Rating: 
Summary: The worst of the series
Review: After Leonard Nimoy scored hits directing Star Trek III & IV, William Shatner stepped behind the helm for this fifth installment, which is undeniably the worst in the motion picture series. Here we find Captain Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at odds against a renegade vulcan (and Spock's never before mentioned half brother) named Sybok who is searching for God. While this may sound like an intriguing idea, it certainly isn't presented as well as it should have been thanks to the derivative story, flat direction, and poor special effects. The only redeeming qualities about Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, is the beginning scene with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at Mt. Yosimetee (Sp.?); this scene is very comedic and perfectly displays the acting chemistry between the three. The DVD itself is typical overpriced Paramount bare bones DVD fare, however with the re-releases of the previous films getting very nice Special Edition packaging, it isn't entirely out of the question that this installment, along with all the other films leading up to Nemesis, will get some kind of re-release treatment (especially this one considering the rumors of a substancial amount of scenes cut from the film). All in all, this is the worst film in the series, but it's still worth a look.
Rating:
Summary: Bad
Review: Well now, this is by far the worst Star Trek movie ever. The movie is so innacurate, such as how the Enterprise made it to the center of the galaxy, over 30,000 light years away, in under a few hours. You watch shows like Star Trek Voyager, where the ship is stranded 70,000 light years away from Earth, and the trip will take decades. The Enterprise-A is a much older and slower ship than Voyager, and it should take them decades to reach the center of the galaxy, not hours.The innacuracies is not the only thing, I cannot think of anything more dumb than a "god search" by a Vulcan on Star Trek! I have been a Star Trek fan for a very long time, but even as a fan, I must say that this movie does not portray the Star Trek franchise in a very good way at all.
Rating:
Summary: Ugh!
Review: What a ghastly Trek movie. Despite some of the special effects, this movie looks like it was done on a very conservative budget. Once again, you have a minimum-manned U.S.S. Enterprise being sent in to save the day. This time, they are dispatched to the Planet of Peace (can't remember the real name of it) to deal with a hostage crisis. Upon arriving, the Enterprise crew discovers a rebellion has been fomented by by Spock's half-brother, Sybok, played by Laurence Luckinbill. Anywho, he and his rag-tag band of explorers end of taking over the Enterprise (with minimal resistance) after Sybok does some sort of pseudo mind meld to help each bridge crew member "release his pain." It's simple-minded ideas like that which drive down the credibility rating for this movie. C'mon, guys! Then you have the Enterprise breaching the "Great Barrier" at the center of the galaxy. Folks, I don't want to quibble about this, but the center of our galaxy is approximately 50,000 light years away. First, you have Kirk climbing El Capitan, then hot-footing it over to the center of the galaxy as if it were a short stroll. Voyager was 'thrown' 60,000 light years and it took them seven years to get back to Earth (only by virture of some outside help did it not take the expected 50 years). So, this one really pushes the Star Trek world envelope. You have a lot of wasteland scenes...something that Trek movies, unfortunately, have a penchant for. The acting is so-so, the story nonsense, and the special effects unspectacular. Overall, Ebert was right--this is probably the worst of the Trek movies. They're lucky I didn't rate it any worse.
Rating: 
Summary: Better Than Its Reputation
Review: Kirk v. God, and Kirk wins? An egotistical set up for a movie, but Trek V is better than it's reputation. The film has several positive attributes which are often overlooked: 1) A strong emphasis on character development, particularly with Spock, Kirk and McCoy. The campfire scenes are classic, and there are few moments in the film series which match the drama of McCoy confronting his "inner pain." 2) Final Frontier was the closest in spirit to the original series. The plot and (unfortunately) the special effects are reminiscent of such classic Trek episodes as "Who Mourns For Adonis." 3) Sybok, the "passoinate Vulcan" and half-brother of Spock, is an intriguing antagonist for the main characters. 4) Jerry Goldsmith delivered what I feel is his best Trek score for this installment. What's keeping this movie from being one of the best in the Trek cannon? 1) The worst special effects put on film since the invention of the motion control camera. 2) A somewhat anti-climactic climax. (The original script called for a big FX battle between Kirk and a flock of gargoyles summoned by the God Monster, but it was cut for budget.) 3) Not revealing Kirk's "secret pain" feels like a cheat (although his "I need my pain" speech was good). 4) A couple of embarrasing moments for the Trek supporting crew-- Scotty bonks his head and knocks himself out? Uhura, who otherwise gets her best Trek movie role, as an exotic dancer? Puh-lease! We'll never see it, but it would be great if Paramount would spend a few million to create a "special edition" with improved special effects and the original ending. While they're at it, could they throw in a couple thousand to remaster the film for DVD? It looks like a bad copy of the laserdisc-- the "widescreen" is masked off from a 4x3 frame instead of enhanced for 16x9. The image itself is very grainy and a bit washed out.
