Download Star Trek 2009 Movie Legally, download Star Trek 2009 film, download Star Trek 2009 direct link, Star Trek 2009 download movie, Star Trek 2009 download, download Star Trek 2009 HD.
Download Star Trek 2009 Movie Legally
Year:
2009
Country:
USA, Germany
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.0
Director:
J.J. Abrams

 

          Star Trek IMDb    Star Trek Wikipedia    Star Trek Soundtrack

Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, retired
Zachary Quinto as Captain Spock
Leonard Nimoy as Captain Spock
Eric Bana as Nero
Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike
Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Zoe Saldana as Captain Nyota Uhura
Simon Pegg as Capt. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
John Cho as Captain Hikaru Sulu
Anton Yelchin as Commander Pavel Chekov
Ben Cross as Ambassador Sarek
Winona Ryder as Amanda
Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk
Jennifer Morrison as Winona Kirk
Star Trek Storyline: On the day of James Kirk's birth, his father dies on his ship in a last stand against a mysterious alien time-traveling vessel looking for Ambassador Spock, who, in this time, is also a child on Vulcan disdained by his neighbors for his half-human heritage. Twenty-five years later, Kirk has grown into a young troublemaker. Challenged by Captain Christopher Pike to realize his potential in Starfleet, he comes to annoy instructors like young Commander Spock. Suddenly, there is an emergency at Vulcan and the newly commissioned USS Enterprise is crewed with promising cadets like Nyota Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Chekov and even Kirk himself, thanks to Leonard McCoy's medical trickery. Together, this crew will have an adventure in the final frontier where the old legend is altered forever as a new version of it begins.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 1534 Mb h264 1690 Kbps mp4 Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x480 px 2384 Mb mpeg4 2627 Kbps mp4 Download
DVD-rip 640x480 px 627 Mb mpeg4 690 Kbps mp4 Download
iPhone 480x200 px 665 Mb mpeg4 732 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
Star Trek, 1966-2009, R.I.P.
For the record, I should have stuck to my guns. But I didn't. I caught J.J. Abrams' Star Trek (from here on out to be known as Abramstrek, for brevity's sake) a few days back. By the time it was over, I knew that the universe had changed.

Abrams said he was creating a film that was entertaining, and true to his word, it is. From the initial scenes of the massive Romulan ship appearing and spawning an alternate timeline (this is not a spoiler, this happens two minutes into the film. Spoilers ahead though, be warned) when it engages in a fierce battle with a clearly more archaic Federation vessel, to the final scenes with a triumphant Captain James T. Kirk at the helm of his (way too shiny) Enterprise, this blockbuster is most definitely entertaining.

It's just not Star Trek.

A good portion of the audience applauded at the end of the film. The group I went with all enjoyed it (ages 10, 18 and 55. Definitely the target audience) I even found myself enjoying it. But just as the re-launch of Lost in Space (the film I was most reminded of viewing this one) redefined (in a good way, in my opinion) what Lost in Space was about, Abramstrek has redefined what Star Trek is about, and something significant has been lost in translation.

It isn't a problem with the cast, they all performed admirably. It isn't a problem with the dialog, a good portion of which seemed to be lifted word for word from previous episodes and movies. I think the problem is that Star Trek has always been more than just entertainment to me (no matter how many times I repeated the mantra "it's just entertainment, don't take it seriously") and to see it "dumbed down" to the level of blockbuster entertainment (a process started several films ago) leaves me feeling a bit hollow.

I find myself at a loss now. Unlike many fans, I'm not insulted by the content of the film. I just can't grasp what it is that the vast majority of the fans and viewing public see in the film. It's first weekend returns exceeded all other Star Trek films to date, even adjusted for inflation.

I've read dozens of posts in support of the film on Trekbbs. Fans are dragging their friends out to watch it; in much the same fashion as if the average American needs to be convinced to chew bubblegum. Abramstrek is bubblegum. I don't see the point in promoting bubblegum; people will chew it anyway.

No, I don't like the film. If you really want to know why read through...

!Spoiler Alert!

