I´m a decade long Star Trek fan and I promised myself never to watch this. I kept that promise for eight years and then someone got me the BluRays as a gift. So I break my promise.
I can understand why so many old Star Trek fans hate this and why a lot of people who never saw Trek love it. It has all the incredients of a modern blockbuster and if you have no previous knowledge of the Trek mythology you´ll be fine. But here is the thing - they could have done all of this without alienating the loyal Trek fan and, in my opinion, would have come up with a better movie.
[spoiler] Now I understand a Star Trek movie has to apeal to a broader audience. I even understand, althought not liking it, the reasons behind the alternate timeline plot. Continuity is a b***h. I must say after seeing the movie I even can see some appeal in the new timeline. What I don´t understand, and don´t like is the way the characters are treated. There are some scenes in the movie that I´m sure Trek fans wanted to see for a long time f.e. Kirk cheating the Kobayashi Maru. This should have been a gift to the fanbase. What did they do ? They make a mockery out of it. We see Kirk eating and apple and behaving like a pre-schooler. Alltogether there is too much of the stupid sort of humor going on. And of course today every movie needs a romance so we take the most logical choice - Spock. Of all characters. Brilliant idea.
The science in the movie is crap. Star Trek allways prided itself on getting the science right. It really isn´t nessessary to put that much stupid stuff in any movie. [/spoiler]
As for the technical part: I will only say lens flare. That was the most nerving thing in the whole movie. This has nothing to do with making it look more real. The CGI thought looked really good. The design is inconsistent. You have that modern looking bridge with all those screens and stuff and an engine room with boilers, tubing and water cooling (?!).
I could write probably another 1000 words or so but I guess I made my point. I know it´s the Trek fan speaking inside but I really could have liked this movie a lot more. Come to think of it, the whole movie reminds me a lot of fan-made Trek movies and episodes I´ve seen. It´s the vision of what a certain Star Trek fan thinks it should be. Unfortunately the fan who made this was 12 years old.
Since I now own the set I will go on and watch the sequels hoping to see improvement. Please note this is only my personal opionion. Star Trek was always about tolerance - if you liked the movie that´s fine with me. I know a lot of people did which lead to more and ultimately even a new TV series. And that alone might be worth it.

It seems this movie is either loved or hated. Those who hate it are concerned with its violation of the "prime directive" and canon established in the original series. J.J. Abrams delivers instead an action film filled with phaser fire and photon torpedoes. I am not a huge fan of the original series or any of its various incarnations and I have to snicker at those who rail against this movie because of the warring and violent confrontations throughout its runtime. The original Kirk and crew were always fighting with a variety of nasty aliens albeit it on a much smaller scale. While I generally prefer "smart" Sci-Fi over "Star Wars" clones Abrams' "Star Trek" is an exception I'll make. Ignoring that it probably doesn't follow the original series timelines and overall canon really isn't going to be a big deal for most viewers. There are some truly illogical (thanks Spock) things about this movie. Why doesn't Nero travel through time to save Romulus instead of going just far enough back to destroy other planets in a vengeful fit? If the supernova that consumes Romulus were actually destroyed by a Spock-induced red matter black hole doesn't Romulus die anyway without its sun? There are many more moments that made me scratch my head. Also what was the point of the juvenile Kirk driving a vintage Corvette off a cliff to the strains of "Sabotage"? It's an obvious attempt to pump the young viewers with an adrenaline rush. It's a clichéd technique used in way too many of today's movies. I can however handle that Kirk bumps into old Spock on the ice planet. It was close to Vulcan which is where the Enterprise was. Old Spock could have remembered the location on the planet where Young Spock had banished Kirk and positioned himself in a logical location to meet him. There is an incredible number of things to love about this movie. The casting choices were terrific overall and the actors chosen do a great job in channeling the original characters. Specifically Chris Pine Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban as Kirk Spock and McCoy. The visuals were stunning and especially appreciated were the shots of a nimbler Enterprise maneuvering through space junk and when it settles near a beautiful Saturn. I could have used a few more awe-inspiring shots and a little less "shock and awe" come to think of it. Personally I am almost always pleased with J.J. Abrams' films and TV efforts and the new "Star Trek" did not disappoint. In fact it did quite the opposite. It breathed new life into a tired old franchise that had been stuck in syndication hell. For this rescue I think all Trek fans could be a little grateful.

