Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) User Reviews

Poor Story Redeemed by Character Moments

[brianwolters · 5/10 · 4 January 2005]

Star Trek V ranks at or near the bottom of the Trek films for most fans and casual viewers. And upon viewing this on its special edition DVD, my opinion has not changed. This is a film that tries hard but ultimately fails due to poor plotting, sub-par special effects and poor character development. The movie opens with probably the best scene in the film, where you meet Sybok and learn a little about his quest. The visuals alone in the opening shots are very impressive. Then, slowly, scene by scene, the movie falls apart. Yes, there are a few peaks in there, which I will discuss later, but overall, the idea of a "God Like Being" in the center of our galaxy, it just so illogical.

The movie has a lot of embarrassing and just plan bad moments. The first of which is the meeting of three characters who represent the "Planet of Galactic Peace." However, their intro is rushed and these characters are not given any depth at all. Why introduce us to these "important" characters if they care not going to be used in any meaningful (maybe one of them at the end) plot point at all? The direction by William Shatner also seems very uneven. Take the scene with Scotty and Uhura on the bridge. There is a very awkward moment of silence after their main dialogue is over. And the mugging Shatner does when McCoy makes very awkward comments to Spock's story about Sybok is just out of place. And add to that a semi-naked Uhura and Scotty hitting his head for a "Three Stooges" laugh and you begin to sink in your chair. The Klingon plot seems tacked on just to add depth to the story. And by the time we see where the movie is going, we just feel very disappointed and underwhelmed.

That said, I can't help but enjoy the wealth of good character moments in the film. I for one liked the campfire scene and the attempts of deep philosophy about old age and death. I also liked exploring the "pain" of McCoy and Spock and Kirk's insistence that he "needs his pain." While most of the humor was forced and bad, the best had to be the "I could use a shower" scene, which is one of the biggest laughs in all of the Trek films. There were many moments of good direction by Shatner, especially in McCoy's "pain scene." I do sympathize with Shatner a little, when listening to the commentary track, about how this was cut and that was cut but I still think on a whole, this movie was doomed to fail.

The DVD's picture is sharp and the sound is excellent. The extras are quite good but I would have liked more insight as to what went wrong with the film besides tight schedule and budget. Shatner's commentary with his daughter is good but has too many quiet moments. Check out the hidden and brief "comic reel."

At this point in time, I do rank Star Trek V above Nemesis, mainly due to that movie's bad continuity issues but just barely. Still, it is Star Trek and if you like the characters, just sit back, don't expect much and enjoy the show.

Not enough adventure or imagination here

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 19 July 2017]

Having been one of the shows that was part of my childhood and growing up, the original 'Star Trek' still holds up as great and ground-breaking, even if not perfect.

The fifth film of the franchise, 'The Final Frontier', is often considered the worst of the films, and one can understand why. To me, it is nowhere near as bad as its reputation, and feel in some way that the film was doomed even before it was released. Whether it is the worst overall 'Star Trek' film is up for debate, it's a worthy contender. Is it the worst of the films based of the original series? Yes.

It is not a bad film by all means. The cinematography is neat and very nicely done in the quieter scenes, and William Shatner's direction works well in these moments.

Jerry Goldsmith's score is awesome personified, there is no bias intended as Goldsmith has always been one of my favourite composers, but the score here really rouses the spirits while touching the heart also.

'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' does have some good scenes, namely the camping fire scene, the inner/greater pain scene (very intense and moving) and Scotty knocking himself out (the one bit of humour that works).

The chemistry between Kirk, Spock and McCoy is the film's driving force, and the interaction and interplay between them is the asset that comes off strongest.

A few of the performances are good. Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley are very good, and Laurence Luckinbill does very well with what he's given, a villain that's both menacing and sympathetic. The rest of the crew mostly are very competently played.

Unfortunately, they are underused and what they are given falls flat completely mostly, turning them into cartoonish parodies. The erotic dance was completely out of place and the getting lost stuff feels like filler to pad out a story that doesn't have an awful lot to it. Plus we have the most embarrassing rendition of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" you'll find anywhere.

Generally the humour is as flat as a pancake, really overdone and juvenile. 'The Voyage Home' had humour too but it was actually entertaining and even when poking fun felt more like 'Star Trek'. Shatner's direction is incredibly chaotic in the action scenes, which sees production values that look unforgivably cheap even for the budget, with haphazard cinematography and editing and the worst of the uniformly shockingly shoddy special effects.

Just for the record, as much as people would say that Shatner's ego has a lot to do with the problematic nature of the film (and yes having him trying to take on more than he could chew was excessive and most likely was not going to work from the start), the failure is much more at the door of budget limitations and studio interference, Shatner's original vision would have made for a much better and actually a fascinating film.

On top of that, 'The Final Frontier' is filled with overripe dialogue with too much emphasis on the humour, which as said doesn't work, and less on heartfelt moments and thought-provoking conflicts. While there are a few good performances, the supporting cast are too underused to shine properly and Shatner's performance has more ham than the world's biggest pig farm.

A big failure here is the story, which is dull and takes too long to get going with a plot too thin to sustain the running time. The whole stuff about god just confused the story and that for Sybok was a thrown in and unnecessary plot device done to presumably give more development to a character who was actually interesting and well developed already. The ending is convoluted and anti-climactic.

Overall, hugely problematic but not without obvious merits. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This one is growing on me.

[pmtelefon · 6/10 · 28 April 2019]

"Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" Is a mixed bag. There is a lot of humor in it. ( I suspect that's because of the success of Part 4. ) There is some action but it's not that exciting. The special effects aren't that hot at times. The weakest part is the storyline. Just when the plot needs to pick up speed, it runs out of gas. That said, it hard to not enjoy any movie with the original Star Trek cast. It's because of them that I am enjoying "Star Trek V" more these days than I used to. It's not the greatest movie but it's still better than "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". Dishonorable mention: They didn't give the always enjoyable David Warner anything to do.

From one of the best...