Paramount finally gets it's way and removes those pesky Vulcans that are so hard to understand and write for (logic, what's that?) by having Vulcan destroyed by an artificially generated black hole (the explanation for which would be technobabble, had they only attempted to explain it) thus insuring that the only Vulcan they will have to write parts for in the future is the half-Vulcan Mr. Spock, who seems to have a lot more trouble restraining emotion in this universe.

Uhura in essence sleeps her way onto the bridge of the Enterprise by having a relationship with Mr. Spock, who is not only one of her professors, but also a superior officer. The moral issues of this arrangement are never questioned, leading me to wonder if we haven't somehow stumbled into the Mirror, Mirror universe (Sylar, is that you?) where that type of behavior is run of the mill.

James T. Kirk becomes captain of the Enterprise largely influenced by the career of his father. In this alternate timeline, the now fatherless Kirk (dad being killed in the opening sequence of the film. The com conversation between the two parents, as George Kirk is about to be killed, being one of the silliest parts of the film) still becomes captain of the Enterprise; proving the modern belief that fathers are irrelevant in the scheme of things, and can be disposed of with no ill effects for any required plot device.

Then there's the running gag of Bones McCoy infecting the recently reprimanded Kirk with a mock disease in order to smuggle him on the Enterprise. This leads to a subsequent series of injections in order to cure him of humorous side effects. Or the transwarp beaming accident that leaves the recently found Scotty floating in engine coolant until conveniently rescued by Kirk through an inexplicably placed access hatch in the coolant tube. both situations so clearly contrived as to almost be cringe-level uncomfortable for me.

I could go on, but I won't.

!End Spoiler Alert!

I can't help but wonder what Leonard Nimoy (whom I will hold blameless) saw in this film to recommend his tacit approval and his venerable image to it. Spock prime stands in sharp contrast to the new cast, carrying with him into history a mantle of respect this revisioined Star Trek will never achieve. Because unlike Star Trek and it's 42 years of history, Abramstrek is just entertainment.

With this film, Paramount can pat itself on the back for finally successfully milking this franchise the way it wanted to when the property was acquired with Desilu Productions. Like so many entertainment properties (Lost in Space, the Brady Bunch, Bewitched, the Flintstones, etc.) before it, sucked dry of nostalgia dollars, Star Trek can be safely shelved in long term storage, probably never to be heard from again.

If there is any mercy in this Mirror, Mirror universe, it won't be. Rest In Peace Star Trek. Say hi to Gene for me.
2009-05-14
Miserable horror stupidity
Not content to rest on his laurels in boring the world into a black hole with LOST, or writing some of the worst ever episodes of Felicity, J.J. Abrams set busily to his task of eviscerating Star Trek in a derivative, boring, 2 hours and 6 minutes of sadistic torture. With new credits ripped straight from Third Rock From The Sun and Simon Pegg sequences that seem to be taken from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and Romulans who appear to have been extras from The Matrix. Do the makers of this film trust any of their OWN ideas!? Do they have any!? And the staple hopeful tone Star Trek is gone. Replaced by a war slash comedy tone that I would expect only to find in Red Dwarf or Starship Troopers. There are just enough seconds of great action in this film to fit into a great trailer. Yes that's right. That stuff you saw in the trailer? That's it, that's all of it, no more than that. There are just enough seconds truly funny comedy to fit into a comedy trailer. Surprise surprise! For the rest of it, we get people sitting around talking about nothing. Except they are in space... which is, you know, actually nothing. Unlike the New York of Seinfeld, which is, y'know, something. Oh, and did I mention that every character in TNG, DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise is dead? Oh, not dead. NEVER BORN! That's right, Picard and Data, will never exist. Never born. Because the timeline has been re-arranged. Re-arranged by who you ask? A small mining ship. A small mining ship with no time-sheilding has evaded the time-shielded time-police and killed Kirk's dad and destroyed the whole planet of Vulcan. Ri-ight. WTF? W T F!? How did they do away with the time police? Aren't a lot of the time-shielded time police FROM the planet Vulcan, that has just been destroyed by illegal unscheduled time travel of a tiny mining ship? If some kind of deity like Q has disabled the whole of the time police, why is it for such a small reason as destroying one tiny planet. Couldn't the deity destroy the planet with a flick of his finger? Oh wait, it's, you guessed it, Stargate! And why don't we see these juicy Q-type-bady-talks-to-bad-guys sequences?? Who knows.

