Re-ranking the Star Trek movies

So, I finally got to see "Star Trek Beyond," so it's time to do the ranking of all the Star Trek movies. Not much will change this time around.

SPOILERS AHEAD FOR ALL MOVIES!!!!

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Way back in 1979, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" cost a fortune and had a lot of people leaving the theater scratching their heads. As a result, a new director and writing staff took the series in a whole different direction, and really set the tone for the rest of the movies with the original cast. Most of the credit should go to producer/co-writer Harve Bennett, a TV veteran and Trek novice. His philosophy was that a shorter, more quickly paced movie would appeal to more people. He and director Nicholas Meyer, also new to the franchise, really had a great idea of how to write these iconic characters. Kirk even acknowledges the fact that he is getting old. This is no contest. This has been and probably always will be the best movie in the entire franchise and one of my personal favorite movies. There is a perfect balance of action and character development, a truly heart-wrenching moment (which various movies have tried to recreate with limited success), and the single greatest villain in Trek history (Sorry, Q).

What's good:

• Despite a modest $10 million budget, the special effects are very good for 1982. The movie's climax still ranks among one of Star Trek's greatest space battles, and the computer animation of the Genesis effect was a breakthrough at the time. (by the way, that animated sequence was done by Pixar.)
• Nicholas Meyer deserves a lot of the credit for the completely different visual look of the movie. Meyer says he was going for a nautical look for the Enterprise, which included the sets and the sharp red and black uniforms.
• Ricardo Montalban is perfect as Khan. He is among the all-time greatest movie villains because he is very single-minded in purpose. He is after one thing and one thing only: revenge. He is not looking to conquer the universe. Khan just wants to make James T. Kirk suffer as much as he did.
• Who can forget the emotional roller coaster of an ending to this film? Even though I know how it is all resolved, it still chokes me up. 
• Great pacing- A perfect balance between action and character development.
• The Kobyashi Maru test, and Kirk's approach to it.
• Kirstie Alley as Saavik. It is interesting to see another Vulcan character besides Spock.
• The creepy ear things. Ewwwww.
• And, finally, "KHHHHAAAAANNNN!"

What isn't good:

• Aside from Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, the rest of the bridge crew isn't given much to do.
• Uhh... I'm thinking...

2. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek II) returns to direct his second film in the franchise, and comes up with another winner. I moved this up! The Nick Meyer films now rank 1-2, because Meyer not only is a good director, but is also a great writer, and the best movies and episodes of the TV series weren't because of special effects or action, but because of great writing, such as "City on the Edge of Forever" (TOS) and "The Inner Light" (TNG). In this case, Meyer and Leonard Nimoy came up with the idea of using the fall of the Klingon Empire as an historical allegory to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it works brilliantly.

What's good:

• Meyer once again brings a nautical atmosphere to the Enterprise, giving it a darker, less sterile look, like a big submarine in space. Very effective. 
• The idea that people are so used to war that Klingons, Romulans and Starfleet personnel are so accustomed to war and conflict that they would conspire together against the peace process is pure genius, and has occurred more than once in our history. Gene Roddenberry didn't like the script because of how prejudiced many of the characters were, and prejudice should be, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent by the 23rd century. I disagree. Everyone is only human and will have these thoughts, even after 300 more years of evolution. What's important is how we are able to overcome these prejudices.
• David Warner makes a huge impact as Chancellor Gorkon for the short time he's in the movie. He is truly a visionary thinker. By design, the character's name is a combination of Gorbachev and Lincoln, and they even made him similar in appearance to our 16th president.
• Parts of the dinner scene seemed a bit stiff and forced, but the scene worked very well overall. 
• This movie's budget was limited to $24 million because Star Trek V was such a monumental flop. That having been said, the effects were done really well in light of how little money they had to work with, particularly the assassination scene. Now we know what it might look like if someone gets shot in zero gravity. By they way, the blood was a violet color, because use of red blood would have earned the movie an R rating.
• Sulu becomes the captain of the Excelsior. Takei is the man! By the way, Shatner was opposed to this, because he wanted Kirk to be the only captain in the movie. Also, the Excelsior is one cool-looking ship, and it's great to see it in action. My only question is what happened to James B. Sikking?
• Among the examples of witty humor peppered throughout the movie:
• "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon."
• "Once again, we've saved civilization as we know it."
• Because of the aforementioned budget constraints, they couldn't afford James Horner to do the score, so they turned to 26-year old Cliff Eidelman, who does a great job with his first big-budget movie.

