Rating: 
Summary: Top of the line Trek
Review: I must say, this one tops them all. With dazzling SFX, a stellar cast, and a sexy three-breasted alien go-go dancer, not to mention a powerful life-changing story. No movie has ever achieved this level of greatness. You absolutley must own this film. - Darth Sidious
Rating: 
Summary: Not the best , not the worst
Review: This is inferior to Star Trek II and IV and others, but much better than The Motion Picture and Insurrection -- it places number 7 out of 9. The scene where we learn about the things that have haunted Spock and McCoy is great. We finally know why McCoy is so irritable: he let his father die right before a cure to his disease was found. I love the idea of giving his anger a definite source. And Kirk's line about "needing his pain" was a highpoint, also.
Rating:
Summary: Curious, very patchy, but oddly engaging
Review: This isn't the only highly flawed movie I've seen and somehow keep on, from time to time, revisiting. I remember quite a few books which have the same effect - they're undoubtedly flawed, but there are enough interesting attributes to keep you coming back.I wonder honestly, for instance, how the movie is really judged by a lot of reviewers by the obviously inadequate ending. If only there had been just a little bit more cash available, the entire film might never have generated so much awful press. You get a strong feeling that Bill's ideas have generally not really made it to complete form, or have not been helped to do so. The film is one thing, but is much better than TekWars, which is virtually unredeemable. The really good scenes are quite memorable... especially the opening titles with Spocks brother making his first appearance. There are other moments too. The film definitely lacks the momentum and the element of surprise that accompanies any decent novel, but you can't really flaw the subject matter. Star Trek was supposed to meet certain subjects head on, and it would be foolish to say, like some reviewers, "this doesn't have a place". But it gets very heavy going when so much of the movie is so very obviously flawed. Its as though Bill really needed some help and everyone just stood by. Just a few words of advice and some storyboard planning would have helped enormously. Just how seriously did Paramount take their planning and financial projections for this? I find it hard to lay all the problems at the feet of one man. The technical objections are real enough (all the stuff about the distance to the centre of the galaxy), but what is very odd is the continual problems withthe idea of a "barrier" that never gets a mention anywhere else, no contextual information about the being which is imprisoned there, and so forth. The story really hangs in a void. Some authors do this kind of thing and get away with it, AE Van Vogt perhaps managed this from time to time. But making a movie like that needs extraordinary skill, and probably more of a team effort. Perhaps this movie should be revised and remade. Of course, its too late now, everyone is far older and the money wouldn't appear....
Rating:
Summary: Bad Fun With 5 Bad Stars
Review: The worst of Trek and the best of fun. This movie is bad..bad...baahhhddd. Star Trek overall is this movie - stupid story lines and stupid cartoon characters in live action tights. Who would expect anything other than this anyway. I don't know any of the trek movies that can be rated for anything other than what they portray on the screen - sci fi cocktails of off-beat characters + special fx + space-ships + galaxy command posts + bad acting = 2 hours of escapist crap. The Final Frontier has all of this. The only movie better than this is Plan 9 From Outer Space. You want to see a lousy movie? - see Lost Highway. You put Bill Shatner in charge and you get this sort of embarrassment. Garbage in / garbage out. C'mon.
Rating:
Summary: it does have its problems, but. . . .
Review: let's face it, this film, at times, rings extremely hollow. it's downright laughable in moments, but to give this film its due, it delves into some pretty thought provoking and timely issues that deal with the quest to find some sort of meaning at the heart of human existence and those who would exploit that desire. shatner can be an awful director, but he also succeeds in bringing out some of the most stirring human moments in terms of the interaction between Bones, Spock, and Kirk that really serve as a juxtaposition to the desire of zealots to look outwards for spiritual significance when the bonds that hold humanity together are a hell of a lot closer to home. 5 is the best and the worst of trek, but what it does well, it does extremely well.
Rating: 
Summary: Lighten Up!
Review: "To Boldy Go Where No Man Has Gone Before." This is what Star Trek is about. Unlike Star Wars, which is concerned about special effects and non stop action, Star Trek at least cares about it's main characters. "The Final Frontier" isn't the best Trek movie, nor is it the worst. The plot of finding God didn't rub me the wrong way. Trek is about exploring, and finding God is exploring. Also, the trio (Kirk, Spock, McCoy) were all excellant. The whole point of the camp scene, which has been much maligned, is to show the bond between the friends--and that is more watchable than a special-effect driven scene. Shatner did a fine job directing, too.
Rating:
Summary: Not the best of the Trek Movies, but entertaining
Review: William Shatners debut as a movie director isn't too bad. The story is okay, the film is entertaining, the characters each have at least one good scene to be remembered - but on the other hand the FX are simply hideous. Some effects (e.g. the Barrier) looked better in the series! Still, I like this movie.
Rating:
Summary: The most "human" of all the original cast Trek films
Review: Yes, the effects were below par. And yes, there are some non-trivial holes in the story--not to mention some obvious deviations from previously established "canonical" Trek "facts". But overall, this movie is the most "human" of all the original cast Trek films because of its emphasis upon characters, and that's what counts in my estimation. The first film was ponderous and relied too heavily on special effects. The second film was certainly the most gripping thanks to its snappy military feel and good pacing/story. But it was essentially a one-on-one grudge match, which was interesting but somewhat unsatisfying. The third was necessary to bring back Spock, but it did so in a ridiculous way--a cameo by Jesus Christ Himself to resurrect Spock personally would have made as much sense. The fourth film was an unrelenting yet cute environmentalist lecture from start to finish. And that brings us to "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier", which has the best character development and interaction of them all. Some of the scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy are utterly priceless. And thus to Mr. Shatner I can say only this: thanks for pouring so much effort into a film that is underrated.
Rating:
Summary: Not as bad as the first one, but not as good as #3.
Review: After the farce of the whales, this is not nearly as bad as reputation suggests. Fast & funny, this movie is a great way to kill 2 hours. Sure, Shatner cannot direct himself and the jokes do wear thin, but the overall direction is compelling and fast paced. With better special effects and a more of a slam-bang ending, it could have been a classic. But, if you compare it to say, The Avengers, or even Star Trek 1, you've got a decent film here. Good movie!
Rating:
Summary: Shatner's folly? Yes, but . . .
Review: Usually reviewers comment on how Shatner's ego seems to permeates every aspect of the film. True, but more importantly, when you look just below the surface it becomes apparent that we have an almost unfiltered view of Mr. Shatner's id! Very disturbing, but very funny too. This is the only place where you can learn: 1) It's possible to escape a photon torpedo blast by hiding behind a bolder. 2) God doesn't live at the center of the galaxy. 3) I need my pain - it's part of what makes me who I am.
| 