[8.4/10] The 2009 *Star Trek* movie lacks the contemplative bent of the franchise that spawned it. There are few, if any, real moral or philosophical dilemmas at play. Those who enjoy this universe and the stories told within it for their aspirational, thoughtful bent will and did walk away disappointed by what is more in the vein of high-flying blockbuster entertainment.

And yet, that’s often the first thing to be jettisoned in *Star Trek*’s jaunts on the big screen. Trekkies who can set that aside and embrace the blockbuster mode of the franchise that’s been in force (more or less) since 1982 when Trek meets cinema will discover one of the series’s most exciting, invigorating, and impressive silver screen outings. Somehow, J.J. Abrams’s star-bound coming out party manages to deliver thrilling set piece after thrilling set piece, establish new versions of a familiar crew, and most of all, deliver on character.

That’s Abrams strength as a filmmaker and storyteller. Much has rightfully been made over his inability to end things. But much of that stems from a focus on establishing character over story. He’s more apt to try to endear the audience to the players he puts on the screen than to move them in one coherent direction or another. Good endings require satisfying narrative resolutions. Good beginnings, on the other hand, require characters you can root for and, more than anything, that you want to keep spending time with. Abrams’s filmography, and this movie in particular, delivers on that in spades.

It achieves that feat not only with tremendous casting and smart scene-to-scene script-writing, but by crafting compelling arcs for its major leads. Kirk and Spock, as they did in the old days, get the lion’s share of the story here, but *Star Trek ‘09* puts that focus to good use.

For Spock, that means telling a story of the venerated Vulcan reconciling his human emotions with his culture-bound stoicism. The fulcrum of his arc is his mother, Amanda, with his attachment to her summoning a sentimental, sometimes angry side that he cannot suppress despite all his discipline. That attachment spurs him, away from the Vulcan Science Academy, into scraps with his fellow Vulcan pupils and with Kirk, and eventually toward risking his life to avenge his mother and save his people. His journey here is one of embracing that part of who he is and acknowledging it as a strength not a weakness, through the mother he so loves.

But Kirk doesn’t have mommy issues; he has daddy issues! What’s striking about his arc in *Star Trek ‘09* is that it’s basically the inverse of his arc in *Wrath of Khan*. While the 1982 classic was about loss finally catching up with the good captain, after he evades it for so long despite his long history of risk-taking, the 2009 reboot is about a Kirk who was born into loss. His path in this film is to embrace that “I don’t accept no win scenarios” side of his personality, and use it to counteract the staid, dogmatic vibe in order to save the day.

Those arcs are simple and straightforward enough, but also incredibly effective. This Kirk is not just another lovable rogue, but someone haunted by his father’s death and legacy, trying to live up to both. This Spock has the layers of emotion beneath a stoic exterior in the proud tradition Leonard Nimoy established, making the cracks in the facade all the more impactful. It’s elemental character work that resonates, especially when brought to life by such sterling performers.

That is, arguably, the greatest feature of *Star Trek ‘09*. Whatever else you can say about plotting or continuity, Abrams and company find a nigh-perfect set of inheritors to the original cast and give each of them moments to shine.

Chris Pine doesn’t start Shatnering even for a second, but captures the soul of Kirk for a new era. Zachary Quinto could be forgiven for doing a Nimoy impersonation, particularly with the man himself on set, but instead he channels the spirit of the original Spock while putting his own spin on it. Zoe Saldana’s Uhurua is confident and commanding but sensitive. Karl Urban’s Dr. McCoy is the closest to a straight up impression, but absolutely gets Bones’s irascible charm. John Cho and Anton Yelchin bring low-key humor and sweet earnestness to Sulu and Chekov. And Simon Pegg’s Scotty is feisty and rough and round the edges in a truly endearing way. The new cast was always going to be the hardest part of a reboot, but Abrams and casting directors April Webster and Alyssa Weisberg absolutely nail it.

