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 Kirk's birth, his father dies on his ship in a last stand against a mysterious alien time-traveling vessel looking for Ambassador Spock, who, in this time, is also a child on Vulcan disdained by his neighbors for his half-human heritage. Twenty-five years later, Kirk has grown into a young troublemaker. Challenged by Captain Christopher Pike to realize his potential in Starfleet, he comes to annoy instructors like young Commander Spock. Suddenly, there is an emergency at 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 it begins.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 1534 Mb h264 1690 Kbps mp4 Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x480 px 2384 Mb mpeg4 2627 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
Star Trek Movie
Action movie yes - Star Trek movie No. This film takes the Star Trek universe and basically wipes the entire canon out so we can have Uhura as a bimbo and Spock as a emotion controlled moron. The essence of Star Trek was destroyed by the movie. Gone is the Star Trek that the fans loved and in its place is 90210 or Bimbos in space.

The plot was used to rewrite the entire Star Trek universe, gone is Next gen, DS9 and voyager. What is next the Klingons appear and instead of being great warriors, they are the great worriers and feeble little guys.

Abrams should be thrown out an airlock for this crap
2009-05-07
Doesn't live up to the hype
The guy who plays Kirk kind of looks like James Dean. He is brash and cocky, as you'd expect, and annoyingly arrogant (but that's his character). Zachary Quinto makes a good Spock. Leonard Nimoy seems to use the same dentist as Mr Ed did.

Naturally, there are lots of very good special effects. Uhura still dresses like a go-go dancer, and the men still wear those shirts with the padded shoulders (a la STTNG). Eddie Murphy will be amused to know that Kirk still doesn't get to ravish the green alien. Red shirts are still unsafe to wear.

At one stage, the Captain handed off command to Spock, who handed off to Kirk, who handed off to Uhura, who handed off to someone else, to sit in the Captain's chair. I was half-expecting to see the cleaning lady end up there.

I guess it was their attempt at humour to have a red-shirt die.

It always amused me how these kind of films have characters who are fascinated with our particular time in history and its accoutrements. Someone from hundreds of years in the future driving one of our cars would be kind of like us riding around in chariots. Kirk the kid driving around was simply a brat.

The concept of someone in their 20s becoming captain of a ship after a single mission, is something right out of The Young and the Restless (where the gardener can become CEO of a conglomerate in a short span of time).

I've gone to see other movies that I wasn't looking forward to - Start Trek IV rings a bell - and ended up enjoying it. This one, full of ST clichés, doesn't fall into that category at all. This film is not "great", as some have claimed, if you look at it as a non-Trekkie with your blinders off. In fact, I struggled to recall details to write this. It's that forgettable.

However, those who blindly love ST no matter what, should be pleased that Paramount has found yet another ST franchise with which to part them and their cash.
2009-05-08
An abomination and offense to all things Trek. It sucked!
Not only did JJ Abrams not know the first thing about Star Trek, what he did go and learn he decided to intentionally destroy. I could spend WEEKS listing all the idiotic things in this movie... First of all, before ANYTHING else, no matter WHAT you think, there was no reason to completely destroy the Star Trek universe by blowing up Vulcan. It was Abrams taking a dump on the ENTIRE history of Trek. As a story point is was stupid, too. And WAY too easy. This fact alone ensures that I will never watch another Abrams product - no matter what it is (let alone his next Trek movie).

You know, I don't even want to waste any more time listing the other many idiotic elements of this un-inspired lame movie (the enemy was flat, the story had been done over and over, etc.). Uhura and Spock!?! Right, another stupid move. They go on and on. I will say that I liked the shuttlecraft (except the stupid idea of beaming across light years from one).

If you hate Star Trek, go see this movie. It's juvenile and standard Abrams, so you may like it. If you have any respect for Star Trek then this is a slap in the face to you.
2009-09-05
Review from comicbookculture.net
Star Trek. When someone speaks this name, various images, ideas, characters and phrases come to mind. I know they certainly do with me. Characters such as Kirk, Spock, Picard, Data, Janeway, Seven of Nine; ideas like the prime directive; phrases like "Live long and Prosper", "Good God Jim, I'm a doctor not a….". I wouldn't consider myself a "Trekkie", but I do have a deep affection for this series and world.

