Rating: 
Summary: Horrible
Review: I've seen all the Star Trek movies, and many of the original series, TNG, DS9, and Voyager episodes. You could call me a Trekkie. This movie has made it into my collection only because it is a Star Trek movie, not because I liked it. It is horrible and I only watch it so I know what it is about for any Trekkie Trivia questions.
Rating: 
Summary: BOLDLY GO WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE
Review: William Shatner takes over the director's chair for this, the 5th installment in the 'TREK' series. This movie explores 'SPOCK'S' relationship with his brother 'SYBOK' and man's religious beliefs and fraility. 5 STARS to this film and to director Shatner.
Rating: 
Summary: Hey, if the storyline's bad, no director can save it...
Review: so quit blaming Shatner as the director. In fact it's because of Shatner directing the movie, that it's watchable at all. If some guy like Nicholas Meyer who's good with special effects and "treknology" but is no good with people like Shatner is; if he had been given this movie, it would have been a true disaster, cause the humanity wouldn't be there.The chemistry between the characters are there, and the humour is there. All of these things in a movie comes from the director's touch, it doesn't happen automatically, if anyone though so. You can't just place Shatner, Nimoy and Deforest Kelley in a room and except them to work well together, it takes the director's touch to broung this particular chemistry to life, and this is what Shatner does so well in this particular movie.
Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: I liked the interaction between Kirk, Spock, and Bones. It was a refreshing and thought provoking look into some age old questions. It really showed how Star Trek can bring out the best in humanity.
Rating: 
Summary: Stupid and Fun
Review: This is the stupidest Star Trek thing I've ever seen and for that reason I like it. Those other trek movies are way too serious and even arrogant in my mind. Who needs all that serious crap. I like the old Star Trek tv shows like the ones that took place in the 1920s when Kirk and Spock had machine guns. That was awfull but fun. The trek stuff with the serious stories are the ones to avoid. Watch this and laugh all the way through the stupid story line and the bad acting - yup you'll enjoy every bit of the celluloid nonsense that makes this series so mindless and entertaining. Way to go Shatner - you put together a stupid and fun flick. Dont make any more though. 'nuff said
Rating: 
Summary: The "Plan 9" of Star Trek Movies
Review: This movie is the be-all, end-all proof of the odd-numbered Star Trek movie jinx. This movie started out bad, and just got worse. We can assume that this is in part due to Shatner's total inability to direct. Then again, the fact that Shatner's so bad at directing at least gives some degree of symmetry to his acting and singing skills. This movie was obviously made in order to advance the series from the good (but too-cute) Star Trek IV to the great (but Montalban-free) Star Trek VI. If there's going to be one Star Trek movie that's truly worthy of overripe fruit, this is the one. Buy this one to prove to your friends that you don't like anything with a Star Trek title. Buy this one to keep your drinks glasses from leaving rings on the table. Buy this one to prove that something did come between IV and VI.
Rating:
Summary: Imaginative Trek
Review: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is really a good movie, and it's too bad that people who can't think for themselves and MUST go allong with the critics can't see that. The biggest sin of all is the Trekkies who bash the film. Obviously these people don't recognize a compelling and moody story when they see one. This movie has all of the elements that made the original series so great: action, humor, wonder, and most of all CHARACTER! In terms of character, this is the BEST Star Trek film, no question. The plot is original and involving. The dialogue ranges from brilliant to average, mostly due to Paramount executives forcing the comedy issue on Shatner et all after "Voyage Home's" success. Unfortunately, the special effects are not quite up to standard, and what should have been a captivating and exciting climax falls a bit limp. Blame the studio again for cutting the budget during production. Despite it's flaws, this film has a lot to say about the world we live in and about the characters in Star Trek. Director Shatner did a very good job giving this movie a different style and look than the previous films. As for the DVD, the 2 trailers are worth the price alone. These people at Paramount REALLY know how to make a trailer (just see the other TREK trailers and you'll agree!)
Rating:
Summary: The Film Paramount wished never happened.
Review: William Shatners effort, some would say, but a clause in his contract for Star Trek four gave him the right to direct the follow up movie. I seen this movie when it opened in the UK and i thought it was very good, apart from the end. It makes us see a side of the characters which we never see very often, humour. Sean Connery was asked to play the role of Sybok, but turned it down to star along side Harrison Ford in The Last Crusade. The reason the ending of this movie turned out bad was that William Shatner ran out of money, so the ending looks phony in most parts. But i would say that this movie is much better than The Motion Piture which is a good film if you like Special effects but the story line is terrible. At least Star Trek five had a story line.
Rating:
Summary: Decent Trek: could've been better, could've been worse
Review: Look, how can you top the Trek Trilogy (Star Trek II through IV) which preceded "The Final Frontier"? Star Trek V isn't all that bad. It would have made a pretty good TV episode, as well. The comedic elements were overdone, perhaps because producer Shatner wanted to recreate the humor which made "The Voyage Home" so much fun. Get this, "Trek" fans: wouldn't "Star Trek V" had been much more poignant had they done a scene in which Sybok brings Kirk's innermost fear to the surface? Especially if that dark feeling was Kirk's regret at not rescuing Edith Kheeler, way back in "The City on the Edge of Forever"? Imagine if Joan Collins reprised her role, and, with Sybok's help, haunted Kirk with "Why didn't you save me, Jim?". That scene would have been the movie's "piece de resistance". Nonetheless, "The Final Frontier" is decent enough Trek.
Rating:
Summary: Very, very disapointing.
Review: After a non stop blast of action and adventure, both story-wise and visually in Trek 2,3 and 4, this film seemed almost insulting. The Story was okay, but had very bad inconsistencies in relation to the history of Star Trek. Shatner directed the movie competently, and there are a few scenes that are very well put together, but generally, it was washed out and had no conviction. Only Scotty was interesting- his waistcoat with toolbelt was a nice idea, and when he was not on screen, the film teeters to an almost crashing bore. Plot details were notr well thought out. How in the name of hell can the Enterprise have seventy odd decks? Most Trek lore holds that it has 23. And how could they get to the centre of the galaxy in just a few hours? Voyager tells us that it would take thirty years to travel that far. And hasn't the Enterprise herself already crossed the Great Barrier. These mistakes are the major reason that film does not even exist in my collection. Plotwise, The Undiscovered Country fits better onto the End of The Voyage Home. As for FX, Frontier's effort is even less convincing that The Original Series! At least the music was good, and this alone gets the film two stars.
|
