both Vulcan and Romulus in 'ST:XI', didn't they? Where's the local advocacy group for Vulcans and Romulans? Somebody ought to speak up against this 'genocide'. Haha, I guess I'm personally aggrieved because they also happen to be my two favourite alien species in Trek...
That whole thing just doesn't add up. I'd rather have gibberish-sounding technobabble solving the problem of the week, rather than have a situation resolving itself through an inane level of violence and sheer stupidity. At least it would have shown that humanity is capable of some approximation of thought, reason and progress. All we get here is the suggestion that wide-eyed gung-ho adventurism buoyed by personal charisma and a reckless, swashbuckling, maverick leadership style is preferable to professionalism, introspection, deliberation and consensus. Prime directive or not, when do we bomb the XXXXing natives into submission next, eh? But everyone knows what really sells movie tickets these days... The nods to canon also do not make sense because the film violates existing canon in so many other ways. I think canon isn't just about the events that have unfolded onscreen and the things that characters have said and done (as well as implied or referred to), but also the visual continuity...the look and feel of technology and everyday life, as well as the internal consistency of all the secondary features of this make-believe universe. In that sense, Trek's recent outings (especially ENT) have long violated the principle of a believable, self-consistent continuity. I guess that has always been the pitfall of doing a prequel...how do you portray a level of technology that is still believably futuristic to today's pampered audiences, that doesn't quite descend into the pits of kitsch and camp (there's no escaping these adjectives looking at TOS), while fitting as an integral part into a coherent, evolutionary whole? How much retconning can one do, before declaring it a reimagination or a reboot? The ST universe presented in 'ST:XI' is obviously different to the Trek many of us are used to. There's no going back to the shiny toy phasers, communicators and tricorders of TOS. And there shouldn't be a need to. Trying to explain away the continuity differences and divergences in-universe by claiming that they exist as a result of Nero's intervention is just so ridiculous that it doesn't even warrant a mention. Dates that don't fit. Technology that seems out of place (including a very derisible and off-putting piece of product placement by Nokia). How can any of these things pretend to even share a common past (until the aforementioned point of departure) with the old Trek universe (despite its inconsistencies)? There simply is no escape (or excuse). This is a reboot. Admit it so that we can all move on. And all that noodling around with alternate universes and points of divergence isn't brilliant at all (as some of the film's defenders seem to feel)...it's just sad, in fact. For all that talk about faithfulness to canon, one can easily spot several rather silly points of contention. The reference to Klingon 'warbirds' (though there was a precedent in ENT, which B. Braga referred to as a mistake), the uncharacteristic appearance (hey, the protruding brow bridges are gone yet again, lo and behold...and Shinzon's haircut, or lack thereof, seems to be all that is the current rage in the Star Empire, at least amongst space miners with a penchant for hip and street-smart subcultural styles!), behaviour, organization and technology of the Romulans, the Federation's level of acquaintance with and knowledge of the Romulans (not all of which can be so easily explained by Nero's materialization in the past), the potentially troubling appearance of a Tribble and a Cardassian beverage, the altered stardate system, the backstory of the Enterprise's construction etc. etc. etc. ST isn't just some cut-outs and quotes from a bunch of stock characters. Its believability and consistency as a created universe is also a reason for its popularity. If the creators behind this one wanted to start with a clean sheet, they should have...instead of throwing in some superficial, shallow scraps to appease the fans (and only end up making things worse), they should have spent (a lot) more time trying to come up with an involving, articulate, comprehensible and intelligent story (one unencumbered by the past) that really tries to live up to the best of Trek's values.
Even leaving aside the whole hornet's nest of problems associated with trying to link 'ST:XI' back to the existing Trek continuity, the plot is full of weaknesses that just can't be ignored. Suspension of disbelief? If it all works, this suggestion wouldn't even crop up, would it? One of the most glaring and preposterous points is Kirk's miraculous promotion. Obviously none of the writers have ever done any time in the armed forces or any other sorta uniformed organization. Cadet to Captain in the space of days? Ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe it. Chain of command, gentlemen? Rank structure, please? Everything is just kinda thrown outta the window to tell a reactionary tale of a petulant and untested rookie rising to greatness because...well, mediocrity is just not his birthright. And do remember, up to that point in time when he appointed himself the Enterprise's stand-in commander, new and 'improved' Kirk still hadn't really done anything to show just how good a 'leader' he is. And real leadership goes a lot beyond throwing tantrums, punches and bedding aliens. But it's his destiny, I figure... Hmmm, is it me or has ST become a lot more right-leaning? How many more 'reimaginations' are we from the unapologetically regressive conservatism and monochromatic moral canvas of SW? I honestly don't know. And as for the fortuitous meeting of Spock (Prime), Kirk and Scotty on Delta Vega, it just felt completely unbelievable. Talk about cosmic coincidences, right? Cheap and hardly satisfying. And let's not even start with those frankly absurd creatures on Delta Vega. Hey, whaddya expect? They can't even seem to decide if 'captain' more properly describes a position or rank...tsk...tsk... And why do the immediate orbital neighbourhoods of both Earth and Vulcan look so bare? Where are the space stations? Where are the ships and fleets? Where are the planetary defense systems, for gawd's sake? And ermmm...why are there only 10,000 Vulcan survivors? Even if they're a xenophobic civilization and all, they were already a major power before joining the Federation. What happened to all their colonies? What happened to all their off-world scientists, explorers, engineers, traders, industrialists and more...not to mention, Starfleet employees of Vulcan descent deployed elsewhere...They couldn't ALL have been back on Vulcan by some sheer coincidence, no? That 10,000 figure just made me laugh out aloud. It just beggars belief. And sums up the casual nature of the writers' understanding of internal consistency. And as for Spock witnessing the destruction of Vulcan from Delta Vega (though one recalls a somewhat analogous scene in 'ST:VI', when the destruction of Praxis sent out subspace shockwaves and was even viewable by the Excelsior's presumably very capable sensors in 'real-time')...either the formation of black holes can generate explosions that travel at superluminal speeds or Delta Vega is really located within the Vulcan system (which should mean he's probably dead meat too, given his proximity to the black hole). Neither which makes much sense. The portrayal of singularities is extremely laughable and unscientific too. Just take it as yet another plot-advancing device. The same goes for the phenomenon that destroyed Romulus, which is described as a supernova. I don't really think the existence of a single supernova can be described as a galaxy-threatening event...perhaps something along the scale of a gamma ray burst might do the trick but a puny supernova? See, I think the writers really had comedy in mind. And how exactly would Spock's 'red matter' thingy have helped the Romulans, if the problematic star in question was really the central star in the Romulans' home system? Would replacing an exploding supernova with a gravitational singularity actually make a whole load of positive difference? And given the nature of the device, why bother drilling holes into planets? Would sucking the planet from within work better or provide better fireworks that cater more to Romulan cultural sensitivities? The more you think about it,
I do like certain aspects of the ship's design, even if it doesn't quite make sense. It's bright and airy and represents a triumph of style over function, but there's still quite a bit to be delighted with about the bridge, complete with flashy displays, bright lights and other unnecessary embellishments, for one. Though I can't figure out what's with the busy long corridor which it opened up to that was glimpsed at one point in time. If the bridge is truly mounted on top of the saucer unit (as depicted), shouldn't it then be empty space behind all that action? On the other hand, the engineering section sucks. Big time. I knew they wanted to evoke the immensity of the Titanic's innards as it was depicted in Cameron's film, but surely the industrial analogy has to end there. This is the future, for gawd's sake...no engine room in a starship is gonna look like some sewage treatment facility, complete with old school water pumps and heavy-duty piping, not to mention period-looking nuts and bolts. It is not only aesthetically revolting, the entire look just doesn't hold up at all. If this was another comedy moment, the writers and designers certainly outdid themselves here. In terms of depictions of warp propulsion, weapon operations and other manifestations of ship-related technologies, 'ST:XI' deviates quite a great deal from much of what has long been established as principles in the ST universe. No nods to canon there. The warp drives look, handle and behave differently. Ditto the weapons. Even if you were just looking at the design of the Enterprise, it's pretty obvious. No question about it, it's a different beast for a different universe with a different set of sensibilities and a very different code of internal consistency. Which goes back to the point about 'ST:XI' being the first major Trek reboot. It is a reboot in every sense, down to the nuts and bolts, literally even. One that was perhaps permanently maimed from the onset by a pathetic need to incorporate itself into the internal logic and continuity of the existing Trek universe. It shouldn't have bothered. Like I said before, it fails to bring out the best of both worlds and just feels at the end of the day, marooned and unsure of what it actually is or ought to be. I don't think all reboots are necessarily doomed to fail. Just look at BSG...Ronald D. Moore (Trek alumnus) took a tired-looking, cheesy '70s-era sci-fi also-ran and fundamentally remade it into a compelling, courageous and very relevant examination of the human condition. His reimagined series isn't perfect either but it stands head and shoulders above the competition. BSG is so addictive and watchable not because it's good sci-fi drama but because it's good drama. Period. ST is a very different creature from BSG so we can't expect the same sorta approach to be taken when a remake is considered. Still, 'ST:XI' could have been more. But it just isn't. It isn't a bad film; it was rather enjoyable, in fact. But the creators ought to have had the courage to make it weightier and meatier, to have, for example, confronted more contemporary issues head-on without too many prejudices and constraints. Wouldn't that have been a better and more pertinent update? Instead of a classic that could have spoken to both fans and non-fans today and in the years to come, all we got were badly thought-through plot-lines, crowd-pleasing one-liners, gratuitous violence and pseudo-intelligent continuity contrivances. All of which fail to disguise the incontrovertible truth that the film is nothing more than a teenage action flick that doesn't quite live up to its hype...a vacuous two-hour ride full of thrills and spills and nothing much more.