Star Trek is supposed to be hopeful and inspire individuals to do good in the world. This is a war movie to inspire people to pick up a gun and do who knows what.

Star Trek Zero (official working title) gets a big ZERO from me. Awful, abysmal. One star because they don't allow lower.
2009-05-09
This movie was awful
Okay... so... yet ANOTHER time travel story in Star Trek. So... Nero is the mad magician captain of a HUGE mining ship which has ungodly numbers of weapons and missiles used in the destruction of enemy... mines?

So... Nero, upon learning of the destruction of his planet, and the implementation of the "red matter" by Spock, AND he returns 25 years in time AND discovers that it IS twenty five years earlier, DOES NOTHING to warn the still existent Romulus and his wife and children of the Supernova that WILL occur in twenty five years? No. no. Better for the fearsome captain of the mining ship with a 30 mile spiked chain which holds a disk that does nothing to mine other than burn a hole in the ground, to only swear to kill Spock, and destroy Vulcan with the red matter that he could have been using to, 25 years in advance, destroy the supernova that is going to kill his wife, his people, and his planet at the time he is caught up in the black hole worm hole.

So... Spock is caught and marooned by Nero on a moon or planet that is within sight of Vulcan with all the weather gear to survive a winter, AND within walking distance of a Star Fleet outpost that he NEVER chooses to walk to UNTIL Kirk arrives on the same planet AND he makes no effort to warn Star Fleet or ANYONE of the cataclysmic supernova that will, IN TWENTY FIVE YEARS, RE-DESTROY the planet of Romulus AND makes no effort to tell himself that his RED MATTER (which he could go back an tell himself HOw to make correctly, and IN TIME) will be deliver too late, and that Romulus will be destroyed. and..

And, of course, for the ladies, we need for Spock's internal drama to be sexy. He needs to be controlled on the outside, yet (hand to forehead) conflicted from within. Sigh...

And, yet again, another warp core has to be jettisoned to save the world. You know, it seems to me that Star Fleet would figure out that Warp Cores are the most versatile and useful item in history and just design ships that carried SPARE warp cores around to use for defense, attack, or propulsion.

I'll type more description of the idiocy in this move later. I'm too cheesed right now.
2009-05-11
Risky re-boot attempt that will most likely fail
To be fair, as entertainment goes, it was decent enough entertainment. And the casting was better than expected, but using the device of an alternate time line to wipe out the known Star Trek universe killed it for me.

I started watching Star Trek re-runs in the 70's. I still enjoy watching old episodes today. It hurts to watch a movie literally kill that which has been a part of my entire life. I didn't leave the theater with any good feelings - just pain and sadness.

The movie also destroys the character of Spock. There is this horrible scene where he is sucking face with Uhura in the transporter. Whah??? What good is Spock if he's "humanized." How does that work? I don't see how they can get a new series from this movie. Who's going to watch it?
2009-05-08
Hollywood Iconoclasts Strike Again!
I believe two days is sufficient time to calmly organize my thoughts concerning "Star Trek 2009." When I reluctantly went to view it over the weekend, I expected the worst because I knew producer J.J. Abrams did not really love classic Star Trek. But I actually felt physically sick during some of the worst moments of the film. If I had written this review immediately after viewing, I would have been much harsher.

I knew I would dislike this film intensely by the time Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Kelvin and I realized the final communications between Lt. George Kirk and his wife were supposed to be some pale kind of homage to "Flight 93." What a cheap gesture toward a real historical event within living memory! I almost expected to hear "let's roll."

Having said that, I did find some enjoyable aspects in the production values, as well as some of the casting decisions. Karl Urban, whom I enjoyed as Eomer in Lord of the Rings, was immediately enjoyable as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy -- though he would hardly have been contemporary with Kirk or Spock. Simon Pegg, contrary to other fans' impressions, did a creditable job as Scotty, although his introduction was rather contrived, and I do not think too much of Scotty's alien sidekick.

