Download Star Trek 2009 Movie Legally, download Star Trek 2009 film, download Star Trek 2009 direct link, Star Trek 2009 download movie, Star Trek 2009 download, download Star Trek 2009 HD.
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
iPhone 480x200 px 665 Mb mpeg4 732 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
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
Very Sad
The initial idea was great. Fans expected some good story telling about time before The Original Series. But we got childish mambo-jumbo with lot of explosions and incoherent plot. We learned that planet Vulcan was destroyed, but how did it manage to exist in The Original Series and movie sequels? Why did screenplay ignore the knowledge of fans in such arrogant way? Acting looks like gang of high school boys and girls having fun of private party. OK, I can understand if in the mind of production the target consumers supposed to be children, but why all the fans from 1960s were ignored? Pity for such a great franchise. Unbelievably bellow Star Trek films which had great screenplays.
2009-05-20
Hollywood Iconoclasts Strike Again!
I believe two days is sufficient time to calmly organize my thoughts concerning "Star Trek 2009." When I reluctantly went to view it over the weekend, I expected the worst because I knew producer J.J. Abrams did not really love classic Star Trek. But I actually felt physically sick during some of the worst moments of the film. If I had written this review immediately after viewing, I would have been much harsher.

I knew I would dislike this film intensely by the time Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Kelvin and I realized the final communications between Lt. George Kirk and his wife were supposed to be some pale kind of homage to "Flight 93." What a cheap gesture toward a real historical event within living memory! I almost expected to hear "let's roll."

Having said that, I did find some enjoyable aspects in the production values, as well as some of the casting decisions. Karl Urban, whom I enjoyed as Eomer in Lord of the Rings, was immediately enjoyable as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy -- though he would hardly have been contemporary with Kirk or Spock. Simon Pegg, contrary to other fans' impressions, did a creditable job as Scotty, although his introduction was rather contrived, and I do not think too much of Scotty's alien sidekick.

However, some of the other major characters remain somewhat uncertain, owing to the film's adolescent screenplay and weak premise. I will leave other reviewers to demolish these attributes, because for me, Star Trek was all about the main characters aboard the Enterprise.

Firstly, I felt Chris Pine was far too young to play James T. Kirk very convincingly, and the writers greatly exaggerated his "rebellious" MTV image to pander toward younger viewers. I'm surprised this Kirk does not sport some tattoos across half his body. But honestly, there are better ways to rebel than stealing a car for a joyride -- a scenario best left to the Canadian rock band, Rush, whose paean to fast cars, 1981's "Red Barchetta," is also set in the near future, complete with robotic pursuers.

Kirk also gains promotions more rapidly than any real military officer I have ever known. It would be as though Harry Potter graduated from Hogwarts by the third novel, only to become head of his own wizarding school. This Kirk is undisciplined, sullen, and anti-intellectual, everything that William Shatner's portrayal was not. Kirk bent rules, but he seldom violated them. Kirk almost always projected optimism, one of Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's best traits. And Kirk valued intelligence and reason, even though he followed instinct as often. This Kirk is pure Generation whine, with little real character development. Promotions do not equate experience.

Chekov is silly and geeky, with his idiosyncratic pronunciations played up for laughter. Sulu is bland and impassive, ultimately forgettable. On the supporting cast side, I thought the Vulcans were unbelievable. Spock's youthful tormentors acted like Draco Malfoy's band of truants, instead of the coolly aloof logicians that Vulcans are supposed to be. Ben Cross did a passable Mark Lenard impersonation, whereas I could not buy that infamous "scene-stealer" Winona Ryder as Amanda Grayson - an important character once played by Jane Wyman (Ronald Reagan's first wife and a fine actress in her day).

But my real annoyance lies in the ill-advised, exotic relationship between Uhura and Spock. While both actors, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto, seem capable enough in their own right, their chemistry feels forced in several awkward love scenes. The original Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) flirted mildly with Mr. Spock on occasion, to elicit emotion. This does not give license to turn Uhura into an upwardly mobile cadet who sleeps with her instructor in order to get a good assignment.

