Star Trek

2009 "The future begins."
7.9| 2h7m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 07 May 2009 Released
Producted By: Paramount
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: https://www.paramountmovies.com/movies/star-trek-2009
Synopsis

The fate of the galaxy rests in the hands of bitter rivals. One, James Kirk, is a delinquent, thrill-seeking Iowa farm boy. The other, Spock, a Vulcan, was raised in a logic-based society that rejects all emotion. As fiery instinct clashes with calm reason, their unlikely but powerful partnership is the only thing capable of leading their crew through unimaginable danger, boldly going where no one has gone before. The human adventure has begun again.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Paramount

Trailers & Images

Reviews

pseudoimp JarJar Assbrams! Stop this!I have NO Idea what StarTrek is You have NO Idea, what Physiks ist and you have NO plan, what you can do in Space, and what NOT! Idiot!
cyrilbritts 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.
Grant Bullert "Star Trek" has nothing to boast about, but neither does it have anything to apologize for. It is a decent film and nothing more.-Analysis of Notable Work- *Writing/Directing: For those unfamiliar with the concept of Star Trek, this film can be a bit too much to handle. There is a lot to keep straight. Capturing the attention of people who do not love the world of Star Trek is not easy. Pleasing the fans of the Star Trek of old is even harder. The story is rather bland and a bit messy. Abram's directing style makes it even more difficult to watch. There seems to be a lack of professionalism in the storytelling. *Cinematography/Editing: The color palette and camera movements are relatively pleasing thanks to the work of Dan Mindel. However, Abrams' obsession with lens flares and canted angles take away from the otherwise effective cinematography. The editing is adequate. Nothing jarring or overly ambitious. The action sequences are easy to follow and feel well timed. *Dialogue/Acting: The dialogue has a certain nerdy quality to it that is to be expected in a sci-fi film. It does not ruin the film for casual viewers, but it doesn't make it easy, either. The acting of Chris Pine carries most of the film in order to help it stay afloat. Karl Urban's talents are wasted on a poorly realized character with little depth. Most other actors are average in their performances, but not exceptional. *Music/Sound Design: The score is repetitive and rather uninteresting. It does not heighten any emotions in any scene. The sound design is interesting and is one of the strengths of the film. It falls into the realm of sci-fi very well and provides an immersive soundscape. *Production Design/Special Effects: The set and locations are captivating and beautiful. Most of the film feels authentic and immersive. The wardrobe is less impressive. Much of the costume work feels uninspired. The special effects and visual effects are quite impressive, however. Nothing stands out as being fake or cheap looking.*Conclusion: "Star Trek" fails to impress in most instances, but it also keeps from being too disappointing.
dr-cheyno Skip to bottom for TLDRWhilst i didn't think this was a horrible movie, quite the contrary it was a good film, but a horrible "Star Trek" film.Just like in the hobbit, they have to introduce some idiotic/illogical love story. The Hobbit and LOTR lore basically elves and dwarves hated each other and would never, ever of fallen in love. Elves were beautiful beings, whilst the dwarves were not. In the Hobbit they decide to have about 4 Dwarves and the rest are basically small humans. Purely to fit this stupid love story.Same in Star Trek, Spock is more human and guess what? He has a girlfriend.. PLEASE!!! In the classic original Star Trek, Spock was basically incapable of having a girlfriend and was still learning his human emotions well into what would be considered his 50's. Imo they completely ruined his beautiful character and everything that made him Spock. Like most modern remakes, they do not make them for the fans. Knowing that the fans will automatically go to see these movies when they come out. They direct the movie at everyone else. Your mainstream society of movie goers that will watch any mindless dribble as long as it has CGI and a bit of stupid humor.I thought the actors done a fantastic job considering the script. It's not their fault most of the characters were ruined, they played their parts very well.I probably won't watch these movies again. But as i have said many times before. Rating this movie 1 star just says that you are beyond salty. Yes, it's a bad Star Trek film but as a movie it is still worth higher than 1 star. Again all i see is 1/10 or 10/10. People either love or hate movies there seems to be very few in between.TLDR Logically, i have given this a 6 due to it being a decent "Action" film. Whilst also being a horrible Star Trek film. 100% aimed at your common movie lovers that will watch anything with a bit of CGI, action, illogical love stories and stupid humor. This has become the trademark of modern remakes. They have proven to make more money as they are aimed at everyone rather than the fans that made the original movies/series a hit. Same with books. They ruin books by changing them into stupid movies purely ignoring the fact that without the original fans. It would never of made it to the big screen in the first place.