Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) among officers and aliens in a starship control room
Film review

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

1989 · Directed by William Shatner · 1h 46m · MPA PG

In a sentenceThree old friends, a campfire, a hijacking and a search for God; the marshmallows are the high point

Nimbus III, the Planet of Galactic Peace, is a dust-bowl settlement in the Neutral Zone where three ambassadors, the Federation’s St. John Talbot (David Warner), the Klingon General Korrd (Charles Cooper) and the Romulan Caithlin Dar (Cynthia Gouw), sit drinking in a saloon. Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill), a Vulcan who has renounced logic and can lift the pain from anyone who lets him, rides in with a ragged army and takes them hostage. Captain Kirk (William Shatner), Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and Dr McCoy (DeForest Kelley) are on shore leave in Yosemite, Kirk climbing El Capitan without a rope, when Starfleet recalls them to a new Enterprise that Scotty (James Doohan) has not finished fixing. They are sent to get the hostages back. Sybok wants a starship, and a Klingon captain, Klaa (Todd Bryant), wants Kirk.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

William Shatner’s first film as director has Kirk, Spock and McCoy sitting round a fire talking about death, and that scene is worth keeping. The rest is a hijack plot that does not hold, poor effects and jokes that do not land.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier opens with Captain Kirk (William Shatner) climbing El Capitan in Yosemite without a rope, falling off it, and being caught a few feet from the ground by Spock (Leonard Nimoy) in rocket boots. That is the film in miniature. Shatner, directing for the first time, wrote the story with Harve Bennett and David Loughery, and what they wanted was a film about three men who have stopped pretending to be young and a Vulcan who thinks he knows where God lives. They got that film for about half an hour. After that it is a hijack picture with poor effects and worse jokes.

The campfire is the reason anyone defends this film, and they are right to. Kirk, Spock and McCoy (DeForest Kelley) sit by a fire in the dark, McCoy tries to teach Spock about marshmallows, they attempt “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” as a round, and Kirk admits he has always known he will die alone. Andrew Laszlo lights it from the fire, low and orange, and keeps the three of them in one loose frame; Jerry Goldsmith stays quiet. It got to us more than we expected. Kelley in particular has a way of being cross that reads as love. This is the one thing Shatner had to say, and he says it plainly and well.

Nimbus III is nearly as good to look at, a desert town that Herman F. Zimmerman and Laszlo treat as a western, all dust and orange light. Three ambassadors drink in its saloon: St. John Talbot (David Warner), General Korrd (Charles Cooper) and Caithlin Dar (Cynthia Gouw). Then Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill) rides in and takes them hostage. Luckinbill is the best thing in the film after the fire, a zealot who is delighted to meet you, and Nilo Rodis-Jamero puts him in a plain robe and lets the actor do the work. His trick is to find a person’s worst memory and talk them through it, and those scenes have more feeling than the plot around them deserves.

The trouble is everything joining those pieces together. Loughery’s screenplay needs Sybok to get hold of a starship, and getting him one takes forty of the film’s 106 minutes, business that Peter E. Berger cannot cut into a shape: a fight in a stable, a rescue on horseback, a run of comic bits that land on the supporting cast like bad weather. Scotty (James Doohan) announces he knows the ship like the back of his hand and walks into a bulkhead. Sulu (George Takei) and Chekov (Walter Koenig) get lost in the woods. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) is handed the worst of it, and we winced for her; the script asks less of an actress who has done more for this series than most. Captain Klaa (Todd Bryant) turns up every twenty minutes to remind us he is coming.

Then there are the effects, which are poor in a way that matters. The film has been promising awe for an hour, and there is a minute, as the ship nears what the film calls the Great Barrier and Goldsmith’s music promises something on the other side of it, when we sat forward and thought it might arrive. It does not. What is on the screen cannot carry what the music is asking of it, and the picture goes flat at the moment it most needs to open up.

Against its own series the film comes off badly. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) knew exactly how long a joke could run and what these people were for. Shatner knows what these people are for; he has no idea how long a joke should run. Goldsmith, back for the first time since the 1979 film, brings his old theme with him and writes a new one for the mountain, and the score does a good deal of the work the pictures should have done.

Most critics have written the film off, and we cannot quarrel with their number, only with the tone. This is not a lazy film. It was made by people who meant every word of it, which is rarer than it sounds and not the same as making it well. Watch the first half hour, in which nothing much happens and three old friends talk, and decide then whether you have the patience for what they do once they are given the ship.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

41
Positive
2
Mixed
2
Negative
8

Most critics do not like it, and several call it the weakest film in the series. What praise there is clusters around the cast rather than anything Shatner does behind the camera: the affection between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, the campfire scene, the quieter character moments that come from a crew visibly in middle age. A few reviews also find something to admire in the score and the location shooting, and several concede the film is more sincere than its reputation allows.

