Write descriptive essay about Star Trek movie 2009, write an essay of at least 500 words on Star Trek, 5 paragraph essay on Star Trek, definition essay, descriptive essay, dichotomy essay.
Star Trek
Year:
2009
Country:
USA, Germany
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.0
Director:
J.J. Abrams
Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, retired
Zachary Quinto as Captain Spock
Leonard Nimoy as Captain Spock
Eric Bana as Nero
Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike
Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Zoe Saldana as Captain Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg as Capt. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
John Cho as Captain Hikaru Sulu
Anton Yelchin as Commander Pavel Chekov
Ben Cross as Ambassador Sarek
Winona Ryder as Amanda
Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk
Jennifer Morrison as Winona Kirk
Storyline: On the day of James T. Kirk's birth, his father dies on his damaged starship in a last stand against a Romulan mining vessel looking for Ambassador Spock, who in this time, has grown on Vulcan disdained by his neighbors for his half-human heritage. 25 years later, James T. Kirk has grown into a young rebellious troublemaker. Challenged by Captain Christopher Pike to realize his potential in Starfleet, he comes to annoy academy instructors like Commander Spock. Suddenly, there is an emergency on Vulcan and the newly-commissioned USS Enterprise is crewed with promising cadets like Nyota Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Chekov and even Kirk himself, thanks to Leonard McCoy's medical trickery. Together, this crew will have an adventure in the final frontier where the old legend is altered forever as a new version of the legend begins. Written by Paramount Pictures
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 14773 Mb h264 16283 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x300 px 1636 Mb mpeg4 1803 Kbps avi Download
Reviews
One of the most retarded films to come out for ages!!
I'm sorry but this film is terrible! Anyone that thinks it is truly a great film is either a retard or has no idea what the original Star Trek was about. Star Trek was always about great story lines with cool deep characters that have humility and pure hearts. The crew of star trek are intelligent and gentle and have to cope with complex situations and ideas. This new Star Trek is basically just completely the same as all the major blockbusting films like Transformers and Quantum of Solace, it has a very small simple yet ambiguous story line which is totally pointless, bringing time travel into any story line generally means the writer couldn't think of a real story line so using time travel could stretch out a very simple revenge tale into something much more retarded. I would have liked to have some clever twists in the story or interesting dialogue but no! We are just given the same arrogant smirky one liners and pointless conversations as Transfomers and all the other retarded films coming out that have to rely on CGI for their thrills... This film is shallow and totally unconvincing and makes me wonder if anybody making the film actually liked the original Star Trek, if they did why would they make it into a messy childish roller-coaster ride with so many flaws and unexplained convenient plot twists. I think the director and actors are too young to really understand the Star Trek series and turned it into something they could appreciate. This film is on par with Micheal Bay films its basically another Independence Day!! I feel sorry for the original author of Star Trek he must be turning in his grave... 1/10...
2009-06-03
Very disappointed.
******SPOILERS BELOW******

---Doctor Korby: Are you with me, Captain?

---Captain Kirk: You've created your own Kirk. Why do you need me?

---Doctor Korby: I created him to impress you, not to replace you.

---Captain Kirk: I'm impressed, Doctor. But not the way you think.

{from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"}

This movie didn't have an extended title; it was just Star Trek. But I have some ideas for an extended title:

"The Unreal McCoy"

"Bad Robot Poops On Star Trek"

"Let's Pervert Star Trek To Appease Teenagers"

"Abrams Pilots Star Trek Over The Shark"

I have been a Star Trek fan for 42 years. I have seen every Star Trek story made for the movie screen and TV screen (including the animated series). This was one of the worst Star Trek stories I ever saw.

It was not necessary to "reboot" Star Trek. It was not necessary to change the Enterprise. It was not necessary for Spock and Uhura to have the hots for each other. It was not necessary to destroy Vulcan. It was not necessary to kill Amanda, although it was necessary to remove Winona Ryder from the movie.

There are good parts of the movie. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, who accepted the enormous challenges of playing Kirk and Spock, performed very well. Ben Cross, as Sarek, proved my belief that he would be a good Vulcan. The visual effects were very good, as I would expect from ILM.

However, the many changes in Star Trek history were unjustified. These changes can't be glossed over by saying, "It's obviously an alternate-universe story." That wasn't firmly established in the movie. (There is a difference between alternate-universe and alternate-timeline.) What I saw was J.J. Abrams, Robert Orci, and Alex Kurtzman rewriting Star Trek in a shameless attempt to attract young airheads who wouldn't care about Star Trek anyway.

