Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

[Plain Old Tele]

Jim. Your name is.... Jim.

[IndustriousAngel]

Good film, not spectacular good, but interesting. It's not as tight as ST2 and branches out a little, and the main fault is probably that by the time the climax climaxes, we still don't care much about Kirk's son so his death is less shattering than the destruction of NGC-1701.

[Chewy]

An okay movie. Nothing particularly wrong with it, nothing too exciting. It just kind of takes the characters from point a to point b without much fanfare. The death of Kirk's son stuck out as a particularly awkward non-event.

 

Christopher Lloyd's hammy performance is appreciated. Was there any reason Kirstie Alley didn't reprise her role? (That was the same character, right?)

[Plain Old Tele]

An okay movie. Nothing particularly wrong with it, nothing too exciting. It just kind of takes the characters from point a to point b without much fanfare. The death of Kirk's son stuck out as a particularly awkward non-event. Christopher Lloyd's hammy performance is appreciated. Was there any reason Kirstie Alley didn't reprise her role? (That was the same character, right?)

Came down to money, I think. She hit big on CHEERS between ST movies.

[RobinHood26]

Not Khan but still had great moments. Love Kirk's son dying and the ship being blown up. The movie is alittle slow however and has maybe the most static cinematography of the 6 films. 

 

B- (82)

Edited July 26, 2016 by Jay Hollywood

[TServo2049]

The section of the film where they break McCoy out and steal the Enterprise is great - I enjoy those "ensemble" moments of the TOS film series. Agreed that Lloyd is great, and Robin Curtis is serviceable as Saavik but her attempt at being Vulcan just came off a little too stiff.Besides that, not much else to say beyond what Jay Hollywood said. It does not deserve to be lumped in with the other "odd-numbered" films, even if it IS weaker than the three even-numbered original-cast films. B+

[Goffe]

Very divided on this one. I mean, 
it's far too well directed to to be classified as a bad film, but the premise is too uninteresting for a full-length feature. Maybe it would have worked better as a segment/section of another film.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Goffe

[Goffe]

Although, I'm really tempted put it in the good Star Trek camp due to this scene, which is a few seconds longer in the film.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Goffe

[Thegun]

 

On May 1, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Tele Loves Bay & Twilight said:

On May 1, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Chewy said:

An okay movie. Nothing particularly wrong with it, nothing too exciting. It just kind of takes the characters from point a to point b without much fanfare. The death of Kirk's son stuck out as a particularly awkward non-event. Christopher Lloyd's hammy performance is appreciated. Was there any reason Kirstie Alley didn't reprise her role? (That was the same character, right?)

Came down to money, I think. She hit big on CHEERS between ST movies.

 

 

She didn't get Cheers for another 2 years.  She didn't like the role and thought it was a step down from the first, and didn't want to be typecast in the Star Trek universe (Though she would make several in jokes in Look Who's Talking)