Ebert's Review even though only 2 and a half stars out of four is over all positive. I wonder if Hunter6 actually read it.

The opening thing he says really struck me though and is over all a condemnation of the new film.

“Star Trek” as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera, but that doesn’t amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no “Star Trek” has gone before."

Which i find curious because he does not explore this in the same context of star wars. Did not this same man like Episode III. Geez i mean the prequels were space opera "more concerned with repeating a sucessful formula" Was this dude even paying attention.

I knew in the beginning this movie would be a throwaway action flick just like some of the previous entries the actioners were more sucessful than the cerebral motion picture the rodenberry trek that stalled in space dock and was revived to new life in the wrath of khan. First Contact and Khan were sucessful action flicks. Insurrection was a lesser entry though still good without lots of boxoffice returns, Nemesis repeated themes and added new ones and still was a flop.