The new Star Trek movie has already opened in places like England, France, and Australia. I'm not sure why it opened there first, but the reviews so far have been pretty much off the charts. Variety loves it, The Daily Mail calls it "the best prequel of all-time," Empire says it's "the most exhilarating Trek to date," Urban Cinefile says it's "an extraordinary achievement," Cinema Blend says it's "the best Trek movie since The Wrath of Khan," and Aint It Cool News says "it makes Gone with the Wind look like a maggot-infested crapfest." Well, no, but they say it's really great.

(If you click on the links above, expect SPOILERS.)

Everyone was excited the other day when Variety reported that Lost/Alias creator and Mission: Impossible 3 director J.J. Abrams was going to direct the next Star Trek flick in 2008, making a prequel to the original Kirk/Spock show. But it wasn't exactly as the paper reported ...or was it? Empire has a quick interview with Abrams:

"The whole thing was reported entirely without our cooperation. People learned that I was producing a Star Trek film, that I had an option to direct it, they hear rumors of what the thing was going to be and ran with a story that is not entirely accurate."

But here's where the confusion starts. The headline of this article is "It Won't Be Kirk and Spock." But then the article goes on to say that Abrams is a fan of the original series, he thinks the characters are "spectacular," that the characters "could live again," and that he isn't releasing any details of the plot. So why is the article titled and slanted like that? There's really nothing here that contradicts the news from the other day, except that Abrams hasn't officially signed on as director yet.