Rating: 6 (Monty Cantsin)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
Let me preface this by saying that I really really enjoyed watching this movie. It was fun. It was exciting and I loved the little nods and homages to what I suppose now is the previous incarnation of Star Trek. On the merits of the new Star Trek as a movie, I rank it on par with First Contact, below Undiscovered Country and Wrath of Khan.
The acting for the most part was tremendous, though I wish Scotty had been more than comic relief. Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu were all very good, and Karl Urban's McCoy was outstanding. At some points he must have been channeling DeForest Kelley, because I could hardly tell the difference. Leonard Nimoy as Spock (or Spock Prime) was fantastic. After the gutwrenching destruction of Vulcan, I was glad Nimoy was there to remind us that everything was going to be OK.
Now to address the 1000 pound elephant in the room. Let's call this movie what it was...a reboot. This is no longer the Star Trek I grew up loving. I won't go into the details of whether or not this is a good thing, as many people here have covered that at length already. I do like that the creative team for the movie seems to have taken some steps to "protect" in a way, the original continuity. In fact, since this movie has already been so successful, I hope it will spur a new TNG movie in the original continuity (many of the principals have expressed interest), at the very least to give Picard and Co. a proper send-off.
Personally, I don't know how I feel about the reboot. I loved this movie, but I can't get past the pit in my soul where Vulcan used to be...
Remarkable scene: The destruction of Vulcan. No other scene in the movie drove home so poignantly that this is not the same Trek.
Remarkable scene: It's about time we saw the Kobayashi Maru!
Remarkable quote: "Since my standard farewell seems self serving, I'll just say good luck."
Remarkable homage: Too many to count. Some of my favorites were Sulu's martial arts training in fencing, Admiral Komak at Kirk's hearing, Pike ending up in a wheelchair at the end of the movie, and of course Scotty being punished for experimenting on one "Admiral Archer's" favorite Beagle
Remarkable fact: It is somewhat comforting to know that people will still listen to the Beastie Boys in the 23'd century, though being from Wisconsin, I was hoping that Miller would have driven Budweiser out of business ;D
Rating: 9 (TheLearnedHand)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2233.4: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
Not going to do an in-depth review, it's actually my first time doing a review for a Star Trek film so I'll keep it as simple as I can.
I enjoyed it, but it also wasn't without its flaws, so here's what I didn't like:
The underuse of characters and overuse of others, first off Karl Urban's performance as Bones was the highlight of the film for me as the resemblance to DeForest Kelly in TOS was uncanny, really didn't have much to do and just stood in the background once the momentum got going after a promising introduction where we understand he's just been divorced and left with nothing but the option of joining Starfleet. While I understood this was an origin story, a little too much was given to Kirk and Spock, their respective childhood sequences could've been left out and I would've been happy. Young Kirk driving a Corvette off a cliff while listening to the Beastie Boys couldn't have been more out of place, and young Spock being subjected to insults from other Vulcan children, including one calling Spock's mother a whore and Spock's violent retaliation, weren't in good taste. So in place of these useless scene's which served no purpose, as we see more of Kirk being a directionless rebel as pointed out by Captain Pike, played by Bruce Greenwood, and Spock's heritage and the dilemma it presents are represented again and again, it would've been nice to have had a couple more scene's with that original dynamic of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. In terms of character overuse, Uhura, I don't think she really needed as much time as given, and her relationship with Spock, wow, couldn't really see that coming, it wasn't a completely convincing sort of relationship with only a very minor hint to it, but it still didn't satisfy.
Nero, Nero really was a bit underwhelming as well, his motivation's were only brushed over, and his recollection of the destruction of Romulus didn't have the emotional impact I expected, so with that it just comes down to the tried, and tried again path of making the villain for a Star Trek film one seeking vengeance against a main character, with the destruction of Earth a secondary motivation. Yawn. His time-travelling could've brought with it a bit more than what we've seen Khan, the Borg Queen, Shinzon and now Nero aimed to do, but it was nothing more than bloodlust and destruction he was interested in. I really wanted to see something more original, like an explicit directive to change history for the worst, as if he were acting on part of the Romulan Empire, say, a disgruntled group who didn't want the peace with the Federation that was implied at the end of Nemesis.
And Spock and Kirk, now Spock. It was inspired casting with Zachary Quinto as Spock, he looked the part, and his performance had been the most intriguing interpretation of the character for a while, from the logical Spock we know, to the extreme anger he displays, tenderness towards Uhura, definitely a highlight. And Chris Pine as Kirk...there were times I bought it, and other's where I just felt it was just a character who happened to have the same name. He definitely showed familiar qualities in Kirk, such as the pause in his speech and movement before his utterance of "Bones..." in the final scene, and the swagger and all too familiar bravado and of course, his nailing of a hot Orion was definitely dead on, but other times it wasn't THAT convincing a performance.
The same I felt for other characters, Sulu, Chekov and Scotty really didn't feel like the original characters, Anton Yelchin did great providing the perfect exaggerated Russian accent, and it was a nice homage that Sulu's combat experience amounted to fencing, Scotty's sense of humour too, Simon Pegg did well with the role, which was a bit limited though.
The story, yes, it 'reboots' Star Trek, as the trailer indicated, 'forget everything you know', all that has been built up for 40 years is now in another universe, literally. The addressing of this luckily wasn't too confusing and was put very simply, and wasn't really made to be as big an issue as it was, so we can put that to bed early. As I've discussed, Nero's plan really didn't boil down to anything more complex than getting payback, which was boringly predictable. Seeing Kirk go through Starfleet and Spock being there as well was more interesting than I expected, and it would've been nice if a bit more of that was seen. It was great to see Pike command the ship and his relationship worth Kirk, it may not have been much, but Bruce Greenwood's portrayal was convincing before he goes missing for the majority of the movie being tortured by Nero. The destruction of Vulcan was an interesting dynamic that could've gone either way, it certainly was a choice to cement this film in another reality from the one we know, and the ramification's of this will surely be seen in the next film beyond Spock's initial reaction.
Some other things. The Enterprise, how I hate it, it's ugly inside and out. Engineering for instance, did the budget run out prematurely? There's also some useless padding, I already mentioned the scenes with young Spock and Kirk as being unnecessary, well there's that, there's the scene with Kirk being terrorised by monsters on Delta Vega as well as the needless chase though Engineering after Kirk and Spock beam aboard the Enterprise and Scotty winds up in the plumbing where Kirk chases him round till he releases him, it all seemed rather useless, some other comedic scenes I wasn't fond of either, like Kirk's reaction to a viral infection causing his hands too swell up and lose the ability to speak. The effects of the ships going to warp were great, but not when we actually see the ship travelling at warp. The shaky cam was overused to the point of irritation, every fight scene, every battle scene was muddled and unclear, I understand this is the new trend in any film with an action sequence, but I hate it immensely. The primary action sequence weren't helped by this, and it felt like it was back to the normal Trek solution with Scotty ejecting the warp core (or was that cores as 5 things were ejected) to allow the Enterprise to escape from the singularities pull.
And old Spock coming back was great, Leonard Nimoy did really well as expected.
To sum it up it was an enjoyable movie, standouts were Karl Urban, Zachary Quinto, the effects. Chris Pine's performance was satisfying but there were times where there could've been more, I wanted more from Nero's story than just another vengeful villain wanting to destroy Earth. I wasn't expecting much from the remaining cast and even then we didn't get much more from them than we did from Scotty, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu than we did in The Original Series. The supporting performances were good, Ben Cross as Sarek was a wonderful character, but he and Pike were the only characters who stood out as much as the main 3. Never the less it was still a great film, and perhaps a great introduction to this new stage of the franchise, it wasn't perfect, and I wasn't blown away, but I still liked it enough to give it 8/10. As for the ramifications, I guess it can still be as acceptable as people find The Animated Series, and judging from the reactions so far it looks like this is sadly the future of the series which has its merits but also its drawbacks, but it's still Star Trek to a degree and still has the potential to be something worthy to stand alongside the series that's been with us for nearly 40 years so only time will tell. Till then, I liked it, while it may be quasi-Trek, it was still a damn good movie. To me it would sit probably as the 3rd best Trek film, "First Contact" sits on top, followed by "Wrath of Khan", this, then "The Undiscovered Country". It sorely lacked the intelligence and the profound nature of the two films that better it, but it was still an enjoyable ride.
Remarkable quote: "We could name him after your father." - "Tiberius? You kidding me? No...that's the worst! Let's name him after your dad. Let's call him Jim." -George Kirk and Winona Kirk
Remarkable quote #2: "I don't need a doctor, damn it, I am a doctor!" -Leonard McCoy
Remarkable quote #3: "I am Spock." - "Bullshit." -Spock (Prime) and James Kirk
Rating: 8 (Cameron)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
What is Star Trek? I see in some reviews that this new movie is not 'Star Trek." Well, what is Star Trek, then? I just got into Star Trek myself. I've only watched up to season 6 of TNG. I say this for two reasons: I want you to know where this review is coming from, and I want to show that the movie has attracted at least one new fan. Regardless of whether the movie is good or not, isn't that worth it?
But back to the main question at hand, that being what is Star Trek. Some people, it seems to me, believe Star Trek is all about the science and technology. To them, its all about warp coils, dilithium chambers, and subspace fields. I don't think any of this is Star Trek. Treknobabble, as I've heard it called, may move the plot along, but I don't think this is the essence of Star Trek. I say this because a lot of people seem to be hung up on the technical side of things in this movie. What does it matter if there are 5 warp drives, or if there's a hallway behind the bridge, or if the viewscreen is actually a window. I think you're missing the point.
Star Trek, like all good stories, is about people. Without characters you like, Star Trek would be nothing. This is a movie about a group of people coming together, some by chance, to defeat a more powerful adversary. I think that all of the actors embody their characters very well. By the end of the movie, you start to see them as the characters you remember from TOS.
Yes, there are discontinuities from the original series that are hard to explain, such as the enterprise looking newer than it should. First of all, time travel is very tricky to predict. How do we know that after the Kelvin was destroyed, the federation didn't decide to develop technology at a faster rate to fight this threat? Or that since the fleet needed to respond to Vulcan's disaster so quickly that the Enterprise wasn't finished, thus leaving engineering looking like a water park? What if encountering the Narada right there at that exact time, caused the fleet to shift patrols, leading to an earlier encounter with the Cardassians? Stuff like this can be explained. But second, we know it's a new timeline. Why not just watch and roll with it? If you go into and movie looking for problems, you're gonna find them. To quote another movie, "Haven't you heard of suspension of belief?"
The story was good, and reading the 'Countdown' comic prequel probably enhanced the experience, and also answers a few questions. A big one would be that the Narada is so huge because even though it's a mining ship, the Romulan remnant fitted it with some sort of Borg reverse engineered add-on that enhanced the ship tremendously. Also, Nero's wife and soon-to-be child were on Romulus when it died, and he blames the Federation for their deaths. Those are just two questions asked in other reviews that I wanted to comment on. I also like that since they started a new continuity, they really shook things up with the destruction of Vulcan. Obviously I was upset when it went, but I'm glad they decided to keep the audience on their toes, changing things in a big way showing that this is not the same as the original series we're used to.
Overall, as a new fan, not yet set in my ways, I found this movie to be very entertaining. It's easier for me to overlook the chronological and technological 'faults' because I went into this movie without a firm background on what is and isn't 'supposed to be'. It contained plenty of audio and visual nods to the original series, and the performances themselves were nods, from Chekov's pronunciation, to Sulu's fencing ("The Naked Time"), to alot of the quotes. Anyway, I just wanted to respond to some of the reviews I read. If it doesn't make sense, well, I'm a doctor, not a critic.
Remarkably absent: "He's dead, Jim." Everything else was in there.
Remarkable performance: Karl Urban as McCoy. That first dialog where he was talking about his fear of flight, he captured the exact mannerisms and way of talking as DeForest.
Rating: 9 (Tom I)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
This movie was something I was anticipating for quite some time. Let me start by saying that I am a hardcore fan, seen nearly all of the original series, all of TNG, DS9 and Voyager, and some of ENT. In fact, Star Trek was one of the reason I went into science and engineering (BIG Scotty fan!), and have always enjoyed the science it showed alongside (mostly) good writing and stories. And while I have all the previous movies, my favorites being TMP, VI and First Contact, because they were very nicely written and shot, with great character moments that didn't hamper the movie. After seeing this XI, I can honestly say that it is a very good Star Trek movie, having all the characteristics I outlined. However, that's not to say that it didn't have it's problems.
I'll first give the good parts. First and foremost, the characters were spot on. Every character had their definable moments, even Spock Prime and Capt. Pike. Chris Pine and Karl Urban were spot-on, so much so that I had goosebumps when I saw some of the preview material and the moments in the movie, specifically the shuttle scene where McCoy was introduced and Kirk starts instigating Spock. Though Zachary Quinto played Spock a little hot-headed, he got Spock down. And Zoe Saldana's Uhura was very good and very nicely written, though not as sultry as Nichelle Nichols. As for the plot, yes, it does resemble Star Wars, but then it was pulled off very good.
