Pluskylang Great Film overall

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

cinemajesty Movie Review: "Star Trek: The Search for Spock" (1984)After a finale furioso with "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" in the movie summer of 1982 beyond belief with highly inventive still-standing pictures as "Tron" directed by Steven Lisberger, "Blade Runner" directed by Ridley Scott or even visually-splendid "E.T.-the-Extra-Terrestrial" directed by Steven Spielberg, comes this "Star Trek" movie of succession directed by initial 1960s-television star-actor Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015), who enjoys the benefit of a high-end Hollywood production produced by Harve Bennett (1930-2015), who keept close ties to distributing Paramount Pictures, a Los-Angeles-based studio major since cornerstones of 1912, which can be proud of this 1984 summer release.Even though "The Search for Spock" marks the shortest of all "Star Trek" movies with shy off 100-Minutes-Cut by film editor by Robert F. Shugrue (1937-1999), who is able to arrange fulminate visual effects shots ingnited by Lucasfilm Ltd. affiliates company of Industrial, Light and Magic (ILM) with up-playing famous cast surrounding William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk, who together with Dr. "Bones" McCoy, portrayed with utmost convictions and retrieving years of comfort in his alterego actor DeForest Kelley (1920-1999), when actor James Doohan (1920-2005) as Montgomery "Scotty" Scott steals the show by preparing a major steal of a life-time in high-jacking an already-damaged "Enterprise NNC-1701" from the main near-earth all-new "Federal Space Station" in order to bet into a notorious race toward the secret artificially-made "Planet Genesis" at the far side of the Galaxy only to have an historic stand-off between "Enterprise" and a Klingon "Warbird", led by close-to "Khan" viciousness-playing, yet all-too-ambition Commander Kruge, given face by actor Christopher Lloyd in high-quality nevertheless former-feel of analogy and then overthrown make-up-effects by Wes Dawn (1938-1990) and assciates, benefiting of a high-contrast, hot-spot to dark-ambience indulging cinematography by Charles Correll (1944-2004).This "Star Trek" movie becomes highly-recommended as a dramatic as "Enterprise" challenging centerpiece in a three-part viewing experience, if any spectator can afford a full running-time of approximately 315 minutes, alongside "The Wrath of Khan" (1982) and "The Voyage Home" (1986) to witness stunningly written character arcs by a consortium of writing filmmakers involved, including producer Harve Bennett, actor Leonard Nimoy and also-directing Oscar-nominated writer Nicholas Meyer, who given into familiar as emotional human conditions of rise, fall, struggle and risen again, especially with regard to the extraordinary friendship captured between "Kirk & Spock".© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

kieranwilliamsonmt I'm a more recent Star Trek fan and have recently moved onto the movies. I have to say, this one was a bigger disappointment to Star Trek I for me. After the how brilliant 'The Wrath of Khan' was, I was hoping Star Trek III would be a worthy follow up, but even the title seemed a little unimaginative now I look at it. The story takes forever building up, has some great moments during that, for example, the Klingons are brilliant but it just lacks some imagination much like how 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' often felt. It's like the franchise took one huge step forward, Star Trek II was an exciting film but still about morality at the end of the day, but this film offers none of it.

Bill Slocum The needs of the franchise outweigh the needs of the movie. It's certainly logical. I just wish the movie left me more to think about.Shortly after the battle that resolved "Star Trek II," we join a largely vacated U. S. S. Enterprise heading home. Still mourning his friend and comrade Mr. Spock, Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) discovers Spock's sealed-off cabin occupied by "Bones" McCoy (DeForest Kelley), himself occupied by Spock's "katra," or spirit."Climb the steps of Mount Seleya," a tranced-out McCoy tells Kirk, kicking off a new journey for the Enterprise.No doubt the "Star Trek" production team, buoyed by the great success of their prior film but now stuck with a gaping, pointy- eared hole, saw its repair as job one. Bringing Spock back to life thus becomes the focus of the film, and the only thing that it gets right.A series of decent if lully setpieces that awkwardly cohere into a larger story, "Star Trek III" feels stuck in orbit from first to last. The funeral tone of mourning Spock, established in the opening moments, hangs over the rest of the film. Kirk broods about the "emptiness" he feels, about abandoning "the noblest part of myself" and "our dearest blood."Having spent decades unsuccessfully separating himself from his best-remembered part, director Leonard Nimoy could have told his old comrades it was no use. You don't just say goodbye to Spock and expect him to stay dead. Nimoy lets his film linger over the loss of our favorite Vulcan, at the expense of the tension and suspense that animated "Star Trek II."What Nimoy does do well is engage the other actors, at least the ones he worked with in the original series. Kelley is delightful as the keeper of the katra, struggling to reconcile his new persona as a logical Vulcan while retaining Bones' short temper. "It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost," McCoy fumes when Kirk explains what has happened to him.What did happen, anyway? The introduction of a mystical element to the Vulcan story, that Spock has what Kirk calls "an immortal soul," is at odds with "Star Trek's" materialistic approach to life, especially as it culminates in a religious ceremony conducted in English with a lot of "thou" and "thee." I can't say I bought it, but then again, it wasn't like I felt expected to. It's something to justify the reason we are here, getting Spock back.The rest of the film punctuates this by giving us little else to watch. There's some business about renegade Klingons trying to steal the secret of the prior film's Genesis project from the Federation, but the action here is strictly by the numbers. Christopher Lloyd spits every line as the head Klingon, pushing to dominate every scene he's in. Long sections of narrative deal with the collapse of the Genesis planet and its impact on a young Vulcan who may be Spock, a plot device which is neither believable nor compelling.What "Star Trek III" needed was something to pull us from the Spock story, a crisis/adventure to engage us long enough for Spock's return to take us by surprise, the same way his demise did in "Star Trek II." Unfortunately, "Star Trek III" doesn't find that hook, and the film becomes a minor slog with some funny character-driven moments, pleasant for fans but eminently forgettable.

napo user all in all there is no depth in ST. No real story. Here is why.At some point Enterprize gets destroyed (omg)Kirk stops being a captain and becomes admiral therefore no more treks (sad face) Spok dies (WFF no) Kirk finds out he has a son (sweet) oh wait a sec at the end of the series a new Enterprise gets build (relax guys false alarm) kirks f$%ks admiral-ship and gets demoted to captain (again ?? WFF) Spok gets resurrected or some similar stuff (aliluia) Kirk's son dies (sweeeeet)u see my point?no consequences for peoples actions everything will conveniently conclude at the end with happy result