The Movie Nut

Directed by: J.J. Abrams

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Leonard Nimoy

Rated: PG-13 (sci-fi violence, slight sexual innuendo)

Running time: 127 minutes

Best suited for: The "Star Trek" faithful (and those who want to join the ranks)

Least suited for: The "Star Trek" clueless

This ain't your father's "Star Trek," boys and girls. This one's a little bit different.

Yes, I'm a fan. Not a Trekkie (excuse me, a Trekker), mind you, but I do know a tribble from a temporal rift. I know that Kirk was the only Federation cadet to ever beat Kobayashi Maru (no, not a small Asian woman, but a Spock-designed test of character and leadership). I know that Bones couldn't cure the common cold.

I also know that the franchise's subsequent 10 films (1979-2002) were moderate fun, breaking no new ground cinematically but often better than average and, for some of us, suitably guilty pleasures. The best of the bunch was "First Contact" (sorry, Khan fans), which was not even "Star Trek," but "Star Trek: The Next Generation" fare.

I know the last couple of films seemed to signify the demise of "Star Trek." After 40 years, name one franchise that still could attract viewers.

Bond? you say. James Bond? Okay, so name another.

Man? you say. Batman?

Hmmm . . . maybe there is gold still left in them there hills.

I'll admit I'm not a fan of regurgitating our cinematic icons. We need to move on, move forward, adapt new 21st century heroes and villains. But change isn't Hollywood's strong suit.

And suddenly the Bond franchise did come alive again. As did "Batman." So why not "Star Trek"? Why not the epitome of humanity's future in outer space? In its cheesy, coolly received first inception (1966-68), "Star Trek" never really caught on with the masses. Then it made history. And a lot of money, too.

Remember the original "Star Trek"? I was a munchkin at the time, and I ate it up. My parents never allowed me to watch "Twilight Zone" or "The Outer Limits" or all that other nightmareprompting scifi nonsense, but for some reason, Shatner and crew were all right. Had all the right stuff. And here's the honest truth: Without "Star Trek" we never could have had "Star Wars" or "Close Encounters" or most of the other sci-fi blockbusters that proliferate in Hollywood. "Star Trek" was the hokey patriarch of pretty much everything alien we've ever seen on the silver screen.

Sure, Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" might have defined sci-fi's regal lineage in 1968, but "Star Trek" allowed us to have fun, to dream of better ways (and subtly poke at our own biases), "to boldly go . . ."

Director J.J. Abrams does a nice job jump-starting the Trek lore with a young Kirk and, far more difficult, managing (mostly) to sidestep the sticky problem concerning the timeline of events that most Trekkers know by heart. Because of one of those pesky time-space anomalies, the 24th century as we once knew it becomes oh-so-slightly altered— unless one is either Romulan or Vulcan, that is—permitting events (and "Star Trek's" continuity) to be altered at will.

Clever . . . yet also a tad distracting. Despite some rousing sequences, I do feel the action occasionally bogs down under the weight of the film's attempts to placate those staunch fans frenzied at the thought of the slightest alteration.

Or, as William Shatner once famously told the absurdly faithful (kidding or not): "Oh, for God's sake, get a life, will you!"

"Star Trek" is a reboot, after all, and one might be allowed a certain artistic license. I mean James Bond's "M" is now a female, for criminy's sake; one can certainly allow a modicum of 21st century adaptation aboard the Enterprise.

As for plot (and heck, you probably already know)—well, it's decent. Full of holes, full of goofs, but still all right. The special effects are awesome. The cinematic presentation of the 24th century is far better than one imagined back in '66, although one might notice that '60s pop fashion is alive and well, even far into the future. Groovy.

My advice? Don't look for killer sci-fi here; just sit back and enjoy the same sort of goofily entertaining, occasionally eye-popping and often giddy vision that creator Gene Roddenberry once predicted: a universe where mankind has evolved a tad, but despite our best attempts to stay out of trouble, we always seems to find it just around the next star cluster.

Live long and—well, you know.