It's interesting to see the early mainstream reviews on this movie. I notice that Roger Ebert liked it a bit less than JB, although it's fair to say they're both in the same ball park. But many of the other mainstream reviews (at least what I see on MRQE on Thursday, right before the movie opens) seem to be more positive than I'd expect for a Star Trek movie. One common remark is that JJ Abrams made this movie specifically for non-Trek fans. If this movie appeals beyond the normal fanbase, this could be a very impressive box office before it's done. Let's see what happens.

I caught Star Trek last night with a bunch of my friends, none of whom (including me) have ever seen an episode of Star Trek before, so we are definitely the non-Trek viewers that people have been saying J.J. Abrams is pitching towards.

I personally really enjoyed the movie, apart from Eric Bana's villain being majorly underdeveloped. However the response from the others I was with was quite mixed, none of them as enthusiastic as I was, but they still thought it was reasonable. So using that small sample of viewers as a gauge of Abrams' success at drawing new viewers I would say he has been reasonably successful at catering to Trek 'virgins'.

Oh just like to add, anybody who has never seen Star Trek before and is putting it off for the fact that it is Star Trek (I have friends doing just that), don't, it's an enjoyable movie! Try it at least

What did this franchise really need to bring it back from the dead? James Tyberius Kirk. Chris Pine fully inhabits the role in a way that is simultaneously predictable and surprising. He picks out the best parts of Shatner's take on the role, and chucks the bad. This is not a performance that will be parodied. Pine creates the cocky persona of Kirk perfectly. It may be blasphemy to say so, but I submit that Pine tops Shatner in the role, although there is limited evidence to back up that claim thus far.

The characters are so much fun to watch, it's almost easy to forget about the plot. It's not a huge loss if you do. Bana's villain, Nero, along with the time travel plot that drives the movie, are really no better than the villains or plots of any of the other recent Trek movies, including the much-derided Nemesis.

It's very clear that this film is meant to function as a stand-alone action movie, and as that it is a rousing success. This film captures the adventure and excitement of the original Star Wars, with Pine's Kirk giving it a Han Solo-like edge. I may be committing more blasphemy by comparing the two major sci-fi franchises in a favorable way, but the comparison works. Now, if only J.J. Abrams can aid that comparison by following this movie up with at least two more that are just as good.

Full Review

Great film, but I thought "Trek" didn't HAVE alternate timelines, that if something was changed, it was changed in the very universe we've been watching. "City on the Edge of Forever," "Yesterday's Enterprise", and numerous other examples demonstrated this. So, who knows, maybe they did change the basic "Trek" universe after all. I guess we'll have to wait for the next series set in the 24th century... if a certain famed planet is still there, then Pine, Quinto, and Urban are indeed operating in some parallel timeline that didn't affect the timeline we're used to seeing. Oh, and the relentless pace, quick cutting, etc. that characterized this "Trek"? I feel the same way as I did for "Quantum of Solace": It's perfectly fun to take that approach for one film, but next time let's get back to the measured pacing and stylistic flourishes we all know and love.

I'll give it 7/10.

I thought for the most part it was a good entertaining film but it felt like watching Star Trek The Motion Picture for the first time. It didn't feel quite 'right' somehow. Quinto was well cast as Spock, but it felt like watching an extended version of Amok Time, and the line that Sarek came out with about loving Amanda.. Sorry, but that's illogical and extremely un-Vulcan. The subplot with Spock getting it on with Uhura also felt trite and forced. If it had been Nurse Chapel as in TOS, it would have felt a lot more natural, considering what was established.

Chris Pine as Kirk. He was fine, but is no William Shatner. Maybe he needs to grow into the role more, but I enjoyed his performance, but The Shat will always be the definitive Kirk.

Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban and Simon Pegg were excellent, but Anton Yelchin and John Cho had very little to do. Eric Bana had good presence but Nero was a very one dimensional and 'seen it all before' type bad guy.

Lots of little references which raised a smile. Kolinahr, the Ceti Eels (although I thought that bit was too blatantly a lift from Wrath).