To my great delight, I was fortunate enough to see an advanced screening last night of JJ Abrams re-imaging of "Star Trek". I must admit that I was skeptical at first about taking such iconic characters and recasting them, even in younger iterations, because most people think of the characters of Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov with the actors that originally portrayed them. These portrayals are engrained in the pop culture consciousness of the world and hence my skepticism arose. Fortunately, my doubts were unnecessary.

This is not your father's "Star Trek". From the moment the movie begins, so does the action and it never lets up. However, this movie has more than just incredible and intense action, it also pays homage to the series of old. Sure, they wanted to bring us a Trek for the 21st century, but they also realized that they needed to respect the source material and fans of a series that has been around more than 40 years. However, you don't need to know much about Star Trek to enjoy this movie. Each character has been given a background and history that lets you know a little something about each one. There's a lot to be told in an origin movie and it is handled deftly by both the writers and the director.

But, what really made the movies for me were the actors chosen to play these roles, especially Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock and Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, aka "Bones". This movie would not have worked if the casting of these three characters had not been spot on. Both Mr. Quinto and Urban uncannily channel their predecessors, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley. They took on some of their inflections, mannerisms and expressions to really give you a sense that they are just younger versions of the originals. Chris Pine, however, takes on the most memorable role in Trek history and makes it his own. This Kirk is not only the womanizer, lover, and captain that you already know, but as portrayed by Mr. Pine also has a swagger, bravado, intelligence, and is a complete adrenaline junkie. We could not have asked for a better Kirk in this movie.

They have laid a solid foundation for a new series, with new life, perfect cast and a director with a true vision. If the first movie can be this good, my expectations for further adventures have risen exponentially.

This is my first review for our website and as such might not be very good since I have no experience at writing reviews. I intentionally didn't reveal any plot points so as to not spoil anything for whoever may read this. I may in the future reveal areas that may have spoilers but mark these sections so you can skip over them. I'll be seeing Wolverine tomorrow and hope to have a review up by tomorrow night. Until we meet again, "Live long and Prosper!"
2009-05-02
Rubbish
The story is a pathetic amalgam of the "big thing appears near earth" story that has been used in at least three previous Treks, a bunch of scenes from the various TV series done worse and a load of filler that I think was shot by Michael Bay but he didn't want it because it was too stupid.

The actors who play the adult Kirk and Spock are both good if you ignore the story and script they have to work with. Both look the parts and carry them surprisingly well. The less said about their kid versions the better, but let's just say young Anakin looks a lot better in this light.

The rest of the cast are either horribly mis-cast (Simon Pegg), instantly forgettable or just plain horrible (Uhura).

By and large the action/sfx scenes reminded me mostly of the end of Armageddon - shiny drivel that makes you want to punch people in the neck. The first ten minutes epitomises this (slight spoiler but you won't miss anything, the film has no surprises in it) : teeny tiny research ship vs huge planet-killing machine from a vastly more advanced race AND 150 years in the future, the smaller ship is so boned by the first 5 seconds of the fight, during which the baddies don't even really try, that it's evacuated. It is then flown in a dead straight line at the enemy guns for about 90 seconds with no shields, no defences and no evasive manoeuvres. Despite this it is somehow unharmed and it's pilot manages to happily converse with his wife by radio while presumably the conversation aboard the enemy ship goes something like "I think he's going to ram us sir", "oh?", "shall we do something?", "shoot wildly over his head", "yes sir"..... time passes.... "he's still coming sir, very very slowly", "oh well shoot more just don't hit him that would spoil the moment". I'm sure Futurama had almost this exact scene but it was a joke when they did it.....

It's this kind of lazy, tired, pathetic trash that I expected from Abrams and he delivers it in spades. The whole film is saturated with laziness from top to bottom. Given that the Trek franchise invented and then flogged to death most of the great clichés of sci-fi you might think this is all just tongue-in-cheek homage but it really isn't, this is the best this hackneyed joke of a director has to offer and you can tell he honestly thinks it doesn't stink. The pinnacle of this laziness has to be "Red matter" which is probably the worst McGuffin in the history of cinema. Oh yes and let's not forget that the entire plot hinges on the premise that Spock (something of an icon for learning) has never heard of "velocity equals distance over time".

