Genres

Visitors Review

powerkrust 2012-05-20 12:58:25

Flawed, tacky but unique and deceptively deep!

I don't get it? I really don't! Why are people so down on this film?Most fans say it's the worst of the series, and yes it does stand outbut that is because it is unique, not because it is bad.I personally thought the story was fantastic. Unlike other reviewershere I actually watched the film and it IS NOT about God being on aplanet in the centre of the Galaxy. It's not even about a God likecreature, it is simply about a creature that has some strong powers whois PRETENDING to be God! Can't get off the planet alone? Hardly Godlike is it, but still the concept was intriguing and who better to goin search of 'heaven' than the crew of the Enterprise.True it's not perfect, there are a few thin scenes and the 'humour'should have been culled a little but William Shatner has brought awhole different feel to the film and I applaud that immensely. Smalltouches like the Klingons using and old earth Satellite (can't rememberwhich one it was) as target practise and the enterprise by the moon wasgreat. It also showed some of the deepest acting of the series withDeForest Kelley's touching portrayal of Bones and his father.So many people say that the touch of Shatner ruined it, but he didn'thire the effects crew and his unused ideas were far and away morespectacular than any that would have been seen before.I'd have loved to have seen this film with the correct budget andeffects team behind it, then it really could have been the best.Unfairly flawed and tacky effects hide a much deeper portrayal of thethree protagonists that we will never see again.Bravo Mr Shatner, bravo!

2012-05-19 19:31:57

Is it possible to give NO stars?

I watched this thing on ACID and it still sucked ass.

mccartnist_lennonist 2012-05-17 18:35:29

Not worth watching. Seriously.

This is not only the worst Star Trek movies ever made (I have seen themall), but indeed one of the worst sci-fi movies ever put on the silverscreen. Upon its completion they should've realized how bad it was andnot bothered releasing it. In its weak plot, the Enterprise is stolenby Spock's half-brother Sybok and brought to the centre of the galaxyto meet 'God'. In the Star Trek universe, this isn't possible. The onlydecent aspect of this film was the sub-plot of Captain Kla's pursuit ofthe Enterprise. Even Kla is one of the weakest Klingon roles I've seen.Certainly no Commander Kruge or General Chang. I'd have to be draggedkicking and screaming towards any screen that was playing this movie.

2012-05-17 07:56:45

It ain't good, but it's more enjoyable than I remember.

