Weeklies

Movie: "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock"
Year: 1984
Rated: G
Genre: Action / Adventure
Directed by: Leonard Nimoy
Writing credits: Bennet, Rodenberry

Reviewer: Max Burbank
Posted: 3/30/2009

Plot: Yeah, like anybody thought Spock wasn’t coming back from the dead. Turns out his Vulcan Mojo was hanging out right where Nimoy left it at the end of Trek II, inside Leonard “Bones” McCoy. Which is funny, cause I always though it was Kirk and Spock who had a thing going on. Get it? And all we have to do to get out Spock back on is steal the Enterprise, fly to a forbidden planet, pick up his VERY BADLY EXPLAINED brand new body, fight some Klingons on an unstable planet that shouldn’t even be there, head back to Vulcan where New Spock gets his Mojo out of the o’l Doc, and as a door prize gets a white terrycloth bathrobe just like the one I got when I stayed at Embassy Suites.

Review: This is not a good movie. It’s not even a good Star Trek movie, and mostly it’s not even a good bad Star Trek movie. There are a whole host of reasons which I’ll now real off for you, but I’ll pique the suspense by saying there’s one absolutely awesome Shatner moment that makes the whole movie worth it.

Okay, so
1.) Almost no Spock. You get a stand in baby Spock and adolescent Spock that does nothing but squeal. Then at the very end you get about three lines out of Nimoy, most of which boil down to “What th-?” Classic Trek DOES NOT WORK without Spock. Need proof? Watch this movie.
2.) No Kirstie Alley. If you’re a kid, you only know the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade Scientologist version of Kirstie Allley, which makes you less of a person than you might be otherwise. She was pretty dang hot on Cheers and before that she was SMOKIN as Spock’s protégé, Lt. Savaak in Trek II. SPOILER ALERT! Alley is NOT in Trek III. Instead of doing the sensible thing and leaving Savaak out of III, they hired Robin Curtiss, a very bad actress with a very bad perm that looked like a tea cup poodle was clutching her head. Vulcan’s DO NOT GET PERMS. Perms are illogical.
3.) Robin Curtis herself. Most recently seen as ‘woman on street’ in the 1999 direct to video “The Sex Monster” (And I wish I made that credit up, check IMDB if you don’t believe me) a movie so bad it has Stephen Bladwin in it, Curtis is a TERRIBLE actress, presumably chosen because first time director Leonard “Spock” Nimoy thought bland would read as emotionless on screen. He was wrong.
4.) Kirk’s son, Doctor David Marcus. Merrit Butrick (I did not make up his last name) play Kirks love child with a blond version of Savaaks poodle clutching his head. So Jimmy Boy sowed some wild oats. Seriously, it’s a pretty HUGE plot development that happened back in Star Trek II. Apparently, Nimoy liked it about as much as he liked Kirstie Alley, ‘cause Butrick (I LOVE THAT NAME) gets killed about a third of the way through the movie. So here’s this massive plot device introduced to… well, do almost nothing really. Except in that is death leads to ONE OF CINEMAS 10 GREATEST MOMENTS!
5.) Leonard Nimoy as director. Hey, you know what’s a real hard thing to do well the very first time you do it? Direct a movie. Rumor has it, letting him direct was the only way to get him to have anything to do with the picture. He went on to direct Trek IV, which is a better movie. For some reason, Nimoy decided to let the bathrobe I mentioned before be his costume for the whole next movie. No one knows why, but here’s my guess. Self loathing. He went on to punsh himself by directing “Three Men and a Baby”.

Okay, I promised you a saving grace. When Kirk’s son gets killed off, Shatner does one of his best takes ever. He stumbles backwards, misses his chair sits on the ground and mumbles the famous words, “Those Klingon Bastards killed my son.

It’s Shatner’s King Lear moment, and if you haven’t seen this movie, you have to Netflix it right now, just to see this. I tried to find a Youtube of it, but couldn’t, and there’s no point my trying to describe it. It’s sublime.

