I really enjoy Earth vs. The Flying Saucers and I thought the alien in Twenty Million Miles to Earth was really cool looking. I haven't seen The First Men in the Moon so I'll add it to my watchlist on Letterboxd as a reminder. I'm a huge fan of Tarkovsky's Solaris despite some of the sequences being a bit tedious to get through. I'd also like to read the Stanislaw Lem novel.

It's a great creature feature more in the vein of the Creature from the Black Lagoon than a classic sci-fi film.

Watched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) today. Only my second time ever watching the film. I definitely feel it's overrated. I really like the concepts at its center -- the no-win scenario, facing death and new beginning as a means of becoming young again, but all of that deep thematic complexity and character growth is utterly short-circuited by the Khan plot, which feels completely incongruous with everything being laid out in the beginning and developed at the end. No thematic or character building elements carry through the middle section of the film at all. They're just abandoned and then suddenly resumed over an hour later, once the climax is over with. Even Spock's death seems entirely arbitrary in relation to the Khan/Genesis thing.

And really, what's the significance of the Khan plot? What's really there to get us invested? Montalban does some phenomenal acting, but the plot itself is totally lackluster. Without an underlying thematic conflict to give it significance, there's really nothing at stake. Khan wants to kill Kirk, so Kirk goes underground, and Khan gives up on killing him. Khan shows a vague interest in pursuing the Enterprise, but is content to let it go until he discovers Kirk is onboard. Yeah, he's got the Genesis device, but he shows no particular interest in using it, and, in fact, never even devices a vague plan for what to do with it. Really, there's nothing at stake at all. It's just a dragged out dog fight between two starships interrupting a more interesting story involving deep internal development for Kirk.

Also, despite the film trying to set Kirk and Khan up as bitter enemies with deep emotional malice towards each other, Kirk never actually gets mad at Khan. Sure, he damaged the ship and killed some crewmen, but Kirk never really brings this up again later. There's no "you killed my crew!" moment between them, and the one moment where Kirk actually appears to get frustrated at Khan is over being trapped underground, which, we later find out, was an act; Kirk had a plan to get out all along and was just giving Khan what he wanted to hear. Nothing about this adventure is at all significant to Kirk until Spock's death randomly gets tagged on, seemingly out of nowhere, and even then, Khan's already dead, so none of that frustration/anger gets directed at him. There's no "you killed my best friend!" moment either.

I think this film had some of the best acting of the series: Montalban, Nimoy, and even Shatner when he isn't yelling "KHAAAAAAAAN!", and the score was just as gorgeous as Jerry Goldsmith's work for the first film, but the writing just doesn't do it for me. Plus there's a billion little plot holes in the film that throw me, perhaps the greatest of them being how in the world Kirk and Spock knew Khan was monitoring their communication, let alone how they understood each other's code language in that situation without having agreed upon a code first.

It's obvious that, in part, this film is a reaction to the first film, which was a little too ambitious for fans looking for the familiar. Beyond the obvious reactions of having a clear arch nemesis and more intense action, check out just how thoroughly far this film goes to contradict the first one:

1. Kirk goes from being too enthusiastic to get back to captaining a ship to not wanting it at all and needing to be pushed into it.
2. Bones goes from outright resenting being put back into service to actively advocating that he and Kirk return.
3. Spock goes from being less interested in Kirk and the Enterprise than ever before to being more interested in Kirk and the Enterprise than ever before.
4. The rookie officer on the bridge goes from constantly reminding us that he (Decker) knows more than Kirk to constantly reminding us that she (Saavik) knows less than Kirk.
5. The original film constantly places Kirk in a situation where he doesn't know what to do against a superior intelligence, whereas the second film constantly places Kirk in a situation where he always knows what to do against a superior intelligence.
6. The first film keeps dropping hints that Spock is fated to die/join V'Ger by the end, but he doesn't. The second film drops a lot of hints about the ending, but absolutely nothing is done to suggest Spock will die at the end, and he does.
7. Inversely, we expect the new guy (Decker) to stick around in the first film, and he doesn't. We don't expect the new guy (David) to stick around in the second film (especially as Khan states that his life's goal is to hurt Kirk), and yet he does.

Also, the second film steals A LOT of exterior shots of the Enterprise from the first film, some glaringly obvious.



All in all, I respect a lot of what this film tried to do, but it's still not a favorite of mine.

Love it -- probably my favorite genuine science fiction film.

Actually watched Star Trek III: The Search for Spock two night ago, but I didn't have a chance to comment until now. Of all the original cast Trek films, this is the only one I'd never seen before, and all I knew about it was that the Enterprise blew up, Spock came back to life, and yet, somehow, this was still not a well-received Trek film.

I suspect the reason people prefer Wrath of Khan to Search for Spock is because Search for Spock does such a good job of adding significance to Spock's death in Wrath of Khan that wasn't actually there in the film itself. It spends more time building up the previous film than it does advancing its own content, so perhaps people liking Khan better is actually a tribute to how effective this film was.

What I like:

- All the new models and sets! Space Dock, The Excelsior, The Grissom, the Bird of Prey, and FINALLY decent lighting for the Enterprise bridge!
- Our first real attempt to redefine the Klingons as a warrior race. Christopher Lloyd did an excellent job for the time, though he'd make for a poor Klingon by later standards.
- Lent depth to the otherwise arbitrary death of Spock in the previous film.
- Mark Lenard's back!!


What I dislike:

- Robin Curtis as Savvek. TERRIBLE.
- As with Wrath of Khan, lots of stuff happens, but with no thematic meaning tied to it, nor does any of it reflect or develop character progression. David's death is the most striking example of this. Kirk calls Christopher Lloyd a bastard twice, and then it all gets forgotten until Star Trek VI. It's really really weird that Spock's resurrection completely trumps this moment by the close. We never even saw Kirk and David have a bonding moment beyond that tenuous conversation at the end of Khan. And really, the thematic conclusion to the previous film was that, in accepting Spock's death and embracing new life with David, Kirk had recaptured his youth. That's all completely discarded in this film, which otherwise does its best to adhere to the previous one.


What confused me:

- Was Savvek mating with an adolescent Spock in order to ease his pain?? That seemed implied and, if not, then why couldn't she do whatever she did to ease his pain again in front of the Klingons?





Beyond that, a pretty decent film, and I actually liked it a little better than Wrath of Khan, so I'm completely screwing with the "only the even numbered ones are good" rule. Of course, I detest V, so at least my perceptions are on par for one of the six films

shaxper,

I slightly disagree with your assessment of the Wrath of Khan - because I felt it was a tension filled movie with high drama and nerve racking adventure of two adversaries trying to duel each other to get the upper hand of which Kirk at the END won the battle in a spectacular finish. I find the Khan - Star Trek II one of the grittiest movies ever made and I certainty enjoy this movie more than the original Star Trek Movie. I can see where you are coming from and I respect your judgment on seeing it. I have seen this movie about 4-5 times since 1982 and it's one of my favorites due to the tension and the drama aspect of it.

For Spock, Star Trek III is downright horrible and I find it one of the worst movie ever made and I totally agree with your review here and most importantly I just can't stand Robin Curtis at all. But, I still prefer Khan over Spock any day. Star Trek III was so confusing and I have seen it 3 times and every time I watch it - I just find more errors and that's takes the joy of watching this movie period.

I'm a big Star Trek Fan and I have seen every movie made and I don't have a clear favorite - but I loved Star Trek IV - The Journey Home because of the humor and the scene of which Scotty told the Manager of a factory - Transparent Aluminum was priceless and I can find many things that really cracks me up.