Better yet, they give the rest of the cast something to do. The Trek movies, like the 1966 series, put most of the focus on Kirk and Spock and, to a lesser extent McCoy, leaving everyone else fighting for scraps. *Star Trek ‘09* remedies this, with cool moments in the spotlight for Sulu’s swordplay, Chekov’s system-taming abilities, and Scott’s transporter wizardry, among other fun character beats for each. Uhura gets the biggest upgrade, not only being treated like an expert officer, but acting as a foil, in different ways, to both Kirk and Spock.

The movie also manages to evoke stellar performances in big parts and small parts from the rest of the cast. Jennifer Morrison earns the tragedy of the film’s explosive opening with a small amount of screen time. Leonard Nimoy returns to the role he made famous with impressive ease and gravitas. Bruce Greenwood in particular finds the balance between encouraging father figure and consummate officer that lives up to the legacy of Captain Pike. Aside from a serviceable but unmemorable villain turn from Eric Bana, Abrams gets the best of everyone he puts on the screen.

And he puts a lot on the screen! Make no mistake, this may very well be the best *Star Trek* has ever looked on the big screen. Yes, there’s rampant lens flair and some odd dutch angles at play. But there’s also incredibly slick direction and production design. The film’s creative team does a stellar job of reimagining the old 1960s aesthetic for modern times, with sharp uniforms and futuristic-looking ship interiors that still call to mind the spirit of the old ones. Abrams includes plenty of glory shots of the crew in their new digs and the Enterprise itself looking spiffy and ready to go, with passes that call to mind *The Motion Picture*.

*Star Trek ‘09* is also filled to the brim with rousing action sequences. The Kelvin explodes in a suicide run. Young Kirk races the cops over a canyon while the Beastie Boys blare. There’s skydiving runs that lead to fist flights and clashes of swords, races against elaborate plumbing systems, and the inevitable leaps and jabs that come from encounters with the bad guys. Whether it’s ship-to-ship combat or human-to-vulcan scraps, Abrams and director of photography Dan Mindel deliver heart-pumping set pieces with relish and vigor. There’s a frantic pace to the movie that keeps the film light and nimble, borne out in these well-staged, well-edited, well-crafted visuals.

But what of the plot, you ask? In terms of the basics, it’s nothing special. Familiar but villainous aliens resnet the Federation and a group of not-quite-ready cadets have to spring into action to stop them. It’s not the first time the *Star Trek* franchise has deployed those tropes. But *Star Trek ‘09* gives them a little extra oomph, not only due to the time travel shenanigans that are also practically intrinsic to Trek, but also for the sense that arch baddie Nero is trying to avenge the destruction of Romulus and make Spock in particular feel his pain. It’s not much, but it adds an emotional contingent to the usual doom and destruction threat that gives it a bit more life.

The brilliant turn, though, comes from that time travel premise that manages to both connect *Star Trek ‘09* to the prior adventures of Kirk and company, while also giving this new setup the leeway to explore without having to be slavish to continuity. Spock’s speech to that effect gilds the lily a little bit, but making Nero a timeline disruptor who ends up bringing prime Spock with him accomplishes so much.

First, it’s the sort of high concept, timeline-hopping craziness that some of the most enjoyable Trek stories are built around. Second, it frees Abrams and his team up from the strictures of 40+ years of continuity and expectations of the future. Third, it builds a bridge between the new cast and the old, with Nimoy/Spock all but blessing the new faces without erasing the old stories. And last but not least, it honors the old Trek, while giving these characters new challenges both personal and professional to conquer.

It’s a wonderfully clever solution to the soft reboot problem. Whatever later stumbles Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman may be responsible for, their script here gives fans enough of a mix of the fresh and the familiar to soar, with enough of an excuse for changes and homages in turn.