Gene Roddenberry would turn in his grave to see his efforts to support civil rights become an excuse for exotica. In 1967, Nichelle Nichols was encouraged to remain on "Star Trek" by none other than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who saw Uhura as a positive African-American role model, particularly for girls. "Star Trek" also marked the first historic record for interracial kissing on television. But Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhura's kiss scene in "Plato's Stepchildren" happened against their wills -- a breakdown in military order. And what ever happened to Nurse Christine Chapel, Mr. Spock's real unrequited love, as portrayed by Majel Barrett -- Roddenberry's late wife?

Abrams and his stable of writers wanted to outdo the original source by almost cynically eradicating every trace of Gene Roddenberry's ideals. If writers Orci and Kurtzman have ever watched the original series, I believe they did so selectively. Gone are those familiar faces, that I used to see in my 1980s teenage dreams after late-night syndication. Like the traditional "Doctor Who" series, another part of my past is made irrelevant by iconoclastic writers and producers.

But wait! I have the whole original series on DVD! Popcorn anyone?
2009-05-11
Erases all other Star Treks - - Highlander 2
A true embarrassment to the series. Nothing good ever came from time travel. Well, except bringing back the whales >sic<.... I enjoyed it at the start, then it slowly dawned on me that they were setting themselves up to "fresh" new sequels. They no longer have to worry about anything in the series (no tribbles)or the movies(no Khan). They hit one giant reset button. The time line has been changed the only Star Trek that is safe, is "Enterprise". Yippie. Besides from that, what is up with all the characters being the same age? ALL of them went through the academy at the same time? All those different ranks? That big reset button couldn't cure that. Uhura and Spock hooking up? Are you freaking kidding me? And.. A non-graduating cadet becoming Captain of the enterprise, in what, less than a week? PLEASE! Really disappointed. I felt the same way leaving Highlander 2. How come McCloud didn't know he was from another planet?

It could have been better. They could have just told Kirk's story. All they had to do was leave out his junior officers and it could have been great. I'm not the best writer, so I'll sum it up: total crap.
2009-05-11
Is this a Joke??
A true disappointment

I had large reservations about this movie that only became larger as the previews gave more details. I am in no way a Trekkie and I have found my share of flaws in the Star Trek movies and TV shows, but even I couldn't stand the errors in this movie.

To me it was like a cross between Galaxy Quest and Starship Troopers.

And what star was going supernova and endangering the whole galaxy? It would have to have been enormous millions of times larger than any star we can see to directly threaten any worlds outside its own system let alone the whole galaxy. You don't need a degree in stellar physics to know that. We have seen the effects of several stars that have gone supernova in our galaxy and in nearby galaxies and none have been anywhere near that big.

None of the actors had the character they were playing right and Chris Pine seemed to think the role of Kirk was nothing but a joke, Kirk was cavalier but just plain stupid was not part of the character, he wouldn't get a job as dish washer let alone ship's captain. Scotty was nothing like in the TV shows or movies; He had little or no technical abilities and was just the joke of the scenes he was in.

The only character I think they had right was Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy; Karl Urban had it perfect right down to the insults and paranoia.

This was more like a Star Trek parody than anything else. Did Abrams ever watch any of the Star Trek shows or movies, I haven't been this disappointed by a Star Trek movie since Star Trek the Motion Picture.
2009-05-09
Completely not Star Trek
The effects were excellent, but I'm not sure why they chose to call it "Star Trek" if they were intent on changing so much of what made Star Trek "Star Trek".

No more thought-provoking issues, no more "exploration" and much more "fighting".

I don't know why they cast Winona Ryder as Spock's mother. She looks like her character Abigail Williams from "The Crucible", what with her cloak and bad age-makeup. Apparently Abigail fled Salem and ended up on Vulcan...