However, some of the other major characters remain somewhat uncertain, owing to the film's adolescent screenplay and weak premise. I will leave other reviewers to demolish these attributes, because for me, Star Trek was all about the main characters aboard the Enterprise.

Firstly, I felt Chris Pine was far too young to play James T. Kirk very convincingly, and the writers greatly exaggerated his "rebellious" MTV image to pander toward younger viewers. I'm surprised this Kirk does not sport some tattoos across half his body. But honestly, there are better ways to rebel than stealing a car for a joyride -- a scenario best left to the Canadian rock band, Rush, whose paean to fast cars, 1981's "Red Barchetta," is also set in the near future, complete with robotic pursuers.

Kirk also gains promotions more rapidly than any real military officer I have ever known. It would be as though Harry Potter graduated from Hogwarts by the third novel, only to become head of his own wizarding school. This Kirk is undisciplined, sullen, and anti-intellectual, everything that William Shatner's portrayal was not. Kirk bent rules, but he seldom violated them. Kirk almost always projected optimism, one of Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's best traits. And Kirk valued intelligence and reason, even though he followed instinct as often. This Kirk is pure Generation whine, with little real character development. Promotions do not equate experience.

Chekov is silly and geeky, with his idiosyncratic pronunciations played up for laughter. Sulu is bland and impassive, ultimately forgettable. On the supporting cast side, I thought the Vulcans were unbelievable. Spock's youthful tormentors acted like Draco Malfoy's band of truants, instead of the coolly aloof logicians that Vulcans are supposed to be. Ben Cross did a passable Mark Lenard impersonation, whereas I could not buy that infamous "scene-stealer" Winona Ryder as Amanda Grayson - an important character once played by Jane Wyman (Ronald Reagan's first wife and a fine actress in her day).

But my real annoyance lies in the ill-advised, exotic relationship between Uhura and Spock. While both actors, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto, seem capable enough in their own right, their chemistry feels forced in several awkward love scenes. The original Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) flirted mildly with Mr. Spock on occasion, to elicit emotion. This does not give license to turn Uhura into an upwardly mobile cadet who sleeps with her instructor in order to get a good assignment.

Gene Roddenberry would turn in his grave to see his efforts to support civil rights become an excuse for exotica. In 1967, Nichelle Nichols was encouraged to remain on "Star Trek" by none other than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who saw Uhura as a positive African-American role model, particularly for girls. "Star Trek" also marked the first historic record for interracial kissing on television. But Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhura's kiss scene in "Plato's Stepchildren" happened against their wills -- a breakdown in military order. And what ever happened to Nurse Christine Chapel, Mr. Spock's real unrequited love, as portrayed by Majel Barrett -- Roddenberry's late wife?

Abrams and his stable of writers wanted to outdo the original source by almost cynically eradicating every trace of Gene Roddenberry's ideals. If writers Orci and Kurtzman have ever watched the original series, I believe they did so selectively. Gone are those familiar faces, that I used to see in my 1980s teenage dreams after late-night syndication. Like the traditional "Doctor Who" series, another part of my past is made irrelevant by iconoclastic writers and producers.

But wait! I have the whole original series on DVD! Popcorn anyone?
2009-05-11
Ugh...what did I just watch?
How the original Trek cast began? I think not. First off they couldn't even get decent "young" look-alikes except for Karl Urban who plays McCoy. Simon Pegg who plays Scotty LOOKS older then the supposedly younger cast members and has the personality of an Irish drunk they just picked up off the street. Not to mention the idiotic young Kirk played by Chris Pine whose childhood begins as a rebel and passes his time away getting into bar room brawls, scooping & boffing chicks, and hiding under beds to check out Uhura in her underwear. Oh yeah, did anyone tell you about the Spock and Uhura "love thang" going on in the transporter yet? Come on, Gene Roddenberry is turning in his grave over this mess. They had the audacity to take classic clichés like McCoy's "Dammit Jim", Spock's "Facinating" and Sulu's love for fencing and turned them into REAL Hollywood clichés. Forget about the effects, it's nothing you haven't already seen in any Battlestar Galactica episode. This film has so many holes in regard to the original series and cast it surpasses Swiss cheese yet smells like Limburger. The biggest being how the technology (set design) looks to be about 200 years more advanced then the original. The original mission was to explore new worlds and go where no man has gone before. Although these characters fell together as a crew by coincidence. On account of a rift between the Romulans and Vulcans, and the Vulcan planet being turned into a black hole. Uh-huh....where did that come from Orci and Kurtzman? Your butts? I went to see this with my 14 year old nephew whose never seen an original episode. Afterward he said he didn't want to see any and thought they would be as stupid as this movie. Yes, those were HIS words. I had to reassure him that not everything newer is necessarily better. How true it is, how true it is! Stay light years away from this.
2009-05-12
Disgusting Vulgar thrashing of Star Trek Franchise
Like everything in this world, it seems we are all in a mad dash to dumb down everything for 5th grade comprehension. I'm sorry but there is no way this movie deserves any praise. The story line literally was just one 1 billion to 1 probability after another. The motivating reason behind the bad guys actions were sophomoric. The whole storyline from beginning to end was impossible to believe possible.

First off scotty, spock, and jim all end up on the same planet by accident. The bad guy, whatever his name was, was motivated by an event spock had no control over and was trying to prevent. "Jim" was just a prick, not cool, and no one in there right mind would give him control of a star ship acting like that. LOL. Absurd, Absurd, Absurd.

Really, A cartoon has deeper and more coherent plot lines.

This movie is a joke, appealing to those that enjoy visual effects, and big explosions, that's all you'll get, if that is what you want, this is the movie for you, if you want something with a better storyline than "See Spot Run", save the gas.
2009-05-17
Very disappointed.
******SPOILERS BELOW******

---Doctor Korby: Are you with me, Captain?

---Captain Kirk: You've created your own Kirk. Why do you need me?

---Doctor Korby: I created him to impress you, not to replace you.

---Captain Kirk: I'm impressed, Doctor. But not the way you think.

{from "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"}

This movie didn't have an extended title; it was just Star Trek. But I have some ideas for an extended title:

"The Unreal McCoy"

"Bad Robot Poops On Star Trek"

"Let's Pervert Star Trek To Appease Teenagers"

"Abrams Pilots Star Trek Over The Shark"

I have been a Star Trek fan for 42 years. I have seen every Star Trek story made for the movie screen and TV screen (including the animated series). This was one of the worst Star Trek stories I ever saw.

It was not necessary to "reboot" Star Trek. It was not necessary to change the Enterprise. It was not necessary for Spock and Uhura to have the hots for each other. It was not necessary to destroy Vulcan. It was not necessary to kill Amanda, although it was necessary to remove Winona Ryder from the movie.

There are good parts of the movie. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, who accepted the enormous challenges of playing Kirk and Spock, performed very well. Ben Cross, as Sarek, proved my belief that he would be a good Vulcan. The visual effects were very good, as I would expect from ILM.

However, the many changes in Star Trek history were unjustified. These changes can't be glossed over by saying, "It's obviously an alternate-universe story." That wasn't firmly established in the movie. (There is a difference between alternate-universe and alternate-timeline.) What I saw was J.J. Abrams, Robert Orci, and Alex Kurtzman rewriting Star Trek in a shameless attempt to attract young airheads who wouldn't care about Star Trek anyway.

The absurd design of the "new" Enterprise only reminded me of how beautiful the original NCC-1701 was. The "new" Bridge looked like a disco. The "new" Engineering areas looked like an oil refinery.

The other members of the new cast were mostly disappointing. Zoe Saldana is a lovely lady, but she couldn't carry Nichelle Nichols' boots. Karl Urban's performance almost was a parody of McCoy; he only reminded me of how much I miss DeForest Kelley. John Cho won't make me forget George Takei. Anton Yelchin made Chekov almost irritating. And Simon Pegg almost turned Scotty into the Court Jester (and why did they include that pint-size rockface? Is he the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek?).

Kirk's rapid promotion also was absurd. No matter how good a young officer is, no one rises from Cadet to Captain that fast.

