Clevercell Very disappointing...

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

shirleyfuller Star Trek is an unnecessary reboot in my opinion. JJ Abrabs is a talented filmmaker and it is easy to see his enthusiasm (he is almost like a fanboy giddily recreating all his favorite childhood movies) and rigor but the reboot and especially the cast will always suffer from comparison with the original TV series. Furthermore, although the film is interesting and gets everything sorted- in as much as one can in less than 2 hours- there is a rushed feeling to the proceedings. The special effects are good but we've seen it all by now, the razzle and dazzle only goes so far. The Star trek reboot isn't a bad film as much as an unneeded one.

carlmyers-80296 JJ Abrabs has done a great job of rebooting a franchise which is so sacred to science fiction fans that when they announced the decision of a reboot it was considered heresy by longtime fanboys. All the new actors adapt themselves to iconic roles and the special effects are low key but fantastic. Of course, the main question is- will new fans like it, or even understand the lore? Yes, they will. (Great sequences and fine acting make this a total winner).

Prismark10 JJ Abrams and his creative team with added lens flare have rebooted the Star Trek films and gone off to another timeline.This preserves the stories of the earlier Star Trek adventures and its sequel shows but allows Abrams to concentrate on new stories a younger crew of the Enterprise. That was the plan with Star Trek. Unfortunately it all went awry immediately with the sequels.However here we see the adventures of the younger James T Kirk, a rather wayward young man encountering Spock, Sulu, Scott and Bones as well as other crew members.The writers have created conflict between Kirk and Spock as the Vulcan is unhappy with Kirk's breach of ethics and later after Spock's planet his destroyed, Kirk's inability to follow orders as Spock kicks him off the Enterprise which leads Kirk to meet the older, alternative Spock.The plot is a renegade Romulan attacking Federation ships, who might be from another time and his anger is focussed on Spock. It is an action oriented film, with fun and humour.The best acting performance is from Karl Urban who just oozes the spirit of Doctor McCoy, very few thought that Urban had it in him to deliver such a marvellous performance.

WeeClaude Good grief, is this silly action movie really the highest-rated Star Trek film on IMDb? Higher than Wrath of Khan, First Contact, and the amusing whale one from the 80s? How revolting!Star Trek 2009 is one of those films that demands absolutely nothing of its audience. It's all pretty people, explosions, and pretty people causing explosions. What little plot there is, is surprisingly nerdy - did they really need to include two timelines and two Spocks? And I suppose it would be churlish to point out that the storyline is recycled from the previous, much-loathed Star Trek film, Nemesis (a Romulan guy in a big spaceship heads toward Earth to blow it up).For years, I had to listen to people talk about what a wonderful reboot this is, and isn't it great that Star Trek is finally cool and popular and mainstream, blah blah. Well, now that Star Trek: Into Darkness was a box office disappointment, and Star Trek: Beyond was a miserable box office failure, is it okay to look back at this 2009 scrapheap and admit that maybe it *wasn't* so great? I think the sequels were box office disappointments, because nobody really cared about these characters and their stories. They were amused by this shallow reboot only for the duration of one movie! Eat your popcorn, go home, and forget the whole thing happened, right? Pretty feeble compared to the massive pop-culture impact of classic Trek.I know what this film's defenders will say - this is still the most financially successful version of Star Trek ever made. To which I would reply, "only sort of." The economics of blockbuster films have changed since the 1980s. Back in the day, Wrath of Khan could be considered a big success when it cost 11 million bucks and made $97 million (unadjusted for inflation, of course). Khan's 9x return on investment made it far more profitable than, say, this movie or Star Trek Beyond, which lost money! Also, the first four Trek films were all among the top 10 movies of their respective years at the U.S. box office. You can't say the same for the reboot Treks, which underperform compared to rival blockbuster franchises.Indeed, Star Trek remains - and always will be - less popular than other major film franchises. That's because it's nerdy and brainy, and that's a good thing! We need nerdy Star Trek as an antidote to all the stupid entertainment out there.Which is why this film's dumbing down of Trek is unacceptable. And, considering how much they dumbed it down, this new series has been remarkably unsuccessful. Shatner and Nimoy would never have lost the box-office battle to Ant-Man, Doctor Strange and King Kong! If you're going to go dumb, at least have the dignity to make $750,000,000 and guarantee a sequel...