Reviews (141)

Another fine "Special Edition"
Once again, a fine special edition has been released for these venerable Star Trek movies. In this film, the crew heads off to the newly-formed Genesis planet in the stolen Enterprise. They meet up with Klingons newly arrived to try and steal the secret of the Genesis Device, which they call the "Greatest weapon ever invented." This film is clearly more light-hearted than TMP or TWOK, the previous two films in the franchise, and introduced the plot device of sending each crewmember off on their own mission before pulling them back together. As such, we see more of Sulu, Uhura, and Scotty than we are used to, which adds rather than detracts from the story. Another highlight is the scene-chewing performance of Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon commander, in perfect opposition to William Shatner.

Unfortunately, the film tends to be repetative. It starts off with a flashback to Wrath of Khan to bring the audience up-to-date. That's fine, but these moments are relived again when Sarek visits Kirk 20 minutes in, and YET AGAIN at the end of the film. Thus, this 100-minute movie only contains 80 minutes of new material, and repeated watchings tend to leave you fidgiting. In addition, the sound-stage sets of the Genesis Planet (and Vulcan) are impressive, but not the same as actual location footage. However, it's a worthy addition to the Star Trek family, it simply suffers in comparison to the two movies on either side of it.

Likewise, this special edition is good, but not as good as those for TMP and TWOK. The highlights are the text commentary by the Okudas, a featurette (25 minutes) on the development of the Klingon language, and the ILM featurette on the effects. The general making-of feature is interesting (Shatner is amusing in a faux-pompous way), but is mostly a repitition of the audio commentary. The print is curiously grainy, in contrast to the obviously cleaned-up DVD versions of the previous 2 films.

What Odd Numbered Curse?
Despite the holes in the plot and the need to willingly suspend disbelief at times, Star Trek III is among my favorite of the original cast films. I even like it better than Star Trek IV.

The special effects in this film are really good and I love James Horner's score enough to have bought it on cassette. There are many dramatic visual moments, including when the Enterprise approaches the giant space station orbiting Earth and the destruction of the Genesis planet, and of course, the destruction of the Enterprise.

The cast is in their usual fine form. Uhurua gets a smaller role in this movie because she stays behind, but she does get one really good scene giving a young Starfleet cadet his comeuppance. Scottie gets to shine as temporary engineering officer and vandalizer of the new starship Excelsior. McCoy is funny, occasionally slipping into his Spock mode. One of his best lines, upon hearing that he is carrying Spock's "katra" inside him is "It's [Spock's] revenge for losing all of those arguments!" William Shatner has a really good dramatic scene when Kirk learns that his son has been killed by the Klingons. Christopher Lloyd is good as the Klingon commander Kruge. Unrecognizable as one of his subordinates, Maltz, is the guy who played Dan Fielding in the Nightcourt sitcom on NBC.

Merrit Butrick and Robin Curtis are not particularly memorable as David and Saavik, but accomplish what is expected of them. Another reviewer observed that the film barely hints that Saavik sleeps with the young Spock as he experiences Pon Faar. I read the novelization of Star Trek III, and not only does it make it clear that she is "intimate" with him, if indeed Vulcans can be intimate, but that she also sleeps with Kirk's son David as well before they go to the Genesis planet. Had it been included in the film, it really would have added another element to it, though in the end it might have been distracting too.

It is a bit of a coincidence that Kirk gets Spock off the Genesis planet at just the right age, and the way in which Spock is brought back is a bit hard to swallow, after all, even the Vulcan high priestess declared that the process had not been done in ages, and then only in myth. Why would Spock then be confident that it would work? Then again, since all of us Trekkies wanted Spock back, we won't quibble. Star Trek III is a good combination of action, humor and drama. If there is an off numbered curse in the Star Trek movies, it clearly does not apply to this one.

Kirk and Co. have the balls that no one else in ST ever had
Another classic trek movie, this one taking place directly after the famous Spock death scene in Wrath of Khan. But Spock was just so hip and cool in his stiff, emotionless, Spock-ish(??) way that they had to bring him back. And Kirk and the boys do it in style.

The story is basically this: Ambassador Sarek (Spock's father) comes up to Kirk and makes it known to him that his essence may be living within a crew member of the Enterprise. They discover it is McCoy (which is hilarious, considering Spock and McCoy's quirky friendship), which explains why many in StarFleet thought he had been driven insane, and locked him up for it. Kirk and the boys spring McCoy out of the cell, steal the Enterprise, and head into space on "personal matters."

Even if this movie lacked in action, which is does not at all, it would have plenty in hilarious dialogue. There are many examples, such as when McCoy tries to hire a mercenary at a bar (very reminiscent of the Star Wars cantina, clientele et al). McCoy tells him, "Place I name, money I go." And the perterbed alien (eerily reminiscent of George C. Scott and Dr. Evil) fires back, "Place you name, money I name or else bargainnnnnnno." It hilarious the way he says it. Another funny part comes when Sulu jokingly prods a bored Federation security guard, "Keeping you busy?", the guard slowly, menacingly stands up from his chair, towering over the short Sulu and says, "Don't get smart, tiny." It isn't so much what they say that's funny, it's the body language and the intonations, brought out in full by first-rate directing by Leonard Nimoy.

There are tons of great action scenes, and even a stabbing death which is implied, but not shown, making it action-packed but still accessible for the whole family. A memorable performance by Christopher LLloyd as a Klingon renegade is also within this fine film. It's not as good as The Undiscovered Country, but it stands firm not only as a great Trek movie, but just as a great movie overall.

one for all, and all for one
Leonard Nimoy spent most of his time behind the camera directing this film, and though I miss his presence as Spock, it's one of my favorite of the Star Trek series; it's more subdued and introspective than the others, and the overall theme is friendship, and risking one's life for a friend.
The year is 8210, and the plot centers around "The Genesis Effect", an experimental device that can be placed on a "lifeless space body", like a dead moon, and make it flourish with life, but because one of the scientists used risky methods, "life" is happening at a fast clip.
The evil Klingons of course, in their constant lust for power, want the "Genesis" secret, and Admiral Kirk must stop them.

William Shatner is fabulous as Kirk; I've always found him to be a unique, immensely watchable actor, and all the original ensemble cast is wonderful: DeForest Kelley ~ McCoy, James Doohan ~ Scotty, George Takei ~ Sulu, Walter Koenig ~ Chekov, Nichele Nichols ~ Uhura. Added are Mark Lenard as Spock's father Sarek, Robin Curtis as Lt. Saavik, Merritt Butnick as Kirk's son David, and Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon Kruge. Dame Judith Anderson plays the Vulcan priestess TLar, in a scene that is high camp, and quite marvelous.
There are some nifty special effects on the Planet Genesis, and some nice cinematography by Charles Correll, as well as an exceptionally lovely score by James Horner. Leonard Nimoy gave this film a moody, thoughtful atmosphere, and it works for me, and I find the ending quite touching, no matter how many times I see it.
Total running time is 105 minutes.

20 Years of "The Search For Spock"
"How many fingers am I holding up?"
"Thats not very damn funny."
- Kirk gives the Vulcan Salute to Dr. McCoy as they both escape a trip from The Federation Funny Farm, and look for a lost pointed ear friend in "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock"

Its been 20 years to the day since the search began in this third and underated entry in the "Star Trek" saga. "The Search For Spock" is an adventurous (if corny) film that teaches a lesson in the loyalties, & importance of friendship, no matter the consequence.

Picking up where "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan" left off, with the death & funeral of Captain Spock & the birth of the Genesis Planet, "The Search For Spock" begins with the crew of The Enterprise limping home after the battle wrath with Khan, only to find out that the Federation has decided to decommission the legendary starship & reassign most of its crew. Whats worse is the fact that Dr. "Bones" McCoy is having a sort of nervous breakdown, breaking in to Captain Spock's sealed quarters and giving Admiral Kirk an errie message from the grave.
When Spock's father, Ambassador Saarik, arrives informing Kirk that Spock isn't dead, but, is in a state where mind & body are in seperate forms, its up to both, Kirk & Saarik to find who has Spock's marbles (McCoy has them) & where Spock's body rests (on The Genisis Planet). Once both are retrieved, and thru an ancient Vulcan ritual, only then can Spock become his old self again. With the arrival of the Kilngons, looking for the secret to Genesis, its a race against time as the planet becomes unstable and starts to deteriate at an alarmingly fast rate. The search isn't without sacrfice & Kirk loses the two things he holds dearest to him in order get his friend back.

"Star Trek III" is one of those films thats pretty much written for fans of the series (if this film was your introduction to "Star Trek", I'm pretty positive your reaction was more of a "Huh!?" with a shrug of the shoulders). I hold this as the fifth best in the series tieing it with "Star Trek: Generations" ("II" & "First Contact" are the two best in the series).

The Klingons finally get some much needed screen time in this film. Since they were the main nemesis in the television series, it was only a matter of time before they would show up (the Klingons make a cameo in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"). A year before he went "Back To The Future", Christopher Lloyd gives a great performance as Commander Kruge, the greedy, power hungry Klingon commander. Kruge is much better than the two Klingons in "Star Trek V". Those two reminded me of the Wonder Twins from the "Super Friends", for some reason. The Klingons in "Star Trek VI" came across as more regal and honorable than threatening and coldblooded, like Kruge is. As for Shatner and the rest of the cast, all are also great & age gracefully in their respective roles.
James Horner's score to "III", like "II", is one of the better scores in the series (acutally, I think, its a lot of reused score material from the previous film, but, I just get so tired of hearing Jerry Goldsmith's opening theme from "The Motion Picture". Its been used in at least half of the the ten films, as well, as the opening theme to "The Next Generation" series). Leonard Nimoy directs his first of two "Trek" films ("III" is his directorial debut) and gets a lot out of his actors and does a good job overall.

The 2 disc DVD edition to "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" is worth owning and is better than "Star Trek V" on any given Sunday. Join the Search. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

A socially conscious Trek movie
On the fourth installment in the Star Trek movie series, Kirk and company are flying their captured Klingon vessel back to Earth to face the punishment for their misdeeds. On the way though, fate intervenes in the form of an alien probe wreaking destruction upon Earth's oceans. With quick thinking, the crew figures out that it is attempting to speak to an extinct species of Whale, so they slingshot their crummy "Klingon fleatrap" around the sun and travel back in time to San Francisco circa 1986 to save the future.

The time travel cliche is done very well by the Star Trek crew, and although the movie is incredibly dated, it's still a very humerous film that takes a pressing social issue (mainly ecological conservation) and wraps it into an enjoyable sci-fi plot. One of the biggest strengths of the Star Trek series has always been its social conscious, and they deliver yet again with "The Voyage Home".

I'd like to stress again that this is a very lighthearted and humerous film that is saved by the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. If nothing else, where else do you get to watch Spock develop a penchant for profanity? Add to that the usual interplay between him, Kirk, and McCoy, and you've got a winning movie that hard core Trek fans and casual moviegoers can enjoy.

EXCELLENT!
After the often overshadowed Star Trek III, producer Harve Bennett and returning director Leonard Nimoy wanted to make a light-hearted adventure with no deaths. That was understandable because III had the destruction of the Enterprise, the death of Kirk's son, and an overall serious revival adventure for Mr. Spock. After a script by Steve Meerson and Peter Krikes (with Eddie Murphy originally supposed to have a role because he was a big Trek fan), Harve Bennett needed a rewrite. The man chosen: Nicholas Meyer, writer and director of Star Trek II.

What we have here is one of the magnum efforts in the series. Not only does it deliver solid laughs from start (ok, more so middle) to finish, it is also a grand adventure that Roddenberry probably loved. The relationships between the characters are fully exploited here and Nicholas Meyer even takes advantage of Spock's rebirth as humor. The laughs? Filled with classics like Scotty's "Hello computer" scene or the hospital chase scene, this film perfectly blends urban realities with the world of Star Trek in a similar way to Beverly Hills Cop's blending of action and comedy.

The only thing that flaws this film is Leonard Rosenman's somewhat lackluster score. The film manages to blend (or hide, depending on if you like the score or not) the music enough that you really don't notice it. I still would've preferred James Horner or Jerry Goldsmith, but I'm not complaining.

Hate Star Trek? Watch this film. Even if you hate Star Trek, this will keep you entertained. An excellent film in every sense of the word with great humor abounds. Some people may claim II or VI as the best, but this one's got its share of moments. If you're looking for great humor and a decent story (ok, it's corny... "save the whales", so what?), this one's for you.

classic star trek, with a twist
Another classic trek movie, this one from 1986, is awesome, and the most shocking thing about it is that it doesn't even take place in space, save for about 15 minutes! Instead it takes place in 1986, where the crew members go back in time to capture two whales to stop the destructive calls of an intergalactic whale species trying to contact the long-extinct whales. The whole plot sounds like it would suck beyond belief, but it comes close to being the best trek movie, and is one of my faves ever.

The awesomeness of the movie, unlike the rest of the series, comes not from suspense and action scenes, but the hilarious and often touching culture shock the crew faces in mid-80's San Fransisco. There is so much to laugh at: the crew earnestly walking along the SanFran streets, Sulu in his cape, Kirk in his red StarFleet uniform, and unforgettably, Spock in his monk robe with the belt tied around the tops of his pointy ears, making him look like an angry ninja master with a botched Botox job. Also hilarious is McCoy's disgust at how rudimentary 20th Century medical practices are/were. In a scene inside a hospital, he asks a woman what ails her, she responds she has kidney dialysis, and he's like, "What is this, the dark ages?! Swallow this, and call me if you have any problems." Several scenes later she is wheeled out claiming a miracle.

There is much more in the movie I won't spoil for you (or more like I'm too f*#&ing lazy to write any more), so turn the PC off and rent this great flick, also it's been on AMC recently, so try that too.

I agree with everybody.
I read a lot of these Amazon reviews on Star Trek IV, and oddly enough I can agree with almost all of them -- the 5 star as well as the 1 star.
I agree with the 5 star reviewers that this probably is the best Trek movie, that a lot of the humor is good, that the movie captures much of what was loved about the original series.
But I also agree with some of the 1 star reviews that the humor may be overdone and may wear thin on repeated viewings, that Catherine Hicks' character is overemphasized, that the environmental message is heavy-handed, that the aliens at Kirk's trial look ridiculous, etc.
But ultimately the question is this: If I stumble on this movie while channel-surfing, will I stop and watch it? Will I laugh, or at least smile, at the designated humorous moments? Answer to both questions: Yes. On balance, it remains an entertaining flick.

The Enterprise crew in the 1980's=AWSOME ADVENTURE!
O.K., first my one complaint-The plot where a mysterious, massive, invincible alien force that threatens the Earth was already done before. (Remember the first Star Trek film?) Otherwise, this is a wonderful addition to the Star Trek legacy. Just about everyone already knows the story, where the crew of the now destroyed Enterprise must pilot a captured Klingon Bird Of Prey back in time to the present day (well, 1986 WAS the present day when this came out,) to bring back some humpback whales. It seems to be a toss-up between which is the best Star Trek movie-this one, or part II. The second film, where Kirk and Khan have their last battle, has the most action, but this one has the most comedy, so they both have their strengths. Unless you absolutly hate Star Trek, check this one out. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Wonderful, but also see the French film!
Three Men and a Baby is very good I really liked it a lot and thought that all the actors were great! It is about 3 bachelor friends, Jack, Peter and Michael sharing an apartment in New York, the character named Jack is a womanizer who sleeps around a lot and a baby girl namd Mary is left on the doorstep with a note from her mother Sylvia saying that Jack is the father and all three men who know absolutely nothing about babies have to take care of her. It is a wonderful movie and I highly recommend it, it's the American version of the French film Three Men and a Cradle which is also wonderful and I highly recommend that too, in that movie the guys are named Jacques, Pierre, and Michel, the baby is named Marie and the mother is named Sylvia, I saw that film both in French with English subtitles and Dubbed into English but I preferred it in it's original French with the English subtitles.

