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.

channelsurfer98 Overall this film was terrible although many trekkies will love it.I have to disagree with some of the other reviews regarding the performances of Nichelle and Walter. A few scenes were good but the performances were generally wooden and hollow. Alan Ruck as a Star Ship captain was abysmal. When the ship is about to self destruct he asks Chekov casually "what do you want?" .. like he's taking a pizza order. As he is about to confront Chekov he is warned that it could be a trap. "Really?" he says sarcastically. Terrible.The one shining star of the film was the performance by J.G. Herzler as Koval. He has performed previously as the Klingon Martok in the DS9 series. If the rest of the performances had been this solid and believable this would have been a terrific movie.

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.

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.