The absurd design of the "new" Enterprise only reminded me of how beautiful the original NCC-1701 was. The "new" Bridge looked like a disco. The "new" Engineering areas looked like an oil refinery.

The other members of the new cast were mostly disappointing. Zoe Saldana is a lovely lady, but she couldn't carry Nichelle Nichols' boots. Karl Urban's performance almost was a parody of McCoy; he only reminded me of how much I miss DeForest Kelley. John Cho won't make me forget George Takei. Anton Yelchin made Chekov almost irritating. And Simon Pegg almost turned Scotty into the Court Jester (and why did they include that pint-size rockface? Is he the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek?).

Kirk's rapid promotion also was absurd. No matter how good a young officer is, no one rises from Cadet to Captain that fast.

The soundtrack was forgettable. (I've already forgotten it.)

Obviously, nitpickers would go ape over this movie. The star dates - in the 2200s - would set this story in the first season of The Original Series (TOS), long after Kirk became Captain. Delta Vega was moved from the edge of the galaxy to next to Vulcan. The uniforms, like the "new" Enterprise, don't jibe with TOS or "The Cage." (They looked like cheap knockoffs I would find in a costume shop.) And how can the Kelvin carry 800 people?

If this was an alternate-universe story, then I hope we never return. I wouldn't mind seeing this young cast in another Star Trek movie, but I would want that movie to return us to this universe, where the Enterprise looks like the NCC-1701 of TOS, Vulcan still exists, and Amanda lives (and is not played by Winona Ryder). But I also believe this is too much to ask.

This "reboot" probably will be very popular with young movie fans. Thus, it might be the template for future Star Trek movies, in which we'll probably see more changes in Star Trek history. But no matter how popular this "rebooted" Star Trek becomes, it's no substitute for TOS or any other Star Trek series. If this is the only option for continuing Star Trek, then let the franchise die with some dignity.
2009-05-09
Cheesy buzzword sci-fi
The fun ride of visual effects in this movie is offset by the terribad plot devices used throughout. You would think they had an eight year old as their scientific adviser on the script. From a 'supernova that threatens to destroy the galaxy' to a little drop of 'red matter' that's a- OK sitting in a jar on a table but somehow able to create a singularity, it's full of terribad buzzword science worse than anything scene in STNNG.

The acting and direction was more along the lines of a slapstick comedy at times, than what you expect in a sci-fi movie. From kirk's hands swelling up, to the silly willy wonka like chase of scotty through the water pipes, comedy in places it didn't beling. A stark contrast to the first Star Trek movie.
2009-05-13
Miserable horror stupidity
Not content to rest on his laurels in boring the world into a black hole with LOST, or writing some of the worst ever episodes of Felicity, J.J. Abrams set busily to his task of eviscerating Star Trek in a derivative, boring, 2 hours and 6 minutes of sadistic torture. With new credits ripped straight from Third Rock From The Sun and Simon Pegg sequences that seem to be taken from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and Romulans who appear to have been extras from The Matrix. Do the makers of this film trust any of their OWN ideas!? Do they have any!? And the staple hopeful tone Star Trek is gone. Replaced by a war slash comedy tone that I would expect only to find in Red Dwarf or Starship Troopers. There are just enough seconds of great action in this film to fit into a great trailer. Yes that's right. That stuff you saw in the trailer? That's it, that's all of it, no more than that. There are just enough seconds truly funny comedy to fit into a comedy trailer. Surprise surprise! For the rest of it, we get people sitting around talking about nothing. Except they are in space... which is, you know, actually nothing. Unlike the New York of Seinfeld, which is, y'know, something. Oh, and did I mention that every character in TNG, DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise is dead? Oh, not dead. NEVER BORN! That's right, Picard and Data, will never exist. Never born. Because the timeline has been re-arranged. Re-arranged by who you ask? A small mining ship. A small mining ship with no time-sheilding has evaded the time-shielded time-police and killed Kirk's dad and destroyed the whole planet of Vulcan. Ri-ight. WTF? W T F!? How did they do away with the time police? Aren't a lot of the time-shielded time police FROM the planet Vulcan, that has just been destroyed by illegal unscheduled time travel of a tiny mining ship? If some kind of deity like Q has disabled the whole of the time police, why is it for such a small reason as destroying one tiny planet. Couldn't the deity destroy the planet with a flick of his finger? Oh wait, it's, you guessed it, Stargate! And why don't we see these juicy Q-type-bady-talks-to-bad-guys sequences?? Who knows.