What isn't good:

• Occasional use of technobabble to conveniently solve problems. How exactly did they get a torpedo to track down the cloaked Klingon ship? How did Sulu know where the peace conference was taking place?
• A galley on the Enterprise? What happened to the replicators? Also, why is there an unlocked cabinet full of phasers in the galley? Were they afraid of Klingons stealing all of the Cheetos?
• I know the scene was there for comic effect, but I agree with Nichelle Nichols that Uhura shouldn't have to consult a book in order to speak Klingon. Also, with the vast array of information that can be stored on computers today, not to mention the 23rd century, why would they even need books in the first place? (This was somewhat remedied in the two latest movies in which Uhura is extremely intelligent and well-versed in Klingon).

3. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): FINAL SPOILER WARNING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS!

This latest entry was unbelievably entertaining to watch, but isn't without flaws. It is almost perfectly even with its 2009 prequel, but I give "Into Darkness" the slight edge because this is a visually and technical improvement over "Star Trek." Again, this is a great effort to bring a faster-paced, effects-heavy "Trek" to today's moviegoers. I am a little concerned about the underwhelming opening weekend numbers. This is by no means a flop, but the statistics show that there weren't enough viewers under 25 buying tickets. Therefore, the next movie will be "Star Trek: The Search For a More Youthful Audience." In one of the worst-kept secrets in movie history, an iconic Trek villain is brought back. I am not sure if this was the best idea.

What's good:

• Top-notch special effects. Also, J.J. Abrams is a great technical director, and a fine choice to direct the next Star Wars film.
• The whole film moves at a warp-speed pace right from the beginning in an Indiana Jones-inspired action sequence that takes place on another planet.
• The Klingons are officially back! (they were in a deleted scene from the 2009 movie) Although I like them better as allies than villains.
• Despite the dizzying pace, Gene Roddenberry's overall philosophy about the true mission of the Enterprise and Starfleet is certainly not lost, especially at the end of the movie.
• Kirk's character experiences some genuine growth in this movie, and Chris Pine is once again up to the task.
• I really like what they did with Scotty's character in this movie. Simon Pegg is great in this part.
• Lots of in-jokes and Easter eggs for hardcore Trekkers, and many moments from a similar scene in a previous "Star Trek" movie are brought back line for line, such as "I think you'd better get down here... You better hurry."

What isn't good:

• So, the character of Khan Noonien Singh is brought back to the screen once again. Benedict Cumberbatch does a fine job given what he had to work with, but I couldn't really figure out Khan's motivation in this movie. In Star Trek II, he had one purpose and one purpose only: Revenge. Here, we're not sure. I think the script is even trying to get the audience to sympathize with Khan at certain parts of the movie. Yes, he wants to get back at the Starfleet brass who used him, but, honestly, I don't think the character of Khan would allow himself to become anyone's bitch. I think I need to read the graphic novel that accompanies this movie to get some more background on this. Even Nero from the 2009 movie had a clear purpose, which was using Spock as a scapegoat for the destruction of Romulus, so even Nero is a better villain than this Khan.
• On that note, Khan was a great adversary in "Space Seed" and "Wrath" because of his superior intellect. You didn't see that here, just brute force.
• I think it might be a little too early for this franchise to hit us with the "death" of a major character. In STII, Kirk and Spock had known each other for 20 years. In this movie the two of them had only known each other for a couple of years. Yes, that is enough time for two people to become BFFs, but some of the emotion during this scene may have seemed a bit manufactured.
• McCoy is given only a few one-liners. Karl Urban does such a great job with this character, and deserves more screen time.
• Is there going to be this much lens flare in Star Wars VII?
• Alice Eve did a good job as Dr. Carol Marcus, but, in one scene, we see her stripping down to her underwear for no particular reason whatsoever. Gratuitous skin would be okay, if not expected, in, say, a Michael Bay movie, but in a franchise that prides itself on strong, smart female characters, this makes no sense. By the way, writer Damon Lindelof has apologized for this.