Star Trek V has always been noted as the worst of the entire Star Trek franchise, and yes, I too, once considered it an awful film, but after having seen it again, I can't help but feel it's not nearly the worst (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock), though certainly far, far from the best (Star Trek: First Contact). If there's one thing I'll give this entry credit for, it's that it has the most absurdly fascinating premise of the whole series. Ok, I realize summing the film up by stating it's about an eccentric Vulcan searching for God might sound kind of silly, and it certainly is, but for me, just hearing the premise fuels all sorts of ideas in my head, sparks thoughts of the limitless posibilities of the universe and the imagination, and really, isn't that what Star Trek is all about? In The Final Frontier's case, the concept alone is enough to attain my interest.Delivery is a completely different story. This is where the movie stumbles, and often quite badly. As all Trek fans know, this is the one movie in the series directed by William Shatner himself. What he obviously aspired to do was not only to create a popcorn adventure filled with action and humor, but also to infuse themes of spirituality and the wondrous possibilities of the unknown. Sounds like a great odyssey, I know, and while I'm sure some Trek fans will be fully satisfied with the film, I can't help but feel a little frustrated.For starters, the opening segment set on Yosemite while the crew is on shore leave is one of the weakest extended scenes of the series. We get lame attempts at humor, totally unconvcing special effects (Spock's Superman-ish rescue of Kirk), and some rather pathetic bits of dialogue. Things finally get moving when the Enterprise sets out on its rescue mission, after they've discovered that a Vulcan named Sybok has taken three ambassadors hostage and is demanding a starship. This leads to a skirmish set on the desert planet of Nimbus III, a rather poorly choreographed action sequence that clearly shows where Shatner's directing talents don't lie. Oddly enough, it's also very noticeable that the special effects are weaker than the previous entries. Hell, even the tinting is a little bland; the movie actually looks more dated than its immediate predecessor, The Voyage Home. At least Shatner wisely decided to focus more on the characters' situation than on the effects themselves. And that is probably where the enjoyment of the next forty or so minutes originate. I've never much cared for the supporting cast, but Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley make for arguably the most entertaining trio in cinematic history. All three share more screentime together here than in any of the other films, and watching them bicker and/or work together is an absolute delight (loved the conversations they had while in the brig). Simultaneously, it's not hard to notice the blatant plot holes. How exactly can the Enterprise arrive at the center of the Galaxy (where God supposedly lies beyond The Great Barrier) in a matter of hours? Why would Sybok "brainwash" everyone except for Kirk? Why would Spock question if Sybok found Shakara when it's obvious he couldn't have since he's hijacked the Enterprise to search for it? Most infuriatingly, the plot is never fully or even adequately explained and explored. Sybok (who, I might add, is played very enjoyably by Laurence Luckinbill) claims to have received a vision from God, but this is never elaborated on. Did what they eventually find beyond The Great Barrier send him this vision or was he simply delusional? Once they arrive at The Great Barrier, the suspense heightens quite a bit. That joyous, exhilarating sense of wonder swelled in me, boosted by Jerry Goldsmith's wonderful score (arguably the best of the series). What they do discover on the planet isn't necessarily disappointing. "It" makes for an interesting discovery to the end of an ambitious journey and makes some sense, given that you can accept that they could conveniently stand on the right spot for "it" to reveal itself. Once again, more elaboration on "it" would have been nice. The very abrupt conclusion is what's ultimately unsatisfactory, more exploration on that planet and its purpose would have been nice. The climax is pretty much a disappointment, a deus ex machina that wraps things up too neatly and in a far too cliched fasion. The more I think about it, the more I would have liked that Klingon enemy subplot completely excised, since it only serves to detract attention from the "quest," and also as a copout for the conclusion. The Final Frontier has several things going for it: the unswerving chemistry of the three leads, Jerry Goldsmith's exemplary score, and the occasional sense of awe that the best of science fiction achieve. But the story is too muddled, too silly and Shatner's direction is too unfulfilling. As far as popcorn adventures go, it's a middling, half-bad outing.** 1/2 out of *****

2012-05-16 11:34:08

The Underrated and Unloved Star Trek Movie

I definitely have to fall in 'the other camp' on this film, the one that actually likes (not loves) the film and isn't afraid to actually think for myself. Yes there are weaknesses to the film and most have been covered: the forced humor, esp the scenes with Scotty, Uhura dancing (arrgh where's a stunt double when you need one) and an ending that would have to be a let down baded on the subject (trying to find God). There is however, a lot to like in this movie. For the most part it revolves around Kirk, McCoy, and Spock's relationship with each other and does a find job of testing their limits with each other. The whole segment from when Spock first confronts Sybok to the scene where he lets Sybock know that he has grown and accepted himself is the best reason to watch the film. Plus the line, "What does God need with a Starship", is classic trek (in both the good and bad sense).As for all the one star flame throwing critics let me say this - Get a Life. Watch every, and I mean every Star Trek movie and you can find plot holes to drive a truck through, so don't tell me that its any different in The Final Frontier. A perfect example is in the best Trek movie Wrath of Kahn, and IT IS A BIG HOLE - why didn't Spock just put on one of those fancy new engineering suits when he was saving the ship and then he wouldn't have gotten radiation poisoning and die. How is that plot hole any smaller than the one's in this movie. Let alone all the holes in The Undiscovered Country, Generations, Insurrection, etc.2. To all those complaining about continuity and how long it takes to reach the great barrier - why don't you actually watch the movie, the Enterprise was going to the center of the galaxy not the edge. (True it is a bit of a stretch how fast they got there but that's ALWAYS the case in Star Trek and pretty much every sci-fi movie.) Lets compare it to say the amount of time it takes Spock to become perfectly on the planet Genesis (but then Shatner didn't direct that one.)3. Just because Shatner directed it doesn't mean you gotta hate it. And in fairness to Shatner there were a lot of people involved who were hoping he would fail so it isn't like he got a lot of support. 4. As to those who say the movie is unoriginal but the music by Jerry Goldsmith is great, then please go back and listen to the music from the first movie. Goldsmith totally ripped himself off in this movie from the main title to the klingon themes.I usually write short reviews but The Final Frontier could use a little defending. Yes it wasn't a great movie (3 1/2 stars) but neither was Star Trek I, III, Generations, or Insurrection, but for some reason people get way too vitriolic over this movie. Pop it in, sit back and imagine you are watching a 2 hr tv episode and enjoy it and realize you could be stuck watching a 2hr episode of Star Trek Voyager (yawwwwwnnnn.)

