I was told this movie has scored 95-100% on RottenTomatoes.com. Don't believe the hype. JJ Abrams' STAR TREK is good but it is not the science fiction masterpiece the glowing reviews would lead one to believe.

The two biggest problems with the story are a plot hole (involving what seems to be a very vulnerable "invulnerable threat") and an improbable coincidence which has key players bumping into each other.

The actor playing James Kirk seems like a decent succesor to William Shatner.

Spock 2.0 lacks Leonard Nimoy's deep voice and speaks with a bit of a lisp so he lacks the authority of the original.

The actor playing McCoy offers the standout performance in this film. He does an excellent job of evoking the spirit of the late DeForest Kelley.

Uhura adequately serves her function as eye candy.

Chekov and Scotty compete for the "most annoying award". Both suffer from an incurable case of the cutes. I half expected someone to pinch their cheeks or tossle their hair.

Apparently there were no Japanese actors deemed good enough to play Sulu. He is played here by "Harold" from the Harold and Kumar movies. I wonder what favors he called in to secure this plum role.

The actor playing Nero, the antagonist, is unremarkable and comes across as a generic heavy right out of central casting.

This movie's job is to put the pieces in place for the series of inevitable sequels. It's a decent reboot that avoids negating established continuity.

On my patented 4 star scale, I give STAR TREK 3 stars ***.

After seeing the film 4 times, I must say that it's one of the best summer blockbusters of the decade. My rating is an 8.5/10.

I have no complaints at all about the film. For me (subjectively - FYI, I'm a Trekkie) the film was perfect in every way. I especially loved the way that they made the film being non-canon make sense (the "reboot of the franchise" that you may have heard of) in a way that is SO truly in the spirit of Trek! (I won't give away this element of the story, but suffice it to say that it is a sci-fi element in two of the previous films and all {IIRC, "Enterprise" might not have used it} of the series in the franchise). I thought Simon Pegg was great, but could have done without his character's side-kick.

I wish I'd seen it 4 times; I've seen it 1 1/2, and hopefully will see it again in a theater. If you haven't seen it in a theater, I'd recommend that you do so (IMAX isn't necessary, but a large screen is IMO). The number of films that I've purchased can be counted on one hand, but I'm buying this movie as soon as it comes out! :)

On a four-star grading system, I'd give it a **** for Trekkies and people who love Summer sci-fi romps, and *** for everyone else.

Brian, didn't you notice that I really went out of my way to not say "time travel"? Now this thread is NOT spoiler-free! :(

Oh shoot. I should of said "spinning around the dimensions." lol

My only (minor) negative comments are for some cameo casting choices: I hope Eric Bana (Nero), Tyler Perry, and Winona Ryder worked for scale. Anyone could have played Nero and done it more cheaply. The last two actors only served as distractions. Why hasn't Ryder lost her twangy voice after all those years on Vulcan?

I agree. I usually hate playing "spot the actor." But Bana was amazing, and gave his best performance since either "Munich" or "Black Hawk Down."