And boy, does he ever. Beginning literally with the birth of Jim Kirk that is probably the biggest atomic wedgie on “canon” ever yanked in Trek history, Abrams breaks from the need to fit into the tightly-woven mold of five television series, ten movies, and a small library of books, all of which add something to that ever-expanding Trek universe. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurzman have delivered what seemed like the impossible: a brilliant script that fires on all thrusters.

But don’t let the fact that Abrams, Orci, and Kurzman have turned the Trekiverse on its pointed ears fool you into thinking that this is a bad movie. They’ve done a masterful job of making it relevant, exciting, and most importantly — fun. To be fair, though, they had a lot of help, specifically from a young cast where each member fills iconic roles to perfection. Trek fans (including this writer) asked themselves and each other for ages, “Who could play Kirk other than William Shatner?” Well, now we know. That man is Chris Pine.

Pine’s Kirk is young, vibrant, sexy, brilliant, and has the sheer guts and is downright arrogant. To be blunt, Chris Pine is James T. Kirk. Thankfully, he didn’t fall into the trap of mimicking William Shatner’s odd…pauses…betweenthewordsashespeaks. Watch for one particular sequence involving an apple that’s an outstanding homage to a similar apple in The Wrath of Khan.

Zachary Quinto dons the pointed ears as a young Spock, who personifies a younger version of Leonard Nimoy, except for the voice. Oh well, can’t have everything. I do think that Quinto had a little bit of an advantage, though, since Nimoy himself also appears as “Spock Prime,” the older version of the iconic character we all know so well.

The film opens with an explosive sequence that literally has the audience gasping for breath, and introduces the villain, a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana). Nero is, as Spock Prime puts it, “A highly disturbed Romulan.” That’s about all I can say without spoiling the film, and the fun. He’s not quite as rich of an adversary as Khan was, but he holds his own nicely, and presents a great “galaxy is at stake” threat.

We’re first introduced to Kirk as he hits on the hot chick, and gets into a four-to-one fight, only to end up running into Captain Christopher Pike (Lee Greenwood), who insists that he joins Starfleet. “Shuttle leaves at 0800 tomorrow.” Does the angst-ridden hothead that is Jim Kirk take him up on the offer? Of course he does. After all, he has to join Starfleet to become Captain. Plus, there are so many green women out there!

The third person of the great Trek triumvirate is Leonard “Bones” McCoy (we finally learn what “Bones” means), played perfectly by Karl Urban, who’s been in far too many genre films to list. Among them are two of the Lord of the Rings films and The Chronicles of Riddick. This man gets around. He’s found in McCoy all those elements that make our favorite irascible country doctor as lovable as he is. He doesn’t mimic the late DeForest Kelley. He becomes McCoy.

All of the others are there. Simon Pegg is Scotty, Zoe Saldana is Uhura, John Cho is Sulu, and Anton Yelchin is Pawel… er Pavel Chekov. The late Majel Barrett Roddenberry provided the voice of the computer just before her death in December. Every character has their moment, and their time to shine. Put simply, they’re perfect.

As the eleventh film in the Trek series, Star Trek takes its place among the best of them. Is it better than Wrath of Khan? Well, I’m not sure I’m willing to say that just yet. But it’s darn close. Maybe it’s the fact that Kirk bites into an apple in both films.

The script is tight, the editing is nearly flawless, and the direction is spot-on. Star Trek has joined a few of the recent big-budget blockbusters with its “action in your face” imagery, which sometimes makes the audience wonder what’s happening (think last year’s Transformers). Thankfully, Abrams does a great job in pulling out often enough to let us get a sense of the size and scale of just what the hell is going on.

Diehard Trek fans will take issue with some of the rapid promotions seen in the film, and yes, they seem a little contrived. Certain romances will also take them by surprise, but they make sense. Of course, with the near-religious “canon” turned on its heels (even if it is well-done), some fans will end up in convulsions no matter what. I’m not sure which would be more entertaining to watch, really… a trekker twitch as he complains about the placement and size of the engine nacelles or the aesthetic values of the new Enterprise, or the film itself. To be honest, though, there’s something twisted in my mind that would rather watch a twitching trekker.