Carlwho? 2012-05-15 20:45:40

Great!

I didn't like this movie when I first saw it, but I rented it today becauseI've been watching the earlier movies and wanted to see it too. I lovethismovie because of all the ST movies, this one reminds me of an episode ofST.I think Shatner did a good job and made the right choices by emphasizingthe characters again vs. a lot of F/X and spacefights. The only thing isthat some of the effects are a little "cheap," but that's not such a bigdeal. The movie works for me.

2012-05-13 16:39:59

The worst trek movie

This movie has continuity errors and is not very funny. They could have done better.

2012-05-13 04:09:18

Ugh!

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.

2012-05-10 03:27:30

When Shatner directs...

...this is what we get. A long, cheesy, terrible episode of the television show. You know the odd numbered rule about the Star Trek movies? It really applies to this movie. This was just absolutely horrible. The plot, the effects, the conflict, the unfulfilling ending...man. Horrible. But I'm not going to spend this review talking about how bad this movie was. I'm going to talk about how it could have been good, and how they wasted so much potential.The movie starts off with a guy riding through a desert on some horse-like animal. He comes up to a little bald guy defending some holes in the sand. The stranger gets off the horse thing and tells the bald guy to "share your pain with me". The bald guy starts crying because he has absolutely no hair at all. The stranger, whose name is Sybok, is then revealed to be a Vulcan. When the bald guy comments on this, Sybok starts laughing like a nut. We then cut to William Shatner trying to scale his own ego. He, Spock, and Bones are on shore leave and have decided to spend it camping. They have a scene where they try to teach campfire songs to Spock. Many people hated this scene, but I thought it was kind of funny. This is interrupted, however, because a hostage situation has developed at Nakatomi...uh...some planet. The Vulcan from the opening scene has captured the capital city, and has captured three important officials, a Romulan, a human, and a Klingon. Enterprise has been ordered to take direct action, even though the new ship is literally falling apart. The admiral says that they need an experienced captain to settle the problem, no matter what the status of his ship is. This felt kind of contrived to me. If they wanted an experienced captain, why didn't they just beam Kirk over to a ship that was working properly? Because then we wouldn't have had all that suspense with them having to do their jobs in spite of the ship's problems.So they get to the planet and fight their way into the Vulcan guy's city. They get to the hostages, but it turns out that the hostages have all "shared their pain" with Sybok, and are now loyal to him. The whole thing was a plan of Sybok's to capture a starship which will aid him on his "quest". We don't know what that is yet. So the boarding party is forced to fly the shuttle back to the Enterprise. You see, the transporters on the ship aren't working. Also, a Klingon commander is after the Enterprise. He wants Kirk. The Klingons still have a grudge against Kirk for blowing up the Klingons when they were trespassing on his ship. So the shuttle makes it into the hangar just before the klingon ship attacks them. I know many people hate this scene, but I actually liked it. As they are getting off the shuttlecraft, Kirk jumps Sybok. Sybok overpowers him, but Spock grabs a gun and has a chance to kill Sybok. He does not, however. Instead, he allows Sybok to take the gun from him he is recaptured.Now let's review here. At this point, I thought the movie was okay. You have a pretty interesting conflict going on. A Vulcan who appears to be delusional is in possession of the Enterprise. And he and Spock appear to know each other. Spock refused to kill him, which makes him a very personal enemy for Spock. We don't know exactly what Sybok wants with the ship, but they could have made him a crazy terrorist leader or something. They could have made this about Spock having to overcome his feelings towards Sybok and help Kirk take over the ship. At the very least, they could have made it a dumb action movie about terrorists taking over the Enterprise and Kirk and Spock trying to defeat the terrorists by themselves. Instead, out of the blue, we get Sybok trying to find GOD. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Spock says that Sybok is his half-brother, in one of the biggest plot contrivances I've ever heard of.Spock: Sybok is my brother.Kirk: I know for a fact that you don't have a brother.Spock: Well, I have a half-brother.What? Like I said, contrived. So the rest of this movie is too painful for me to go into too much detail on. Sybok persuades them to assist him on his quest to find God. They decide to the center of the galaxy and through the Great Barrier. Which might mean something if we had ever heard of the Great Barrier before. They get through the barrier, and they go to the planet. It turns out that the thing on the planet is not God, and Sybok sacrifices himself to allow the others to escape. Suddenly, the Klingons (why are they even in the movie?) attack the Enterprise. Spock convinces General Korrd, the Klingon hostage, to talk the Klingons down. Korrd succeds, and the klingons beam Kirk off the planet. Everyone is saved, and the audiences walk out of the theater cursing Shatner.Most people would say that the movie in it's entirety is bad. I disagree. As I stated before, I thought the first half was pretty good. The second half was terrible. The plot just didn't know what it was doing in that half. One minute the movie is about terrorists taking control of the Enterprise, then all of a sudden it's about God, then it's some kind of demon and not really God, then the Klingons are thrown into the mix (why not?) then the movie just kind of ends. I want to talk about the effects for a minute. The previous four Trek movies were not very big on the effects. But they were all better than this one. I know there was some confusion with Industrial Light and Magic working on the Back to the Future sequels instead of this, but man. These effects were bad. This was the only Star Trek movie that reminded me of the TV show. The effects, the plot, the terrible ending, and the heavy-handed message were all very reminiscent of an episode of the series. Star Trek 5 was a failure for many reasons, not the least of which was the directing job done by one Willian Shatner. The plot, the effects, the story, the conflicts were simply terrible. This is not, in my opinion as bad as Star Trek the Motion Picture, but it is close.I decided to post a link to a rifftrax clip of this movie. If you don't know what rifftrax is, it's the same thing as MST3K. If you don't know what that is, just click the link anyway. The clip his hilarious.

