Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country (1991)

To Be...Or Not...To Be!

The Good Things
*Excellent action and special effects (especially the opening, which was probably the first really cool use of the shockwave effect that we now see everywhere else).
*Filming style is good.
*Storyline is smashing. Much darker, more dramatic than before. Lots of interesting political intruigue and mystery.
*Reveals a lot in the "Star Trek" universe. You finally get to see more of Klingon culture, and you get to see that they have pink blood, and so on.
*Characters are great; acting is good.
*Writing is good. A few memorable lines, and a few bits of dry humor that doesn't take away too much from the serious storyline.
*Strong themes about the uncertainty of the future (hence the Shakespearean motif).
*Excellent music; a different theme, but very dramatic.

The Bad Things
*Bloody violence and the dark atmosphere may be too inappropriate for young kids.

For the longest time, this was my favorite "Star Trek" film (until I decided that the "Wrath of Kahn" was better). This still ranks highly with me, for it is very dark, dramatic, mysterious, and intense. At the same time, it does have a happy ending, and the film overall serves as a great final homage to the original "Star Trek" cast.

The one-disc version had okay video and sound quality. The two-disc version has good quality and a number of featurettes and trailers.

August 4, 2008

Great Ending for the Best Enterprise Crew

Following on the heals of the train wreck that was `The Final Frontier', `The Undiscovered Country' was the last chance for the original Star Trek cast to go out on a high note. Undiscovered is probably the most underrated of all the Star Trek movies in fact I would probably rate it just below `The Wrath of Khan' in terms of quality. It's also probably the truest representation of Gene Rodenberry's vision of overcoming prejudice and bigotry.

The movie is written as an allegory for the breakup of the Soviet Union that was occurring at the time and the disaster at Chernobyl. The message of the film is important and remains relevant even decades later. It is the ongoing debate between those who saw a single superpower world as an opportunity for the U.S. to cast aside restraints and take a more active, aggressive role in world affairs. On the other side are those who saw a tremendous opportunity for peace and a draw down of forces. At the time the world was just starting a dramatic rearrangement of power while today the reverberations include ideas like the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, the flaunting of international laws by the United States and the burgeoning budget of the U.S. armed forces. The hawks are definitely in charge.

There is also a subtext of racism with a subtle implication that Klingon's are sort of the American blacks of alien cultures. Note the `Guess who's coming to dinner' comment by Chekov. This is the most controversial part of the movie since the Klingon's have always been portrayed as crude and warlike. However, in keeping with the spirit of Rodenberry there is, of course, mutual understanding between humans and Klingon's before the final credits roll.

One of the great things about this movie is the decision to have Kirk initially side with the war hawks calling for putting the boots to the Klingons. He utters a classic line when discussing the future of the Klingon race saying, `Let them die'. Captain Kirk is generally portrayed as the squeaky clean hero so it was a bold stroke to write him with such bitterness and vengeance but perfectly understandable given the events of the previous movies. In fact the entire crew of the Enterprise comes off as rather snobbish and condescending towards their Klingon guests but that was the point of the movie. It's about growth and acceptance.

Christopher Plummer is fantastic as the Shakespeare quoting General Chang. His is one of the most indelible characters ever in Star Trek and battle between The Enterprise and Chang's cloaked Bird of Prey was an absolute classic with a satisfying finale. I have to admit the movies ending was a bit hokey but `The Undiscovered Country' is a fine send off for the original cast and a great movie. July 23, 2008

[4.5] One of the best Star Trek films

Wow, what an improvement over the previous Star Trek film: Star Trek V:The Final Frontier, but we won't even get into that. The Undiscovered Country is one of the best Star Trek films out of the current 10 film franchise, with its only competition including Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan (my personal favorite), Star Trek IV:The Voyage Home (the non-trekkie favorite) and Star Trek:First Contact (almost everyone's favorite), however, there are plenty that say the 6th and final film featuring the TOS cast is the best, and it is certainly a strong and fullfilling end for the TOS cast (unfortunately the same cannot be said about the more recent TNG cast).

This one takes itself seriously, with a strong story of diplomacy, faith, and the fear of change (the future - which the Klingon Chancellor refers to as the Undiscovered Country). Of course any trekkie will pickup on every little Trek detail thrown into the movie and will make the experience that much better (especially references to Kirk's son's death, which took place in Star Trek III). However, the film can still be enjoyed and understood for any movie-goer, though will probably come off more as good entertainment and nothing else (but nothing wrong with that).

