Siskel & Ebert - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2019
- It was 30 years ago today, June 9th, 1989, that I first saw this at the Inland Center Mall Theater, now a freeway on/off-ramp in San Bernardino, California, I've always liked Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, despite what Siskel & Ebert, other Trek fans or anyone else says! 8-)
If Roger Ebert thinks the campfire sing along is the single silliest in Trek history, he clearly hasn't watched enough Star Trek TOS!
Yes I agree 👍💯
These guys really were prats weren’t they? 😂
Roger was a Trekie. Look up the review for the second ST movie. Before they went to commercial TV.
RIP David Warner
Just watched it for the first time and although it certainly has its’ flaws, I enjoyed this movie. Mainly because of the great chemistry between Kirk, Spock, and Dr McCoy. The scenes of just those three together are very well done.
"Please Captain, not in front of the Klingons"
Their performances and character archs saved the movie, IMO.
@@ForceMaximus84 crazy it's almost as if that was the entire point of the movie… Those character arcs.
@@evilsWa But they still exist. There are some movies out there where the characters don’t change. At least we got the ones we got here was my point.
No. Almost all their scenes together were comedic. Except the ones with Sybok...Kirk even managed to be whimsical in front of the "God" Creature....😂
Awful film. It even Managed to make the Enterprise look insignificant and more like a cheap plastic model ....😂
That moment of clarity when Roger says to Gene that they are 43 year old men using terms in the Star Trek universe as grown men and the great laughs they have over it is gold. I love Star Trek but can step outside myself and laugh at it too. Seeing Siskel actually laugh uncontrollably was a first for me. What a million dollar smile. He should've done it more.
I personally really like the movie.
I like the fan theory that the whole story was a shared dream brought on by Spock eating whiskey-laced beans.
I wish Shatner (like Cameron did 8 years later with "Titanic") had offered to forgo his salary in exchange for time to improve both the script and the effects. And if he did make such an offer, Paramount should've taken him up on it because this movie could've been saved. At least it's more fun than "Insurrection."
Very True! If I was making some serious money like that I would.
Shatner forgoing money? I almost split my sides laughing at the thought.
Agree about it being more fun than Insurrection, that movie was the only Star Trek movie that I hated. Into Darkness didn’t really do it for me either. I’m not a hater of into darkness, I just don’t like it, it made me lose respect for JJ’s creative abilities and It did perfectly foreshadow for me that the force awakens would be nothing more than a ripe off of the original Star Wars.
There was a writers strike which prevented the script from being adequately worked on. Also no major special effects company was available. ILM were committed to both The Last Crusade & Ghostbusters II. Shatner and producer Harve Bennett didn't want to hire ILM's third string effects team. The movie's story was never going to be good enough, but circumstances just kept compounding to make the movie even more disappointing.
What does God want with a spaceship.
My late grandmother loved that line and so do I, "What does God need with a starship?" 8-)
You don't ask the almighty for his ID.
Aside from obviously seeking proof, nobody can just take the Enterprise from Kirk without a fight. Not even God himself. :)
I quote that line weekly
I liked it at the time, I saw it with my best friend when it came out. Now they are all fairly cheesy.
The Summer of 1989 is probably the greatest blockbuster movie season of all time!!! Batman,Star Trek V,Ghostbusters 2,Star Trek V,Karate Kid 3,Back to the Future 2
You forgot Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Then Back to the Future Part II wasn't released until late Fall, 11/22.
Also Lethal Weapon 2 on 7/7, plus National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation from 12/1 are two more franchise blockbusters. 1989 was a very good year!
Back To The Future 2 didn't come out until the Christmas 1989 season.
Since this was in the days before the internet, I remember early in '89, my uncle in LA mailed to us in Chicago a segment of (I think the LA Times) listing all those films that were coming out that summer. As kids we were ecstatic!
You said Star Trek V twice!!!!
Fools. The meat of this movie is Sybok, his story, and philosophy. He deserves his own movie (a well-produced one) which would tell his background. And explore how his philosophy of emotional pain is true, yet he never fully dealt with his own trauma. Which is why some ego remained. And it blinded him...
Nah, there's no need to devote an entire film to Sybok. Leave him in the past.
I love how they bust on the movie so much in the end. It’s actually pretty funny. Thanks for posting this.
David Warner was in the 6th Star Trek and was memorable.