Now the bad. Why are there windows on the bridge? On top of that, the bridge isn't above everything else, it's connected to corridors! Though I have qualms about the new sets, I enjoyed them except for the notable exception of the bowels and engineering. As much as I like the fact that they were going for realism, a water treatment plans makes not a 23rd-century power-generation plant, which is what engineering basically is. And what's with all the cross-beams and having the ability to see through decks? The bowels seemed to big for the volume of the ship, and also is bad design for a pressurized vessel, where the open design can make a big area of the ship unusable if a small space was damaged and opened to vacuum, versus the original timeline's design of making separate decks, where specific areas can be closed off in case of a breach.
And as for that whole 'new timeline' talk, I don't believe it. On my way back home that night, my friend and I were discussing time travel, and we brought up conflicting theories. After thinking about it for some time, I am starting to believe that there wasn't so much a 'cleaving' of the timeline as it was time-travel into a parallel universe. My reasoning lies in the beginning sequence of the Kelvin, the prevalence of the Enterprise patch as the Starfleet symbol throughout, and the design departures in both the Kelvin and the Enterprise. It would be akin to an anti-Mirror Universe, where everything is practically the same but with some differences here and there. I think that the red matter not only created a black hole, but one where, if went through in a certain trajectory, can bypass the singularity and emerge into another universe at different times. In my opinion, that's the only way it can all work.
Besides that, the pace of the movie was a little fast, not really that much breathing room in it to let some things expand. The pace was so fast I felt that Spock Prime talked faster than normal because of it.
In conclusion, even though it had it's problems, Star Trek XI was very enjoyable, and I look forward to seeing it again.
Remarkable scene 1: The death of George Kirk and the birth of James Kirk was very emotional, a major example of where JJ's influence is different than previous directors, writers and producers. I almost cried!
Remarkable scene 2: The introduction of McCoy, done so well by Karl Urban you would swear he was DeForest Kelly.
Remarkable Fact: McCoy was nick-named Bones because his wife took everything but his 'bones'.
Rating: 9 (Charles H)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
This will be a short commentary, but, as Pericles once said, "to the brave, a few words are as good as many." This was a decent action film, warranting a 5-7 in most cases, however, given that they *called* it "Star Trek" with the *explicit* intent of attracting new fans whilst rewarding the old who, through decades of dedication and dollars spent, deserve a little rewarding (it even makes sense from a business perspective, since these are also the people most likely to pick up your merchandise), it ends up scoring much lower than that.
It is a mediocre film which lacks everything that made Trek great and possessing everything that made Trek a bore. Silly "Deus ex" plotholes, lazy writing, utterly nonsensical ship design/Naval protocol/stellar distances/scientific inconsistency run rampant throughout every moment of the film. At the same time, the stately, romantic (in the classical sense), serious, *adult* themes and feel is utterly lost in favor of what is, essentially, a futuristic coming-of-age story.
Finally, the *conscious* rejection of the Original Continuity in favor of a mediocre New Continuity is an insult layered atop injury for Trek fans. Come to think of it, the destruction of Vulcan is actually rather fitting and symbolic of the film as a whole, given that J.J. Abrams is exactly the kind of person who, upon discovering that there was nothing new or worthy for him to add, simply decided to destroy what was already there.
Rating: 1 (Matt)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I'm glad I waited until a second viewing before writing this review (although this means I lost my chance to make it on the first page and thus few people may actually see it, but anyway...). If I had written the review when I first saw it on Thursday, I would have given it a seven. Now, since I saw it again today (Tuesday), I'm giving it a ten. When I first saw it, it was hard for me to get past the difference in the look compared to what I'm used to. There was much I saw today that I didn't notice the first time. The acting is amazing. All the actors did a great job in this movie, especially Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. I especially liked Eric Bana as the villain. This was a much different type of villain than what we're used to.
Another thing I noticed the second time was the music. When I first walked out of the theater Thursday, I didn't remember any musical score, except in the end credits. When I saw it Tuesday, though, I realized that it had a fairly good sound track.
There were may plot holes in the story, though. First off, if Nero ends up in the past and gets the red matter, couldn't he simply destroy the sun that went supernova before it destroyed Romulus? It seems like a better plan than destroying Vulcan and all of the Federation (which, by the way, would not seem to help his planet like he said it would, since it was not the Federation or the Vulcans who made his sun go supernova.)
Ok, so the black hole destroyed the supernova, destroyed Vulcan, and destroyed Nero's ship at the end of the movie, why were Spock's and Nero's ships able to go through it in the future and not just survive, but travel through time? Does that mean that the supernova and Vulcan are both going to show up somewhere in another time period?
Another issue: why does Nero have to drill a hole to the middle of the planet before he can use the red matter? I would think that it would accomplish the same goal even if it was right next to the planet.
Why did Nero blame Spock for the destruction of his planet when Spock was the only one who tried to prevent it? Well, perhaps on this line, seeing every member of his species being destroyed might have made him lose it a little. I would think that Spock would be the one person that he wouldn't go after.
Overall, I don't really mind most of the changes in this version of Star Trek. The lens flashes (which I didn't even notice until Bernd Schneider wrote his review) and some of the camera work was a little annoying, but, like I said, I barely noticed it until it was brought up. The coincidence of everyone ending up on the exact same ship was also brought up in the review. I do not really think of that as a great problem, though. If you consider the theory of everything happening in different realities, then in some reality the chief engineer who died could of become captain, or every single main character could have been on a different ship, but in this reality, everyone happens to end up on the same ship.
The engine room looked a bit weird. I do not think that the writers really took into consideration what everything does when they made it. So, they just picked a location that looked industrial, with pipes all over the place, and filmed there. It really didn't fit. But, on the other hand, I hope to god that they do not change it in the next movie, because I really like consistency (if not at least within this new series).
When I went to see it the second time, one thing that ran through my mind was: "If I want to refill my popcorn, when could I do it." I realized that there wasn't a single point in the movie that I wouldn't care to miss. It was amazing all the way through from beginning to end.
I really appreciated all the humor in this movie. It made it really good. And, as I said before, the acting was wonderful. You could see the rage behind Nero's face when he realizes that he is in a different time. You can see him slowly losing sense on the close-up of his face before they capture Spock (And that was without any lines!).
One thing that amazed me in this movie was the first scene. They nearly made me cry for someone that I had only known for 5 minutes. It was such a powerful scene, and it was wonderfully constructed. So, aside from all the nitpicking, which doesn't really stand out that bad, anyway, (unlike in other movies,) I think that this was a great movie. It has lots of potential and great actors to carry this series forward.
Remarkable quote #1: "You whistle really loud." -Kirk
Remarkable quote #2: "Hi, Christopher. I'm Nero." -Nero
Remarkable quote #3: "I have your gun!" -Kirk
Remarkable genocide: Both Vulcan and Romulus (Along with Remus, I would assume,) are destroyed at some point in this film. Although, Romulus is only destroyed in the original universe. It does not have to be in this series.
Remarkable coinage: I hereby coin the name "Universe 001" to describe Roddenberry's Star Trek, and "Universe 047" to describe Abram's Star Trek. May these terms be used for decades to come.
Remarkable possibility: Although the future of Universe 047 has been changed, its past hasn't. The Botany Bay is still floating around somewhere. Imagine the possibilities.
Rating: 10 (Andrew Mueller)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I saw the movie a few nights ago with a friend who knew little of Star Trek. Not surprisingly, as the movie is beautiful and quite well crafted, my friend enjoyed it. I, who knows a fair bit about the Star Trek universe (I've seen every movie and every episode of every series at least twice), enjoyed the movie as well, but had to 'pretend' that this was not Star Trek, but some generic sci-fi flick. This was difficult to do, since the character names were all familiar.
The entire premise of the movie - as Star Trek - is ridiculous and there were far too many poorly thought-out sequences, many (if not most) of which were covered in the various reviews on this site, so I won't belabor the issue by bringing them up again.
I do have a comment for the film-makers, who will likely never read this: I understand that this movie is a reboot of sorts (alternate universe notwithstanding) and that you wish to draw in new fans who have little, if any, knowledge of Star Trek. I agree that this is a good thing. But why go out of your way to irritate as many Star Trek fans as possible? Aside from the improbable assembling of the crew members we all know and love, and the redesign of the ship (which looks fine, assuming it is roughly the same size as the TOS ship), not one change to canon served any purpose in the telling of story. Not one contributed to the improvement of the movie. Not one was in any way necessary as far as I could see.
The ship being built on the planet surface? In Iowa? Why?
The romance between Uhura and Spock? Why?
Cardassian Sunrise beverage? Why? (check the timeline of the Federation's first encounter with that race)
Ship's interior completely out of scale (shuttlebay, engineering). Why?
Minutes to travel from Earth to Vulcan? Why?
Cadet to Captain? Why? (and WTF?!?!?!)
There are so many more changes to canon I could point out but I've run out of time and must actually get some work accomplished in my studio. Note that this post only points out changes to canon and not the multitude of other problems.
In closing, it seems to me that it would be inexpensive for the studio to hire a Star Trek geek or two (not me, but the truly knowledgeable fans) to supervise and point out problems. At that point the director could listen, nod and then either agree to a change or cuff the offending fanboy/expert and proceed with his work.
Marc C.
Rating: 0 (Marc C.)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
OK - I am not going to add much to what has already been said. Are there inconsistencies? Yes. Did some of them drive me crazy? Yes. Did I thoroughly enjoy the movie, however? Big time yes. As a Star Trek fan since my first year of high school in 1986, I have been disappointed by the 'staleness' of the franchise over the last 10 years or so. For at least the last decade, Star Trek has really only appealed to hard core fans - and that is a big problem. This movie brings a fresh perspective while still staying true to the universe.
I tend to agree with those that don't buy this as a time travel story. I am leaning toward viewing this as a parallel universe scenario, which would leave the original history safe and sound someplace else.
If Star Trek has taught us one thing, it is that ANYTHING is possible.
Rating: 8 (Brian)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
Okay, I went to see the movie because I got to go for free. I want my money back.
I'll keep it short.
1: Kirk had no character development - Pike was much more interesting.
2: The story was... uninteresting - really, it's an alternate universe, who cares if everyone dies.
3: There was no need to re-make the universe in JJ's image - there is a LOT of cool history built into the series and books that could have been exploited.
4: Enterprise went from being a really cool "Tall ship" and a character in it's own right to a silly-looking toy, filled with what appeared to be a brewery where engineering should have been.
Honestly, there were a few okay moments, but this movie does for Star Trek what Phantom Menace did for Star Wars.
Nothing that happened in this movie needed to happen. The characters were well portrayed, but poorly written. It was relatively pretty, but had no substance. It really looked like J.J. had wanted to do Galactica, but got stuck with Trek.
I know a lot of you loved it and will not like what I am saying, but I'll stick with my guns. If they really wanted to re-make the universe, they should have gone with a Mirror-Mirror movie.
Rating: 1 (John Adams)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I write this review after only seeing a screener of the movie a couple of times and reading the novelization of the film. Being an avid Star Trek fan for many years I was anxiously awaiting the release of this film. The trailers were awesome and really built up the anticipation for this movie. Without the advantages of viewing a high quality video I didn't get to witness the eye candy that has made such an impression for a great deal of viewers. To start, here is what I liked:
1. As everyone mentions, the visuals are state of the art.
2. Carl Urban's McCoy is hands down the best characterization of the entire film.
3. Scotty's comic relief was well received and was a nice enhancement to the character.
4. That's the way that computer controlled phaser batteries should work!!! Sweeeeeeeet!
5. Uhura's character finally got some credible substance to it. To bad they had to cheapen it by making her the sex object of the movie.
6. The transporter effect was fabulous. An excellent and well thought out improvement.
What I didn't like:
1. Nearly total disregard for any scientific consistency. (See Bernd's review)
2. The Enterprise was just another space ship. Unlike previous Trek which presented the Enterprise as an important and memorable character. It didn't need an excessive "beauty run" like in the TMP but something would have been nice to establish a connection to the "new" Enterprise.
3. Uninspiring plot. The time travel/alternate timeline routine has been done to DEATH in Star Trek. Hello! Something original and thought provoking please!
4. Nero is a pitiful villain - enough said.
5. Because of 3 and 4 above there is not a convincing development/build-up of an all powerful threat/enemy to overcome. The Narada is big and powerful but absolutely uninspiring of real dread and Nero is just a place holder because the ship has to have a captain. Without this there really isn't a well defined and definitive climactic moment for the movie to pivot on.
6. As mentioned before and must be mentioned again - main engineering is absolutely HIDEOUS. Being an engineer myself I am definitely biased on this point since the established Trek did a very credible job of portraying future engineering. This turned me off and aggravated more than anything else in the movie. I sure hope they jettison these disgusting sets for future movies.
7. There really wasn't any thought provoking elements of any great merit in the whole movie.
8. Chekov's character was horrendous. I was praying that a torpedo would hit the bridge to put him out of my misery.
I could go on but I think that makes the point.
Other thoughts:
1. I couldn't tell from the video I saw but it looks like the bridge was relocated to the bottom of the saucer section. What was that for?
2. Kirk, Spock and Sulu's characters were ok but nothing special.
3. What noteworthy accomplishment did Kirk achieve to be promoted from a cadet straight to a Captain!
4. The "new" Enterprise is rather ugly. It lacks the simple clean elegance of all the other Enterprises.
At the end of the movie I was left with a rather bad taste in my mouth. Granted I did not get to feast on the visual extravaganza that is very well done in the movie but without it the movie is very uninspiring. I did have a nice time with some of the comic relief and the space battles (or more like slaughters since the fighting was heavily one sided). Kirk's cycle was cool, Sulu's swashbuckling was impressive and the musical score was perfect but that is not enough to make the movie good. J. J. Abrams succeeded in rebooting the Star Trek franchise but at the cost of booting out the brains behind Star Trek. He has pandered to the modern movie audience who has been wined and dined on action, special effects and sexual themes and morphed the Star Trek franchise into this mold. What has resulted is just another plain vanilla sci-fi movie that has a thin veneer of Star Trek without any substance. To sum up my review, the kindest title I can give the movie is "Star Trek: Shattered Universe" but the most apt is "Star Trek: Lobotomized"
What will the singularity do this time?: Why does a black hole at the "beginning" of this adventure cause the Narada to go back in time but at the end of the film it (correctly) crushes and destroys it?!?!?! What's up with that!
Greatest character: Carl Urban's McCoy is absolutely fantastic. I watched the movie a second time to enjoy his performance and also to try to find something else to enjoy with the movie.
Rating: 3 (Ryan Shultz)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2233.04: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
Well my turn.
Just seen the film and those who are negative about it have hit the nails so well hard on the head, that it would be pointless saying what is already said; and well said may I add. Despite their decrees, this is a reboot of a film, with a plot that is designed with the soul purpose to cool ardent gullible Trekkies and woo fresh meat to the fold.
When I watched it a voice, a niggle, was telling me that this is NOT STAR TREK - despite what many would, have, and will say, there are certain things that make Star Trek unique amongst Sci-fi - here, that uniqueness was obliterated. Battered shuttles, dingy sets on Starfleet vessels(!), ships WELDED together with torches(!!!!), industrial works(!!!!!), no warp core and so on and so forth.
Also there are no original elements in this film; too many references to other pictures (Starfleet looking like Coruscant; Speeder bike, Robocop/Boush policeman; shuttles reminding me of Starship Troopers(!!!); parachuting stunts out of James Bond) or references to previous Star Trek films (villain with big spaceship planning to destroy worlds (Nemesis); absurd tech to do it with (Generations); unique deadly substance as plot device (Khan, Nemesis, Generations)). Combine this with a ridiculous plot of "blockbuster proportions" the net result is a mess of a film.
There are lots of things in this movie I do like, the humour is good, the acting is excellent, but overall it's just a blockbuster film reflecting a TV program in the same way Lost in Space and Mission Impossible did.
For a claimed $150Million budget, I expected a helluvalot more.
The powers that be decided to rub out Star Trek roots and start afresh - you cannot do that. It's like having a favourite ice cream, then some idiot decides to buy the place that makes it, cut away certain ingredients for costs or whatever, and resell it to me saying "it's the same but better!"
Nope it's an insult.
It has wowed many because its a 'fresh attempt', but I think that this "purging of the past and eradicating of what we know" is a very bad idea and will backfire. A blockbuster audience is a fickle thing and will look for bigger rides - they are a feeble base for you have to keep giving more - but as a result you alienate other people. In addition, if you make films with massive thrills and have to pile more - it can end up looking stupid.
As quoted by one critic - "having such a spectacular launch, will the next film fly or will the lot come crashing to the ground?"
The fact that the latest film has only stayed one week up the charts at No1 (being knocked off by Angels and Demons!!) and has not recuperated money to make it a box office hit in short time (compared to Wolverine) says it all (may have grossed over $100Million-plus on the opening weekend - but it cost $150Million, and then there is the profit margin and future films to compete with).
I think come a year from now people will look back and regard this film as a novelty at best and "a pathetic relaunch attempt" at worse.
Nutshell - not bad - but it's not Star Trek.
Remarkable error: When Captain Robau of the Kelvin heads to the shuttlebay. Considering that the shuttle bay is ABOVE the BRIDGE, how did he get to it via a lift TAKING HIM DOWN into the ship? Ah the stairs!! Does not look like a very long staircase to me!
Remarkable scene: The opening of the film when the USS Kelvin encounters the Narada, the fight that ensues, the death of Robau, the desperation but heroism of the crew, and the demise of George Kirk and the birth of his son - that was not just a moving good scene - it's also great cinema.
Remarkable ship: The USS Kelvin - a ship that BELONGS in Star Fleet. Style, design, look - ticks all boxes for me.
Remarkable fact: The interior of the Robau's shuttle - the curtains he goes though - they exist in real life and are used to prevent the entry of insects - look around a butchers or any food manufacturer. FACT!
Rating: 3 (Chris)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2258.0: The New Star Trek movie! Star Trek XI, the next installment in the Star Trek series! This movie explores strange new worlds like never before! Fly at warp speed with a young Enterprise crew! MAJOR SPOILERS!
   
I like this movie. The movie took me up into Space, I felt like part of the action. Nero played a great bad guy, as well as the perfect Star Trek villain. Eric Bana was almost better then Khan. Pine played the bad boy Kirk so well, everything he did seemed to fit. Zachary Quinto played the perfect Spock, riddled with emotional turmoil. Then Leonard Nimoy came in. Starting off with his famous quote, he made the movie. The idea of time travel made the movie that much more interesting. The re-design of the Enterprise made things more exciting. The phasers on the Enterprise were very cool. They only showed pulse phasers and photons, but by showing pulse phasers they stayed true to the original series. JJ did a great job with this movie and I am looking forward to a Star Trek 2!
Remarkable Homage: In the first scene, the shuttles look like the Galileo 7
Remarkable quote: "You Bet your ass captain!" -Scotty
Remarkable dialogue: Kirk and Bones in Starfleet Academy
Remarkable scene: The shuttle flight to the Enterprise
Remarkable prop/set/ship: The phasers. The bridge. The Enterprise.
Remarkable fact: Narada has Borg tech upgrades.
Rating: 10 (Captain Kirk)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
This was an interesting movie from many perspectives.
First and foremost, from a marketing perspective, it was brilliant. To be very succinct, it essentially made the general public forget anything they ever perceived about Star Trek.
Secondly, from a design point, they made it look, feel, and sound, more like a super hero flick, taking advantage (and smartly so) of what is popular at the moment. Advertising ON Heroes is a great example of their target audience. It was a movie big on weak and quick character development, explosions, and ADD inspired quick cut scenes, shaky cameras and bright flashy lights. Unfortunately, it was small on substance.
From a perspective of a fan such as myself, who loved how the Star Trek universe was a cohesive story that takes place over 100 years, I found the movie disappointing. There is more then enough room in the existing Star Trek universe to sustain new and compelling stories that are relevant to today’s savvy viewer. I will never understand why they couldn’t have created a "new" crew and new ship, to have adventures during TOS timeline. I will never understand why Spock decided that a new timeline was the only possible outcome despite history suggesting otherwise.
I could pick apart every little thing in this movie, from the ship, characters, plot, soundtrack, etc. But if I did that, I’d hate the movie and be deprived of a pretty decent movie. However I say this with the disclaimer that I have to ignore, disregard, and pretend that I’ve never seen or heard of Star Trek before. And that’s tough because I love Star Trek.
On its own - it was a good, fun movie. I would recommend it. But from a Star Trek fan perspective, I hate it. So that’s why I’ll give it a 5 out of 10. It’s great on it’s own, but has absolutely no place in the REAL Star Trek universe.
Rating: 5 (Ivan Zammit-Susin)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 2233.04-2258: The confluence of Red Matter and a subspace annihilating dying star throw an insane Romulan and Ambassador Spock back in time creating a divergent reality. Can Spock help an alternate version of his friends and himself save Earth and stop a madman wielding a weapon of incredible destruction? Only if James T. Kirk can find the hero within...
   
I have been a Trek fan for a long time. I love DS9, even Enterprise- only Voyager and the film "Nemesis" left me cold. I was very concerned with this film, yet intrigued. How was I going to feel about a reboot? Would this still feel like Trek?
Turns out I am pretty good with it, and hell yes, it feels like Trek. Absolutely. For the first time in a while, I watched Star Trek and didn't say "well, that was acceptable Trek," but rather "wow- I had a great time!" Is this movie perfect? No- there's some sequences which made me wince (Scotty in the pipes, cavernous pip-filled engineering), and an awful lot of coincidence. Also, though I appreciate the effort on the part of the writers to appease the 3% of the potential audience who care to tie it to TOS, the alternate universe MacGuffin here doesn't quite explain all the differences. It's certainly a more honest effort that B&B made in Enterprise, and the movie shows a lot more internal consistency than Voyager. Regardless, with the possible exception of Scotty, these were good modern versions of the characters who made me love Star Trek in the first place. The sheer enjoyability of this film covered a variety of sins.
Best of all? My profession allows me to work with a variety of people- including some kids barely out of high school. When 19 year old kid and his wife ask to borrow my classic Trek episodes, something they had never considered before seeing this film, how can I fault the movie? If it's going to work like a gateway drug for TOS, I have to support the film. (Oh my joy when he came to work Monday quoting "The Cage...")
As a comic book fan, I have lived through a few canonical reboots of my favorite DC characters. In the end, Superman is Superman whether or not he was sent by Jor-L or Jor-El. Batman is Batman, even when he isn't "The Batman." Kirk may have blue eyes, but the cocksure adventurer who cuts Spock off with a curt "It'll work- trust me" about his plan is certainly the same character who could talk superintelligent space probes into offing themselves.
The movie is fun, fast, and not stupid. There's some things I have to reach to explain (did Kelvin have 800 people because it was taking a colony to say...Tarsus IV? Is the Enterprise curvier due to the Kelvin's sensor readings of the Narada?), sure- but didn't we do that in the 70s and 80s to explain their inconsistencies? We did that because we loved the heart of Star Trek, and that heart appears in abundance in this film.