Leonard Nimoy stole the whole film. A real pleasure to watch. I can understand why Shatner was not in it; if he had been, it would have been the original Kirk and Spock show and everyone would have had to ride their coat tails.

All in all a good film, but things need tightening up next time around.

I kind of took this as all part of it being a reboot.
They're establishing an alternate timeline in that these characters are played by different actors, in addition to the fact that events are different, planets have been destroyed, etc. It is all part of the same thing.
A new series will be capitalizing on the (hopeful) success of the movie and thus will take place in this new Trek universe.

I just got back from seeing the film. I’m not egotistical enough to think anyone cares at this point, but I’m enthused and want to share my general impression.

James’ review hits the nail on the head. There are two weak points to Star Trek: the time travel is a clunky plot device and the villain is disappointing. The script isn’t thoughtful enough to work out the consequences of time travel, and I’m sure the science behind the film is a total nightmare. More seriously, Eric Bana lacks presence here, and anyhow the script doesn’t really provide him with anything interesting to work with. It goes without saying that Nero is no Khan.

There’s also no moral or philosophic dilemma underpinning this Trek, and in a certain sense, this movie feels like it’s wandered off very far from Gene Roddenberry’s original vision. Personally I accounted this due to time constraints inherent within origin stories, but I understand that it may upset hardcore fans.

Everything else works. Pine makes Kirk very easy to root for. He’s enough like Shatner to be comfortable while different enough to put his own spin on the character. I think everyone else acquits themselves well, and the script is very handy when it comes to reintroducing these characters to audiences—although I wish Uhura was given more to do than just look pretty. Of the new actors, I think Karl Urban did the best job when it came to reviving the spirit of the character he played. Significantly, the interaction between Kirk, Spock, and Bones felt right and I'd even argue familiar. The presence of Leonard Nimoy is very welcome; I’m not sure the transition between the two series would have worked had he not been there.

It’s really true that although everyone can enjoy this film, there's a slew of tips of the hat that will only be noticed by fans. These range from shared phrases, plot devices, to the very mannerisms of the actors playing their roles. But this film can be enjoyed by both long time fans and a general audience.

Overall, I enjoyed Star Trek and I’m looking forward to the inevitable sequels. This new Trek is full of possibilities.

This is hyperbole, right?

Chris Pine is fine as Kirk, but we've seen him for all of about 90 minutes. Shatner has played the character for 75-odd hours (give or take, and not counting the animated voice work). To even allude to Pine "topping" Shatner at this stage is ludicrous.

Yes, there are times when Shatner's performance verged on self-parody, especially during the darker moments of season 3, but sit and watch his better episodes, then his work in THE WRATH OF KHAN and THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, and tell me if you still think Pine "tops" him.

I watched this movie about 7 hours ago. McCoy character was spot-on. That's probably about the only good thing for me as a fanatic of Star Trek. God do I miss Shatner in this movie. I didn't see Kirk in this new guy, he feels more like a young Picard if you asked me. If I weren't a trekkie, I'd probably like this movie. But I feel that this movie "reboots" the whole Star Trek universe too much. Basically the movie tells me that everything in the past is no longer true because there is now an alternate reality due to the effects of time travel. Uhura and Spock??? Please.

It was a wonderful movie, I thought. Nicely cast and it works well an introduction, for sure.

Concerning the Pine/Shatner thing - Shatner is Kirk, Pine will always be the second actor to inhibit the role. He can, of course, define it in a new way, but Shatner will always be Kirk.

I saw Star Trek last night and loved it. All the acting was great, especially Urban as McCoy (who NAILED the character), Quinto as Spock, and Pine as Kirk. I liked the TV show too but have only seen II, IV, and Generations, so it was a pleasant surprise for me. It was a character-driven movie and although the villain was weak, Nimoy's presence made up for it IMO.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars on my end.

It's a bit of hyperbole, yes, based on my excitement after seeing the film. Obviously Pine has a long way to go before anyone thinks of Kirk as Chris Pine before William Shatner.

