NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

mutagenrocks This movie/miniseries is firing on all cylinders... all except one, FX. Some of the CG is OK, some looks about like Veggie Tales quality. On the other hand, the cast, the sets (which I believe they mostly got from New Voyages), and the subject matter/script are all wonderful classic trek. So yes it's a homemade project, so the CG is bad, but it's full of heart. I kind of wish they'd do a special edition and re-render those fx with more detail, maybe get people who liked this project and can do FX. I also wish it had been filmed in HD. That aside let's talk about what they got right... everything else. It's an engaging story, filled with many actual trek stars of yesteryear giving up there time and energy just because of there love of trek. Just for a little present to the fans. In fact everyone cast to crew did that, nobody made any money and for putting this together, giving these actors a final chance to play there roles (and in some cases alternate roles), giving us a final go with a cast spanning several of the shows, an interesting story and a chance for the captain of the Enterprise Alan Ruck a chance to be an actual captain and not a jackass (like they made him out to be in Generations). I'm a huge trek fan for decades of all the series, in fact the only trek I don't like is The Next Gen movies and a few scattered episodes (like the Tuvix episode). I find it strange that both this movie and the 2009 star trek blew up Vulcan... man everyone wants to blow up Vulcan, hahaha (and yes I think the JJ trek movies are excellent, after the next gen movies there a welcome change). Great job guys, please consider a special edition/directors cut in anamorphic widescreen with better fx. However, since that probably won't happen, it's still a masterpiece, great job everyone, thanks for giving so much of your time and effort for trek fans. I'd choose this fan made trek movie over Generations any day (Kirk dies punching an old man and falling off a bridge, gimme a break).

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.

rgcustomer I had high hopes for this film, but they were pretty quickly dashed. Reading Calk's plot summary that IMDb currently has for this movie, I wonder if I even saw the same one. I must have dozed off in the beginning, because I don't remember most of that stuff happening.What I do remember is that one of the moments that was supposed to be one of the big climaxes of the film, when Gary dies, was a laugh-out-loud cliché to me. "KITTRICK!!!!!" ROFL.Again, maybe I missed it, but no reason seemed to be given for Gary suddenly losing his powers. Or why he seemingly couldn't kill people, despite all the electro-rific effects. And what about Charlie's sudden change of heart? We didn't even see that happen. Why wouldn't that have been a key scene in the movie? AND, on reading this, do YOU even know who Gary and Charlie are? They were referred to by name so infrequently and their backstory was so weak that I had to look it up online.Star Trek isn't supposed to be about the effects. First and foremost, it's about the story and the characters. But that seems to have been forgotten here, as you see fancy ships randomly shooting each other out of space with new weapons. None of the characters are particularly interesting, and the plot just sort of happens for no reason at all. And of course it all happens in an alternative timeline. As usual.Anyway, this is the last fan film I'll be wasting my time on. I've learned my lesson.

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.