Star Trek is supposed to be hopeful and inspire individuals to do good in the world. This is a war movie to inspire people to pick up a gun and do who knows what.

Star Trek Zero (official working title) gets a big ZERO from me. Awful, abysmal. One star because they don't allow lower.
2009-05-09
And when I say "alternate" future I mean "unintelligent and pointless"
This is a really disappointing movie. This reboot of the Star Trek universe is way off the mark. The original series certainly shows its 1960's roots, but the characters, and almost all of the stories, were intelligently written and imaginatively and consistently developed.

The relationship between Kirk and Spock was built around each providing a counterpoint for the other's strengths, with Spock, of course, balancing Kirk's passion with a healthy dose of reason. Between them, they formed a symbiotic medium, reflecting the human condition that leadership and advancement comes from a balance of both reason and passion.

The original Kirk was passionate and decisive, but was not reckless. Nor was he consumed by his own crude, punk emotions. He was a leader who understood that his responsibilities extended to his ship, his crew, Star Fleet, and the rules and aims of the larger society. He let this guide his decisions. Even by himself, there was responsibility, rationality and reason within him. Spock represented, and added to, the pure rational component of any argument. Put together, the two characters showed us that goals and problems are best addressed by moving the human condition towards a stronger sense of responsibility, rationality and reason. It was a vision for the future.

Against that, in this new movie, both characters have moved decidedly away from the rational and towards the emotional. Kirk is now just some one-dimensional, self-obsessed, reckless angry rebel who treats every situation as an opportunity to start a bar fight (literally and/or figuratively). One expects future dialog to be along the lines of "Spock, did you see the way that ambassador glanced at me during negotiations? He needs a lesson in respect. Fire all photon torpedoes!!" Who in their right mind would want such a character as a starship captain?

And the new Spock has had the strengths of his rational side completely neutered. This new movie makes it obvious that his rational Vulcan side is ineffective, unimportant and weak, and that the emotional human side is where all the important cool parts are. The arc of the story in this movie seems to be constantly telling him: "Dude...stop thinking so much! What you need is to do is get yourself a girlfriend, get laid, have a few shots of Jack Daniels, and go punch a few people."

Similar dumbing-down occurs with the destruction of Vulcan. Six billion lives lost from a culture that was as advanced, peaceful and intelligent as the Vulcans (remember...it was the Vulcan's who first reached out to humanity to make First Contact) is an tragic, important event. The original series would have made THAT the point of the event, as it should be. But in this movie, the only really important thing was that Spock's mother was killed. Well! Now it's personal I guess! No wonder he's mad! Why is it that movies such as this can't talk in the important abstract? Why is there always the need to introduce the personal vendetta? Why can we not have an important cause that is worth struggling for in its own right?

In the aggregate, whereas the point of the original relationship between Spock and Kirk was that the addition of stronger reasoning adds to our human capacity, the point of this movie seems to be the opposite: that what humans need to do is reason less, think less, make everything personal, give authority and responsibility the finger, break as many rules as possible, and get into as many bar fights as we possibly can. I was hoping that we'd left that attitude behind us with the passing of the Bush years...but I guess not.

As a side rant on that...the American psyche is frustrating in its contradictions. We live in gated communities to keep us away from exactly the bar-fighting trash represented by Kirk in this movie. We want harsh, lock-em-away laws if such characters challenge our peace of mind. But in the movies, we celebrate those same characters fighting authority, breaking all the rules, thumbing their noses at exactly us and those we appoint, punching anyone who asks them to be reasonable, killing anyone who tries to stop them, and winning only by fighting, not by thinking or working together. The same effect shows up in shows like Prison Break. How does a society both impose capital punishment AND cheer for the (supposedly) wrongly convicted to fight against the police that are trying to enforce the very laws that us as a society put in place? If we recognize that people are sometimes wrongly convicted...why are we killing them?

The other sad direction in this movie was the removal of Vulcans and Romulans as alternate societies. Again, we seem to be taking the attitude that only "us" humans matter. The "others" are uninteresting, unimportant, and potentially get in the way. Whereas the original series celebrated the idea of different societies, and recognized that any society (even all of humanity itself) will benefit by coming together into a larger common society with others of sympathetic goals, this movie promotes the idea that we would be better off if everyone was more like us, or better yet, if everyone else BUT us would disappear. In this movie the "us" is humanity compared to the "them" of other planets. In our world, the "us" is our culture or country compared to the "them" of other cultures or countries. Again...I was hoping that such a provincial attitude would pass with the Bush years...but again sadly, I must be mistaken.

