Rate It
|
||||||||||||||||
Rating Averages
My Friends |
Not rated. () |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
All Flixster |
(19833) |
2559 |
24243 |
Female |
(6311) |
814 |
7714 |
Male |
(13523) |
1745 |
16529 |
More Like This
If you liked this, then you'll also probably like...
Got another recommendation for someone who liked this movie? Add it to the list!
Got an opinion? Use the buttons to vote on all the suggestions people have added.
If lots of people vote, the best suggestions will rise to the top.
| Star Trek III - The Search for Spock (78%) |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Forbidden Planet (75%) |
|
|
| Star Trek (Star Trek XI) (100%) |
|
|
| Battlestar Galactica (2003) (0%) |
|
|
| Star Trek V - The Final Frontier (100%) |
|
|
Plot:
Back when the first Star Trek feature was released in December 1979, the Trek franchise was still relatively modest, consisting of the original TV series, an animated cartoon series fro...( read more 
)
Skin art by
Clemontine. Unskin this page.
Meet Other Fans
-
ONLINE NOW -
ONLINE NOW -
ONLINE NOW -
-
-
-
-
Recent Reviews
No featured reviews yet. Help by rating our reviews.
My Friends Said...
Star Trek - The Motion Picture Recent Reviews
Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !
Comments
-
JigsawRambo007posted 291 days ago -
Definately near the bottom of the "Star Trek" barrel (if not at the bottom). Sure, the special effects were nice, and the music was legendary, but the story is horrendously derivative and the movie steals way too much of its atmosphere from "2001" and "Solaris." The Decker and Ilia characters were awful, throw-away stock characters.
My question is:
WTF IS V'GER SO DAMN BIG!? Did Bert I. Gordon have a hand in designing this film?
Although I do agree...the Director's Cut is the best of the versions. However, that's BECAUSE the special effects were the highlight of the film.
Some person stated that the slow pacing suited the franchise, because "Star Trek" wasn't exactly action-packed itself. I SAY: Watch any of the first year episodes, and you'll notice a tremendous tidal wave of taut, gripping intensity and drama, and badly executed fistfights. Kirk is one tough action hero. But in the movie, there's not even a single phaser fired!!posted 373 days ago -
Watched it recently in High Definition and have to state that it is truly an underrated Sci-fi treat. Yes, it was long and had some slow spots, but remember, the 'Star Trek' series was not one for action, but intelligent, well written scripts, with in depth characters. I saw this originally when it was released in 1979 and at the time, had mixed emotions about it, since I was 8 years old at the time. I was a huge 'Star Wars' fan and enjoyed the original 'Star Trek'. At the time, I was expecting 'Star Wars', not 'Close Encounters'. But as time went on, this movie grows on you and you realize ho well written and detailed the movie was, especially the T.V. versions, which ran 11 minutes longer and the newer Director's Cut, which made some great additions to the visual effects.
Definitely not the best of the 'Star Trek' movie series, but near the top. Watch it, not thinking 'Star Wars', but as something insightful and intelligent.posted 444 days ago -
It's a good start for the ST movies, the acting was perfect as always. If only the plot was....
posted 478 days ago -
y da fuk do ya all like dis crap ... if ya want a real film watch district 13!!
posted 487 days ago -
Must agree with what Terror Australis said. However, and this is being sad, it was the late great Jerry Goldsmith who did the score for The Motion Picture, not James Horner.
posted 586 days ago
