Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

I never liked this segment and the new viewing doesn't change anything: it's dull and flat as all rescue stories. It's a galactic Baywatch, without the"talent" of Pamela! If Davis is a fine substitute for Saavik and "Doc" the best Klingon ever, the magic of Trek eludes me there.

The audio commentary says that in a trilogy, the middle part is always the weakest or hardest because the audience loses the excitement of the original surprise and lacks the pleasure of the ending climax. Well, i remember to have seen excellent "Part II" movies: Back to the future, Superman, Empire strikes back, War of the clones, Aliens! Here, I think the explanation comes the empty seat for Spock that tells a lot of the importance of the character. Thus my reluctance to see next generation, explorer, deep space, enterprise shows and my pleasure to go to the revamping of the original series in 2009.

That's makes me aware of a strange fact: as a child or a teen, we never went to a Trek movie in spite my parents are really cool about movies. But it's true than in France, Trek haven't the same glamor than Star Wars, maybe because the merchandising was quite nonexistent. I discovered Trek, show and movies, with the defunct TV channel "La Cinq" thus around the beginning of the nineties that's is to say the end of this wonderful story of filmmaking.

Thus, just Warp 10 to ST 4 !

Fmovies: 3.5 out of 10

Star Trek III, naturally entitled The Search for Spock, should have been an exhilarating adventure that lauded the bonds of friendship and honor, but instead, it comes off as a hokey, boring journey lacking in imagination and exciting conflict. Even the movie's key scene, the destruction of the Enterprise, is delivered in ho-hum fashion.

It turns out Spock is still alive, mind-melded into the doctor's body while his own physical state is currently regenerating on the planet Genesis (why Spock would do this without knowing his body would be regenerated is pretty harsh, considering the schizoid mental problems McCoy begins to suffer from). Thus, Kirk disobeys his superiors, hijacks the Enterprise, and goes on a quest to mend Spock's body and mind together.

Highlighting the movie's biggest flaw is the horribly unconvincing soundstage that represents Genesis. Most of the visual effects are quite good, but any scene set on that planet's surface throws all "reality" out the window. The film also moves at a painfully slow pace, never delivering much in the way of taut suspense, and the plot fails to conjure up any intriguing ideas or surprises. This Trek was a necessary installment, and at least the follow-up, The Voyage was superior, but this is one movie that's hard to plod through, and I'm a Trek fan.

Perhaps it is the inevitable comparison to the previous episode, but Star Trek III very much has a feel of being low-rent or second-rate. An excellent example of this can be seen whenever Saavik is on the screen. Kirstie Alley may not be the greatest actor in the world, but Robin Curtis succeeds in making her look like Anna Paquin or Sigourney Weaver by comparison. The strange thing is that Merritt Butrick seems to suffer a decline in performance whenever he is in the same frame with her.

Let's face it, any dialogue heavy film was going to be a letdown after the epic battles in Star Trek II. A very personal battle between two enemies that have been festering in one another's minds for years is always going to make a brief fight with a crew of Klingons seem pretty restrained by comparison. A lot of the film's plot elements also come second-hand from the previous film, so it isn't as if much is done to separate it.

The spaceship sequences also look far less realistic in this film than is the case in the past two films. It seems that Paramount hired another effects house to simulate these moments, and the result is that the ships look as if they are under a constant invisible spotlight, rather than the realistic tones that were evident in the previous two films. The combat doesn't seem nearly as realistic, either. After the massive tradings of torpedoes and phaser energy in the previous film, expecting us to believe the Enterprise can be disabled by a single torpedo is a bit much.

The dynamic between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy was always a big part of what made the original series work, so it's not surprising that an entire film be dedicated to restoring this dynamic. To the credit of the screenwriters, it works. The fights on the surface of Genesis, and some of the dialogues, give the whole film a connection with the audience that later films in the franchise particularly lack. Everyone certainly has a friend that they'd do things like this for if they had to, so it's hard not to get behind the Enterprise crew as they battle for one of their most prominent members.

I would have appreciated more footage to show how Uhura arrives on Vulcan, and what the Federation does when they learn that the crew is on Vulcan. Still, the film is much more tightly paced than some give it credit for, so we can let that one slide. It is, however, interesting to note how little internal security the Starfleet orbital station has. I would have thought that the Starfleet version of the drunk tank would have more than just two security guards, given the wide variation in alien races that make up the organisation.

In all, I gave Star Trek III a six out of ten. Most sequels try to be bigger and bolder than the previous episode. Star Trek III is an exception, but it certainly is a worthwhile viewing if you like a bit of science fiction.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock fmovies. Christopher Lloyd has to be one of the most brilliant actors in history. When I first saw him, as Reverend Jim Ignatowski, I was very young, and his presence was very "memorable." As with Sean Penn as Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times At Ridgemont High, it takes several different performances to truly grasp his range.

The rest of the cast? If you have to ask....

The plot? If you have to ask...okay, this time the crew goes on a mission to find Spock, whose mind has been placed in Dr. McCoy for safekeeping while his body chilled out at the Genesis spa. Only a vulcan ritual can make everything right, but first the crew has to retrieve Spock's body from Genesis, and in doing so they encounter the evil Klingon commander Kruge (Lloyd).