The plot is doesn't make sense and relies too much on coincidences. Supernovas threatening galaxies, black holes that act as worm holes, it doesn't make scientific sense at all. And what's with Uhura making out with Spock, not once but twice, second time in full view of other crew members! The scene where Captain Kirk feels the need to blast Nero even though a black hole's engulfing his ship was so not like Star Trek's values. What happened to humanistic values? Nero was going to die, his ship had a black hole in it, they should have just let the black hole deal with him. I really didn't understand the business of offering help to an enemy near death, then when the enemy rejects it, fires at said defenseless enemy.

All in all, great effects, but the core of Star Trek is gone.
2009-05-12
Why does everyone like this movie?
I'm not gonna go on here, there's no point. I just want to point out that everyone is so enamored with this ridiculous movie. OK the acting is great, no doubt. But the childish simplicity of the, they're over looking the obvious, which is that the story is insultingly dumb. And why has no one sunk their teeth in to the fact that this whole movie basically nullifies the whole original series.

That's right it's Dallas all over again! TOS, TNG, DS9 all just some crazy dream in another dimension. I'm no trekkie, but surely that can't sit well on the stomachs of the older fans. Wait do we even care about them?

Oh dear, they decided not to bother with an intelligent look into the building relationships of the characters. No, will just skip over that, and go straight into some more time traveling nonsense so we can put Lenard Nimoy in the film. And then to give the 'past' characters technology not even conceived in the 'future' shows... come on, how can anyone defend this film?

That being said, go and watch it for the brilliance of Simon Pegg and Karl Urban!
2009-05-25
Star Trek? More like more contemporary Hollywood drivel eagerly lapped up by lowest common denominator
There are lots of points to make regarding this film. 1) The casting was superb, only Uhura's character was pretty shallow and was never really explored. 2) I'm a professional video editor and I've seen many great movies and I can honestly say that this movie has one of the most number of cuts in it I have ever seen. Consequently the directing never shines. The average duration of one shot must be like 3 seconds? If someone is sad enough to count the cuts then it could be worked out ;-)

The effect of this is audience separation, lack of engagement with the plot or characters, the 'masses' may have been impressed by flashing images but anyone with a bit of intelligence will have felt something lacking. I personally felt sick after seeing the film, it has accelerated modern pace to now 'epileptic' proportions. I guess its a reflection of society, because people can't sit still or focus for 3 seconds without realising how boring and insignificant their own lives really are. Take my advice, chill out a bit more.

3) I liked the colourfulness of the battle scenes and the angles used, definitely gave it new life there, but it didn't really manage to disguise the level of CG. The Star Trek movies 1-8 used models as the basis for effects, although this film did better than other contemporaries its still noticeable. I'd prefer a juicy fly-by of a cg enhanced model to a cartoon any day. You can't beat the destruction of the Enterprise in ST3 or the flyby of the spanking new Enterprise E in first contact. Mouthwatering and powerful, instead of thin and annoying.

4) I felt this 'Star Trek' film downgraded the content so that there was nothing profound or intelligent to take home with you, no message. A fundamental error of any film, and certainly of a Star Trek film or episode as this was the basis for all of the good ones. And yes I do think Nemesis and Insurrection were lacking in this too, however they did at least attempt to pay homage to intelligence. This film is more concerned with appealing to all the family like a George Lucas movie, than actually providing anything memorable.

5) The film features time-travel as the convenient plot device which I dislike, its just lazy. The older Trek did use time travel but in a minority, where as the later trend of star trek (a very bad one) in voyager and enterprise was non-stop time travel.

6) The film sets up a new premise for a new series for new fans, and I'm all for this. I want new people to like it. I just won't be a part of it, I'll keep watching the old stuff (there's plenty of it!). However I actually believe that this film is too shallow to have any enduring or lasting appeal, and the masses will not follow it with any loyalty at all.

7)Some child-like elements (little kid drives car fast without parents permission), Disney elements (kirk turns into a cg monster human WTF??) and product placement (Nokia) confirmed how moral-less and banal this film was.

8)The bad guy was mean, Eric Bana is cool, but he didn't have enough screen time to be truly believed.