Overall I may seem overly critical about this movie, but I grew up watching Star Trek, and I hold anything that has to do with this franchise to a higher standard. Despite all the nitpicking, this is a very entertaining popcorn movie that is well worth seeing in the theater.

4. Star Trek (2009)

In 2005, Enterprise mercifully went off the air. Rick Berman, who was in charge of the franchise, was given his walking papers. With a clean slate, they asked J.J. Abrams to take over the franchise. Many thought Abrams faced his own Kobyashi Maru test... How do you get mass audiences to theaters and not alienate the fans? Abrams isn't a Trekker, but he hired two longtime collaborators, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who are hardcore Trekkers, to write the movie. Abrams did what many thought was impossible... He rebooted the franchise, and made a thoroughly entertaining movie that appealed to fans and nonfans. It grossed a healthy $76.5 million on opening weekend, which is more than Nemesis' entire take, and ended up making an impressive $257 million. Yes, the movie did mess with the "Trek" mythology quite a bit, using time travel trickery to pretty much destroy 50 years of canon, but things needed to be shaken up a lot to revive the franchise, and the movie was good enough for most Trekkers to accept these changes. In the DVD commentary, writers Orci and Kurtzman show that they know a great deal about the franchise, and were very particular on what to change and what not to change.

What's good:

• Although the movie had tons of action, and was paced more like "Star Wars" than "Star Trek," it still focused on characters, and the story was essentially about the budding bromance between Kirk and Spock.
• Very good casting for all of  the crew. Chris Pine was outstanding. He thankfully didn't try to imitate Shatner, but had Jim Kirk's swagger and attitude down perfectly. Also, Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy. Simon Pegg is the man! Also, each of the characters were given a defining "moment."
• Leonard Nimoy as "Spock Prime" was a welcome presence, who provides continuity Yoda-like advice to Kirk and Spock.
• The new old Enterprise looks great inside and out, but why did they open an Apple store on the bridge?
• Maintains Gene Roddenberry's optimistic and hopeful view of the future.
• Odd-numbered curse, be damned!

What's not good:

• Thoroughly entertaining and visually stunning, but lacks the emotional and narrative depth of the best Star Trek movies and episodes.
• J. J. Abrams' directing is a little too kinetic at times. And those lens flares!
• Chekov is only 17 and serving on the Enterprise bridge? I guess he is the Doogie Howser of the 23rd century. (Don't bring up Wesley Crusher, because remember that families were allowed to stay on the Enterprise-D). 

5. Star Trek: First Contact

Now that the obligatory passing of the baton was done and over with in "Generations" (see below), Picard and the crew finally get to have fun on their own, and do so in an encounter with the Borg, who try to go back to Earth and alter the timeline just before humans built a ship that reached warp speed and made contact with species from other planets. This is a very entertaining movie, and is unfortunately the only really good movie with the Next Generation crew. It's hard to believe that the same writers who cranked out the mediocre "Generations" (see below) were able to put out such an entertaining, witty, and action-packed movie.

What's good:

• First appearance of the sleek Enterprise-E, and cool new uniforms.
• Finally, the TNG crew faces a formidable foe worthy of being in a movie. With a movie-sized budget, the Borg look better and more creepy than ever.
• Picard, who has been a nearly perfect captain and leader for seven years of TNG, finally shows some character flaws, as he seeks revenge against the Borg for the whole Locutus thing. As usual, Patrick Stewart is nothing short of exceptional.
• Considering this was his first feature film, Jonathan Frakes does a really good job directing. The first shot of the movie is really well-done.
• Good focus on the characters of Picard, Data and Worf, who sort of emerge as the Kirk, Spock and McCoy of TNG. The altercation between Picard and Worf, and its resolution, are perfectly scripted and very believable.
• The best guest cast of just about any of the movies:
• James Cromwell is great as Zefram Cochrane, the inventor of warp drive, and a major historical figure in the Trek universe. In this movie we find out he is far from perfect, and enjoys booze and naked women. This is a great example of how we treat our historic figures like gods, even though, in many cases, they were just ordinary people like the rest of us.
• Alfre Woodard is great as the awe-stricken innocent bystander, and has genuine chemistry with Patrick Stewart. And she thought the Borg were Swedish. (Apparently Woodard agreed to do the movie because she and director/actor Frakes were buddies at Penn State).
• I loved the zero-gravity action scene on the deflector dish.
• Two words: "Assimilate this!"

What's not good:

• Okay, so the Borg ship creates a temporal vortex, and the Enterprise is caught in its wake, sending both ships back in time. While they are in the past, they destroy the Borg ship. At the end of the movie, Picard nonchalantly orders his crew to re-create the temporal vortex, which happens instantaneously, and sends the Enterprise back to the exact moment they left. Seriously, they made it that easy? In Star Trek IV, they nearly flew the ship apart as they flew around the Sun. So, I guess this means with this knowledge, any starship will be able to time travel whenever they want to. If this is the case, someone should go back in time and tell Shatner not to make Star Trek V. (The writers' explanation was that they wanted to get to the story and the action quickly as opposed to taking up 20-30 minutes figuring out how to time travel.)
• If the Borg are a collective, why do they need a queen? Yes, I know, the answer is that the story was better if the evil in the movie was given a face and identity, but still, the appeal of the Borg is that they are a hive mind. That having been said, Alice Krige was great as the Borg Queen, and she did make quite an entrance, and is one of Trek's better villains. (The writers' explanation was that the collective speaking to Data would have been confusing, as opposed to a single voice).

6. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

After the heaviness of Star Trek II and III, producers decided it was time to lighten things up a little bit. A lifeform that looks like a giant kielbasa accidentally shuts down everything in its path and eventually Earth. Despite the fact that the fate of the planet is in the balance, it never seems like anyone in the movie is ever in any actual jeopardy or peril (Although that's kind of the whole purpose of the movie.) The crew travels in time to 1980's era San Francisco, opening the door for countless fish out of water gags and comic mayhem. This was a huge box office success, one of the few times Star Trek was able to appeal to non-fans.

What's good:

• Thoroughly entertaining from beginning to end. Easily the funniest of the Star Trek movies. Many great one-liners, laugh-out-loud moments, and Spock's deadpan delivery and use of "colorful metaphors."
• Environmental message is relevant without being heavy handed.
• Finally, every member of the supporting cast has something to do.
• Shatner's toupee stays on in water!
• When Spock gives the Vulcan nerve pinch to an obnoxious punk on the bus blasting his radio.
• Among the many zingers in this movie:
• "Double dumbass on you!"
• "What does it mean, exact change?"
• "Drilling holes in his head is not the answer!"
• "Nu-cle-ar... wessels."
• Back in the sixties, he was part of the free speech movement at Berkeley. I think he did a little too much LDS.
• 7th Heaven mom: Do you guys like Italian? 
• Kirk: Yes.
• Spock: No.
• Kirk: Yes.
• Spock: No.
• Kirk: I love Italian... and so do you.
• Spock: Yes.

What isn't good:

• The bizarre scene when the crew goes back in time that looks like a music video for a progressive rock band.
• I know Scotty is good at his job, but him being able to create transparent aluminum on a late 80's Mac is stretching it a bit.
• 
  

7. Star Trek Beyond (Final spoiler alert!!!)

Just saw this. Liked it, wasn't blown away. It was a decent action movie, and nothing more. Although it had some good character moments, It lacked the substance expected from a Star Trek movie. Justin Lin focused too much on ratcheting up the action set pieces, and the rest of the movie fell short. Also, the first screenplay drafted by Simon Pegg (Scotty) was dismissed by the studio as "Too Star Trek-y" and asked for something more accessible like a heist movie or a thriller. Instead, they came up with an action movie. Bottom line - blame the studio.

