While I liked this film (I gave it a 9 out of 10 for both effort and attention to detail, not to mention the cast and crew's loyalty to the fans in making this film), there are 2 small problems with this film. The 1st, as some have already said, is an obvious, fairly low budget which show in the production value. Truthfully, there are a few "fan series'" out there, that while they don't have any original actors in them, have noticeably higher production value and special-FX. This in part brings me to the 2nd problem, which is for this to be a "film" (granted it is a "web film", but a film nonetheless), it plays more like a old TV episode from the original series, due to both the (as previously mentioned) lower quality FX/production, but also the overall pace and "feel" of the film. HOWEVER... In my opinion, all this being the case doesn't detract from the film, but in some ways makes it all the more cool in that Tim Russ & the rest of the film's crew have captured the essence of the original series which laid the foundation from which all things TREK sprung. The actors performances range from pretty good to excellent (Koenig & Ruck, I thought were especially good; both better than I'd ever seen from either of them). I loved also how it was an all encompassing project, pulling in actors from the entire spectrum of STAR TREK 's various series', even including actors from the fan based Web series STAR TREK: PHASE II (originally "NEW VOYAGES"). Then I guess my final comments would be to praise the fact that the film incorporates major plot elements from at least 3 different episodes from the original series, as well as STAR TREK GENERATIONS. I was a bit disappointed that 90% of the film took place in an alternate time line (this again is very reminiscent of the original series), but in spite of this I cannot honestly say that it didn't make for a terrific story line and plot. Ultimately, what I think it will come down to is, are you a fan of STAR TREK or not? A real fan? (Not an:"I think it's kinda cool" fan, nor someone whose 1st experience with the franchise was seeing the new "Reboot" films). If you are a fan of the old series and original film series then this will be right up your alley. The cast and crew said they made this film as a "gift" to the fans. This would be YOU. If you are not a true fan, "Please move along, nothing to see here"; this film will likely do nothing for you.

It was interesting that they were able to pull so many of the old bit characters back into the story and in many cases with the original actors. The story was basically stitched together from loose ends lying around and the old alternate reality gambit.The dialogue is tongue-in-cheek much of the time and the directing dragged noticeably in a few places. The acting ranges from very good to forced and pain inducing.Despite the many flaws, it compares favourably with a lot of the stuff that has been put out by the full budget Paramount crew (which says something about the inconsistent efforts by Paramount). I am sure this crowd of amateurs had fun making it and it is clear they really want to make a good product that captures the feeling of the original series. All power to them. too bad that nothing that is done now can recover the lost opportunity when the original series was cancelled.

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.

Very good idea and it does move along but at a lesser pace than i would like. The direction shows the smaller budget as does the special effects. But it begs to be asked why it took so long and why did Tim Russ let the actors be so boring for the most part. But again great concept and just a tad shy of what it could be in this reunion made for video. definitely a Trekky flick But with a huge Star Wars influence. The special effects takes me back to the first trek movie but without the gloss. Again it shows the low budget. But the rawness does capture the feel. Seeing the actor who played Jake Sisko was nice. As another put it where is Sulu? it would have been nice to see him there. I look forward to seeing the next part and how they can repair the time space continuim that gets destroyed at the beginning