Jak na razie
17 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych.

18 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych

22 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych

24 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych 8/10

imdb - 8.2 - 1982 głosy

26 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych

Negatywne recenzje będą.Tak jak to było w przypadku Mrocznego Rycerza.

Mroczny Rycerz: 94% czyli 248 pozytywnych vs 16 negatywnych

A z ostatnich:

X Men Origins: Wolverine: 36% czyli 72 pozytywnych vs 128 negatywnych

Tak na marginesie, widzę na ibdb, że film zarobił już od piątku ponad 72 miliony zielonych, a weekend się jeszcze póki co nieskończył. Myślę że jest to już ponad wszelkie przewidywania co do tego filmu. No ale w pełni na taki wynik zasłużył. :)

W końcu większośc krytyków na RT to Amerykanie - trudno się im dziwic, oni uwielbiają Star Treki.

Buahaha! Wolverina jakoś nie pokochali.
Dlaczego Polacy to takie z rzędy?

28 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych

33 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych

I fajnie :)
Może będzie więc dobrze. Bo po krzykliwie skręconym trailerze obawiałem się najgorszego. Tak trzymać :)

http://www.media.wp.pl/kat,37976,wid,11093372,wiadomosc.html

A tu jedna negatywna recenzja.

Polskie się nie liczą. Polacy zawsze piersi wyskakują z takimi recenzjami. Polscy recenzenci nie oceniają filmów tylko się wywyższają.Tak samo było z Sin City na przykład...Pierwsze złe recenzje były najpierw u nas , bo co amerykańskie to złe wg polskiego krytyka, na którego i tak wszyscy mają wyje*ne.Dlatego nie czytam już magazynu Film.

"Edukacyjnego przesłania w nowym „Star Treku” zabrakło i wcale nie jest to związane z rozrywkowym charakterem filmu. Foundas: – W filmach s.f. oraz fantasy wciąż jest miejsce na morał, spójrzcie na animację „Wall-e”, która zawiera przekaz ekologiczny. " - Fragment polskiej recenzji

Tak czyli Kirk ma latać po różnych planetach i sprzątać śmieci.

dalej "To właśnie w „Star Treku” po raz pierwszy pokazano na ekranie pocałunek przedstawicieli różnych ras" aby potem napisać, że Uhura chodzi w nowym Star Treku w mini i to jest minus filmu.

Ale to zła recenzja nie jest :)
"Przy czym Abrams nigdy nie ukrywał, że jego produkcja ma raczej rozpocząć nowy cykl o przygodach kosmicznych kowbojów z Gwiezdnej Floty, niż kontynuować stary. Udało mu się – jego film może do historii kinematografii nie przejdzie, za to spragnionym przygód nastolatkom dostarczy solidnej rozrywki. "

35 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych

bo my prędzej zagryziemy niż pochwalimy, że komuś coś się udało

Taki polski naród. Jak wyszed Pianista Polaskiego to polska prasa była bardzo chłodna.Film dostawał oceny co najwyżej dobre i był zawodem.Po Zotej Palmie w Cannes wsyztsko się zmieniło. Dlatego poslkich recenzentów nie należy zcytać w dużej większości.

41 pozytywnych vs 0 negatywnych

no i jest negatywna

45 pozytywnych vs 1 negatywna 98%

46 pozytywnych vs 1 negatywna 98%

Ten koleś od złej recenzji ocenił negatywnie również np Mrocznego Rycerza, Iron Mana Hellboya 2,Milka,Slumdog Milionera czy Zapaśnika.Zachwycił się za to Transporterem 3.Sami wyciągnijcie wnioski.

na Rotten często irytują właśnie tacy idioci. Psuje palant średnią swoją ignorancją.

A mógłby mi ktoś zacytować recenzję, najlepiej od Top Critica. Niestety rottentomatoes.com nie chce się u mnie wczytać, nie wiem zupełnie z jakiego powodu. Byłbym bardzo wdzięczny;]

52 pozytywnych vs 2 negatywna 96%

Blasting onto the screen at warp speed and remaining there for two hours, the new and improved �Star Trek� will transport fans to sci-fi nirvana. Faithful enough to the spirit and key particulars of Gene Roddenberry�s original conception to keep its torchbearers happy but, more crucially, exciting on its own terms in a way that makes familiarity with the franchise irrelevant, J.J. Abrams� smart and breathless space adventure feels like a summer blockbuster that just couldn�t stay in the box another month. Paramount won�t need any economic stimulus package with all the money it�ll rake in with this one globally, and a follow-up won�t arrive soon enough.