My biggest problem on my initial viewing became one of the movie's strengths; the destruction of the planet Vulcan. So much of my Trek recognition and appreciation comes from how we regarded Vulcans and Vulcan in the 70s and 80s (hence my issue with early ENT). Watching Vulcan die made my stomach hurt. Then I realized- the movie, dramatically, had involved me viscerally. I realized that the "temporal reset button" I had become so accustomed to had been yanked out from under me. I had no idea what they might do next- I could get NEW Kirk/Spock/McCoy Trek stories... and not know what could happen. That was... fantastic, exciting, if I could just let go of things like whether or not Kirk had hazel eyes... I decided I would. I decided the benefits entertainment-wise, and Trek-future wise, were worth the sacrifice of Vulcan. Further- think of the dramatic possibilities facing Spock as a member of a race of only 10,000. How long until Sarek wants Spock to leave Uhura and marry this nice Vulcan refugee named T'Pring...?
Is it the best Trek movie? No. Is it a Sci Fi classic which changed the world? No. Is it a worthy addition to the Trek family? Yes. Did it make me smile and remember why I loved Trek in the first place? Hell yeah. Now- let's see them pull off a sequel.
Nitpicking: The early appearance on the Narada of a certain Romulan sidearm; 800 survived on 22 shuttles? That's a tight squeeze. Slusho? Seriously?
Remarkable quote: "You ARE fine without it..." -Kirk to Uhura in the bar
Remarkable dialogue: "You once asked why I married your mother; I married her because I loved her..." -Sarek
Remarkable scene: The minute Kirk walks on to the bridge with Spock after leaving Narada; he IS the #&*^#% Captain!
Remarkable ship: The Enterprise- I hated her when I first saw her, I don't believe she's 700 meters long, but when she pulls out of Titan's atmosphere, she was awful pretty. When she warps in to save Spock, she's gorgeous. Every time I look at her, I like her a little more.
Remarkable fact: My 19 year old colleague is now a dozen episodes into season one of TOS...and still loving it.
Rating: 8 (Dan Foster)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 1277.1: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
Here's an old saying I've always been in full agreement with: Star Trek is like sex - even when it's bad, it's pretty good! So then, how am I to explain how underwhelmed I felt upon leaving the theater after having seen this film? I suppose it can be chalked up to expectations. Namely, I expected to see Star Trek, but instead what I saw much more closely resembled Starship Troopers. Not that I'm knocking Starship Troopers. I actually liked that film for what it was, but it definitely wasn't Star Trek, and neither is this. Contrary to popular opinion, some of the previous Trek films WERE fun and watchable. 2, 4, 6, 8, all the rest we love to hate, right? Kidding, of course, because I'm one of the rare breed who actually liked 3, 7 and 9 (joystick notwithstanding), wasn't completely thrilled with 6, and didn't absolutely loathe 5. Even 10 had its moments, although you can't blink or you'll miss them. One thing Treks 1 - 10 had in common that 11 lacks is the ability, at some point during the movie, to make me CARE what happens to the characters involved. I usually want the good guys to succeed and the bad guys to fail, but in this one I could hardly have cared less if any one of them had fallen off a cliff and died. After all, these are alternate versions of the characters I've been getting to know since about 1982, and they've all lived long and prospered and croaked (except Spock, of course). The producers passed up on a wonderful opportunity to really explore the backstories of these characters, which is something else I was expecting in vain. But then I guess with there being seven of them, you'd probably need more than one movie for that ("Star Trek Origins: Bones" anyone?).
Put another way, my only major beef with ST 11 is that it seems targeted at those who want their sci-fi movies to be heavily populated by space battles and fistfights, those who aren't mature enough to feel anything beyond the adrenalin rush induced by flash, motion and noise, and those who would spit in the face of anyone asking them to think for a moment that anything is more important in life than their own self-gratification. It's a pretty big beef, indeed.
Nitpick 1: This is the 23rd century. The inside of a starship is supposed to look relatively high-tech. It's not supposed to look like the inside of a foundry (Kelvin) or brewery (Enterprise).
Nitpick 2: (Channeling Tom Hanks) "There's no destroying Vulcan in Star Trek!"
Nitpick 3: Building a starship on the ground makes about as much sense as cooking in the shower.
Nitpick 4: I know Romulans are related to Vulcans, but this is the first I've heard they're super-strong like them.
Nitpick 5: Orion women have pheromones powerful enough to enslave men. Is Uhura really all that, or did Kirk's girlfriend have her glands removed?
Final words: J. J. Abrams said Star Trek fans should not go see this movie. I wish I had listened to him.
Rating: 5 (J. S. K.)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
I have been a devoted Star Trek fan from the sixties when I was a toddler I have loved every series, and I really looked forward to this movie, and while I did like it to me it wasn't quite ''Star Trek'' oh it was a great movie great SciFi but not my Star Trek, just like Daniel Craig is a great actor makes a great spy but to me isn't James Bond, the biggest disappointment for me was the destruction of my favorite two planets in the Trek universe, Romulus and Vulcan and the unrestored timeline.
One has to ask what they pay the guys who insure the Temporal Prime Directive for, though they dropped the ball on the whole Xindi situation, still killing off Vulcan and Romulus not to mention crippling the Klingon Empire just strikes me as bad for the franchise, it's TOO way off canon Star Trek myth, this upsets The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager timelines too, now the Borg could prevail over Earth or the Dominion could take over the Alpha Quadrant, I can only hope in a sequel Q shows up and zaps the timeline back to normal ,I also did NOT like turning the Romulans into rejects from Road Warrior, I could understand if THIS particular crew shaved and tattooed themselves in mourning but the scene of Spock prime on Romulus showed them bald and the women looking like Bo Derek, I don't know I am just too Trek Traditional I guess.
I would like rather have seen a storyline with the Kzinti or the Skorr threatening the Federation or if a temporal theme was going to be used maybe send a renegade Dominion ship back to try and engeneer a victory in the Dominion War, or even better a story in the 24th century timeline.
I DID like the movie though the actors would get a 10 in my book the storyline a 3,the flagrant casting aside of the timeline a 1 and the action and special effects a 9 overall rating a 7, also was a bit disappointed we didn't see Nurse Chapel.
Rating: 7 (Dave)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
After learning of the general plot, this became the first Star Trek movie to hit the big screen that I was not excited about. And watching it today, I still feel the same.
To begin with, the plot is silly. There are simply too many coincidences, with the biggest one being Kirk being dumped on that ice planet as with Spock and Scotty (and don't even get me started on the naming of that planet). And why are the people put in command always leave the bridge for something else?! And old Spock not even trying to correct the timeline?!
For Trek history, the Kobayashi Maru test is another disappointment. That was it?! All he did was programme the Klingons to drop shields?! Seriously?! And gone is the optimism in Star Trek. I mean, did they really have to blow up Romulus and Vulcan, and kill George Kirk and Amanda Grayson for the movie to feel epic?
While the Enterprise bridge doesn't look as bad as on screen caps, the engineering (both Enterprise and Kelvin) feels too industrial. It feels more like this thing is running on coal rather than anti-matter. And the warp core being a few different pods?! Really?!
The new Enterprise still looks funny. The nacelles look like a toy. And there is no on screen evidence to back up its ILM official huge size. The Kelvin is another sore. If it is supposed to be built before the timeline tempering, would it have killed them to put the secondary hull below and the nacelle on top like every Federation starship in that era?
This movie failed to appeal to this long time fan. And I brought a friend whose knowledge include "Broken Bow", "Trouble with Tribbles", and "First Contact" (movie), and the response was "none of it makes sense". So I guess it failed to create a new fan either.
Rating: 0 (felixernie)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate not given: Synopsis in main Movie listing
   
Well, so here we go. Star Trek (XI). It's different, very different, however I feel it was needed, before ANYONE hurls abuse at me, Star Trek WAS failing, ask people you know how was Star Trek PERCEIVED pre this film??