All of this is from a purely non-Trek perspective. I could point out no end of issues on that front (Cardassians in Kirk's era, Ships built on the surface of the planet, everything about Pike, one of the most advanced species in the galaxy defeated by a ship whose main weapon is a 10 mile long undefended phallus which takes a week to shoot it's load, etc. etc. etc.).
2009-05-16
Read Me Trekkies
I have never been so disappointed by a movie than i was by this bubble gum attempt at a prequel. I could have made a better movie on my camera phone. Whoever picked JJ Abrams to direct should be shot. In some interviews, he admits that he's not a star trek fan. Boy, oh boy, does it show. He's 'lost' when it comes to directing; he didn't get any good performances from his actors; It looks like all shots were done on the first take; he rushed through production; and a lot of short sequences in the movie went nowhere and should have been cut. I'm sure he was the one who brought the idiots Kurtzman and Orci to write this poor excuse of a star trek film. Their plot line had so many holes, it was like swiss cheese. I mean they took a massive icon that is star trek and were given the task of making a prequel, and this is the best they could come up with???

Young Kirk drives a corvette off a cliff?? Uhura kiss Spock?? Scotty stuck in a water pipe?? What the heck is 'red matter'?? Launch Kirk off the Enterprise in a pod?? Kirk loses every fight?? Scotty has a sidekick?? etc.etc.etc.

I am a Trekkie,(but not one of those weirdos) and hopefully I can speak for some of us out there who found this movie to have no 'soul'. You could have made a movie that was true to all the elements of the original and still do a 'reboot'. Have you guys seen "Batman Begins" 2005? That is how its done you jerks. This was just a cookie cutter sci-fi cgi movie with the title and character names from the original. I feel like you took everything in me that is Star Trek and spit on it.

I want my ten dollars back.
2009-05-09
Ugh...what did I just watch?
How the original Trek cast began? I think not. First off they couldn't even get decent "young" look-alikes except for Karl Urban who plays McCoy. Simon Pegg who plays Scotty LOOKS older then the supposedly younger cast members and has the personality of an Irish drunk they just picked up off the street. Not to mention the idiotic young Kirk played by Chris Pine whose childhood begins as a rebel and passes his time away getting into bar room brawls, scooping & boffing chicks, and hiding under beds to check out Uhura in her underwear. Oh yeah, did anyone tell you about the Spock and Uhura "love thang" going on in the transporter yet? Come on, Gene Roddenberry is turning in his grave over this mess. They had the audacity to take classic clichés like McCoy's "Dammit Jim", Spock's "Facinating" and Sulu's love for fencing and turned them into REAL Hollywood clichés. Forget about the effects, it's nothing you haven't already seen in any Battlestar Galactica episode. This film has so many holes in regard to the original series and cast it surpasses Swiss cheese yet smells like Limburger. The biggest being how the technology (set design) looks to be about 200 years more advanced then the original. The original mission was to explore new worlds and go where no man has gone before. Although these characters fell together as a crew by coincidence. On account of a rift between the Romulans and Vulcans, and the Vulcan planet being turned into a black hole. Uh-huh....where did that come from Orci and Kurtzman? Your butts? I went to see this with my 14 year old nephew whose never seen an original episode. Afterward he said he didn't want to see any and thought they would be as stupid as this movie. Yes, those were HIS words. I had to reassure him that not everything newer is necessarily better. How true it is, how true it is! Stay light years away from this.
2009-05-12
another time travel???
The whole plot is completely non-canon! It's not a real prequel, but an alternative story line created by (surprise) a time travel. The actors and action were convincing and good, but the problem with Star Trek is, that if the writers can't come up with something they just use time travel to make there story fit. And this time they didn't even care, that they destroyed the complete canon with it. For example: With Vulcan destroyed, there will never be this famous duel from the classic show between Kirk and Spock.

