Here.  If I don't take my daughter to get see it after getting caught up with the first two, my wife and I are having a date night.  So, ya.  We are planning on going.

Nah. I didn't like the first 2. 90% on RT means nothing.

I will probably see it eventually. A trip to the theater is not too likely for various reasons.

I'm with shika on this, although I do generally trust movie critics. I think Metacritic is a better judge of the critical consensus than RT. In that case Beyond is sitting on a 71.

This review from EW sums up everything wrong with Abrams' alternaverse: "Beyond is more fun than deep. It’s lightweight, zero-gravity Trek that is, for the most part, devoid of the sort of Big Ideas and knotty existential questions that creator Gene Roddenberry specialized in."

Looks like Beyond continues the trend.

Let's say that it's a very interesting reboot that captures the spirit of the original (mostly). I am NOT a Trekkie.  I enjoyed watching the original series while in syndication.  Never cared for TNG, DS9 and especially Voyager.  Oddly, I liked Enterprise.  But I have watched all the Star Trek movies, and I knew enough about the newer series to make watching the next generation movies more enjoyable.  I guess I knew the newer series from more of a casual standpoint.

Specifically, the last one I did enjoy.  But I have to nit pick over the fact that Khan wasn't Cuban.  Why?  If they were trying to capture the spirit of the original characters from the orginal series in the first reboot movie, please do the same with the second one.

1) It is not 1966 anymore.

2) Roddenberry was kicked off of the Star Trek Next Gen writing team because he was his own asshole that he was stuck in.  The series finally took off when he was relieved of his iron fist closed minded rule.

3) He's passe.  You can recognized this past acheivements and influences, but those who cannot move on such as these critics really need to get a life.

4) "He's dead, Jim."

I like Star Trek, and these are okay, but definitely on the shallow side and more action than what I associate with the series. I'd say had little interest, but I like Simon Pegg so was curious what he brought to it.

Really though my focus and excitement is the 2017 television series and all the possibilities it may have.

Definitely going to watch this! Love the reboot, I wasn't a huge fan of Star Trek at all but JJ Abrams converted me :P

Dude, not cool. I don't like the new Star Trek movies so I need to get a life?

I know it's not 1966 anymore. It's 2016. In September it will be Trek's 50th anniversary and all we have to show for it is a complete bastardization of what made the series great in the first place. Yes, Roddenberry's conservatism hurt The Next Generation, and the show become much better after his departure. But what he created is magnificent: a bold, creative vision of the future rich in heady ideas about identity, multiculturalism, exploration, time travel, alien worlds and civilizations, and, most importantly, what it means to be human.

His legacy continued throughout the 80s and 90s and finally hit a dead end with Enterprise and Nemesis. The franchise was in need of a renaissance, yes, but what it got was a black eye. Abrams et al. transformed a contemplative series about science and big deas into an action movie about plot holes and lens flares. 

For the record, if Abrams had made good movies, I'd be willing to forgive his thorough dismantling of everything that defined Star Trek for over 40 years. But they're not good movies. They're populated by callow and unconvincing acting; contrivances and shaky logic; numbing and hollow special effects; and convoluted, murky storylines.

Everything gets a 90% on RT before it gets released. I almost saw that Agent 47 film in theaters because I saw it had a 90% rating a week before it released. Luckily, I checked again before I bought my ticket. We watched the Green Inferno, instead.