Overall rating: WholeHalf
(Scored on a 0.5 - 5 pickles rating: 0.5 being the worst and 5 being the best)

Reader Comments

By Hawkings Chair!
Apr 6th, 2009, 09:12 AM
You're spot on about the Kirk moment.
Almost as vital a part of Trek mythos as the Khhhhaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn scene.
Member
Apr 6th, 2009, 10:19 AM
Plus you forget Christopher Loyd running on full blown overacting mode. "Give me Genesis!" This movie is bad but most of the Klingon related scenes are fun.
Retardedly Handsome
Apr 6th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Why doesn't anyone make cool movie posters anymore?
is hopped up on goofballs
Apr 6th, 2009, 11:41 AM
I like this movie...then again I mostly like the Trek movies that everyone hates, and the only one that I like along with everyone else is II.
Forum Virgin
Apr 6th, 2009, 04:26 PM
This movie sucks? Seriously? It isn't the best, but it's alright if you ask me. That was the general perception, it was good but not great. And I think it was PG.
Forum Virgin
Apr 6th, 2009, 04:31 PM
Review Star Trek IV.
Last of the Time Lords
Apr 6th, 2009, 04:38 PM
I don't hate this one, but that's because it is so unmemorable. Other than the "Klingon Bastards" line and super-hammy Christopher Lloyd, there's simply nothing notable about it. It doesn't straight up suck like 1 or 5, and it certainly doesn't rule like 2 or 4. It's just there.
Forum Virgin
Apr 6th, 2009, 04:41 PM
Yeah, its mostly just filler in between 2 and 4.
Live long and prosper
Apr 6th, 2009, 04:43 PM
I like the part where Kirk kicks Christopher Lloyd off the cliff..."I've had (kick) just about (kick) enough (kick) of you."(kick), or something like that.
hanging out
Apr 6th, 2009, 05:54 PM
this one probably started the 'only even numbered treks are good' truism.
Clap if you love Dynamo
Apr 6th, 2009, 08:30 PM
Yeah, hammy Christopher Lloyd was a sight to behold
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
Apr 6th, 2009, 10:21 PM
I should have mentioned Lloyd. I do love a good over the top performance
pickled
Apr 6th, 2009, 11:58 PM
I'd still watch it over the remake.
Forum Virgin
Apr 7th, 2009, 12:16 AM
What are you talking about????????????????????
Forum Virgin
Apr 7th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitney View Post
What are you talking about????????????????????
:confuse d::a ok
Forum Virgin
Apr 7th, 2009, 10:25 AM
Afraid I'll have to disagree with you as well. Even with the faulty logic of the even/odd situation, 3 is the best of the worst. Perhaps the worst thing you really could say about it is that it can't stand on its own, since it picks up where Star Trek II left off, and serves as a transition to the more light-hearted Star Trek IV. In that "trilogy," it is the weakest one, but not unenjoyable. First time we saw the kick-ass Klingon Bird-of-Prey, first time the other main crew got to do something other than take orders, and overall, an enjoyable film.
Ba dum dum dum dum
Apr 8th, 2009, 08:50 AM
I wasn't very big on III but it wasn't all that awful, just kind of... filler.