But maybe the franchise is really dead and the writers just don't care anymore. (if they ever did)

If i were a Trekkie, i would be very angry.
2009-05-11
Few redeeming characteristics - Trashes Gene Roddenbury's vision
I had arrived at this movie with high hopes after having heard a favorable review by a friend. It turns out that my friend was giving a favorable review of his date, I am quite sure that he paid no attention to the movie, because anyone watching this filth that owns half a brain could not possibly enjoy it.

Right out of the gate, they Jump the Shark on the Spock character turning him into an impulsive, brash, horny Vulcan youth with a heart full of angst. Then they turn Kirk into a stone-jawed loudmouth playboy from a Michael Bay style Cars-n'-Sluts flick, complete with multiple pointless car chases, hopeless henchmen, comedic extras and sweaty bar fights over girls.

There's no character depth or development as suddenly all the characters from the series are thrown together in their twenties starting off as geniuses at each of their respective tasks, as if no one with promise has to rise through ranks, earn knowledge or hone talent to become something. That uniquely American perspective coupled with the tiresome oversexualization or alternatively, casting-into-comedic roles of every single character, followed by constant mindless action sequences drags the script of this movie below the Canned-Tuna quality we see in all the Star Wars prequels. It even comes complete with hoverbikes and giant digitized monster chases.

What happened to the cerebral and highly character-driven plots that Star Trek has come to be known for? Why pollute an otherwise acceptable premise with silly fantasy elements and spoil a carefully thought out universe with a tired old Deus Ex Machina like time travel through black holes? It never came together, and I got really sick of the constantly switching camera angles and lens flare; I felt like I was skydiving during a thunderstorm for the entire movie. Star Trek would have been better as an amusement ride like Star Tours at Disneyland than something seen in a Theatre.
2009-05-18
How did the writing for this get to the screen?
To start with, I should say that I am not a "Trekkie" - I am aware of the characters broadly and have even watched some episodes and previous movies, but am not an aficionado nor a big fan. I had seen the shorts for this movie and following a young Kirk looked excellent and it appeared to be a rollicking action film.

So, to start with the good:

* Casting was superb, as was the acting. I felt the actors embodied the feeling of the series and carried out their part in the script flawlessly. * Action scenes were well choreographed and were enjoyable. * Production quality, as you would expect, was high - the movie certainly looked very slick, and I particularly like the start with Iowan farm showing massive star-scrapers in the background. * First scenes were good, with Kirk entering the academy.

The bad:

* Suspension of disbelief is severely taxed - I can take "red matter" and other plot elements at face value, but had a real problem taking a lot of other things as such. * We are dealing with an alternate history, but the idea that 25 years of altered history has lead all of the main characters in Star Trek to exactly the same points beggars belief! * There are 430 crew on board the ship, however recent military graduates end up running the entire ship? There is one old guy in the crew and the rest all come from military college - and they didn't even graduate? * Crew was assigned to a new space ship with no time or effort being put towards shaking down the ship nor the crew? * The command bridge of the vessel seems to be a social lounge, where anyone - including civilians can saunter onto * A mining vehicle - even one from 129 years into the future - has sufficient technology that it can destroy an entire fleet of warships - even whilst tethered to a planet and unable to move * The protagonist (Nero) was barely even a one dimensional character - he was simply angry * A mining ship has a huge internal volume for some reason that is fully pressurised and heated * A spaceship that becomes a singularity suddenly has enough mass to drag in the Enterprise (this one is a physics geek quibble admittedly...)

The ugly:

* The writing was just lazy - kirk is ejected out onto an ice planet by Spock - and this is supposed to be in some way logical? ARRGGGHHH!!! * My guess is the writers were hamstrung - they were given a brief where they had to tailor the story in a two hour time-frame so that we could have the old crew in charge of the starship Enterprise to facilitate the corporate requirements of big business movie making - hence the reason why so many of the plot elements make no sense.

At the end of this movie, I was looking forward to the end - just to make it stop! I found it quite frustrating dealing with plot holes you could drive a Mac truck through!

No doubt, now that they have the crew together, the next story they will release can be more self consistent.

Perhaps you just need to be a Trekkie to enjoy this one?
2009-05-12
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.
×