9)I didn't feel anything for any of the characters, except Leonard Nimoy and thats just cos he was in the movie. I felt for him I really did.

10) There were too many distractions to what could have been a good solid movie.

11) It was good for kids, I think it would inspire my nephews.

12) Regarding the director, I personally think Lost is a big waste of yours and my time, engineered to hook you without ever telling you anything worth knowing. Much like this film. If we spent our time creatively, something might actually be achieved (the spirit of Star Trek).

Conclusion: It was a money-spinner that raped the Star Trek name for a bit of cash, in good old Hollywood style. it might leave a few new fans in its wake, but an even worse sequel is sure to nip that in the bud. The fact that the rating is so high for this movie is due to something I like to call 'The Retard Factor' (should be an episode?). The only way forward for people who actually like Star Trek (and not star wars) is for they themselves to make a film.
2009-06-05
Plot hole.
Plot hole! Big, giant, gaping, universe-destroying plot hole! For every ounce of praise that can be heaped on this movie, there is one simple yet massive retort: plot hole.

For starters the tag line, "the future begins" is misleading. This is NOT a prequel. This is an alternate reality. Unlike the remake of "Batman" this is not a stand-alone remake of everything. There is the Spock we know from the original franchise come back into this alternative past. This leads to a plot hole.

To be fair this is a good action movie in as much as "Troy" was a good action movie, and like it the mythology is butchered. There is very good emotional conflict in the movie and even a sense of subtlety behind it. The acting is even very well done. The opening sequence leaves no doubt of that. Urban is a fantastic McCoy. The skill of the actors is by far the best thing in the movie.

The shooting was abysmal. The usage of shaken-scenes is horrendous. If not for the explanatory dialog, i.e. "they're launching torpedoes," I would have had no idea what was happening. Instead of the smooth, hyper-visible action of the "Matrix" series we're left with our heads against a jackhammer.

Finally, the ruination of this movie if not the entire series to inevitably follow is the writing. The comedic timing was excellent. The stow-away sequence is a gem. However, the writers seemed to have a problem deciding to restart from scratch or link this to the original franchise. Their compromise is sloppy. Character development is modest at best and unfortunately any novice to this universe is going to require exposure to the universe that was also abandoned.

There is also a fair amount of triteness to all of this action. The scene of being chased by an animal in the snow, only to have the animal eaten by a bigger animal (and in the end it's afraid of fire) wreaks of the "Phantom Menace" debacle.

The biggest fault of the writing are the plot holes:

*Time travel. The most trite waste of time in science fiction. Overused, under explained, and sloppily done almost every time - this is no exception. Bad guy comes back in time to change the past. However, by changing the past he precludes his own actions and that of his futuristic counterpart. On the other hand, maybe he doesn't change the past but instead goes to an alternate universe. That's fine, but then what's the point of blowing up someone else's Earth and Vulcan if it won't have any effect on your own future and won't have any effect on them? Moreover, why wouldn't someone in the future come back to stop you from messing with their future?

*Kirk never finishes the academy. He's not even commissioned. Moreover, he's a stow-away. When push comes to shove, surpassing all sense of rank, he's made second in command. Somewhere on that ship are a lot of angry lieutenants. If anyone in the military actually makes major before they're done with boot camp let me know and I'll believe this.

*Why would someone be carrying so much 'red matter' to destroy the universe many times over if they're going to just make one black hole? Why didn't he blow up his ship to stop all of this in the first place? *How do you show up late to a supernova?

*Why would you make someone a captain fresh out of training?

*Why didn't someone just shoot the drill? Why do you need to lower a drill? You can't drill into San Francisco with a drill you lower into the atmosphere because you're not in geosynchronous orbit and the drag on the drill and the cable by the atmosphere would shake it around a lot.

*Sulu fences like Jet Li. Who carries a sword into space anyway?

*If you can transport people and things traveling great distances at warp speed, why even go to planets anymore?