The special effects on this film were subpar, particularly the fight scenes on the exploding Genesis planet; I've seen better special effects with fire on a soap opera. That's acceptable, however, since when the film came out, we needed Spock to return to the living, though today's audiences wouldn't understand the significance of having killed him off at the end of II.

To those who don't know, when Kruge says "I come all this way for Genesis, and this is what I find," Lloyd is in the character of Reverend Jim from Taxi, and the theater I was in exploded in laughter at the time; this joke would be lost on anyone who hasn't seen that series. All that was missing was Danny DeVito as a space dispatcher or Andy Kaufman as an alien.

Whereas Star Trek I tilted a little too much towards the hardcore fan base, and Star Trek II was perfect for everyone (by far the best of the series), Star Trek III was a decent film that satisfied the intense cravings of Trekkies (not Trekkers, as there was no shame in being a Trekkie back then) for more footage of the famous crew of space pioneers. This was before the internet, before cable and even video stores (almost), and when all we had were the 78/79 episodes that were in reruns and which we had memorized every line to. I left the theater pleased with the film, knowing it could have been better, but it also could have been far worse.

Perhaps the film's greatest achievement is that it was obviously made to cash in on the growing rerun audience from the series, yet it still managed to be superior to most episodes, while stacking up decently against every other Trek film ever made, except for Star Trek II and First Contact.

If you're a hardcore fan, buy the DVD; if not, catch it on cable. Either way, you'll be pleased.

Let's fact it, wasn't this film inevitable? I doubt true Trekkers would have it any other way.

After Spock's sacrifice in the previous "Wrath of Khan", it only stands to reason that if there was a glimmer of hope to bring him back that his friends would seize the opportunity...which they indeed do in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock", leading the Enterprise crew on their most risky "Trek" of all.

Upon urging from Spock's father Sarek (Lenard, great as always), Admiral Kirk (Shatner) gathers up Bones (Kelley), Sulu (Takei), Chekov (Koenig) and Scott (Doohan) race for the slowly degenerating Genesis planet to find their friend.

This being the "Star Trek" universe, however, intrigue abounds as a group of treacherous Klingons (headed by the suitably villainous Lloyd) also head to the planet to find its secrets. Instead they find Lt. Saavik (Curtis), Dr. Marcus (Butrick)...and a young Vulcan boy.

As directed by Leonard Nimoy himself and penned by Harve Bennett, this film plays much like a Greek tragedy, with loss, great drama and pathos played out against a backdrop of galaxies, heroes, villains and hope itself: the greatest power in the universe.

The acting is right on note as is the action, neither of which pushes the story any further than it will go. And the FX are as good as what you've come to expect from this galaxy. Everything and everyone is uniformly fine, right down the line.

But do they actually find Spock at the end? Ah, that would be telling. You'll have to catch the next film in the series as (without any doubt), the Enterprise crew's adventures continue.

Ten stars for "Star Trek III", a "Search" well worth seeking out.

Picking up where "The Wrath of Khan" left off, McCoy seems to be going mad, the Enterprise is being retired, Kirk mourns the loss of Spock and his son Dr. David Marcus is off exploring his newly created Genesis planet with the lovely Vulcan vixen Saavik (exit Kirstie Alley, enter Robin Curtis). Kirk then finds out from Sarek (Mark Lenard, who had a brief, unrecognizable role in the opening of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" as an ill fated Klingon Commander and played a Romulan before playing Spock's dad) catches up with Kirk and tells him that there's a chance at resurrecting Spock, who's mind and spirit are housed in McCoy's brain while his body is on Genesis. Feeling obligated to return the favor for saving them all at the end of #2, Kirk and the gang hijack the Enterprise and rush towards the Genesis planet to rescue Spock "in whatever form he may still be alive." Meanwhile, a bodily resurrected and rapidly re-aging Spock has been found by Saavik and David and they are stranded on Genesis after their ship is destroyed by Klingon Commander Kruge (Christopher Lloyd) and he comes looking for them in hopes of unlocking the secrets of the Genesis project, which he thinks could be used as a weapon against his people. Who will survive?

Considered by some to be trash and by others to be the only good odd numbered Star Trek film, this is a sufficiently entertaining bit of science fiction yarn that continues following the theme of what happens when you mess with mother nature. Good performances as usual, with Lloyd giving one of his best as the Klingon Commander Kruge, who becomes oddly sympathetic in light of his blood thirsty actions when you consider that he was just looking out for his own brood and was willing to spare the crew of the USS Grissom. Shatner's brawl with Lloyd is also fun to watch, and the film still has that great James Horner music. Don't miss Shatner kicking Lloyd in the face shouting "I... have HAD... enough of... YOU!"

Robin Curtis is a capable Saavik. As a bit of trivia, Saavik apparently engaged in sexual intercourse with Spock while he was going through his aging phases and, as part of an idea never utilized in the films or even in the spin off series, Saavik became pregnant with Spock's child, which was originally why she was supposed to stay on Vulcan in "Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home".