Customer Reviews


113 Reviews
5 star:
 (75)
4 star:
 (27)
3 star:
 (2)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (8)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


7 of 8 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Star Trek: the alternate timeline angle: BRILLIANT!
J.J. Abrams asked the questions of his creative staff when he began this Star Trek movie odyssey, Can we make it cool? and How can we make it for everyone? He certainly answered the first question in the decidedly affirmative and accomplished the second query when he created this marvelous film. The acting is incredible with actors that have the same magical chemistry...
Published on April 3 2010 by Karen L. Haws-Dearing

versus
1.0 out of 5 stars Overdose of Stupidity
Warning: This movie should be restricted to persons 18 years of age or YOUNGER. This movie is an insult to the Star Trek legacy. An overdose of bizarre technology right from the start, a strange plot and stranger actors. I was tempted to trash it after the first 5 minutes, but let it continue hoping for some improvement or clarity. But I finally clicked it off when the...
Published 14 months ago by Reid Tucker


‹ Previous | 1 2 312 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

4.0 out of 5 stars Star Trek - what a great movie, March 27 2010
This review is from: Star Trek (Bilingual) (DVD)
Star Trek - what a great movie. I am no trecky nor sci-fi fan, but this movie was really good. I watched the original Star Trek as a kid and thought that this prequel movie hit all the right marks and shows Captain J T Kirks relationship with Spock and how it all came about. Seeing the original Spock was also an added bonus and his wonderful point-um-up ears!

Good effects on the movie, great storyline and many good similarities between the orginal 70s-80s cast and the modern ones for the movie. Enjoyable and worth the watch.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars A Visual Feast, Nov. 17 2009
By 
Peter Cantelon (Morden, Manitoba, Canada) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
The Blu-Ray three disk package does not disappoint. I watched on 50" widescreen 1080p and the visuals were flawless. I kept looking for seams in Spock's ears etc. and all the effects were spectacularly done. Of course this reboot of the series had to be perfect for the movie to work...Star Trek has been done to death and only one reboot has arguably been decent - Star Trek: The Next Generation (and that was because he was involved in its creation).

There are many awesome features to be had throughout the disks including deleted scenes, bloopers and documentaries galore. Disk three has a digital copy of the movie for iTunes and iPod which works perfectly (already loaded onto my iPod).

All in all shining example of what Blu-Ray can do to a fantastic sci-fi film with an amazing story and cast of characters. No doubt there will be more of the crew of the starship Enterprise to come.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Awesome movie, Jan. 12 2011
A lot of things blow up in this movie from beginning to end. I was looking for this movie on Blu-ray but was not willing to pay more than 25 bucks including shipping. The seller was able to satisfy all of my requirements and more since I received a Blu-ray copy, a regular DVD copy and a digital copy for my computer.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars iTrek, Feb. 22 2011
By 
Paul Mackinnon (halifax, nova scotia, canada) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Every generation gets their version of Star Trek. I can think of at least three iterations (and one could argue there are more) of the venerable franchise - namely the original series (1966-69), the feature films (1978-91) and the Next Generation (the series, the films and the 3 spinoff shows, 1989-2005). Each had its own vibe, its own plusses, and its own pitfalls. But each was a re-imagining in its own way. It is easy to cite "Wrath of Khan" as the greatest of the films (and surely it is), and it is credited with reinvigorating the spirit of the original series, but the reality is that it added so much to the canon, taking it in a new direction (Meyer's vision of mankind as essentially unchanged, in terms of his basic passions, was in direct opposition to Roddenberry's utopian vision). Next Generation was as cheesy and set in its context, the 1990s, as the original series was in the 60s (instead of go-go boots, beehive hairdos, and miniskirts we got technobabble, "synthohol", and a therapist on the bridge). Yet it all now fits into the canon we know as "Star Trek".

This is all a way of saying that I was prepared to give JJ Abrams and the teenagers he'd hired (who look like they've wandered off the set of Disney's "High School Musical") to fill these iconic roles, a fair amount of leeway. After all there are three types of reinvigorations of beloved franchises: a reunion (often a 4th film tagged onto an existing trilogy, years later for the purposes of squeezing a little more money out of fans - think the horrendous 4th films in the "Indiana Jones", "Lethal Weapon", or "Die Hard" series); a parody of said franchise (think "Starsky & Hutch" or "Charlie's Angels", or the upcoming "Magnum" movie); or a new look at the series, with new people involved, who are able to bring a fresh approach, but hopefully not mess too much with the things people loved about it in the first place. JJ Abrams oft reported that Trek would be the third of these. He'd keep the things people loved (the characters and canon, as much as was possible), while updating things that needed to be updated (ie, state of the art effects and modern sensibilities). When it works it looks something like "Batman Begins" or "Casino Royale" which seem to be the gold standard for reboots (boy is that term overused in film reviews).