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 14 November 2013]

Well, I loved STAR TREK IV: it was just so different, so fresh, that it's my favourite of the original cast movies. Unfortunately, THE FINAL FRONTIER is everything that film isn't. It tries to get to grips with an equally heavy (or heavier) subject matter, but the resultant film is ponderous, devoid of action, dated, cheesy and, even worse, boring.

The film sees Spock's long-lost brother (who he?) coming out of the woodwork and commandeering the Enterprise in search of God. Unfortunately, there's no action to speak of, and the special effects used to detail the almost magical scenario are pretty shoddy. Shatner directs as well as stars, but his direction leaves plenty to be desired.

Sure, there's still fun to be had from watching the original cast going through the paces, but they really are going through the paces here and that's all they're doing. Some of them seem a little bored. The best supporting actors the movie can manage are B-movie veterans David Warner and Michael Berryman. THE FINAL FRONTIER has a philosophical tone and some of the scenes are quite sentimental - the campfire bit in particular - but you'd have to be a huge Trekkie to get much joy out of this dull instalment.

This movie is aging well - worth a look for a 2nd look

[amalfitano1 · 7/10 · 17 January 2005]

ABSOLUTELY NO SPOILERS -- There is no shortage of people complaining about this film, but ST5 is a charmer for one simple reason - it is best-ever rendering of the Kirk, Spock and McCoy partnership the series ever produced.

Trekkie's generally see the movie as the stepchild of the series, and even the Trek establishment writes it off as non-canonical. Many complain that the movie distorts the characters, or exploits them for humor. To them I'd say the movie offers some of the deepest moments in the relationships between Kirk, Spock and McCoy that the series ever had. THIS SHOULD BE STRESSED, in this chapter the three likely have more scenes together than they ever had anywhere else. Not every moment works, but together they grapple with betrayal, joy, doubt, loss. They do it with friendship, camaraderie, heroism and joy that justly makes them one of the most memorable pop-culture phenomena ever. (I do pity the rest of the original cast, most of whom have at least one unenviable scene.)

It's great to return to this film and see these guys doing what they do best - long after they retired from the roles. Shatner and Paramount may have bungled a few things here, but I forgive them, because the three leads hit all the right notes. Give it a fair shot and see for yourself.

This film is not as bad as they say.

[posspringtime · 26 October 2004]

I've never figured out why ST V gets so much criticism. It's really not that bad, if you're a true trekkie. First off, sure the effects are a little low-fi...but so were the TOS episodes. I don't know about you, but I care more about story than effects. The main reason that I like this film because it's very episodic in nature. If you are a fan of the original Star Trek series, sit down and watch this movie as if you were watching one of the original episodes and it will be much more enjoyable. For one, it starts out like an episode with a prologue before the opening credits start. Secondly, the theme music for the movie is similar to that of the original series. Third, there are some lines from the film that sound like they would be right out of one of the older episodes. Lastly, this movie is loosely based on the storyline of an original episode. Ironically, the episode that it's based on is one of the TOS worst episodes: The Way the Eden. If you've seen The Way to Eden, the actual plot of the episode is not bad, it's just the hippie stuff that makes it so awful. This film kildly leaves out the awful hippie music of the original episode and focuses solely on the plot instead. I often wonder if Shatner wrote this film to make up for how bad The Way to Eden was. So, to sum up, watch this movie as you would watch an old episode and you'll enjoy it much more.

Shatner Versus God. Shatner Wins...

[Prichards12345 · 1/10 · 2 December 2008]

Welcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.

The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. "BOONES! Hi, Bones" Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky!

The "Special" Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.

Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! "Capt. Life is Not A Dream" Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.

A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party. Much amusement from watching Spock neck-pinch a horse...

Cat Woman/Tina Turner Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! He shows his respect for alien life forms by leaving her face down in a pool of water. Nice one! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.

The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. The Enterprise breaches the galactic barrier, which has mysteriously moved from the edge to the centre of the galaxy (see Where No Man Has Gone Before). Still, that's only about 50,000 light years... Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery MK II calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.

The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat.....

Cheesy fun

[KnightsofNi11 · 6/10 · 19 February 2011]

This is often said to be the worst of the Star Trek films. After watching it I can see why a lot of people would think that. It is a very flawed film but I by no means hated it. In fact, I liked it more than Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier opens with the crew of the Enterprise enjoying some well deserved shore leave. Kirk, Spock, and Bones enjoy their time off together by going camping in Yosemite park and this makes for some amusingly cheesy moments. Their vacation is interrupted when they must respond to a hostage situation concerning a renegade Vulcan who happens to be Spock's half brother. This Vulcan's name is Sybok and he is on a desperate search for God and the end of the universe. There are also some Klingons in pursuit of Kirk and the Enterprise, but they don't seem to serve much of a purpose in the end. The Final Frontier is all kinds of weird and doesn't have much of a structure, but I can't say I didn't have fun with this movie.

Remember how The Voyage Home added this element of comedy to Star Trek? Well The Final Frontier saw that and thought to itself, 'Hey! I can do that too!' Unfortunately, it was wrong. Any and all comedy in this film is completely unnecessary and either makes you cringe or roll your eyes in embarrassment. There are moments in the film where I was left wondering, 'Why in the hell did the writers think that line was a good idea?' The movie tries way too hard with its ridiculous punchlines and awkward moments that are supposed to be hilarious. A lot of the humor comes around when the friendship between Kirk, Spock, and Bones is being developed. This was always an important aspect of Star Trek, but The Final Frontier almost makes a mockery of it. Never, under any circumstances do I need to watch Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley sit around a campfire singing Row Row Row Your Boat. But I guess these were the days when Shatner and Nimoy were building their "singing" careers so they thought they needed those "careers" to carry over into Star Trek.

This movie had the potential to be incredible. Sybok's search for God could have gone much deeper and been much more intellectual than what it was. This aspect of the film had spiritual and existential overtones, but they were buried by silly nonsensical scenes that do nothing for the plot. There is a lot to strip away if you want to get down to the more intellectual meaning of this film. It is something that was so obscured by the amount of crap this film throws together that in the end it was a completely lost meaning.

