Star Trek

I was one of the few lucky fans who attended the Sydney premiere and my impression was "Wow!" The use of a well known Roddenberry plot device to reset the franchise was a brilliant idea and means the franchise can now move forward without the "FANS" shouting "canon!" The movie itself was brilliantly cast and performed with each actor being enough like the original to be believable in the role without the over the top acting that was part of TV when it all began in the 1960's.The special effects are top notch.

Its a film which you can take anyone who enjoys sci-fi to, not just someone who knows the last 40+ years of Trek.

So what level of fan am I? I own 3 costumes, attend conventions and appear in "Trekkies 2", and yet loved Enterprise because from the first episode I simply said its was in an alternate universe, its the same but different. I view this film in the same light, same but different.

There was no way that this reboot was going to avoid all references to either the original series of Star Trek or the other spin-off series - anyone going in to see this film had to accept that as a given. But any cheesy bits (of which there were relatively few) are blown away by the sheer beauty and bravado of this film.

I was a fairly big Trekkie in my youth, but in the last 10 years only really kept up with it by watching a few new episodes here and there and seeing the big screen outings (OK, I admit that I have all 10 films on special edition DVD - £47 was a bargain!) - but Abrams' vision here has me thinking the new franchise will be even better than what has come before.

What made this film special for me was not the story (remarkably good, bearing in mind that, like the first film in any new franchise, it's backbone was character development). What made this film for me was the....photography? Can you even call CGI photography? Well, either way, this film was a visual feast. The way that scale was conveyed was breath-taking. I'm not sure whether I read this somewhere or if I can take credit for it myself, but the difference came in the way that Abrams shoved aside the traditional Star Trek view of Enterprise as a lumbering naval ship and took a more Star Wars-esquire dogfight approach. This has set a high standard for a new era of Star Trek that I hope will spawn at least a couple more films.

It's not that I wasn't impressed with the character development, the acting, the script or the story - it's just that this film looked so gorgeous that I haven't been able to think of anything else since I saw it last night! But sufficed to say, this was overall an excellent feature. It might not quite deserve a 100% rating, but it's worth more than 90% in my eyes - so, by rounding up, it gets 10/10 from me! Final warning: see this film in the cinema. Do not wait for it to come out on DVD. It. Will. Not. Do. It. Justice.

JJ, you've won a fan!

For folks who dissed this movie, and the second, because it wasn't the Star Trek of yester year, get over it. Roddenbury rolling over in his grave? Oh, please. The events in the first movie somehow made all the other off-shoots impossible? Yikes! How does anything in this movie affect the series with Piccard, Janeway, etc.? Give it a break, eh?

Yeah, both movies had some corny lines and one or two ridiculous scenarios (Spock and Uhura making out?), but the first two movies in this reboot were great fun. The actors were brilliant even when their lines weren't, the action decent. Was either movie award-worthy? No, but not every movie has to be in order to enjoy it. I wasn't disappointed. Both kept me very well entertained. Sometimes it's good just to sit back, relax, enjoy, and not take everything so damn seriously.

Now, the third installment is altogether another matter. While it did have its moments, it was really terribly written. There is a limit to how much even good actors can do with pervasively bad lines, and how much slop a viewer can put up with. And if Hollywood doesn't stop with their "wokeness", I think I'll have to stick with foreign flicks.

I haven't seen the original Star Trek but it has a reputation for being heavy on the technobabble and continuity lockout. This film is an attempt to remake it closer to a traditional Hollywood blockbuster and it works. It is easy to follow and full of exciting action, though I can't compare it with the original.

I'm a fan of "Star Trek", but not obsessive, having read only one "Star Trek" novel, owning no merchandise and only TOS in its entirety on DVD. I abhor "Voyager" but like every other Trek series, including "Enterprise" although nearly all of that show's especially good episodes are in the fourth season. My favorite remains TOS for its unforgettable characters, performances and stories, as well as the sense of camaraderie aboard the Enterprise.

