Where No Website Has Gone Before
Where No Website Has Gone Before
A lunch.com community for the world of Star Trek
Star Trek Poster

J.J. Abrams reboot/prequel to the "Star Trek" film franchise.

< read all 41 reviews

Good not great

  • May 12, 2009
  • by
Rating:
+3
My own expectations for this film killed it a bit for me.
I did my best not to read the reviews about Star Trek, however as I sat in the theatre nearly everyone around me was saying how good they heard this film was.  Everyone was positively excited about this momentous event in filmmaking history.
The film was good I thought, not great.  The only film of recent memory that has actually lived up to and exceeded its hype in my book was Batman The Dark Knight.  That was a great film..  Before that it was T2.  So, compared to those films, Star Trek was entertaining and fun just not great.
Tthe actors were fantastic - which was best part of the film for me, the set design was well done, cinematography was a little hyperkinetic, but cool.  It's quite difficult for me to knock this film, since it's so polished and pretty.  However, on some gut level I had problems with the story and pacing. Just something about the film, I didn't feel it was grand enough and the comic relief was injected a little too much on point.  It felt like Transformers with a lot of cool stuff and then points that make you go 'what?', 'okay whatever' wrapped in really pretty packaging and shot out at warp speed so fast that there's not much time to think - which may be by design.
 SPOILER ALERT, don't read on if you don't want to know... I have a personal peeve about the whole time travel thing.  I'm 50/50 on it.  I think it's an interesting way to reboot the series; tactically it's very smart.  However, at the same time, I feel like it invalidates all the previous Star Trek stories I've watched.  Like nothing I saw was 'original'.  This Kirk, Spock and all the crew members are not the same characters that I remember and grew up with (I say that loosely, since I'm not nearly qualified to be a true Trekkie).   So it was a bit of a disconnect for me, because they're using short hand based on the original characters for these people who aren't the real people.  Why is Tarzan who he is?  Because he grew up in the jungles and not in the city.  (I do apologize for using a fictional character to get my point across).
I also thought it was really weird to have both Spocks present and the older one goes to start his own planet.  I'm surprised then that there's not a whole bunch of duplicate selves around the universe.  Also thought that weird alien who came with Scotty was just odd and only served as some bizarre comic relief (injected in).  Then Kirk just happens to fall into the exact same hole that the real Spock was in?   This opens up a whole can of worms with the philosophy of destiny and choice.  I'm not going to get into that.  
What's up with the red matter stuff?  Star Trek is known to have serious sci-fi technological underpinnings.  This (Red Matter) was one of those things, that they just seemed like the they needed a good plot device to get the story going, so they just created this stuff that by not saying what it is scientifically would not come under fire of scrutiny (cuz you can't fight something that isn't there).  Hmm...red for red herring?  Perhaps I've just gotten too used to Battlestar Galactica where everything was huge and operatic.?  Not sure.  I suppose had I lessened my expectations I may have enjoyed it more, maybe rated it half a point higher. The purpose of my jumbled disorganized review is to hopefully knock your expectations down a bit so you'll enjoy the film more.   Live long and prosper.