What is with all the pipes in the engineering spaces? What is with the water pipe big enough for a person and the turbine at the end?

*If in the span of a few seconds Spock's ship travels in time 25 years after the mining ship, why then in the several seconds that it took the mining ship to emerge did it appear all at once rather than over the course of several years?

*How do you create a black hole in a planet that can be seen from another planet, but at the same time the second planet is not also destroyed? Black holes aren't holes that can be traversed.

The casualties are too numerous, not to mention my sense of equilibrium and my wallet. I think this movie could have been done much better and without violating anything involved in the series that preceded it. More effort should have been taken to have the science make sense and to connect this to the original franchise and create a true prequel. Either that or this should have been a stand-alone without the reliance on the original franchise for character and plot development.

I fail to see the point in caring about an alternate version of the franchise. These aren't the characters that have existed for the last several decades - this is an alternate reality. This isn't a reboot. This is a parallel. The origins of Batman, Superman, Wolverine, Dracula, and on and on have been redone time and again. In each, they are the same person in their own encompassed universe. You care about only one at a time and compare the universes. This movie leads you to believe it is the origins of everything that supersedes it; however, it destroys it instead.
2009-05-09
One of the most retarded films to come out for ages!!
I'm sorry but this film is terrible! Anyone that thinks it is truly a great film is either a retard or has no idea what the original Star Trek was about. Star Trek was always about great story lines with cool deep characters that have humility and pure hearts. The crew of star trek are intelligent and gentle and have to cope with complex situations and ideas. This new Star Trek is basically just completely the same as all the major blockbusting films like Transformers and Quantum of Solace, it has a very small simple yet ambiguous story line which is totally pointless, bringing time travel into any story line generally means the writer couldn't think of a real story line so using time travel could stretch out a very simple revenge tale into something much more retarded. I would have liked to have some clever twists in the story or interesting dialogue but no! We are just given the same arrogant smirky one liners and pointless conversations as Transfomers and all the other retarded films coming out that have to rely on CGI for their thrills... This film is shallow and totally unconvincing and makes me wonder if anybody making the film actually liked the original Star Trek, if they did why would they make it into a messy childish roller-coaster ride with so many flaws and unexplained convenient plot twists. I think the director and actors are too young to really understand the Star Trek series and turned it into something they could appreciate. This film is on par with Micheal Bay films its basically another Independence Day!! I feel sorry for the original author of Star Trek he must be turning in his grave... 1/10...
2009-06-03
Download Star Trek 2009 Movie Legally: Clinton: I love to download movies Star Trek with this site and I am sure that this is the best film in 2009, and most importantly legally! * Lucille: Download Star Trek 2009 english subtitle, download Star Trek 2009 full movie HD, download Star Trek 2009 for mobile, Star Trek 2009 full movie download, Star Trek 2009 film download, Star Trek 2009 download MKV, download Star Trek 2009 MKV, download Star Trek 2009 BluRay 720p, Star Trek 2009 download AVI, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi Star Trek 2009 trailer download. * Carrie: Well, youre funny, always movies from J.J. Abrams was super, and the film in general Star Trek super duper! Download Star Trek 2009 movie HD, download Star Trek 2009 full movie, download Star Trek 2009 full HD, download Star Trek 2009 full, Star Trek 2009 download full movie, download Star Trek 2009 movie. * Bridgett: Important for me to download movie legally and in MKV format other does not interest me in 2009. Star Trek 2009 download DVDRip, download Star Trek 2009 MP4, download Star Trek 2009 online. * Irene: I love the game artists Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols legally movie Star Trek. Download Star Trek 2009 BluRay, J.J. Abrams Star Trek 2009 download BluRay, Star Trek 2009 movie download, download film Star Trek 2009, download Star Trek 2009 WEBRip, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols Star Trek 2009 download HD, download Star Trek 2009 DVDRip, Star Trek 2009 downloads, download Star Trek 2009 AVI, USA, Denmark Star Trek 2009 download link, download Star Trek 2009 BRRip.
×