What's good:

• Film not only acknowledges the death of Leonard Nimoy and "Spock Prime," but also uses it as a device to develop Zachary Quinto's Spock character. Also, Nimoy and the late Anton Yelchin are both given nice dedications in the end credits.
• Some easter eggs and fan service, but it doesn't go overboard like Into Darkness. Check out the giant green hand halfway through the credits!
• Lower budget, but the effects are still better.
• Focused on the relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. This is one of the elements that really made the original series as great as it was.
• Paced well, lots of action and fisticuffs. More like a TOS episode than any other movie, and that is a compliment.
• The Alternative Universe Enterprise gets a cool makeover, and the ultra-advanced 1701-A is beautiful.
• Allowing all of the bridge crew to recite a line of the famous "These are the voyages" speech is a nice touch. 
• They actually use "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys as a weapon of mass destruction! How cool is that?

What's not good:

• Is a good summer action movie, but lacks the substance of a true Star Trek movie.
• Lots of inconsequential and gratuitous action scenes. Kirk riding a motorcycle is a little too much for me. 
• New characters are hit-or-miss. Kaylah is a tough-as-nails warrior woman, but Krall is a bit predictable. And did we really need that close of a connection to Enterprise, a show that no one either watched or enjoyed enough to care about?

8. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

No need to rehash the plot, the title says it all. Don't let the relatively low ranking fool you- this is still a very good and well-paced movie with its share of memorable moments. It's just that the other movies were better.

What's good:

• Leonard Nimoy has a solid directing debut.
• Christopher Lloyd, who most people knew back in 1982 as Reverend Jim from Taxi, is a formidable villain as a Klingon who wants the Genesis Device.
• The scene where Kirk and Co. steal the Enterprise from Space Dock is a blast to watch. 
• The Excelsior is seen for the first time. What a cool-looking ship. The powers that be actually wanted to make that the new Enterprise before they decided to just bring back the Constitution-class design. However, the Enterprise-B in "Generations" is an Excelsior-class ship.
• The effects in the scene where the Enterprise is blown up are top-notch. You can actually see the hull melt away, making the inside of the ship visible.
• Star Trek veteran Mark Lenard returns as Sarek.
• "I.... have had... enough of you!"

What's not good

• Any movie would be a tough act to follow after Star Trek II.
• The movie never has an identity of its own. It seems like an interlude between the adventures in STII and STIV.
• Non-fans won't have any idea what's going on.

9. Star Trek: Generations

Here is where we begin to see a major drop in the quality of the movies. Apparently they wanted an official "passing of the baton" from Kirk to Picard. The problem is that Kirk is 75 years older. How do they solve this problem? Create an energy ribbon that not only allows for time travel, but also grants wishes! The story is a mess, but there are enough decent action scenes and character moments to earn this movie a marginal recommendation.

What's good:

• I have to admit, it is kind of fun to see Picard and Kirk working together.
• Although the destruction of the Enterprise was handled in a sloppy manner, The crash landing of the saucer section was a decent action sequence, as was Data's reaction to it.
• Pacing is not bad, but the nexus scene dragged a bit.
• Naturally, Shatner gets the best lines:
• "Risk is part of the game if you want to sit in that chair."
• "I don't need to be lectured by you. I was out saving the galaxy when your grandfather was in diapers. Besides which, I think the galaxy owes me one."

What's not good:

• Kirk's death is contrived, unnecessary and stupid. A character this iconic deserves a better sendoff.
• The Enterprise's destruction was an obvious excuse to add an action sequence get rid of the Enterprise D. After the beatings they took from the Borg, a Klingon torpedo ended up destroying the ship? I don't think so.
• The captain of the Enterprise-B, played by Cameron from Ferris Buehler's Day Off, is a bumbling idiot whose sole purpose is to allow Kirk to take charge and look good. 
• Did they actually think they could use the same shot of the Klingon Bird of Prey exploding and get away with it? Not  with this crowd! I heard people jeering this in the theater.
• Data uses his emotion chip to develop his character and be the movie's comic relief. Some of the gags were forced and nerve racking. 
• Who the hell turned out all the lights on the Enterprise?

