Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

John Hurley As a fan of the Star Trek Universe, I may sound biased in this review. But this is an honest and unbiased review...This movie is definitely not for everyone, there are many tongue-in-cheek references to the original Star Trek which may leave many confused. But the better knowledge of the Star Trek series you have (all of them preferably), the better understanding you will have as to how great this movie is.Star Trek: Of Gods and Men is based in the original Star Trek universe primarily. The Enterprise bridge layout is based on the original series, the plot lines are as well. But the cast of the movie, of which are from different Star Trek series, perform excellently. From Nichelle Nichols' attitude as Nyota Uhura, to Alan Ruck's revival of Captain John Harriman. Everyone in this movie does an incredible job playing their parts, whether it be their original characters, or an entirely different one (Chase Masterson as an Orion Slave Girl, need I say more?).The thing to remember as you enter this movie, is that it is a fan film. It is on a VERY limited budget, and for what they did with what little resources they had, it is a masterpiece. An absolute labor of love that they painstakingly built from the ground up with little resources, and no corporate backing. The movie may have it's flaws here and there, but that is what makes it great.

Faena What we have here is an extended, unbearable New Voyages episode, complete with James Cawley (AKA Elvis Kirk), who evidently bartered use of his sets for a cameo appearance as Captain Kirk's nephew and a comfy seat at the conn for pal Jeffery Quinn. Too bad he didn't farm out his CG team either, because the outer space visuals in this production would make the "Space Rangers" (1993) effects crew snicker. Fidelity to Trek vessels aside, these shots are the computer age equivalent of a third grader with A.D.D. nearly puncturing the margins of notebook paper with ballpoint blue lasers and whirly explosions to depict spaceship wars.Here's what happens when the typical fanboy script with hackneyed dialogue is actually produced, but somehow attracts an array of Star Trek luminaries: Nichelle Nichols and Walter Koenig must have realized this could be their last stab at committing their iconic characters to the screen. Tuvok directs and brings on Voyager chums Ethan Phillips and Garrett Wang. Alan Ruck is the one I felt the worst for; he's the canon likeness of the USS Enterprise-B captain with one on-screen appearance to his credit, but a clear grasp of Paramount's non-existent desire to produce new Captain Harriman material. As such it's easy to figure why he would volunteer his time to a fan production; an opportunity to insert himself once more, however unofficial, into Trek lore. Unfortunately instead of a straight Enterprise-B adventure (which this should have been with his participation, period), he's mired in a barely watchable stageplay with no character development whatsoever. By the end of the movie, we have no clearer impression of who Captain Harriman is than we did at the end of his scenes in STAR TREK: GENERATIONS. What a waste. I really thought it was going to be something special to rival the official Star Trek movies as "the one just for the fans" that Paramount never quite pulled off. Not the case. In fact now I understand why this sorta "came and went" with barely a whisper. All the ship drama occurs on the New Voyages Constitution-class Enterprise. One scene even drags out in the transporter room for what seemed like twenty full minutes! The wooden direction casts professional actors like Walter Koenig and Alan Ruck in an amateurish flare, akin to deer in headlights. To its credit, there are some nice location shoots like Vazquez Rocks and a couple of gardens that serve as the planet Vulcan. Initially I was impressed when Charlie X showed up and I thought they'd gotten the original actor, but he isn't. The DVD case is interesting. One quote describes this as the "... most intelligent and thought provoking Star Trek movie ever created." I don't know about intelligent, but it definitely provoked my thoughts, as evidenced by this review. I suppose if the only Star Trek one has ever seen is the TNG eps where Ro and Guinan turn into kids and quell a Ferengi takeover of the ship, and the one where Dr. Crusher's dead grandmother's Scottish boyfriend's ghost shows up, OGaM could seem like the most intelligent Trek ever, but sadly this is one disc that will sit on my shelf for years until I feel the urge to punish myself for being a fan, or whenever I want to make my friends stare at my TV in horror... before getting their MST3K on.

joexboxer Robert Walker Jr could not be brought on to reprise his role as Charlie Evans. Gary Lockwood was not brought back to reprise his role as Gary Mitchell. Why is that? They probably read the script. I realize I was thinking this was NOT going to be another Cawley production like New Voyages, and I was wrong. It used the same sets, and I guess that is all the sets they had. Cawley's sets and an Amiga Video Toaster right out of 1985 for those graphics. WOW. OMG. The story was so jilted. You get Captain Harriman, the captain who 'lost' Kirk, Charlie-X AND Gary Mitchell together in 1 film, and that was it? I mean seriously? And you people who give it high praise - did you actually watch THE WHOLE THING? I only give it a 1 because I cannot add a NEGATIVE. I apologize, I read reviews and I was expecting greatness. Instead I get something on par with made-for-science class drizzle that I watched thinking it was going to get better, and ended up feeling like I might get quizzed on it later. DRIZZLE.

katyzone Done lovingly and so wonderful to see a few of the old faces some of us knew so well. I actually liked the CGI used, it was crisp and clean and relied on the person watching it rather than making the person a subjective viewer, kinda put the viewer in league with the movie, it is up to the viewer to decide how much they will enjoy it.Heck, the graphics reminded me when computer games were about the puzzles, tactics and maneuvers inherent rather than the gee whiz blow you away factor with a hollow center in most I run across- simply human nature I guess- "a beautiful person need not be as deep as one plain"- not that I buy that, I don't, it's just, unfortunately it is just that way betimes. SPOILERIf you can get past the first scene, it gets better. "Charlie X" doesn't get his "acting shoes" quite laced till his next scene. To me, overall, I like this addition to the universe of Star Trek, heck, better than Nemesis IMHO anyway. The acting is good. Think BBC (Doctor Who, Blake's 7, "bad" effects and all are easy to ignore, but actually the effects in this are a tad better than the older BBC stuff, which I love BTW).I give it a 7/10, but I am biased!