Until not long ago, they said that you could easily divide filmgoers into “Star Trek” fans, “Star Wars” ones and the in-between group, those who liked neither. With J.J. Abrams’ 2009 “Star Trek,” the origin story, such classification becomes as redundant as it is unwanted. The director, an already well-known name in the industry for his artistic vision, as well as for his ability to literally take objects on screen, blow them up and have the explosion blast reach even the viewer in the last row in the theater, has managed to do the unthinkable: make “Star Trek” cool, an extremely enjoyable experience and one amazing ride for every viewer out there.

Top movie critics – but, most importantly, fans – agree that perhaps the greatest merit of this film, this summer’s first smashing blockbuster, is the fact that screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have discovered a means of having their own way with the story without stepping on the (sometimes highly sensitive) toes of even the most diehard fans.

It’s called an “alternate reality” and, of course, it allows both cast and director to present the world with a brand new “Star Trek” (believed to be an impossible feat following 726 hours of television episodes and no less than 10 feature films), while also staying true to the mythology. What the viewers get in return is a film so frantic and overwhelming that it swallows them the instant it starts playing onscreen, and spits them out at the end, dazed and confused, but still wanting and asking for more – if one may be excused such a blunt comparison.

“Star Trek” features, as fans must already know by now, a cast of relatively unknown actors – yet all of them manage to shine so bright that one is almost left wondering how come no one thought of featuring them in major productions until now. The duo that sets the pace of the action is, as expected, positively jaw-dropping: Chris Pine makes for an unruly, fun and charming to the utmost James T. Kirk, while Zachary Quinto as Spock proves himself by not letting the pointy ears act for him, as the critics put it.

Strangely enough, the more Kirk gets beaten, tossed and thrown around like a piece of rag just because he can’t seem to keep his mouth shut, the more clearly it becomes that he is indeed the calculated, highly intelligent Kirk fans know ever since the ’60 early series. Spock, on the other hand, is so charming and fascinating for his Vulcan-human dual nature that he can’t seem to control just yet that it’s no wonder Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana), along with all the women in the audience, fall so hard for him.

Eric Bana, although almost unrecognizable as the baddie Nero, puts an equally stunning performance. Still, critics point out, it could very well be that he drew the short stick on this one, since Nero is simply not given enough screen time to fully justify his evil, vengeful nature – which, of course, is not to say that he lets anyone down the little time he gets to show just how mean he can be for the camera. Quite on the contrary, it is being said.

Simon Pegg as Scotty and Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov are also adorable, and each time they open their mouth, they’re bound to cause waves of hysteria. Yet they too might have deserved at least a couple of minutes more of film, critics point out. On the other hand, they say, perhaps allowing these three characters to have more exposure would have dampened the Kirk-Spock relationship, and that would have certainly disappointed many fans.

The truth about “Star Trek,” perhaps the only movie in the longstanding franchise that has managed to score so superbly with both critics and fans, is that it actually makes the entire Star Trek universe cool for anyone, no matter the gender, age or previous knowledge of the ways of the Trekkiness, so to speak. It’s a fun, light (in terms of plotline – which couldn’t have been otherwise, since the film was meant to introduce the characters to non-Trekkies as well) and highly entertaining production.

At the same time, it’s also extremely exciting and overwhelming, so attentive to even the most minute details and so gripping that the 126 minutes of runtime feel like 12, or even less for diehard fans. “Star Trek” is, in short, a big budget film that shows quality is not necessarily about star power, and which proves that Hollywood can still put out amazing movies, even if they look for inspiration in older ones. It not only warrants a sequel, it would better have one or else, fans and critics say.

“Star Trek” opened in select US theaters in April. It is now running in most European countries, opened widely in the US and UK on May 8, and will conclude its theatrical run in Japan on May 29.

The Good

Director J.J. Abrams and the wonderful cast of “Star Trek” manage to create a world that seems as fascinating and gripping as it seems possible. It’s a fun and crazy-paced sci-fi film that only a mad person could not enjoy, critics say. “Star Trek” is, as of now, the best critically received film of 2009, while also being a smashing hit with audiences worldwide, and that should speak volumes on its part.

The Bad

“Star Trek” is, surprisingly to many, a film about which one can hardly find anything negative to say. Granted, Nero, Scotty, Chekov and even U.S.S Enterprise could have used more screen time, but this is something that is completely forgotten when looking at the bigger picture.

The Truth

“Star Trek” is a must see, critics urge. Even those who usually shun hyped, niche productions like this one will have a blast from second 1 to minute 126 guaranteed, because “Star Trek” is simply the kind of film that shows that, sometimes, you just have to go with the flow and put all prejudices aside. A superb (and quite good-looking) cast, breathtaking special effects, a mind-blowing score and J.J. Abrams’ skilled hand orchestrating everything as if from above make this film a unique and wonderful viewing experience.