But I did truly love Pine's performance. He was fun to watch every moment he was on screen. I thought he preserved the best parts of Shatner's take on the role--his attitude for sure, and even a little of his cadence at times. The thing that caused me to think that he might be better than Shatner is that Pine manages to keep it grounded, while Shatner sometimes felt a bit over-the-top. Pine's performance, despite maintaining the same cockiness as Shatner's, was more realistic than much of Shatner's work as Kirk.

However, I admit that there is little to go on at this point. Give Pine the same challenges as Shatner and we'll see what he does with them (I truly hope that we get to see a lot more of him in a lot more situations in the years to come).

Just came back from it myself, and I have to put some things down in writing befor I forget them , or before I go see it again, I guess...

Really terrific, from an Old Guardian. The plot holes are severe, but I ended up not caring about that so much. The time travel issue is substantial, but in the end I guess it is fiction, so the liberties, or should I say, the "mistakes" with the "real" story are relatively acceptable.

Story vs. Origin

If memory servers, Spock was the only officier to actually serve on the ship with Captain Pike.

I dont ever remember a subtext of Uhuru and Spock getting together besides that one episode where he is "forced" to kiss her.

Honestly, for my money, the guy playing McKoy was almost oscar-worthy, if he didn't completely fade away 2/3s through, and Simon Pegg was really tremendous. They truly all nailed the characters. Do casting directors win oscars, cause the job he/she did was extra-ordinary.

The bug From Kahn that was put in Captain Pikes mouth. Once they put it in him, that whole entire plot point vanished. Captain Pike is SEVERLY disabled in the one episode from TOS he is actually in, and other than the wheelchair at the end, there is nothing to suggest this.

Uhuru, other than looking amazingly like Jada Pinket Smith, was wonderful.

Hey, wasn't Spock giving Scottie the formula for trans-warp beaming a nod to Star Trek IV, when Scotty gave the formula for the watertank material to that fat guy?

I was kind of annoyed by the lack of laughter in the audiance. Anyone familiar with TOS should have been LOL at several points throughout. Eventually, I didnt care that I was the only one laughing in this packed theater (my wife cared) and when Scotty yelled out his classic line "I canna guarantee it, Captain", or somethign to that effect, I almosty pee'd my pants laughing.

The pacing issues are correct, though I am wondering if that is JJ's issue or the studio's wanting it out as a 2009 pre-summer blockbuster.

Overall, I think you have to hand it to JJ Abrahms a little, he really did a fantastic job overall. The script, and the ridiculous Romulan ship, could have used more work, but I hope there is more to come, and it is perfectly setup that way.

Just saw it.

The vibe I was getting from the reviews was: Chris Pine is amazing, Sylar is good, Karl Urban is doing an imitation of DeForest Kelley. My impression: Karl Urban was perfect, Sylar was somehow more perfect, Chris Pine was a god damn miracle. I suppose if you knew nothing about Star Trek, the character Pine is asked to play--cocky, arrogant genius--seems pretty easy. But considering the history of that role it was much more difficult, and he knocked it out of the park.

Also, "I have been and always shall be your friend." Holy shit. Thank you, J. J. Abrams.

I just saw Star Trek last night, and although I enjoyed it overall, my reaction is a bit on the lukewarm side compared to all the positive buzz the film has been getting.

I think James Berardinell's review summarizes the pluses and minuses of Star Trek quite well in his review. As to his comment that star trek has a lot of "breadth but a lot of depth", This has always been a worry of mine with J.J. Abrams directing the film. I seem to be in the minority not being a J.J. Abrams fan. Even in television, J.J Abrams offers very little substance. (LOST is the most overrated TV show that has ever aired in my opinion)

I honestly don't think J.J Abrams has much of a clue on how to pace a film. I think Star Trek suffers the same pacing problems that M.I 3 did... In many ways i think Star Trek is "M.I 3 in space" though Star Trek at least has (surprisingly) a better script.


So I'll run the risk of getting flamed... I'm not overly impressed with J.J Abrams' *USE* of special effects of Star Trek. Sure, from a technical level the CG looks great, (thanks to ILM) but J.J. Abrams is no George Lucas, Peter Jackson, or Steven Spielberg when it comes to using Special F/X as a paintbrush to tell a story.