Let me then cut to the chase and say that Abrams' "Star Trek" is good. In fact, it's very good. And if it isn't quite MY Star Trek, let me say that it does bear a much stronger resemblance to my Star Trek than I would have thought. Let me go one step farther and say that it probably is exactly the Star Trek that Gene Roddenberry would make if he were starting his franchise in 2009. I have facetiously referred to this film as "iTrek" - Apple, Gap, Nokiu, and Facebook tie-ins seem to abound, even when they're not obvious. The cast do look like teenagers to me (although a later complaint of the original series is that they hired actors in their late 30s, which became a problem when the series was still going strong 25 years later), and the frenetic editing, effects and camera work makes even the exciting "Wrath of Khan" seem like a Masterpiece Theatre stageplay by comparison. But don't compare quick editing with pacing - as far as moving a story along briskly, the prize still goes to Jonathan Frakes, with "First Contact" and "Insurrection". This new Star Trek drags a little in places, not least of all because there are one or two gratuitous action sequences. These scenes fail to impress us, because we've seen it all before. CGI's unintended consequence is that no one asks "how did they do that??" anymore. These sequences could have been trimmed with no impact on the story - think of Kirk's landing on the ice planet, and encounter with two of its denizens. On the other hand, one setpiece - the freefall onto the mining platform - is genuinely thrilling.

But that is a minor quibble - what matters is story and characterizations, and Abrams gets a B+ on the first and an A+ on the second. The story is necessarily convoluted. The writers, Kurtzman and Orci (and these are the guys who have not had a stellar resume to date. "Transformers" anyone?) needed to figure out a way to reset the timeline, which would allow them to change the canon, but keep the characters essentially intact. This leads to a plot which frankly, has been done to death in Trek (especially in the series, post TNG), and is a bit silly. But it brings us Leonard Nimoy as Spock, which is a fabulous move. And the plots of most Treks (especially when you throw time travel into the mix) cast some logic and plausibility out the window. We can overlook those, because there is plenty of drama, humour, and a good adventure story to follow. And this is where Abrams surprises me. Trek has been known to recycle its ideas before. "The Voyage Home" was basically a remake of "The Motion Picture", which was a remake of the original series episode, "The Changeling". "Nemesis" and "First Contact" were inspired by "Wrath of Khan" which was, itself a sequel to the original series episode "Space Seed". Abrams goes back to the Khan well yet again - sometimes slyly, and sometimes overtly (one of the best sequences actually shows Kirk beating the Kobayashu Maru test, while simultaneously explaining why Spock never took it). Oddly, the villain, Nero, and his ridiculous spaceship were stolen from "Nemesis", which is probably the worst of the films to date. The fact that it works here is more a testament to the story/characters surrounding it, then to say it was a good idea. We can easily forgive these things if we think of this movie as a "best of" compilation.

Where this film really soars is in its casting and understanding of the characters. There really isn't a misstep here, in my opinion, with the possible exception of Chekov (used primarily for lame comic relief). Quinto not only looks like Spock but he plays him to perfection. Pine's Kirk could have been a punk, and yet we find ourselves rooting for him and sensing the future greatness he embodies. Those two needed to be done right, and they are - possibly because they aren't playing the characters we knew even from the original series - they are playing those characters as they would have been 10 years before that. So Kirk is more cocky, and unburdened from the responsibilities of leadership; Spock is more emotional, as he wrestles with his dual nature. Karl Urban is the only one who seems to do a straight imitation, of DeForest Kelley as McCoy, but that seems to be okay. It's reminiscent of Ewan McGregor's take on Alec Guinness in the Star Wars trilogy. Pine copying Shatner's mannerisms would have been ridiculous, but copying Kelley's seems to work just fine. This McCoy brings warmth and compassion to the screen, despite not having a whole lot to do. The other standout is Uhura, who is given more to do here, and she comes across as ethereal, sexy, and mysterious. It may be a mild spoiler alert to hint at her relationship with Spock, but it works too - it's very much in keeping with the teasing that she sometimes gave Spock in the original series. We always sensed there was some sort of connection there. Here we see it. Sulu and Scotty are both fine in their roles. I actually can't think of a single casting decision I'd change. Geenwood is great as Pike (and more importantly puts a Canadian in the cast), and if Tyler Perry as a Federation leader seems like an inappropriate choice, let me just say that it doesn't impact me, because I have no idea who Tyler Perry is (as opposed to the Christian Slater embarrassment in Trek VI). And Nimoy could play Spock well into his 90s if he chose, as the character just gets more and more interesting.

