Customer Reviews for

Star Trek

Average Rating 4.5
( 150 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(110)

4 Star

(27)

3 Star

(8)

2 Star

(2)

1 Star

(3)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

7 out of 7 people found this review helpful.

Newest Star Trek Movie Awesome Five Stars!!!!!

I am a Star Trek fan since the original series with Shatner and Nimoy. I've watched most of the movies and knew this one was reprising the original roles with new young actors I was afraid they could not fill the formidible shoes of the original cast. They were very tal...
I am a Star Trek fan since the original series with Shatner and Nimoy. I've watched most of the movies and knew this one was reprising the original roles with new young actors I was afraid they could not fill the formidible shoes of the original cast. They were very talented actors and made the roles their own. Kudo's to the new Spock. His performance stood out. All the cast was great. I liked the way it showed the early lives of the main characters till they got on the Starship Enterprise. There was also a new romance that added some spice. I recommend this to all Trekies and sc-fi fans and yes the special effects were better than expected. I hope for more sequels soon and some Tribbles!

posted by pinkrose on October 1, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

3 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

Not Recommended Unless You'll Watch Anything Called "Star Trek"

This movie was a disappointment. The reasons? Kirk as a boy made me shudder. Scotty's new "space monkey" sidekick made me wonder when the chief engineer was going to break out an organ grinder and a tin cup. Spock's "futuristic" ship made me wonder why they didn't s...
This movie was a disappointment. The reasons? Kirk as a boy made me shudder. Scotty's new "space monkey" sidekick made me wonder when the chief engineer was going to break out an organ grinder and a tin cup. Spock's "futuristic" ship made me wonder why they didn't simply put a propeller on the rear. Scotty beaming (accidentally) into a hydro-turbine makes as much sense on a starship powered by a matter-anti-matter reaction as a group of midshipmen madly pedaling stationary bicycle generators on board a modern nuclear submarine. The acting held only a few glimmers of appeal. The new "McCoy" and "Chekov" managed to prop up the film in that regard. Leonard Nimoy was a welcome addition, although he could be wheeled onto a Star Trek set and required only to wink at the camera to satisfy most fans of the original series. What is next, given this schlock approach to a once venerable Sci-fi franchise? Will the young Kirk's new five year mission be comprised of broadcasts of interplanetary cooking shows that he hosts from orbit from a professional kitchen on board the new Enterprise? (Somehow, Rodenberry knew how incompatible cooking is with good Sci-fi.) I wonder how long those who created this "Galaxy Quest with Star Trek Characters" will need to reintroduce hanging carcasses and meat cleavers. I do hope they find a better script for any future films in this series, and avoid more, ridiculous uniform changes and character additions.

posted by Not_Impressed on October 1, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 27 review with 4 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 2
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    Not What I Expected.

    I am in no way shape or form a Trekkie. In fact, I must admit that I shy away from most science fiction movies. I was expecting to be bored while I watched this movie with a friend. However, I found this movie enjoyable. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. It was entertaining; there were hardly any obligatory sex scenes or cussing. The special effects were believable and the storyline was surprisingly humorous. There are a lot of one liners. The blooper reel was pretty great also.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    From a die-hard Trekkie

    I thoroughly enjoyed this altered universe into which these characters were cast. I have seen every episode of every series and all the movies and I will add this one to my collection. These actors do an excellent job of recreating the original charzcters while giving a bit of themselves. The special effects are tremendous. As long as you realize this is not Mom's Star Trek - I think you will do fine.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted August 20, 2013

    I Also Recommend:

    Good

    Pretty good with a good cast and effects.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    Star Trek

    In a Pulp Fiction deleted scene Mia asks Vincent if he's an Elvis or Beatles man. The idea is that while you can enjoy both bands, you're always going to be bigger fan of one than you are of the other. I find this to be a true assessment (and this will probably not be the last time I use this reference), and explains the way I feel about Star Trek and Star Wars. I have always been a bigger fan of Star Wars, although this is kind of a faulty assessment considering that Star Wars is more fantasy, and Star Trek is more science fiction. Having said that, I had no intention of seeing Star Trek when it was first announced. That was before I heard that TV mogul JJ Abrams (Lost, Alias, Fringe, etc.) was going to be directing the film. Only his second feature film as director, JJ Abrams cut his teeth by making the best film in the Mission Impossible franchise (Mission Impossible III) and was then handed the keys to one of the biggest and most loved TV/ Movie franchises in history. So how does a TV mogul do when given a franchise of this magnitude to reboot?
    With Mission Impossible III, JJ Abrams might have created the best film in the franchise, but you could still tell that he stuck in the world of the hour long TV drama. While amazing, Mission still felt almost like it would be more at home on the small screen rather than on the big screen. With Star Trek you never get that feeling. Abrams builds a world that feels lived in, while using a somewhat shaky cam, not nearly as shaky as Cloverfield which he produced, but shaky in a way that makes you feel as though you are there with the crew as you watch it.
    Writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (Mission Impossible III, Transformer 1 and 2, Legend of Zorro, etc.) also create the best feature screenplay of their careers. Taking cues from back Star Trek stories to add in an effort to give references to past Trek stories. They also build fully realized characters from off the page rather than just expecting the characters to build them themselves like they've done in past screenplays (here's looking at you Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen).
    The truth is, this all wouldn't be effective without the proper people to play the roles. I honestly thought it was impossible to replace the original actors, was I wrong! Chris Pine (taking his cues from Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones rather than from William Shatner's portrayal of James T. Kirk) shines as Kirk, making him rebellious, brilliant, and fun. Karl Urban (Lord of the Rings) creates a Bones that is hard, hilarious, and funny. Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead) is hilarious as always. But, besides Chris Pine, the real star here is Zachary Quinto (Heroes). Zachary Quinto really shines showing the turmoil brewing beneath the logical exterior of Spock. We really feel his issues of coming to terms with being half human/ half Vulcan while also dealing with his romanticism towards Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and being bested in the program he created, the Kobayashi Maru, by James T. Kirk.
    I would highly recommend this addition to the Star Trek series and this part has also gotten me interested in the rest of the series.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Great fun

    Fans of Star Trek will not be disappointed by this "prequel" to the original series, and many of those unfamiliar with the series will find it highly enjoyable as well.