The original series was a vision for the future...a larger, more interesting future. The new movie is a vision for the past...a provincial, isolationist, fearful past. In the end, the world, and the galaxy, are both poorer places because of this movie when compared to the vision and intellect of the original series.
2009-06-15
What a production - cheesy bits forgiven!
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!
2009-04-17
The character of Captain Kirk reduced to a juvenile delinquent or 'Fast and Furious' redone with Starships.
I was eagerly anticipating this release for the last few weeks and went to see it opening weekend. The first scene started out with a well done space battle but things immediately started to deteriorate when the battle turned out to be the birth scene of James T. Kirk, an unnecessarily overly dramatic writing of Kirk's birth. Things didn't improve when we next met the orphaned Kirk racing around Iowa and recklessly destroying his uncles antique Corvette. Very out of character for the command officer James T. Kirk we know from the series. As a matter of fact I doubt that those familiar with the series are the intended audience of this film as the aforementioned scene seemed merely and excuse to throw in a classic muscle car and a song by AC-DC.

Throughout the movie James Kirk behaves like a wild undisciplined punk nothing at all like anyone who would ever be able to function in a military environment. The writers took some character nuances of Kirk and totally overdid it. A good example of professional military officers who also like to joke around and enjoy the ladies is found in The Right Stuff. Yes they break the rules now and then but nowhere in that movie did you doubt the Mercury 7 were professional military officers responsible for advanced aerospace technology. Spock was right in his decision to throw Kirk off the ship after his near mutiny in time of war by a starfleet cadet. Most of the rest of the familiar crew members are caricatures of themselves delivering clichés of the shows dialog as if this is a Saturday Night Live skit. Bruce Greenwood was good as Captain Pike, but he got fairly little screen time. Zachary Quinto was OK as Spock, though he had to work through a few ridiculous love scenes with Uhuru thrown in senselessly by the writers.

Here we encounter another common movie-making flaw, Too Many Cooincidences. Turns out Kirk, Bones, Uhuru, all went to starfleet academy together. There is little indication on the show that the Enterprise bridge crew all had deep relationships with each other predating their assignment to the Enterprise, and such a situation would be highly unlikely in the real world. Kirk was known as being quite young for a captain, but he was always insinuated as being senior to his bridge crew with the exception of the Dr. and Chief Engineer.

But most egregious is once again another grandiose time travel plot, this time with a Romulan (well played by Eric Bana) coming back from the future to destroy the federation. The whole bit about Romulus being destroyed in a supernova is preposterous to anyone with an astronomical background as Stars that go supernova are too short lived to develop habitable planets, and they are also unstable for thousands of years before they go boom which would have caused anyone living nearby to have abandoned their planets as the star went red giant and threw off shell after shell of gas. There is way too much time travel in sci fi these days. In a comedy like Star Trek 4 it works because the movie is never too serious in tone, but time travel leaves too many logical conundrums to make good sci fi.(i.e why don't the Klingons just go back and destroy Earth in the past) Time travel is something that most probably is impossible.

Worst of all is the writers "re-imagining" Star Trek by destroying the Planet Vulcan in the new Star Trek universe. I had expected that Kirk and Spock would restore the time-line at the end, but no they let this travesty stand. The re-imagined Battlestar Gallactica was a much more thought out improvement over the original despite some annoying feminist overtones. This re-imagining was essentially 'Fast and Furious' redone with Starships. On the positive side the action and special effects are spectacular in this film, but aren't they in most all films these days. In summary if you are unfamiliar with the Star Trek franchise you will enjoy the fast paced action effects sequences which are quite enjoyable. But if you are a fan of the original you will detest the slaughtering of the characters.
2009-05-08
Meh- We could have tried harder.
I'd like to say it was awesome. At moments, it was. It was like...Star Trek, meets Star Wars, meets Sliders. One thing was clear to me as the action progressed and and Starfleet was described as a "Peacekeeping Armada" and thousands of photon torpedoes crashed about in confusing but dazzling collisions...Gene Roddenberry's vision of a peaceful future involving the exploration of strange new worlds as explorers...not conquerors, has been flushed; along with Planet Vulcan, Spock's mom, and my hope for the future of the franchise. This seemed more like what NBC originally wanted Trek to be, but Gene fought tooth and nail to keep it from becoming, a special effects slug-fest with very little in the way of substance.