It is a shade less cerebral perhaps than some of the films, certainly. But this is meant to be a popcorn picture. And where the original Trek series and films quoted liberally from the works of Melville and Shakespeare, this film is actually quoting earlier Trek. Which has become literature at this point, right? The biggest moments come from hearing new actors in familiar roles uttering those catchphrases we have come to love. But it's done honestly. When Scotty yells, "I canna give ye any more, Captain!" it happens in the heat of the battle, and seems as authentic as when Doohan said it, long before it became parodied. When McCoy says, "Dammit, I'm a doctor, not a physicist", we can't help but smile.

Largely on the strength of the actors, the film works. Abrams knows how to hit all the high notes. He draws on Star Trek's fabled past much more than I thought he would. If you never liked Star Trek but find yourself liking this movie, you've unwittingly bought into the myth that it's better because it's hip and young (you're also probably the type that can't watch black and white movies because they're in black and white). Original series Trek never got old and tired. The final film with the original cast was one of the best. This new Trek is actually very much like the Trek that has gone boldly before. It didn't exactly feel like my Star Trek, but it came pretty darn close.

When asked, after the film how I felt, I responded, in Kirk-like fashion: "I feel.....young.". The teenagers did all right.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Je ne m'intéressait plus à Star treck depuis longtemps et ..., Aug. 3 2014
By 
Jean Fortin (Quebec,Canada) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Star Trek (Bilingual) (DVD)
Je ne m'intéressait plus à Star treck depuis longtemps et ce film m'a réconcilié avec le concept . Les liens entre les personnages s'inicient de belle façon , l'intrigue est soutenue et les effets spéciaux sont nombreux et réussis .
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Loved it!, Oct. 27 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Star Trek (Bilingual) (DVD)
The cast did fantastic as the characters. Hilarity was injected into the movie the way they used to do on the original series. It's great to go back to their early days and have so much more Star Trek to look forward to.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


14 of 19 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A love hate relationship., Oct. 22 2009
By 
It seems like many fans in this review column are very separated: they either love the movie or hate it.

To my special knowledge, I would say I just enjoyed myself like a Star Trek movie didn't do to me since Undiscovered Country (that's Star Trek 6). The Next Generation movies were a failed attempt (to my taste), at best, to try and breathe life in an almost lifeless franchise and Nemesis (that's Star Trek 10) killed it with underwhelming adventures and over-predictable plot twists.

This Star Trek tried to remake the excitement of the franchise while adding that spicy adventurous flavour, adding more action than dialogue-only-oriented scenes (don't get me wrong, I love dialogue), but there was an overabundance of it in the more recent films that threatened its frail balance.

Not only did it try and do that, it also did the impossible (still to my taste): to be a remake AND a sequel. the special effects are nothing like we've ever seen (I can't wait for the Blu-Ray) in a Star Trek movie; the action is relentless AND doesn't interfere with the story; major plot-points are rewritten in my face as I watch, helpless, yet amazed at how the script boldly goes where no Star Trek has gone before (cue the undying music).

Although I can't see how they can better themselves with the next movie, I also have to remind myself that there was also a dead franchise that was revived with the efforts of a great director: Batman.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars, July 10 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
thank you
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Whoa, watch the Spock(s), June 10 2014
By 
Richard Schwindt (Kingston, Ontario) - See all my reviews
There was some agonizing over the move to replace the seemingly irreplaceable original cast of the iconic series. This vanished when people recognized just what a fun and imaginative movie J.J. Abrams had created. It was clear from the beginning that this was a happening story where all the actors were going to dive into their characters and have some fun. Even the dastardly Romulans are kind of cool. The big challenge was how respectful they needed to be to the original series and where to monkey with the premise. Abrams strikes the balance beautifully; remember above all this movie is fun. I think Chris Pine makes a good Kirk, Zoe Saldana an amazing Uhura. Karl Urban and Simon Pegg are great comic relief but casting both Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy in the same movie is a stroke of brilliance. Nimoy made the original series and Quinto is a worthy heir. Having them both in the film is priceless.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars a complete movie, June 6 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
has everything. could do without the beast chasing, noisy, uninteresting, non-plot vital scene but the rest is eminently interesting. Gives one hope that the next star wars will be an updated adult version of a space story with good philosophy and dilemmas.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 312 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Star Trek (Two-Disc Special Edition) (2009)
CDN$ 42.99 CDN$ 26.77
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews