STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER
A film review by Randy Parker
Copyright 1996 Randy Parker
RATING: ** (out of ****)
(Review written in 1989)
Before I say anything about STAR TREK V, you should know that "Star
Trek" is my favorite TV series and that I love the Star Trek movies,
especially THE WRATH OF KHAN and THE VOYAGE HOME. So with that in mind
perhaps you can appreciate just how much it pains my heart to report that
STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER sucks Dilithium crystals! THE FINAL
FRONTIER is not only a shockingly poor follow-up to the enormous critical
and popular success of STAR TREK IV, it's also the worst film of the
series.
As part five begins, the Enterprise is docked for repairs, and its
beloved crew is vacationing in Yosemite, no doubt recovering from their
adventures in the previous film. But the camping trip abruptly comes to an
end when Star Fleet orders Captain Kirk and company to Paradise City on
Nimbus III, a planet in the neutral zone where a renegade Vulcan has taken
hostages. Laurence Luckinbill plays Sybok, a Vulcan outcast who has
forsaken logic in favor of base emotions and instincts. He possesses a
mysterious, spiritual power to relieve people of their emotional anguish,
and he uses this power to assemble a devoted following of worshippers.
With their help, he high-jacks the Enterprise. Sybok intends to use the
starship to reach Sha Ka Ri, a mythical planet at the center of the galaxy
(beyond the Great Barrier) where no man has gone before. There he expects
to find enlightenment from God almighty himself.
During THE FINAL FRONTIER, we learn something new about Captain
Kirk, a.k.a. William Shatner; while his command of a Federation starship is
indeed impressive, he's not so adept at writing and directing movies.
Shatner's hackneyed story and heavy-handed direction make the film far too
self-serious and pretentious. THE FINAL FRONTIER is as subtle as a sledge
hammer; it hits us over the head with its melodramatic plot and syrupy,
overbearing score. The movie captures neither the good-natured,
light-hearted whimsy of VOYAGE HOME nor the suspenseful, nerve-wracking
excitement of WRATH OF KHAN.
The story line in THE FINAL FRONTIER is astonishingly unbelievable.
Sybok's quest for God is so ludicrous it's almost funny--almost so bad
it's good. Almost, but not quite: I groaned more than I laughed. Not once
during the movie did I accept the premise or suspend my disbelief. And how
could I with these embarrassingly cheesy special effects?
After striking it rich at the box office with STAR TREK IV,
Paramount somehow decided it could no longer afford the services of
Industrial Light and Magic. I.L.M. (the special effects division of
Lucasfilm) produced the special effects for the last three Trek films, and
it also creates the fine effects in "Star Trek: The Next Generation."
Giving I.L.M. its walking papers was a fatal mistake; the special effects
in THE FINAL FRONTIER are simply atrocious. They barely look better than
those in the original TV series, which were good for their day but which
look shabby, laughable, and campy on the big screen. The Enterprise and
the Shuttle Craft look plastic and artificial, almost as if they were
straight out of 2001. Gone is the high-tech STARS WARS look of WRATH OF
KHAN, SEARCH FOR SPOCK, and VOYAGE HOME.
STAR TREK V is far too often derivative of other films. The bar in
Paradise City, for example, immediately brings to mind the Catina Bar in
STAR WARS. Paradise City itself, with its grungy inhabitants, looks
suspiciously like the city of Bartertown in MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME. To
make matters worse, the movie's spiritual, mystical overtones conjure
images of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. THE FINAL FRONTIER tries to cover so much
ground that it fails even to capture the heart, soul, and flavor of Star
Trek. The movie tastes too much like a potluck dinner of science fiction
leftovers.
STAR TREK V also suffers from a nagging problem that has plagued
the entire film series; it lies in the way in which the movies have
depicted the Klingons. In the original TV series, humans and Klingons
differed not in appearance nor in intelligence but in cultural philosophy
and ideology. Whereas the Federation preached peace and cooperation,
Klingon society was based on warfare, competition, and hatred. In the
movies, on the other hand, the Klingons have become ugly, gruesome-looking
barbarians devoid of intellect. They are so crude and one-dimensional that
they fail to make credible adversaries. We can't take them seriously
because we are too busy laughing at their stupidity. This problem, which
nearly sunk STAR TREK III, once again rears its ugly head in THE FINAL
FRONTIER. The idiocy of the Klingon commander in STAR TREK V makes the
movie's already silly plot even harder to swallow.
The sole salvation of STAR TREK V is the humorous banter and
rapport between the characters, especially between Kirk, Spock, and
McCoy--who else? In the tradition of the TV series, THE FINAL FRONTIER
contains some vintage Star Trek dialogue. The characters in Star Trek are
so familiar and so dear to our hearts that it's fun spending time with them
even in the worst of circumstances, such as a disappointingly mediocre
movie. Even so, unless you're a true die-hard Trekkie, I'd suggest you
skip this one and wait for STAR TREK VI; I hear Checkov and Sulu are
co-directing.
---
Randy Parker
rparker@slip.net
http://www.shoestring.org
Have I Seen This Movie: Yes
And What Did I Think?: Star Trek V is one of the weakest in the Trek series..... actually second weakest to the first film in my opinion. However, it isn't as bad as some people made it out to be. True, William Shatner didn't do a great job directing (The campfire sing-along was painful), but it does has its moments. I liked Sybok showing Bones his father's death and the meeting of the alien entity portraying God. However there were lots of bad parts too.... Uhura's nude dance, horses on an alien planet, the alien entity's attack was kind of weak.... all he can do is knock them down... and of course the singing at the end (shudder). There was some extremely bad humor here as well. As far as acting, well Lawrence Luckinbill had a nice performance as Sybok, but the Klingons in this film left something to be desired. Luckily for us, Star Trek VI came out afterwards and was much better. I agree this movie isn't the greatest one, but its not unwatchable either. I think it took a lot of heat because it followed up the successful Star Trek IV.
I give Star Trek V 3 out of 5 stars
Review written July 9, 1999