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
7
Thought-Provoking
3
Fun to Read
4
Well-Organized
3
Post a Comment
More Star Trek (2009) reviews
review by . March 23, 2013
What was your first impression? Very negative        Plot summary? A new cast of the characters having the same name is introduced with a new storyline. Kirk and Spock forge a friendship under fire.        What's the bottom line?      There are some bad moments that will turn off many long-term Star Trek fans but if that happens, watch it a few more times and concentrate on the relationships between the main characters. 
review by . December 12, 2010
Let's just be clear, I am not a trekkie nor have I ever been a trekkie, and this film did not make me a trekkie, but that didn't stop me from enjoying this reboot of the franchise. The acting was great, the special effects were great, the story was great, and I recently found out that this was the only Star Trek film to win an Oscar (best makeup). It did tend to drag/ be too talky and sometimes hard to follow in some scenes, but for the most part, the movie worked.      …
review by . May 03, 2009
Star Trek Poster
Just as a warning, this review is going to be very spoilerific, so if you hate spoilers don't read this, but I just can't help myself. Now then, may I just say that this might be the BEST Star Trek Film ever?! And that's not comparing it to The Wrath of Khan or First Contact. This Trek film stand alone among all of the other ones. When J.J. Abrams set off to make a Trek film that was accessible to both non-fans and fans, he apparently knew just what he was doing. This film was also an ensemble piece. …
review by . February 27, 2011
posted in SF Signal
How is it that a film that has been so anticipated, has had so much money and hype devoted to it ends up on the screen with a continuity error in the first half-hour? I refer to the scene in which McCoy is sneaking Kirk onto the shuttle to the Enterprise: Kirk enters the shuttle wearing a red cadet's uniform and then appears on the Enterprise wearing a black uniform. I won't even go into McCoy's breaking the 'do no harm' mantra of the medical profession... Yes, I'm probably …
review by . August 26, 2010
To be honest, I didn't think it could be done. I'm one of those old-time fans. I grew up on episodes of Star Trek in syndication. I cheered the return of the original cast to the movies. I followed closely -- at times more with a sense of loyalty than enthusiasm -- the various series set within the Next Generation, and I even stepped back in time to the early days of Enterprise. But when Hollywood chatter turned to rebooting the saga from the start, placing new actors in the roles of …
review by . December 07, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
I was never a big Star Trek fan.  I had moments where I watched the original and where I watched Next Generation but for the most part I found the series to be well... boring.  Some of it was the science fiction stuff, others was because sometimes it seemed as though Star Trek could never get to the point.  That's not to say I hated Star Trek or couldn't stand it.  There were certain episodes of the original series that I rather enjoyed.  Some parts of …
review by . December 03, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
I’ll get the obvious out of the way immediately:  Were Star Trek (XI) a standalone piece of space-set science fiction entertainment, it would probably be one of the finest to come out off Hollywood in years.  The visuals are stunning, the acting top notch, the Michael Giacchino sound score flawless, and even JJ Abrams’ direction (which is often criticized for being jumpy and dependent upon effects) is quite appropriate.  So why then a very mediocre review score?  …
review by . May 25, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
movie poster
"…To BOLDLY go where No Man had Gone Before.".. …or something like that. The immortal tagline of the operatic TV franchise that had gone on for many generations. First off, let me tell you that I am a casual fan and more of a "Next Generation" kind'a guy, although my favorite Star Trek movie is still "The Wrath of Khan". After the failed box-office outings of recent ‘Star Trek" films ("Nemesis" for one) and the less than dominating …
review by . September 10, 2010
I grew up with "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Since I didn't have cable, I rarely got the chance to watch the original Star Trek series. As I grew older, however, I got to watch TOS and found myself preferring it to TNG. It didn't matter how many new incarnations of Star Trek hit the television or the big screen, so long as no one messed with the original characters and the actors who portrayed them, I was fine. Then comes along J.J. Abrams. I have to admit that I followed the developments of …
review by . May 07, 2009
Honestly speaking, Star Trek is something I had never gotten into, though that slightly changed when an online friend of mine kept posting episode commentaries on the original TV series she was rewatching..     Of course, when I saw the trailer for the new movie in the cinemas, and seeing how amazing Zachary Quinto looked as Spock(I personally love Quinto), I knew it was a movie I had to see. The fact that J.J. Abrams was directing was a bonus.     After watching …
About the reviewer
Member Since: Apr 28, 2009
Last Login: Mar 15, 2011 05:38 PM UTC
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

You
daricl
Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie

Wiki


 Star Trek
tells the story of James T. Kirk, Spock and the rest of the Enterprise crew, following their time together at Starfleet Academy as well as their first mission together.

Cast:
  • Chris Pine as James T. Kirk
  • Zachery Quinto as Spock
  • Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime
  • Bruce Greenwood as Captn. Christopher Pike
  • Karl Urban as Leonard "Bones" McCoy
  • Zoe Saldana as Uhura
  • Simon Pegg as Scotty
  • John Cho as Hikaru Sulu
  • Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov
  • Eric Bana as Nero
  • Ben Cross as Sarek
  • Winona Ryder as Amanda Grayson

J.J. Abrams Star Trek represents the first time in sixteen years since Leonard Nimoy has played the character of Spock.

Originally, Star Trek was slated for a Christmas 2008 release, but it was decided that the film would fair better as a summer blockbuster.  It would also allow for more media coverage as well as more time to work on the films visual effects.

This Film also represents the last time that Majel Barrett Roddenberry played the voice of the Enterprise Computer.  She died shortly after she had finished her work on the film.

J.J. Abrams' 2009 feature film was billed as "not your father'sStar Trek," but your father will probably love it anyway. And what's not to love? It has enough action, emotional impact, humor, and sheer fun for any moviegoer, and Trekkers will enjoy plenty of insider references and a cast that seems ideally suited to portray the characters we know they'll become later. Both a ...
view wiki

Details

Director: J.J. Abrams
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi
Release Date: May 8th 2009
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Screen Writer: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman
DVD Release Date: Unknown
Runtime: 126 minutes
Studio: Paramount Pictures, Bad Robot
Polls with this movie
Star Trek Poster

Best Star Trek Movies

by

© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
Where No Website Has Gone Before is part of the Lunch.com Network - Get this on your site
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists