Rating: 
Summary: One of the Worst of Star Trek Series
Review: This movie is boring, and the characters don't seem real. There are a few good one-liners but that's about it. If you are a die-hard Trekkie, see it. Otherwise, forget it.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best in Star Trek
Review: This movie is tops!! It has it's share of action, adventure, comic relief, and all the trimmings
Rating: 
Summary: THE WORST OF ALL STAR TREK FLIKS
Review: STAR TREK V in one word yawn!!!. I can not to this day believe to this day this movie was ever made. Yes WILLIAM SHATNER directs and was expierence I'd like to forget going to find god? please!!! that has no place in a STAR TREK film at all. Also watch out for row row your boat I won't say who sings it but it'll make you cringe avoid STAR TREK V THE FINAL FRONTIER at all costs.
Rating: 
Summary: Lighten Up!!
Review: For the last 11 years, Star Trek V has been criticized mercilessly by critics, alleged Star Trek "fans" and even some Next Generation cast members. Yes, there is sloppy editing in points and if you are obsessed with special effects, then I guess there are some slips here and there. However, the film offers a good deal of interesting moments. We finally get to see Kirk, Spock and McCoy explore their friendship in a venue other than the ship!! Most importantly however, the much maligned Shatner, long criticized for hogging screen time, gives us more of ALL of the co-stars than we see the in the other Trek films. The Motion Picture offered virtually nothing for Uhura, Scotty, Chekov and Sulu to do. ST II gave Chekov a little more screen time but Uhura, Sulu and especially Scotty were hard to find. (Not to mention that the theatrical cut of II removes a fine scene with James Doohan in sick bay when his apprentice dies and Scotty asks Kirk why? A powerful scene left on the editing room floor.) III leaves Uhura in the dust somewhere, in IV Sulu might as well not be there and in VI, again Sulu gets short shrift as do the rest. In V, everybody gets in on the action. Uhura is allowed to do more than just open hailing frequencies, she flies the shuttle, distracts the Nimubs III outpost guards etc. Chekov has some nice moments as the "Captain". Sulu is on the ground with Kirk as he was in the original series. Scotty is allowed to venture out of the engine room. The jail break scene is priceless! More than any of the other films, V has the feel of the first two seasons of the original series where more attention was paid to the co-stars. In V you get the feeling that these characters are really something of a family and that they care about each other. Particulary effective is the characterization of Spock. Nimoy does a nice turn playing a weaker, more unsure Spock which is how the character should be played given the events in III and IV. However, as the movie progresses, Spock gets stronger. His old nature slowly returns as the challenges mount and finally the Spock of old is back when he takes command of the Enterprise in an attempt to save Kirk. He says to the old Klingon General, "You will try" when the General hesitates to confront a hostile bird of prey. In those three words, Spock's ability to command is fully returned to him. Something he had lost after he died. I find in this movie that Spock is not only unsure of his actions regarding Sybok, but that the sub text is that he is questioning his ability to be an officer in Starfleet. Five has various problems agreed, but the characters are never closer. That closeness holds somewhat in VI only to be butchered yet again in the horrific Star Trek Generations. The only time that picture is at all intersting is when the old crew or in the later parts, Kirk, is on screen. Again, cut were made which reduced Koenig and Doohan's roles to virtually nothing and though the addition of Sulu's daughter is a nice touch, Kirk's apparent unfamiliarity with her is disturbing. Yes it is supposed to show that Kirk gave up a personal life blah blah blah. But why not have Kirk responsible for helping her through her career in Starfleet afterall, though Generations leads us to believe differently, Kirk's devotion was not just to the Captain's Chair and his duty, but also to his ship and crew. I cherish V because it does effectively what ALL the original Trek movies should have done more of, give more story time to the co-stars and show the powerful connections between all seven of the characters.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed...But Still Cool and Fun...
Review: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is an imaginative adventure that, of all the "Star Trek" films, really brought me back to the old 60's series. People complain about it's somewhat "out there" plot, it's sub-par visuals, and so forth, but these things all add to the charm and fun of watching "Star Trek". OK...so it has really bad continuity flaws and some overboard humor. It's just a movie...and a pretty good one if you just get over it! When I first saw the film in 1989, it was my favorite Trek movie. Now that I'm older, I can see that it IS flawed, but the fun and twisty plot, the banter between the characters, the action, and the musical score are all pure "Star Trek". I think that people who don't like this movie are trying to take things WAY to seriously. Watch the original episodes from the 60's! They're made the same way, and nobody complains about them being terrible! I liked the "seriousness" of the other films, but William Shatner knew it was time to lighten up and bring that campy fun back. At the same time, the movie does have many good, dramatic points. The character interaction and development in "Final Frontier" is better than any other Trek movies. All of the scenes fillmed in the ship's observation lounge are excellent. Jerry Goldsmith's music is awesome. Bottom line: you've got: 1. vulcans 2. hijacked Enterprise 3. klingon war-mongers 4. battles on desert planets 5. humor 6. drama between Kirk, Spock, and Bones ...sounds like a classic episode to me! Lighten up and enjoy this often fun and sometimes dramatic and deep film!
Rating:
Summary: Give the man a break!
Review: I take it not everyone is well versed in Star Trek history or Hollywoods knack for messing things up. The truth is this: The Budget was cut, so William Shatner couldn't even use the Special Effects he intended to! Also, Shatner didn't have his hands on the reigns completely througout filming. What really happened is a lot of people in charge pretty much told him to cut some of the movie out (atleast an hours worth!), forget about the Special effects and NO! Sean Connery will not play Sarek, and etc., etc. Instead of knowing the truth, too many people assume the movie stinks because of Shatner. Perhaps if Shatner had gotten the chance to make the film like he wanted, it could have been one of the best. Needless to say, of ALL the ST films, this one gave the characters actual personalities. It showed they had lives and loves outside of the Federation. And it was hilarious! Like I said, don't knock the man, it really WASN'T his fault, but then again, if anyone cared to find out the truth, they would know all this already!