But if you move past that, The Final Frontier can be pretty fun. If you enjoy it for its cheese than you can have a moderately good time. Especially towards the end, the film becomes completely over-the-top and loaded with cheese. It isn't like The Motion Picture, which tried way to hard to be something it wasn't and painfully dragged on for over two hours. The Final Frontier clocks in at only an hour and 45 minutes and just stays lively and fun the whole time. It isn't high quality fun, but its fun nevertheless. This definitely is not a Star Trek film I would watch again, but its a necessary watch if you are a fan of Star Trek like me and have made it your duty to see all of the films.

Star Trek: The Final Frontier is not a good movie. But its not a bad movie either. It isn't one of those that I just hated by the end, but I knew for sure that what I had just seen was not a very well made film. I love Star Trek so watching Kirk, Spock, and Bones boldly go where no man has gone before, even if they go to a realm of such cringe worthy cheese as this, still puts a smile on my face.

Regardless of being a franchise fan or not, it's a poor film all round.

[hitchcockthelegend · 3/10 · 6 October 2009]

The voyage here is a search for God, the big guy in the sky, the big cheese with a beard. Cunningly disguised as the thirst for ultimate knowledge. Taking over from Leonard Nimoy in the directing chair is The Shat himself, Captain Tiberius William Shatner Kirk. In an attempt at blending the fun corny aspects of the series with sci-fi histrionics (Klingon dialogue consultant, really?), Shatner and his co-writers have only achieved what is almost an embarrassing parody of a parody.

Where's the danger? Where's the brothers in arms spirit? In fact where is our badly underwritten crew? Star Trek humour is a wonderful thing, when it's in the right places and done with a straight lace so befitting what has come before The Final Frontier. Some light moments exist, but they do not compensate for the lack of serious moments. While do we really need another Spock revelation? Really?

Some nice sets and little knowing Trek moments aside, The Final Frontier is just a bad movie experience. 3/10

Beware Frontiers Bearing Gifts...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 2 March 2022]

Boldly going where no man (or woman) has gone before, climb aboard the Enterprise and let it fly and soar, as old friends gather, reunite, off to battle and to fight, strange new worlds, civilisations to explore.

Relieved of their conscience and pain, disciples no longer in vain, after Sybok inspires, ignites holy fires and shackles them with a new chain.

The newly blind follow the blindest into damnation, torment and torture when they fall for the misguided trickery of a Vulcan selling metaphorical snake oil and hair restorer.

This potentially good film could have been so much better.

[anth001 · 5/10 · 25 August 2006]

Having recently purchased the box set of all 10 Star Trek films (including Next Generation), I watched Star Trek V, not having seen it since it was released, hoping that it would improve on a second watching.

Watching it now, I can see that here was a story that could have been very, very powerful, and the film could have been an equal to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which is also underrated by non-Star Trek fans.

The overwhelming sense I got in this film was that everything proceeded so quickly, as if the producers/director felt that a successful film was trim, with no excess fat. Those people who really enjoy a good steak, enjoy that little bit of fat on the edge, or marbled through the meat. It makes it all so much more tasty, even if it has little nutritional value. To remove myself from the metaphor, Star Trek fans enjoy the taking of time over certain elements - seeing the ship, seeing it travel, dialogue en route, etc.

If there was a director's cut, or another cut, that wasn't so very lean, I think the new pace would work to the film's advantage. Of course the worst element of pacing is the finale. When we finally arrive at the centre of the galaxy, Kirk & Co. march straight in without much ado. Think to the Enterprise venturing into the cloud that surrounded V-GER. We were given time to savour the beautiful visuals set to a engaging score.

To my mind this doesn't happen in Star Trek V, and this is its weakness. I think it is still a reasonable film. The scene where Spock and McCoy are shown there heart's deepest wound is quite moving. With a little more breadth, this could have been incredible. It's frustrating that the film will not get the best treatment the story deserves. When watching the special features, it seems that the production was not smooth sailing, the finale weakened due to poor response (according to Shatner) from special effects teams. As a Star Trek fan, I can't give this film less than a 5. I hope that's not out of sentimentality.

Extremely Underrated

[dipanagi-683-2128 · 9/10 · 2 June 2014]

I cannot understand how is it possible for people who call themselves Star Trek fans, not to like this film. Even more I can't understand how is it possible for the previous movie to have better ratings.

The voyage home could have been any other light movie for people who don't like to think what they've just seen... Not for Star Trek fans. The final frontier movie was about all the stuff that made TOS so special. I know it's not Free Willy but if it was I would rate it with a 7 not a 9. As I did with Star Trek IV which was just an enjoyable movie.

Star Trek was always about the story. A story that would give you a glimpse to a possible future and make you think about philosophical matters such as life, friendship, god, racism and others.

If this is why you watch Star Trek I believe you will enjoy this film.

Unjustly panned

[walsh-22 · 7/10 · 10 July 2009]

Is it the best Star Trek movie ever done, no but neither is it as bad as people say it is, I happen to like this film very much. Just because it is not as strong as the other movies doesn't mean it should be slated, there are still some very good scenes and character elements.

The reason I like this film is part of the film is about the friendship between Spock, Kirk and Bones. It starts off with them camping, Kirk nearly falling to his death and Bones worrying like a mother hen at the bottom.

The funniest scenes are when they are around the campsite trying to teach Spock camp songs and him not understanding the purpose of them and as a result getting it wrong. Then their friendship is threatened when Spock's brother enters the picture and manages to convince Bones and Spock God is out there in space and he know's a way to meet him. We see things we never knew about Bones and Spock, Bone's father being ill in a hospital bed and Spock's father's reaction when his new son is born, disappointed his son looks more human than Vulcan. We see Kirk is still in pain over the death of his son who he lost in the third movie and doesn't accept what Spock's brother Sybok is saying and for the first time, he is on his own as his crew believe in what Sybok says and he has no control and has to go along with Sybok's plan.

