GABaracus

For many years, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" was the least commercially successful Star Trek film (that honor now belongs to "Nemesis"). It's hard to dispute that fact because the figures don't lie. The real argument begins when Star Trek fans discuss the artistic merit of the film. Most dismiss it altogether as a William Shatner ego trip with bad special effects and a poor ending.

OK, let's get all of that out of the way. The special effects could have been better (i've seen worse). ILM, which created the effects for Star Treks II-IV were busy or unavailable and the producers turned to another company. The effects would've been OK for TV, but on screen they came off pretty cheesy. The saga of how Shatner lost the budget to create the ending he envisioned for his film is legendary. The final product looked rushed because it was rushed. Finally, Shatner as director was probably as restrained as you could hope for. The supporting cast really shined. Watch.

With that out of the way, let's talk about five reasons you should reconsider "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier." The acting. I would stack the acting of this movie against any of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy era. Check out the scenes when Vulcan renegade Sybok forces Spock and McCoy to "face their pain." Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelly are given the ability to really act here and the payoff is some truly emotional scenes. Honestly, they are great to watch.

The humor. Talk to any fan who dislikes the movie, and they will cite the scene where Scotty bumps his head as being the low point of the Star Trek movies. Fair enough. But that scene is no more forced than any of the humor in the beloved "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." To me, most of the gags in that film were forced and seem stale with repeated viewings. The humor in "Star Trek V" is fast and furious and takes advantage of these characters that we love.

The Kirk-Spock-McCoy trio. Have these characters ever been better? Seeing them sit around a camp fire, discussing family, friends, life and death is great. It's funny, poignant and really takes advantage of the history these characters (and actors) share. How else could Spock react to the campfire song "Row, row, row your boat," other than to try and disseminate the lyrics? "Captain... life IS NOT a dream." Seeing that line pay off in the climax is brilliant.

The Pace: "Star Trek V" is a fast-paced, rollicking adventure that only slows down when it needs to. It may make you cringed at times ... but it's never dull.

Its place in "Star Trek" history. There will never be another "Star Trek" film with the classic crew. As one of only six that were made, we should relish this film and the many good things about it. Klingons, renegade Vulcans, Jerry Goldsmith's fantastic score, Spock and McCoy arguing, Scotty fighting with the transporters, Starfleet rescue parties on horseback, Vulcan nerve pinches, phasers blasting, creatures pretending to be the almighty, great barriers, warp-speed escapes, birds of prey, mind melds and Kirk proclaiming that he "fears nothing." You give me this movie any day over the "lacking" Generations, "pointless" Insurrection & "awful" Nemesis.

First Contact is the only TNG concept that was ever worthy of getting the big screen treatment.

I have loved this movie ever since I first laid eyes on it and have always thought it was far far better then Superman III & IV. Helen Slater was perfect as Supergirl (I had a major crush on her), Faye Dunaway was campy as the evil witch Selena and Peter Cook was rather amusing as her boyfriend Nigel.

I first saw this movie in it's director's cut form when it aired on UK TV as a Premiere in the late 80's (yes, the director's cut "was shown" in the UK, regardless of what fans may have read on various websites. The only version shown after that was the "International Version" as it is known in the US which was missing various scenes from the director's cut but still had more footage in it then the cut-down US version. Jerry Goldsmith's score, while not as classic as John Williams Superman is still a great music score and I have never met anyone who did not name the main title music as either Superman or Supergirl to this day.

The reason this movie flopped at the Box-Office in the US was mainly because of poor-marketing, cuts to the US version by it's second distributor Tri-Star (Warner Bros. originally were to release this movie), certain slackers from the company kept leaking the movie to pirates in the US and other countries before it was even released so they decided to sell the movie to Tri-Star who ruined any chance this movie had of being a US hit in 1984 due to their disastrous decisions involving everything to do with Supergirl... Warner Bros. didn't drop it because it was a bad movie for all of you "think you know everything!" people out there!. It's a shame because this is clearly the only reason this movie never had any sequels made.

"The movie actually did very well overseas" which isn't a huge surprise to me at all because Supergirl had actual decent marketing there, they also got a different "superior" cut of the movie which was released in countries outside of the US, this being the "international version" which is now available in the US via both a separate DVD and a 2-disc DVD set which also includes the even longer "director's cut".