10. Star Trek: Nemesis

Before he became Bane, Tom Hardy is Picard's clone and the bad guy in this movie. As mediocre as this movie is, it's is not the mess that many Trekkers think it is, nor is it the worst in the franchise. However, it was not a good note for the TNG crew to end on.

What's good:

• Some good action sequences.
• Pacing is actually not bad. (Supposedly there is an hour of footage on the cutting room floor).
• Some witty humor sprinkled throughout the movie.
• The space battle at the end is pretty good, especially when the Enterprise rams the enemy ship.

What's not good:

• The scene with the all-terrain vehicle on the away mission when they are collecting the B-4 android has Picard acting less like a captain and more like a 15-year-old who drank too much Red Bull.
• Attempt to make a great villain in the vein of Khan backfires.
• Attempt to create an emotional moment by killing off a major character also backfires.
• This movie paid no attention whatsoever to the political relationship and alliance between the Romulans and the Federation in Deep Space Nine, which ended not long before this movie was released.

11. Star Trek: The Motion Picture

I moved this up a little bit. I saw the last half of it on television one night, and actually somewhat remembered liking the story, and disliked Insurrection even more. This movie is slowly paced and doesn't develop characters, but does have a decent science fiction story.

What's good:

• The plot is not all that bad. If I comprehended it correctly, the Voyager spacecraft launched from Earth learned so much that it became self-aware. Again, an interesting, high-concept plot that was a little ahead of its time.
• Top-notch special effects for the time. The film had a budget of $48 million, which was huge in 1979. However, the sequel to this movie looked just as good, but had only 1/4 of this movie's budget.
• The new Enterprise looks great. We got a close look at it, because 10 minutes was spent on sweeping shots of the ship's exterior.

What's not good:

• Painfully sluggish pacing at times. People call this movie the Slow Motion Picture for a reason. Could have easily been 30 minutes shorter.
• Character development? What's that?
• Lots of technobabble.
• Uniforms look like pajamas.

12. Star Trek: Insurrection:

Little more than a television-grade story stretched out to 2 hours and given expensive special effects. The story concerned two species (or so we think) fighting over a planet that supposedly allows its inhabitants to be immortal. Sound boring? It is! Completely forgettable in almost every respect, and reminiscient of the many mediocre episodes of TNG we had to sit through while waiting for the next encounter with Q or the Borg.

What's good:

• Wow, a captain's yacht!
• They actually dump the engine core. The first time in the history of the franchise when we do not hear "ejection controls are not responding."
• Mostly competent acting.

What's not good

• Sluggish pacing.
• Riker controls the Enterprise with a joystick?! We're talking about a starship that is a half-mile long, not an F-18!
• F. Murray Abraham's villain role is little more than high-pitched screaming whenever the Enterprise crew gets away.
• The subplot with Picard's new girlfriend seems tacked-on, and thanks to Rick Berman (moronic former producer of the Star Trek franchise), they weren't even allowed to kiss.

13. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Here we are at the bottom of the barrel. Shatner has directed the only Star Trek feature film that is purely unwatchable. The crew meets Spock's half brother (who was supposed to be played by Sean Connery until, I am guessing, he read the script), and they search for God and encounter Klingons. 

What's good:
Occasional laughs, many of which are unintentional.
Some fun "buddy" moments between Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
Kirk makes a pretty good point: "What does God need with a starship?"

What's not good:

The plot, the dialogue, the acting, the pacing, should I go on? This is a textbook example of how not to make a movie.

I know it doesn't seem possible, but Shatner is an even worse director than he is an actor.

Row, Row, Row your Boat!

Having to resort to slapstick humor, such as Scotty clanging his head on a bulkhead. Yuk, yuk.

Chintzy-looking and sometimes laughable special effects. The folks at ILM weren't available for this movie, and it shows.

Whaaaaaaa?