Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

channelsurfer98 Overall this film was terrible although many trekkies will love it.I have to disagree with some of the other reviews regarding the performances of Nichelle and Walter. A few scenes were good but the performances were generally wooden and hollow. Alan Ruck as a Star Ship captain was abysmal. When the ship is about to self destruct he asks Chekov casually "what do you want?" .. like he's taking a pizza order. As he is about to confront Chekov he is warned that it could be a trap. "Really?" he says sarcastically. Terrible.The one shining star of the film was the performance by J.G. Herzler as Koval. He has performed previously as the Klingon Martok in the DS9 series. If the rest of the performances had been this solid and believable this would have been a terrific movie.

savagesteve13 The plot is rather complex, which is unusual for the simplistic ones of TOS. As an older Trek fan, its great to see a veritable tour de force of actors coming back to reprise their roles from past movies and series, with only a few exceptions. This is unusual in that it is "Uhura-centric", where she plays a core character and of course handles it in a different more female way of doing things. There's still plenty of phaser action and explosions for the guys though, and who doesn't like a green skin slave girl character. Low production values detract immensely, and the CGI is absolutely terrible. I've seen much better stuff from Babylon V and they were using Amiga 2000 computers back in 1994. Pyrotechnics were also missing. Actors didn't have squibs when they got hit by phasers so they just jumped backwards and fell. Going on the cheap. The dialogue also was kind of stilted and forced. Nobody felt comfortable which is usually the hallmark of STTNG. The only one that seemed relaxed was good old Walter Koenig, though his lines were not well written.It could have been much better. To have been graced with so many veteran Sci-Fi actors and then to nuke the production with cheap CGI and a poor script, well its makes you feel that it could have been great if done right.

mattpuppeteer WARNING SPOILER: The "Star Trek" success is undeniable. This franchise has generated four spin-off series, videos, books, and a very loyal following of which I am one. Filmmakers seeking to venture into this well-established universe ought to do so with great care. The visuals must look 100% real. There are no excuses for anything less than full scale models photographed on motion picture film later enhanced by CGI. Scripts need to exceed our expectations. If it is not well-written it can't be well-acted. And there is nothing more unfortunate than to see our all time favorite "Star Trek" stars speaking stinted lines of dialogue. Sets used must be built from scratch and not rented from other non Star Trek productions - aka: a spaceship interior used in the short-lived Fox TV show "Firefly" episode "Bushwhacked"- I was amazed to see how many "Star Trek" personalities participated in this less than stellar production. Those financing this straight-to-video movie should have forked out enough money for this production. The minute investors heard Tim Russ and other who's who of "Star Trek" were going to embark on this journey, they (investors) should have given more to this budget. I would love to see more of these videos provided better care is taken in making them (i.e. appropriate budgets). Tim Russ and cast get an "A+" for their efforts here. They did the very best with what they had to work with.

dmkalman When you get right down to it, Star Trek is about characters. Not CGI. This production offers downright primitive FX, but the characterizations are riveting. Walter Koenig gives a devastating performance -- his best ever -- that actually made me irate when I considered how his immense talent was squandered for so long in corporate Trek. Likewise with Garrett Wang. In Voyager, his Harry Kim was, like many corporate Star Trek characters, bland and generally uninteresting. (That's why alternate time line/universe Trek stories are always superior.) Nichelle Nichols' performance here outshines anything she's done in any of the TOS feature films. Alan Ruck as Harriman oscillates between menacing and hysterical. And JG Hertzler as Koval sets a new standard for menacing Klingons. Chase Masterson (call me!) as the Orion slave girl continues to be the hottest flame in the Star Trek universe. It was great to see Lawrence Montaigne reprise the role of the Vulcan Stonn, and Gary Graham rounds out a truly professional acting ensemble. I'd rather watch cheap productions like this one -- with twisty plots and interesting, passionate characters -- over the slick, simplistic, corporate dreck. Let's see if the upcoming Star Trek prequel -- with its $150 MILLION budget -- can deliver this kind of intense, emotionally engaging adventure. I doubt it.**UPDATE** OK. I enjoyed Star Trek (2009). It was slick, fast, and fun...and it had two great Spock performances. But I also found the story strained (lacking a coherent plot-line) and derivative (in a bad way). It echoed (strangely) the abysmal Star Trek: Nemesis with its monstrous death-ship and Romulan bad-a$$ baldy. (Maybe in the next film the young Kirk and Spock will go back in time and save some whales.) So, I'd give the big budget flick a 7.9 on its flash and on the strength of Zachary Quinto's performance, but the movie as a whole doesn't hold up well under multiple viewings. I still enjoyed Of Gods and Men more.