Rating: 
Summary: A Most Underrated Film
Review: It's so popular to hate The Final Frontier that it's become a cliche. But I say this hatred is largely unfounded. This movie has many of the elements that make Star Trek great: an epic story, action and suspense, a search for the unknown, and most importantly, exploration of the bonds of friendship. There are plot holes. There are parts that are downright unbelievable. And there are parts that make no sense whatsoever, even in the context of the Star Trek universe (for one thing, the center of the galaxy is supposed to be thousands of light years away in the Next Generation and Voyager - a journey measured in years - but the crew of the Enterprise-A can reach it in about a half hour). The exact nature of what they find inside the Barrier is also never made clear. And some of the dialogue and situations are downright hokey. But what's good about No. 5? First of all, the music is outstanding - Jerry Goldsmith at his best. Second, the directing is truly not bad, especially for being Shatner's first feature film. Certain moments even show a sign of brilliance, such as a long shot of the crew of the Enterprise staring at the viewscreen, watching the discovery being made, with the camera slowly zoomin in on an un-noticed sensor picking up a Klingon vessel closing in, with a faint hint of Goldsmith's Klingon Theme creeping in just as the Bird of Prey appears on sensors. The movie is decidedly more lighthearted in tone than the others, except maybe for No. 4 - the Voyage Home. As another reviewer once said, it seemed like they tried to artificially capture the humor from the 4th film, and that's probably fair. But that does not make it all together unentertaining. Lines such as "I liked him (Spock) better before he died," and "Spock: I am well versed in the classics. McCoy: Then how come you don't know Row, Row, Row Your Boat?" still resonate with me as classic moments from the classic cast. Compared to other Trek films, this one does leave much to be desired. It doesn't have the drama and epic battles of Khan. It doesn't have the cleverness of Voyage Home. It lacks the political intrigue of the Undiscovered Country. But against the other "weak" films, a.k.a. the odd numbered ones as many Trek fans like to say, this movie holds its own - compared to The Motion Picture, The Search for Spock, Generations, and Insurrection, I think this movie has many advantages. This is a must have to complete your Star Trek collection, and should not be reviled as a necessary evil. Every Star Trek story (be it an episode or a movie) has its own charm, and this is certainly no exception. Don't expect rivetting drama, but do expect an entertaining, mostly lighthearted story with a modicum of suspense and wonder.
Rating:
Summary: The best "bad" Trek movie ever!
Review: 'The Final Frontier' is the movie that started the dubious trend of the odd-numbered 'Trek flicks being the worst of the series. But even for all of it's silly attempts at humor and plausibility-stretching (even more so than usual) moments of high adventure, I have a strange fondness for this less-than-able entry into the Star Trek canon. Unlike the drab dullness of 'The Motion Picture', ST-V is the kind of film that falls flat on its face, yet is still fun & exciting to watch. You got Kirk, Spock, & McCoy singing campfire songs, Scotty having big trouble keeping the ship together, and Sulu & Chekov literally lost in the woods. Bad 'Trek just doesn't get any better than this! Oh yeah, there's also that subplot of the emotional Vulcan trying to find God, but that's neither here nor there... Enjoy! 'Late
Rating: 
Summary: the plan 9 of treks
Review: okay, the worst moment isn't when the 3 principals are singing row row row your boat, it's not in the mountain climbing scene (were getting close though) or in the preachy ending or in seeing uhura suddenly having the hots for the beached whale scotty, it's here: shatner, on the board of the new and (predictable)klunky enetrprise gets a shout from his boss on da big screen. shatner, just back from moutain climbing, opens up his jacket a little, sticks out his macho chest and winks at us (read my shirt here, man) GO CLIMB A ROCK.
i could swear he was chewing gum in this scene too.