Those homages, mind you, are utterly delightful for the longtime Trekkie. There’s expected bits like Spock saying “Live long and prosper” while giving the Vulcan salute and other famous quips, but these typically come with enough of a twist or wry line that makes them more than just a soulless conjuring of something the audience already knows and likes. But there’s also nice little tributes to less-loved entries in the canon, from Star Trek: Enterprise to The Animated Series, with subtler callbacks like Kirk chowing down on an apple. While the movie throws off the shackles of rigorous continuity, Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman clearly reveled in honoring the stories that made this one possible.

It’s the same approach Abrams would take to revitalizing the *Star Wars* franchise less than a decade later, one founded on lovable characters, rollicking adventures, and reverence for what came before with enough new twists on it to make the old feel new again. It is, frankly, strange returning to his first, 2009 effort at a star-centered film in the shadow of all that’s happened since.

The “NuTrek” era of films this movie was meant to kick off never matched the acclaim or box office success of this opening salvo, despite reuniting the same team. Orci would pen other genre tales that mostly disappointed audiences. Kurtzman would go on to shepherd Star Trek into its third major T.V. epoch, polarizing fans in the process. Abrams would resurrect another moribund interstellar franchise, only to cement a reputation as an imitator and, eventually as a ruiner, when he tried to wrap it up. If you saw this movie in 2009 and were told these three men shepherded some of the biggest genre properties imaginable, you’d expect far greater things than the mixed results they’ve produced over the ensuing decades.

Still, what grabs you when returning to *Star Trek ‘09* is how the film plays to Abrams’s considerable strengths as a filmmaker. No, the story does not have the high-minded perspective or scientific rigor of (some) of the franchise’s prior movies and T.V. shows. But he does have the visual chops to convey the grandeur, excitement, and scope of Trek, carrying the audience’s attention and investment through from the first big set piece to the warm, final send off.

More than that, though, he knows what franchise luminaries like Gene Roddenbury, Gene Coon, and Nicholas Meyer knew when picking these same toys out of the toybox -- that what makes these stories come to life is the characters. It is no small thing to establish new versions of beloved icons. Despite that uphill climb, Abrams not only refreshes the roster with a murderer’s row of talented performers, but he roots these high-flying, phaser-blasting adventures in those characters’ journeys.

Chris Pine’s Kirk is a different person than William Shatner’s was, but he’s also a different person from the bar-fighting townie we meet early on to the responsibility- and risk-taking officer we see at the end. Zachary Quinto’s Spock is not the wizened ambassador whose spritely figure Leonard Nimoy still cuts, but he is a man, and a vulcan, better able to resolve those two parts of himself than when the movie begins.

And Abrams’s *Star Trek* is not the same as Roddenberry’s *Star Trek*, instead becoming something slicker and shinier and more bombastic, but it is still built around these men and women who make up the heart of this series and whose experiences engross and inspire us. Good beginnings depend on that sort of character. Whatever stumbles this version of Star Trek would have in the future, this movie and its commitment to developing those figures amid a rip roaring good time more than earned J.J., his crew, and his cast, their chance at a five-year mission.

**The following is a long form review that I originally wrote in 2013**

I did like _Star Trek_. I did not, however, appear to like it as much as the rest of the whole damn planet.

I appreciate the decent helping of Australian actors in the mix (like personal favourite Chris Hemsworth, above). I can get behind the colourful and impressive special effects spectacle. Most of all I dig the reboot angle they pulled. The whole time travel/tangent universe thing is the perfect breeding of remaining true to the original, while still not constricting themselves to the old canon. Fantastic idea.

But I didn’t love it. I’m a big fan of origin stories, but I personally feel that _Star Trek_ never really breached past that point. The first half was brilliant, getting to know the characters, the world, the ideals, everything. But in the latter half it seems they just sort of went “Well, we spent a bunch of time doing stuff good, but now we don’t have enough time left to make an actual movie out of this… Oh well, just chuck an hour of lasers in there and we’ll worry about that next film!” which just isn’t good enough. When _Into Darkness_ comes out later this year, the format will probably pay off, but looking at the merits of Star Trek alone, I think it fell short.

Simon Pegg (_Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead_) as the new Scotty and Zachary Quinto (_American Horror Story, Heroes_) as the new Spock were both solid choices, but other casting decisions like Winona Ryder (_Black Swan, Alien: Resurrection_) as Spock’s mother were an off-shot in the worst possible way.

I suppose though, in science fiction, it’s often safety first and little steps. As a member of what is probably the most frowned upon of the genres, I wish this Star Trek reboot all the best in its inevitable future, and it seems it will make good use of it. But for now, the solo film itself didn’t reach as far as I felt it could have with a little harder work towards the end.

62%

_-Gimly_

A franchise re-energised-big time!

It's not an understatement to say that the news of a new Star Trek movie was met in equal measure by suspicion and pretty low expectations. Step forward J.J. Abrams to direct it, and many wondered while the guy behind TV series "Lost" and "Mission Impossible III" would want to dabble on hallowed sci-fi turf?. Things were further eyebrow raising when Abrams openly admitted to not having been a fan of the original show so cherished by a legion of Trekkies. Then news came of the film being a prequel, based around the Starfleet Academy and the coming together of what we know as the U.S.S. Enterprise crew. "Ooh that will be a tough one to carry off" said many, "Kirk & Spock as young spunkers - surely not" they said. Well not only did Abrams pull it off as it were, he simultaneously appeased most Trekkies whilst garnering a whole new generation of sci-fi observers. Budgeted at $140,000,000, Abrams Star Trek went on to gross Worldwide $384,953,778. Figures that, even allowing for the huge fan-base that the franchise has, show that many first timers not only went to see it - but also that they enjoyed it so much they went back for second helpings. I know I did.

The success of the film isn't hard to fathom, because although Abrams upped the action quota (with a number of breath taking and eye appealing sequences) he also dispensed with much of the sci-fi psycho babble that has blighted some of the previous filmic instalments in this most up and down of franchise's. Sure there's stuff in there for the discerning fan, with a time travelling revenge plot at its axis, how could there not be?, But Abrams and his writers (Roberto Orci /Alex Kurtzman) keep it simple, savvy and sexy. They smartly link to Trek lore with a crucial plot and character development featuring the Kobayashi Maru, while pain, emotional conflict and personal crisis all feature heavily. This is, one can "logically" say, a spiky post 9/11 Trek movie. There's even room for a romantic strand, a strand that is tender and fits the whole make-up of the piece perfectly. All of which only works because the cast are, in the main, producing great work.

Getting Leonard Nimoy to appear in a small, but crucial role, is nothing short of being a master-stroke. His presence keeps the all important essence of Star Trek within what is ultimately a reboot. It's like a father figure watching over proceedings, making not only the cast feel safe, but also us the viewers. The youngsters in the cast are impressive, Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock) and Zoe Saldaña (Uhura) lead from the fresh faced front. While Karl Urban (Bones McCoy) and Simon Pegg (Scotty) impact with comic relief that aids instead of hinders the plot developments. Villain duties falls to Eric Bana as Romulan Captain Nero, he's a touch miffed is Nero, and Bana brings the character's vengeful pain vividly to life. While Bruce Greenwood as Captain Christopher Pike adds a touch of class that he almost always seems to do.

This U.S.S. Enterprise has launched itself in another direction, and yes, it's boldly going where no-one has boldly gone before. It is, all told, a bona fide blockbuster with brains and balls. The like of which has sadly been missing from many a modern era summer release. Yes it's not all perfect, the odd scene could quite easily have been jettisoned, and some accents need a bit of fine tuning, but they are very minor complaints. A triumph from Abrams and his team - note the Stardate in the ships log, for this is a noteworthy moment in modern sci-fi cinema. Now comes perhaps a bigger challenge, the notoriously difficult second film... 10/10