So I've complained recently that Hollywood gives us too many "origin" stories and too many "franchise reboots" but then here comes JJ Abrams and his new Star Trek and shows us how to combine them and get both of them right.
Unlike Zack Snyder's take on Watchmen, Abrams' Trek is respectful without being overly reverent. TV spots have proclaimed "This is not your father's Star Trek" (annoying the old-school Trekkies) but it's an accurate assessment: who ever thought we'd hear the Beastie Boys' "Sabotage" during a Star Trek chase through Iowa fields? But guess what? You'll dig it! (unless you're a whiny fanboy bent on having a bad time). There's no question this film wants to appeal to a younger audience that is likely not well-versed in Trek mythology (if at all) and the approach makes sense, but Abrams and cast know that you can't fully alienate the hardcore. Therefore, the film's twisty time-travel plotline allows for a crowd-pleasing visit from Nimoy's Spock, makes room for most of the show's famous catchphrases ("Set phasers to stun!" "Live long and prosper."), and even finds time for young Kirk to get romantic with a sexy green-skinned alien (a clever reference to Kirk's reputation for banging his way across the galaxy). The young cast is surprisingly strong and the special effects are top-notch. Go see it, several times, while you wait for Tom Hanks' Angels and Demons to arrive next week and return us to the usual clunky dialogue of the summer season.
But what about two-time viewer Dr. X.
He "proclaims Star Trek very fine indeed. It is EASILY the best Star Trek movie (Yes, nerds, even more than the beloved Kahn-Wrathing)... and as someone profoundly more well-read on theoretical astrophysics than you, Mr. Ebert... Shecky :)... I declare your problems with black holes, time travel, and parallel universes entirely irrelevant: Mrs. S loved it. It is the best. Period."
Trekkies, if you're reading, we'd like to hear your fury with this assessment!