Three Men, a Baby and a Cardboard Cutout.
This isn't really my kind of movie, but it isn't bad for what it is - a light comedy. I watched the movie mainly because of the "ghost" controversy. The "ghost boy" and the "shotgun" are actually the same thing seen from different camera angles: the cardboard cutout figure of Ted Danson in a tuxedo. The cutout cardboard figure is shown later in the movie when Ted Danson is talking to the baby's mother in the same bedroom where the "ghost" appeared (note on the cardboard figure the contour of the line where the left side of the black tuxedo meets the white vest). I believe the cutout figure was moved from the window on the right where it was in the earlier scene so it could be shown with Ted Danson for dramatic effect. The light-hearted, show biz bachelor in tuxedo and top hat works nicely as an ironic contrast to Ted's real-life character agonizing over parental responsibility and the possible loss of his baby.

The controversial "ghost" scene opened with Ted's mom entering the apartment. The camera for this scene, located in Ted's bedroom follows Ted and his mother as they walk through the apartment and into the bedroom. They walk right in front of the camera as they enter through the bedroom door and the camera pans to the right as they approach the baby crib. This is when we see the "shotgun" which is actually the left side of the cardboard figure (the right edge line of the "shotgun" is identical to the line on the cardboard figure where the bunched up vest meets the left side of the tuxedo). The rest of the figure is hidden behind the curtain at this camera angle. When Ted and his mother approach the crib the camera man moves to the left towards the window side of the room (watch the background behind Ted's mother). When Ted and his mother, with baby, leave the bedroom the camera man is now in position to precede them out through the bedroom door. This is when we see the "ghost". In the begining of the scene the camera man was at the side of the door away from the windows. So, as he exits backwards through the door and closer to the windows the cardboard figure is seen at a more acute angle exposing more of the tuxedo figure behind the curtain. The sides of the cardboard figure are hidden by the curtains, but the triangular shape of the neck/shirt and the vertical right coat/vest line can be seen. Also, the white tie of the tuxedo cutout, although obscure, can also be identified. The "boy's" face looks fuller to some viewers because they see the top hat without the hidden brim as the "boy's" hair-covered head. The triangular white shape at the waist line is the bottom of one side of the white vest on the tuxedo figure.

Great Family Friendly Movie
Ah, the Eighties. The soundtrack of this movie alone brings a nostalgic tear to my eye. Okay, this movie didn't blow us away with its depiction of bachelorhood, but it did make me laugh, and what more can a person really want in a movie? Steve Guttenberg, Tom Selleck, and Ted Danson are the Three Muskateers Plus Baby. By the way, when compared to its sequel, Three Men and a Little Lady, this movie DOES look like a masterpiece. Good movie -- one you can certainly enjoy with your own little ones, and Grandma and Grandpa.

Fine Entertainment!!
This older film, dating back to 1987, was a sleeper hit and a real favorite when it came out. The cast of Tom Selleck, Steve Gutenberg,and Ted Danson was just fine, and the story line was terrific. Here we see three "professional men" having to deal with the realities of life- a baby- and the predicaments they have to deal with are realistic and not patronizing at all. Then to discover that Danson is the real "Daddy" brings an even greater element to the film.

I believe that this had to be one of Selleck's best movies, and the ensemble cast is excellent. A fine family film, and to watch and listen to the trio sing "Goodnight Sweetheart" is worth the price of the movie.

A baby lover's must
In 1987,when Tom Selleck and Ted Danson were on annual hiatus from their respective television shows,Magnum P.I. and Cheers,they filmed with Steve Guttenberg,this lovely comedy about sudden,reluctant babysitting. Just the previous year,Guttenberg filmed "Police Academy 4:Citizens On Patrol",his last sequel. BAD BOY,performed by Gloria Estefan & the Miami Sound Machine,is played during the opening credits. The babysitting starts one Sunday morning when Peter Mitchell(Selleck) returns from a jog to his apartment and finds a baby in a bassinet on the floor near the door. He calls his roommate Michael Kellam(Guttenberg),so he could take a look at the beautiful baby girl. Near her is a note from her mother written to the baby's father Jack Holden(Danson). Jack lives with Peter and Michael. Peter goes to the supermarket in his workout apparel to buy some baby food and diapers since the trio had none of their own. So Michael entertains Mary,the baby. After Jack,who's an actor,returns home from Turkey after filming a TV movie,he is strangled by Peter and Michael,mistaking him for a burglar. They are pissed at him for putting them through hell with the baby. Peter tells Jack,"We(himself and Michael) put our lives on hold taking care of this kid and now it's your turn." In another scene where Peter and Michael are shooting pool,Jack is having difficulty changing Mary's diaper("How do you put on these goddamn things anyway?")."Figure it out for yourself,d---head!",Peter answers. Things get back to normal when Mary's mother Sylvia(Nancy Travis) shows up at the trio's apartment to reclaim Mary. Sylvia planned to catch a flight to London,taking Mary with her. That didn't happen,realizing Sylvia would have been sorry eventually. So she returns to the trio's apartment. The trio themselves return to the apartment after they rode a cab to the airport from where Sylvia and Mary were gonna take off. The trio thought Sylvia and Mary had. Sylvia,who's an actress,complains to the trio that her hectic work schedule makes her not care enough for Mary. Peter,who's an architect,told Sylvia that he'd build one or two rooms for Sylvia and Mary,inviting them to the household. Jack told Peter and Michael in an earlier scene that Jack and Sylvia met while acting in a play. In the last scene,Peter,Jack,Sylvia and Michael are all pushing Mary in her stroller,with a long handlebar,accomodating four pairs of hands! This movie was released November 25,1987 and became a #1 blockbuster and remained in many theatres for 4 or 5 months. The success of this film spawned a sequel 3 years later entitled "Three Men and a Little Lady". ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Funny About Love
Let me begin by saying that I read the review about this movie by "petershelley". WHOA! How could anyone be so opposite of everything this movie was about!! He does not have a clue and I mean not one about life, people, love, emotion, vulnerability and what it is really all about. This guy is so off base I actually pity what a superficial life he must live. He needs to get off his pedestal and get down here where the real people live. I believe that the performance by Gene Wilder was phenomenol and I could FEEL his pain when his wife walked out the door after their break-up. Knowing Mr. Wilder's history with his departed wife, Gilda Radner, one can only guess at his source of the emotion he exibited in that scene. No wonder I could feel it-I don't think you call that acting. I think it was real. Does Mr. Shelley know what it feels like to want to have a child and not be able to? I think not. If he did he would understand the motivation behind the actions of Duffy in the movie "Funny About Love". ANYONE who has been there knows that you CANNOT intellectualize about such a thing as Mr. Shelley does in his review. IT JUST IS. Christine Lahti's character represents so much of what it is to be a woman these days and try to be everything to everyone and not lose herself and her dreams and ambitions. She very much needed to know that Duffy loved her more than he loved the dream of having a child. That what we have in the here and now is all we really ever have, and even that is temporary. Mary Stuart Masterson of course brought so much humor to a really pretty sad situation. Because of her ability to love unconditionally she was able to give something extraordinary of herself to someone she loved and cared about without having to OWN that person. She was able, out of friendship or love, to fulfill the dream of another human being and complete his life. What greater gift is there on this earth? What an amazing movie, I loved every minute of it and can't believe it has taken it over 10 years to cross my path. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE and of course "Immediate Family" is right up there with it. Alexis Baughman

Gene Wilder Rules In This Romantic Comedy!!
Gene Wilder rules in this romantic comedy also co-starring Christine Lahti.It's a must see!!