I liked all the Star Trek movie's
me too
@@sTIGERTIGER 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
There is a decent movie hiding in there somewhere. As time has passed, I do find parts of this film I enjoy. And McCoy has a hell of a scene with his father that really shows the excellent acting he is capable of. But the writers strike of the time, Paramount cutting the budget at every turn, and yes the favored nations clause that put Shatner is the director's chair AND the captain's chair are all part of the problem.
Would it really kill Paramount to put a few million dollars to fix some of the more odious effects?
@@mainstreetsaint36 i completely agree- it's more money for old rope. There's some brilliant scenes in Star Trek V, the aforementioned scene with McCoy is some of DeForest Kelley's best work in the series. Another classic example of a film that was made before it was written.
The movie is flawed but it has a wealth of some really great character moments...
Brian Wolters
Ive always loved final frontier, i think at the core there was some really good ideas. But the campfire scene and the ‘i need my pain’ scene are my favorite kirk moments in all the films and episodes
@@clauderain4888 I NEED MY PAIN is my favorite too. also speaks volumes philosophically, whether intentional or not. sorry Shopenhaur .. i spelled that name wrong. fuck it
Yeah, the character development, especially McCoy, is great. The rest of the movie falls flat, though.
Sybok and his philosophy are very compelling. Kirk's "I need my pain" moment is emblematic of the resistance humans have towards dealing with their trauma. Sybok needs his own movie, a well produced one. He was brilliant, revolutionary, charismatic. He was really onto something, with the whole "every man hides a secret pain" thing. But did he fully address his own pain..? No. And it kept him partly blind via ego.
Did he really say " the single silliest scene in all of Star Trek history"? Why is it silly? It is supposed to depict these old friends just doing what their characters might do under these circumstances. Bones was always looking for a way to goad Spock into being human, aka: silly. Maybe Siskel and Ebert should have lightened up on this review.
The single silliest scene was old-age, overweight Kirk trying to free-solo El Cap.
0:07 That's a typewriter, kids!
The funny thing about Star Trek V is the cinematography is a cut above most of the films in the series.
It is awful but I like it! 2,3,4, and 6 really are where it's at!
Agree - top tier Trek!
Indeed.
I remember missing it in the theater, so I got the audio cassette version. It was like a radio play from years past. In any case, I really had fun with the audio version, and always forgave the movie version (that I rented on VHS later) ...probably because I imagined things my own way from the audio book.
The row row row your boat scene is the best in the movie.
What? You honestly think that's better than Sybok forcing the main trio to confront their hidden pain?
@@ricardocantoral7672 Yes
they couldnt even be bothered to film it on location.
@@purefoldnz3070 Probably due to budget constraints as their budget was cut repeatedly both before and during filming. Still the best scene in the movie. You don't need to film on location to make the scene work, if the writing is good, it matters significantly less, look at TOS and TNG where they almost always filmed on a stage/backlot.
@@davidcoss3493 thats because it was a tv show this was a film and they cheaped out on something easy to shoot.
Shatner wanted to film a scene where Kirk fights five "Rockmen". They only had money for one Rockman costume. In the test footage, the stuntman is stumbling around the set in a heavy costume.
I never thought about how much booze is in this movie until Siskel brought it up. Shatner needs to make a director’s cut yesterday.
Lol it'd have to be a complete rewrite
Even the baked beans they ate in Yosemite had whiskey in them!
@@jefferee2002Not really. The script was fine, it just got sidelined by bad comical moments, which most can be edited out, and bad special effects, which can be redone.
This was the best I never felt closer to Kirk,Spock Bones when they sang... Tears to this year. They just damnmm wrong.
Still better than any episode of Star Trek: Picard 💩
*Puke Hard
Until Season 3
@@ravensthorne4631Season 3 was wonderful. The 1st two were dumpsterfire garbage....lol.
It's oddly amusing how he can forgive the special effects, but not making the Klingons the least bit agreeable. He seemed genuinely pissed off about that! lol
The effects have been great on these films, there's only a few basic ones in Star trek V
ILM were busy on other projects, unfortunately.
"How old are you, 43? Talking about Vulcans and the great barrier at the centre of the galaxy..."
How snobby and stuffy they are in this review. Embarrassing
It's not my favorite Star Trek movie but it's not bad. I like the lighthearted campfire scene.
If you are a Trekkie you will enjoy the film a lot more than someone who isn't. I got a big kick out of seeing Kirk and McCoy try to teach Spock about camping and get him to sing Row Row Row Your Boat, and the chemistry between the trio throughout the film makes for some nice moments. But had I not already been a Star Trek fan who knew and loved the characters, those scenes would have made me cringe, not to mention confused. In the end, though, the character moments are really all that drive the film. The plot and premise are whack, the writing is lazy and uninspired, and it is overall just not a good film. The great moments between our heroes really made me want to like it more.
Do you want me to hold him Jim?
The Rocket Boots are probably held up at Daystrom Station 🖖
A good movie on the power of brainwashing and your notion of God. Underrated film. So what if it's slower with sub-par special effects? It's a good story...and it was high time the Klingons lightened up and got sloshed with Kirk and his renegades!!!!
It's slow, makes no sense, and has sub par special effects.
2:25 actually the rough landing is pretty decent FX.. (sorry roger). also the Klingons becoming chummy with the federation - had he not seen TNG?
the landing was fine..its the outer space stuff which was weaker than the earlier films by a lot. As RLM stated it looks very 'Roger Rabbit' like
But the TNG timeline was way past this point. None of that crew were even born when STV happened.
Wow. Your expectations are low.
decent fx? ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha are you serious??? The special effects were worse than the motion picture in 1979 ten years hence.
@@purefoldnz3070 yes as a whole the FX are by far the worst of the entire series, but there were a couple of nice shots - the Ent in front of the moon and this shuttle landing was pretty cool, the blue barrier (before they go in), also the end BoP v Kirk was a fun shot (all imo of course)
I would still rather watch it over ST Beyond.
Ironically, a publicity still photo taken of The Original Crew from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is in Star Trek Beyond near the end! 8-)
@@TrekkiELO Hm, ironic indeed.
I always hated Siskel & Ebert. I don't need someone telling me what to feel about a movie. I'll just watch it, thanks. LOL
Why is he climbing a mountain?
Because it's there
Roger Ebert has clearly watched a different cut of the movie. They didn’t spend ages with tons of characters cancelling their shore leave, it was about 1 minute. The scenes with the campfire are great as it shows the amazing dynamic and chemistry of the 3 leads so the payoff at the end also works for me. Not sure Ebert has ever liked any sci fi film except Star Wars, he’s much more in the Scorsese film mould. Plus David Warner has loads of lines at the start of the movie? When?
As usual Ebert’s opinion is the exact opposite of mine. Apart from the VFX. They clearly suck.
In fact I’m so incensed by this useless Ebert review, my next video will be one defending ST5!!
so are mike and jay the modern day siskel and ebert?
Yep, worthy successors
Who are mike and jay?
Yes they are.
I’ve thought the same, and yes they are.
OH MY GAAAAAAD
Siskel complained about excess drinking in this film? Seriously?
this review is a little harsh, those two don't have a proper understanding of star trek.
I love Star Trek 5 it's very exciting on the other hand Signs is a very boring movie Rodger Ebert
Yeah, it's the worst Star Trek movie but it's still Star Trek and I liked it anyway.
I got much more out of this movie than anything out of ST:D. It was overall bad, but so were a lot of TOS episodes. But this feels more like Star Trek than I think its harshest critics give it credit for. It's bad but I like it.
Star Trek V wasn't the best movie, but it wasn't the worst either. Just like there were some really bad episodes in the original series. They all can't be winners.
Personally I prefer it to the motion picture, but only just.
First is the best, but enjoyed all of them. Ebert has seen much worse.
The Motion Picture had state of the art effects, but I think Ebert didn't like that one either.
He didn't. He only enjoyed the even numbered films. In my opinion, Star Trek V is the only mediocre TOS film.
Ebert did like The Motion Picture both in his column www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-trek-the-motion-picture-1979
Then on Sneak Previews czcams.com/video/SOhGTwPruSk/video.html
And so do I! 8-)
@@ricardocantoral7672 Ebert did like both Star Trek: The Motion Picture & Star Trek III: The Search for Spock czcams.com/video/E8fu76RP_3k/video.html and so do I! 8-)
@@TrekkiELOYou're correct that Ebert spoke favorably about The Motion Picture when it was still commercially relevant, but as soon as Wrath of Khan was out? He was saying things along the lines of, "This is what the first movie should've been like."
@@wolfgangfrost8043 Indeed, yet as much as I like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan for my first ever Star Trek experience back in 1982, Star Trek: The Original Series was more than just a great villain Khan versus Darth Vader from Star Wars, by the way, Ebert also made that comparison! 8-)
I have to agree. This movie was a disaster, from the "special effects" to the poorly written script. The only redeeming value of the movie is the friendship of Spock, Bones and Kirk. I actually did like the Row Your Boat tie in at the beginning and end of the movie. Spock comes to understand that the world does not always make sense...much like this movie.