The reservations are far more consistent. Shatner’s direction is the usual first complaint, followed by a muddled story built around a quest for God, forced humour and special effects that more than one review calls dreadful. The spread is wide, from a warm notice to outright ridicule. The Los Angeles Times is the dissenter, reading the film as a mellow spiritual odyssey that gains from its ageing crew, while Slant argues its virtues outweigh its failings.

Los Angeles Times
9 June 1989 · Kevin Thomas
80*

The film is a mellow spiritual odyssey as much as a space adventure, richer for embracing the crew's middle age and perspective on life. Shatner effectively uses the cast's maturity for resonance, humor, and wisdom alongside adventure and effects.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
10 June 2014 · Tony Dayoub
70*

The critic argues that despite its failings the film has many virtues, including its score, location shooting, and fulfillment of the franchise's exploratory ethos. He singles out the emphasis on the core characters' camaraderie and bravery for praise while noting production compromises and tough competition at release.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
9 June 2019 · Phil Pirrello
50*

The critic views the film as an underwhelming messy execution of good intentions that nearly killed the franchise but is not the disaster pop culture makes it out to be. He singles out the strong focus on the central trio's relationships and emotional introspection for praise, alongside some ambitious action sequences.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
9 June 1989 · Caryn James
50*

The baroque plot borrows from too many sources and tries too hard for grandeur, diluting the series' familiar charm. The actors remain tireless and sincere, providing some appealing moments amid the unwieldy story.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
12 March 2010 · D+ · Zack Handlen
43

The critic admits to enjoying the film despite its many flaws, calling it a not very good movie with a clumsy story, corny jokes, and simplistic themes. He singles out its personal, energetically awful sincerity and handful of decent ideas for note, while criticizing the bad humor and inconsistent characters.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
30*

The critic deems the film the biggest disappointment in the series, faulting Shatner's direction and the story's quest for God as poorly executed with bad jokes and tonal issues. Some positives are noted in the scenery and Spock retaining dignity amid the buffoonery.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier worth watching?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is a mixed film with one scene worth keeping, and we scored it 45. The campfire, in which Kirk, Spock and McCoy talk about death and marshmallows, is the reason anyone defends it; the hijack plot around it does not hold, the effects are poor and the jokes land on the supporting cast. For the committed only.
How long is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and what is it rated?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier runs 1h 46m and is rated PG by the MPA in the US. It is a science fiction and action film.
Where can I watch Star Trek V: The Final Frontier in the US?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is streaming on Paramount+, Tubi, Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video and Hulu in the US, and it is also available to rent from Apple TV and Amazon Prime Video from $3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and is it suitable for children?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier carries a PG certificate in the UK and the US, and there is little in it to frighten anyone. The violence is a hostage-taking, a stable fight and a rescue on horseback, none of it graphic; the darkest material is Sybok talking people through their worst memories, which is sad rather than scary. Older children who know the crew will be fine.
How does Star Trek V: The Final Frontier compare to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier comes off badly against Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which is the lighter and funnier of the two and knows how long a joke can run. Both have thin plots and wobbly effects, but the earlier film's company is good throughout, while this one has a fine first half hour and then a hijack picture it cannot hold together.
Do you need to have seen the other Star Trek films before Star Trek V: The Final Frontier?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier does not need the earlier films to follow its plot, which is a straightforward hostage rescue, but it is a poor place to start. The one scene that works, three old friends by a fire admitting they are ageing, depends on knowing Kirk, Spock and McCoy already. Newcomers should begin elsewhere in the series and come back to this if they grow fond of the crew.
What should I watch after Star Trek V: The Final Frontier?
After Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, try Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982, Fi1m 85): The same three men, older, with a script that knows what to do with them. Then Contact (1997, Fi1m 76): A patient film about travelling to the edge of space to ask God a question; and Solaris (1972, Fi1m 87): Tarkovsky’s cosmonauts also meet something out there that knows their worst memories.
What order should I watch the Star Trek films in?
Release order is the safe choice for Star Trek, and it is the order our collection page lists them in. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is number 5 of the 13 Star Trek titles on Fi1m; before it comes Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and after it Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The full order.

Part of · 5 of 13

Star Trek

13 films on Fi1m · 1979–2016 · average 66 · best Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan 85

All 13 in order

Cast

Awards

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor, 1990

Won
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director, 1990

Won
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture, 1990

Won
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay, 1990

Nominated
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor - Razzie Award, 1990

Nominated
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor - Razzie Award

If you liked this, try…

  1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982, Fi1m 85)The same three men, older, with a script that knows what to do with them.

  2. Galaxy Quest (1999) · not reviewed yetAn ageing crew, a silly ship and real affection; everything this film wanted, done on purpose.

  3. Contact (1997, Fi1m 76)A patient film about travelling to the edge of space to ask God a question.

  4. Solaris (1972, Fi1m 87)Tarkovsky’s cosmonauts also meet something out there that knows their worst memories.

  5. Ad Astra (2019, Fi1m 78)A son crosses the solar system to find his father; quieter, sadder, better lit.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever