Reviews (1)

Spellbinding - MUST SEE
This is one of those movies that really makes you think about why there are wars. Are there really any winners?

Acting was fabulous, especially, as usual, Bryan Brown.

Set on a small island off Indonesia, Brown, a lawyer for the Australian War Crimes Tribunal, has the task of prosecuting Japanese officers and soldiers for war crimes committed against Australian prisoners. Unfortunately, all of the records and most of the witnesses have disappeared.

Very moving scenes. This is one of those movies you MUST watch again to get the full effect of it. ... Read more

Reviews (184)

This One Got Discovered
Excluding Star Trek 2, this has got to be my favorite. Probably because like Star Trek 2, this is a great combination of story and action. Some of it confuses me though. Ok, these few Klingons and federation people that hate to see this peace between the 2 races, decide to "team up" to keep hating each other. I may have overlooked this and may be wrong, but after watching this movie probably 20 times, I still can't find another answer to this. Ok, now for the rest of the movie - fabulous. Gorkon and Chang are excellent. I love Chang's use of Shakespeare throughout the film. I just wish we could have seen more of the person that Gorkon was before he was killed. We only got to meet the chancellor for about 10 minutes then that's it, but he seemed as a good man. Klingon ship firing when cloaked, gotta love that. Excelsior with Captain Sulu, gotta love that. It's good to see him in command, I thought it would seem wierd cause we are so use to him being at the helm, but he seems to fit in nicely. The final battle scene is terriffic, special effect after special effect. Of course when the Klingon ship becomes visible, there's not much of a battle anymore. I don't know what else to say. You'd think there is more to say about this one since it is very good, but it's one of those films you just love to watch.

...for the movie, regarding whether to buy the DVD...
If you are a Trek fan, yeah, this is a brilliant movie, I have seen it fifty times and I never get tired of it. It has a compelling plot, first rate acting a brilliant script and it marked the triumphant directorial return of ST II: WOK's Nicholas Meyer. That however is not the reason I am writing this review. While I would certainly reccomend renting this DVD to experience the movie itself in the widescreen format with the improved picture and sound quality, I would like to warn you not to waste the money buying it. This current DVD does not have a the usual special features that are standard in the DVD versions of other movies. The studio has put out the Director's Edition DVD sets for the first three Star Trek movies, with the fourth due out in early March. These are double disc sets, with numerous tracks of audio commentary, as well as written commentary(bottom of tv screen) optional French dubbing and/or subtitles (Why no Spanish, I don't know) as well as a load of interesting special features on the other disc. The only problem is that they were released months apart from one another. Bearing that in mind, the director's edition of this won't likely be out until the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Nontheless, it will make the one available here obselete. To sum it up, rent this to enjoy the movie, but wait for the special edition before purchasing it, it will be worth the wait.

outstanding -- the best star trek movie ever
Unlike Nemesis, which kind of left you scratching your head at how The Next Generation series of movies could go out in such an average (for TNG's high standards) bang, The Undiscovered Country closed out the original Star Trek series of movies with a BANG in 1991. This is easily the best ST movie ever, about how overmining of the Klingon moon causes a catastrophe on their planet making in uninhabitable and causing them to come to the Federation with talks of a truce. But a deep conspiracy unravels, in some ways predictable, in other ways not.......enough of my blabbering, not like you wanted to hear me tell you any more anyways, if you did I still won't spoil any more. Scenes of this movie were emulated in Next Generation movies (a certain space battle scene is emulated almost exactly in Generations, although nowhere near as well). Get it, watch it, and watch all the original Star Trek movies (except maybe the first one, unless you are INSANE for star trek). THe original movies are the best, and can be loved even if you aren't a Star Trek fan.

A Good Movie With Some Issues
Over all a great movie despite the plot holes and other stuff.

Star Trek recovers from the Shatner shattering.
Three cheers for Leonard Nimoy and Nicholas Meyer. After Star Trek was MUGged by the absurd ego of William Shatner with his disastrous Star Trek 5,Nimoy came up with the idea of Star Trek 6 with the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union and the Berlin wall coming down.
Nick Meyer chipped in with his ideas and brilliant direction to save Star Trek,as he did with his writing and direction in ST2 and his writing of the San Francisco scenes in ST4.
Nimoy,who had previously done so well with his directing in Star Trek 4,this time produced Star Trek 6:The Voyage Home.
Highlights of this film are - the explosion of the Klingon moon(based on Chernobyl),the assassination,the Klingon trial of Kirk and McCoy,the prison camp,the escape and the finale.
It is amazing what they did with a Star Trek 6 budget that was similar to the cheap looking Star Trek 5.
And they had the good sense to bring the brilliant ILM back to do the effects. ILM's brilliant effects make a huge difference.
Rick Berman followed Shatner's mistake of ditching ILM for the last two Trek films,will they ever learn?
ILM made a huge difference in six Star Trek films and the Peter Pan line at the end "second star to the right and on till morning" is a delight. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

A socially conscious Trek movie
On the fourth installment in the Star Trek movie series, Kirk and company are flying their captured Klingon vessel back to Earth to face the punishment for their misdeeds. On the way though, fate intervenes in the form of an alien probe wreaking destruction upon Earth's oceans. With quick thinking, the crew figures out that it is attempting to speak to an extinct species of Whale, so they slingshot their crummy "Klingon fleatrap" around the sun and travel back in time to San Francisco circa 1986 to save the future.

The time travel cliche is done very well by the Star Trek crew, and although the movie is incredibly dated, it's still a very humerous film that takes a pressing social issue (mainly ecological conservation) and wraps it into an enjoyable sci-fi plot. One of the biggest strengths of the Star Trek series has always been its social conscious, and they deliver yet again with "The Voyage Home".

I'd like to stress again that this is a very lighthearted and humerous film that is saved by the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. If nothing else, where else do you get to watch Spock develop a penchant for profanity? Add to that the usual interplay between him, Kirk, and McCoy, and you've got a winning movie that hard core Trek fans and casual moviegoers can enjoy.

EXCELLENT!
After the often overshadowed Star Trek III, producer Harve Bennett and returning director Leonard Nimoy wanted to make a light-hearted adventure with no deaths. That was understandable because III had the destruction of the Enterprise, the death of Kirk's son, and an overall serious revival adventure for Mr. Spock. After a script by Steve Meerson and Peter Krikes (with Eddie Murphy originally supposed to have a role because he was a big Trek fan), Harve Bennett needed a rewrite. The man chosen: Nicholas Meyer, writer and director of Star Trek II.

What we have here is one of the magnum efforts in the series. Not only does it deliver solid laughs from start (ok, more so middle) to finish, it is also a grand adventure that Roddenberry probably loved. The relationships between the characters are fully exploited here and Nicholas Meyer even takes advantage of Spock's rebirth as humor. The laughs? Filled with classics like Scotty's "Hello computer" scene or the hospital chase scene, this film perfectly blends urban realities with the world of Star Trek in a similar way to Beverly Hills Cop's blending of action and comedy.

The only thing that flaws this film is Leonard Rosenman's somewhat lackluster score. The film manages to blend (or hide, depending on if you like the score or not) the music enough that you really don't notice it. I still would've preferred James Horner or Jerry Goldsmith, but I'm not complaining.

