ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Claire Dunne One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Winifred The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

WilliamCQ Seeing the trailer, it's obvious that the direction is lacking but other elements could be entertaining. Even as the film is ongoing the special effects isn't up to mainstream features but still enjoyable if you consider that most people couldn't do any better. The acting was good but the bad direction had a toll on it. I thought it deserved 7 by then.What drew the line is the story: It's bad at best and confusing most of the time. One shouldn't have to connect the dots through any other thing than than the current story. If there's references to anther story, there should be a hint or flashback to it. But most importantly, the story should be a journey for the viewer either in emotions or knowledge (albeit some is only useful in fandom). In this production, it seem various short stories were put together ; some relating to the film progress while others are filling time and would need reference to be more than the most basic of entertainment.Overall the non-cohesive story blew it. I thought the film deserved 5, maybe 4, but I felt sympathy toward their attempt at the great Star Trek franchise.

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.

Kevin Schuhmacher Star Trek has been a part of so many peoples lives and has inspired so many people to go into many different occupations, from doctors to engineers, astronauts and many more. Some of the top minds in the world are Star Trek fans. I am proud of the people that took the time to do this project, thank you! The story on the filming conditions was terribly funny, well not to the cast and crew, the Enterprise bridge used for this film is located by a busy train track so every time a train would roll on by they would have to stop filming, plus I heard the humidity was horrendous. To all my fellow Star Trek fans this is a must see. Live Long & Prosper as they say on Vulcan! Kevin out.........^v^

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.