(I for one grew up with Star Trek, I'm 3 years older than the franchise, and it needed new input). Anyway I went down to my local Odeon cinema with my girlfriend (Melanie), (a bit of a trekkie too), and this is what we thought.
Funny we felt it WAS a bit Star Warsy, with a bit of Battlestar Galactica thrown in for good measure. Got the feeling there was a definite tongue in cheek feel to it, the Kirk/Uhura arc was quite a laugh, the look on Kirk's face when Spock "got the girl" so to speak, was the best bit.
Nero - AH, a loopy Romulan. The Narada was a mining vessel, Red Matter? Interesting idea. Puzzle: how come it was armed to the teeth??
Likes: the USS Kelvin, somehow this vessel just looked good to me, when someone does a cutaway, would love to know how the warp engine works? Could have done with more markings/colour, i.e. Starfleet pennant.
Yes we liked the new Enterprise, OK it has been scaled up to a ubership, a bit daft, but I wasn't too fussed - needs more windows though!!. The internals look fresh, like the bridge design definitely like the one on say the Enterprise-J perhaps?! The ships entering warp: engage - and gone! Took me by surprise, (and my girlfriend, all she said was, "Oh F**K"!!).
Dislikes: The engineering sections (Enterprise & Kelvin) - WTF??? (My girlfriend, ended up in fits of hysteria at that, everyone else though I was mucking about with her!). But seriously a brewery? Is JJ a complete idiot, where's the warp core, the matter and anti-matter feeds, and steam?? As an engineer, BIG mistake, REDESIGN PLEASE for next installment.
WTF bit: Err, the entrance to the shuttle hangar deck, support struts, hazard to incoming/outgoing traffic, the ATC guys would have nightmares!! (just kidding).
OK, YES, as I said at the start, its different, very different, but it's still Star Trek, and people are going to see it. The point is, people are interested again, which means new stories, and Star Trek continues - isn't that the point?
I guess there will be a lot of you, who will slag me off for these remarks, but, that's your life, I for one will give this new direction a chance.
Keep trekkin' (from Me) and love (from Melanie).
Rating: 8 (Ian Keenan)

Star Trek (2009) Stardate 23.06.2009: Does it boldly go, or does it self destruct? A look at the re-boot of Star Trek, with film number eleven.
   
Firstly a disclaimer:
I do not pretend that I know all there is to know about the canon of Star Trek. I have enjoyed the various series and movies over the years as a fan, but do not rivet count every detail of every ship (though I accept and am happy to conform to the view that certain details in the film may be flawed).
Where to begin? The film is not mediocre as has been suggested, however it is not a serious work of fiction either, and therein lies a reason for some quarter's criticism of this film and its ultimately extreme reviews.
On the one hand, as a serious continuation of a franchise that started in the 1960s, the film scores highly with me because it feels like Star Trek. There's the sense of camaraderie between the crew that was always needed to be there, there’s the comic timing of Simon Pegg as Scotty, a nod back to the real reason for James Doohan’s character. All the ingredients are there – the characters themselves, their styling, both in costume and in drama.
Much has been said of the actors, and I will not add to this debate further- however, I would like to submit the view that Chris Pine as Kirk worked to the extent that he has room to grow and develop as an actor of Kirk. The one thing that Star Trek has never had, that reboots such as Batman, Superman, and other generic comic book superhero drear fests indulge in, is other actors playing the same role – how many Batmans have we had currently? There are only two James T.Kirks, and I think that is why there is so much to be said on Pine’s character by Trekkies.
I feel that certain arguments are clouded because of the respect garnered for Shatner’s portrayal of Kirk – and that is to be admired, not insulted. However, by treating Pine as a different Kirk, and not Shatner’s Kirk – does he portray a confident young man, who doesn’t believe in a "no win scenario"? I think so. If anything, his over exuberance brings a fresh look to the series that has had several generations of films with actors playing the same characters over forty years. Only Kelsey Grammar as Frasier comes close to beating that!
If we apply that to the rest of the cast, who could not be dazzled then, by Zachary Quinto’s portrayal of Spock. Further, the fact that we have one of the original cast members playing alongside his protégé and we do not detect any less than a natural progression from one performance to another is indicative of how good Quinto in Nimoy’s role is, and vice versa!
Karl Urban is another character who richly deserves praise for his measured and thought provoking role as Leonard McCoy – he’s by no means the real McCoy, but his inflections and reflections were definitely in DeForest Kelley’s vein.
In all, the cast of Star Trek was impressive, and meaningful – no one felt particularly out of place or surplus to requirements. On the other hand - the whole concept of the academy movie was flawed with the coincidental entrances made by certain characters. Getting all seven of the major roles together on the one ship was difficult enough, but how do we disregard the fact that for Scotty to be on the Enterprise in the new movie, he is marooned on the very planet that Kirk is then marooned by Spock on, later in the film, and then becomes chief engineer - all in day's work! "She cannae take it, Cap'n"!
With regards the sets, they were vibrant where they needed to be, and a fresh look to the Enterprise was a necessity. What we received in terms of the NCC-1701 was something that again, splits popular opinion. Either, it’s a fresh take on a classic design, or to the other extreme, sacrilege in its entirety.
I happen to love the new design – when it is placed side by side with the original, the dated look of Jeffries original design becomes clear – looking flimsy by comparison. A design classic it may be, but the original Enterprise does look dated, a relic of the 60s yet supposedly 23rd century. The new Enterprise retains the same basic shapes and proportions, but updates the design to make it more believable in fitting with space flight designs today. That said, the size of the new Enterprise could be anything between 300 and 700 meters long, according to various sources and this esteemed website. Therein lies the biggest problem with this film – consistency.
This lack of consistency can be found in the science behind the film, which was lacking at times – many mentions of super sized Enterprises and short times for long journeys have been made. I feel that for the casual viewer the script scientifically not making any sense has been rendered irrelevant.
The job of the film is to entertain – and if you came away feeling thoroughly entertained, as I have done – well, then it has done its job. That said, being fair to the diehard fans – I can see why it provokes such an extreme reaction from certain quarters. Star Trek, in terms of plot, has been a modicum of consistency. Writers on every single incarnation of the franchise have gone back to the previous shows to try and write in allusions, characters and ships from times past. This film puts a big question mark on that idea of writing consistency, and that is where it falls down.
Star Trek was never going to be the perfect film for everyone. Its very nature means it will appeal to more of a mass audience than the diehard Trekkies. I can only think that a good thing – because if this becomes the entry level into more people discovering the serious, thought provoking sides of Star Trek as found in its many previous incarnations and films, and liking them, then it follows that the franchise will continue with a new audience, boldy going were no fans have gone before.
Magic Moment #1: "Jim I have been, and always shall be, your friend" -Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime)
Magic Moment #2: First reveal of the completed USS Enterprise - seen in an Imax, it takes the breath away as much as the same ships' first reveal in the film franchise.
Magic Moment #3: "Out of the chair" -Zachary Quinto (Spock)
Disaster Master Nero to Zero: Eric Bana's portrayal of revenge-mad Nero was fantastic, if made nonsensical by a severe lack of plot. Still, he provided the best line that never made it to the film: "The wait is over".
Disaster Master's Apprentice: Chris Pine on edge - there's only so many times that nearly falling off a cliff or other high place and scrambling for safety can be played on in a film. This film tried it at least four times. It didn't work at least three times.
Disaster Master's Starship: This ship made absolutely no sense to me. I get that its a mining ship in a previous life, but where did all the weaponry come from? And why is a drill necessary to destroy a planet if you have something that can create miniature black holes?
Rating: 9 (Simon Martin)

 


Proceed to Page 4

  Share 
  Home   Top    View as gallery 
Last modified: 29.09.13  
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/trekxi_g3.htm