This review may contain spoilers for "Star Trek."

J.J. Abrams re-imagining of Star Trek is not just a great Trek movie. It's a great movie that happens to be about Star Trek. It does what I never thought was possible: It makes Star Trek not only palatable, but also actually enjoyable to non-Trek fans without disappointing the most ardent Trekker.

I've always liked Star Trek, but I've never been a rabid fan. My wife Sarah, who also contributed to this review, on the other hand, looks at Star Trek the way I look at Star Wars, so her standards going in were stratospheric. Simply put, we both want to see it again.

The film covers the origins of all the original characters in a way that's both believable in today's world and consistent with what you would expect, given what you already knew. It literally starts at the beginning, showing us not just how James T. Kirk came to be a starship captain, but also how he came to be the man he is. Along the way, we also get some insight into the makings of Spock's character and even, to a lesser extent, Dr McCoy. Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and Scotty round out the cadre, and all are given nods to their original mythology.

The plot revolves around a seemingly psychopathic Romulan Nero, who is looking for Ambassador Spock. Just one problem: He's a little early.

Thanks to judicious -- and, I might add, extremely plausible -- use of time travel, Abrams and company have managed to both keep the existing continuity and provide an entirely new path for the series without making it feel contrived. Although the basic structure remains intact, if you think you can predict what will happen based on Star Trek history, you find out pretty quickly that you're wrong.

What Worked

Darn near everything worked in this film, but here are some things that stood out.

Casting: You've probably seen the unbelievable resemblance of Zachary Quinto's young Spock to Leonard Nimoy, but that's just the tup of the proverbial iceberg. Quinto's interpretation of a Spock not yet the stoic we're used to was dead-on. Chris Pine's acting lent an air of credibility to Kirk without having to resort to a parody-esque Shatner impression.

Karl Urban channeled DeForest Kelly. His McCoy was gruff and crabby, while still being wholly likeable.

And Simon Pegg as Scotty ... let's just say I'm glad they didn't try to find a lookalike here. Pegg's performance was absolutely inspired, and one of my favorite things about the film. I'd see it again just for him.

The Script: The writing on this film was worth the wait. We got a big, sweeping story that covered more than two decades without being confusing. The first half hour or so doesn't quite feel like Star Trek, but once we get to the Academy, it starts to feel more comfortable, and it does, as mentioned, hit the beats you expect, such as the Kobyashi Maru and Bones protesting that he's a doctor, not a physicist.

Humor abounds, even in places you wouldn't expect it. But incredibly, it never interferes with the dramatic tension. When Bones got Kirk onto the Enterprise, I literally got an asthma attack, I was laughing so hard. But I couldn't bear to leave because I had to know what happened.

Pacing: The film moves along at just the right speed, giving you just enough to catch your breath before once again whisking you along.

Reality: This film gives us a lot of the things you rarely see in a film like this, such as people actually getting sucked out of space ships, blind transports into unexpected locations, and large heavy objects that actually fall on people, rather than missing them by "that much."

Overall, a fantastic rebirth.

Sarah's Take: To start with, just wanted to say that I loved it, loved it, loved it! I was relieved to find that contrary to my fears, the writers didn't mess with the original characters' personalities. Instead, I thought what they did was awesome. They not only managed to create a movie that blended almost perfectly, credibility wise, with the original TV series, but they also managed to create origins that had the fans jumping up in their seats and applauding.

I agree with Nick about casting. I'm usually disappointed with a lot of casting in most movies, but I can honestly say I've never seen a movie with better casting than this one. The actors all did an incredible job.

I really liked the way they blended some of the series and past movies' continuity into the plot, and I was happy to see that at the end of the movie, there was a dedication to Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett Roddenberry. I can say with almost absolute certainty that Gene would have loved the movie. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman did a fantastic job. It's a must see for any Trek fan.

What Didn't Work

There were just a few hiccups here. The music was OK, but not great, and I spent the first half-hour or so waiting for the Alexander Courage theme. Don't worry, it's there, but I think they should have stared with it, and gotten it out of the way.

The script also had a few niggling casting and script issues. Zoe Saldana as Uhura was good, but not spectacular (though this is probably more about the script than her acting). John Cho as OK as Hikaru Sulu (and I did love how they turned the fencing reference on its ear). But Anton Yelchin's Chekov just didn't work for me.

And while I can almost buy Chekov's skill with a transporter at the tender age of 17, a linguistics professor who is also working as a master computer programmer strains credulity just a little.

Also, while the directing was great, it could have used a little more distance for the fight scenes. I understand wanting to elicit the confusion of the moment, but I would have liked to have been able to see what was going on.

Additionally, while the action and pacing were fantastic, I did find myself wishing for just a little bit more time with each of the characters. This kind of big sweeping epic doesn't have the intimacy you would expect from a TV show.

Oh, and I was extremely distracted by Sarek's resemblance to Mad Magazine's rendering of Spock in the 1980s. But maybe that's just me.

None of these issues were enough to detract from the film, however.

Sarah's Take: I did think that Anton Yelchin as Chekov was just too geeky for my liking, when compared with Walter Koenig (and not nearly has cute). And not to nitpick, but I did miss the slight southern drawl of McCoy's voice. It seems like they started him off with one, but he lost it after the first few minutes.

I agree with Nick that they should have pulled back a bit, at least once in a while, during the fight scenes.

The only real disappointment I had with the movie was that they left out Nurse Chapel's character. I don't understand why they did this, because she was the only original member of the crew that they failed to show. (Well, if you want to get picky, I'm sure a lot of male fans missed Yeoman Rand). Having said that. I was very pleased that they used Majel Barrett Roddenberry's voice for the computer. At least that was some compensation.

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

"Star Trek XI" was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, based on "Star Trek" created by Gene Roddenberry. It was directed by J.J. Abrams and stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Bruce Greenwood, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, Karl Urban, Winona Ryder, John Cho, Simon Pegg, Eric Bana and Leonard Nimoy.