�Star Trek� here joins the James Bond series as the long-term �60s franchises that have been most successfully rebooted, although the current accomplishment is the more surprising since, after 10 films and a succession of TV series, �Star Trek� was widely thought to have exhausted itself. While respectfully handling the Roddenberry DNA, Abrams and longtime writing cohorts Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have transferred it to a trim new body that hums with youthful energy.

As happened with Bond and �Casino Royale,� the Abrams team decided it would be best to go back to the beginning -- earlier, in fact, than the first TV show did in 1966 -- to show the origins of James Kirk and Spock and the launch of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Stir in a well-chosen cast of relative unknowns, a strong new villain, vastly updated special effects and a dynamic style that makes �Star Trek: The Motion Picture� look 60 years old rather than just 30, and you�ve planted the seed for a whole new generation of Trekkies.

A wham-bang 12-minute action prologue both clears the palette of residual series expectations and sets the table for the kind of excitement that�s amply in store. The script brims with backstory and future-story but never loses track of the present, in which young James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine), a wild Iowa boy whose father sacrificed himself at the helm of a spaceship at the very moment the child was being born, is convinced by Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to attend the Starfleet Academy with an eye to joining the crew of the Enterprise.

Headed for the same destination is Spock (Zachary Quinto), whose troubled background as a half-human, half-Vulcan is deftly sketched in. If the script has an overriding concern, it�s to map out how these two very opposite figures become mutually trusted colleagues, a key not only to this film but the entire series, past and future.

By the time Captain Pike says �Let�s punch it� at the 40-minute mark, the key crew is rounded out by professional pessimist Leonard �Bones� McCoy (Karl Urban), nobody�s fool Uhura (Zoe Saldana), the valued Sulu (John Cho) and a 17-year-old Russian brain named Chekov (Anton Yelchin).

Longtime fans will feel comfortable onboard the new Enterprise, which might be compared with the new Yankee Stadium; it�s spiffier and technically more up-to-date, but has a familiar ambiance. The costumes are similarly not out of place, but have been stripped of the dorky look that always seemed borderline laughable on TV.

More adventurous is the design for the space-borne behemoth called home by the ferocious Nero (Eric Bana). Resembling a tattooed, grizzled brother of Ralph Fiennes� Voldemort in the �Harry Potter� series, Nero wants to annihilate the Federated planets, most notably Vulcan and Earth.

Unfortunately, Nero has the means to accomplish this in the form of drills that can cause a planet to implode. One of the film�s most spectacular setpieces has Kirk leading two others in a free-fall dive from space for one of these drills, then fighting off two big goons as the fate of a heavily populated planet hangs in the balance.

Exile to an ice planet, Delta Vega, enables Kirk to do some inadvertent time-traveling and meet an older version of Spock (Leonard Nimoy, in much more than a brief cameo), a happenstance that complicates matters on the space-time continuum.

�Star Trek� rockets along like a beautifully engineered vehicle you can�t help but admire for its design and performance. It shifts gears often but always smoothly, and accelerates again and yet again when you suspect it might be tempted to ease up for good.

Pine�s Kirk exhibits an early tendency toward undue cockiness but suffers enough setbacks and rough surprises that the actor is forced into more varied and thoughtful responses. (Someone should decide about his hair color, however, as it varies from reddish to blond in different scenes.) Quinto makes for a very good young Spock, a man trying to define and perfect the kind of man he wants to be. Urban shows comic promise as the medic; Yelchin and Simon Pegg, the latter as a reputedly brainy engineer, prompt some real laughs; and Saldana is vibrant as the female crew member who bestows her favors on one officer to the exasperation of another. Bana is memorably scary as the villain.

Production and effects values are top-notch. Michael Giacchino�s score soars -- occasionally a bit too much, perhaps -- with real character and vigor.

To było Variety.

Tu Boston Globe:
About two-thirds of the way into the ridiculously satisfying new "Star Trek" movie, opening Thursday, there comes a brief shot of the crew on the bridge of the Federation Starship Enterprise. The film has been picking up familiar names as it goes, but you suddenly realize with a jolt that everyone, at last, is here: young, hopeful versions of Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and pilot Sulu (John Cho), Bones (Karl Urban) and Chekhov (Anton Yelchin) and Scotty (Simon Pegg).