The story revolves around the Klingons, and as tiring as they were starting to become (no Romulan stories in the films until the 10th entry), Undiscovered Country brought forth a great story that was refreshing as much as the new looks of some of the Klingons....the film even won an award for best makeup. General Chang (Christopher Plummer) is a great example, with the most unique look to this day of any Klingon, sporting an eye patch and a tiny ponytail...its almost a pirate look at times, but he pulls it off with ease and it works.

The action in this film holds up well to this day, and a cloaked Bird-of-Prey firing torpedoes at a helpless Enterprise still gives me chills. There isn't an overabundance of action at all, in fact, you might say there isn't a lot, but the film never needed it. The final battle is a solid couple of minutes of the very climactic showdown between General Chang and Kirk, both aboard their ships. One after another, Chang sends torpedoes through the Enterprise's hull while quoting Shakespeare. The effects are great, especially for 1991, and such a huge welcome after Final Froniter's laughable attempts with effects.

Trekkie or not, this is a great film that holds up very well that should not be missed. The pacing is wonderful, as is the story and the subject matter at hand. There is great dialouge, humor, action, effects, and a villain that is one of Trek's most memorable. This is one fun and entertaining ride that feels complete.

Acting - 4
Action - 4
Characters - 4
Story - 4.5
Overall - 4.5 July 12, 2008

Slightly repetetive but...

A fitting end for the old cast of the original TV series-turned sci-fi movies.

My own perspective: while Blake's Seven might do this theory better, I think of Star Trek as one long space opera. As much as the beloved Roddenberry was the creator, I'm happy with the results of the Nick Meyers/Harve Bennett collaborations. There is practically no modern movie set in space (with the exception of the first Alien movie) wherein the captain was not some sort of combination of superheroic visionary/poseable action figure. In the Nick Meyers-directed movies, the Kirk character is taken to its logical conclusion.

The Enterprise is a ship - a vessel. Meyers treats it correctly.

Add in some Shakespeare and decent special effects, then subtract V'ger, and you've got something fun to watch.

Let's say it together one last time: the even-numbered movies are the good ones, and the odd-numbered movies are the bad ones... July 1, 2008

What Does A Movie Series Do After It Has Been "Killed?" It Futilely Seeks Resurrection, But Finds Only Lost And Tired Ghosts!

The only thing "Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)" has going for it, is that it is indelible proof that Harve Bennett, Nicholas Meyer, and Paramount were not making Star Trek movies, never had a clue what Star Trek was about, and were unabashedly willing to "steal" Gene Roddenberry's name and show to make a few bucks. The cast, moreover, have clearly "out grown" their roles--especially in stature and age--performing like tired, lost, sad, and diminished versions (ghosts, if you will) of their characters. The overbearing action and special effects that cow today's audiences stands as the avatar of what is allegedly a Star Trek movie. But, I will state emphatically that "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" is NOT A Star Trek film. It can be called Star Trek only in the fact that Paramount "stole" the name, as well as Gene Roddenberry's name, and taped it onto a movie.

As with Star Trek movies IV and V, I never went to see Star Trek VI in the theater. As stated elsewhere I have been attempting to find a way to "accept" these revisionist movies that excluded the creator of Star Trek, and, as such, I purchased this movie. While I will grant you that the script is better than Star Trek V, and the movie clearly revels in the advancements of special effects, the bad acting and illogical directing left me shaking my head. All I can really say, is poor Gene Roddenberry. He was, barely, alive to witness the utter destruction of his greatest hopes. Yes, Roddenberry is "said" to have found the movie "good," but what else could he say? It was like rubbing someone's nose in a "big stink" that was supposed to be roses, and asking how it smelled.

But, as a "foolish" collector, I can say, "I have all six of the Star Trek movies that starred the original television cast." I "ain't" sure it is something I am all that proud of accomplishing.

Update--1 July 2008: If this review was not helpful to you, I would appreciate learning the reason(s) so I can improve my reviews. My goal is to provide help to potential buyers, not get into any arguments. So, if you only disagree with my opinion, could you please say so in the comments and not indicate that the review was not helpful. Thanks. June 26, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...