If this movie had great FX it would not be hated.
Bad movie but I can’t bring myself to hate on it.
Wow Ebert really spoiled a lot here
@2:00 “ special effects have never been the strong point of Star Trek movies“
Ummmm they won an Oscar for it for ST 1
ILM did amazing work afterwards
But yes … V’s effects are rock bottom garbage
Good example of an overall poor movie with couple aspects and scenes that are good enough to make it worth watching. "What does God need with a starship?" is an all timer..
What does god need with a starship?? Swap out the word starship with money 😂😂😂
Yea. This movie does have the quirkiness that is familiar with the series, and I quite enjoyed it regardless. In fact I saw it twice in the theater that year.
Plus, I rank this one way above 'The Voyage Home', which I feel has not aged all that well.
I feel Stark Trek fans can be way more forgiving for the faults in this film while the main moviegoer cannot.
I will take Star Trek IV any day over V. I just rewatched these films, and The Voyage Home holds up really well and still makes me laugh. I feel good after watching the film. The Final Frontier has some good moments, but overall it is very sloppily put together and frustrating to watch. The attention to detail is absolutely not there with this film. At least it has Jerry Goldsmith ' s amazing music, Lawrence Luckinbill ' great performance, and that awesome scene with Dr. McCoy's pain!!
In what ways do you feel 4 hasn’t aged well?
@@grawakendream8980 80's topicality, pretty much: 'nuclear wessels', and the 'save-the-whales' is laid on pretty thick. I greatly enjoyed it the first couple of times watching it way back when. However nowadays it just feels like a one-off viewing, while all the other _original cast_ movies I can still watch to this day, with the exception of the first Motion Picture(Vger).
@@coltseavers6298 interesting perspective
No way in hell is V better than IV.
At least it's a really fun movie!
It's a shame...It was such a well intentioned movie. Can't help but feel there was an anti-Shatner vibe for a lot of critics going in. It's not a good film - but it's not as bad as this review.
Before you take anything Ebert says at face value, he wrote the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". I would rather watch Star Trek V all day every day for the rest of my life than have to watch that steaming pile of horse crap. Nuff said.
These guys don't understand Star Trek or its presence in the sci-fi medium.
It was the weakest of the original cast films.
Still better than J.J. Star Trek.
The Row Your Boat scene explains why it sucked
No such thing as bad star trek
Ha ha the jokes on them, star trek still around and most loved. Who are these two again???
Dude they're probably dead
Two of the most important film critics of the last 50 years? Don't react like a fanboy.
Ebert was a fan of the original series and some of the other films.
Half in The Bag is basically Siskel and Ebert redux.
Final Frontier is the best Star Trek I have been. I you bad-mouth it, you comment on yourself. It is like they go to find God, & find the devil instead! (great drama). It had a very clever plot. Sybok should have been full brother of Spock, both having a human mother. Then Spock chose the way of his father, Vulcan stoic, & Sybok chose the way of his mother, sympathetic human. The movie examines cultism. It is interesting that Spock is quixoticized by Sybok, temporarily to reject his Vulcanism & go human, hoodwinked the Sybok. Only Kirk resists & is not converted. His pain is part of what he is! He will not go mushy & repent. He rejects repenting. These are profound theological concepts. Perhaps most modern pagan Americans cannot appreciate this stuff? At the end, Sybok even wants to embrace the devil to convert him. (I suppose Sybok thus was exterminated; folly of do-goodism.) The question as to why there should be this special place in center of universe could be that it was designed by high intelligence beings as a prison for this devil. Of course these high IQ beings could be viewed as stupid for not preferring the death penalty, if this devil was killable.
Wow. If you misinterpret it...
You are definitely putting on your own spin on this film.
I never listen to these two!
Oh no, they sung campfire songs, how "silly" -- it must therefore be an awful film...
Nnnnnope.
It's easily better than any TNG movie or any of the three more recent reboots. It's also better than The Search for Spock. There's nothing wrong with this film at all. It's brilliant!
No way is this junk better than Search for Spock. Almost every scene of Final Frontier is Kirk, Spock, McCoy confined in small space talking. The entire story is akin to a Two Part TV episode.
Star Trek5 is terrible wrath of Khan and the voyage home were great I grew up with star wars I love the empire strikes back
Luke I am your father