“That’s… not…canon…generoddenberry…would…be…spinninginhisgrave…” Yeah, that’d be fun to watch.

But, I digress. The movie is brilliant.

Let’s be fair, though. Every time something comes along as a reboot, it’s instantly met with a lot of skepticism and cautious optimism. I certainly had plenty of both. But now that I’ve seen it, I’m convinced. My skepticism was relieved, and my optimism was honored. Star Trek is back. And it’s one of the best Treks ever. The words “Space, the final frontier….” have never been uttered against a film that was as sharp, action-packed, and completely human. And it’s just gone into warp speed.

Watchmen

Once considered the “unfilmable” graphic novel, Watchmen held a status of reverence which has placed it among the “100 Greatest Novels” by Time Magazine. Unlike most superhero movies, its source material is far less widespread, with a mere twelve issues making up its entire pantheon. Interesting, too, is its rabid fanboy devotion which will surely pick apart every scene with a kind of hair-splitting fervor that’s often reserved for legalistic religious scholars.

Zack Snyder picked up the director’s reins for Watchmen, having wowed mostly-male audiences with the overly graphic 300. Unlike most superhero films, none of its characters are on the lips of the average American (quick, can you recite the complete back story of the first Night Owl?), which makes this film an especially great challenge for any writer or director.

For any film to be successful not only with audiences but critics, it must stand on its own, despite its source material. Watchmen’s greatest faults are highlighted by the faults of any graphic novel, particularly the pacing and storytelling. On the plus side, nearly every scene was filmed as if they were pulled from the panels of its drawn counterpart, resulting in some of the most beautifully rendered images ever seen on film.

For the uninitiated, Watchmen tells a story in an alternate version of 1985 where costumed heroes weren’t the stuff of comic books (that realm was dedicated to pirate stories), but were a part of their recent history. So recent, in fact, that the government (with Nixon still in the White House) had passed a law that outlawed costumed heroes.

The opening credits are easily the most memorable of the film, which establish beautifully the “alternate history” of the movie, costumed weirdos and all. The difference between the heroes in Watchmen and our own comic – er – graphic novel pantheon is that none of the heroes had any real powers, except for one. The lone hero with authentic powers is an-often-naked-blue-dude name John Osterman who calls himself Doctor Manhattan.

The story of the film pretty much follows the source material panel-for-panel with a few exceptions. Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is thrown out a window, and iconic smiley-face button gets stained with blood. The crime is investigated from the shadows by Rorschach (played perfectly by Jackie Earle Haley), whose deadpan voice and colored-shape shifting mask is far more than just an alter ego.

The film carries Rorschach as he interviews his old pal Dan Dreiberg (Angels In America’s Patrick Wilson) who longs for his past as the gadget-genius Night Owl. When we’re first introduced to Doctor Manhattan (Billy Crudup) in all his CGI-rendered blue, glowing, naked glory, he’s forty feet tall and totally detached from the world in which he lives.

To say more would require several dozen pages and a bazillion plot spoilers, so I’ll leave it at that.

The target of this film is clearly for those who are fans of the original comic series by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons. When Moore was asked what he thought of the film, he succinctly stated that he would “never see that (word that rhymes with ducking) movie.” So, there’s not much love there. Not that he’d ever give it a chance.

The rest of us, though, meet the film with a cautious eye, hoping that it won’t completely tear apart the source material, and still have a good movie. The good news and bad news in all of this is this: Indeed the original story is intact. The bad news is that a few points have been changed (some for the good, some not so much). Because of this, die-hard and devoted fans may be up in arms over the film’s changes.

Of course, there’s also the big blue penis, which isn’t nearly as distracting as one might think it would be. See? Male nudity can be done tastefully. Still, I can’t help but wonder if the guys doing the CGI were snickering the entire time while modeling Osterman’s male appendage.

There’s plenty to like with Watchmen, but there’s also plenty of yawner scenes that could have been easily cut. It’s not terrible, but it’s also not great. Yet, I find myself wondering if it could have been any better than it is. Without the decades of encyclopedic material that support the Batman and Spider-Man franchises, Watchmen finds itself in the only frames and stories it knows how to tell. Much to our delight, it’s a decent story, leaving Watchmen well in the category of a successful translation from panel to screen.