I may not be the best person to talk to about the movies though, I always disliked IV and kind of liked V. Mostly because IV was all about Saving the Whales which made me gag while V was kind of like an extended bad campy episode of the old TV series.
Forum Virgin
Apr 8th, 2009, 10:49 AM
GIIIVE MEEE GENESISSS!!
Arts & Farts
Apr 8th, 2009, 08:19 PM
IV was the one where they saved the whales? And that's one of the POPULAR ones? Hoo boy. It could easily have been the Mork and Mindy movie with some of those jokes about how the advanced man survives in the 1980s man's world.
Forum Virgin
Apr 9th, 2009, 02:26 PM
Star Trek IV is a parody of the things it encompasses, and that's why it was popular, and a good film. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Unlike the first one, which tries to take itself too seriously, or that fifth one, which is fucking bonkers. But then again, I'm more of a Next Generation guy myself.
Arts & Farts
Apr 10th, 2009, 07:41 PM
That's also why it's so bad. It's a parody of itself, which is an okay enough concept for an episode but not for a movie. We might as well have a movie equivalent of those episodes where someone gets trapped in the hologram set to THE NAPOLEONIC WARS or THE BEUBONIC PLAGUE. I was even willing to accept it when I thought it was the sixth in the series, but the fourth? So much for it being a universe of endless possibilities; it's only the fourth movie in the series and the writers decide science fiction fans want to see a movie about the 80's.
Forum candy dispenser
Apr 12th, 2009, 05:36 AM
3 Things to love about this movie:

The aforementioned Kirk Lear moment
The whole crew (except for Spock) goes rogue to rescue a friend.
THEY BLOW UP THE ENTERPRISE TO GET AWAY! Back in the day this was like Optimus Prime dying, or Duke going into a coma because of the bad reaction of Optimus Prime dying, or Spock dying.

Seriously, this movie is like Empire Strikes Back. Only there's no hands getting chopped off (unless you count David's death), and there's no finding out the bad guy is your father. But it's the entire ending where "oh yeah, there's going to be another coming." The three of them (II, III, IV) rule as a whole, like the Back to the Future movies. On top of that, David's death helps fuel the plot for VI.
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
Apr 12th, 2009, 02:19 PM
I forgot this was the first movie where they destroyed the Enterprise! It seems like they did it almost every movie thereafter.
after enough bourbon ...
Apr 13th, 2009, 11:33 PM
I can't remember the exact dialogue between Shat and Iggy, but my rifftrax moment went something like this:

Shat: In case you hadn't noticed, the planet is destroying itself!

Iggy: Yes! Exhilirating, isn't it?
Member
Apr 14th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Gotta disagree man.. this is a fairly great movie. The problem is star trek fanboys don't get it because it isn't a good star trek movie. (Yes there is a difference.)

The thing is, star trek movies were prety much supposed to end after II (or a least be sans-spock, which would essentially have killed the franchise anyway) so they gave spock this big glorius death scene expecting the film to only do marginly better than 1. When part II became the hottest thing since sliced bread, they were sorta screwed. Part III was just a giant plot-hole-filling device to get things back on track. So keeping that in mind it's amazing that this film turned out as good as it did.

1 1/2 pickles? Nah! It's at least a three pickle film.
Forum Virgin
Apr 17th, 2009, 02:31 AM
Being a parody makes something bad? Well, it's fine if you don't like parodies, but I don't see how being a parody is a de facto reason for being bad.

"We might as well have a movie equivalent of those episodes where someone gets trapped in the hologram set to THE NAPOLEONIC WARS or THE BEUBONIC PLAGUE"

What are you talking about? Do you mean the bubonic plague?

And wasn't the movie in the 80's? Isn't that why it is centered around the 80s? I'm getting mixed messages on why you don't like the movie, but I really don't care too much.
Forum Virgin
Apr 17th, 2009, 02:38 AM
Yeah, Star Trek IV was a very well-written parody, and its 80s theme is classic. It also has a good soundtrack. While its environmental message may be less than subtle, it's pretty entertaining as well. Same with 2, and even 3, so I don't understand the one and a half rating. The rest of the original trek movies blow, and only one of the bad ones is good for laughs. One and Six are beyond horribly boring films.
Arts & Farts
Apr 17th, 2009, 12:46 PM
I think I outlined quite clearly why being a parody of itself is a bad thing, but I guess you only pick up on typos.

Also, please don't pretend you actually believe your contextual logic. I wasn't aware that the reality of every episode of the series was centred around the 60s, as your logic dictates. I always thought the idea of fiction was that it could be set anywhere at any time.

