Theatrical Release Date:June 9, 1989 Release Date:October 14, 2003 Availability:Usually ships within 1 - 2 business days Shipping:Expedited shipping available Shipping:International shipping available Condition:Ships from U.S.A, takes 6-11 days for Delivery! BRAND NEW PRODUCT Factory Sealed.
From Amazon.com Movie critic Roger Ebert summed it up very succinctly: "Of all of the Star Trek movies, this is the worst." Subsequent films in the popular series have done nothing to disprove this opinion; we can be grateful that they've all been significantly better since this film was released in 1989. After Leonard Nimoy scored hits with Star Trek III and IV, William Shatner used his contractual clout (and bruised ego) to assume directorial duties on this mission, in which a rebellious Vulcan (Laurence Luckinbill) kidnaps Federation officials in his overzealous quest for the supreme source of creation. That's right, you heard it correctly: Star Trek V is about a crazy Vulcan's search for God. By the time Kirk, Spock, and their Federation cohorts are taken to the Great Barrier of the galaxy, this journey to "the final future" has gone from an embarrassing prologue to an absurd conclusion, with a lot of creaky plotting in between. Of course, die-hard Trekkies will still allow this movie into their video collections; but they'll only watch it when nobody else is looking. After this humbling experience, Shatner wisely relinquished the director's chair to Star Trek II's Nicholas Meyer. --Jeff Shannon
not as bad as people sayAugust 18, 2007 falcon(canada) i don't get it.people say this is the worst Star Trek movie of them all.i'm not sure i agree.i kinda liked it.i know it's not action packed to say the least,and the plot may be unusual,but so what.i found this movie to have a fair amount of humour in it,not as much as the fourth installment,but some.the whole movie is really one 105 minute philosophy lesson,but that didn't really bother me.personally,i thought the story was interesting.enough to maintain my interest for the full running time.i wasn't bored at all.the premise could be called absurd,but it's certainly no more absurd than a lot of other films that get churned out.i think it was better than The first Star Trek movie and as good as the second one(The Wrath of Kahn).i realize i may be in the minority here,but that's life.for me,Star Trek 6:The Final Frontier is a 3/5
Thank God... for "Generations"!January 4, 2005 1 out of 3 found this review helpful
This Star Trek film is most definitely not THE worst ever...but only because "Generations" manages to fare even more dismally. At least Captain-Admiral-Captain J.T. Kirk was not "killed" twice in the same film. Too, this film, while relatively more episodic than "The Search for Spock" and "The Voyage Home," does not possess the ambience of a made-for-television movie the way "Generations" seems to, given its secondary storylines having to do with Picard's brother and nephew, the Duras sisters Lursa and Bator, and Enterprise-D's destruction. Better yet, while "Generations" may be set aside from the Trek chronology and lore, "The Final Frontier" may not - considering that this is the first mission for Enterprise-A and the last time that Commander (later Captain) Sulu would serve aboard the same vessel as Kirk, Spock, and company. Also, note that the main plotline for "Generations" - Soran the Madman and the Nexus Dimension - has already been trotted out in this very movie - in the form of Sybok the Madman and the Great Barrier Dimension.
Give the man a break!July 8, 2004 I take it not everyone is well versed in Star Trek history or Hollywoods knack for messing things up. The truth is this: The Budget was cut, so William Shatner couldn't even use the Special Effects he intended to! Also, Shatner didn't have his hands on the reigns completely througout filming. What really happened is a lot of people in charge pretty much told him to cut some of the movie out (atleast an hours worth!), forget about the Special effects and NO! Sean Connery will not play Sarek, and etc., etc. Instead of knowing the truth, too many people assume the movie stinks because of Shatner. Perhaps if Shatner had gotten the chance to make the film like he wanted, it could have been one of the best. Needless to say, of ALL the ST films, this one gave the characters actual personalities. It showed they had lives and loves outside of the Federation. And it was hilarious! Like I said, don't knock the man, it really WASN'T his fault, but then again, if anyone cared to find out the truth, they would know all this already!
IT DOES NOT SUCK!!!July 5, 2004 Mark Smith(Toronto, Ontario Canada) 1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This movie has been labeled as the "worst" in the Star Trek movie series.
I admit that it does not really compare with the other "original cast" movies. The script is not the best and it has a lot of "cheesy" moments. Some of the jokes are a little over the top for a Star Trek movie (especially if the joke doesn't work). The movie starts to go down hill towards the end, but I don't think the movie sucks.
There are some great moments in this movie as well as some bad ones, but I think that the good outweighs the bad. It's a movie worth seeing even if you are not a "Trekkie" and just a casual fan of the series. It's still a very watchable movie.
Uneven in the extreme.June 28, 2004 Timothy Read(Los Angeles, CA) Any Star Trek fan is well aware of the place Star Trek 5 has occupied in the film series. Most people avoid it and try not to look directly at it, for fear of turning into a pillar of salt. But is it really that bad?
Yes and no. If you watch some of the special features and watch the film, you'll see some of the aims were noble and even achieved. Shatner and Bennett mention trying to stay true to the original series by exploring the emotional core of Spock, Kirk and McCoy. They also try the tried-and-true formula of commenting on the human condition by asking a deeper question about humanity within the framework of science fiction.
That, of course, what makes this film so uneven. The moments focusing on Spock, Kirk & McCoy are the film's strongest -- informed with an easy sentimentality and nostalgia but underscoring the long-standing friendship of the characters and chemistry of the actors. McCoy's wit is at its sharpest in this film. These moments are worth the time.
But the larger question about God is where the movie stumbles. For many, the memory of this movie and plot is summed up in the line, "What does God need with a starship?" It's one of those cringe-inducing lines that even Laurence Olivier would have trouble lending any measure of credibility to. Shatner does the best he can within the constraints of character, time, budget, etc. and the result, unfortunately, doesn't work.
According to the special features, this movie was plagued by budget and time shortfalls as well as an effects house that might not have been up to the task. Shatner's commentary repeatedly mentions time and money shortfalls. Is it possible that this hurt the quality of the film? Most likely. The script called for so many new and huge sets that it seems to have put a crimp in the budget for the actual filming. Unfortunately for us, that's the part that we're going to notice.
If you're a die-hard Trek fan, you should pick this up. It is a better issue than the original, and the special features are fairly enlightening (the deleted "Rock Man" test footage and storyboards are interesting). However, for everyone else, this is a rental at most -- and if you're not a hardcore fan of the series, probably one to be avoided.
My major disappointment with this set was that it didn't probe deep enough into the question of "What went wrong?" It has the appearance of being a defense of the film while making some concessions, and not going deep enough. It's quite likely that asking these questions and pushing for answers would have burned bridges that the franchise can't afford to burn, which is understandable. However, it ends up suffering from the same syndrome as the movie itself: Well-intentioned but falling short in the execution.