The soundtrack was forgettable. (I've already forgotten it.)

Obviously, nitpickers would go ape over this movie. The star dates - in the 2200s - would set this story in the first season of The Original Series (TOS), long after Kirk became Captain. Delta Vega was moved from the edge of the galaxy to next to Vulcan. The uniforms, like the "new" Enterprise, don't jibe with TOS or "The Cage." (They looked like cheap knockoffs I would find in a costume shop.) And how can the Kelvin carry 800 people?

If this was an alternate-universe story, then I hope we never return. I wouldn't mind seeing this young cast in another Star Trek movie, but I would want that movie to return us to this universe, where the Enterprise looks like the NCC-1701 of TOS, Vulcan still exists, and Amanda lives (and is not played by Winona Ryder). But I also believe this is too much to ask.

This "reboot" probably will be very popular with young movie fans. Thus, it might be the template for future Star Trek movies, in which we'll probably see more changes in Star Trek history. But no matter how popular this "rebooted" Star Trek becomes, it's no substitute for TOS or any other Star Trek series. If this is the only option for continuing Star Trek, then let the franchise die with some dignity.
2009-05-09
Awesome - highly recommend
I was one of the few lucky fans who attended the Sydney premiere and my impression was "Wow!" The use of a well known Roddenberry plot device to reset the franchise was a brilliant idea and means the franchise can now move forward without the "FANS" shouting "canon!" The movie itself was brilliantly cast and performed with each actor being enough like the original to be believable in the role without the over the top acting that was part of TV when it all began in the 1960's.The special effects are top notch.

Its a film which you can take anyone who enjoys sci-fi to, not just someone who knows the last 40+ years of Trek.

So what level of fan am I? I own 3 costumes, attend conventions and appear in "Trekkies 2", and yet loved Enterprise because from the first episode I simply said its was in an alternate universe, its the same but different. I view this film in the same light, same but different.
2009-04-10
Press the self destruct Jim!
The writers, producers and actors in this film are accomplices to the murder of Star Trek.

SPOILER ALERT ! How dare they reboot the timeline ! How can they prevent everyone in TNG, DS9, and Voyager from ever being born ? What gall ! I sincerely hope they don't do a sequel,but they probably will. The glut of weak sci fi films lately that all earn $140 Million no matter how bad they are is a new milch cow. Screwball comedies, cop films, sicko horror. No make a sci fi film, the money will just roll in. Never mind the fans who have invested 20 years or more of their lives with this franchise.
2009-05-29
Download Star Trek 2009 Movie Legally: Clinton: I love to download movies Star Trek with this site and I am sure that this is the best film in 2009, and most importantly legally! * Lucille: Download Star Trek 2009 english subtitle, download Star Trek 2009 full movie HD, download Star Trek 2009 for mobile, Star Trek 2009 full movie download, Star Trek 2009 film download, Star Trek 2009 download MKV, download Star Trek 2009 MKV, download Star Trek 2009 BluRay 720p, Star Trek 2009 download AVI, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi Star Trek 2009 trailer download. * Carrie: Well, youre funny, always movies from J.J. Abrams was super, and the film in general Star Trek super duper! Download Star Trek 2009 movie HD, download Star Trek 2009 full movie, download Star Trek 2009 full HD, download Star Trek 2009 full, Star Trek 2009 download full movie, download Star Trek 2009 movie. * Bridgett: Important for me to download movie legally and in MKV format other does not interest me in 2009. Star Trek 2009 download DVDRip, download Star Trek 2009 MP4, download Star Trek 2009 online. * Irene: I love the game artists Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols legally movie Star Trek. Download Star Trek 2009 BluRay, J.J. Abrams Star Trek 2009 download BluRay, Star Trek 2009 movie download, download film Star Trek 2009, download Star Trek 2009 WEBRip, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Ben Cross, Winona Ryder, Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols Star Trek 2009 download HD, download Star Trek 2009 DVDRip, Star Trek 2009 downloads, download Star Trek 2009 AVI, USA, Denmark Star Trek 2009 download link, download Star Trek 2009 BRRip.
×