Duffy Bergman¿s biological clock is about to go off
This tale of Gene Wilder as a Gary Trudeau-like celebrity political humourist doesn't work as comedy, drama or romance. The screenplay by Norman Steinberg and David Frankel is based on an Esquire article by Bob Greene entitled Convention of the Love Goddesses, which is represented by Wilder speaking at an all female college, declaring that men are "self-pitying" and in awe of women. However this hardly qualifies as feminism, which director Leonard Nimoy amusingly plays with by having Wilder's car pass a line of phallic trees. The only relationship he seems to have with a woman where Wilder isn't controlling or negative is his affair with the much younger Mary Stuart Masterson, and even this is invalidated by his unwillingness to declare his emotion, echoed in Sotto Voce being the name of a featured restaurant.
The main romance here is with Christine Lahti. At first her disinterest in him gives her some strength. She is a waitress at a book signing event of his yet unimpressed with his fame. However wardrobe dress her in Annie Hall-wear and soon she is revealed to be self-consciously weak, which diminishes Lahti's otherwise appealing qualities. The inability of the couple to bear a child sours their relationship, and Lahti bears the teary-eyed guilt.
What is noticable about the treatment is the parallels to be made with Woody Allen movies, specifically Annie Hall and Manhattan. Masterson is a bad driver like Diane Keaton was, and swears the way Keaton did in Manhattan, and the age difference recalls Allen and Mariel Hemmingway. Wilder too gets his share of arrogant jokes at the expense of others, and has Allen's ability to extend his performance beyond the comic persona. His reductive James Cagney imitation is about the only thing I liked.
At first Nimoy paces at a clip, aided by the music score of Miles Goodman, but soon the timing comes to a holt and we're left stranded with people we'd rather do without. It's not encouraging that Anne Jackson as Wilder's acerbic mother is quickly disposed of. The treatment's continued coverage of Lahti telegraphs events, and only the most desperate of romantics can be pleased with the conclusion. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

A socially conscious Trek movie
On the fourth installment in the Star Trek movie series, Kirk and company are flying their captured Klingon vessel back to Earth to face the punishment for their misdeeds. On the way though, fate intervenes in the form of an alien probe wreaking destruction upon Earth's oceans. With quick thinking, the crew figures out that it is attempting to speak to an extinct species of Whale, so they slingshot their crummy "Klingon fleatrap" around the sun and travel back in time to San Francisco circa 1986 to save the future.

The time travel cliche is done very well by the Star Trek crew, and although the movie is incredibly dated, it's still a very humerous film that takes a pressing social issue (mainly ecological conservation) and wraps it into an enjoyable sci-fi plot. One of the biggest strengths of the Star Trek series has always been its social conscious, and they deliver yet again with "The Voyage Home".

I'd like to stress again that this is a very lighthearted and humerous film that is saved by the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. If nothing else, where else do you get to watch Spock develop a penchant for profanity? Add to that the usual interplay between him, Kirk, and McCoy, and you've got a winning movie that hard core Trek fans and casual moviegoers can enjoy.

EXCELLENT!
After the often overshadowed Star Trek III, producer Harve Bennett and returning director Leonard Nimoy wanted to make a light-hearted adventure with no deaths. That was understandable because III had the destruction of the Enterprise, the death of Kirk's son, and an overall serious revival adventure for Mr. Spock. After a script by Steve Meerson and Peter Krikes (with Eddie Murphy originally supposed to have a role because he was a big Trek fan), Harve Bennett needed a rewrite. The man chosen: Nicholas Meyer, writer and director of Star Trek II.

What we have here is one of the magnum efforts in the series. Not only does it deliver solid laughs from start (ok, more so middle) to finish, it is also a grand adventure that Roddenberry probably loved. The relationships between the characters are fully exploited here and Nicholas Meyer even takes advantage of Spock's rebirth as humor. The laughs? Filled with classics like Scotty's "Hello computer" scene or the hospital chase scene, this film perfectly blends urban realities with the world of Star Trek in a similar way to Beverly Hills Cop's blending of action and comedy.

The only thing that flaws this film is Leonard Rosenman's somewhat lackluster score. The film manages to blend (or hide, depending on if you like the score or not) the music enough that you really don't notice it. I still would've preferred James Horner or Jerry Goldsmith, but I'm not complaining.

Hate Star Trek? Watch this film. Even if you hate Star Trek, this will keep you entertained. An excellent film in every sense of the word with great humor abounds. Some people may claim II or VI as the best, but this one's got its share of moments. If you're looking for great humor and a decent story (ok, it's corny... "save the whales", so what?), this one's for you.

classic star trek, with a twist
Another classic trek movie, this one from 1986, is awesome, and the most shocking thing about it is that it doesn't even take place in space, save for about 15 minutes! Instead it takes place in 1986, where the crew members go back in time to capture two whales to stop the destructive calls of an intergalactic whale species trying to contact the long-extinct whales. The whole plot sounds like it would suck beyond belief, but it comes close to being the best trek movie, and is one of my faves ever.

The awesomeness of the movie, unlike the rest of the series, comes not from suspense and action scenes, but the hilarious and often touching culture shock the crew faces in mid-80's San Fransisco. There is so much to laugh at: the crew earnestly walking along the SanFran streets, Sulu in his cape, Kirk in his red StarFleet uniform, and unforgettably, Spock in his monk robe with the belt tied around the tops of his pointy ears, making him look like an angry ninja master with a botched Botox job. Also hilarious is McCoy's disgust at how rudimentary 20th Century medical practices are/were. In a scene inside a hospital, he asks a woman what ails her, she responds she has kidney dialysis, and he's like, "What is this, the dark ages?! Swallow this, and call me if you have any problems." Several scenes later she is wheeled out claiming a miracle.

There is much more in the movie I won't spoil for you (or more like I'm too f*#&ing lazy to write any more), so turn the PC off and rent this great flick, also it's been on AMC recently, so try that too.

I agree with everybody.
I read a lot of these Amazon reviews on Star Trek IV, and oddly enough I can agree with almost all of them -- the 5 star as well as the 1 star.
I agree with the 5 star reviewers that this probably is the best Trek movie, that a lot of the humor is good, that the movie captures much of what was loved about the original series.
But I also agree with some of the 1 star reviews that the humor may be overdone and may wear thin on repeated viewings, that Catherine Hicks' character is overemphasized, that the environmental message is heavy-handed, that the aliens at Kirk's trial look ridiculous, etc.
But ultimately the question is this: If I stumble on this movie while channel-surfing, will I stop and watch it? Will I laugh, or at least smile, at the designated humorous moments? Answer to both questions: Yes. On balance, it remains an entertaining flick.

The Enterprise crew in the 1980's=AWSOME ADVENTURE!
O.K., first my one complaint-The plot where a mysterious, massive, invincible alien force that threatens the Earth was already done before. (Remember the first Star Trek film?) Otherwise, this is a wonderful addition to the Star Trek legacy. Just about everyone already knows the story, where the crew of the now destroyed Enterprise must pilot a captured Klingon Bird Of Prey back in time to the present day (well, 1986 WAS the present day when this came out,) to bring back some humpback whales. It seems to be a toss-up between which is the best Star Trek movie-this one, or part II. The second film, where Kirk and Khan have their last battle, has the most action, but this one has the most comedy, so they both have their strengths. Unless you absolutly hate Star Trek, check this one out. ... Read more

Description

Every passion has its price. For Anna Dunlap (Academy Award(R)-winner Diane Keaton), a recent divorcee and mother of a young daughter, Molly, the price may be devastating. Discovering true passion for the first time in her life after meeting artist Leo Cutter (Liam Neeson, STAR WARS, EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE), Anna's life couldn't be more perfect. But shocking charges against the young woman place her newfound lifestyle under scrutiny, shattering her sizzling relationship and forcing her to prove that she is a good mother. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

So Powerful, So Wonderful
I was warned before watching this movie that it would not be one of those 'sit in front of the television with a bowl of popcorn' movies. For half of the movie, I just sat there, my eyes glued to the screen, watching Diane Keaton in a simply wonderful and dramatic role.

Anna Dunlap (Keaton) is a newly divorced woman with an adorable six year old daughter. They have a wonderful relationship, and it is very evident when you sit down and watch them together. Enter Liam Neeson. He starts out as a person with whom you would not want to get to know, but after a few minutes, he reveals that he's just in a bad mood and he is actually quite nice. When he first meets Molly (the very adorable Asia Vieira), she is very shy towards him, but she learns to like him and you can see that there is a bond between them. When something happens (I don't want to say what), and Molly's father wants full-time custody of her, the movie becomes a full-blown drama. It is, I admit, hard to watch some of the courtroom scenes, but they are so powerful and they draw you into the story. In a way, I saw the end result coming, but not exactly like it did. It definitely showed finality in the family.

Keaton's performace, like I said above, was incredibly powerful and she does a wonderful job portraying Molly's mother. The main reason I bought this movie was because of Diane Keaton, since she is my favorite actress and this movie shows her in her best dramatic role, in my opinion. If only it had received higher reviews when it came out. But I go by what looks good to me, and to me, this looked good, mainly because of the cast and the story.

Simply a must-see
Being a tremendous fan of Diane Keaton's work, I rented this movie (I'm still... that this movie isn't sold anywhere), and it immediately rated as one of my top-ten favorite Keaton videos. It honestly is an enigma that this movie didn't get enough praise it deserves. Most of the scenes are incredibly sweet, warm, and intimate. That's what makes this movie so great. When Keaton's character, Anna, meets Liam Neeson's character, Leo, there's a unmistakable bond forming. I especially love the scene when Anna goes to Leo's apartment and Leo and Anna becomes one, dancing in front of Leo's sculpture, making shadows on the wall from the light shining on them from behind. This is an esoteric concept of first love. I really thought it was so sweet when Anna confessed to Leo that she thought she wasn't very good at sex, and he gently assures her that they can fix that. There's no judgment in that scene;it's obvious that Leo really loves Anna, and their love is vivid. Another favorite scene is when Anna and her daughter, Molly, are in the bathtub with Leo reading to them. This is truly intimate, and I just love the fact that they were so open-minded about being naked in front of Molly. There's just so much tenderness and love. It was, to me, beautiful. And yet another favorite scene is when Molly has a bad dream and goes into Anna's room while she and Leo are making love, and they comfort her until she falls asleep.There's another display of intimacy, about caring and love. The three of them together was absolutely wonderful. That is why I found it incredibly appalling that Anna's ex-husband, Brian, goes to court for something that happened between Molly and Leo that had absoluely no intention of happening. (I won't ruin the ending for you). But I found the ending truly sad and final. A soon-to-be family are wrenched apart by an innocent mistake. I felt bad, because I knew they could have had a wonderful life together. I also felt bad for Anna and Leo. I could really see their love shown for each other. They were so comfortable together; their feelings for each other were vivid and beautiful. This is a movie of non-judgment and unconditional love, and that's what makes it so special. I honestly don't understand why this movie was considered a failure. Keaton is at her best in this movie, and Neeson is simply wonderful. I consider myself as an efficient movie critic, and I know which movies are bad or good. This movie is a MUST-SEE!!! I acclaim Keaton especially for her wonderful work in this movie. 'The Good Mother' is proof that Keaton is one of the world's most rare and special actresses. If you're not suffering from brain deterioration, immediately rent this movie! You won't regret it.

tenderness
I saw this movie 2 years ago on TV and I was deeply moved by it. I'm looking everywhere to find this movie on video but I haven't found it yet. I also read the book, before I saw the film and I think it's the first time that I like more the film than the book of a same story. I must confess that since this film I became a fan of Liam Neeson. It's a film that sensitive people must see. The scene before the mirror has remained with me all along.

The Good Mother - A GREAT FILM ! Don't miss this one!
Am I glad I bought this video while it was available! I rented it on the strength of the unparalleled Diane Keaton's participation, and found it one of the most moving films I've experienced. It's surprising this movie hasn't received meaningful press, at time of issue or since. Keaton is at her usual gorgeous, inspired best as Anna, a suppressed free-spirit. A divorced anywoman, she is the unquestionably devoted, responsible mother to 6-year old Molly, played to completely natural, adorable perfection by young Asia Vieira. Molly is equally crazy about her mom - their bond is deep and true. Welcome Liam Neeson (I fell in love instantly) as Leo, a charming Irish sculptor, as the first real and passionate love relationship in Anna's life; the two become serious quickly, and life is wonderful. Anna's ex-husband Brian, having moved on in his own life with another woman, reacts the only way he knows how to a controversial "mistake" Leo makes while caring for Molly one day while Anna is at work. Brian sues for custody, and the situation evolves dramatically from there (don't want to give it away).

This is a heart-wrenching, unforgettable story which unleashes a wide range of powerful emotions thanks to totally believable performances by the entire cast under Leonard Nimoy's superb direction: Ralph Bellamy as Anna's grandfather, Teresa Wright as her grandmother, Katey Sagal as friend Ursula, and Jason Robards as her attorney. Leo's mistake and the ensuing results evoke thought-provoking debate. Highly recommended!

interesting and moving
this movie was very interesting. the end is kinda sad and you don't expect it, but still is very good. i'd recommend this movie to everyone! ... Read more

Description

Loaded with high-spirited fun, this hilariously sexy comedy filled theaters everywhere with laughter! The beautiful Patricia Arquette (TRUE ROMANCE) is Havana, a sassy, streetwise thief with big plans to recover the small fortune hidden by her devious boyfriend. But try as she might, her elaborate schemes are foiled time and again by his squeaky-clean 12-year-old kid brother! With nonstop laughs and one riotous situation after another, it's an outrageous battle of wills that will entertain everyone! ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Loved it
I don't know why, but I just loved this movie. Patricia is so charming(as usual). I'm definitely a fan of her. I liked how it was tied into the Amish community. The boy was so perfect. If he were older he'd be the perfect guy. The film had action, suspense, a moral, pretty gal, romance, and it was surprisingly engrossing . I liked the conflicts. It was fun to see how putting different types of people in different situations would work.

One of JGL's better movies
The plot was somewhat cheesey; but Joseph Gordon-Levitt's presence made it a worthwhile view. He does far better in this film than in that lame comedy "Third Rock".

GO PATRICIA ARQUETTE
It was really funny. Particia Arquette and Joseph Gordan-Levitt are wonderful. It had a great story, good acting, over-all it was cool. Rated PG-13 for: Language, Adult Situations, and brief nudity.

Disaster!
Absolutely horrible. Enough said. I must have been a murdering lunatic in a previous life to have to endure this visual torture.

An excellant movie
This movie was wonderful. Particia Arquette is a good actress, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt was by far better. Anyway, the movie is funny, although the beginning is a bit boring. Oh well. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

A socially conscious Trek movie
On the fourth installment in the Star Trek movie series, Kirk and company are flying their captured Klingon vessel back to Earth to face the punishment for their misdeeds. On the way though, fate intervenes in the form of an alien probe wreaking destruction upon Earth's oceans. With quick thinking, the crew figures out that it is attempting to speak to an extinct species of Whale, so they slingshot their crummy "Klingon fleatrap" around the sun and travel back in time to San Francisco circa 1986 to save the future.

The time travel cliche is done very well by the Star Trek crew, and although the movie is incredibly dated, it's still a very humerous film that takes a pressing social issue (mainly ecological conservation) and wraps it into an enjoyable sci-fi plot. One of the biggest strengths of the Star Trek series has always been its social conscious, and they deliver yet again with "The Voyage Home".

I'd like to stress again that this is a very lighthearted and humerous film that is saved by the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. If nothing else, where else do you get to watch Spock develop a penchant for profanity? Add to that the usual interplay between him, Kirk, and McCoy, and you've got a winning movie that hard core Trek fans and casual moviegoers can enjoy.

EXCELLENT!
After the often overshadowed Star Trek III, producer Harve Bennett and returning director Leonard Nimoy wanted to make a light-hearted adventure with no deaths. That was understandable because III had the destruction of the Enterprise, the death of Kirk's son, and an overall serious revival adventure for Mr. Spock. After a script by Steve Meerson and Peter Krikes (with Eddie Murphy originally supposed to have a role because he was a big Trek fan), Harve Bennett needed a rewrite. The man chosen: Nicholas Meyer, writer and director of Star Trek II.

What we have here is one of the magnum efforts in the series. Not only does it deliver solid laughs from start (ok, more so middle) to finish, it is also a grand adventure that Roddenberry probably loved. The relationships between the characters are fully exploited here and Nicholas Meyer even takes advantage of Spock's rebirth as humor. The laughs? Filled with classics like Scotty's "Hello computer" scene or the hospital chase scene, this film perfectly blends urban realities with the world of Star Trek in a similar way to Beverly Hills Cop's blending of action and comedy.

The only thing that flaws this film is Leonard Rosenman's somewhat lackluster score. The film manages to blend (or hide, depending on if you like the score or not) the music enough that you really don't notice it. I still would've preferred James Horner or Jerry Goldsmith, but I'm not complaining.

Hate Star Trek? Watch this film. Even if you hate Star Trek, this will keep you entertained. An excellent film in every sense of the word with great humor abounds. Some people may claim II or VI as the best, but this one's got its share of moments. If you're looking for great humor and a decent story (ok, it's corny... "save the whales", so what?), this one's for you.

classic star trek, with a twist
Another classic trek movie, this one from 1986, is awesome, and the most shocking thing about it is that it doesn't even take place in space, save for about 15 minutes! Instead it takes place in 1986, where the crew members go back in time to capture two whales to stop the destructive calls of an intergalactic whale species trying to contact the long-extinct whales. The whole plot sounds like it would suck beyond belief, but it comes close to being the best trek movie, and is one of my faves ever.

The awesomeness of the movie, unlike the rest of the series, comes not from suspense and action scenes, but the hilarious and often touching culture shock the crew faces in mid-80's San Fransisco. There is so much to laugh at: the crew earnestly walking along the SanFran streets, Sulu in his cape, Kirk in his red StarFleet uniform, and unforgettably, Spock in his monk robe with the belt tied around the tops of his pointy ears, making him look like an angry ninja master with a botched Botox job. Also hilarious is McCoy's disgust at how rudimentary 20th Century medical practices are/were. In a scene inside a hospital, he asks a woman what ails her, she responds she has kidney dialysis, and he's like, "What is this, the dark ages?! Swallow this, and call me if you have any problems." Several scenes later she is wheeled out claiming a miracle.

There is much more in the movie I won't spoil for you (or more like I'm too f*#&ing lazy to write any more), so turn the PC off and rent this great flick, also it's been on AMC recently, so try that too.

I agree with everybody.
I read a lot of these Amazon reviews on Star Trek IV, and oddly enough I can agree with almost all of them -- the 5 star as well as the 1 star.
I agree with the 5 star reviewers that this probably is the best Trek movie, that a lot of the humor is good, that the movie captures much of what was loved about the original series.
But I also agree with some of the 1 star reviews that the humor may be overdone and may wear thin on repeated viewings, that Catherine Hicks' character is overemphasized, that the environmental message is heavy-handed, that the aliens at Kirk's trial look ridiculous, etc.
But ultimately the question is this: If I stumble on this movie while channel-surfing, will I stop and watch it? Will I laugh, or at least smile, at the designated humorous moments? Answer to both questions: Yes. On balance, it remains an entertaining flick.

The Enterprise crew in the 1980's=AWSOME ADVENTURE!
O.K., first my one complaint-The plot where a mysterious, massive, invincible alien force that threatens the Earth was already done before. (Remember the first Star Trek film?) Otherwise, this is a wonderful addition to the Star Trek legacy. Just about everyone already knows the story, where the crew of the now destroyed Enterprise must pilot a captured Klingon Bird Of Prey back in time to the present day (well, 1986 WAS the present day when this came out,) to bring back some humpback whales. It seems to be a toss-up between which is the best Star Trek movie-this one, or part II. The second film, where Kirk and Khan have their last battle, has the most action, but this one has the most comedy, so they both have their strengths. Unless you absolutly hate Star Trek, check this one out. ... Read more

Reviews (141)

Another fine "Special Edition"
Once again, a fine special edition has been released for these venerable Star Trek movies. In this film, the crew heads off to the newly-formed Genesis planet in the stolen Enterprise. They meet up with Klingons newly arrived to try and steal the secret of the Genesis Device, which they call the "Greatest weapon ever invented." This film is clearly more light-hearted than TMP or TWOK, the previous two films in the franchise, and introduced the plot device of sending each crewmember off on their own mission before pulling them back together. As such, we see more of Sulu, Uhura, and Scotty than we are used to, which adds rather than detracts from the story. Another highlight is the scene-chewing performance of Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon commander, in perfect opposition to William Shatner.

Unfortunately, the film tends to be repetative. It starts off with a flashback to Wrath of Khan to bring the audience up-to-date. That's fine, but these moments are relived again when Sarek visits Kirk 20 minutes in, and YET AGAIN at the end of the film. Thus, this 100-minute movie only contains 80 minutes of new material, and repeated watchings tend to leave you fidgiting. In addition, the sound-stage sets of the Genesis Planet (and Vulcan) are impressive, but not the same as actual location footage. However, it's a worthy addition to the Star Trek family, it simply suffers in comparison to the two movies on either side of it.

Likewise, this special edition is good, but not as good as those for TMP and TWOK. The highlights are the text commentary by the Okudas, a featurette (25 minutes) on the development of the Klingon language, and the ILM featurette on the effects. The general making-of feature is interesting (Shatner is amusing in a faux-pompous way), but is mostly a repitition of the audio commentary. The print is curiously grainy, in contrast to the obviously cleaned-up DVD versions of the previous 2 films.

What Odd Numbered Curse?
Despite the holes in the plot and the need to willingly suspend disbelief at times, Star Trek III is among my favorite of the original cast films. I even like it better than Star Trek IV.

The special effects in this film are really good and I love James Horner's score enough to have bought it on cassette. There are many dramatic visual moments, including when the Enterprise approaches the giant space station orbiting Earth and the destruction of the Genesis planet, and of course, the destruction of the Enterprise.

The cast is in their usual fine form. Uhurua gets a smaller role in this movie because she stays behind, but she does get one really good scene giving a young Starfleet cadet his comeuppance. Scottie gets to shine as temporary engineering officer and vandalizer of the new starship Excelsior. McCoy is funny, occasionally slipping into his Spock mode. One of his best lines, upon hearing that he is carrying Spock's "katra" inside him is "It's [Spock's] revenge for losing all of those arguments!" William Shatner has a really good dramatic scene when Kirk learns that his son has been killed by the Klingons. Christopher Lloyd is good as the Klingon commander Kruge. Unrecognizable as one of his subordinates, Maltz, is the guy who played Dan Fielding in the Nightcourt sitcom on NBC.

Merrit Butrick and Robin Curtis are not particularly memorable as David and Saavik, but accomplish what is expected of them. Another reviewer observed that the film barely hints that Saavik sleeps with the young Spock as he experiences Pon Faar. I read the novelization of Star Trek III, and not only does it make it clear that she is "intimate" with him, if indeed Vulcans can be intimate, but that she also sleeps with Kirk's son David as well before they go to the Genesis planet. Had it been included in the film, it really would have added another element to it, though in the end it might have been distracting too.

It is a bit of a coincidence that Kirk gets Spock off the Genesis planet at just the right age, and the way in which Spock is brought back is a bit hard to swallow, after all, even the Vulcan high priestess declared that the process had not been done in ages, and then only in myth. Why would Spock then be confident that it would work? Then again, since all of us Trekkies wanted Spock back, we won't quibble. Star Trek III is a good combination of action, humor and drama. If there is an off numbered curse in the Star Trek movies, it clearly does not apply to this one.

Kirk and Co. have the balls that no one else in ST ever had
Another classic trek movie, this one taking place directly after the famous Spock death scene in Wrath of Khan. But Spock was just so hip and cool in his stiff, emotionless, Spock-ish(??) way that they had to bring him back. And Kirk and the boys do it in style.