Hate Star Trek? Watch this film. Even if you hate Star Trek, this will keep you entertained. An excellent film in every sense of the word with great humor abounds. Some people may claim II or VI as the best, but this one's got its share of moments. If you're looking for great humor and a decent story (ok, it's corny... "save the whales", so what?), this one's for you.

classic star trek, with a twist
Another classic trek movie, this one from 1986, is awesome, and the most shocking thing about it is that it doesn't even take place in space, save for about 15 minutes! Instead it takes place in 1986, where the crew members go back in time to capture two whales to stop the destructive calls of an intergalactic whale species trying to contact the long-extinct whales. The whole plot sounds like it would suck beyond belief, but it comes close to being the best trek movie, and is one of my faves ever.

The awesomeness of the movie, unlike the rest of the series, comes not from suspense and action scenes, but the hilarious and often touching culture shock the crew faces in mid-80's San Fransisco. There is so much to laugh at: the crew earnestly walking along the SanFran streets, Sulu in his cape, Kirk in his red StarFleet uniform, and unforgettably, Spock in his monk robe with the belt tied around the tops of his pointy ears, making him look like an angry ninja master with a botched Botox job. Also hilarious is McCoy's disgust at how rudimentary 20th Century medical practices are/were. In a scene inside a hospital, he asks a woman what ails her, she responds she has kidney dialysis, and he's like, "What is this, the dark ages?! Swallow this, and call me if you have any problems." Several scenes later she is wheeled out claiming a miracle.

There is much more in the movie I won't spoil for you (or more like I'm too f*#&ing lazy to write any more), so turn the PC off and rent this great flick, also it's been on AMC recently, so try that too.

I agree with everybody.
I read a lot of these Amazon reviews on Star Trek IV, and oddly enough I can agree with almost all of them -- the 5 star as well as the 1 star.
I agree with the 5 star reviewers that this probably is the best Trek movie, that a lot of the humor is good, that the movie captures much of what was loved about the original series.
But I also agree with some of the 1 star reviews that the humor may be overdone and may wear thin on repeated viewings, that Catherine Hicks' character is overemphasized, that the environmental message is heavy-handed, that the aliens at Kirk's trial look ridiculous, etc.
But ultimately the question is this: If I stumble on this movie while channel-surfing, will I stop and watch it? Will I laugh, or at least smile, at the designated humorous moments? Answer to both questions: Yes. On balance, it remains an entertaining flick.

The Enterprise crew in the 1980's=AWSOME ADVENTURE!
O.K., first my one complaint-The plot where a mysterious, massive, invincible alien force that threatens the Earth was already done before. (Remember the first Star Trek film?) Otherwise, this is a wonderful addition to the Star Trek legacy. Just about everyone already knows the story, where the crew of the now destroyed Enterprise must pilot a captured Klingon Bird Of Prey back in time to the present day (well, 1986 WAS the present day when this came out,) to bring back some humpback whales. It seems to be a toss-up between which is the best Star Trek movie-this one, or part II. The second film, where Kirk and Khan have their last battle, has the most action, but this one has the most comedy, so they both have their strengths. Unless you absolutly hate Star Trek, check this one out. ... Read more

Reviews (323)

At the End of the Universe, Lies the Beginning of Vengeance
Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan succeeds because it strikes the perfect balance of drama, action, humor, pathos, and depth. After the critical failure of the first Star Trek movie (which hit movie theaters before being properly completed), the producers took the trouble to view every episode of the original series to figure out what made it enduring. They replicated it successfully in The Wrath of Khan. Unlike the first film, the plot is driven by the actions and motivations of the characters. This is not a story about spatial anomalies or an excuse for technobabble and flashy special effects. This story is about the classic themes which have served drama well since ancient Greek theater: the quest for vengeance; lost loves; the alienation, anger and reconciliation of fathers and sons; and the realization of mortality. Of the many science fiction films I have seen, few have tugged at the heartstrings as deeply as The Wrath of Khan. The most powerful moments are the bittersweet reunion between Kirk and Carol Marcus, the death of Spock and Kirk's eulogy, and the long delayed embrace between Kirk and his estranged son David. These moments are so universal that any "science fiction" label for this film seems limiting.

The script is helped by what is undoubtedly William Shatner's finest performance as James T. Kirk. Shatner brings the perfect balance of bluster, brio, and vulnerability to the aging Admiral. Toward the end of the movie, Kirk, shattered by Spock's death, tears down his defenses and allows us to see the human being behind the uniform. Ricardo Montalban, in a blood thirsty, Ahab-like performance, proves that there is much more to his acting than what was seen on Fantasy Island.

The special effects, which are entirely at the service of the story, for the most part hold up remarkably well--two exceptions are the Ceti Eels and the Genesis Cave Waterfall, which look rather primitive by today's CGI standards. James Horner's crisp, vibrant score hints at the great things which were to follow from him--it's a pity he has not been used in more recent Star Trek fare.

This Director's Edition contains some additional footage which was not in the theatrical release. Among this are scenes which reveal why Scotty was so upset over the death of the Cadet in Engineering, as well as some minor additions. Unlike the DVD release of the first Star Trek movie, there have been no enhancements to the few dated visual effects, such as the Genesis Cave Waterfall. The bonus material features interviews with Shatner, Nimoy, Montalban, and Bennett, as well as several behind the scenes looks at the visual effects (this was the first film to make use of computer graphics) and production design. Less interesting is an extended look at the Trek universe as seen through various novelizations (which, as every Trekker knows, are not considered "canon.")

The picture and sound quality are identical to the earlier DVD release, a definite improvement over VHS and laserdisc, but not spectacular by DVD standards.

DVD is superior to all previous video releases of the movie
This is the first Star Trek movie I have purchased on DVD. And I was quite impressed.

As far as I can tell, the entire movie panarama is restored within the 2.35 letterbox. Apparently this was *not* the case with the laserdisc and VHS widescreen versions, as this DVD has more material in the frame. Even the closing titles are authentic letterbox (not the vertically cropped, horizontally-compressed pan-and-scan version titles that were coppied onto the laserdisc).

Picture quality is also improved. Starfields are actually black this time instead of grey. Images are cleaner and sharper. The spaceships are more intense-looking than ever before, and I finally understand what's in the Genesis cave. The video transfer is darker, hiding some of the now-familiar film artifacts but also revealing a few new ones. Then again, even the cleaned-up special edition of Star Wars still had its film artifacts.

Sound is improved. I noticed some background effects I had never heard before.

Extras on this disc are limited to the theatrical trailer, which is letterboxed in 1.85. Personally, I would have liked to have seen the extended scenes from the ABC broadcast version of Star Trek II -assuming those can be restored in widescreen. The main menu looks like the menus for the TV episodes and does not capture the personality of the film.

Overall, a good disc. Buy it.

One for the ages
Back when "The Wrath of Khan" first hit the theaters, I remember thinking that Khan now ranks with the best movie bad guys of all time. I think Ricardo Montalban may have turned out the best performance of his career by bringing complexity, passion, pathos, and humanity all at once to the role of Khan. I'll never be able to read Moby Dick the same way ever again - "He tasks me, and I shall have him... I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom, and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!" Sure, I'm an avowed lifelong trek fan, but I don't think I'm exagggerating this by much.

On a more objective note, the movie works very well at multiple levels...

The soundtrack itself is exceptional and, at the time, somewhat ground-breaking for the movie industry. This is evidenced by the fact that subsequent soundtracks in the sci-fi genre seem to have borrowed from Horner's original score. I think it was a shame that "Khan" was not nominated for an Oscar in the original score category.

The visual effects, which were state of the art at the time, still hold up over twenty years later. It serves as a good example and reminder that movies used to have good special effects even in the pre-computer era.

The acting was also superior. I already mentioned that Montalban may have given the performance of his life as "Khan", but I don't think it ends there. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley also recaptured the feel of the cameraderie from the original series. I am aware that Shatner is often criticized for being overly-dramatic, but my opinion is that this may also rank among the top two or three performance of Shatner's career as well (including the TV show). One of the more memorable moments came following Khan's failed attempt to have Chekov and Terrell kill Kirk: [Kirk to Khan] "You've managed to kill just about everyone else, but like a poor marksman you keep missing the mark.", which was, of course, followed by Kirk's timeless "KHAAAANNNN!!!" exclamatory. The acting was so good, IMHO, that the audience doesn't really notice that Kirk and Khan never really meet face-to-face, and the movie doesn't suffer because of it.

The Director's Edition DVD comes with a well-produced disc of supplementary material (interviews, commentaries, etc.) as well. I particularly liked the recent interviews with the actors on their recollections from when the movie was being produced. My favorite interview was Ricardo Montalban telling how horrified he was upon realizing how much he sounded like Mr. Roarke from Fantasy Island when he started reading his lines for the first time - "This is going to be a disaster! The audience is going to laugh at me!" He then tells of how he fixed the problem by requesting a copy of the original TV show "Space Seed" where the crew of the Enterprise first encountered Khan, and watching it over and over again until he began to recall his original work with the character. Shatner also delivers a pretty good interview as he describes how he'll one day make Nimoy and Harve Bennett pay for not letting him in on the secret that by the time the movie had been shot that they already had plans to bring Spock back. Whether or not Shatner really knew is irrelevant - the interview is delivered w/ a deadpan that leaves the viewer in stitches. There is also a good piece about how the visual effects were accomplished.

Overall, I rate "The Wrath of Khan" as the best movie in the entire series of Star Trek theatrical releases, and one of the better movies ever produced in the sci-fi genre as a whole.

If you see just one Star Trek movie.....
MAKE IT THIS ONE. This is it...the movie that defined that reinvented Star Trek in the 80's and paved the way back to television for Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Why you'll like it:
Shatner and Nimoy: No matter how you slice it, there is a chemistry between these two people (both off and on screen) that makes you want to watch them together.

Ricardo Montalban: The man "chews scenery". Khan is one of the great villians.

GREAT special effects: all cutting edge effect done by Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic. It was done sooo well - like they were going out of there way to apologize for the visual trainwreck that was Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

And - if you don't like Star Trek - it's still pretty good fun.

I won't spoil the ending - but keep the tissues handy. No one can keep a dry eye when you hear bagpipes playing "Amazing Grace".

I also really enjoyed watching this film with the director's commentary. I actually got a whole new perspective on the film from the first time I saw it (more than 20 years ago).

Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold
"I have been & always shall be your friend. Live long & prosper."

"Of my friend..., I can only say this. Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels. His was the most- .... human.

- Captain Spock says goodbye to his close friend while Admiral Kirk honors the fallen in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan".

After 22 summers (to the day) "Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan" is still the movie that "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" wanted to be and after ten films in the "Star Trek" saga, "II" is still the film that all other "Trek" films are measured up to (for me personally, this one is tied for first with "Star Trek: First Contact").

Admiral Kirk and the crew of The Enterprise face an old enemy (Khan Noonian Singh) from the television series (see the episode entitled "Space Seed").

Simplistic plot, but, what makes the film work so well is:

1. - The crew act there age & try not to be the young crew they tried to be in "The Motion Picture".

2. - Admiral Kirk has a mid-life crisis as his past catches up with him in the form of the son he hardly knows.

3. - Khan seeks revenge for the death of his wife (the Enterprise historian from the T.V. episode). Wouldn't you?

4. - Aside from the senior staff, The Enterprise crew is made of cadets, giving the film an extra element of danger(the plotpoint w/ Scotty's cadet nephew is one of the extended scenes in the film).

5. - The senior staff, unlike in the T.V. series, is expendable (Scotty gets a bout of radation poisining, Checkov becomes Khan's hostage, and Spock, ..., well you know. I won't give that away for the 2 people who haven't watched the film).

6. - The Genesis Project is one of the most dangerous of all "Trek" weapons, yet, it was never meant to be one.

7. - The battle in the Mutara Nebula is classic "Star Trek" all the way (the Nebula is featured again in one of the episodes from "Star Trek: The Next Generation". I think, it might be The Best of Both Worlds Part I).

8. - Cherish what you have before its gone and a renewed sense of purpose is never a bad thing.

Quite a lot of detail was put into this film.
Gone are the disco style uniforms from the previous film. In its place, are the now classic, military/naval style uniforms complete with rank pips and badges.
The effects are a lot better than in "TMP". The first digital effects featured in a film are of the Genesis Proposal and were made by Pixar (the company would go on to super success with, the 1995 film, "Toy Story").

Origianlly titled the "Undiscovered Country", but, was replaced by the title "Vengeance of Khan". It was retitled to "The Wrath of Khan" when Paramount found out that the last "Star Wars" film would be titled "Revenge of The Jedi" (that would be changed to "Return of The Jedi").

This 2 disc extended edition of "Star Trek II" has everything but the kitchen sink thrown in (its lightyears ahead of the drab first DVD release). What I like most about these special releases is the triva track option that can run at the bottom of the screen without blocking out any of the screen itself.

This version of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", is a 2 disc set that will live long & prosper. Steady as she goes, Mr. Sulu. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Fun, but not as good as the first...
The two Oblivion movies are some of the best, and least known, of the Full Moon films.

This film takes place immediatly after the first. (I think they were filmed at the same time.) The main plot concerns an intergalactic bounty hunter after a sabatour wanted by the galaxicorp. The main suspect is Lash. (Played by the incredible Musetta Vander.) Zack, as sheriff, must help the bounty hunter in his quest.

The film lacks the in-jokes that made the first so fun. Julie Newmar has much more of a role in this one. (I am not certain what to think about her in this. Something about a 60+ year old woman in a form fitting outfit that is kind of frightening. Especially since she still looks good, in a weird plastic surgery Brazil-like way.)

If you liked the first, get this. If you have not seen the first movie, get that as well. ... Read more

Reviews (343)

It's not a bad start for the movie series
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" isn't really a bad start for the films, if one can get past the wooden acting, the bland sets and uniforms and the muddled storyline. Kirk and company are back on board the newly remodeled USS Enterprise to intercept an alien intruder named "V'Ger". That is about for the plot. The rest of the movie has the cast entering the alien and staring at it endlessly for around 50 minutes. It didn't really bother me, because I loved the special effects. The talking bothered me because I really had no idea what they were talking about throughout the movie. Something about V'Ger being a child and merging with the creator and so on and so forth. To me it didn't make much sense at all. One thing that makes this movie stand apart from it's successors is the music. Jerry Goldsmith's score is quite possibly one of the best scores ever put on film, this is definitely my favorite. Many people bash this movie but if it wasn't for this, you Next Generation fans wouldn't have your main theme and us fans of Star Trek wouldn't have 8 terrific sequels to watch.

Not Much of An Improvement Story-Wise
When "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" premiered in 1979, many fans of the original series were elated--and many more disappointed. The problem wasn't that the film was cheap or puny in scale, nor that it hadn't finally reunited the primary "Star Trek" cast members, some of whom hadn't been before cameras in years. Thanks mostly to "Star Wars," sci-fi fans by then had developed a ravenous taste for big-budget space opera and because the series had become more cartoonish as the 1960s wore on anyway, they now expected something that would outdo the George Lucas shoot-em-up.

What they got instead was a bold, if flawed, attempt to return things to the more serious and understated tones of "Star Trek"'s first season while simultaneously pushing the special effects envelope. And though "Star Trek" always was space opera with harder sci-fi leanings, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" mistakenly abandoned most of the space opera standards altogether--interstellar battles, "ray gun" fights, scantily-clad "moon maidens," strange and menacing aliens--in favor of an approach that was more in keeping with "2001: A Space Odyssey." The story of the revamped Enterprise's rush to stop a cloud-like entity's march toward earth became, in the end, mostly a platform for technical, not cinematic, achievement.

In the years following the film's release, Director Robert Wise did not conceal his disappointment with both the movie's final cut and its critical reception, but thanks to the advent of sophisticated computer graphics, he finally got his chance to complete the film as intended two decades later. The result is a mixed bag.

Certainly, the director's cut is more streamlined than its predecessor--several edits speed up the action, and even some of Jerry Goldsmith's excellent orchestrations seem faster. The reimagined special effects are, for the most part, an improvement (watch carefully, for instance, to see a shuttlecraft from the series depart the San Francisco port), though anyone expecting images on the order of "The Matrix" or the later "Star Wars" films will be disappointed. (I'm guessing the technicians had to match image quality to that of the 1979 release.) The credits definitely look better.

But the major flaws of the film, including a second half that just seems to drag compared to the first, are intact. Worse, because at least one version of the film with additional footage already shows us what is possible, some of the choices of what to cut and what to keep are questionable. Gone are some great character moments like Kirk telling Bones to get out of his quarters and the computerized translation of the doomed Klingon captain (though some make it as deleted scenes on the bonus disk). Perfectly adequate sound effects, too, have been replaced by others that seem tinny, and many of these effects compete rudely with Goldsmith's score. All in all, the Director's Edition seems a tradeoff, worth viewing mostly by the diehard fan, who will also likely find the second DVD more interesting than the usual chatter and mugshots tossed into the mix.

Where's Chekov?!!
I like this movie fairly well, but I have to lower its ranking by a star, simply because of the fact that the filmmakers chose not to include Chekov. Rick Berman has done so much damage to the Trek franchise, and this was one of his earliest errors. No matter what Mr. Berman may think, Chekov was a valuable part of the television show, adding a Russian flavor to the show's international stew. To not include him is not only wrong, it's borderline offensive.

Walter Koenig is a fine actor, and I'm glad Berman saw fit to let him participate in the other Trek movies. His presence here would have made a decent movie very good, at the very least. If you're looking for your Chekov fix, watch Star Trek II.

3 Star Movie, 5 Star DVD
Star Trek: The Motion Picture was rushed into theaters without time to edit it, and as such, the picture CRAWLS at times. This Director's Edition completes/adds some things that were storyboarded but unable to be accomplished at the time, and is also edited by director Robert Wise. I admire the decision by the effects people to make the new effects look like they could have been accomplished in the late 70's (as opposed to modern CGI), and for the most part they succeeded. As for the editing, this is also an improvement, but the initial V'Ger flyover sequence is still approximately 10 minutes long -- that's just way too long to have to sit and watch effects shots without dialog (there may be SOME dialog, but not much). At any rate, I really enjoy the first half hour, but after that it's hit-and-miss.

As for the DVD itself, they did an excellent job. There are lots of documentaries, trailers, and TV spots, as well as all of the footage that was deleted/trimmed from the film. Well done.

Greatest Movie Ever Made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's see: spaceships, lazer guns, "aliens" in K-Mart-after-Halloween-sale costumes... Oh, and don't let me forget the acting skills of master thespian Bill Shatner. Impressive. ... Read more

Description

Focuses on the life and death of the famed martial-arts legend Bruce Lee ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Pretty good
I liked this documentary ok, it's interesting in places. 'Curse of the Dragon'is produced by Fred Weintraub, who made Bruce Lee's last and best movie 'Enter the Dragon'. It's written by Davis Miller, who wrote the book 'Tao of Bruce lee'. I read 'Tao of Bruce Lee' before buying 'Curse of the Dragon'. 'Tao of Bruce Lee' is much, much better than 'Curse of the Dragon'.

A GOOD BIOGRAPHY
I bought this video actually from the locala store...It's a very good biography interviewinghis closest friends and family. It gives you a good idea of what type of person he is. Ummm, but the reason why it's not a 5 star rating according to my opinion is cuz it didn't realyl talk too much abotu his movies and not too much about his son, Brandon Lee...but besides that, i wouild havae given it a 5 star rating...a good biography i must say...

Before Norris, Van Damme or Segal, There was only one Master
This movie has almost everything about Bruce Lee's Life, Very Interesting. I've had this video since 1993 and I've watched it alot of times and now I know a little about Bruce Lee and there's probably alot more than this movie has got. I like this movie and maybe you Bruce Lee fans will like it to. A must have.

Bruce Lee as people knew him.
Learn about Lee the way close friends knew him. Lots of footage of the great master in action. Also, clip of a Brandon Lee interview. Learn about his life and untimely death.

Excellent anecdotal rememberances
Bruce Lee as those who knew him remember him. He was a man evolving into his philosophy, living it but fighting the demons that fame and outrageous fortune bring. Unquestionably the supreme martial artist of all time, he had the vision to break through the barriers of crystalized thought and defy the rigid angularity of style. All things birthed new again take courage, and this man (and without fanfare, Linda his wife) had courage to spare. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Pretty good
I liked this documentary ok, it's interesting in places. 'Curse of the Dragon'is produced by Fred Weintraub, who made Bruce Lee's last and best movie 'Enter the Dragon'. It's written by Davis Miller, who wrote the book 'Tao of Bruce lee'. I read 'Tao of Bruce Lee' before buying 'Curse of the Dragon'. 'Tao of Bruce Lee' is much, much better than 'Curse of the Dragon'.

A GOOD BIOGRAPHY
I bought this video actually from the locala store...It's a very good biography interviewinghis closest friends and family. It gives you a good idea of what type of person he is. Ummm, but the reason why it's not a 5 star rating according to my opinion is cuz it didn't realyl talk too much abotu his movies and not too much about his son, Brandon Lee...but besides that, i wouild havae given it a 5 star rating...a good biography i must say...

Before Norris, Van Damme or Segal, There was only one Master
This movie has almost everything about Bruce Lee's Life, Very Interesting. I've had this video since 1993 and I've watched it alot of times and now I know a little about Bruce Lee and there's probably alot more than this movie has got. I like this movie and maybe you Bruce Lee fans will like it to. A must have.

Bruce Lee as people knew him.
Learn about Lee the way close friends knew him. Lots of footage of the great master in action. Also, clip of a Brandon Lee interview. Learn about his life and untimely death.

Excellent anecdotal rememberances
Bruce Lee as those who knew him remember him. He was a man evolving into his philosophy, living it but fighting the demons that fame and outrageous fortune bring. Unquestionably the supreme martial artist of all time, he had the vision to break through the barriers of crystalized thought and defy the rigid angularity of style. All things birthed new again take courage, and this man (and without fanfare, Linda his wife) had courage to spare. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

You Need Not Take It Seriously to Like It
BUG BUSTER is one of those rarest of fright films: it knows when not to take itself too seriously even if it does not know when to frighten and when to amuse. The Bug of the movie is the Mother Bug, a flying roach that looks exactly like what is it, some guy on wires wearing a bug suit. It is hard to imagine even small children being fightened, but it is far easier to see that the audience is titillated by overlapping waves of corny dialogue, cheesy special effects, and guest appearances by Star Trek's James Doohan as a corrupt small-town sheriff and George Tokei as a demented entymologist. The plot is nonsense, of course. A Mother Bug lays eggs that threaten everyone in town. This theme of insectoid mother love we have seen before. ALIENS showed us how it could be presented in a serious vein. But here, in BUG BUSTER, everything is played for laughs. Randy Quaid steals the show as exterminator General George, who squares off in a boxing match with the Mother Bug in a scene that pays homage to Charles Dutton, who tried much the same in ALIENS 3. The result of this slugfest is a microscopic metaphor of the joy that a Big Bug movie can bring if only it refuses to take itself too seriously.

BEAM US UP SCOTTIE!
Yes, James Doohan and George Takei, STAR TREK's Scotty and Sulu, are in this movie. Doohan has more screen time as the sheriff, but Takei as an eccentric scientist, looks like he stepped right out of a Japense scifi flick.
BUG BUSTER, an entertaining little flick, has an identity crisis that works against its overall effectiveness. Is it a horror movie with comic touches or is it a comedy with horror touches? It's not out and out satire like the Scary Movie series, and it seems to want to take itself seriously, even with Randy Quaid's over the top General George, the pest eliminator. At any rate, director Lorenzo Doumani keeps the movie going along pretty well and has some unique things going for it.
First, here we have Bernie Kopell (from LOVE BOAT) and Anne Lockhart (June's daughter) playing the parents of premenopausal Katherine Heigl. And they get their own love scene..it's nice to see people past the age of 50 having the desire to have sex and show their love for each other.
As for the bugs, the real roaches are quite repulsive, and even the giant one at the climax is effectively disgusting. Downtown Julie Brown has a "cute" cameo as the reporter for FU2 t.v., where she blatantly extols the calamities happening in the little town of Mountainview.
Another unique touch: Trailer Trash, the band in the lodge's lounge, featuring Melba Toast and ?, is hilarious.
Entertaining, but its identity crisis, keeps it from being better. Oh, Brenda Doumani who plays the veterinarian is effective, and probably related to the director? Anyway, she also sings the movies closing credit song, "Virtue", which is about as bad as a song can get!

One of Heigl's best films
OK, there are two reasons why this film gets 5 stars. You Katherine Heigl fans know what I mean.

Here Heigl's family moves to a small west coast town being pleagued by giant bugs. And only the cast of 'Star Trek' can save her.

For a B movie the production is suprisingly good.

For those of you disapionted by Heigl's recent films 'Valintine' and 'Evil Never Dies' have no fear. Thoses film stunk because Heigl barely had any screen time. In 'Bug Buster' she is truly the main character and does what she does best, taking baths and showing.

I'd probably rate this film third after 'Wish Upon a Star' and 'Prince Valient' (where is that DVD?)

If your a guy wondering "who in Katherine Heigl?" Look her up on the internet. Then come back here and order this film.

Bug Buster
Well guys, I was one of those who made the movie. Comical is the only word for it. Let me tell you, it wasn't intended to be a humorous film at first!
-this from the hard working art department

Where No Movie Has Gone Before...
Comical supposed "horror" movie with the doctor from "Love Boat" (Bernie Kopell), Sulu (George Takei) and Scotty (James Doohan) from "Star Trek", and Isabel (Katherine Heigl) from "Roswell", as well as co-star of those wonderful "Vacation" movies, Randy Quaid.

The whole thing with the bugs and the dark and the water was pretty darn far-fetched. If you are a horror movie fan, this is NOT the film for you. Randy Quaid as a twisted exterminator-general -- that's about the only scary thought in the movie. But if you want see former Trek dudes die, it's all right.

But let's face it: this movie would have been pretty darned unwatchable without Katherine Heigl in it. She looked the best I had ever seen her look (at least until the June 2000 Maxim shots). She has some acting talent as well, though you would not be able to discern it from this flick. More Heigl and less Scotty in the future works for me... ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Red Line 7000
This movie had special appeal to me as I was in college in Daytona Beach at the time this movie was made, and I have always been a fanatic for the cars of that era. Although the acting and story may not be the absolute best, I enjoy the cars and the nostalgia. I wish some studio would issue this as a DVD, but think that is unlikely. It remains one of my favorite all-time movies. ... Read more

Reviews (216)

Lighten Up!!
For the last 11 years, Star Trek V has been criticized mercilessly by critics, alleged Star Trek "fans" and even some Next Generation cast members.

Yes, there is sloppy editing in points and if you are obsessed with special effects, then I guess there are some slips here and there.

However, the film offers a good deal of interesting moments. We finally get to see Kirk, Spock and McCoy explore their friendship in a venue other than the ship!! Most importantly however, the much maligned Shatner, long criticized for hogging screen time, gives us more of ALL of the co-stars than we see the in the other Trek films. The Motion Picture offered virtually nothing for Uhura, Scotty, Chekov and Sulu to do. ST II gave Chekov a little more screen time but Uhura, Sulu and especially Scotty were hard to find. (Not to mention that the theatrical cut of II removes a fine scene with James Doohan in sick bay when his apprentice dies and Scotty asks Kirk why? A powerful scene left on the editing room floor.) III leaves Uhura in the dust somewhere, in IV Sulu might as well not be there and in VI, again Sulu gets short shrift as do the rest.

In V, everybody gets in on the action. Uhura is allowed to do more than just open hailing frequencies, she flies the shuttle, distracts the Nimubs III outpost guards etc. Chekov has some nice moments as the "Captain". Sulu is on the ground with Kirk as he was in the original series. Scotty is allowed to venture out of the engine room. The jail break scene is priceless!

More than any of the other films, V has the feel of the first two seasons of the original series where more attention was paid to the co-stars. In V you get the feeling that these characters are really something of a family and that they care about each other.

Particulary effective is the characterization of Spock. Nimoy does a nice turn playing a weaker, more unsure Spock which is how the character should be played given the events in III and IV. However, as the movie progresses, Spock gets stronger. His old nature slowly returns as the challenges mount and finally the Spock of old is back when he takes command of the Enterprise in an attempt to save Kirk. He says to the old Klingon General, "You will try" when the General hesitates to confront a hostile bird of prey. In those three words, Spock's ability to command is fully returned to him. Something he had lost after he died. I find in this movie that Spock is not only unsure of his actions regarding Sybok, but that the sub text is that he is questioning his ability to be an officer in Starfleet.

Five has various problems agreed, but the characters are never closer.

That closeness holds somewhat in VI only to be butchered yet again in the horrific Star Trek Generations. The only time that picture is at all intersting is when the old crew or in the later parts, Kirk, is on screen. Again, cut were made which reduced Koenig and Doohan's roles to virtually nothing and though the addition of Sulu's daughter is a nice touch, Kirk's apparent unfamiliarity with her is disturbing. Yes it is supposed to show that Kirk gave up a personal life blah blah blah. But why not have Kirk responsible for helping her through her career in Starfleet afterall, though Generations leads us to believe differently, Kirk's devotion was not just to the Captain's Chair and his duty, but also to his ship and crew.

I cherish V because it does effectively what ALL the original Trek movies should have done more of, give more story time to the co-stars and show the powerful connections between all seven of the characters.

Failure on the Final Frontier
From just about anyone's standpoint, this is not a good film. But the problem isn't the directing. William Shatner clearly knows how to handle a camera and draws fine performances from the cast (especially DeForest Kelley).

The problem with Star Trek V centers on the script. There is an old Broadway saying, "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage." The failure of this movie proves the validity of that truism. Since Shatner is listed as one of the persons behind the story here, he must bear his fair share of the responsibility for the problems with this story. Creating a script about the search for a tangible God, even if it winds up being a false God, sets the viewer up for disappointment. No matter how spectacularly the Almighty is presented on film, it can't live up to the real thing. In this film, He comes across as a latter day Wizard of Oz. Compounded with that are the problems with continuity within the Trek "universe," and overall tone: introducing Sybok as Spock's half-brother, and the use of the cast for slapstick humor, do not help an already implausible story. Small wonder Gene Roddenberry did not consider this film to be canonical Trek.

The special effects, which are crude and amateurish, do not help matters. However, the special effects during the original series were often sub-par, yet the old shows continue to satisfy even in today's CGI era. (Anyone with any doubts about that should simply check how well the Original Series DVDs have been selling on Amazon.) The anemic visuals merely add to the problems here because they are coupled to a weak script.

About the most charitable thing one can say about this film is that it features a wonderful score from Trek veteran Jerry Goldsmith. But that is not enough to save this uninspiring quest.

No complaints about the sound & picture, although more extras would have been welcome.

Give the man a break!
I take it not everyone is well versed in Star Trek history or Hollywoods knack for messing things up. The truth is this: The Budget was cut, so William Shatner couldn't even use the Special Effects he intended to! Also, Shatner didn't have his hands on the reigns completely througout filming. What really happened is a lot of people in charge pretty much told him to cut some of the movie out (atleast an hours worth!), forget about the Special effects and NO! Sean Connery will not play Sarek, and etc., etc. Instead of knowing the truth, too many people assume the movie stinks because of Shatner. Perhaps if Shatner had gotten the chance to make the film like he wanted, it could have been one of the best. Needless to say, of ALL the ST films, this one gave the characters actual personalities. It showed they had lives and loves outside of the Federation. And it was hilarious! Like I said, don't knock the man, it really WASN'T his fault, but then again, if anyone cared to find out the truth, they would know all this already!

Uneven in the extreme.
Any Star Trek fan is well aware of the place Star Trek 5 has occupied in the film series. Most people avoid it and try not to look directly at it, for fear of turning into a pillar of salt. But is it really that bad?

Yes and no. If you watch some of the special features and watch the film, you'll see some of the aims were noble and even achieved. Shatner and Bennett mention trying to stay true to the original series by exploring the emotional core of Spock, Kirk and McCoy. They also try the tried-and-true formula of commenting on the human condition by asking a deeper question about humanity within the framework of science fiction.

That, of course, what makes this film so uneven. The moments focusing on Spock, Kirk & McCoy are the film's strongest -- informed with an easy sentimentality and nostalgia but underscoring the long-standing friendship of the characters and chemistry of the actors. McCoy's wit is at its sharpest in this film. These moments are worth the time.

But the larger question about God is where the movie stumbles. For many, the memory of this movie and plot is summed up in the line, "What does God need with a starship?" It's one of those cringe-inducing lines that even Laurence Olivier would have trouble lending any measure of credibility to. Shatner does the best he can within the constraints of character, time, budget, etc. and the result, unfortunately, doesn't work.

According to the special features, this movie was plagued by budget and time shortfalls as well as an effects house that might not have been up to the task. Shatner's commentary repeatedly mentions time and money shortfalls. Is it possible that this hurt the quality of the film? Most likely. The script called for so many new and huge sets that it seems to have put a crimp in the budget for the actual filming. Unfortunately for us, that's the part that we're going to notice.

If you're a die-hard Trek fan, you should pick this up. It is a better issue than the original, and the special features are fairly enlightening (the deleted "Rock Man" test footage and storyboards are interesting). However, for everyone else, this is a rental at most -- and if you're not a hardcore fan of the series, probably one to be avoided.

My major disappointment with this set was that it didn't probe deep enough into the question of "What went wrong?" It has the appearance of being a defense of the film while making some concessions, and not going deep enough. It's quite likely that asking these questions and pushing for answers would have burned bridges that the franchise can't afford to burn, which is understandable. However, it ends up suffering from the same syndrome as the movie itself: Well-intentioned but falling short in the execution.

The Final Frontier Special Edition
The Good Captain and his crew finally get some shore leave and we begin the movie in beautiful Yosemite National Park - a very uplifting idea from the start, that Yosemite Park will survive into the 23rd Century!
I'm dismayed that if one reviewer/critic (oh, let's say Roger Ebert) wants to boldly label this movie THE WORST that everyone else feels obligated to nit-pik it to death. Remember, this movie came out the same time as BATMAN and perhaps we were all turning to the dark side anyway. I do, however, remember seeing this movie in theatre and the audience enjoying it as much as the others in the series.
Yes, this movie IS sentimental. Yes, the money DID run short (if you listen to the commentaries of all the Star Trek movies, all the directors were forced by the studios to do much with little compared to Robert Wise!) and some production values suffered. Yet I much prefer it to Star Trek VI because so much of the enjoyment for me are the ACTORS interacting in character. The themes of brotherhood, blind loyalty, blind faith, facing your own fears and the question of just where GOD is are addressed on grand scale as well as gently. That's a huge undetaking. This is as introspective as I've seen the "brothers" Kirk, Spock & McCoy get. Toss in some sillinessand sweetness, and it makes for great entertainment. Lighten up, people. Go climb a rock! Then enjoy the Commentary by William & Liz Shatner when you watch it the second time! ... Read more

Description

" Commandos have taken part in every war in American history, fromthe Revolution to today.But it wasn't until World War II that these unconventional unitsevolved into official, structured parts of the Army.And it was left to President Kennedyto grant them their trademark berets and legitimize the ""special forces."" Narrated byStacy Keach, THE GREEN BERETS is a thrilling look at these fabled fighters.Explorewhat is known about their missions in Vietnam fighting behind enemy lines, the truestory of their extensive ""black ops"" remain top secret.Military historians reveal howWorld War II units like the Rangers and ""Merrill's Marauders"" showed the need for apermanent, specialized force trained to operate with minimal supervision.See footage ofthe Berets in training and in action, and meet with some of the men who have served withthis elite force. From Vietnam to Panama and the Gulf War, this is an up-close look atTHE GREEN BERETS." ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Good, But Flawed
Although I have seen this picture well over a dozen times and although I think it's basically a good movie, I must be objective and admit that "The Green Berets" is basically a propaganda piece that at the time of its filming was an attempt to change public sentiment about our country's involvement in Vietnam. For this reason, as well as the healing period our country went through after Vietnam, the movie seems rather archaic and naive today. Those on the far left ridicule it. Those on the far right treat it with the reverence of a Biblical tale. The truth about "The Green Berets" is that it lies somewhere between these two extremes.

The Fort Benning, Georgia filmed training sequences appear to be as real as anything I ever saw while I was in uniform. The combat sequences, however, contained a fair share of errors, most notably the well-known "sun setting in the east" flub. The acting was rather wooden, especially from Wayne as well as Jack Soo, portraying the ARVN officer, and the plot meandered from being quite good in some parts to being downright silly in others.

The most important thing to remember about this movie is that it should be taken for what it is...a good war movie. To casually dismiss it as irrelevant or hopelessly out of step with the truth simply doesn't do it justice. In similar fashion, it's rather stupid to portray it as an homage to the American way of life and characterize those who point out this picture's many flaws as "un-American", as one previous review did. This picture is best enjoyed with the viewer's bias, be it liberal or conservative, turned off.

from a patriot who was not afraid.
if John Wayne had made something like this today he would be ostracized from all of Hollywood and from about 2% of this nation. he was a man, a patriot and he wanted to show the good of our struggle. vietnam was a war that was not unlike every other war, the only difference was our citizens. the baby boomers grew up spoiled (founding fathers of the modern left). they didnt understand hard work and what a country need's to do for freedom. the left will today say freedom is a slogan, that we will always be free, they will say bush's war is for oil or some uneducated and clichéd response, but freedom is not just about a war or occupation, it's the freedom to not be afraid to get on a airplane, the freedom to not fear going into tall buildings, the freedom not to fear gathering large groups in public. and for the arab world it means to not be afraid to have your wife drive your car, or wear a dress in public, or to question a religious authority. the whole idea of vietnam was to prevent the spread of communism, it was a war that transcended vietnam itself, it was a war to measure our country and our people's resolve. vietnam taught our enemies (and todays modern terrorists) that if they can scare us, horrify us or kill enough of us that we will cower and not fight. Stalin, Khrushchev, khadafi, Usama, and hussein thought this, and we taught them all a lesson through might.

just because liberal's think war is not the answer it does not mean that our enemies do also. we are not europe, if we do not spend money on our military, flex our muscles, set deadlines and take action no one ele will. we do not have anyone to protect us like europe and the world have us. terrorist do not seek peace, they do not hate us because we are us they hate us because of hollywood, because of our freedom from starvation, our comfort in life and from our belief that we can live life any way we want without regard.

John wayne in his portrayal of vietnam was not "propaganda" it was to boost moral for the country, to support our efforts in defeating communism. i read before someone said john wayne was no patriot, what is a patriot if not to support the united states and to keep it's moral up? john wayne did that, ask any soldier from WWII to the present day. i feel bad for the liberal's they hate everyone, stand for everything while believing in nothing and really do not know anything of history or of humanity.

THE DUKE HAS THE LEFT TIED IN KNOTS
In 1969, John Wayne infuriated the Left with "The Green Berets", a film that made no apologies in its all-out support of America's effort in Vietnam. It was lambasted by critics, but in a very interesting sign, sold out at the box office. It plays today and while it is heavy-handed, there is little about it that rings untrue. The soldiers do not swear, complain or bastardize their uniforms like the actual guys did, but their patriotism and military professionalism was the real deal. The Communists they fight in the film are shifty little pissants. This does not deviate from the essential truth.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

bad propoganda but a couple of gem performances
the performances of david jansaan and jim hutton stand out in this really blatant propoganda piece.
wayne the director and producer is not someone i empathize with but i do believe wayne the actor was vastly underrated.
too many people, myslef included, often let waynes politcs get in the way of acknowledging his acting powers.
this film is that in a nutshull.
his politics are unavoidable but the scen in which he wells up, on the verge of tears, trying to tell the young boy of huttons death is powerhouse acting pure and simple.
try to appreciate it.

A solid, well-made film
John Wayne like any other American had the right to promote his opinion. Period. ...

Now, the film is as accurate as any other Vietnam film made in that last 30 years because films are created to promote an opinion. (I've known Vietnam Vets who were not dope smoking, gun-totting genocidists.)

As far as action and commitment, the Green Berets succeeds as a solid "war film." No one who cares about good film making can argue that, unless they believe in censorship. The film is panoramic and energetic in cinematic quality. The characters are strong male types (like Vets I've known.) The film chose its side and promoted it. There is one strong element that the film brings home. The US military was better at killing, and it had to be. Most US detachments were generally outnumbered, fighting an opposition armed by numerous totalitarian countries from Europe to Asia. That is a historical fact, which interestingly enough, was introduced into a film over 35 years old.

The Green Berets, again, is a solid war-film and interestingly enough, is less fancifully than Platoon. The Green Berets is worth the time to see. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

You Need Not Take It Seriously to Like It
BUG BUSTER is one of those rarest of fright films: it knows when not to take itself too seriously even if it does not know when to frighten and when to amuse. The Bug of the movie is the Mother Bug, a flying roach that looks exactly like what is it, some guy on wires wearing a bug suit. It is hard to imagine even small children being fightened, but it is far easier to see that the audience is titillated by overlapping waves of corny dialogue, cheesy special effects, and guest appearances by Star Trek's James Doohan as a corrupt small-town sheriff and George Tokei as a demented entymologist. The plot is nonsense, of course. A Mother Bug lays eggs that threaten everyone in town. This theme of insectoid mother love we have seen before. ALIENS showed us how it could be presented in a serious vein. But here, in BUG BUSTER, everything is played for laughs. Randy Quaid steals the show as exterminator General George, who squares off in a boxing match with the Mother Bug in a scene that pays homage to Charles Dutton, who tried much the same in ALIENS 3. The result of this slugfest is a microscopic metaphor of the joy that a Big Bug movie can bring if only it refuses to take itself too seriously.

BEAM US UP SCOTTIE!
Yes, James Doohan and George Takei, STAR TREK's Scotty and Sulu, are in this movie. Doohan has more screen time as the sheriff, but Takei as an eccentric scientist, looks like he stepped right out of a Japense scifi flick.
BUG BUSTER, an entertaining little flick, has an identity crisis that works against its overall effectiveness. Is it a horror movie with comic touches or is it a comedy with horror touches? It's not out and out satire like the Scary Movie series, and it seems to want to take itself seriously, even with Randy Quaid's over the top General George, the pest eliminator. At any rate, director Lorenzo Doumani keeps the movie going along pretty well and has some unique things going for it.
First, here we have Bernie Kopell (from LOVE BOAT) and Anne Lockhart (June's daughter) playing the parents of premenopausal Katherine Heigl. And they get their own love scene..it's nice to see people past the age of 50 having the desire to have sex and show their love for each other.
As for the bugs, the real roaches are quite repulsive, and even the giant one at the climax is effectively disgusting. Downtown Julie Brown has a "cute" cameo as the reporter for FU2 t.v., where she blatantly extols the calamities happening in the little town of Mountainview.
Another unique touch: Trailer Trash, the band in the lodge's lounge, featuring Melba Toast and ?, is hilarious.
Entertaining, but its identity crisis, keeps it from being better. Oh, Brenda Doumani who plays the veterinarian is effective, and probably related to the director? Anyway, she also sings the movies closing credit song, "Virtue", which is about as bad as a song can get!

One of Heigl's best films
OK, there are two reasons why this film gets 5 stars. You Katherine Heigl fans know what I mean.

Here Heigl's family moves to a small west coast town being pleagued by giant bugs. And only the cast of 'Star Trek' can save her.

For a B movie the production is suprisingly good.

For those of you disapionted by Heigl's recent films 'Valintine' and 'Evil Never Dies' have no fear. Thoses film stunk because Heigl barely had any screen time. In 'Bug Buster' she is truly the main character and does what she does best, taking baths and showing.

I'd probably rate this film third after 'Wish Upon a Star' and 'Prince Valient' (where is that DVD?)

If your a guy wondering "who in Katherine Heigl?" Look her up on the internet. Then come back here and order this film.

Bug Buster
Well guys, I was one of those who made the movie. Comical is the only word for it. Let me tell you, it wasn't intended to be a humorous film at first!
-this from the hard working art department

Where No Movie Has Gone Before...
Comical supposed "horror" movie with the doctor from "Love Boat" (Bernie Kopell), Sulu (George Takei) and Scotty (James Doohan) from "Star Trek", and Isabel (Katherine Heigl) from "Roswell", as well as co-star of those wonderful "Vacation" movies, Randy Quaid.

The whole thing with the bugs and the dark and the water was pretty darn far-fetched. If you are a horror movie fan, this is NOT the film for you. Randy Quaid as a twisted exterminator-general -- that's about the only scary thought in the movie. But if you want see former Trek dudes die, it's all right.

But let's face it: this movie would have been pretty darned unwatchable without Katherine Heigl in it. She looked the best I had ever seen her look (at least until the June 2000 Maxim shots). She has some acting talent as well, though you would not be able to discern it from this flick. More Heigl and less Scotty in the future works for me... ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Good family film from Feature Films...
From Feature Films for Families, a wholesome family entertainment company promoted by James Dobson, Billy Graham, Dr. Laura, and others. This is a "live action" movie (not a cartoon) about four children stuck in the middle of a divorce. Sounds grim, but it's really not...a good drama with some comedy added in.

Comes with a parents discussion guide which gets to the heart of the matter: what are family values? are there communication techniques that can break down barriers causing misunderstandings? we can't choose our family, but can we choose our friends? and more...

A good, solid, entertaining movie that has a strong moral to the story.

who gets the house?
A GOOD FAMILY FILM FOR ALL AGES. THE CHILDREN TRY TO
GET THEIR MOM AND DAD BACK TOGETHER. THE CHILDREN ASKED
FOR CUSTODY OF THE HOUSE AND THE PARENTS HAD TO TAKE TURNS
STAYING WITH THEM. THOUGHT THIS WAS A VERY NOVEL IDEA.

BOTH MOM AND DAD LOVED EACH OTHER BUT WERE UNABLE TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM.

AN EXCELLENT ENDING ON THE MOVIE AND GOOD LESSONS ON LOVE.

A great movie
Don (Carl Marotte) and Rebecca Reece (Sophie Lorain) form an unlikely pair, at least unlikely since Don has changed so much since 18 years ago when they got married. And how unfortunate for the four kids: Brian (Ricky Mabe), Emily (Elisha Cuthbert), Heidi (Emma Isherwood) and Amy (Sally Isherwood) that Don and Rebecca have decided to separate. But Jennifer Rhodes (Fatuma Kayembe) -- the brains of the group -- has plans, at least for the kids.

After a number of years as a professional architect, Don grows sullen and much too somber when compared with Rebecca who has always been bright and a little flighty. But, she made Don laugh -- until recently. Now there is a stern and so proper husband living with a still fun-loving wife. Not a good combination. And how four very pleasant and intelligent kids were produced by this dueling duo is beyond me. But it is just a movie.

When Jennifer, the daughter of a lawyer and a very good friend of Emily, the oldest of the Reece kids learns of the plans of Don and Rebecca, she remembers some of her father's legal dealings and arranges for a judge to draw up an order of possession of the house should the parent split, i.e., who gets the house.

When Don and Rebecca finally tell the kids they are separating, the kids were prepared. The legal order of the judge was that if the parents split up, the kids get the house and the parents get alternating weekly visitation. But still the kids are not at all happy with the separation, so they devise devices to get mom and dad back together. And that is probably the best part of this very, very good movie. I will not spoil any more of it for you and hope that you find the tape of this movie.... ... Read more

Reviews (168)

A socially conscious Trek movie
On the fourth installment in the Star Trek movie series, Kirk and company are flying their captured Klingon vessel back to Earth to face the punishment for their misdeeds. On the way though, fate intervenes in the form of an alien probe wreaking destruction upon Earth's oceans. With quick thinking, the crew figures out that it is attempting to speak to an extinct species of Whale, so they slingshot their crummy "Klingon fleatrap" around the sun and travel back in time to San Francisco circa 1986 to save the future.

The time travel cliche is done very well by the Star Trek crew, and although the movie is incredibly dated, it's still a very humerous film that takes a pressing social issue (mainly ecological conservation) and wraps it into an enjoyable sci-fi plot. One of the biggest strengths of the Star Trek series has always been its social conscious, and they deliver yet again with "The Voyage Home".

I'd like to stress again that this is a very lighthearted and humerous film that is saved by the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously. If nothing else, where else do you get to watch Spock develop a penchant for profanity? Add to that the usual interplay between him, Kirk, and McCoy, and you've got a winning movie that hard core Trek fans and casual moviegoers can enjoy.

EXCELLENT!
After the often overshadowed Star Trek III, producer Harve Bennett and returning director Leonard Nimoy wanted to make a light-hearted adventure with no deaths. That was understandable because III had the destruction of the Enterprise, the death of Kirk's son, and an overall serious revival adventure for Mr. Spock. After a script by Steve Meerson and Peter Krikes (with Eddie Murphy originally supposed to have a role because he was a big Trek fan), Harve Bennett needed a rewrite. The man chosen: Nicholas Meyer, writer and director of Star Trek II.

What we have here is one of the magnum ef