CASEY PHILLIPS: Pay attention, trekkers. No matter what preconceptions you have about director J. J. Abrams’ taking on the original story of the U.S.S. Enterprise’s legendary crew (you know — the one they based that TV show on), you must see “Star Trek.”

Yes, it’s lost much of the original series’ camp (not a tribble in sight), but that doesn’t mean it’s not got funny moments. The important part is that the series’ adventurous spirit is completely intact and comes packaged with a boat load of mind-blowing special effects that will make your brain dance a polka of delight.

HOLLY LEBER: I want to see you dance a polka of delight, Casey. I’m sure our Web-viewership would love to see that video, too.

“Star Trek” has some of the most impressive special effects I’ve seen in a long time and is worth the price of admission for the visuals alone. Not being a trekker/trekkie/sci-fi nerd, I can’t speak to how well the new cast represents the original actors, but they generally held my interest, especially supporting cast members Anton Yelchin (as Pavel Chekov), John Cho (as Mr. Sulu) and Simon Pegg (as Scotty). Pegg, in particular, brightened the screen with his half-drunk hysterical portrayal.

CASEY: Not to quibble, Holly, but it was my brain doing the polka, not me.

Clearly, for a story centered on the crew of the ship captained by a character whose portrayal launched William Shatner’s career, care in casting Capt. Kirk was paramount. Thankfully, Chris Pine nailed it. His combination of over-acted bravado, witty retorts and general zest absolutely captured Kirk’s spirit.

I agree that Pegg brings some brilliant cheek to the proceedings, but we certainly shouldn’t neglect Karl Urban’s performance of Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy. His put-upon demeanor and cool, calculated delivery make an excellent foil to Kirk’s headlong stream of consciousness blitz.

HOLLY: “Star Trek” is a popular enough cultural reference that even us newbies are likely to know the key phrases, looks and hand signals. It was a good movie, a very good movie, but I wonder if remakes/ updates/reimaginings/prequels/ sequels can really be judged fairly as their own entities. “Good” might be upgraded to “great” because beloved characters add credence. Meanwhile a lousy movie may be given allowances based on context or be lambasted as an insult to a great piece of pop culture history. I may be in a minority that would rather see creative minds like J.J. Abrams concentrate on original ideas rather than revamping that which has been done.

CASEY: (Sets phaser to silence and watches Holly mouth ineffectually.)

Obviously, with a property as well known and beloved as “Star Trek,” there’s a danger of alienating the original fans by straying too far from the source material. Fortunately, Abrams avoids that while still injecting enough action and adrenaline to attract new fans.

That “Star Trek” would be just as good without pointyeared Romulans and Vulcans or signature catch phrases like “Beam me up” is a testament to how good it is. Abrams certainly has my vote to tackle a sequel.

HOLLY: I’d bop Casey with a Nerf bat but he might cry like a little girl who dropped her lollipop.

If anyone is going to make a sequel to this film, Abrams ought to be at the helm again. For the most part, “Star Trek” does hold the interest of nonfans, especially with its incredible special effects. It didn’t change my life, but it definitely was a worthwhile two hours.

And see, Casey? I didn’t say “Star Wars” once.