    It is a good rousing action adventure story that is well told, well acted and beautifully visualized.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    Star Trek-the Prequel

    I am a Trekkie from the 60s so I know the plots, details and personages pretty well. This movie did a good job of tieing things together. In fact there are so many details worked through that it takes repeated veiwings to catch them all.

    It was good to see Leonard Nimoy in the story. It is a shame that William Shatner could not cameo somehow. He got a bad rap for his acting but given the 60s and the production environment he did his best. The actors all do a great job of portraying their subsequent selves. I think Dr. McCoy's likeness was the best done of them all. A lot of the character nuances were captured. Chris Pine did a good Kirk but doesn't always have the flair one expects but at the point in the story, Kirk was a work in progress. Some of the sex stuff was not needed but for the marketing needs it was put in there I feel.

    I recommend the movie to Trekkies and casuals alike. Enjoyable movie.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Good Addition to Star Trek Universe

    Technically, watching this movie in an IMAX theater was a fantastic experience. Superb characterizations by the younger cast (Karl Urban as Bones was my favorite). The only disappointment for me is the alternate timeline (which probably was necessary for continuing the franchise). Future movies will not likely be able to incorporate many events from Gene Roddenberry's timeline. I wonder if we will ever see tribbles again?

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Got it Done

    To revive the "original" Star Trek storyline, Paramount needed to hit this one out of the park. They needed to find actors who could pick up the roles, a story that "reset" The timeline while respecting what had gone before, modern effects and pacing...and generally speaking this film delivers. The most attention has been paid to the Kirk and Spock characters as usual but there's a fine cast here all around. I really hope future installments give more time to the other primary characters - there's real talent behind Chekov, Sulu, Uhura and Scott. However Pine and Quinto do well in their roles and I think the new film series - which is what we all expect this to be - is off to a good start.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    I Also Recommend:

    ST: THIS Generation... This Ain't Your Father's 'Star Trek'!

    Best case scenario: You have heard of the old Star Trek, you're a little bit intrigued, but you have never seen any of its many incarnations.


    Worst case scenario: You are an avid Trekker from way back in the Sixties.


    I provide this preface because, depending on which of these categories the viewer aligns, the latest film is either really flipping cool or really flipping annoying.


    Visually speaking, 'Star Trek' is further advanced than ANY of its predecessors -- televison series, movies, Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise. This film wins --VISUALLY-- hands down. Well, after all, we have come a long way from the cardboard sets of the 1964 pilot ("The Cage" -- for the benefit of trivia-minded Trekkies out there -- of which, I am proudly one.)


    However...

    That is the only area where the film 'Star Trek' surpasses those that spawned this offspring. Star Trek the television series, ST:TNG, ST:DS9, ST:V, ST:E, and the motion pictures all worked (or did not work, as was the case in some of the offerings) because Star Trek is a science fiction that is story- and character-driven inspite of the special effects; not because of them. This is the very reason why we tolerated cardboard sets and paper mache' rocks because the plots and characters were rich enough to suspend disbelief. Despite being an imaginative space fantasy, Star Trek's appeal was a sense of familiarity with its cast. We knew the crews' names, ranks, backgrounds, hometowns, strengths, quirks, likes, dislikes, and sometimes about their families and friends. The captain and crew of the 1966 version USS Enterprise were, and are, like members of our extended family. The original characters were so well-defined, in fact, they were the inspiration for an animated series, four other television series, ten films and literally hundreds of novels and comicbooks.


    I must confess that, if not for the title bearing the franchise name, I would scarcely recognize the new 'Star Trek.' The crews' names are the same as they were 40 + years ago, and they read like a Star Fleet Hall of Fame roster: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scott, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov. Yet we hardly know them at all. And it is not that they are now played by fresh, young actors; it's because a terrible thing has happened: The Romulans (remember them) have attacked Earth's history, and the crew lives in the present but theirs is now an alternate reality (uh, yeah,to be sure). Earth and the United Federation of Planets are in jeopary, and only the rakish (though slightly altered) James T. Kirk and cohorts can save day.


    And so back to the preface idea: If you are new to the Star Trek universe: Welcome aboard; you'll enjoy the show. If you are a middle-aged Trekker like me: Prepare for a transporter malfunction and the molecules of all known Star Trek matter being scattered from here to Antares. And it is this alternate-reality plot that is the most difficult gate for my mind to hurdle. Everything that I thought I understood about the storyline is now scrabbled up and pasted back together like...well...a tribble in a transporter beam. HOWEVER, I can look beyond the mess, and see a pretty fair film. Enjoy the movie; just don't think about the old days of the Twenty-third Century.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 8, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted July 20, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted September 17, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 4, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 20, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 24, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted October 25, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 6, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 19, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 4, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 21, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 27 review with 4 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 2