I hope I've established my feelings on Trek (after all there are Trekkers who think "The Motion Picture" is the best Trek film, and a lot of people seem to like "Nemesis") and what I truly value in it. As long as it wasn't overwhelmingly dumb I didn't require any sort of truly thoughtful sci-fi in this film, nor did I expect it. What I desired, what I can say with a deep, deep sigh of relief, I got, is a film brimming with confidence, energy, a sense of adventure, a suitably emotional story for the film's main characters, and, thank heavens, superb characterization.

Using a plot device bring Nero, our Romulan villain played by Eric Bana, and Nimoy's Old Spock into the film, the writers Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman maintain canon. While Trekkers will whinge about many things here no more canon contradiction happens here than in the Trek series following TOS. Instead of merely rebooting the series entirely and creating an entirely separate canon, the writers have fairly deftly worked this film into the existing Star Trek universe. It's an alternate (not mirror) universe story done well. A great deal to enjoy for Trekkers with throwbacks to the originals but there's also a lot to satisfy summer movie-goers. It's a very, very fast-paced film, the action scenes are exhilarating (and you can actually keep track of them), and there's a great deal of humor

It sounds almost unbelievable but they've actually managed to pull it off: they've made a "Star Trek" film which is a Trek film through and through and yet will still draw a bigger audience than any of the previous films, and moreover satisfy that audience. The film has been compared to "Iron Man" in more than one review the similarities are clear. Both films feature excellent dialogue and character interactions, swift, clever characterization, a minimum of laborious exposition, and also have a common flaw: a rushed plot which overall is almost a side plot. The only reboot to truly escape this pitfall thus far is "Casino Royale", which successfully told a very tight story and also consistently developed Bond as a character. Bana is menacing enough and his ship is well-designed but overall he's no Khan or Chang and was much better-written in the Countdown prequel comic than in the film itself. There are also a series of massive contrivances to get everything where it needs to be which will have viewers rolling their eyes, but even these are handled well by the script, which is smooth and fast as opposed to clunky and sterile. Plus, they're necessary for this origin story not to be a typical boring origin story and become what it is.

The partnership of director Abrams and cinematographer Mindel will annoy some people with their deliberate use of lens flares as well as shaky cam in scenes (not in a Greengrass or worse, Peter Berg style, but merely a slightly unstable camera), but overall I found it to be consistently involving and thrilling to watch, with good visual storytelling throughout. I also quite enjoyed the lens flares. It's not quite on par with Nicholas Meyer's attempts for me but still good, and interesting. The score by Michael Giacchino suffers from familiarity and a lack of individual identity, but works well with the film itself.

Chris Pine is absolutely terrific as Kirk, doing so much more than a Shatner impression and creating something of his own character (and it is, after all, an alternate Kirk) while absolutely nailing several of the trademark attitudes and behavior of the Kirk we all know and love. Much more than a pretty face, Pine's in for mega-stardom after this. Quinto's Spock is really quite terrific and much more nuanced than expected, and Spock's emotional story (and backstory) in the film is well-written as is Kirk's (though Spock gets a more emotional and better overall arc for sure). Pegg is fantastic as Scotty, used here mostly as comic relief. Urban's McCoy is the closest to an impersonation but overall just a joy and a pleasure to behold. Cho's alright as Sulu, who doesn't really get much to do (heck, when did he ever?), though Uhura is surprisingly prominent and well-played by Zoe Saldana. Yelchin as Chekhov is the only really problematic casting choice for me, he really overdoes the accent and takes you out of the film a bit. Bruce Greenwood as Pike nails the character and in a crucial role Leonard Nimoy shines yet again as Spock.

Abrams' "Star Trek" isn't quite tight enough and emotional enough to compete with "The Wrath of Khan", isn't as much fun for me as "The Voyage Home", but overall is probably the third best Trek film to date, on par with "The Undiscovered Country". It's a fairly new direction, yet totally faithful to Trek where it needs to be: in spirit. In a world of dreary blockbusters and 'dark' reboots, this Trek, though grittier in terms of design than anything before, shines, from opening to closing, as an example of optimistic, exciting, thrilling, humorous, and thoroughly enjoyable adventure cinema, as well as a great addition to Trek's long, long history.