Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 8032.62 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x528 | 4477.94 MiB | 720p | |
|
640x272 | 700.48 MiB | divx | |
|
480x204 | 490.73 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
The Enterprise is back. This time, have they gone too far?
Why Are They Putting Seatbelts In Theatres This Summer?
The greatest Enterprise of all is adventure
What does God need with a starship?
Adventure and Imagination Will Meet At the Final Frontier
It's Stardate 8454.130 and vacationing Captain Kirk faces two challenges: climbing Yosemite's El Capitan and teaching campfire songs to Spock. But vacations are cut short when a renegade Vulcan hijacks the Enterprise, and pilots it on a journey to uncover the universe's innermost secrets.
| William Shatner | Captain James T. Kirk |
| Leonard Nimoy | Captain Spock |
| DeForest Kelley | Dr. Leonard |
| James Doohan | Capt. Montgomery |
| Walter Koenig | Cmdr. Pavel Chekov |
| Nichelle Nichols | Cmdr. Uhura |
| George Takei | Cmdr. Hikaru Sulu |
| David Warner | St. John Talbot |
| Laurence Luckinbill | Sybok |
| Charles Cooper | Gen. Korrd |
| Cynthia Gouw | Caithlin Dar |
| Todd Bryant | Capt. Klaa |
| Spice Williams-Crosby | Vixis |
| Rex Holman | J'onn |
| George Murdock | God |
| William Shatner |
4.80 out of 10 (15879 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Terrible, absolutely terrible...
posted on 09 Aug 2009This movie is the pits. Many people consider either this film or Star Trek: The Motion Picture to be the worst of the series. Sorry to say, but TMP is a masterpiece compared to this mess. To sum it all up: 1. Special Effects, HORRIBLE! Really liked those wires hanging from Kirks side when he "fell" from the mountain. 2. Acting, SHODDY. Scotty bumping his head on the beam? The laughing Vulcan Sybok? Seems like the Enterprise crew was acting bad just to get in a few cheap laughs for us trekkies. 3. Captain Klaa. Obviously the worst villain in Star Trek history. He looks like something from Motley Crew! Don't you think? Equally annoying is his henchwoman, Vixus. 4. PLOT, Oh how can someone think of something so horrid? Finding GOD at the center of the universe? I always thought GOD was in heaven? Maybe he IS at the center of the universe! (Yes, I know, it is only a movie) Anyway, I must admit I do have this film but it is strictly to complete the series. I hardly watch this film at all. Seeing this film should make anyone, trekkie or not to run to the bathroom and pray to the porcelain god.By the way, I never knew the Enterprise had 79 decks? She is a REALLY big ship!
GOD I LIKED HIM BETTER BEFORE HE DIED!
posted on 25 Jul 2009I know that many, many Trekkies weren't thrilled with this movie, in fact many down and out hated it. I am not one of them I actually Really liked and still like this movie very much.That isn't to say that I loved everything about it, The encounter with the God like creature isn't great. But the line that comes at almost the end of the movie where Kirk is going to hug Spock on the bridge of the Klingon ship and Spock says "Please Capt. not in front of the Klingons" is timeless.The reason I loved this movie is because of the exploration of the relationships between the crew. I am well aware that many argue that Uhura and Scotty's love affair came out of no where but I thought it was a nice touch. The scenes with Kirk,McCoy and Spock in Yosemite by the camp fire are timeless and it makes the movie worth watching. The scenes where Sybok is exploring McCoy's and Spocks source of pain gives a better insight to why they are they way they are, in part at least.If your a Trekkie,Trekker or just a SiFi fan and haven't watched V in awhile you should go back and watch it again and you'll see what I mean.It is a good movie and I thought Shatner did a good job at directing. The fall from the mountain is a very cool scene and directed well.
Poor Story Redeemed by Character Moments
posted on 22 Jul 2009Star 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.