Rating:
Summary: Uneven in the extreme.
Review: Any Star Trek fan is well aware of the place Star Trek 5 has occupied in the film series. Most people avoid it and try not to look directly at it, for fear of turning into a pillar of salt. But is it really that bad? Yes and no. If you watch some of the special features and watch the film, you'll see some of the aims were noble and even achieved. Shatner and Bennett mention trying to stay true to the original series by exploring the emotional core of Spock, Kirk and McCoy. They also try the tried-and-true formula of commenting on the human condition by asking a deeper question about humanity within the framework of science fiction. That, of course, what makes this film so uneven. The moments focusing on Spock, Kirk & McCoy are the film's strongest -- informed with an easy sentimentality and nostalgia but underscoring the long-standing friendship of the characters and chemistry of the actors. McCoy's wit is at its sharpest in this film. These moments are worth the time. But the larger question about God is where the movie stumbles. For many, the memory of this movie and plot is summed up in the line, "What does God need with a starship?" It's one of those cringe-inducing lines that even Laurence Olivier would have trouble lending any measure of credibility to. Shatner does the best he can within the constraints of character, time, budget, etc. and the result, unfortunately, doesn't work. According to the special features, this movie was plagued by budget and time shortfalls as well as an effects house that might not have been up to the task. Shatner's commentary repeatedly mentions time and money shortfalls. Is it possible that this hurt the quality of the film? Most likely. The script called for so many new and huge sets that it seems to have put a crimp in the budget for the actual filming. Unfortunately for us, that's the part that we're going to notice. If you're a die-hard Trek fan, you should pick this up. It is a better issue than the original, and the special features are fairly enlightening (the deleted "Rock Man" test footage and storyboards are interesting). However, for everyone else, this is a rental at most -- and if you're not a hardcore fan of the series, probably one to be avoided. My major disappointment with this set was that it didn't probe deep enough into the question of "What went wrong?" It has the appearance of being a defense of the film while making some concessions, and not going deep enough. It's quite likely that asking these questions and pushing for answers would have burned bridges that the franchise can't afford to burn, which is understandable. However, it ends up suffering from the same syndrome as the movie itself: Well-intentioned but falling short in the execution.
Rating:
Summary: Good direction but a poor script.
Review: There are some brilliant moments in "Star Trek V", surrounded by some really bad ones. First off what's good? The cinematography, music, sound, and direction are all in fact very good. Shatner shows deft skill at movement and tone in a scene. There are scenes in this film between Shatner, Nimoy and DeForest Kelley that are sublime. Now what's not good... The plot, some of the performances, visual effects and the entire last twenty minutes. The plot is a noble intention; Star Trek crew meets God. It's problem is it's execution. In all Trek adventures, Kirk and the crew are the most active participants in the adventure. Here, they almost stumble upon God. And that's another problem. The concept of God can't be adequetly addressed in a Star Trek film. How can ANY director deal with this subject matter in a tidy 105 minutes while still adhering to demands of Star Trek? Now while Shatner provides good direction, his perfomance here seems rushed and even a little tired. Kirk looks like he's been up all night studying for mid-terms. The other performances seem so-so. Nimoy does a walk through and the other Trek actors look like their trying to steal the scenes from each other. Perhaps they felt a little competion from Next Generation? The visual effects here are the worst in the entire series. We all know that ILM lost the effects contract on this movie but there are plenty of effects houses that can offer good effects. I don't understand how a big franchise film like "Star Trek" couldn't afford another leading effects company. The 2-D effects shots have no blur resulting in effects that look like drive-in "let's go to the lobby" type animation. This film is pretty much a mess. While a good intention to take the Trek into something different, the result is a disappointment.
Rating: 
Summary: Didn't deserve the Razzies...
Review: The Final Frontier was the winner of Worst Picture of 1989 in the Razzies, as well as two each of nominations and awards. I think it is still the worst in the series, but it has its moments. Emergency Landing Plan B, as in Barricade, the inescapable room, the shaft, Yosemite, among others, are the thrilling moments. Visual effects are mediocre, though. Overall, an interesting film in the greatest movie series since 007. I just need to get the 2-disc DVD now, because I am a Trekkie, after all. Heck, I'll get all the Trek films and TV series, too.
Rating:
Summary: Good Compared to Some, Bad Compared to Star Trek
Review: There are so many bad movies out there, it's difficult to get too upset about Star Trek V. In fact, compared to the sludge that Hollywood mostly produces, this is an above average film. The plot while a bit silly, is moderately coherent. It does attempt to engage the viewer intellectually, albeit in a clumsy manner. In some ways, therefore, it's exceptional.
The only problem is that it isn't exceptional compared to other Star Trek films; it is definitely the worst of the lot. Some things, such as Sybok allowing his emotions to govern him, are unforgiveable; the Vulcans learned emotional control in order to prevent violence from breaking out amongst them. Sybok's emotionality seems to suggest the Vulcans controlled their emotions to prevent hammy acting. Which is reasonable, but less compelling than the original explanation.
Overall, this is a "Rainy Saturday Afternoon With Nothing Better to Do" kind of film, a bridge between IV and VI that only occasionally seems worth watching. If you have a completion fetish or just want to ensure you don't miss ANY good Star Trek moments (and there are a few in this film), get it. If not, skip it.
| 
