If you were one of those who, while watching the "Star Wars" prequels, laughed out loud at every forced, clumsy reference to the previous films--"I've got a bad feeling about this", etc--then "Star Trek" is the movie for you.

For those viewers, I have a mental check-list containing items of note that will be of particular relevance (and no doubt, intense hilarity):

Kirk disobeys authority? Check.

Even as a child? Check.

Nokia and the Beastie Boys in the future? Check.

Is product placement allowed in the 24th century? Check.

Kirk fucks everything that moves? Check. Check. Check.

No really, is Kirk horny? Glad you asked. Check.

Spock has emotion? Check.

Is that because he's half-human? Check.

Even as a child? Check.

Does he find things "fascinating"? Check.

How about "highly illogical"? Check.

Is McCoy a doctor? Check.

Dammit Jim, is he a doctor? Check.

That Scotty, he's funny, right? Not really. Check.

I mean, Scotty isn't trying to be funny, right? Wrong. Check.

Remember that episode where Sulu fences? Check.

I don't suppose he can fence in this film? Check.

Just as the thoughtful would-be consumer has no interest in seeing "Baby Wolverine", "Baby Boba Fett", or "sensitive pre-007 James Bond", neither should he (or she) have any sensible interest in seeing Baby James Kirk or Baby Spock.

It is worth noting that while the previous installment in the Trek film franchise, "Star Trek: Nemesis", featured a cockamamie time-travel story replete with a Lovecraftian Romulan villain, THIS new film, "Star Trek", merely features a cockamamie time-travel story replete with a Lovecraftian Romulan villain who resides in a ship that is, if anything, even more dimly-lit and poorly designed than the previous one.

What is sad is that nearly all of the forced, arch, contrived editing, scoring, writing, and acting in "Star Trek" is nothing compared to the ignominy of James T. Kirk being awarded a commendation medal and permanent command of the Enterprise by, you guessed it (who wouldn't?) Tyler Perry. Yes, "Madea".

Fuck you, J.J. Abrams.

 Reply

Star Trek: didn't see it; didn't like it.

 Reply

My main criticism hinges on the story and the dialogue. The story's moral conflicts were superficial at best. The dialogue sounded stilted -- perhaps that was lost in translation though. The special effects were distracting. There were far too many fight and battle scenes. Parts of it were tone-deaf: I'm thinking of the birth of James T. Kirk, a scene in which the writers and Abrams clearly seemed a little too eager to establish a quasi-mythical back-story that would lead to a certain fate for Kirk. The orchestration and almost People's-Most-Wanted-like over-dramatization of the thing made my eyes roll.

 Reply

Lots of big things went zoom or boom, there were some pretty good jokes, and no one had to save any whales. All in all, it was a fun afternoon at the movies.

 Reply

The casting for the movie made it a lot better than is should have been. Chris Pine didn't suck as I feared he would, and in fact was pretty good, and Zachary Quinto was perfect (and I don't say that just because I want him to put it whereever he likes). And I didn't know Bruce Greenwood was in the film for more than five minutes before it started, but he was awesome.

 Reply

I thought it was awesome, however. That guy from Heroes makes an oddly sexy Spock.

 Reply