I was really eager to see this film, mainly because I'm very interested in 'Iron Sky', the new project from the people that made this film, but also because of my soft spot for 'Star Trek'. Despite this, I was rather disappointed.What's wrong with this film is the pacing. It's too slow. A film like this, even though it is definitely a parody, should be high-paced in general, with of course some exceptions. Perhaps they were trying to spoof 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' a little too hard, but it didn't work for me. So not-so-good editing (it's not bad, mind you) kind of killed my enthusiasm here, and I do hope the editor(s) will pay more attention to this when they start cutting 'Iron Sky'. I know I might sound like a spoiled kid when I say all this, but I'm used to action films having the right tempo, and this one didn't. Blame it on Hollywood, they've ruined me.Another thing that disappointed me was the screenplay. Although there were lots of - mostly subtle - jokes for SF-fan boys, hardly any of them made me smile. They were well-crafted, but not funny enough. Somewhat tragic, but true.I would like to conclude by stating that the effects were incredibly good, considering this is a film made by enthusiast whom I assume had only the smallest fraction of a typical Hollywood blockbuster budget at their disposal. The CG wasn't always perfect (look closely at the early bridge scenes, it's blue screen), but often better than what we get to see in Hollywood movies. So hats off to the CG guys.So a well-meant, nice attempt, and I do hope they keep making movies, but this one just doesn't deliver.

It might be OK for a funny youtube-video or a school play in elementary school, but throwing away (or perhaps not ever even looking into) all the books about story telling, scripting, ACTING, and movie making in this huge project is just a plain pity. Why bother to make all the effects, planning and costume-design if the main idea should be telling a story? As someone said before, comedy is very hard style in the art of film. There is funny scenes from time to time but all that is ruined by the oversizing, childish acting. If you haven't seen this movie, imagine your 12 year old neighbor kid reading lines from paper. I felt so ashamed for the people involved on the screen.I hope the makers will take very seriously the critical comments they have received. The problem is that only the similar nerds comment praising and saluting the effort, that is patting in the back for effects, not for a good movie.I remember seeing the first Star Wrecks on my PC long time ago. The characters were drawn by a computer-mouse I assume and only the lips were moving. The voice acting was mainly stupid but it worked back then. If a badly drawn character repeating stupid lines beats Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning's character's any time, I call that a total waste of 7 years.No matter how cool the 3d.

First, a word on the special effects : they are absolutely first grade. From the 3D models to the lighting, animations and kinematics, this is frankly one of the best piece of eye candy I ever saw on a TV screen. They beat both the Babylon 5 and Star trek TNG pictures, while remaining very close to them as fit for a gentle parody.Now for the rest. Unfortunately I'm no Finn, so a lot of the puns and cultural jokes were wasted on me (I had to read explanations about them, which is way less satisfying than direct understanding). But I have seen all 5 Babylon 5 seasons and quite a bit of various star trek series. So at least I can say the warped versions of Sheridan's never ending speeches, Ivanova's stuffiness, Worf's various gruff remarks, Data's lack of elementary psychology and, last but not least, Garibaldi's mix of machismo and alcoholism were really excellent.On top of direct parodies of Babylon 5 and Star Trek (which would probably be somewhat wasted on an audience lacking the reference to the original series), the rise of emperor Pirk (especially the final propaganda movie) was an universal little jewel of dark humor.Besides, the acting was unexpectedly good (not on par with seasoned professionals - but certainly no worse than performances from people getting actually *paid* to deliver overly weak lines in movies like "Flash Gordon" or "space balls"), as were the sets, makeup and costumes.All in all, an exceptionally good satirical sci-fi movie, that can easily withstand comparison with much more expensive classics like "space balls" or "galaxyquest". And this is obviously a work of love, never lacking respect for the original. More like a very funny tribute to these sci-fi classics.To think all this was achieved after 6 or 7 years of work, with a close-to-zero budget, and is now available freely for download over the Internet! Enough to put Hollywood to shame for the last couple of decades.Triple hats off, guys ! Or, as ambassador Flush would put it : "An itching nose has been scratched" :).

After listening to the rumors about this movie for about two months, i decided to download it myself to see what the fuss was all about. The guys who's brainchild star wreck is advertised the movie in radio and TV claiming it to be the most seen finnish film in the year 2005 based on the amount of downloads from their home site (of course you can add p2p on that number as well).First and foremost, i find it astonishing that a group of nobodies can pull off a project like this. I salute them, even though i'm aware they have worked on star wreck for quite a while...they're still not professionals.When you look at the starship effects, it's difficult to believe the above to be true. These ships can compete with the ones seen on the TV-series any day. Naturally time has passed, and the effects can be created without the kind of money needed back in the day, but it's still amazing this whole thing was pulled of virtually without money.The sets and uniforms look good, too. The Star Trek ships look very good on the inside as well, the Babylon 5 ship a bit more stale, but in the same sentence i must admit i did not watch Babylon 5 when it was on TV, so it's possible that's the way it should look like.After all the praise we must unfortunately move on to the things that did NOT work for the benefit of this movie. The acting, let's face it, is amateurish. That's not the real problem, however. The problem is the way the crew decided to deliver the comedy. Comedy is a difficult form of acting, even the masters of the craft know it. At times the acting in Star Wreck goes just silly, and beyond. It may be less obvious to non-finns who are watching this with subtitles, only understanding the witty writing (which i thought was great, by the way), and missing what the actors are actually saying and how. At points i chuckled, but at times i felt a bit ashamed, to tell you the truth. A good example of the diversity is how the same actor first annoys the hell out of you with the character Sergei Fukov, and then delivers almost like a pro as Festerbester. Overall i felt these actors could've pulled off a bit more serious version of this movie, or a poker-face spoof in the spirit of Leslie Nielsen and Charlie Sheen. As it is, the silly faces and shouting, and near slapstick just doesn't work.Finally, i see many of you IMDb browsers did not give this film a fair rating. I've decided to treat this movie as i would any other, despite the many redeeming factors. After all, it's the end result i'm reviewing here.rating: 5/10 - shows promise