I'd like to say it was well directed. But,I saw Kirk duck behind the same piece of scenery twice. I saw him with the wrong prop gun once. I saw Jim Kirk get smacked around by Spock and several Romulans(who have the strength of 10 men when angered)and barely get knocked back five feet. And,while I have no problem with Uhura kissing Spock...I have a HUGE problem with Spock kissing Uhura back(He only fell in love once, and it nearly killed him - but you'd have to hire a director who was FAMILIAR with the franchise to know better(no offense to you JJ - I would have taken the job sight unseen as well, I suppose). The action scenes were nearly indiscernible (between the rapid, confusing, cutting and the camera shake).

Look, I love Sci-Fi. I have no problem with changing time-lines, alternate realities, or time-travel Paradox changing the way things "are," some of those changes were NOT caused by a temporal paradox, but caused, clearly, by some kind of studio paradox. Watch the series before you make a movie about it. Cite: Checkov joined the Enterprise crew fresh out of the Acadamy...second season of the series. He never attended her maiden voyage, even in a paradox...he hadn't joined Starfleet yet(and his accent was painful). "Bones" was called Bones because he was so skinny. Hello? Did we watch the series we were making a movie about? Oh, right. We didn't. The mistake shines throughout the entire picture. Every time I started to get captivated (and I did) Some serious dogmatic hole would be there to puncture my experience. This is not about cheesing off old fans...it's about doing your homework as a filmmaker.

What, exactly did the Romulans DO for 25 years, waiting for spock? Contemplate the enormous plot-hole they were leaving?

The film was not a sore disappointment, but not a triumph either; Certainly not an appropriate "resurrection" More like a confused Zombie trying to figure out where to go next.

I'll say this much, they DID boldly go where no one has gone before...to the space opera. Good luck, guys.
2009-05-09
Star Trek RIP
So Captain Kirk is now basically nothing more than a juvenile delinquent who got lucky? So Spock and Uhura are getting it on all over the Enterprise, even though she was apparently a student of his at the academy? Is Checkov now nothing but a clown? Has the Star Trek universe become nothing more than an endless feedback loop of journeys from future to past? Where were all of Starfleet's humanistic ideals--The ones that have inspired fans for generations? I got to the end of this movie and I didn't really care to see more adventures with these people. They looked like a bunch of LA mall rats running around unsupervised on Daddy's starship.

I did think it was cool that they got Mike Tyson to play the Romulan commander. Who knew he could act?
2009-06-01
R.I.P. Star Trek...
Poor, poor Gene Roddenberry. The great memory of the wonderful things he accomplished have been set aflame with one swift stroke! The only question that will always linger with me forever in eternity is who, I say again WHO green-lit this project and actually thought it was a good idea?! JJ Abrams has absolutely NO successful track record to speak of, has NO visual sense of cinematography, NO idea of storytelling and for the franchise worst of all has NO IDEA what the term "Science" fiction means! The so-called film is rife with laughable inaccuracies, absurd set designs, horrible makeup and costumes, pitiful so-called dialouge, and by far the most atrocious acting this side of ... well I honestly don't believe I have EVER seen such worthless attempts in my life! With the exception of the actor who played McCoy, this movie seemed as if it was made by retarded preschoolers (no offense to either mentally handicapped or preschoolers) I have literally seen better acting out of birds and roaches! The wanna be story had no general point and made no sense what ever, but the most appalling travesty of all is the total and utter lack of reality and the miss-use of "Science" all together! Mr. Roddenberry always stated and went far out of his way to make sure the franchise was grounded in truth and reality based on factual, credible science. Apparently ol' JJ didn't get the memo, oh wait he said himself HE WAS NEVER A STAR TREK FAN TO BEGIN WITH!! I ask again, who actually thought it was a good idea to hire this clown (and again, I mean offense to clowns out there by relating them to this sad-sac)?! OK, I originally stated that there would be spoilers in this comment, but I then realized why bother? To continue to pine on about the horrors of one the worst movies ever made and the final and ULTIMATE nail in the franchise's coffin would only serve to give some sort of obscene credence to what is ultimately a disaster on a scale never before witnessed in the entertainment world. If you are a fan of either the series or movies in general, I would ask that you spare yourself the misery and watch something, ANYTHING else! For shame, and a sad regretful farewell to series that has meant so much and has done so well for so long. I suppose not everything is meant to "Live long and prosper" ...
2009-05-11
Write descriptive essay about Star Trek movie 2009, Star Trek movie essay, literary essay Star Trek, Star Trek essay writing, narrative essay, Star Trek 500 word essay, argumentative essay Star Trek.
×