2012-05-09 12:40:58

The worst movie of the series but not the worst movie ever!

As Captain Admirel James Kirk (William Shatner) with Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and the rest of the crew (DeForrest Kelly, George Takai, James Doohan, Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols) are having a nice pleasant camping trip since their newly christened U.S.S. Enterprise are having it at spacedock for repairs. They get called on a urgent mission to head to planet Nimbus III where a renegade Vulcan named Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill) has taken some people there hostage as he wants the Enterprise to find the universe's most supreme being.Considered by fans and critics alike as the worst movie in the franchise! William Shatner who directed and wrote the story for this movie. One of the biggest problems in this movie is too much lighthearted humor unlike "Star Trek 4" which worked like a charm but this movie overdoses on it too much especially on Scotty and Uhra who feel romantically involved and of course the infamous teaching Spock how to sing campfire songs. The special effects themselves are quite bad without the help of Industrial Light and Magic as they come off as laughable and the characterization is thin as a pencil but at least Shatner got to give this movie a try at directing and co-storying the film but he failed at that.This 2-Disc DVD contains good picture and sound with great extras such audio commentary from William Shatner with Liz Shatner and Text commentary by Michael Okuda co-author of the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Featurettes, deleted scenes, production gallery, trailers and TV Spots.

Bryce David 2012-05-01 00:33:22

Embarrassingly bad

If Roger Corman had produced a STAR TREK movie, this how it would havelooked like.The acting, the script, the dialogue, the story, the concept, the sets, andcertainly the "special effects" are woeful.A big budget "low budget" movie.

funnygy 2012-04-30 08:28:49

Embarrassingly bad

I tried to keep an open mind while watching this one. After all, manypeople think "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" is the best in the seriesand I didn't like it; so I hoped that, with many people saying "StarTrek V: The Final Frontier" was the worst, I would find I disagree withthe majority on the latter film also.No can do. From its opening scene on the desert planet, I could tellthis one was going to go downhill fast. And boy, was I right. But Istuck it out, because I've been on a sci-fi kick lately and decided itwas finally time to get caught up on all the "Trek" films I had neverseen (i.e. the fourth, fifth and sixth entries).First of all, the script seems like something a junior high studentwould write. The characters are paper-thin, with the exception of Kirk,Spock and McCoy, who turn their act into a sort of high-brow ThreeStooges impression at times. The plot makes virtually no sense, jumpingaround between set pieces like a poorly contrived Roger Moore Bondfilm. Apparently they got halfway through it and then realized they hadto have a more definite villain as well, so they threw in some idiotKlingon who would come along and pick a fight with Kirk just to throwhis weight around.Further, why would Starfleet decide that Kirk was the only person intheir ranks who could possibly handle the hostage situation? What wasthat meeting like? "Oh my God, some clown in a white robe and a bunchof sunburned hermits have taken three people hostage on a planet in themiddle of nowhere! Well let's see, we have starships and spacedocks allover the place that could easily handle this, but let's drag Kirk outon this one!" And not only do they insist on sending him, but they alsomake him take a substandard ship that doesn't even have workingtransporters. Not to mention that it has a skeleton crew. I think whathappened was Paramount felt they were spending enough on "The NextGeneration" and didn't want to spend any more money than theyabsolutely had to on this "old school" film.Nothing else about this premise rings true, either. A middle-aged Uhuradoing a striptease to help ambush the bad guys? The 23rd Century andthey don't have flashbangs? And the finale is just ridiculous.Apparently what happened was the top FX guys were already doing othermovies, so Paramount tried to do the FX on their own and they were sobad they cut them out of the final film. There's a lot of other thingsthey could have cut out of this one as well.Finally, there's the pitiful attempts at humor. Apparently after"Voyage Home" it was decided that they could make anything work as longas they stuck some one-liners in. Sure, that works. Ask the James Bondproducers.This was hardly the worst movie I've ever seen, but it was just soinane. It had "Shatner Vanity Project" written all over it. Yet anotherreason why I'm leaning towards thinking "Next Generation" is thesuperior Trek series.

2012-04-30 20:41:49

Crane your neck for a behind-the-scenes peak at a disaster

I saw this movie the first day it came out, and I am in agreement with the widespread belief that this movie is the worst Star Trek movie ever made. The Special Edition is worthwhile, though, because of the hours of extensive extra commentary and behind-the-scenes documentaries that are included. The subtitle text commentary points out some of the movie's minor and obvious flaws. The audio commentary by Shatner sounds like torture for him as he explains what went wrong. I feel bad for him having to sit through the entire movie and comment. Some of the documentaries go into the problems that made the movie a failure. According to the documentaries, they couldn't afford to do the ending they wanted. Shatner had envisioned an action ending with monsters spawning from the planet and chasing the landing party through the rugged terrain. Without an action ending, the viewer is left looking for a philosophical conclusion that is just not there.Although the commentary only scratches the surface of the problems in the making of the movie, I got a pretty good idea of what went wrong. Shatner muscled is way into the directing job. He lacked the experience and political acumen to get people on his side to "push back" on the producers regarding schedule and budget. He seems to fancy that Star Trek is all about Captain Kirk. His original idea for the plot was for everyone to be co-opted by Sybok with only Kirk unaffected. He admits in the interviews that he didn't know what job functions some of the characters perform on the show. At one point he appears to forget Walter Koenig's (who plays Chekov) name. This gives me the idea that he underestimates the importance of the other actors. It is sad that the movie was a failure because despite their flaws everyone involved clearly tried hard to make it good.For people who don't know, here are the movie's failings:-Slapstick comedy is mixed clumsily with serious ideas.-There is almost no real treatment of the serious ideas brought up. The movie seems to take its search for God seriously, but it doesn't given the viewer any substance to draw you in. -There are glaring technical flaws such as the Enterprise having more 78 decks and the Enterprise being able to reach the center of the galaxy so quickly.-The fact that the Enterprise had technical problems and insufficient staff added nothing to the story. The way Sybok's group took control of the ship so easily and that the crew simply did not notice an approaching Klingon ship made the crew appear incompetent. -Sybok said he chose Nimbus III because it had representatives from the governments. Why did he need to get representatives from multiple governments to steal a ship? If you are buying the DVD, it's for the commentary. It really gives you an insight into what went wrong. Some Shatner's comments are bizarre. In one of the interviews Shatner carries on for minutes about how a rock climber desires to make love to the rock. In another interview he says that his greatest ability in the making of the movie was denial of the problems. I wonder if the people in charge of editing this video had a grudge against Shatner. If for nothing else, you can watch it with all the morbid fascination of reading the flight recorder transcripts from a plane crash.

2012-04-30 02:26:52

The worst of the series

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.

JDP 2012-04-23 17:42:10

One of the Best

I was not too excited about watching this film at first. I had heard about the crew "meeting god" and how "god" was not what people, like myself, think God is like. Now, I won't ruin the movie further, but if that is why you aren't watching this move, do not worry! That part is one of the main reasons why I love this film! Also, the direction. This is the only (as far as I know) film that William Shatner ever directed because everyone talked about how horrible this film is. This is one of the best Star Trek films ever! In fact if I had to choose one to watch for the rest of my life, I would choose this one! The film is very well directed and is a treat for anyone who loves Star Trek. Personally, I think the main reason so many people hate this film is because of what we learn about Spock's family tree; but most Spock fans today already know that so it shouldn't be an issue.

