Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ a glossy but disappointing enterprise

Movie: “Star Trek”

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg

Director: J.J…. Movie: “Star Trek”

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg

Director: J.J. Abrams

Studio: Paramount Pictures

Grade: C+

Beam me up, Scotty, but don’t expect me to stay long — or remember much of the visit.

The series that simultaneously defined geek culture and turned the word “Trekkie” into one of the most relevant pop culture buzzwords in the past century blasts off again this summer on the big screen, And while the characters, settings and mythology are all intact, it remains an alienating experience for the uninitiated.

The 2009 “Star Trek,” the first installation of the series in seven years, will arrive in theaters as a testament to the legion of Trekkies around the world, sci-fi buffs looking for the next big thing and Hollywood executives seeking to turn a hefty summer blockbuster profit, while also setting the foundations for plenty of sequels.From someone not well versed in “Star Trek” lore, it is hard to describe the film’s plot without stopping to giggle. It essentially depicts the first time the eventual Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine) and the gang gets together on the U.S.S. Enterprise to mingle with alien races, save planets and whatever else they do in the show.

By the time the film ends, the audience comes to understand these hallmark science-fiction characters and how they come to know one another. This often includes humorous exchanges between characters, and sometimes it feels as if this is just another big, dumb summer action movie that gives the viewer a good time before being inevitably forgotten. At this basic level, the filmmakers successfully allot the film some relevance for non-fans, and the film is most effective when it makes you forget you are watching a “Star Trek” movie — take that as you will.

As for the driving narrative of the film, it consists of a ship full of rogue Romulans who are bent on destroying planets by sticking a black hole-forming material in their cores, all because Spock — the guy with the pointy ears — apparently ignored the destruction of the Romulans’ planet. And this happened in the future. The Romulans are actually future-Romulans who came back to seek vengeance on past-Spock, even though a future-Spock roams around on an icy planet with some irritable alien beasties. And there’s Winona Ryder looking like she’d rather be at a low-security Saks.

Sound convoluted? You have no idea. If you enter the film a “Trek” virgin, as I did, be prepared to spend a hefty amount of time questioning not only what the hell is going on in the movie, but more importantly, why you, or anyone else, should care. Everyone has rabid fan tendencies — I could write a dissertation about goblin discrimination in the “Harry Potter” novels — but “Star Trek” is a franchise more impenetrable than most.

J.J. Abrams, the “it”-director behind television cult hits “Alias” and “Lost” and the reinvention of the monster movie that was “Cloverfield,” seemed like the perfect candidate to reincarnate the epitome of a series with a rabid cult following. And in many ways, he doesn’t disappoint the fans with his fine-tuned ability to craft action sequences that superficially thrill and respectfully channel the original source from which they stem. For the most part, he succeeds.

The cast is young, familiar and attractive. Many people will find the movie’s sexiest scene includes a green-skinned alien vixen, or at least those people who don’t get off on a Vulcan giving the V-fingered salute and saying, “Live long and prosper.” Pine and “Heroes” alum Zachary Quinto are especially charismatic and give the tense relationship between Kirk and Spock some youthful spark with plenty of witty one-liners peppered in for good measure.

The synergy that apparently went into the film’s production will likely translate into a hefty box office return for the producers. The “Star Trek” brand and summer blockbuster appeal will guarantee plenty of ticket sales, but the movie itself serves as a passable waste of time for non-fans looking for big explosions and thrilling effects. At worst, fans will see it as a glossy misrepresentation of everything for which the series has stood and posed as for the past 40 years.

As it stands, “Star Trek” is a serviceable action flick. The effects are top-notch, as was the budget, and it is unfortunate that there exists such a solid barrier of fandom that will likely turn off many viewers who seek only simple summer entertainment.

And what about the fans? It must be near blasphemy to insert actors who could all be regulars on “One Tree Hill” into such a legendary franchise. Soon there will be news about a “Star Wars” remake with Chace Crawford as Luke.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how much PG-13 raciness and 21st-century pizzazz Abrams infused into the franchise — four-letter expletives, toned abs and pretty CGI space ships will never be enough to get the majority of movie-goers to give a flying flux about Romulans or the planet Vulcan.

Now, excuse me while I go practice my Alohomora spells and wait for the next “Harry Potter” movie.