Reviews (10)

Apropos
What better movie for a priest to review than 'Mass Appeal'? Directed by Glenn Jackson, and co-starring veteran actors Jack Lemmon and Charles Durning with relative newcomer Zeljko Ivanek, this story has influenced me in interesting ways.

Lemmon plays Father Farley, a jaded, settled Roman Catholic rector of a prominent parish, ultimately dis-satisfied with his lot in life but terrified nonetheless of losing it. Into this comfortable world steps an upstart seminarian Dolson (played by Ivanek), who has more principle than tact, and more passion than people skills.

The rector and the seminarian end up being placed together in a mentoring situation by the seminary dean, Mons. Burke (Durning), an autocratic moralist with strict rules on priestly formation. Various issues resound in the relationships of each of these characters with each other, the seminary, the congregation, and ultimately with their own destinies. Farley's issues with past abuse, Dolson's life on the wild side prior to seminary, and Burke's paranoia all enter the interplay of church politics and the discernment of a spiritual calling.

Farley is both irritated by and inspired by the seminarian. The seminarian takes a stand for honesty which costs him his appointment. The dean refuses to listen to anyone, including his friend Farley, and begins to question Farley's integrity as a priest as well.

Farley learns that it is never to late to hear a call, and that what he thought was his call in fact was a facade. Dolson finally realises that the in-your-face approach to public relations is not very pastoral, but his listening skills far exceed those around him, and he becomes trusted by Farley. Alas, the dean--what becomes of him? We never know.

Where God leads is a difficult question, with no easy answers, and we can spend much of our time following our version of that vocation without really ever touching the substance of it (as did Father Farley). We can be so overzealous for it that we might burn it out before it comes into being, rather like a forced hot-house flower that blooms prematurely and then dies too soon (similar to Dolson's experience).

This is an interesting film which brings up issues of polity, morality, reconciliation and redemption, themes that are far more prevalent in life than we would ordinarily think. This movie may not have mass appeal but can be enjoyed and, perhaps, give insight to all viewers, be they Roman Catholic, other denominations of Christian, of other religions, or even no religion at all.

Lemmon at his sourly best.
Humphrey Bogart, Bing Crosby, Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, Jack Lemmon--what do they have in common? All played priests, but no one more convincingly than Lemmon in this story about a popular, "bourgeois," crowd-pleasing conservative priest who is suddenly challenged by a young liberal seminarian representing honesty, forthrightness, and social change. The "message" primarily concerns the old dog, popular priest learning to change his ways, while the radical young seminarian also absorbs lessons about the real world and dealing with people. But forget about the story and its themes. As a movie, "Mass Appeal" is 3 stars; as a script 4; as a vehicle for one of the screen's most colorful, personable, irresistibly charismatic actors, it's 5 all the way. Here's proof positive: though the story calls for Lemmon to play the part of the rather "bad" guy--someone who lies and schmoozes and sugar-coats the Gospel in order to fill the offering plates each Sunday--it's his character and not the seminarian's who rivets our attention, maintains our interest, and inhabits our memories long after the film is over. The truth-telling, liberal, activist seminarian, on the other hand, is little more than a "generic" character cast from a late 1960s mold. The point is that neither of the parts is especially distinguished on the basis of the writing alone; rather, it's Lemmon's unique ability to give a "face" to his role that makes both his character as well as the film work.

Simply Amazing!
This is one of the finest films I've ever seen. As a seminarian myself, I am convinced this film should be required viewing for all seminarians, priests, and all formators in the pre-seminary and seminary systems. Jack Lemmon and Zeljko Ivanek give poweful performances as Father Tim Farley and Deacon Mark Dolson; Lemmon's character is a wildly popular but complacent parish priest. Ivanek, in the role of a newly ordained transitional deacon, plays the idealistic and brash seminarian who conflicts with Fr. Farley's "song and dance" theology. As the two interact, a friendship is forged and the aging priest rediscovers his priestly vocation from the prodding of the young deacon. Ultimately, Fr. Farley finds himself in the position of defending young Dolson against the homophobic attack of the seminary rector.
While the theology of this film is not 100% sound, the overall theme is absolutely solid and gives you a lot of truth to think about. Whether it be Deacon Dolson's sordid past or the laziness of Father Farley's priestly ministry, the issues addressed are poignant and powerful. You simply must see this film!

Mass Appeal? Massive Lawsuits!
Unfortunately too many Catholic dioceses took the advice of this movie. Now they're being sued by the victims of homosexual priests,who seduced them when they were teenagers.