Rating:
Summary: Up to the end of the opening credits this one is pretty good
Review: I suppose it would be interesting to know who gets the blame for "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier," which is almost universally acclaimed as being the worst of the "Star Trek" films. Story credits go to director William Shatner, producer Harve Bennett, and screenwriter David Loughery, so that at least narrows it down for us. I might not know who ultimately gets the blame, but I do know what part of the story becomes the film's downfall: the Great Barrier. Now, supposedly the Great Barrier represents the end of the finite universe and even though I never took any science course beyond Life Through the Microscope, I know that this is a stupid idea. Just the idea of a finite universe is enough to blow the gaskets of every scientist in the known galaxy. This is without taking into account the fact that it would take a long time to prove the existence of this "finite space" in the first place. Besides, when you find out what is behind the Great Barrier the idea reaches a new level of stupidity (Think about it: which is larger, the area inside the Great Barrier or outside the Great Barrier? Answer: outside. Fine. But does that make sense given the purpose of the Great Barrier?) Granted, the purpose of the Great Barrier is simply to (a) create a mystery as to what is on the other side and (b) to set up the climax of the film, but even so, did they have to come up with something stupid to get that done? This fifth "Star Trek" film starts off hoping to build on James T. Kirk's mortality, in much the same way that "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" did so well. This time confides to Spock and Bones that he has always known that he will die alone, which makes us pay attention when at a key moment in the finale Kirk seems to be alone. Of course now we know that Kirk does not die alone because we saw him die a couple of films down the road. This film also continues to emphasize the strong relationship between Kirk and Spock, which reached its operatic heights in the finale to "Star Trek II" and was resounded in different ways in the third and fourth "Star Trek." That alone was a clear indication of how this one was going to end. "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" starts off on stronger ground with the curious introduction of a laughing Vulcan. This would be Sybok, played by the under appreciated actor Laurence Luckinbill, who is the anti-Vulcan (or anti-Surak) in that he things truth can be realized only through exploring the emotions. Sybok has plans for binging peace to the "Star Trek" universe, but by the time those plans are underway this movie has become seriously derailed (basically, once the opening credits are over the film is in trouble). We have Kirk, Spock, and Bones on a camping trip to Yosemite where they toast marshmelons and sing "Row, row, row your boat." Apparently there are limits to what we will endure given our affection for these characters, and this scene prove its. Meanwhile Sybok has kidnapped diplomats for the three main powers in the "Star Trek" universe and the Enterprise has to go rescue them. They have to do this with a ship that does not have transporters (just the sort of starship you want to send on a rescue mission), which requires Kirk and his crew to do a whole bunch of silly things to move the plot forward. The only thing that keeps the patient alive is the mystery of what is on the other side of the Great Barrier, and as soon as we learn the answer we can only laugh at the absurdity of it all. This film also has the worst special effects in the series; the explanation is simply that ILM did not do them. Fortunately, it had already been well established that every other film in the "Star Trek" series was worth watching, so "Star Trek V" had to be made just to get to "Star Trek VI." The only one of the original cast who fares well in this one is George Takei, whose mature Sulu consistently maintains his dignity through the ups and downs of this entire series. No wonder he inspired so many "Star Trek" novelists to write adventures about Sulu as captain of his own ship. Finally, whatever the sins of this film, the DVD extras are sufficient to grudgingly round up give "Star Trek V" three stars. The father and daughter Shatner commentary has its comments, the text by the authors of "The Star Trek Encyclopedia" is well done, the various featurettes are all above average.
Rating:
Summary: The worst of the series
Review: After Leonard Nimoy scored hits directing Star Trek III & IV, William Shatner stepped behind the helm for this fifth installment, which is undeniably the worst in the motion picture series. Here we find Captain Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at odds against a renegade vulcan (and Spock's never before mentioned half brother) named Sybok who is searching for God. While this may sound like an intriguing idea, it certainly isn't presented as well as it should have been thanks to the derivative story, flat direction, and poor special effects. The only redeeming qualities about Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, is the beginning scene with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at Mt. Yosimetee (Sp.?); this scene is very comedic and perfectly displays the acting chemistry between the three. The DVD itself is typical overpriced Paramount bare bones DVD fare, however with the re-releases of the previous films getting very nice Special Edition packaging, it isn't entirely out of the question that this installment, along with all the other films leading up to Nemesis, will get some kind of re-release treatment (especially this one considering the rumors of a substancial amount of scenes cut from the film). All in all, this is the worst film in the series, but it's still worth a look.
Rating:
Summary: The Final Frontier Special Edition
Review: The Good Captain and his crew finally get some shore leave and we begin the movie in beautiful Yosemite National Park - a very uplifting idea from the start, that Yosemite Park will survive into the 23rd Century!
I'm dismayed that if one reviewer/critic (oh, let's say Roger Ebert) wants to boldly label this movie THE WORST that everyone else feels obligated to nit-pik it to death. Remember, this movie came out the same time as BATMAN and perhaps we were all turning to the dark side anyway. I do, however, remember seeing this movie in theatre and the audience enjoying it as much as the others in the series.
Yes, this movie IS sentimental. Yes, the money DID run short (if you listen to the commentaries of all the Star Trek movies, all the directors were forced by the studios to do much with little compared to Robert Wise!) and some production values suffered. Yet I much prefer it to Star Trek VI because so much of the enjoyment for me are the ACTORS interacting in character. The themes of brotherhood, blind loyalty, blind faith, facing your own fears and the question of just where GOD is are addressed on grand scale as well as gently. That's a huge undetaking. This is as introspective as I've seen the "brothers" Kirk, Spock & McCoy get. Toss in some sillinessand sweetness, and it makes for great entertainment. Lighten up, people. Go climb a rock! Then enjoy the Commentary by William & Liz Shatner when you watch it the second time!
|
