Yet a low rating, it's a fantastic concept executed brilliantly.
I must say that I've only seen it three or so times, theatrical as a kid and recently twice in its dc form, doesn't seem much different though.
Why did any of you give it a lower rating?
Yes - exactly right. It's the intense sci-fi of this film that makes me really like it. Same with The Andromeda Strain. Well and 2001 ... there's several.
shareI gave it a 9, not what you were wondering about but imo it is indeed one of the best ST movies. It's a dark, grown-up version of Star Trek with the original cast and though the costumes are dated, the movie itself stands up to the test of time. I thought even William Shatner was behaving himself without all his over-the-top acting.
shareI didn't rate this picture, but I find myself liking it more and more each time I see it.
I was a junior in high school when ST:TMP was released, and although I liked it, I wasn't enthusiastic about it. I'm considerably older now, more experienced and have both read and seen more science fiction. I've found I have a preference for hard science fiction...The Andromeda Strain, as an example. ST:TMP shows that Star Trek can do hard SF VERY well. I rate this as one of my favorite SF movies, as well as one of the best Star Trek movies made. The sets, the effects, even the acting have an early-70's feel to them, and, for some reason, that works for me. I just wish Stephen Collins' acting was a bit more restrained...Shatner was not over-the-top, as he is so often accused of being, Nimoy was just right...even the lengthy effects sequences contribute to the story.
My suspicion is that people were expecting an expanded episode of Star Trek, and instead they got an Alan Dean Foster story with Roddenberry's fingerprints on it instead. Yes, I'm familiar with the gag names fans have for this entry...I especially like "Where Nomad Has Gone Before," but they just belittle a fine piece of science fiction. This is NOT a movie for teenagers or for fan geeks...this is an aficionado's piece. If someone truly appreciates good--and I mean GOOD science fiction--this is one of those movies. It's not a Spielberg piece of fluff, or a "human drama" set in the future...ST:TMP actually addresses issues of technology and humanity that GOOD SF takes on, and it does it well. Granted, Paramount wanted to see their effects budget on screen, but when properly edited, those effects are astounding and DO add to the story...more than I'd thought for a long time. Basically, this is what Trek could be at its best...and it's FAR better than any of that J.J. Abrams garbage.
"It's a hard country, kid."
This is NOT a movie for teenagers or for fan geeks...this is an aficionado's piece.I loved this movie the first time I saw it, when it was broadcast on TV in the mid '80s, when I was 9 or 10 years old. I'd already seen plenty of reruns of the original series, and it was one of my favorite shows, and I'd never seen any Star Trek movie before, so it was fun seeing the cast being ten years older than what I was used to, and seeing the updated sets, props, and the new Enterprise. Plus, I found V'ger fascinating, and the whole thing seemed epic, larger than life. I loved the ending, especially since I'd recently learned about the Voyager 1 & 2 probes in school. The idea of a primitive, 300-year-old Earth probe being upgraded by alien machines and becoming such a powerful entity was such an entertaining concept to think about.
Very true. One of the best of the films and a classic Trek movie in my opinion.
shareIt might have done better and been better received, if the "Changeling" episode hadn't already been made.
No disagreement here. STTMP is one of the most underrated movies ever made.
shareI cannot believe how low a rating it has here on IMDB. What is wrong with people?
Personally, I really, really like to watch this and Wrath of Khan back to back. I think they go together thematically very well. The Kirk arc alone moves from "haven't logged a star hour in 2 years" to finding he has a son, really feeling his age etc. If I was being real philosophical, I'd come up with some parallel between V'Ger coming back and Khan, and what knowledge about themselves the confrontation revealed.
Anyway, two great movies, and not just for fanbois –- even without the rest of the films, without the lead in TOS, great SF films.
I think the low rating is because TMP exists in a post-New Hope world, for better or worse.
I see why a modern audience might struggle with this movie, just as I see why they went with more of an action-adventure model for Wrath of Khan. But TMP is a visionary movie, one which absolutely revels in its sense of awe, and it delivers on that basis. Also, while it is clearly an ode to 2001 and a riposte to Star Wars, it has real heart. Spock's speech in the hospital bed is beautifully delivered.
It has some clunky moments but overall it's a true epic.
My movie reviews: www.rocknreelreviews.com/reviewed_by/rupert