An Emotional Vulcan?
posted on 01 Jul 2009Well, why not? Star Trek 2 and 3 had Saavik, who was always bitching and moaning about everything.Seriously, I don't know what to make of this movie. There are parts of it that I believe are unintentionally hilarious (ie, "I haven't finished violating Starfleet Regulations yet.") Or "What does God want with a starship?" Or, "Jim, you don't ask the Almighty to see some id." And Uhura doing a strip tease act. And Spock riding a horse is something that has to be seen to be believed. Was William Shatner drunk or something when he put this together? I'm not what you call a Trekkie, but I believe I know a good story when I see one, and this...well, I've seen better, I've seen worse. The only problem is, it's like week-old soup. Not really hot, not really cold, but leaves a bad taste in your mouth. (I take that back. More like a bowl of Cream of Wheat that's been sitting on the stove all day.) The idea for the story is pretty good. It's just that William Shatner doesn't know how to tell a good story. And how about that scene at the campfire with the crew drinking Jack Daniels out of a bottle and eating beans. Glad I wasn't there! (I think I just answered my own question about William Shatner being drunk when he made this.) I'm trying to imagine what that would do to Spock's digestive system. Explosive combination indeed! Well, we see a bitchy Vulcan, we see an emotional, religious fanatic Vulcan, why not a drunk one? I think 2,3, and 4 are the best. 1 isn't too bad, and I haven't seen any past this one. Can't quite get the nerve up. 5 stars out of 10 for this one, and that's probably being generous.
They Boldly Went Where No One Has Ever Gone Before, and This Time They Went Nowhere.
posted on 10 Jun 2009It looks like the Star Trek franchise has finally jumped the shark with this incredibly weak entry. In STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER, the Starship Enterprise is hijacked by Spock's Vulcan brother (Luckinbill), who sends Kirk and crew on a voyage to a secret planet at the center of the galaxy.
While not a total waste, THE FINAL FRONTIER is easily the worst of the Star Trek movies, from Shatner's unappealing campfire songs to his utterly bizarre direction, proving that Shatner can't sing or direct. Fans of the franchise will definitely enjoy STAR TREK V, but few others will.1 out of 5
Okay for Television
posted on 07 Jun 2009I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in "The Undiscovered Country" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a "buddy movie" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole "Sha-Ka-Ree" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of "Star Trek III" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.
Dont Blame William Shatner
posted on 04 Jun 2009V 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. LameWatch 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.
Classic Trek Film!
posted on 01 Jun 2009William Shatner proves he is a fantastic motion picture director! Trek V reminds me of the classic TV series in so many ways...action adventure and character. Light years better than any of the next generation efforts. This DVD needs to have a "directors cut" done with Shatner's original ending done with CGI.
Simply awful
posted on 29 May 2009Why is it that cable channels seem to show this Star Trek installment almost every week? It's awful. Simply awful.Once this was the worst film in the Star Trek line of movies. Now that Star Trek: Nemesis has been released, it can no longer claim that honor. The acting was especially horrid, perhaps they should have titled this one Star Trek: We're Here For The Money because the regular players are only going through the motions.
Not as bad as most people say
posted on 14 May 2009Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - Stardate: 8454.1This fifth entry in the Star Trek saga is perhaps the weakest (although better than the tenth installment, Nemesis), but there are certain qualities that make it very worthwhile to watch.1. Jerry Goldsmith's superb score - the maestro has done it again! The "family" theme for Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is very fitting and really helps to bring an emotional emphasis when they are on screen.2. Unlike the Next Generation, there is real character interaction between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy which makes it worthwhile to watch this film. You really feel for them, especially when they are around the campfire.3. "What does God need with a Starship?" A CLASSIC line! Yes, the story is illogical, the special effects are sub par compared to the other installments, and the acting can be atrocious (especially Shatner in an overly cute performance), BUT regardless, the above 3 points make up for it. Recommended.
Well, its the worst.
posted on 14 May 2009OK, I read all the reviews and comments posted here and its not changed my mind in one bit. Its crud on a stick. Simple straightforward crap. This should have never been released. I actually paid to see this. I bought the box-set, and promptly threw away this movie.It wasn't the direction, or the acting it was a lousy script. Luckily for everyone they got it together for the next films.
Very silly, but enjoyable
posted on 02 May 20095 out of 10I'd be lying if I said I didn't find Star Trek V a fun movie. As silly and plot hole-ridden as much of it is, it's still often fitfully enjoyable, granted you can get through the really bad opening half-hour (the crew on shore leave). The premise, a Vulcan named Sybok who is on a quest for God at the center of the galaxy, is easily the most ambitious of all the Trek films to date. Shatner, who directed this one, obviously aims to give us a popcorn adventure that aims to explore spirituality and faith. He doesn't particularly succeed, given that the movie raises so many questions. How does the Enterprise make it to the center of the galaxy in a matter of hours? Where did Sybok receive his visions? Were they merely delusional or sent by what they found on the planet? On my first viewing, I'd suspected he'd actually received the visions, but seeing the movie again, it's still inconclusive, which (spoiler) makes me wonder how the creature they discovered knew how to present itself and knew they were on a quest to search for Shakari. Perhaps that in itself is a suitable explanation that the creature had been sending Sybok visions (which might also sort of explain how they managed to land on the right spot on the planet). The lead trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy get more screentime together here than in any previous entry, and that's always a good thing considering the chemistry between these three have always been the most consistent bright spot of the series. The highlight of the whole film is perhaps Jerry Goldsmith's marvelous score, a truly awe-inspiring piece that is able to build suspense and wonder just by listening to it alone. Star Trek V is easily the most hated of the series (for me, the worst goes to Trek III), but aside from the beginning, it's never boring, and silly as it may be, it does have its heart in the right place and I'll give it credit for that.
What was wrong with this movie
posted on 24 Mar 2009Unlike 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.
The best and most misunderstood of all the 'Trek' films
posted on 12 Mar 2009Okay, so it was a bad idea to let William Shatner direct *and* co-write this film. Some of the acting, I will admit, is actually overdone. But in reality, "The Final Frontier" has the best wisecracks, the best Klingon confrontations, and the best visual effects of any of the classic films (yes, that last one is taking into account the copycat slit-scan machine work in "The Motion Picture" and the cheap if visually impressive cloud tank work in "The Wrath of Khan"). And "blasphemous"? I don't think so. Different people have different ideas about God, so get used to it. A great story sometimes jokingly referred to as "The Search for God" is one in which the Enterprise is hijacked by (possible spoiler) Spock's half-brother, Sybok, whose only goal is to find "the ultimate knowledge." Shatner's performance, of course, is egotistical and non-memorable, but Nimoy, Kelley, the rest of the crew, Laurence Luckinbill, and the ambassadors make "The Final Frontier" the best frontier.
Zzzzzzzz
posted on 19 Feb 2009When I saw this film in the cinema on it's release, it was without sound for the first 5-10 minutes. Nobody noticed.That just about sums up the film for me!Star Trek V is contrived, conceited and about as exciting as a very heavy lead weight cast in cement. The ending is so bad it just has to be seen to be believed and could only have been imagined by someone who watched too much sixties TV. It had to happen I suppose, Wrath of Khan, In Search of Spock and Voyage Home were such a strong triumvirate that there just had to be a deep decline to redress the balance, and V did that in style at leastA very BAD film
An editor must have clipped out the good parts.
posted on 17 Jan 2009Science fiction should have a little science in it, and a series should continue to use that same science. Some problems that ruin this moving. 1) How does this Vulcan know that God is at the center of the galaxy, since it is pointed out several times that no ship has ever reached there due to an energy barrier? 2) When the Enterprise fires a photon torpedo at the fake God, the crew runs a few steps and then jumps to safety. Don't they contain antimatter, and would make a nuclear bomb look small? 3) The fake God gets mad at Kirk and Spock, and can only knock them down and burn their uniforms? 4) Lucky there were horses on that alien planet! Well who cares right? The heroes sing at the end. I can't blame Nimoy for playing emotionless - but maybe the other characters should get scared, or angry, and stop displaying the smug everything's going to be okay in the end - walk through the movie attitude!
Final frontier should have been the final movie...
posted on 14 Jan 2009Shatner and company, once again, step out of the convention halls and into the mainstream as they put another film together, this time surrounding the "planet of galactic peace."For those of you that have seen this film, you know that, even as Star Trek fans, this is definitely not one of the best Star Trek movies they've made. Even after I've seen this movie, I found myself wishing that they never tried to do another one, because it was really on a downhill slope from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (which I thought was the best one of all).The theme does keep up with the days of the 60's: turning a problem of today into a television episode (or, in this case, a movie). Man's search for a Higher Power has spanned the galaxies from far and wide and to a place where "no one has gone before."Average input, average output, average film....5 out of 10
Not as bad as it seems
posted on 27 Dec 2008I will readily admit I've never been a big fan of Star Trek V, but a lot of the criticism levied against William Shatner isn't entirely fair. Much of the blame for how the movie turned out has to be shared by the "suits" at Paramount - from the miserably low budget Shatner was given to work with to the constant interference with the script.Shatner's original concept may have been unfilmable (politically speaking), but it was ambitious and very much in line with what Star Trek was always about - using a futuristic setting to discuss highly charged issues; and what could be more explosive than a movie questioning not the existence but the nature of God; that each person, each society through time recreates "God" in their own image.There's on old saying that there's no substitute for experience and that applies to movie directors as well. One thing experience as a manager teaches you is which battles you pick and how hard to fight; some things you blow off and some things you have to be willing to "fall on you sword" for. A lot of the humor people complain about was inserted at the insistence of the studio. If a light touch had succeeded with Star Trek IV, their reasoning went, then let's insert even more here. Same with the basics of the plot; the movie went from questioning out concept of God with a capital "G" to the tired old plot device of an alien who only looks like god (small "g" intended).Same goes for the lesser quality special effects. Shatner himself admits the results weren't what he envisioned and a lot of that was due, once again, to his inexperience as a director. He got caught up in the micro detail of making sure scenes early in the movie were "just right" and lost sight of the fact that he had a limited, and fixed, budget and would have nothing left at the end when it came time to create the "payoff" when Capt Kirk confront "God".
Great Star Trek movie.
posted on 06 Dec 2008Why do people hate this movie so much? So what if the special effects weren't as great as usual(personally, I had no problem with them at all)? The movie had a lot of great moments, a great musical score by Jerry Goldsmith, and was very well directed by William Shatner. It had more depth than a lot of the other Trek films, and I'd prefer it over a Next Generation movie any day. I'd give it 5 out of 5 stars.
Embarrassingly bad
posted on 21 Aug 2009I tried to keep an open mind while watching this one. After all, many people think "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" is the best in the series and I didn't like it; so I hoped that, with many people saying "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" was the worst, I would find I disagree with the majority on the latter film also.No can do. From its opening scene on the desert planet, I could tell this one was going to go downhill fast. And boy, was I right. But I stuck it out, because I've been on a sci-fi kick lately and decided it was finally time to get caught up on all the "Trek" films I had never seen (i.e. the fourth, fifth and sixth entries).First of all, the script seems like something a junior high student would write. The characters are paper-thin, with the exception of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, who turn their act into a sort of high-brow Three Stooges impression at times. The plot makes virtually no sense, jumping around between set pieces like a poorly contrived Roger Moore Bond film. Apparently they got halfway through it and then realized they had to have a more definite villain as well, so they threw in some idiot Klingon who would come along and pick a fight with Kirk just to throw his weight around.Further, why would Starfleet decide that Kirk was the only person in their ranks who could possibly handle the hostage situation? What was that meeting like? "Oh my God, some clown in a white robe and a bunch of sunburned hermits have taken three people hostage on a planet in the middle of nowhere! Well let's see, we have starships and spacedocks all over the place that could easily handle this, but let's drag Kirk out on this one!" And not only do they insist on sending him, but they also make him take a substandard ship that doesn't even have working transporters. Not to mention that it has a skeleton crew. I think what happened was Paramount felt they were spending enough on "The Next Generation" and didn't want to spend any more money than they absolutely had to on this "old school" film.Nothing else about this premise rings true, either. A middle-aged Uhura doing a striptease to help ambush the bad guys? The 23rd Century and they don't have flashbangs? And the finale is just ridiculous. Apparently what happened was the top FX guys were already doing other movies, so Paramount tried to do the FX on their own and they were so bad they cut them out of the final film. There's a lot of other things they 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 long as they stuck some one-liners in. Sure, that works. Ask the James Bond producers.This was hardly the worst movie I've ever seen, but it was just so inane. It had "Shatner Vanity Project" written all over it. Yet another reason why I'm leaning towards thinking "Next Generation" is the superior Trek series.