It's a throwaway image, yet you feel the final pieces of the puzzle snap into place with a witty and intensely fond reverence. I just about wept with joy, and I'm not even a Trekkie.

Neither, apparently, is director J.J. Abrams, and that may have made the difference. "Star Trek" - a.k.a. "Star Trek XI," a.k.a. "Star Trek the Franchise Reboot" - approaches the late Gene Roddenberry's original science fiction world not on bended knee but with fresh eyes, a spring in its step, and the understanding that we know these people better than they know themselves. Indeed, much of the vast pleasure of this movie comes from characters suddenly discovering things about each other that we learned watching TV four decades ago. There are flaws to pick at in terms of story line and other matters, but that can wait until the glow has faded. In the pop high it delivers, this is the greatest prequel ever made.

"Star Trek" isn't all fun and games. The universe has to be saved (again), and Spock has to undergo a personality crisis severe even by the standards of his half-human/half-Vulcan nature. A renegade Romulan named Captain Nero (played by Eric Bana with facial tattoos and a taste for waterboarding) has dropped in from decades into the future, and he's very, very angry about something the older Spock has done, or will do. Nero's first order of business is to attack a starship, in the process killing Kirk's father (Chris Hemsworth) just as Mother Kirk (Jennifer Morrison) is giving birth to our hero in an escape shuttle.

Conceptually, this is a genius move: It establishes the entire movie as an alternate, parallel "Star Trek" universe in which Abrams and his screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman can do as they wish, fanboys and the canon be damned. Kirk can grow up a rebellious hothead, only learning about his father through the paternal Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Kirk and Spock can meet not on the bridge of the Enterprise but as clashing cadets in training school. ("Who was that pointy-eared bastard?," Kirk mutters.) Spock can even have a simmering relationship with Uhura that occasionally involves long, steamy kisses. Heresy!

But it works. As the characters scramble to deal with the Romulan threat - the baddies want to destroy the Federation's planets one by one, and they have the future tech to do it - their initial enmity is forged into camaraderie under heavy fire, and Abrams has a blast letting them get to know each other. Sulu and Kirk first connect while free-falling through space on their way to dismantling a Romulan megaweapon, and the ensuing fight with the enemy is outrageously choreographed, a ballet of high-impact fencing and brute force.

At the same time, Abrams respects the campy verities of the original show enough to include a third Enterprise crewmember on this mission - the guy I and my roommates used to call "Lunchmeat." Remember him? The extra you'd never seen before who beamed down with the leads solely because someone needed to bite it? The script calls him "Olson" (Greg Ellis), but, trust me, he's Lunchmeat, and the movie's the better for his brief appearance and spectacular demise.

The editing, cinematography, and special effects work are state-of-the-art, as you'd expect - extra praise goes to an astonishingly detailed sound mix - but so are the same aspects of "Wolverine," and that film's a joyless bore by comparison. What lifts the Abrams film into the ether is the rightness of its casting and playing, from Saldana's Uhuru, finally a major character after all these years, to Urban's loyal, dyspeptic McCoy, to Simon Pegg's grandly comic Scotty, the movie's most radical reimagining of a "Star Trek" regular.

That said, the appearance of Winona Ryder as Spock's human mother comes as a jolt, and in no known universe can I imagine Tyler Perry as a Federation elder. (Abrams is a fan, I guess.) Still, the movie's center holds. The classic lines get trotted out - "Ah'm givin' it all she's goot, Cap'n," "Dammit, man, I'm a doctor, not a physicist" - but the players bring an affection and depth to their parts that's bigger than mere nostalgia; when they color outside the lines, it's on purpose. And when Pine sits down in the captain's chair with the exact macho sprawl William Shatner employed in the original series, you almost want to applaud.

Do you have to be a hard-core fan to enjoy the movie? Not at all. "Star Trek" has been knocking around for so long that the basics have seeped into the culture by osmosis. The director indulges himself with a monster that resembles his "Cloverfield" beastie, and there are in-jokes for followers of "Lost" and other Abrams projects, but he has made sure to tap into the longstanding emotion that surrounds the "Trek" mythos.

Above all, he understands the potency and pleasure of the Kirk/Spock relationship. There are certain pop duos that have become cultural institutions and about whom it's endlessly enjoyable to speculate. Who wouldn't want to have been there when Holmes met Watson or Butch met Sundance? (Or Oscar met Felix, or Jack Aubrey met Stephen Maturin; you could play this game forever.) Pine makes a fine, brash boy Kirk, but Quinto's Spock is something special - an eerily calm figure freighted with a heavier sadness than Roddenberry's original. The two ground each other and point toward all the stories yet to come.

Then, at a certain point, the movie's curtains part and Leonard Nimoy appears, playing an older, wiser, more fragile Spock. You're grateful for the continuity - his appearance carries much more emotion than you'd expect - and also thankful that this "Star Trek" stops there. One strutting ham of a Captain Kirk is enough, thanks.

The movie's not perfect. The final battle feels awfully "Star Wars" - later "Star Wars" - as does Scotty's sidekick, an Ewok knock-off in a lousy mask. Character, not plotting, is the film's strong suit, yet plotting takes over in the final half hour. Emotionally, though, "Star Trek" hits every one of its marks, functioning as a family reunion that extends across decades, entertainment mediums, even blurring the line between audience and show. Trading on affections sustained over 40 years of popular culture, "Star Trek" does what a franchise reboot rarely does. It reminds us why we loved these characters in the first place.

ojejejejej! jacy wy szybcy! moja nieuwaga!

Czyli jest trochę Gwiezdnych Wojen, ale największa jak dla mnie zaleta Star Treka - relacje pomiędzy postaciami się zachowała. I bardzo dobrze;]

52 pozytywne vs 2 negatywne

w sumie co się dziwić zawsze się znajdą Ci, którzy są na 'nie' nawet jeśli nie są na 'nie', to tak dla alternatywy :)

TO NIE REBOOT! Chyba jakaś nowa moda - nie bedziesz cool jak nie użyjesztego słowa...

70 pozytywnych vs 4 negatywne - 95%, 8.1/10

A jedną z tych negatywnych dał koleś który nazywa się David.....POLAND. HE HE.

W sumie znany krytyk.Ja tam się zdziwiłem,że Ebertowi się nie podobało.Wracając do Polanda to napisał,że film nie daje odetchnąć...może kolo za stary jest? :)

"David Poland" hehe, dobre.
Na bardziej miarodajnym, moim zdaniem Metacritic, Star Trek ma w chwili obecnej bardzo wysokie 90 % i jak na razie same pozytywne recenzje.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/startrek2009

77 pozytywnych vs 5 negatywne - 94%, w sobotę sam ocenię ;)

Ja mógłbym dzisiaj iść albo jutro ale wolę w Sobotę na wypoczętego mez myślenia o jebanej pracy!

Jeśli nigdy nie interesowałem się Star Trekiem, a teraz chciałbym obejrzeć ten film, to czy zrozumiem o co w nim chodzi??

PS: Nie wiem czy dobrze dodaję odpowiedzi (jestem nowy :/) Kliknąłem w "odpowiedz" w poście który napisał Wojtek dpo. Czy dobrze zrobiłem czy jest jakiś inny sposób?? z góry dzięki :)

Nie, wszystko dobrze zrobiłeś;)
Wydaję mi się,że powinieneś wszystko zrozumieć, wprawdzie sam zbytnio fanem nie jestem, ale to nowy "Star Trek", oznacza to więc prawdopodobnie nową jakość i historię, ale dobrze by było się zapoznać przed seansem z ogólnym zarysem sagi co i ja również uczynię.

Nowy film jest skonstruowany tak, że dla fanów jest to sequel, a dla niewtajemniczonych prequel. Spokojnie możesz iść. Nic jednak nie zaszkodzi, jeżeli trochę się ze Star Trek zapoznasz.

131 pozytywnych vs 8 negatywnych - 94% to jedna z największych średnich na rottentomatoes niewiele filmów ma ponad 94

No to troche poczytam o Star Treku i przy najbliższej okazji lece do kina ;]

134 pozytywnych vs 8 negatywnych


Jest na poziomie Iron Mana i Mrocznego Rycerz!

SŁODKO!!!!!!!

173 pozytywnych !!!! vs 8 negatywnych - 96% !!!!!!

195 pozytywów vs 9 negatywów,

próg 200 przekroczony ;D

209 pozytywnych vs 9 negatywnych 96%


:D

A jakie to ma znaczenie? Nie kumam tego. Bez oceny krytyków i innych widzów nie wiecie czy wam się film podobał?

podobał nam się oczywiście, dlatego cieszymy się, że zdobywa wysokie oceny i jest doceniany! pozdrawiam :)

Dokładnie tak.