There are some very funny scenes in the film, I've mentioned the camping scenes but another hilarious scene is Scotty hitting his head on the beam after saying he knew the place like the back of his hand. The film still has the essence of Star Trek, exploring the unknown, conflict and resolution between the characters and fun, not taking itself too seriously. On the whole, it could have been a lot worst and not be funny at all which can't be said about this film.

What Does God Need With a Starship?

[ThomasDrufke · 4/10 · 11 May 2016]

Yes, "What does god need with a Starship?" is a real line that came from this absurd mess of a film. I understand the theme of Star Trek has always been to boldly go where no man has gone before, but 'The Final Frontier' attempts to take the franchise in places it has no business going.

William Shatner took the reins of directing after Leonard Nimoy helmed two enjoyable entries in the series in 'Search for Spock' and 'The Voyage Home'. While it's not entirely Shatner's fault that there were heavy production issues with a writers strike and the CGI becoming far too expensive, his direction doesn't do anything to enhance what was already on the page. Apparently according to the producers, this film nearly killed the entire franchise with poor effects, a rehashed and ridiculous plot, and a largely inconsistent tone.

This time around, the crew of the enterprise were on leave and enjoying life when they are asked to investigate a hostage situation on Nimbus III. Of course, the hostages just happened to be held by Spock's half-brother, Sybok. Framing Spock as the key to getting through to his brother would have been a nice way for him to finally regain his existence and memory as the Enterprise's second in command, but it never really plays out that way.

Sybok manipulates anyone in his path to discover the god in the center of the galaxy and forces the Enterprise crew to take him there. As if the film didn't already struggle to grab my attention, the scenes with 'god' are almost unbearable. The very idea that a Star Trek film would center its plot around a villain taking over the Enterprise with his goons in order to get what he wants has been done so many times before, but throw God in the mix as well? Come on.

Luckily, the bond between Spock, Kirk, and Bones is still present to get you through some rough dialogue, as is Jerry Goldsmith's classic score, but 'The Final Frontier' ends up making you wish they would never make another Trek film again. Fortunately, they do get better, but I can't help but sit here in wonderment thinking about just how much the reach of this film far outweighs its grasp. Yikes.

+Goldsmith's score

+Bond between characters is always there

-Lazy script

-Absurd villain

-God?

4.4/10

Dont Blame William Shatner

[IMDBReader · 6 April 2004]

V has some of the best moments in the entire series. The camping scene is both funny, and insightful. I also love the scene in the brig. ("I oughtta knock you on your Goddam ass!"......."Want me to hold him, Jim?")

The only mistake was hiring an effects crew who had never done motion control blue screen model effects before. And that was NOT William Shatner's fault. That was Ralph Winter's and Harve Bennet's fault. Quit blaming William Shatner. The producers hold the purse strings, and hired idiots. Watch the new DVD and you will see model test shots that were not for action blocking, but were the effects team actually trying to figure out how to do the effects. Lame

Watch this movie, focus on the characters, and ignore the space shots, and it's pretty good. I think since they reworked ST:TMP with new effects based on the original story boards, they should have done the same for ST:V for the new DVD. That would have fixed the whole movie.

Besides all of the exterior ship shots, the scenes I would have fixed are as follows:

The turboshaft - Change the deck numbers to make sense and erase the shadow made by the boom holding them up.

All viewscreens - Insert remastered footage digitally to replace the poor rear-projection versions. The new Enterprise would have an even clearer screen, not a grainy, dim one. The only one that worked was the observation windows as they approached the great barrier.

The fall scene at the beginning. Inserting the closeup of Kirk and Spock ruined the entire scene.(Exactly like the parasailing scene in Die Another Day) Seeing a real stuntman is always better than seeing a fake shot of the actor.

What was wrong with this movie

[JoeB131 · 5/10 · 20 March 2009]

Unlike the TNG movies, which are easy to hate because they are so derivative and banal, one just has a hard time disliking this movie, but is forced to.

Let's talk about what went wrong. Logistically, this was a mess. There was a writer's strike in the middle of production, meaning the script couldn't be tweaked. They wanted to get Sean Connery to play Sybok (Spock's half brother who rejects Vulcan logic and wants to find God), but they were forced to settle for Laurence Luckenbill. (Laurence Luckenbill. Who the heck is Laurence Luckenbill? Oh, yeah, he was Lucy and Desi's son in law!) There was a whole sequence with Rock Monsters that had to be dropped because 1989 vintage FX couldn't render them effectively. (A couple years later you had the first CGI that would have done fine.)

Another problem was that the movie didn't know if it wanted to be a serious drama like Star Trek II and III, or a lighter comedic film like Star Trek IV. So it tried to do both and did neither well. The drama of possible war with the Klingons, Spock confronting his past and finding GOD, for crying out loud, was offset by cheap slapstick like Scotty bumping his head on an I-beam and Uhura doing a fan dance. (Ahhhh---it burns, it burns.)

The next problem was Shatner himself. Let's be honest, Shatner has had a strained relationship with his alter-Ego. In fifty years, he's not going to be remembered as T.J. Hooker or Denny Crane, he's going to be remembered as James T. Kirk. This movie gave him unprecedented control over the character's portrayal, and he misused it. He made his co-stars (many of whom already hated him) the butt of the movie's gags while stroking his own ego. (He's able to reject Sybok's offer to remove his pain while Spock and McCoy succumb.)

Final Point. God. Okay, he wasn't really God, he was an alien who needed a starship to get out of the center of the Galaxy, which inexplicably, the Enterprise could reach in a few days. (Meanwhile, it took poor Janeway 7 seasons to cross the galaxy, and she had lots of wormholes and stuff to shorten the trip.) The whole thing had these religious overtones in Roddenberry's universe. The problem was that Roddenberry himself was an atheist, who believed that in order for mankind to achieve perfection, had to reject such superstitions. But here you have otherwise sensible and logical people babbling on about God and the Garden of Eden.