The story is basically this: Ambassador Sarek (Spock's father) comes up to Kirk and makes it known to him that his essence may be living within a crew member of the Enterprise. They discover it is McCoy (which is hilarious, considering Spock and McCoy's quirky friendship), which explains why many in StarFleet thought he had been driven insane, and locked him up for it. Kirk and the boys spring McCoy out of the cell, steal the Enterprise, and head into space on "personal matters."

Even if this movie lacked in action, which is does not at all, it would have plenty in hilarious dialogue. There are many examples, such as when McCoy tries to hire a mercenary at a bar (very reminiscent of the Star Wars cantina, clientele et al). McCoy tells him, "Place I name, money I go." And the perterbed alien (eerily reminiscent of George C. Scott and Dr. Evil) fires back, "Place you name, money I name or else bargainnnnnnno." It hilarious the way he says it. Another funny part comes when Sulu jokingly prods a bored Federation security guard, "Keeping you busy?", the guard slowly, menacingly stands up from his chair, towering over the short Sulu and says, "Don't get smart, tiny." It isn't so much what they say that's funny, it's the body language and the intonations, brought out in full by first-rate directing by Leonard Nimoy.

There are tons of great action scenes, and even a stabbing death which is implied, but not shown, making it action-packed but still accessible for the whole family. A memorable performance by Christopher LLloyd as a Klingon renegade is also within this fine film. It's not as good as The Undiscovered Country, but it stands firm not only as a great Trek movie, but just as a great movie overall.

one for all, and all for one
Leonard Nimoy spent most of his time behind the camera directing this film, and though I miss his presence as Spock, it's one of my favorite of the Star Trek series; it's more subdued and introspective than the others, and the overall theme is friendship, and risking one's life for a friend.
The year is 8210, and the plot centers around "The Genesis Effect", an experimental device that can be placed on a "lifeless space body", like a dead moon, and make it flourish with life, but because one of the scientists used risky methods, "life" is happening at a fast clip.
The evil Klingons of course, in their constant lust for power, want the "Genesis" secret, and Admiral Kirk must stop them.

William Shatner is fabulous as Kirk; I've always found him to be a unique, immensely watchable actor, and all the original ensemble cast is wonderful: DeForest Kelley ~ McCoy, James Doohan ~ Scotty, George Takei ~ Sulu, Walter Koenig ~ Chekov, Nichele Nichols ~ Uhura. Added are Mark Lenard as Spock's father Sarek, Robin Curtis as Lt. Saavik, Merritt Butnick as Kirk's son David, and Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon Kruge. Dame Judith Anderson plays the Vulcan priestess TLar, in a scene that is high camp, and quite marvelous.
There are some nifty special effects on the Planet Genesis, and some nice cinematography by Charles Correll, as well as an exceptionally lovely score by James Horner. Leonard Nimoy gave this film a moody, thoughtful atmosphere, and it works for me, and I find the ending quite touching, no matter how many times I see it.
Total running time is 105 minutes.

20 Years of "The Search For Spock"
"How many fingers am I holding up?"
"Thats not very damn funny."
- Kirk gives the Vulcan Salute to Dr. McCoy as they both escape a trip from The Federation Funny Farm, and look for a lost pointed ear friend in "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock"

Its been 20 years to the day since the search began in this third and underated entry in the "Star Trek" saga. "The Search For Spock" is an adventurous (if corny) film that teaches a lesson in the loyalties, & importance of friendship, no matter the consequence.

Picking up where "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan" left off, with the death & funeral of Captain Spock & the birth of the Genesis Planet, "The Search For Spock" begins with the crew of The Enterprise limping home after the battle wrath with Khan, only to find out that the Federation has decided to decommission the legendary starship & reassign most of its crew. Whats worse is the fact that Dr. "Bones" McCoy is having a sort of nervous breakdown, breaking in to Captain Spock's sealed quarters and giving Admiral Kirk an errie message from the grave.
When Spock's father, Ambassador Saarik, arrives informing Kirk that Spock isn't dead, but, is in a state where mind & body are in seperate forms, its up to both, Kirk & Saarik to find who has Spock's marbles (McCoy has them) & where Spock's body rests (on The Genisis Planet). Once both are retrieved, and thru an ancient Vulcan ritual, only then can Spock become his old self again. With the arrival of the Kilngons, looking for the secret to Genesis, its a race against time as the planet becomes unstable and starts to deteriate at an alarmingly fast rate. The search isn't without sacrfice & Kirk loses the two things he holds dearest to him in order get his friend back.

"Star Trek III" is one of those films thats pretty much written for fans of the series (if this film was your introduction to "Star Trek", I'm pretty positive your reaction was more of a "Huh!?" with a shrug of the shoulders). I hold this as the fifth best in the series tieing it with "Star Trek: Generations" ("II" & "First Contact" are the two best in the series).

The Klingons finally get some much needed screen time in this film. Since they were the main nemesis in the television series, it was only a matter of time before they would show up (the Klingons make a cameo in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"). A year before he went "Back To The Future", Christopher Lloyd gives a great performance as Commander Kruge, the greedy, power hungry Klingon commander. Kruge is much better than the two Klingons in "Star Trek V". Those two reminded me of the Wonder Twins from the "Super Friends", for some reason. The Klingons in "Star Trek VI" came across as more regal and honorable than threatening and coldblooded, like Kruge is. As for Shatner and the rest of the cast, all are also great & age gracefully in their respective roles.
James Horner's score to "III", like "II", is one of the better scores in the series (acutally, I think, its a lot of reused score material from the previous film, but, I just get so tired of hearing Jerry Goldsmith's opening theme from "The Motion Picture". Its been used in at least half of the the ten films, as well, as the opening theme to "The Next Generation" series). Leonard Nimoy directs his first of two "Trek" films ("III" is his directorial debut) and gets a lot out of his actors and does a good job overall.

The 2 disc DVD edition to "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" is worth owning and is better than "Star Trek V" on any given Sunday. Join the Search. ... Read more

Reviews (141)

Another fine "Special Edition"
Once again, a fine special edition has been released for these venerable Star Trek movies. In this film, the crew heads off to the newly-formed Genesis planet in the stolen Enterprise. They meet up with Klingons newly arrived to try and steal the secret of the Genesis Device, which they call the "Greatest weapon ever invented." This film is clearly more light-hearted than TMP or TWOK, the previous two films in the franchise, and introduced the plot device of sending each crewmember off on their own mission before pulling them back together. As such, we see more of Sulu, Uhura, and Scotty than we are used to, which adds rather than detracts from the story. Another highlight is the scene-chewing performance of Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon commander, in perfect opposition to William Shatner.

Unfortunately, the film tends to be repetative. It starts off with a flashback to Wrath of Khan to bring the audience up-to-date. That's fine, but these moments are relived again when Sarek visits Kirk 20 minutes in, and YET AGAIN at the end of the film. Thus, this 100-minute movie only contains 80 minutes of new material, and repeated watchings tend to leave you fidgiting. In addition, the sound-stage sets of the Genesis Planet (and Vulcan) are impressive, but not the same as actual location footage. However, it's a worthy addition to the Star Trek family, it simply suffers in comparison to the two movies on either side of it.

Likewise, this special edition is good, but not as good as those for TMP and TWOK. The highlights are the text commentary by the Okudas, a featurette (25 minutes) on the development of the Klingon language, and the ILM featurette on the effects. The general making-of feature is interesting (Shatner is amusing in a faux-pompous way), but is mostly a repitition of the audio commentary. The print is curiously grainy, in contrast to the obviously cleaned-up DVD versions of the previous 2 films.

What Odd Numbered Curse?
Despite the holes in the plot and the need to willingly suspend disbelief at times, Star Trek III is among my favorite of the original cast films. I even like it better than Star Trek IV.

The special effects in this film are really good and I love James Horner's score enough to have bought it on cassette. There are many dramatic visual moments, including when the Enterprise approaches the giant space station orbiting Earth and the destruction of the Genesis planet, and of course, the destruction of the Enterprise.

