Good to hear.

I smiled all the way through this review. I grew up on Classic Trek, and I'll see this on Opening Day.

While I frequently disagree with Stephanie Zacharek, this review of a film I have yet to see illustrates the qualities that make her an excellent critic.

She lays out the history of the film and her relation to the source material, she gives full details (some may argue to full--there seem to be spoilers in there for sensitive readers) of her likes and dislikes and makes solid critical evaluations. She does this all in witty and elegant prose.

This review was a delight to read as are most of her reviews and it doesn't matter how much I feel she is wrong or right. The strength is how carefully she constructs her criticism and how well she expresses it. Much criticism that I read in the comments page seems to settle on how much readers agree or disagree with Ms. Zacharek. This should always be besides the point since almost everyone has different reactions to film.

Thanks to Salon for employing such a talented and opionated writer. This, unfortunately, is a rare enough attribute in film criticism these days.

I think you mean "useless" rather than "futile." To steal a line from Hitchhiker's Guide.

This was the best of the Trek films, and had everything a movie goer could ask for.

I am always skeptical of movie reviews feeling the reviewer is trying to make a name for themselves by being clever ansd dismissive. Thank you for a multi dimensional review without spoiling the plot.

Sitting here watching "Star Trek-First Contact", I am happy someone took the care to follow the 'rules' that 40+ years has developed.

This one I will see in the theater.

@davidk

Stephanie was quoting the Borg, not the Vogons.

People appear to have forgotten that all of the charm and life from The Original Series centered around the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship. This movie criminally neglects Bones, who by the way is expertly played by Karl Urban. In doing so, the dynamic shifts from fluid and crackling with energy to a mere butting of heads--Kirk's rampant machismo vs. Spock's blind adherence to logic. This is all even more disappointing given that the movie initially appears to be building up to the classic triad only to without warning completely forget about McCoy half way through the movie.

Spoiler Alert:

Lastly, Nero is perhaps one of the least interesting Star Trek villains to date. And really, haven't we had enough of the fucking Romulans? Plus, Nero and crew look and act nothing like the Romulans we have come to love/hate, that is, unless perhaps I missed the bit where Romulans all decided to look like greasy MMA fighters. Eric Bana's decision to rock a Brooklyn accent doesn't help the cause.

All in all, the movie is pretty enjoyable as long as you ignore the primary aspects of the plot and don't mind J.J. sidestepping continuity worries by essentially presenting the movie as Star Trek: Alternate History. Personally, I am excited about the Trek franchise being reinvigorated. But if I never have to sit through a fucking nonsense time travel plot-fuck again it'll be too soon.

... until you mentioned 'swaggering sexual confidence' and 'erotic frisson.' Geezus. Is there anywhere to escape sleazy shit like 'you have a talented tongue,' as Kirk says to Uhura, as if James T. -- interstellar hound though he was -- would ever be such a lizard even at 20?

Cos DeForrest Kelley's McCoy was crucial to the chemistry of the character relationship between the captain and Spock. Gotta have Bones on board.

And, as a non-trekkie who nonetheless saw just all of the original 70's show (only had two channels), I have to admit that it rocked my socks off!

Go see it, probably the most entertaining film I've seen in a few years.

Important observation, raz. Thanks.

Can we take the kids? They both like star trek and desperately want to see the movie. One is a twelve year old and I think she can handle it. My nine year old I'm not so sure. She is a bit sensitive and can scare easily. Thanks.

When I heard a summary of the first draft of this movie, under Rick Berman's lead, it indeed sounded as if he was going to make Kirk and Spock classmates. They aren't, not even close.

Allow me to put on my pointed ears and velour uniform for a moment. Kirk is a student at the academy, a third-year cadet. Spock is already a commander and instructor at the academy. It makes sense, in both universes. Vulcans have longer life-spans and, according to the original series, hereafter referred to as "The Old Testament", had already served under Captain Pike on at least one deep space tour. Hm, perhaps my uniform should have been that of the comic shop proprietor on "The Simpsons".

One scary bit with Kirk being chased by a dinosaur-like creature. Nothing bad happens, and it's brief, though intense. I don't think, if she likes Star Trek, that's going to ruin the nine-year-old's enjoyment.

Very well said! I've been reading Stephanie's reviews for years, and even though I, like you, frequently disagree, I think she's almost singlehandedly taught me how to watch movies - and by extension, considerably enriched my life overall.

While overall I loved the movie, I also share some of Razamanaz's feelings regarding the whole AU thing. As I wrote on my blog, for me, as a serious Trek fan, the movie was like getting whacked super hard in the face, and absolutely loving it.

So for me at least,there's definitely some ambivalence, despite th fact that I found the movie to not only be hugely enjoyable, but also wonderfully loyal to the real essence of Trek. there's also the ambivalence. But on the whole, I'm mostly just feeling really, really happy at seeing something I love brought back from the dead, after years of excruciating torture watching Brannon Braga systematically destroy it.