I was willing to have a decent argument with you, but you are snooty and all around terrible.

ENGAGE.
Forum Virgin
Apr 17th, 2009, 06:34 PM
I guess you got your browser word search kernel set to automatic, like me. I really got to deactivate it one of these days.

Lulz at anyone who uses the term "contextual logic" in a Star Trek conversation. It's funny how such an old thing can bring out the armchair intellectual and wannabe film critics in anyone.

I wasn't picking up on a typo, I was seriously asking. I don't even remember a Star Trek episode about the Bubonic Plague, but because there has been OVER 9,000, I really can't be sure.

If you're willing to have an argument over an opinion of a film, then you either have an unwarranted aura of self-importance, or you don't get the point of an opinion.

Can't you have some of those deep discussions about contextual logic about a more meaningful topic?

encyclopediadramatica.com/USI
Strange blob from beyond
Apr 17th, 2009, 07:59 PM
I agree.Star trek 5 was fucking bonkers
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
Apr 17th, 2009, 08:24 PM
I'm glad at least I could start an argument
Arts & Farts
Apr 17th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by berrypievision View Post
Lulz at anyone who uses the term "contextual logic" in a Star Trek conversation.
I'm sorry, I'll try to use a less complicated term than context to describe context next time.

Hey berrypievision, post in the other forums please. You seem like the kind of person who would make a lot of friends! "Lulz" is a real corker, I'd like to see that one again! Or tell me how "distinguish" has too many syllables by law for a movie discussion, and how that word should be cordoned off to the book forum, where those hoity toity snobs talk about their "meaningful topics." Keep those nerd words outta here buddy!
was never good
Apr 17th, 2009, 09:15 PM
Quote:
Lulz at anyone who uses the term "contextual logic" in a Star Trek conversation.
I think that's more or less the EXACT VERNACULAR that should be exercised when speaking about Star Trek.
Forum Virgin
Apr 18th, 2009, 10:03 AM
[I'm sorry, I'll try to use a less complicated term than context to describe context next time. ]

Lulz...

[
Hey berrypievision, post in the other forums please. You seem like the kind of person who would make a lot of friends! "Lulz" is a real corker, I'd like to see that one again! Or tell me how "distinguish" has too many syllables by law for a movie discussion, and how that word should be cordoned off to the book forum, where those hoity toity snobs talk about their "meaningful topics." Keep those nerd words outta here buddy!]

Hoity toity? Lulz.

You're a lulzcow.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Lulzcow

I don't think I'd ever want to go on the forums, as this site rather details it well:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/I-Mockery#Forums

[I think that's more or less the EXACT VERNACULAR that should be exercised when speaking about Star Trek. ]

Nah, the exact vernacular has to involve anti-time, warp bubbles, and positronic matrix's.
Forum Virgin
Apr 18th, 2009, 10:18 AM
Butthurt people arguing over the internet is always fun.
Arts & Farts
Apr 18th, 2009, 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by berrypievision View Post

Hoity toity? Lulz.

You're a lulzcow.
It's like reading Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in reverse with this guy. Have I been subject to some modernist experiment all along? One can only assume he'll be reinserting himself into the womb any moment now.
☆☆☆☆☆
Apr 18th, 2009, 02:34 PM
Is he some kind of ED salesman or something.
Forum Virgin
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:26 AM
Nope, just a defender of the lulz here. Just being a true EDiot is all.
Arts & Farts
Apr 19th, 2009, 09:38 AM
Hey now, don't cry.
Forum Virgin
Apr 25th, 2009, 01:24 AM
AVGN reviewed this, and had very different things to say about the film.

http://www.cinemassacre.com/new/?p=1134

I agree with him more.
Arts & Farts
Apr 25th, 2009, 08:36 AM
Everytime I hear that guy I think it's Jamesman.
Fookin' up planets!
May 12th, 2009, 02:03 PM
My favorite part of this movie is when Obi Wan cut's Darth Maul in half.