Overall, it was a letdown from the triumph of the previous three movies, which was so bad that Paramount considered sacking the original cast and replacing them with younger actors.

about as amusing and cheesy as Star Trek could ever get, and with moments of real interest

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 9 August 2008]

So here we have it, the most flawed and ill-reputed-by-fans movie entry from the original cast of the Star Trek TV series. Which means, oddly enough, it isn't actually *as* bad as you might have heard. It depends on perspective; if you're willing to give in to the 4-score-cheesy humor, which includes Spock being instructed on how to sing campfire songs, James Doohan doing a stupid hit-of-the-head just walking down a hall, and some delicious overacting by many of the cast (including the 'evil' Vulcan Sykbok played by Lawrence Luckinbill), then it might be worth it for some of the oddly interesting ideas regarding belief and allegiance to someone promising a life without fear thanks to God. It might even dawn on someone, as thanks to a note of interest from my girlfriend, that it has more than some allusion to evangelical right wingers.

So, trying to put aside political notes, which could go on for so long here that it would be didactic of me, just to note the good news first: Shatner, for all of his moments of folly thanks to the crappy special effects (and it's not just the 'God' bits watch for that one little ship speeding by and wonder how far we've come in 20 years with CGI), he's usually a pretty sturdy director of scenes which don't require a lot of action. He keeps a good control over the enterprise crew, and there's even some moments of earned corny-hilarity thrown in here and there like with the rocket-booster shoes. And, yes, there's a not bad *central* plot involving Spock's half-brother, Skybok, who only wants to take people hostage and go to the center of the universe to attain something no one has seen before. I was even slightly moved by a scene where Skybok gives a moment of revelation for McCoy and his dead father.

But for all that Shatner might get right as a pure 'Trekkie' fan (and, thankfully, he doesn't make it too much of a vanity project, so no excess close-ups or the like), he also goes too far in other respects. One of the biggest goofs is in the logic that "hey, it's Star Trek, we'll need Klingons, just because" when they're totally ancillary figures, used only for an awkward, un-funny laugh towards the end where somehow Klingons and Enterprise crew come together following that whopper of a battle between Kirk and whatever-that-God-thing was. And as well, almost in spite of Shatner's skills as a director of certain scenes, there's a slightly dull quality to how some of the story progresses, of the ho-hum-ness of the ship's parts not working, including (GASP) captain's log. Shatner and the writers are obviously digging for something intellectually stimulating as well as going for some stirring drama, but too often they fall short of making it more than just an average episode of the series. Not even Star Trek's first movie in 1979, which had a bloated quality here and there, had the trouble of being just 'average'.

If you're into Trek, you'll check it out anyway, and opinions will vary though probably not by much from what I've read. And if you've very limited interest in Trek, it's not a good place to start and might be liable for helping sleepless nights. I liked certain things about it, a lot, and then other things just... stalled.

Everything you've heard is true - unfortunately

[Lupercali · 4/10 · 30 August 2002]

I like underdogs. So, 12 years after having first seen Star Trek V, and thinking it was bizarrely bad, I gave it a second watch, hoping I would find some redeeming quality which I missed the first time around.

I didn't.

The writing is half-baked, and although at first the quality of the acting is stable enough to keep the movie on its feet (albeit shakily), the further we get into the plot the sillier it gets. The last quarter of the film is just plain ridiculous. What was even worse, from the original cast's POV, is that this was the first ST movie to be released AFTER the franchise returned to television with Next Generation, and the average episode of Next Generation would put this to shame* - including the special effects! What an embarrassment.

The Final Frontier isn't thoroughly wretched - I gave it 4 out of 10 - but it's so far below the standard of its predecessors (yes, including the first one) that the only reason I can think of to watch it is because you'll appreciate the other movies more.

* unless it's an episode with Troi's mother in it.

The lost Crusade. (Spoilers.)

[TAEMO · 6/10 · 12 July 2009]

The movie starts out on the planet of Nimbus III, where Sybok, a renegade Vulcan converts one of the locals and makes him one of his followers. How does he do it? He takes away his greatest pain. Many think this to be a stupid idea, but if you asked me, it is highly intellectual and a stroke of genius. Perhaps it is just handled the wrong way, from a directorial point of view. What I will attempt in this comment is not only to see things the way they are, but also how Shatner had originally envisioned them to be, but failed to do right, either by the lack of money or the lack of his own directorial skills. This brings me back to the point I started from. Why has the first guy we see on screen to be a drooling, speech impeded, nobody. Hell, even Abe Lincoln had a brighter future when he picked up his ticket at the box office. This guy would have done everything to get off this rock, even follow a mad man. But I think the idea itself is brilliant. How many movies do we know, where we pause for a moment and the hero tells somebody what is eating him, what his drive is, why he does what he does. By now, this has become a bit of a cliché. But Star Trek V makes it a plot point, a way to literally show us the feelings of our beloved characters. The sad thing is, it is not done very well, or at least not consequently. Although I like the Spock and McCoy scenes, we are not shown anything from the rest. Why waste screen time for the three emissaries on Nimbus III since they are nothing more than a McGuffin in the first half of the movie and almost completely disappear in the latter one. This time could have easily been used for the Enterprise crew, given them a more dignified role in the events depicted. It was a good thing of Shatner to give everyone something to do, but almost everything shown is done in a fun way and contradicts the character. We see the navigator and the helmsman get lost; the engineer bumps his head in engineering, and a lady pushing sixty performing a strip dance as if she were 20. Granted, those horny hicks in the desert probably did not care, but we as viewers are put out of the movie, another failure of the movie. While in Star Trek II it was made a point that Kirk is aging and the crew is aging, is this one, everybody is shown more agile than back in the original show. If we compare the appearance of Kirk in this movie and the next, he has aged almost ten years, despite the making of the two is only two years apart. Kirk is free-climbing in this and we are supposed to believe it. Then again, he falls right. Nevertheless the climbing scenes are a beautiful montage for the title credits and give the movie scale. The title credits as originally conceived by Shatner would have been one consecutive shot, beginning with a zoom out (following the first Sybock scene) of Nimbus three, then we go into space, travel to earth and then a zoom in on earth ending in an aerial shot of Yosemite, ala the "Powers of Ten." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUUkjWsNC9k&feature=fvst) Great idea, would have been awesome, but alas, not enough money. The filmed special effects by Associates and Ferren are bad. Someone said that their limited facilities, which resulted in a lack of time, had prevented them from doing multiple passes on the starships and models, thus not giving the shots depth and credibility. The in camera effects on the other hand look very good for the most part. We have the back projected star field whenever we look out of a window and that is very convincing, also giving the director the freedom to move the camera, a luxury that a blue screen background would have prevented back then. Another plus point are the transitions we get during the flashbacks of McCoy and Spock. Also done practically and very good. The only time the back projection did not work that good are the main viewer scenes. Since the bridge is lit very brightly, the contrast on the viewer is a bit low, but nothing to complain really. The bridge is very good in this one, as are most of the sets, beautifully lit and filmed. The camera-work is a highpoint of this film. One of my favorite scenes is the camera push in on the bridge, passing the actors ending on a monitor which shows us the approaching bird of prey. Someone called this an almost Hitchcockian moment, perhaps referring to the crane shot in Notorious. It is a very good moment that introduces us to the more than disappointing ending of this flick. Again, time, money and unconvincing special effects prevented this one from being what Shatner wanted it to be. I wonder if it had worked. Surely, he is not the best director, but the good stuff in his movie works very well and the major flaw is perhaps him directing himself. His whole performance screams leading man and hero, something that director Nick Meyer tried to reduce in his movies, with success. No wonder Shatner got the Razzie for acting.The dialog by David Loughery is over the top, out of character and silly. Harve Bennett euphemised it as "his delightful almost whimsical sense of humor" in the DVD featurette The Jouurney Begins, but I don't know. I could go on and on making this movie bad, despite liking it, dreaming of how it could have been. I think they should give him the money to fix this. On the other hand, I wonder, why Shatner does not put up the money himself.

Why Does God Need A Spaceship?!

[zkonedog · 3/10 · 12 March 2017]

With the Star Trek II-IV movie "trilogy" (one long plot line) finished, the fifth film of the series is a self-contained story about growing old, friendship, and religion. Sadly, the film fails on all those accounts.

The gist of the film is that Spock's half-brother, Sybok (who has rejected his Vulcan heritage), hijacks the Enterprise in search of God in the outer reaches of the universe. Once found, "God" turns out to be a rather temperamental being who becomes angry when his escape from beyond the galaxy (the Enterprise) is taken from him. When Kirk utters the phrase "why would God need a spaceship?", the major plot point of the film turns to shambles. The entire mission (which wasn't all that compelling to begin with) turns into a sham, and ultimately a waste of time.

Perhaps the largest downfall of the film, however, is the inability of the writers/producers to create dramatic tension between Spock and Sybok. It is too much of a stretch to believe that the emotionless Spock will succumb to the rash tendencies of a character only just introduced to him.

Yet, despite failing on nearly all accounts, a few scenes are inspiring for their place in the Star Trek cannon. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy's vacation at Yosemite National Park is awe-inspiring, heartfelt, and funny (Spock's marshmallow roasting machine is classic!), while the scene where Sybok diagnoses McCoy's and Spock's greatest pain is classic Star Trek fare (even down to Kirk's defiant refusal to be given the same treatment).

To conclude, this fifth installment in the Star Trek movie franchise is a forgettable romp through the deepest galaxy. Besides a few interesting scenes, the majority of the movie is unemotional, bland, and even hokey. Hard-care Star Trek fans will enjoy the moments (however slight) of character development this movie brings to the table, but I would advise less dedicated viewers to skip over this installment entirely.

Paramount ruined this film based on IV's success! FX was no IL&M! Character driven..this is of all the films!

[shockwave6668 · 7/10 · 10 March 2009]

I remember watching this film for the first time in '90 after purchasing it on VHS. And I loved it. I was a huge fan of the series even back then and thought it was a great entertaining movie.

The years have gone by and I have now watched all episodes of the original series and films. Of all the films, this one does contain the most interaction and involvement between ALL the cast members. True, some were for "laughs" (thanks to Paramount more than Shatner) but overall re-watching it again the one major thing lacking in the film is the BAD ENDING!! The story is not so bad until you watch it all the way to the end, and then it's like "ok, next!" Structure wise is one's the weakest! Please Keep these three things in mind (PERSONAL OPINION:) I think Gene was so upset with Paramount and the past when it came to Trek that he looked at TNG as a new beginning and ANYTHING that was made up to this point with the original cast (especially since Paramount booted him out of the films) would have been disapproved by him. Of course, if this film had made more $$$, then maybe he would have embraced it a little better with private reservations. Second, this film suffered the same fate as the later Batman films from the late 80's and 90's. The first two Batmans were good, but due to studio interference (Warner Bros.) the next two suffered! Some can be blamed on the director, some cannot! Lastly, the main characters of the original trek were always Kirk, Spock and McCoy. The others were always secondary..That is, to help move the stories along. Over time, however, these characters were loved and cherished also. So of course the film is going to focus more on the main rather than secondary characters.

The film reminds me of a season three episode re-done in the late 80's. Even though season 3 was not great, it did have some great moments and even the bad episodes can be watched ONLY from the performances and love of the characters/actors. That's what V is. A return to classic Trek. Not great, but fun. With no knowledge of Trek or love for it, of course this film was doomed to fail! At least II had a great villain and a death scene, III had a mystery of how to get spock back and the destruction of the beloved Enterprise and IV was just a fun time travel escapism. After this, Paramount pitted Shatner (who was to direct under contract) with greed and insistence that more humor than a dark or serious story be included. It was the success of IV that led to the downfall of V. Paramount wanted another action/comedy film based on the results of IV. However, in Voyage Home it worked. In a story like V, it did not! It was meant to be more of a darker, philosophical Trek than what was produced because of studio interference. Don't believe me? Check out some parts of the film which were very dramatic..

