The Most Underrated Movie?

[Jbarney]

For me its is Star Trek V. I love those glimpses of trek that hints at what comes next. After WOK, TSFP, and TVH....the Final Frontier teases what the crew would be up to for the next several years. I understand it is not a great movie, but does deserve some respect. Love the camping scene.

 

[Paradise City]

Star Trek V by a country mile. It's packed with truly exquisite character driven scenes. It's marred by some really horrendous production standards though and other scenes that are too silly.

In some ways it's the most frustrating movie. Some of the best and worst of Star Trek jostling for space in the one film. But it makes for rewarding view when everything is balanced up.

Star Trek V is the "purest" TOS film IMO.

I can see why people don't like V though. But Star Trek III doesn't get the cred it deserves and I'm not exactly sure why.

 

[Mojochi]

I voted for 3. It has it's foibles like the amateurish scenes on the Grissom, but there's also some really wonderful stuff in that picture. It has some of the best mood of any of the films, & when people reflect fondly on the nuclear family feel of the TOS cast, that movie is really where that dynamic was born.

 

[BillJ]

I tried to watch Generations a few months ago, I simply couldn't get into it. It was a film I liked at one point, may have to give it another try in the future.

 

[rcjames]

Generations for me. A good film that copped a lot of criticism for not only killing Kirk but doing it the way they did. A really solid movie.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Star Trek V by a country mile. It's packed with truly exquisite character driven scenes. It's marred by some really horrendous production standards though and other scenes that are too silly.

In some ways it's the most frustrating movie. Some of the best and worst of Star Trek jostling for space in the one film. But it makes for rewarding view when everything is balanced up.

Star Trek V is the "purest" TOS film IMO.

I can see why people don't like V though. But Star Trek III doesn't get the cred it deserves and I'm not exactly sure why.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Star Trek V. I can see what it was trying to be and appreciate it on that level. It had a great premise with a lot of potential, and it's still fairly engaging despite all of its flaws. At this point the "bad" parts of it have become part of its charm for me, in a weird nostalgic way.

 

[KennyB]

TUC IMHO, it's a masterpiece and doesn't get enough credit for the strong film it is.

I feel the same. Love everything about that flick.

 

[JamesRye]

I feel the same. Love everything about that flick.

agreed. I don't blog any more, but when I did, I hope my passion for the movie came through:
https://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/star-trek-vi-the-undiscovered-country-film-review/

 

[Vger23]

But this isn't about a "favorite" Trek film, it's about an "under appreciated" Trek film. I can't, in any way, view TUC as under appreciated. It's clearly a fan favorite.

 

[Gaith]

Generations for me. I love how casually evil Soran is, and not for some lame and nonsensical quest for vengeance, but simply for his drug fix. Picard observes that in willing to engage in mass murder, he's no better than the Borg, who by taking away his family broke him so badly he so desperately needs the Nexus in the first place.

After a pause: "Nice try," Soran says, and goes about his business. Picard is correct, but Soran doesn't care. It's not as though he'll have to kill the millions on the planet personally; all he has to do is press a few buttons. It's an understated, brief moment, but one of the movies' most powerful and true to human nature. Some people are just dicks.

 

[Hey Missy]

Not sure if it's relevant to this thread but:
Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones were both from 2002.
So why did Nemesis have, I feel, better-looking CG effects than AOTC? Star Wars had a much larger budget to work with, and Lucas had ILM behind him, while Trek had to settle with Digital Domain.

 

[Gaith]

^ Well, AotC had far more numerous and more complex CG effects, which has to be taken into consideration if you're going to compare the budgets...

 

[Smellmet]

Not sure if it's relevant to this thread but:
Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones were both from 2002.
So why did Nemesis have, I feel, better-looking CG effects than AOTC? Star Wars had a much larger budget to work with, and Lucas had ILM behind him, while Trek had to settle with Digital Domain.

Nemesis' CG shots largely consisted of the enterprise in battle and a few others, which they'd got right years ago. AOTC was much more ambitious, pushing the boundaries of technology of the day, which nemesis certainly wasn't. It's not really a like for like comparison.

 

[Hey Missy]

Maybe not a fair comparison but the low-res "shiny" CG in AOTC is something I've always noticed, whereas in Nemesis, scenes where the Enterprise flies in front of the camera look as if you can almost reach out and touch it.

 

[Smellmet]

Maybe not a fair comparison but the low-res "shiny" CG in AOTC is something I've always noticed, whereas in Nemesis, scenes where the Enterprise flies in front of the camera look as if you can almost reach out and touch it.

Show me an example of 'low res' shiny CG in ATOC.

 

[Hey Missy]

Show me an example of 'low res' shiny CG in ATOC.

The clone troopers.

 

[Smellmet]

The clone troopers.

I always thought they looked pretty good to be honest. My only problem with the visuals in AOTC is the droid factory sequence and the odd other bit of CG where characters ride animals. The rest still holds very well indeed to my eyes. Name me a film from 2002 that has better visuals. I can't think of any.

 

[Hey Missy]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

 

[Space Coast]

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Didn't LOTR have a budget of several million human souls, though? Obviously it's going to be better.