The cast is in their usual fine form. Uhurua gets a smaller role in this movie because she stays behind, but she does get one really good scene giving a young Starfleet cadet his comeuppance. Scottie gets to shine as temporary engineering officer and vandalizer of the new starship Excelsior. McCoy is funny, occasionally slipping into his Spock mode. One of his best lines, upon hearing that he is carrying Spock's "katra" inside him is "It's [Spock's] revenge for losing all of those arguments!" William Shatner has a really good dramatic scene when Kirk learns that his son has been killed by the Klingons. Christopher Lloyd is good as the Klingon commander Kruge. Unrecognizable as one of his subordinates, Maltz, is the guy who played Dan Fielding in the Nightcourt sitcom on NBC.

Merrit Butrick and Robin Curtis are not particularly memorable as David and Saavik, but accomplish what is expected of them. Another reviewer observed that the film barely hints that Saavik sleeps with the young Spock as he experiences Pon Faar. I read the novelization of Star Trek III, and not only does it make it clear that she is "intimate" with him, if indeed Vulcans can be intimate, but that she also sleeps with Kirk's son David as well before they go to the Genesis planet. Had it been included in the film, it really would have added another element to it, though in the end it might have been distracting too.

It is a bit of a coincidence that Kirk gets Spock off the Genesis planet at just the right age, and the way in which Spock is brought back is a bit hard to swallow, after all, even the Vulcan high priestess declared that the process had not been done in ages, and then only in myth. Why would Spock then be confident that it would work? Then again, since all of us Trekkies wanted Spock back, we won't quibble. Star Trek III is a good combination of action, humor and drama. If there is an off numbered curse in the Star Trek movies, it clearly does not apply to this one.

Kirk and Co. have the balls that no one else in ST ever had
Another classic trek movie, this one taking place directly after the famous Spock death scene in Wrath of Khan. But Spock was just so hip and cool in his stiff, emotionless, Spock-ish(??) way that they had to bring him back. And Kirk and the boys do it in style.

The story is basically this: Ambassador Sarek (Spock's father) comes up to Kirk and makes it known to him that his essence may be living within a crew member of the Enterprise. They discover it is McCoy (which is hilarious, considering Spock and McCoy's quirky friendship), which explains why many in StarFleet thought he had been driven insane, and locked him up for it. Kirk and the boys spring McCoy out of the cell, steal the Enterprise, and head into space on "personal matters."

Even if this movie lacked in action, which is does not at all, it would have plenty in hilarious dialogue. There are many examples, such as when McCoy tries to hire a mercenary at a bar (very reminiscent of the Star Wars cantina, clientele et al). McCoy tells him, "Place I name, money I go." And the perterbed alien (eerily reminiscent of George C. Scott and Dr. Evil) fires back, "Place you name, money I name or else bargainnnnnnno." It hilarious the way he says it. Another funny part comes when Sulu jokingly prods a bored Federation security guard, "Keeping you busy?", the guard slowly, menacingly stands up from his chair, towering over the short Sulu and says, "Don't get smart, tiny." It isn't so much what they say that's funny, it's the body language and the intonations, brought out in full by first-rate directing by Leonard Nimoy.

There are tons of great action scenes, and even a stabbing death which is implied, but not shown, making it action-packed but still accessible for the whole family. A memorable performance by Christopher LLloyd as a Klingon renegade is also within this fine film. It's not as good as The Undiscovered Country, but it stands firm not only as a great Trek movie, but just as a great movie overall.

one for all, and all for one
Leonard Nimoy spent most of his time behind the camera directing this film, and though I miss his presence as Spock, it's one of my favorite of the Star Trek series; it's more subdued and introspective than the others, and the overall theme is friendship, and risking one's life for a friend.
The year is 8210, and the plot centers around "The Genesis Effect", an experimental device that can be placed on a "lifeless space body", like a dead moon, and make it flourish with life, but because one of the scientists used risky methods, "life" is happening at a fast clip.
The evil Klingons of course, in their constant lust for power, want the "Genesis" secret, and Admiral Kirk must stop them.

William Shatner is fabulous as Kirk; I've always found him to be a unique, immensely watchable actor, and all the original ensemble cast is wonderful: DeForest Kelley ~ McCoy, James Doohan ~ Scotty, George Takei ~ Sulu, Walter Koenig ~ Chekov, Nichele Nichols ~ Uhura. Added are Mark Lenard as Spock's father Sarek, Robin Curtis as Lt. Saavik, Merritt Butnick as Kirk's son David, and Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon Kruge. Dame Judith Anderson plays the Vulcan priestess TLar, in a scene that is high camp, and quite marvelous.
There are some nifty special effects on the Planet Genesis, and some nice cinematography by Charles Correll, as well as an exceptionally lovely score by James Horner. Leonard Nimoy gave this film a moody, thoughtful atmosphere, and it works for me, and I find the ending quite touching, no matter how many times I see it.
Total running time is 105 minutes.

20 Years of "The Search For Spock"
"How many fingers am I holding up?"
"Thats not very damn funny."
- Kirk gives the Vulcan Salute to Dr. McCoy as they both escape a trip from The Federation Funny Farm, and look for a lost pointed ear friend in "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock"

Its been 20 years to the day since the search began in this third and underated entry in the "Star Trek" saga. "The Search For Spock" is an adventurous (if corny) film that teaches a lesson in the loyalties, & importance of friendship, no matter the consequence.

Picking up where "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan" left off, with the death & funeral of Captain Spock & the birth of the Genesis Planet, "The Search For Spock" begins with the crew of The Enterprise limping home after the battle wrath with Khan, only to find out that the Federation has decided to decommission the legendary starship & reassign most of its crew. Whats worse is the fact that Dr. "Bones" McCoy is having a sort of nervous breakdown, breaking in to Captain Spock's sealed quarters and giving Admiral Kirk an errie message from the grave.
When Spock's father, Ambassador Saarik, arrives informing Kirk that Spock isn't dead, but, is in a state where mind & body are in seperate forms, its up to both, Kirk & Saarik to find who has Spock's marbles (McCoy has them) & where Spock's body rests (on The Genisis Planet). Once both are retrieved, and thru an ancient Vulcan ritual, only then can Spock become his old self again. With the arrival of the Kilngons, looking for the secret to Genesis, its a race against time as the planet becomes unstable and starts to deteriate at an alarmingly fast rate. The search isn't without sacrfice & Kirk loses the two things he holds dearest to him in order get his friend back.

"Star Trek III" is one of those films thats pretty much written for fans of the series (if this film was your introduction to "Star Trek", I'm pretty positive your reaction was more of a "Huh!?" with a shrug of the shoulders). I hold this as the fifth best in the series tieing it with "Star Trek: Generations" ("II" & "First Contact" are the two best in the series).

The Klingons finally get some much needed screen time in this film. Since they were the main nemesis in the television series, it was only a matter of time before they would show up (the Klingons make a cameo in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"). A year before he went "Back To The Future", Christopher Lloyd gives a great performance as Commander Kruge, the greedy, power hungry Klingon commander. Kruge is much better than the two Klingons in "Star Trek V". Those two reminded me of the Wonder Twins from the "Super Friends", for some reason. The Klingons in "Star Trek VI" came across as more regal and honorable than threatening and coldblooded, like Kruge is. As for Shatner and the rest of the cast, all are also great & age gracefully in their respective roles.
James Horner's score to "III", like "II", is one of the better scores in the series (acutally, I think, its a lot of reused score material from the previous film, but, I just get so tired of hearing Jerry Goldsmith's opening theme from "The Motion Picture". Its been used in at least half of the the ten films, as well, as the opening theme to "The Next Generation" series). Leonard Nimoy directs his first of two "Trek" films ("III" is his directorial debut) and gets a lot out of his actors and does a good job overall.

The 2 disc DVD edition to "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" is worth owning and is better than "Star Trek V" on any given Sunday. Join the Search. ... Read more