Splendid Comedy About Church & Homosexuality
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

Father Farley (Jack Lemmon) is certainly the most popular clergyman around. His congregation adores him and his dialogue sermons are well attended. So he is not exactly thrilled when young seminarian Mark Dolson (Zeljko Ivanek) takes the word "dialogue" literally (Should women become priests?) and transforms his church into a political platform.

Mark is something of a problem, for himself and others. He would give anything to become a priest, but his moral is sometimes selective: He is filled with indignation that his sister is in love with a married man, yet his own past is not immaculate...

Being popular, providing "mass appeal", father Farley can permit himself an occasional slip of tongue and little weaknesses ("It's only wine. Making wine was Jesus's first miracle"). Yet, he owes much of his comfortable life-style (playing golf, driving a mercedes) to his unique ability to crawl, especially before Monsignor Burke (Charles Durning). And it's so easy to find excuses: a broken marriage or a potential abortion are always at hand when he isn't in the mood to spend an evening with his superior. Harmless little lies...

But now Monsignor Burke is concerned about two seminarians who apparently maintain homosexual relations, and instructs Farley to , well, spy ont them. Farley is furious at the thought of having to do this dirty work, but his fear to be pushed off to Iowa or some other province is a stronger driving force.

Just watch the following sequence to understand why Lemmon is considered by so many people (including me) as the greatest actor who ever lived. While Mark reproaches Burke with homophoby ("St. John always referred to himself as the one whom Jesus loved. Jesus was also a man! And he asked for love!"), Farley tries at once to be in and out of the room, to mediate and to be invisible, to help the boy, but without falling into disgrace himself.

The only consequence of Marks outburst of fury is, that Monsignor Burke now suspects him of being gay himself. Still, he is willing to postpone his exclusion from the seminary for a month, under the condition that father Farley takes him under his wings. In Farleys opinion, Mark is sincere but needs guidance. But Mark is not enthusiastic: "You're popular. That doesn't mean you can teach me what I have to learn."

Before Farley allows Mark to give a sermon to his congregation, he has to learn "charm" and "technique". What if he doesn't please the audience? As a precaution, Farley introduces him as a "new James Dean", an appropriate comparison, since Mark manages to scandalize many church-goers ("I come here because of you. I don't want to be preached to" says a lady to Farley).

Farley's lessons about what a priest has to learn (How to console mourning relatives?) glide imperceptibly into a confession. The moment when Farley reveals that he was a beaten child is a shock for the viewer ("My mother remarried. I hate her new husband. I cry myself to sleep because I think that she will go to hell"). But now his lonely life as a young priest ("Men ignored me. Women were painfully polite to me") is over! Never will he sacrifice his comfortable home, HIS people. Not for Mark, not for anyone!

One evening, during dinner, he draws Mark out about his sexual past ("Have you ever seen Paris?"). Mark cannot lie to Farley, and he cannot lie to Monsgnor Burke (although Farley implores him to). Burkes reaction is what was to be expected: He throws Mark out. Father Farley has now to make the decision of a lifetime. Can he rise above himself?

The screenplay (Bill C. Davis, from his play) is nothing short of brilliant. Funny, yet touching, filled with humor, but not for the dumb and dumber but for smart and discriminating viewers. The beautiful music is by Bill Conti.

The performances are impeccable, all actors shine, but it's really the star who makes this film. I have been exposed to method-acting during my whole life now. I hear them mumble. I see them stare. The most famous exponent of this species has just two facial expressions: either teeth clenched or mugging, but this with great self-assurance. So, if I want to see REALLY great acting from time to time I have to rely on Lemmon. Just watch the expression in his eyes, when, at some point, he is driven to slap the boy in the face: this moment he is overwhelmed by his own, sad childhood memories. Or, when his "dutch courage" (from wine) enables him to confront Monsignor Burke with the words: "Celibacy is celibacy. Even if your thing is goats!". It's such a finely tuned and precise performance, so colourful, dazzling and full of verve, that I still cannot understand why this film was so overlooked, by audiences and academy-members alike.

I can recommand this film to everyone. It's a masterpiece. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

ONE OF NEIL SIMON'S BEST
Excellent cast and extremely well written material. Only when I Laugh shows Marsha Mason at her best along with the late James coco and Joan Hackett. We also see a very talented Kristy McNichols. Can't wait for the DVD release of this classic!

Can't Wait for DVD
I hope they come out with a DVD of this classic soon. This is a very special movie. If they don't convert it to digital soon, I'm going to burn a VHS into DVD. They don't even have this movie in stock on Amazon anymore.

Kristy McNichol rocks in this movie. Marsha Mason did an award winning performance. If this doesn't get converted to DVD soon, I'm going to complain to the movie company that holds rights to the movie.

The Reality of Recovery
Another classic Neil Simon-Marsha Mason collaboration (when they were married), "Only When I Laugh" is aptly-titled: as Mason's character explains, she laughs only when her heart is pierced. In her case here, that happens a lot and is masterfully crafted by Simon's bittersweet perspective of his lead character's life, and Mason's flawless delivery. Her character is a recovering alcoholic, and it is her rocky road to recovery that is the benchmark of this film. On the surface, it's much too easy to assess the film as a story about alcoholism. Actually, it's about recovery. And, as most recovering addicts do (God bless 'em), Mason's character finds that life even without chemicals isn't always a bed of roses. As Mason's daughter, Kristy McNichol is the poster child for Al-Anon, and she is awesome as the child of a recovering addict. Sadly, the two strongest supporting performers aren't with us anymore, but Joan Hackett and James Coca are truly magnificent as the friends who carry Mason through the harshness of recovery and, all too commonly, her "slip." It's a timeless message about recovery, and it's a jewel made all the more remarkable by Simon's obvious knowledge about his subject.

Every Time , I Laugh.
This is a terrific movie. Marsha Mason is wonderfully funny and touching as "Georgia", the recently re-habbed actress. Written by her then husband, Neil Simon, and taken from his original stage play, "The Gingerbread Lady", it is full of witty New York theater repartee, as only Simon could write, incomprabley delivered by Marsha Mason. It starts with "Georgia's" somewhat premature (fresh out of rehab) re-immersion into the world of theater via the starring role in a somewhat biographical play, written by her former lover , with whom she had the turbulent relationship that preceded her breakdown. Through the emotion of that experience, and her relapse, she is accompanied by her two best friends, also wonderfully played by James Coco and Joan Hackett. Their 3 way friendship would be called co-dependent nowadays, then...it was just being a supportive good friend. (I think we were better off without the present definition.) You will want these kooky, dear, flawed people as your friends. Kristy McNichol projects just the right quality as the on-the-ball off-spring. Georgias attempts to re-establish a relationship and trust with her previously somewhat ignored daughter are very funny and very touching, with McNichol often ending up as the parental figure. This is just a wonderful, under-rated little gem of a movie, a sweet story in which Marsha Mason gives one of the best performances I've seen. I consider her a terrific actress, and it's a shame that, for whatever reason, she is not creating more wonderful roles. She takes a good story and makes it great. A lovely, funny film about friendship, human frailties, perseverence, and the resilience of the human spirit. LOVE it !

A Real New York movie!
Great performances from the entire cast,especially the late Joan Hackett as a gal trying desperately to hold on to her youth! Shows NYC at its best! A film to watch again and again! Kristy Mcnichols could have been a BIG STAR! ... Read more

Reviews (9)

so many movies like this
there are so many movies like this....movies which showed the american hardships during the war. every movie blames the vietnamese as being evil. particularly this one. in every war....there are people who suffer.....and people who do the suffering. vietnamese people suffered in the war too...even more so than the americans. every vietnamese was affected with the war. lets not forget the my lai massacre and countless other incidents. both sides were to blame...not just the vietnamese. and because of that i dont give this movie a high rating.

COMMUNISM WAS EVIL, EVIL, EVIL
One lonely conservative voice has been trying to shout out from the "wilderness" for years. Lionel Chetwynd is a writer/producer who made "The Hanoi Hilton", which actually described the North Vietnamese as the evil torturers they were. The "Hilton" was the moniker given the infamous prison camp where American POW's were kept while Jane Fonda was flirting with our enemies. Liberal film reviewers criticized it. Do not believe them. It is good stuff.

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

The Hanoi Hilton
I was in the Air Force during the war and have over 100 combat missions. This is the most accurate presentation of the war that is available. It is a story that needed telling and still needs to be told. It describes the situation of the American prisoners in Vietnam in an accurate and truthfull manner. Everyone should see it.

The Hanor Hilton
This movie shows what terrrible hardships these prisoners had to endure. I had the priviladge to talk to one of the wives of these heros and she confirmed a lot of events shown in this movie. Also stated that she was not allowed to even mention that her husband was shot down for six-months. Tell her that this movie was "too long and over emotional"!! Most americans just did not want to face reality during this sad time in our Country's history. I was there during 1966-1968 and in Sigon 1970.

The best Vietnam War film ever made.
I think that this the best Vietnam War film ever made since The Green Berets. What I like about this movie is that it explains about the subject of American Prisoners of War in Vietnam. The film depicted the harsh reality of the suffering and torture that was inflicted on them in these prisoner of war camps. I really enjoyed this film. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Good solid film
Jesse Owens is a Hero.he stood Hate in the Face&Looked it down and was a Champion not only of Sport but of Human Rights.Dorian Harewood a Good Actor who i have seen in countless films does a solid job here.

Great story... is it all true?
I am a major fan of Jesse Owens, and this film is definitely for fans. Dorian Harewood portrays Jesse very well, but almost in a god-like perfection. Of course, biographies are supposed to emphasize good qualities, but this film leaves you wondering if Jesse Owens had any bad ones. Still a very good film, and an excellent way to introduce people who don't know about him to a great role model, a great athlete and world class human. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Although Star Trek: The Motion Picture had been a box-office hit, it was by no means a unanimous success with Star Trek fans, who responded much more favorably to the "classic Trek" scenario of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Inspired by the "Space Seed" episode of the original TV series, the film reunites newly promoted Admiral Kirk with his nemesis from the earlier episode--the genetically superior Khan (Ricardo Montalban)--who is now seeking revenge upon Kirk for having been imprisoned on a desolated planet. Their battle ensues over control of the Genesis device, a top-secret Starfleet project enabling entire planets to be transformed into life-supporting worlds, pioneered by the mother (Bibi Besch) of Kirk's estranged and now-adult son. While Mr. Spock mentors the young Vulcan Lt. Saavik (then-newcomer Kirstie Alley), Kirk must battle Khan to the bitter end, through a climactic starship chase and an unexpected crisis that will cost the life of Kirk's closest friend. This was the kind of character-based Trek that fans were waiting for, boosted by spectacular special effects, a great villain (thanks to Montalban's splendidly melodramatic performance), and a deft combination of humor, excitement, and wondrous imagination. Director Nicholas Meyer (who would play a substantial role in the success of future Trek features) handles the film as a combination of Moby Dick, Shakespearean tragedy, World War II submarine thriller, and dazzling science fiction, setting the successful tone for the Trek films that followed. --Jeff Shannon ... 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 (2)

Good solid film
Jesse Owens is a Hero.he stood Hate in the Face&Looked it down and was a Champion not only of Sport but of Human Rights.Dorian Harewood a Good Actor who i have seen in countless films does a solid job here.

Great story... is it all true?
I am a major fan of Jesse Owens, and this film is definitely for fans. Dorian Harewood portrays Jesse very well, but almost in a god-like perfection. Of course, biographies are supposed to emphasize good qualities, but this film leaves you wondering if Jesse Owens had any bad ones. Still a very good film, and an excellent way to introduce people who don't know about him to a great role model, a great athlete and world class human. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Good Idea, Bad Execution
Partway through watching My Tutor on DVD, I remembered I'd seen it in the theater when it first came out. Back then I had the same reaction I do today: this movie could have been a whole lot better than it is.

Bobby Chrystal (Matt Lattanzi) has failed his high school senior year French finals. This means he won't be able to get into Yale, a situation intolerable to his overbearing Yaley dad (Kevin McCarthy, best known for playing the main character in the 1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers). Dad hires beautiful blond Terry Green (Caren Kaye) to be Bobby's summer live-in French tutor. If Bobby can pass a makeup French test at school, all past educational shortcomings will be forgiven and the halls of Yale pre-law beckon. However, Bobby learns a whole lot more from Terry than French as she becomes his first lover.

That bare description of plot sounds like it could make a sweet romantic comedy. And it could - it just doesn't. To start with there's the sub-plot of Bobby's friend Billy (Clark Brandon) and his repeated, unsuccessful efforts to get his younger brother (Crispin Glover) and Bobby laid, including a trip to the most dysfunctional brothel on God's green earth, hooking them up with a trashy waitress with a biker boyfriend, etc. These episodes simply aren't funny. Bobby, the main character we should like, is a whiny punk. The acting by all concerned is frankly not that great. There's not much in the way of chemistry between Lattanzi and Kaye, especially early-on. Rather than real people who find each other attractive, they come across like beautiful actors reading their lines - badly. (They do get better as the movie progresses.) The way the two characters hook up - not to give away too much of the scintillating plot - is unbelievable. We don't see the relationship develop through time, from attraction to liking to, eventually, sex. Toward the end of the movie, after Bobby's treated Terry quite decently during the relationship, it's back to acting like a whiny punk when it becomes obvious they're not going to last. You just want to slap this guy upside the head.

There are a few good things in My Tutor. In-between the unrealistic start of the relationship and Bobby acting like a baby toward the end, there's some genuinely sweet stuff as Bobby and Terry pillow talk in bed. It's nice. And Billy's comeback to a girl at a party who refuses to dance with him is one of the funniest things I've ever heard in any film. I really want to like this movie for the few things it does right; unfortunately they're not enough to counterbalance the many things it does wrong.

In my mind I contrast My Tutor to Coach, the 1978 Cathy Lee Crosby/Michael Biehn movie also dealing with a 30-ish woman in a sexual relationship with a high school student. Coach doesn't have quite the production values of My Tutor, it's not as slick and glossy, and its sub-plot of the upcoming "big game" basketball championship is frankly ridiculous, but at heart it's a much more successful film. Because (a) the acting is better - come on, we're talking Cathy Lee Crosby and Michael Biehn here, (b) the relationship seems much more real, not to mention healthy. The characters have great on-screen chemistry, it's believable these two people like each other, as well as find each other attractive. They spend time getting to know each other over numerous dates, talking for hours on end, before nature finally takes its course. You know, all the things My Tutor doesn't do.

The "extras" on this DVD are really lame. Of special note, the "Animated Bios" consist of still pictures of three of the cast (Kaye, Lattanzi, McCarthy) and sketchy bio text "animated" in that it scrolls up the screen. The one neat thing here is the "Naughty Bits Guide," a separate chapter menu for all the movie's "naughty bits," i.e. those featuring nudity/sex. This is such an inventive and fun idea I'm almost tempted to give My Tutor one more star just for that.

Dull but cute
The main reason to watch this flick is if you have a thing for gay male porno star of yesteryear, Tom Steele. The leading guy looks just like him. You see a lot less of this guy, if you catch my drift, but it's cute and watchable in a nostalgia kind of way if you remember seeing it on cable 20 years ago.

"School's out...but Bobby's education has just begun..."
See Bobby (Matt Lattanzi). See Bobby flunk French. Flunk, Bobby, flunk. See Bobby's dad (Kevin McCarthy). See Bobby's dad hire a tutor (Caren Kaye) to French Bobby during the summer. No, wait, I mean to teach Bobby French. "My Tutor" is a 1983 example of the teensploitation genre that kept USA's late night movie show "Up All Night" in business for years. It is a good thing Bobby's tutor likes to take advantage of the family pool late at night and take bikini breaks during class, because it gives us an excuse to ignore the leading man, who has zero charisma to go along with his low test scores. At least he looks old enough that your mind is not distracted by legal complications arising from their interaction. However, in a limited defense of this film it should be pointed out that the "love scenes" are taken seriously, avoiding the raunchy comedy that derails most of these films, so while "My Tutor" is bad it does not descend to the level of being truly awful. You just have to bite the bullet and treat the storyline seriously. Crispin Glover plays Bobby's best friend and serves as a reminder that some actors get out of these low-grade B-movies alive despite scenes that should have inspired them to buy every copy of this tape available in the world and have them destroyed. However, when the cutest girl in the film (Kitten Natividad) is just dropping by for a cameo, that is not a good sign. Otherwise, this is your basic arrested male adolescent sexual fantasy film, which is all you really need to know to decide if you want to spend 90-minutes of your life sitting through "My Tutor." All I can say is that I hope those who insist bad movies be reviewed to achieve a sense of balance are happy now.

Romance or porn?
Totally natural/realistic romance story in sharp contrast, sometimes indeed opposite, to current porn movies (where all characters behave almost totally like machines) and current romance novels (whose reading is almost always boring). ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Have to get Unrated version
I was wondering if the reviewers above had seen the unrated version or the R-version. The unrated version is definately sexy. The scenes are borderline pornographic.

There is one scene in the movie where this couple are making out pretty hot and heavy. All the sudden he lifts up her dress and rips off her [innerwear] and takes right there against the wall. one of the loudest sex scenes I have ever heard. The girl is moaning and screaming like she is being forced. It shows grinding and a couple of times it accidentally shows penetration.

Why? Why? Why?
Did anyone read this dreck before they wasted the film? I don't expect high art from this genre, but nothing about this plot made sense.

truly awful
This is one of the worst films I've seen in a long time. The story makes no sense. The dialogue is laughable. Whoever wrote and directed this film watched too many Tarantino rip-offs and decided to do just one more. Don't waste your time. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

so many movies like this
there are so many movies like this....movies which showed the american hardships during the war. every movie blames the vietnamese as being evil. particularly this one. in every war....there are people who suffer.....and people who do the suffering. vietnamese people suffered in the war too...even more so than the americans. every vietnamese was affected with the war. lets not forget the my lai massacre and countless other incidents. both sides were to blame...not just the vietnamese. and because of that i dont give this movie a high rating.

COMMUNISM WAS EVIL, EVIL, EVIL
One lonely conservative voice has been trying to shout out from the "wilderness" for years. Lionel Chetwynd is a writer/producer who made "The Hanoi Hilton", which actually described the North Vietnamese as the evil torturers they were. The "Hilton" was the moniker given the infamous prison camp where American POW's were kept while Jane Fonda was flirting with our enemies. Liberal film reviewers criticized it. Do not believe them. It is good stuff.

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

The Hanoi Hilton
I was in the Air Force during the war and have over 100 combat missions. This is the most accurate presentation of the war that is available. It is a story that needed telling and still needs to be told. It describes the situation of the American prisoners in Vietnam in an accurate and truthfull manner. Everyone should see it.

The Hanor Hilton
This movie shows what terrrible hardships these prisoners had to endure. I had the priviladge to talk to one of the wives of these heros and she confirmed a lot of events shown in this movie. Also stated that she was not allowed to even mention that her husband was shot down for six-months. Tell her that this movie was "too long and over emotional"!! Most americans just did not want to face reality during this sad time in our Country's history. I was there during 1966-1968 and in Sigon 1970.

The best Vietnam War film ever made.
I think that this the best Vietnam War film ever made since The Green Berets. What I like about this movie is that it explains about the subject of American Prisoners of War in Vietnam. The film depicted the harsh reality of the suffering and torture that was inflicted on them in these prisoner of war camps. I really enjoyed this film. ... Read more

Description

A true story about American soldiers interned in North Vietnam during the years 1964 through 1973, and their struggle to survive within the infamous prison complex they dubbed the Hanoi Hilton. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

so many movies like this
there are so many movies like this....movies which showed the american hardships during the war. every movie blames the vietnamese as being evil. particularly this one. in every war....there are people who suffer.....and people who do the suffering. vietnamese people suffered in the war too...even more so than the americans. every vietnamese was affected with the war. lets not forget the my lai massacre and countless other incidents. both sides were to blame...not just the vietnamese. and because of that i dont give this movie a high rating.

COMMUNISM WAS EVIL, EVIL, EVIL
One lonely conservative voice has been trying to shout out from the "wilderness" for years. Lionel Chetwynd is a writer/producer who made "The Hanoi Hilton", which actually described the North Vietnamese as the evil torturers they were. The "Hilton" was the moniker given the infamous prison camp where American POW's were kept while Jane Fonda was flirting with our enemies. Liberal film reviewers criticized it. Do not believe them. It is good stuff.

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

The Hanoi Hilton
I was in the Air Force during the war and have over 100 combat missions. This is the most accurate presentation of the war that is available. It is a story that needed telling and still needs to be told. It describes the situation of the American prisoners in Vietnam in an accurate and truthfull manner. Everyone should see it.

The Hanor Hilton
This movie shows what terrrible hardships these prisoners had to endure. I had the priviladge to talk to one of the wives of these heros and she confirmed a lot of events shown in this movie. Also stated that she was not allowed to even mention that her husband was shot down for six-months. Tell her that this movie was "too long and over emotional"!! Most americans just did not want to face reality during this sad time in our Country's history. I was there during 1966-1968 and in Sigon 1970.

The best Vietnam War film ever made.
I think that this the best Vietnam War film ever made since The Green Berets. What I like about this movie is that it explains about the subject of American Prisoners of War in Vietnam. The film depicted the harsh reality of the suffering and torture that was inflicted on them in these prisoner of war camps. I really enjoyed this film. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

This is a good story
I have just recently seen this movie on regular television and I have to say I disagree with the bad reviews this movie has received. Could this movie been better? Yes and I will agree that at times the dialogue is bad and the acting by Mrs. Somers could of been better but the story itself is wonderful and the actor, John Vargas, who plays the Brujo is absolutely mesmerizing. He is the bad guy but those eyes literally draws you in so that deep down you almost hope that he wins.

The story line is about a 17th century healer that turned his powers to evil and in the process his lover turns from him and runs. So for centuries he has hunted her spirit and soul and eventually finds it in the 20th century in Lee Lindsay (Somers) a modern day wife, mom and journalist who is interviewing him for the magazine she writes for. From here the story is about him using all of his power to gain possession of her and Lee discovering this inner spirit and soul that eventually gives her the strength and power to defeat him in the end.

The ending could of been better for this is a powerful witch that is easily defeated in the end - which was not acceptable.

After seeing this movie on television though I knew that it was one that I must add to my collection.

The movie was great
Seduced by evil was a great movie, The first time I watched it made me want to buy it, I love the sex scene with Suzanne and the Shamen, it was exciting, the movie is worth watching.

i can't whatch this now
i was going over the reviews from others and without whatching this movie i wish not to do so i am not interested at all thanks for the overview i would of been disapointed joanne glad to have this site

The perfect cure for insomnia
This is a made-for-cable movie screened in 1994 and starring beautiful Suzanne Somers in the role of a very middle-class mother, and full-time newspaper reporter. The character gets embroiled in an affair with a New Mexico male witch, who exercises a spell on her.

The acting is terrible, the dialogues childish, and the whole story a real turkey. How Mrs. Somers accepted to participate in a movie such as this, after her TV successes and popularity, is an enigma.

Two things can be rescued from this movie: one is an excellent new-age style soundtrack, and the other is a two-second scene of Mrs. Somers in underwear showing a beautiful mature body. Apart from that, it is a great medicine for insomniacs.

Pathetic to the end
This is a for-cable produced movie starring beautiful Suzanne Somers. How Mrs. Somers agreed to perform this horrible script is, for me, unexplicable.

The story revolves around an Indian witch that exercises a spell on a reporter (Somers), who is a very middle-class, loving, caring, etc. mother/wife. She, of course, did have an affair with the witch and subsequently felt guilty for it.

Two things are good in this movie: the soundtrack, which is a kind of excellent new age music and a two-second view of Suzanne in underwear (just a beautiful mature body). I don't think that these warrant spending 90 minutes of anyone's life watching this turkey of a movie. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

The movie gets five stars
But the dvd gets only 3 from me, so it averages out to a 4 star release. I was happy when I found out one of my favorite movies was coming out on dvd. A story about overcoming differences; the white female coaching the young, black, inner-city basketball team. There's tension in the beginning because they're unfamiliar with each other, but they learn to work together and end up finding success. Yeah, it may seem like something you've seen before, yeah it may be predictable. But so what? That doesn't mean it's not good. I think the movie did a good job of making the viewer care about and root for the characters, especially Fredro Starr's character, Shorty Dowop. He showed that ruffnecks could be sensitive and have feelings as well as forties. Basically, I love the movie, but the dvd is only in full screen, not wide screen. It would have been nice to have a choice. The only extras are trailers for Race The Sun, Higher Learning and Sunset Park. A music video, filmographies or commentary would have been nice as well, but Columbia/Tristar's low frills dvd treatment prevents me from giving it a perfect score.

how do you say great movie
this movie was one of the better movies i've ever seen. as far as cute guys, great story-line, and talent go it's all that! i can't believe how ne1 could not like it. i think it sends a very positive message out about racial issues. and the movie also isn't mushy at all considering it's a drama. if u like or dis like basketball it doesn't matter because it's still a great movie no matter what! :)

Funny, Sweet, Cute
I love the movie I rated it 5 stars because I think it is a very good movie. It is so funny and I love the people who are in it! If you don't like this movie you are crazy it is so good!! I think it shows that everyone has a dramatic/sweet side, it is an awsome movie!!

The Worst of Its Kind
Yet another failure by movie producers to make an accurate film about life in the inner city. I grew up playing inner city basketball and i thought this movie was about as far from the truth as it could be. This movie presents stereotypes that categorize people into something they are not. The storyline in this movie is laughable to those of us that know better. If you did not grow up in the inner city and don't know what it's like, don't consider this movie to be a reflection of the truth.

This film tries to combine a basketball story line with life in an inner city environment. The basketball aspects are poorly done with a cast that didn't prove they could even portray basketball players. the role of the coach was totally unbelievable. The problems associated with high schoolers were blown out of proportion. Those that were fairly accurate, probably 1 or 2 out of 100 people can relate to it.

The acting is poor and so are the characters. This is a movie that takes people that can't act and attempts to get them to accurately portray people who live in that kind of culture and environment. You can tell when an actor can sell a character's personality and when a person is failing to act tough for a movie role.

The only thing that kept me watching the movie was the soundtrack. At least this movie did something right.

I don't recommend this movie, unless you want a fictional look at life in the inner city and at this kind of culture and lifestyle. If you come from this kind of environment , you will probably have a good laugh.

OK
Its an ok movie good story, but if your a true basketball fan i definatly reconmend Above The Rim it has a better story and its just a better movie overall. Good movie if your a fan of the genre. ... 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 (40)

You'll either love it, or hate it....
It's an amazing thing. My top-five movies of all-time all have one thing in common- they are all either loved or hated by the reviewers on Amazon. This to me, is the sign of a great movie, because it means that people either got it, or the didn't. Some viewers need to be force-fed hollywood clichés, while others are capable of using their brain. This film is a low-key masterpiece, humming like a fridge- almost drugged. People complain that Owen Wilson isn't "scary" or "a believeable serial killer". You tell me what is scarier: a hollywood killer who runs around like a maniac chasing people and screaming, or a quiet-cool, detached psychopath who kills without remorse. This is reality folks. Owen Wilson nails- absolutely NAILS the role. If it's not "Hollywood" enough for you, maybe you should buy Armageddon instead.

A slow/but very good movie about a serial killer
The Minus Man is a movie about a serial killer/drifter, played by Owen Wilson, that arrives in a small town, befriends everyone that he sees. He lives by three rules...do not kill in your own town...do not kill anyone that you know...and do not kill violently. None-the-less, he breaks all of these rules? Owen plays such a low key character, Vann, that it really is kind of disturbing. He has absolutely no remorse or guilt of any kind.

The acting in this movie is phenomenal, the story is very slow paced, but fast enough to keep you interested in the characters. The character development is great, one outstanding performance is by Brian Cox who plays Mr. Durwin (Vann's landlord and friend). There is an interaction between Vann and the Durwins that really identifies this character...I wish I could say more, but I don't want to give away any of the story....basically it identifies how removed - emotionally - Vann is from society...including those you think he truelly cares about.

Outstanding film that may not be for everyone, but if you get it, then all the better.

IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING GOOD...
...this is a disappointing movie. I found myself truly mesmerized by the first half of the movie, trying to figure out what Owen Wilson's character was motivated by; who were these two detectives (Dennis Haysbert, Dwight Yoakum) and why were they haunting him? What really was going on with the landlord's missing daughter? Why did Brian Cox off Mercedes Ruehl? What was the glib ending supposed to mean? Owen Wilson and Janeane Garafolo do fine jobs in their roles; Brian Cox as always is astounding. But why was Vann doing this? The movie answers no questions and ultimately that's why I find it hard to recommend it, in spite of its good points.

Underrated Movie
Owen Wilson is fantastic in this movie, which I had never heard of until I came across it at the video store. It is not the best movie I have ever seen, but it is a very good flick, and I have to wonder why it was not highly promoted.

Other people that made the movie more interesting: Janeane Garofalo, Dwight Yoakam, and Sheryl Crow. The singers didn't sing, and the comedienne didn't crack jokes. And yet they didn't need to, because the acting was great all around.

The only part of this movie that I wouldn't have understood had it not been written on the back of the box was the two imaginary cops who showed up all the time. But unlike Mulholland Drive, this movie was not confusing on the whole. On the contrary, it gave me something to think about.

There's A Hole In The Middle
This is the movie that convinced me that Owen Wilson is for real; it also confirms what a lot of us already suspected: Janeane Garofalo is a perfect woman.

But something is missing from the film; too much time is spent focused on disassociated trivialities: hands picking up pieces of paper, feet walking on pavement, car tires rolling on asphalt. They are images that add up to nothing, mean little to the story, and serve only to pad out the playing time.

But the story is interesting and the acting--especially Wilson, Garofalo, and Dwight Yokum--make it well worth watching. Not a great movie, but a good, quirky, off-beat one. ... 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)