This review may be a wasted effort. By the time this reaches print, loyal Trekkies will have seen “Star Trek: Into Darkness” and shan’t be interested in my modest, but no doubt the one and only opinion worth considering. Non-Trekkies, however, probably wouldn’t have this movie on their must-see list because they are staying pure until the next release of the Star Wars franchise. Those in the middle—well, perhaps they are still reading and to them I will trudge on turning the snap, crackle, and pop in my brain to keystrokes on my slowly dying laptop.

Reminder: this is the second Star Trek in the prequel series of the Star Trek franchise. If this does not make any sense to you, move on and don’t look back because this is a film for experienced Star Trek fans.

I will give you the short version hoping that I still have the attention of a few readers: If you are a fan of Star Trek you will enjoy this movie. There it is, in a sentence. But for others, I shall elaborate: I am not making a judgment about Trekkies who will enjoy this movie; it is an observation. While going where billions have gone before (again and again—referring to watching the voyages of the U.S.S. Enterprise with Kirk and Spock et al.), I observed the audience. There were some really dedicated Trekkies there picking up on all the eye-winking inside references and Star Trek references and SF allusions. And when their Trekkie ribs were elbowed, they exploded a giggling and gurgling sound that frightened me. To be clear, 98 percent of our fellow watchers enjoyed the movie but two percent were having spasms of ecstasy… speaking in tongues, practically—or perhaps it was Klingon.

I have a member of my family who opines that my reviews give too much of the plot away, but I shall write this: in this movie all that needs to be known is that Kirk, as usual, breaks the rules, and Spock acts like… uh… Spock. The bad guy is Khan the Younger (played by Benedict Cumberbatch). In the “Star Trek: Wrath of Khan” his accent reminded me of Corinthian leather and an annoying French dwarf, but in this film, his dialog made me think of the BBC series, “Sherlock.” Odd, isn’t it? (To be fair, they tried to find a Hispanic actor but at least four or five turned the job down. That was for me a bit of a disappointment considering they work so hard to cast actors that could age into looking like the 1960s cast.)

This Star Trek has some pretty cool effects but not enough for me to giggle or gurgle. The acting was…well it is just a Star Trek movie so what do you expect? If you are looking for that, beam yourself to another theater; this is really Star Trek into Nostalgia; an exercise in Trekkie love and lore.

J.J. Abrams manufactures fine entertainment. Some of the most fun, wickedly entertaining SF-ish drama on TV is his work. He took a crack at Star Trek and it was a noble effort indeed, even if the greedy soulless demons of Wall Street who handle cinematic issues forced him to do a version in 3D. But this is really a first-rate episode of the Star Trek saga.

For non-avid Star Trek fans, I would suggest you let this one pass. For ambivalent fans, I would wait for the DVD. If you are neither, why are you reading this?

There is a scene, almost at the end of the movie that was shockingly similar to 9/11. I think that might have been ill advised. I felt that it rumbled (not quite ruined) the vibe. Could they not have done something a tad more creative? I don’t think the phrase “boldly go” means “go” to such a sensitive area of our psyche. Just saying.

It passed the time, but I would be lying to you if I said it was a glorious experience as it was with Star Trek (2009). Despite all my gripes and caveats, I would say it is most certainly worth the price of admission as long as you are a Trekkie and/or understand the clever reference to the U.S.S. Bradbury.

“Star Trek: Into Darkness” earns four bow ties out of five.