* The teaser before the credits really gets you in the mood. A laughing vulcan? very interesting.. * the Nimbus III meeting of the three races is pretty decent and a great opening. All three major aliens to that point (terrans, klingon, romulan!) are actually together and talking things out. Makes sense since the kligons and romulans were trading and the terrans (earth) were in peace negotiations with both. * Most of the campfire scenes with McCoy's statement of being on shore leave and spending time together with Shatner's "Other people have families, not us" is just so deep. I will say that DeForrest's performance through this picture is just great. * the wonderful meeting of Sybok trying to "seduce" the trilogy is the highlight with the young father of Spock, Sarek, declaring "So Human" and Shatner's "I need my pain!" speech topped by McCoy (DeForrest) wonderful scene with his father. The film was worth watching just for this..the best dramatic character driven scene of the original series. It shows the three characters have definitely aged and not just "making a movie." They have matured and stays cannon with the rest of the films. * Kirk's hatred for klingons is still apparent, but kept to a minimum. This is probably due more to Paramount than Shatner as he at least tried to emphasize it in a few scenes. * All the cast at least have something serious to do in this film as opposed to all the others! If this was all on Shatner, why did he even waste his time with even directing everybody else? Very considerate of others from my point of view. The scene with Chekov as Captain of the USS Enterprise trying to negotiate with Sybok was great!

Even though disappointing after the success of II-IV, not bad. Those were hard to top. Blame Paramount more than Shatner! He had the Trek idea in hand. VI was only made and successful because of the 25th Anniversary and the studio wanted the original to go out with a bang instead of a flop that THEY had made and knew it. Why Shatner was denied making a director's cut is beyond me! They'd rather put it all on him rather than themselves. Decent movie, just relax and enjoy.

The Final Affront Here.

[dunmore_ego · 5/10 · 7 September 2009]

Shatner directs!

Oh, what a marvelous disaster! From Shatner's book, Star Trek Movie Memories, we read about Shatner's grandiloquent vision for the greatest TREK adventure of all - the search for God Itself! The Final Frontier! We learn of the hordes of barbarians at the gate, of the ten Rock Men finale; of the sweeping alien farscapes and cerebral pondering on the existence of God... and then we run aground on the studio complaints, crews being late, loss of light, story changes, budget constrictions, time delays, the middle-background whining of Gene Roddenberry and how hard it is to direct and - we end up with: STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER. A marvelous disaster.

A Vulcan named Sybok pirates the Enterprise in a misguided quest for Sha Ka Ree - the abode of God, which is apparently somewhere in the middle of the galaxy, a vantage point from which (we surmise) all prayers and oblations can be heard and dealt with in timely fashion.

Sybok hypnotizes Kirk's crew to go along for his ride by healing their inner demons - an easy task with the extras known as Cast Regulars, Sulu, Uhura and Chekov (Takei, Nichols and Koenig); not so easy when it comes to Scotty (James Doohan, skulking about the bilges of the reconditioned, malfunctioning Enterprise NCC-1701-A) and The New Three Stooges, Moe Kirk, Larry Spock and Curly "Bones" McCoy (Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley).

I'll say one thing for Shatner (who also co-wrote with Harve Bennett and David Loughery): he intimately knows which TREK characters work and how to work them, as Kirk, Spock and Bones are holding hands in almost every scene.

As with all STAR TREKs, the humorous and impassioned scenes involving The Three are tempered by the ridiculous - Uhura getting the attention of some desert dwellers by doing a nude feather dance (which is not only embarrassing, considering she thinks to tempt them with her 70-year-old, wrinkly ta-tas, it's kinda icky as well), or another cantina sequence (after the failed attempt in TREK III), where they once again display their utter inferiority to STAR WARS.

A disturbing scene shows McCoy euthanizing his father on his deathbed, Sybok coaxing the memory from McCoy to absolve his pain with catharsis; Spock is shown his birth and subsequent spurning by his father as being "too human." These scenes are the heart of darkness Shatner was aiming for.

Unfortunately, couched within STAR TREK, before too long we are bound to slam into something idiotic, such as Sybok giving an uneducated monologue to justify his quest, "People thought the world was flat - but Columbus proved it wasn't!" (shows how much he knows about Earth history - Columbus was establishing a trade route, not proving the Earth's sphericity); "People thought the sound barrier couldn't be broken - it was!" (and this time, when he could cite the man who actually attempted and succeeded in that singular quest, Sybok doesn't - Chuck Yeager, you Vulcan C-Student!).

For every dramatic hammer (like Kirk affirming, "I know who I am! I don't need to confront my pain!") there is a nail in the coffin (like Kirk fighting a three-breasted cat-lady...).

The hammer: With the Enterprise, Sybok intends to breach The Great Barrier - a wall of special effects that no one can pass through alive. The nail: Apparently, all it takes to breach the Great Barrier safely... is to fly through it.

The hammer: The most authentic Klingons yet in the series pursue Kirk for the glory of killing him, chok-tha-ing quite fluently in what was established as actual Klingon dialect, created by linguist Marc Okrand. The nail: Uh, why do you need a PERISCOPE on a space ship? Spock gets to nerve pinch a horse, Chekov gets to sit in the Captain's seat; Shatner's real life daughter is on-board as an Ensign and she's as bad an actor as the rest of the extras; Uhura and Scotty are an item - but if I wanted to see something that weird, I'd watch the cantina sequence at Mos Eisley.

After numerous annoying plot holes and cinematic deficiencies, Sybok and The Three shuttle down to the planet of Sha Ka Ree to meet God. And we get the perfunctory evil alien with laser beams shooting out of his eyes.

The final scene is a funny, touching moment as Kirk is overjoyed to see Spock on-board a Bird of Prey and is about to hug him, when Spock interjects, "Please, Captain, not in front of the Klingons."

Many argue that STAR TREK movies must be judged in the time period they were made - an apologist remark usually pertaining to the low budget efx that every TREK up to V is victim of. But that is not why the TREK movies are such phenomenal space junk. We can live with dated effects; what drives us insane are the egregious non-performances from every single supporting cast member and absolutely illogical and unscientific plot points, bad editing, poor direction, a general sloppiness and an overwhelming plastic dynamic.

The final frontier will be when STAR TREK steps out from behind Gene Roddenberry's skirts to proclaim it is part of our universe, to join the movie-making community on equal grounds, to boldly go where every other filmmaker has gone before - film school.

Possibly my favorite Star Trek movie (so far)

[ApprehensiveSpaghetti · 10/10 · 17 July 2012]

I have to admit I love this movie. My stepfather said he saw it in theaters and it left him baffled; he later told me that he was convinced at the time that Shatner should never direct a film again. I watched it with him for what was his second time and my first; how anyone could HATE this movie is beyond me. Even my stepfather admitted to liking it better the second time around.

To me, it has some of the best banter and dialogue of all the original six. I especially like the part in the beginning where McCoy and Kirk try to teach Spock "Row Row Row Your Boat". Seeing Spock try to get back in touch with his human side is hilarious. This movie has more, I guess, humanity in it, for lack of a better word. I think the more vulnerable, imperfect sides of the main cast come out better in this movie.

Maybe it's not the best movie in the world. But to me the plot made more sense than the last two movies, even if I had to know SOMEthing about it so I wouldn't have set my expectations so high when I watched it for myself.

Perhaps you need a word or two on it before you see it, and depending on your religious views (conservative Christian speaking here), you may or may not tolerate this movie. I loved it, and even though it easily ranks among my favorites of all time, I can't say for sure that others will appreciate this movie very much.

Just for the record, I'm on a mission to watch all the main Star Trek media. Finished TOS recently, skipped TAS (for the time being), went through the movies, and have recently started TNG (which I love already). So I'm still a Trekkie-in-training. :D

"You mean he's your brother brother?"

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 7 February 2016]

It seems the Star Trek movie franchise took itself less seriously as time went on. "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" parlayed a lot of humor into the script, and it's follow up appeared to up the ante whenever the principal players were on screen. The best was when Scotty (James Doohan) knocked himself out explaining how he knew the Enterprise like the back of his hand. Speaking of which, it appeared Scotty and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) packed on a few pounds between films, didn't they? And maybe it's just me, but it seemed like DeForest Kelley might have been under the influence during the first half of the picture.

Actually there was a germ of a good idea in the story for an effective sci-fi film. Sybok's (Laurence Luckinbill) empath power taken to it's extreme was an effective device to explain how he got followers to come over to his side. The search for Sha Ka Ree beyond the Great Barrier at the Center of the Galaxy would have been made more effective however if it wasn't insinuated that God was on the other side. That whole concept fell apart as soon as Kirk asked the logical question - What does God need with a starship?

Overall not a terrible movie, but throughout there seemed to be a sense of something lacking. The camaraderie between Kirk, Spock and McCoy didn't seem as natural here as in the past films, and 'Row, Row, Row Your Boat' just wasn't going to fix it.

Should have been a much better movie

[ericwatkinson · 2/10 · 30 October 2016]

Well perhaps if the budget had been a bit larger, perhaps if Industrial Light & Magic had taken care of the special effects, and perhaps if some judicious pruning would have been done to the story line, then perhaps this film wouldn't have ended up being such a terrible stinker.

The most obvious and glaring weakness in this film is the fact that the central characters; Kirk, Spock, and Bones seem to be so grossly out of character with where they left off in Voyage Home. Spock is no longer trying to reconcile his katra has he was in the last film, and there is virtually no back and forth chemistry between Spock and Bones as there was in the previous film. In fact, it is never even mentioned in the film that Spock has been recently raised from the dead, and Spock himself no longer displays any of the peculiar eccentricities that he did in The Voyage Home. Are you sure that it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?

Meanwhile, Kirk seems to be completely indifferent to the fact that he is once again commanding the Enterprise, and when the Klingons make their appearance, Kirk displays none of the passionate anger towards the them regarding the murder of his son David, which he does in the later film, The Undiscovered Country. Also, in this installment Captain Kirk does not appear to posses any of the great leadership or problem solving skills which he displays in earlier films. In this film Kirk has his ship hijacked away from him, he cannot break out of the brig, and he nearly plummets to his death from the face of El Capitan in Yosemite. This is not really the same Kirk who put on his antique glasses and hacked into the bridge of the USS Reliant in The Search For Spock.

Rather than coming across as a worthy sequel to The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier has more the feel of a television episode of Star Trek The Next Generation in which the lead characters have been swapped out with characters from the original series. However, it appears that someone forgot to let the actors see the script until just before filming, and for the most part they are just reciting empty lines without any emotion as they stare blank face at the camera. Holly disappointment, this is not at all in keeping with the great character development and acting we saw in the previous three films. (Not counting 1979's Star Trek The Motion Picture.)

After the disjointed acting and character portrayal, it is the overarching story line that really throws a bucket of cold water on everything. It's a film about terrorism! No, it's a film about religion! No, it's a film about pop psychology and cults. No it's a film about false prophets and con artists. The film tries to cover all of these topics, but it does a terrible job of weaving all these ideas together, and instead of producing a film that is thought provoking or insightful, we end up with a film that is shallow and sometimes painful to watch.

In fact, the story line of The Final Frontier is so disjointed and extremely weak, that perhaps this is the reason that the main actors are unable to dial in their characters and to deliver a satisfying performance.

The other thing that has to be addressed is the television level special effects that are found in this film. There are no sweeping vista views of orbiting space stations, most of the aliens are simply actors with dusty rags wrapped around their heads, and when Spock points a makeshift rifle at his brother Sybok, it is clear that the rifle prop looks to have been constructed from household pipe fittings from a local hardware store. Again, this film has the look and feel of television episode, and not a major Star Trek movie.

Following the huge success of The Voyage Home a few years earlier, the studio execs really should have been on hand to make sure that this film was better than it was.