2012-04-23 04:46:21

Underrated -- and the SE DVD is just what it needed

Maybe Star Trek V isn't the best Trek movie, but it's still much better than most movies I've seen. It has more humor than any of the original crew movies besides Star Trek IV. At times, the blend between the humor and the seriousness of the plot doesn't mesh very well, but it's still good overall.As for the Special Edition DVD, it is just what the movie needed. The extras are a real treat with the movie, from the documentary on the making of the movie to about every commercial and trailer that could be imagined.

2012-04-17 22:18:49

One of the best science fiction movies

Being a science fiction addict since the early Fifties, I bought many fantastic books (by Alfred E. Van Vogt, Philip K. Dick, Clifford Simak, Poul Anderson, Leigh Brackett, Cordwainer Smith, Asimov etc.) but saw only a few great films (Forbidden Planet, Quatermass Xperiment, Quatermass II... and, later, Star Wars II The Empire Strikes Back), and I didnt expect much when I went to see my first Star Trek movie, one night in a Bruxelles theater with nothing else to do; but Star Trek V happened to be a beautiful surprise.This was a superb space opera; it was fun, with great photography, and the characters had soul, intelligence, personality and a sense of humor. After seeing it I bought the entire series (at the time) on video, liked them but number V remained my favorite. How come the reviews here are so bad, and why putting such a blame on William Shatner? This man seems to be smart, he knows how to build a story and he is definitely a magnetic actor; he has a strong ego? Well, being talented as he is he can afford it. Jerry Lee Lewis, one of my rocknroll heroes, has the greatest ego of them all; who cares? Just listen to JLLs music, or just enjoy Star Trek V, this exciting movie, and ignore the gossips.PS: Besides, Jerry Lee is a wonderful man (I have not met William Shatner yet).

sarah-866 2012-04-17 17:53:46

Not the best but...

Though this admittedly is not as good as the others either side of it Ilike it.It is, however, a good viewing of the friendship between Spock, McCoyand Kirk with some stunning shots at the beginning of the film. Youalso get to know a little bit more about our top three which is a bit Ilove.DeForest, Nimoy and Shatner do wonderful jobs at the acting with Bonesslipping in his usual witty lines. It's just a shame it wasn't a betterfilm. James Doohan is brilliant in his part! Makes me laugh every time!I have to say I do like the start of the film a lot better than thesecond half but that's just my personal opinion and I won't tell youwhy as it'll spoil it for you.It's worth at least one watch then you can decide for yourselveswhether it's a good one or not.

Matt Ulmen 2012-04-16 22:15:36

One of the best.

Ok I can see why folks don't like this. Vulcans are supposed to be logicaland not supposed to act like Sybok does. That to me is what makes themovieso excellent. Think of all the races they could've picked, and they wentouton a limb and picked a Vulcan. Laurence did a wonderfull job as Sybok. Iwish they wouldve followed up on the character with a TV movie on how hegotexiled from Vulcan. It tells you in the book, but the movie seems toignoreit. I think if they would've thrown in even one or two small scenes whereyou can see the toll it takes on him or get even a brief clip of why hebelieves so strongly in it would've made people believe it a lotmore.

2012-04-16 10:56:42

Surely, the WORST of times...

I was quite disappointed by this movie!...As a long time Trek fan I thought all was lost. A definite low point. However, there were at lease a few glimpses of good in it. The humorous banter was good. But the music, I thought, was great!! A bit of a change from all the other movies. Also the use of, for lack of a better expression, Star Fleet commandos or Marines in the attack on Sybok's stronghold in the desert. I liked that concept!...They got to kick some butt for a few minutes at least. The fact that it wasn't just the normal stars from the bridge crew in the fire fight was refreshing. I like the old crew but I also like the fact that they used other resources at their disposal. People trained to do just that, it seemed. That some of the other 450+ personnel on board got to do something besides put on a red shirt and die!! (...Although, everyone wears a red shirt in that time frame now so go figure ;-)...)If you're not a Trek fan, skip it! PLEASE!...But if you're a fan, tolerate it then go do something nice for yourself afterwards!...