I just saw Star Trek yesterday and I was pleasantly surprised, after having been sceptical of the prequel concept. It's a good "popcorn movie": funny and a lot of action. The atmosphere in the cinema was great as well.

I was amazed about the quality of the acting. Particularly Chris Pine was impressive. He didn't channel William Shatner, but the cockiness and swagger of the TV series Kirk was spot on.

Two observation:
This is, in comic book terms, an origin story, which also means that the focus isn't so much on the threat. I'm looking forward to a next Star Trek film, which doesn't need to spend time introducing the characters.
Also in comic book terms, Star Trek isn't just a prequel, it is a retcon, which makes me wonder how diehard fans will react to the fact, that a lot of continuity has been thrown out of the window. In my opinion, this is the only way Star Trek could have gone somewhere (where no man has gone before).

Other than that: Excellent review by JB!

I watched it last weekend; to put it short: It's good, but hardly that good as some reviews make it seem.
Definitely congratulations to the casting department, since casting seemed to be top notch.

The plot isn't that good though.


From the technical standpoint, the visual effects were good but not exceptional (Did the scene where Kirk watches a spaceship being built scream 2D matte painting to anyone of you too? I thought it might just be a problem I had with incomplete CGI in the trailer, but I had the same feeling in the movie.), sound effects mostly well done, especially some of the quiet parts in space (might be the influence of Ben Burtt, but I could be wrong). But my biggest problem was the extreme use of hand cameras and especially lense flares.
Nothing against lense flares, but when every second scene is half drenched in light that it's hard to make out any details then it's definitely too much! Also what's up with all those shaky closeups? Is the use of masters or steadycams uncool these days?

Overall I had an entertaining evening, but it could have been better with a more interesting story and more traditional camera work.

Agree on the plot, totally disagree on everything else.
I thought the CGI was nearly flawless. The shot with the ship being built was gorgeous.
I loved the constant movement of the camera, whether it be tracking shots or a minor shake of the camera--it gave the whole thing a sense of energy and excitement.
The lens flares made everything seem shiny and cool. They were maybe a bit overdone at times, but I thought it gave the movie a real visual identity, esp. on the Enterprise where it emphasized the sleekness of the new ship.

I didn't go into Star Trek expecting a university science lecture, I went to be entertained, and boy, was I entertained. I feel sorry for people who cannot enjoy a movie as a piece of pure escapism, and have to just break it down. Who honestly expects the science in Star Trek to be 'real'? At least they didn't use that favorite Star Trek 'deus ex machina' of inventing a completely new radiation (tachyon, theylaron etc)to get out of a plot hole. I can handle the use of a singularity as a temporal time travel device. Its no different than the use of:

An intelligent Voyager probe (ST : MP)
A human sized device that can create life and A WHOLE PLANETARY MASS! (ST II)
Warping around a sun for time travel (ST IV)
A Destructive Heaven moving through the stars (ST : Generations)
Super Warp to Imaginary Space (TNG : Where no one has gone before)
Altered Reality..but Guinan knows...(TNG : Yesterdays Enterprise)
Where time becomes a loop...what? (TNG : Cause and effect)

And many others. Not including, Transwarp Gates, Cosmic Strings, Stable Wormholes, Q contiuums, Null Space, Fluid Space, Subspace, Temporal Anomalies and Theyleron radiation. There is no SCIENCE to Star Trek, just fiction wrapped up with the illusion of science. The difference with Star Wars is that they don't try to explain the tech. They just have it. So if 'Red Matter' can create a 'black hole like' singularity that doubles up as a time travelling temporal rift, who are we to blast someones science FICTION.

No one has mentioned the time paradoxes in the film, such as, Nero destroying the planet, which created the Red Matter in the first place, with Red Matter. Or the many contrivances to get the crew together, but I don't care about that, because I absolutely loved the movie. In fact, I think I'll go see it again.

Please, folks, use the spoiler tags. Some of us have not yet had a chance to see this yet.