This movie is a fun, enjoyable movie that does not deserve the reputation it has received over the years, the DVD is also one of the best releases I know of, giving the movie the justice it deserved unlike the poor handing of Superman II by Warner Bros., "Anchoy Bay are one of the best DVD handlers out there for Special Editions!"

7/10

For years, many fans wondered about what has become known as the "hybrid version" of Superman II, which was half directed by Richard Donner and half directed by Richard Lester after Donner was unceremoniously dumped from the project.

Superman II was a very strong sequel despite all the production woes, but has not held up nearly as well as the first film, and now plays more like camp in many spots. Was this Lester's influence, or was the plan always to lighten the tone of the sequel to create more of a popcorn film? Well, we all got our answer in 1983, when Superman III debuted, this completely under the guiding hand of Richard Lester.

From the film's opening credit sequence, a completely farcical series of events, you get that sinking feeling and realize that anything resembling cheese and slapstick in the second film was directly the influence of Lester. The first Superman was grounded in a sense of reality, even if it was a comic book one, which is noticeably absent from much of Superman II. In the first film, Metropolis always seemed like a real city with real people inhabiting it. The second recalled a city on a sound stage with only the vaguest sense of a distorted reality. Well, the filmmakers decided to distort reality further in Superman III by ignoring what made the franchise great and going with a hipper, more today approach. They accomplished this by centering the film around the casting of Richard Pryor. The problem with this approach is that there is absolutely no reason for Richard Pryor to appear in Superman III other than the fact that he's Richard Pryor.

The idea behind Superman III is actually a fairly intriguing one, where a computer genius constructs a super-computer, which in a unique turn of events alters the mental stability of Superman, turning him away from his All-American persona. Suddenly, Superman is no longer the hope for all mankind, but the "anti Superman" intent on destroying us. It also contains one of the best moments in the series, as Clark Kent and the evil Superman actually battle each other. It's one of the highpoints of the entire series, yet still can't avoid being disappointing by the overall poor quality of the production.

I Thank the heavens that a good 20 minutes of this movie was cut for theatrical release because it just made the pacing even worse!, most of the footage cut was more pointless forced comedy moments and the only high point of the footage being reinserted for the Extended TV Version shown numerous times in the late eighties were the newly created opening credits in space, rather then the credits appearing during the opening montage in the theatrical cut.

So what went wrong? I would put the blame squarely at the feet of Lester and the Salkinds, who seemed to want to make a "Richard Pryor" Superman movie rather than a film that was true to the spirit of the characters and the original film. Pryor is given far too much screen time despite the fact that he's not even the main villain. The producers obviously figured that, if they're paying Richard Pryor, they may as well use him, whether it benefits the film or not. So what would I have done differently? Well, the plot about a super computer and an altered Superman is a fantastic direction for the film to go, but that's where they left it. I would have eliminated the character of Ross Webster, the ultimate corporate bad guy, and everyone around him in favor of Gus Gorman, the computer genius trying to dominate the world on his own. The Webster character is totally unnecessary and a more maniacal Gorman working in solitude would have been far more menacing But the catch is that with Pryor in the role of Gorman, the producers obviously felt a need to allow him to redeem himself in the end, so I say they should have removed Pryor, too. This could also have cut out much of the unnecessary comic drivel that ruins Superman III.

Ultimately, Superman III is not the worst entry in the series, but not for a lack of trying. Richard Lester proved once and for all that he really didn't understand what a Superman movie should be, seemingly relying on British slapstick comedy that is taken right out of an episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus "where it belongs!" and a pathetic, poor script that he and probably only ten other people found amusing. He must have forgotten that Superman is aimed towards an American audience. The movie does actually start to get good from the moment supes becomes "anti-supes", Watching the dual between Clark and Superman really lets you see how the whole movie could have been made "dark and serious" and kept out of the silly comedy path "even with Pryor and other factors etc" If Superman III had been made this way it probably would have been better then II!. The Superman vs. Clark scene proves this, In Superman II where Zod and Superman battle it out, the end result is disappointing and nothing really happens other then Superman throwing Zod into a Coca-Cola sign, the confrontation in III is far far better!. With all the great characters and history that Superman has encountered, there were really limitless possibilities for this sequel. Unfortunately for fans, we happened to get stuck with filmmakers who obviously were limited in their abilities, talents and taste!. The last 35 minutes of this movie on a whole deserves a 6/10 rating. Why could the other 85 minutes of this movie not of been the same!, The rest of the movie deserves nothing more then a poor...

3/10