“Star Trek: It’s Worth Watching Again,” would have been an apt title for the J.J. Abrams-guided reboot of the nearly 50-year-old science-fiction staple of American pop-culture.  Luckily, we’ve been spared the extra punctuation, qualifiers, and subtitles plaguing modern Hollywood’s increasingly originality-challenged productions.  But “Star Trek” has even more going for it than a refreshingly simple title.  Abrams has managed to do the impossible: win a no-win situation — resoundingly so.

In Trekkie (or is it Trekker?) lore there is a well known “curse” that affects only the odd-numbered films in the series, e.g., “Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” disappointed critics and fans alike while “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” is arguably the greatest of them all.  The rest of the series has generally followed this off-and-on pattern.  “Star Trek” is the 11th installment causing many loyalists to experience genuine reservations based solely on that strangely accurate pattern.  No joke.  And if Abrams didn’t have his hands full already with a nasty fanboy curse set against him, film versions of niche franchises like “Star Trek” seem to be destined for failure equipped with a built-in self-destruct mechanism: the fans.

Rabid fans and die-hard loyalists demand continuity in the mythology, reverence for the lore, and the advancement of and deference to the ideals and philosophies established in a series’ maiden voyage.  General audiences demand a well-written, well-crafted, action-packed, thrilling good time.  The un-winnable war of pleasing both parties spells the untimely demise of too many young, over-confident, idealistic filmmakers.  So does Abrams, co-creator of “Lost,” manage to buck the trend and strike a balance?  Or does he play it safe and cater to one side or the other?  Rest easy fanboys.  If the “odd-numbered curse” exists, it is no more.  “Star Trek” is unequivocally this beloved franchise’s new shining star.

Directors have struggled for decades to make universally appealing films out of decidedly partial material.  Just take a look at Zack Snyder’s dramatic failure in his adaptation of Alan Moore’s hallowed “Watchmen.”  So how did Abrams pull it off?  He took a page right out of James Tiberius Kirk’s own book of tricks, and broke all the rules.  That’s how.

Alternate reality.  It’s brilliant.  This way, Abrams can set up a new generation of films based on the younger versions of the original crew without screwing (too much) with the established canon.  That’s very James T. Kirk of you Mr. Abrams, you sly dog, you.  And though the complicated time travel scenario that the filmmakers invent in order to throw Leonard Nimoy into the mix is completely illogical, it’s fun to watch.  And let’s face it, it’s in keeping with the franchise’s strong tradition of ridiculous scenarios.

“Star Trek” is the perfect reboot film for an ailing series.  This thing is jam-packed with action from start to finish.  The visual effects are cutting edge and spectacular.  And the performances, the main concern of fans worried about their heroes being desecrated by a younger generation of actors with no respect for the characters, are surprisingly pitch perfect.

Chris Pine as Kirk, Karl Urban as Bones, Zoe Saldana as Uhuru, and Simon Pegg as Scotty avoid falling into the trap of doing impressions of their iconic characters.  They all manage to capture the essence of the original cast while forging their own creations.

The most impressive performance of all is Zachary Quinto’s as the emotionless Vulcan, Spock.  Quinto is the spitting image of Nimoy and uncannily infuses deep emotion and nuance into a character with a permanent poker face.

“Star Trek” is a success.  A dazzling, populist revival of a limping franchise that will satisfy and entertain the masses and reinvigorate the base.  With such impressive skills to please, maybe Abrams should go into politics.

May this new incarnation live long, and prosper.