Amazon.com

Widely considered the best movie in the "classic Trek" series of feature films, Star Trek IV returns to one of the favorite themes of the original TV series--time travel--to bring Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov from the 23rd century to present-day San Francisco. In their own time, the Starfleet heroes encounter an alien probe emitting a mysterious message--a message delivered in the song of the now-extinct Earth species of humpback whales. Failure to respond to the probe will result in Earth's destruction, so Kirk and company time-travel to 20th-century Earth--in their captured Klingon starship--to transport a humpback whale to the future in an effort to peacefully communicate with the alien probe. The plot sounds somewhat absurd in description, but as executed by returning director Leonard Nimoy, this turned out to be a crowd-pleasing adventure, filled with humor and lively interaction among the favorite Star Trek characters. Catherine Hicks (from TV's 7th Heaven) plays the 20th-century whale expert who is finally convinced of Kirk's and Spock's benevolent intentions. With ample comedy taken from the clash of future heroes with 20th-century urban realities, Star Trek IV was a box-office smash, satisfying mainstream audiences and hardcore Trek fans alike. --Jeff Shannon ... 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

Amazon.com

Not nearly as good as the original French comedy, Three Men and a Cradle, upon which this is based, Three Men and a Baby nevertheless is decent brain candy directed with some crackle by Leonard Nimoy. Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, and Ted Danson star as three swinging bachelor roommates who find a baby girl on their doorstep--the daughter of Danson's character (who doesn't know about her) by a woman (Nancy Travis) with whom he had a brief fling. The jokes about dirty diapers and feeding schedules are predictable, but the film gains real warmth from Selleck, who does a convincing job playing a fellow whose life is changed for the better by added responsibility. A distracting subplot involving some bad guys threatens to derail everything, and the ending is a bit unconvincing as filmed, but the virtues of this movie finally win out over its weaknesses. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Wonderful, but also see the French film!
Three Men and a Baby is very good I really liked it a lot and thought that all the actors were great! It is about 3 bachelor friends, Jack, Peter and Michael sharing an apartment in New York, the character named Jack is a womanizer who sleeps around a lot and a baby girl namd Mary is left on the doorstep with a note from her mother Sylvia saying that Jack is the father and all three men who know absolutely nothing about babies have to take care of her. It is a wonderful movie and I highly recommend it, it's the American version of the French film Three Men and a Cradle which is also wonderful and I highly recommend that too, in that movie the guys are named Jacques, Pierre, and Michel, the baby is named Marie and the mother is named Sylvia, I saw that film both in French with English subtitles and Dubbed into English but I preferred it in it's original French with the English subtitles.

Three Men, a Baby and a Cardboard Cutout.
This isn't really my kind of movie, but it isn't bad for what it is - a light comedy. I watched the movie mainly because of the "ghost" controversy. The "ghost boy" and the "shotgun" are actually the same thing seen from different camera angles: the cardboard cutout figure of Ted Danson in a tuxedo. The cutout cardboard figure is shown later in the movie when Ted Danson is talking to the baby's mother in the same bedroom where the "ghost" appeared (note on the cardboard figure the contour of the line where the left side of the black tuxedo meets the white vest). I believe the cutout figure was moved from the window on the right where it was in the earlier scene so it could be shown with Ted Danson for dramatic effect. The light-hearted, show biz bachelor in tuxedo and top hat works nicely as an ironic contrast to Ted's real-life character agonizing over parental responsibility and the possible loss of his baby.

The controversial "ghost" scene opened with Ted's mom entering the apartment. The camera for this scene, located in Ted's bedroom follows Ted and his mother as they walk through the apartment and into the bedroom. They walk right in front of the camera as they enter through the bedroom door and the camera pans to the right as they approach the baby crib. This is when we see the "shotgun" which is actually the left side of the cardboard figure (the right edge line of the "shotgun" is identical to the line on the cardboard figure where the bunched up vest meets the left side of the tuxedo). The rest of the figure is hidden behind the curtain at this camera angle. When Ted and his mother approach the crib the camera man moves to the left towards the window side of the room (watch the background behind Ted's mother). When Ted and his mother, with baby, leave the bedroom the camera man is now in position to precede them out through the bedroom door. This is when we see the "ghost". In the begining of the scene the camera man was at the side of the door away from the windows. So, as he exits backwards through the door and closer to the windows the cardboard figure is seen at a more acute angle exposing more of the tuxedo figure behind the curtain. The sides of the cardboard figure are hidden by the curtains, but the triangular shape of the neck/shirt and the vertical right coat/vest line can be seen. Also, the white tie of the tuxedo cutout, although obscure, can also be identified. The "boy's" face looks fuller to some viewers because they see the top hat without the hidden brim as the "boy's" hair-covered head. The triangular white shape at the waist line is the bottom of one side of the white vest on the tuxedo figure.

Great Family Friendly Movie
Ah, the Eighties. The soundtrack of this movie alone brings a nostalgic tear to my eye. Okay, this movie didn't blow us away with its depiction of bachelorhood, but it did make me laugh, and what more can a person really want in a movie? Steve Guttenberg, Tom Selleck, and Ted Danson are the Three Muskateers Plus Baby. By the way, when compared to its sequel, Three Men and a Little Lady, this movie DOES look like a masterpiece. Good movie -- one you can certainly enjoy with your own little ones, and Grandma and Grandpa.

Fine Entertainment!!
This older film, dating back to 1987, was a sleeper hit and a real favorite when it came out. The cast of Tom Selleck, Steve Gutenberg,and Ted Danson was just fine, and the story line was terrific. Here we see three "professional men" having to deal with the realities of life- a baby- and the predicaments they have to deal with are realistic and not patronizing at all. Then to discover that Danson is the real "Daddy" brings an even greater element to the film.

I believe that this had to be one of Selleck's best movies, and the ensemble cast is excellent. A fine family film, and to watch and listen to the trio sing "Goodnight Sweetheart" is worth the price of the movie.

A baby lover's must
In 1987,when Tom Selleck and Ted Danson were on annual hiatus from their respective television shows,Magnum P.I. and Cheers,they filmed with Steve Guttenberg,this lovely comedy about sudden,reluctant babysitting. Just the previous year,Guttenberg filmed "Police Academy 4:Citizens On Patrol",his last sequel. BAD BOY,performed by Gloria Estefan & the Miami Sound Machine,is played during the opening credits. The babysitting starts one Sunday morning when Peter Mitchell(Selleck) returns from a jog to his apartment and finds a baby in a bassinet on the floor near the door. He calls his roommate Michael Kellam(Guttenberg),so he could take a look at the beautiful baby girl. Near her is a note from her mother written to the baby's father Jack Holden(Danson). Jack lives with Peter and Michael. Peter goes to the supermarket in his workout apparel to buy some baby food and diapers since the trio had none of their own. So Michael entertains Mary,the baby. After Jack,who's an actor,returns home from Turkey after filming a TV movie,he is strangled by Peter and Michael,mistaking him for a burglar. They are pissed at him for putting them through hell with the baby. Peter tells Jack,"We(himself and Michael) put our lives on hold taking care of this kid and now it's your turn." In another scene where Peter and Michael are shooting pool,Jack is having difficulty changing Mary's diaper("How do you put on these goddamn things anyway?")."Figure it out for yourself,d---head!",Peter answers. Things get back to normal when Mary's mother Sylvia(Nancy Travis) shows up at the trio's apartment to reclaim Mary. Sylvia planned to catch a flight to London,taking Mary with her. That didn't happen,realizing Sylvia would have been sorry eventually. So she returns to the trio's apartment. The trio themselves return to the apartment after they rode a cab to the airport from where Sylvia and Mary were gonna take off. The trio thought Sylvia and Mary had. Sylvia,who's an actress,complains to the trio that her hectic work schedule makes her not care enough for Mary. Peter,who's an architect,told Sylvia that he'd build one or two rooms for Sylvia and Mary,inviting them to the household. Jack told Peter and Michael in an earlier scene that Jack and Sylvia met while acting in a play. In the last scene,Peter,Jack,Sylvia and Michael are all pushing Mary in her stroller,with a long handlebar,accomodating four pairs of hands! This movie was released November 25,1987 and became a #1 blockbuster and remained in many theatres for 4 or 5 months. The success of this film spawned a sequel 3 years later entitled "Three Men and a Little Lady". ... Read more

Amazon.com

You didn't think Mr. Spock was really dead, did you? When Spock's casket landed on the surface of the Genesis planet at the end of Star Trek II, we had already been told that Genesis had the power to bring "life from lifelessness." So it's no surprise that this energetic but somewhat hokey sequel gives Spock a new lease on life, beginning with his rebirth and rapid growth as the Genesis planet literally shakes itself apart in a series of tumultuous geological spasms. As Kirk is getting to know his estranged son (Merritt Butrick), he must also do battle with the fiendish Klingon Kruge (Christopher Lloyd), who is determined to seize the power of Genesis from the Federation. Meanwhile, the regenerated Spock returns to his home planet, and Star Trek III gains considerable interest by exploring the ceremonial (and, of course, highly logical) traditions of Vulcan society. The movie's a minor disappointment compared to Star Trek II, but it's a--well, logical--sequel that successfully restores Spock (and first-time film director Leonard Nimoy) to the phenomenal Trek franchise...as if he were ever really gone. With Kirk's willful destruction of the U.S.S. Enterprise and Robin Curtis replacing the departing Kirstie Alley as Vulcan Lt. Saavik, this was clearly a transitional film in the series, clearing the way for the highly popular Star Trek IV. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (141)

Another fine "Special Edition"
Once again, a fine special edition has been released for these venerable Star Trek movies. In this film, the crew heads off to the newly-formed Genesis planet in the stolen Enterprise. They meet up with Klingons newly arrived to try and steal the secret of the Genesis Device, which they call the "Greatest weapon ever invented." This film is clearly more light-hearted than TMP or TWOK, the previous two films in the franchise, and introduced the plot device of sending each crewmember off on their own mission before pulling them back together. As such, we see more of Sulu, Uhura, and Scotty than we are used to, which adds rather than detracts from the story. Another highlight is the scene-chewing performance of Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon commander, in perfect opposition to William Shatner.

Unfortunately, the film tends to be repetative. It starts off with a flashback to Wrath of Khan to bring the audience up-to-date. That's fine, but these moments are relived again when Sarek visits Kirk 20 minutes in, and YET AGAIN at the end of the film. Thus, this 100-minute movie only contains 80 minutes of new material, and repeated watchings tend to leave you fidgiting. In addition, the sound-stage sets of the Genesis Planet (and Vulcan) are impressive, but not the same as actual location footage. However, it's a worthy addition to the Star Trek family, it simply suffers in comparison to the two movies on either side of it.

Likewise, this special edition is good, but not as good as those for TMP and TWOK. The highlights are the text commentary by the Okudas, a featurette (25 minutes) on the development of the Klingon language, and the ILM featurette on the effects. The general making-of feature is interesting (Shatner is amusing in a faux-pompous way), but is mostly a repitition of the audio commentary. The print is curiously grainy, in contrast to the obviously cleaned-up DVD versions of the previous 2 films.

What Odd Numbered Curse?
Despite the holes in the plot and the need to willingly suspend disbelief at times, Star Trek III is among my favorite of the original cast films. I even like it better than Star Trek IV.

The special effects in this film are really good and I love James Horner's score enough to have bought it on cassette. There are many dramatic visual moments, including when the Enterprise approaches the giant space station orbiting Earth and the destruction of the Genesis planet, and of course, the destruction of the Enterprise.

The cast is in their usual fine form. Uhurua gets a smaller role in this movie because she stays behind, but she does get one really good scene giving a young Starfleet cadet his comeuppance. Scottie gets to shine as temporary engineering officer and vandalizer of the new starship Excelsior. McCoy is funny, occasionally slipping into his Spock mode. One of his best lines, upon hearing that he is carrying Spock's "katra" inside him is "It's [Spock's] revenge for losing all of those arguments!" William Shatner has a really good dramatic scene when Kirk learns that his son has been killed by the Klingons. Christopher Lloyd is good as the Klingon commander Kruge. Unrecognizable as one of his subordinates, Maltz, is the guy who played Dan Fielding in the Nightcourt sitcom on NBC.

Merrit Butrick and Robin Curtis are not particularly memorable as David and Saavik, but accomplish what is expected of them. Another reviewer observed that the film barely hints that Saavik sleeps with the young Spock as he experiences Pon Faar. I read the novelization of Star Trek III, and not only does it make it clear that she is "intimate" with him, if indeed Vulcans can be intimate, but that she also sleeps with Kirk's son David as well before they go to the Genesis planet. Had it been included in the film, it really would have added another element to it, though in the end it might have been distracting too.

It is a bit of a coincidence that Kirk gets Spock off the Genesis planet at just the right age, and the way in which Spock is brought back is a bit hard to swallow, after all, even the Vulcan high priestess declared that the process had not been done in ages, and then only in myth. Why would Spock then be confident that it would work? Then again, since all of us Trekkies wanted Spock back, we won't quibble. Star Trek III is a good combination of action, humor and drama. If there is an off numbered curse in the Star Trek movies, it clearly does not apply to this one.

Kirk and Co. have the balls that no one else in ST ever had
Another classic trek movie, this one taking place directly after the famous Spock death scene in Wrath of Khan. But Spock was just so hip and cool in his stiff, emotionless, Spock-ish(??) way that they had to bring him back. And Kirk and the boys do it in style.

The story is basically this: Ambassador Sarek (Spock's father) comes up to Kirk and makes it known to him that his essence may be living within a crew member of the Enterprise. They discover it is McCoy (which is hilarious, considering Spock and McCoy's quirky friendship), which explains why many in StarFleet thought he had been driven insane, and locked him up for it. Kirk and the boys spring McCoy out of the cell, steal the Enterprise, and head into space on "personal matters."

Even if this movie lacked in action, which is does not at all, it would have plenty in hilarious dialogue. There are many examples, such as when McCoy tries to hire a mercenary at a bar (very reminiscent of the Star Wars cantina, clientele et al). McCoy tells him, "Place I name, money I go." And the perterbed alien (eerily reminiscent of George C. Scott and Dr. Evil) fires back, "Place you name, money I name or else bargainnnnnnno." It hilarious the way he says it. Another funny part comes when Sulu jokingly prods a bored Federation security guard, "Keeping you busy?", the guard slowly, menacingly stands up from his chair, towering over the short Sulu and says, "Don't get smart, tiny." It isn't so much what they say that's funny, it's the body language and the intonations, brought out in full by first-rate directing by Leonard Nimoy.

There are tons of great action scenes, and even a stabbing death which is implied, but not shown, making it action-packed but still accessible for the whole family. A memorable performance by Christopher LLloyd as a Klingon renegade is also within this fine film. It's not as good as The Undiscovered Country, but it stands firm not only as a great Trek movie, but just as a great movie overall.

one for all, and all for one
Leonard Nimoy spent most of his time behind the camera directing this film, and though I miss his presence as Spock, it's one of my favorite of the Star Trek series; it's more subdued and introspective than the others, and the overall theme is friendship, and risking one's life for a friend.
The year is 8210, and the plot centers around "The Genesis Effect", an experimental device that can be placed on a "lifeless space body", like a dead moon, and make it flourish with life, but because one of the scientists used risky methods, "life" is happening at a fast clip.
The evil Klingons of course, in their constant lust for power, want the "Genesis" secret, and Admiral Kirk must stop them.

William Shatner is fabulous as Kirk; I've always found him to be a unique, immensely watchable actor, and all the original ensemble cast is wonderful: DeForest Kelley ~ McCoy, James Doohan ~ Scotty, George Takei ~ Sulu, Walter Koenig ~ Chekov, Nichele Nichols ~ Uhura. Added are Mark Lenard as Spock's father Sarek, Robin Curtis as Lt. Saavik, Merritt Butnick as Kirk's son David, and Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon Kruge. Dame Judith Anderson plays the Vulcan priestess TLar, in a scene that is high camp, and quite marvelous.
There are some nifty special effects on the Planet Genesis, and some nice cinematography by Charles Correll, as well as an exceptionally lovely score by James Horner. Leonard Nimoy gave this film a moody, thoughtful atmosphere, and it works for me, and I find the ending quite touching, no matter how many times I see it.
Total running time is 105 minutes.

20 Years of "The Search For Spock"
"How many fingers am I holding up?"
"Thats not very damn funny."
- Kirk gives the Vulcan Salute to Dr. McCoy as they both escape a trip from The Federation Funny Farm, and look for a lost pointed ear friend in "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock"

Its been 20 years to the day since the search began in this third and underated entry in the "Star Trek" saga. "The Search For Spock" is an adventurous (if corny) film that teaches a lesson in the loyalties, & importance of friendship, no matter the consequence.

Picking up where "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan" left off, with the death & funeral of Captain Spock & the birth of the Genesis Planet, "The Search For Spock" begins with the crew of The Enterprise limping home after the battle wrath with Khan, only to find out that the Federation has decided to decommission the legendary starship & reassign most of its crew. Whats worse is the fact that Dr. "Bones" McCoy is having a sort of nervous breakdown, breaking in to Captain Spock's sealed quarters and giving Admiral Kirk an errie message from the grave.
When Spock's father, Ambassador Saarik, arrives informing Kirk that Spock isn't dead, but, is in a state where mind & body are in seperate forms, its up to both, Kirk & Saarik to find who has Spock's marbles (McCoy has them) & where Spock's body rests (on The Genisis Planet). Once both are retrieved, and thru an ancient Vulcan ritual, only then can Spock become his old self again. With the arrival of the Kilngons, looking for the secret to Genesis, its a race against time as the planet becomes unstable and starts to deteriate at an alarmingly fast rate. The search isn't without sacrfice & Kirk loses the two things he holds dearest to him in order get his friend back.

"Star Trek III" is one of those films thats pretty much written for fans of the series (if this film was your introduction to "Star Trek", I'm pretty positive your reaction was more of a "Huh!?" with a shrug of the shoulders). I hold this as the fifth best in the series tieing it with "Star Trek: Generations" ("II" & "First Contact" are the two best in the series).

The Klingons finally get some much needed screen time in this film. Since they were the main nemesis in the television series, it was only a matter of time before they would show up (the Klingons make a cameo in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"). A year before he went "Back To The Future", Christopher Lloyd gives a great performance as Commander Kruge, the greedy, power hungry Klingon commander. Kruge is much better than the two Klingons in "Star Trek V". Those two reminded me of the Wonder Twins from the "Super Friends", for some reason. The Klingons in "Star Trek VI" came across as more regal and honorable than threatening and coldblooded, like Kruge is. As for Shatner and the rest of the cast, all are also great & age gracefully in their respective roles.
James Horner's score to "III", like "II", is one of the better scores in the series (acutally, I think, its a lot of reused score material from the previous film, but, I just get so tired of hearing Jerry Goldsmith's opening theme from "The Motion Picture". Its been used in at least half of the the ten films, as well, as the opening theme to "The Next Generation" series). Leonard Nimoy directs his first of two "Trek" films ("III" is his directorial debut) and gets a lot out of his actors and does a good job overall.

The 2 disc DVD edition to "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" is worth owning and is better than "Star Trek V" on any given Sunday. Join the Search. ... 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 (5)

So Powerful, So Wonderful
I was warned before watching this movie that it would not be one of those 'sit in front of the television with a bowl of popcorn' movies. For half of the movie, I just sat there, my eyes glued to the screen, watching Diane Keaton in a simply wonderful and dramatic role.

Anna Dunlap (Keaton) is a newly divorced woman with an adorable six year old daughter. They have a wonderful relationship, and it is very evident when you sit down and watch them together. Enter Liam Neeson. He starts out as a person with whom you would not want to get to know, but after a few minutes, he reveals that he's just in a bad mood and he is actually quite nice. When he first meets Molly (the very adorable Asia Vieira), she is very shy towards him, but she learns to like him and you can see that there is a bond between them. When something happens (I don't want to say what), and Molly's father wants full-time custody of her, the movie becomes a full-blown drama. It is, I admit, hard to watch some of the courtroom scenes, but they are so powerful and they draw you into the story. In a way, I saw the end result coming, but not exactly like it did. It definitely showed finality in the family.

Keaton's performace, like I said above, was incredibly powerful and she does a wonderful job portraying Molly's mother. The main reason I bought this movie was because of Diane Keaton, since she is my favorite actress and this movie shows her in her best dramatic role, in my opinion. If only it had received higher reviews when it came out. But I go by what looks good to me, and to me, this looked good, mainly because of the cast and the story.

Simply a must-see
Being a tremendous fan of Diane Keaton's work, I rented this movie (I'm still... that this movie isn't sold anywhere), and it immediately rated as one of my top-ten favorite Keaton videos. It honestly is an enigma that this movie didn't get enough praise it deserves. Most of the scenes are incredibly sweet, warm, and intimate. That's what makes this movie so great. When Keaton's character, Anna, meets Liam Neeson's character, Leo, there's a unmistakable bond forming. I especially love the scene when Anna goes to Leo's apartment and Leo and Anna becomes one, dancing in front of Leo's sculpture, making shadows on the wall from the light shining on them from behind. This is an esoteric concept of first love. I really thought it was so sweet when Anna confessed to Leo that she thought she wasn't very good at sex, and he gently assures her that they can fix that. There's no judgment in that scene;it's obvious that Leo really loves Anna, and their love is vivid. Another favorite scene is when Anna and her daughter, Molly, are in the bathtub with Leo reading to them. This is truly intimate, and I just love the fact that they were so open-minded about being naked in front of Molly. There's just so much tenderness and love. It was, to me, beautiful. And yet another favorite scene is when Molly has a bad dream and goes into Anna's room while she and Leo are making love, and they comfort her until she falls asleep.There's another display of intimacy, about caring and love. The three of them together was absolutely wonderful. That is why I found it incredibly appalling that Anna's ex-husband, Brian, goes to court for something that happened between Molly and Leo that had absoluely no intention of happening. (I won't ruin the ending for you). But I found the ending truly sad and final. A soon-to-be family are wrenched apart by an innocent mistake. I felt bad, because I knew they could have had a wonderful life together. I also felt bad for Anna and Leo. I could really see their love shown for each other. They were so comfortable together; their feelings for each other were vivid and beautiful. This is a movie of non-judgment and unconditional love, and that's what makes it so special. I honestly don't understand why this movie was considered a failure. Keaton is at her best in this movie, and Neeson is simply wonderful. I consider myself as an efficient movie critic, and I know which movies are bad or good. This movie is a MUST-SEE!!! I acclaim Keaton especially for her wonderful work in this movie. 'The Good Mother' is proof that Keaton is one of the world's most rare and special actresses. If you're not suffering from brain deterioration, immediately rent this movie! You won't regret it.

tenderness
I saw this movie 2 years ago on TV and I was deeply moved by it. I'm looking everywhere to find this movie on video but I haven't found it yet. I also read the book, before I saw the film and I think it's the first time that I like more the film than the book of a same story. I must confess that since this film I became a fan of Liam Neeson. It's a film that sensitive people must see. The scene before the mirror has remained with me all along.

The Good Mother - A GREAT FILM ! Don't miss this one!
Am I glad I bought this video while it was available! I rented it on the strength of the unparalleled Diane Keaton's participation, and found it one of the most moving films I've experienced. It's surprising this movie hasn't received meaningful press, at time of issue or since. Keaton is at her usual gorgeous, inspired best as Anna, a suppressed free-spirit. A divorced anywoman, she is the unquestionably devoted, responsible mother to 6-year old Molly, played to completely natural, adorable perfection by young Asia Vieira. Molly is equally crazy about her mom - their bond is deep and true. Welcome Liam Neeson (I fell in love instantly) as Leo, a charming Irish sculptor, as the first real and passionate love relationship in Anna's life; the two become serious quickly, and life is wonderful. Anna's ex-husband Brian, having moved on in his own life with another woman, reacts the only way he knows how to a controversial "mistake" Leo makes while caring for Molly one day while Anna is at work. Brian sues for custody, and the situation evolves dramatically from there (don't want to give it away).

This is a heart-wrenching, unforgettable story which unleashes a wide range of powerful emotions thanks to totally believable performances by the entire cast under Leonard Nimoy's superb direction: Ralph Bellamy as Anna's grandfather, Teresa Wright as her grandmother, Katey Sagal as friend Ursula, and Jason Robards as her attorney. Leo's mistake and the ensuing results evoke thought-provoking debate. Highly recommended!

interesting and moving
this movie was very interesting. the end is kinda sad and you don't expect it, but still is very good. i'd recommend this movie to everyone! ... Read more

Description

Take three of Hollywood's hottest starts (Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, Ted Danson), add one adorable baby girl, and the result is the funniest blockbuster comedy hit of the year! Three handsome Manhattan bachelors find their dating and mating rituals irreparably damaged when an unexpected new roommate -- complete with crib, pacifier, and dirty diaper -- shows up on their doorstep. This bouncing bundle of joy is anything but joyous -- until the trio's hilarious fathering instincts take over and she becomes "Daddy's Girl" to all three hunks. Blanketed with unexpected story twists and endless laughs, THREE MEN AND A BABY delivers pure enchantment for all! ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Wonderful, but also see the French film!
Three Men and a Baby is very good I really liked it a lot and thought that all the actors were great! It is about 3 bachelor friends, Jack, Peter and Michael sharing an apartment in New York, the character named Jack is a womanizer who sleeps around a lot and a baby girl namd Mary is left on the doorstep with a note from her mother Sylvia saying that Jack is the father and all three men who know absolutely nothing about babies have to take care of her. It is a wonderful movie and I highly recommend it, it's the American version of the French film Three Men and a Cradle which is also wonderful and I highly recommend that too, in that movie the guys are named Jacques, Pierre, and Michel, the baby is named Marie and the mother is named Sylvia, I saw that film both in French with English subtitles and Dubbed into English but I preferred it in it's original French with the English subtitles.

Three Men, a Baby and a Cardboard Cutout.
This isn't really my kind of movie, but it isn't bad for what it is - a light comedy. I watched the movie mainly because of the "ghost" controversy. The "ghost boy" and the "shotgun" are actually the same thing seen from different camera angles: the cardboard cutout figure of Ted Danson in a tuxedo. The cutout cardboard figure is shown later in the movie when Ted Danson is talking to the baby's mother in the same bedroom where the "ghost" appeared (note on the cardboard figure the contour of the line where the left side of the black tuxedo meets the white vest). I believe the cutout figure was moved from the window on the right where it was in the earlier scene so it could be shown with Ted Danson for dramatic effect. The light-hearted, show biz bachelor in tuxedo and top hat works nicely as an ironic contrast to Ted's real-life character agonizing over parental responsibility and the possible loss of his baby.

The controversial "ghost" scene opened with Ted's mom entering the apartment. The camera for this scene, located in Ted's bedroom follows Ted and his mother as they walk through the apartment and into the bedroom. They walk right in front of the camera as they enter through the bedroom door and the camera pans to the right as they approach the baby crib. This is when we see the "shotgun" which is actually the left side of the cardboard figure (the right edge line of the "shotgun" is identical to the line on the cardboard figure where the bunched up vest meets the left side of the tuxedo). The rest of the figure is hidden behind the curtain at this camera angle. When Ted and his mother approach the crib the camera man moves to the left towards the window side of the room (watch the background behind Ted's mother). When Ted and his mother, with baby, leave the bedroom the camera man is now in position to precede them out through the bedroom door. This is when we see the "ghost". In the begining of the scene the camera man was at the side of the door away from the windows. So, as he exits backwards through the door and closer to the windows the cardboard figure is seen at a more acute angle exposing more of the tuxedo figure behind the curtain. The sides of the cardboard figure are hidden by the curtains, but the triangular shape of the neck/shirt and the vertical right coat/vest line can be seen. Also, the white tie of the tuxedo cutout, although obscure, can also be identified. The "boy's" face looks fuller to some viewers because they see the top hat without the hidden brim as the "boy's" hair-covered head. The triangular white shape at the waist line is the bottom of one side of the white vest on the tuxedo figure.

Great Family Friendly Movie
Ah, the Eighties. The soundtrack of this movie alone brings a nostalgic tear to my eye. Okay, this movie didn't blow us away with its depiction of bachelorhood, but it did make me laugh, and what more can a person really want in a movie? Steve Guttenberg, Tom Selleck, and Ted Danson are the Three Muskateers Plus Baby. By the way, when compared to its sequel, Three Men and a Little Lady, this movie DOES look like a masterpiece. Good movie -- one you can certainly enjoy with your own little ones, and Grandma and Grandpa.

Fine Entertainment!!
This older film, dating back to 1987, was a sleeper hit and a real favorite when it came out. The cast of Tom Selleck, Steve Gutenberg,and Ted Danson was just fine, and the story line was terrific. Here we see three "professional men" having to deal with the realities of life- a baby- and the predicaments they have to deal with are realistic and not patronizing at all. Then to discover that Danson is the real "Daddy" brings an even greater element to the film.

I believe that this had to be one of Selleck's best movies, and the ensemble cast is excellent. A fine family film, and to watch and listen to the trio sing "Goodnight Sweetheart" is worth the price of the movie.

A baby lover's must
In 1987,when Tom Selleck and Ted Danson were on annual hiatus from their respective television shows,Magnum P.I. and Cheers,they filmed with Steve Guttenberg,this lovely comedy about sudden,reluctant babysitting. Just the previous year,Guttenberg filmed "Police Academy 4:Citizens On Patrol",his last sequel. BAD BOY,performed by Gloria Estefan & the Miami Sound Machine,is played during the opening credits. The babysitting starts one Sunday morning when Peter Mitchell(Selleck) returns from a jog to his apartment and finds a baby in a bassinet on the floor near the door. He calls his roommate Michael Kellam(Guttenberg),so he could take a look at the beautiful baby girl. Near her is a note from her mother written to the baby's father Jack Holden(Danson). Jack lives with Peter and Michael. Peter goes to the supermarket in his workout apparel to buy some baby food and diapers since the trio had none of their own. So Michael entertains Mary,the baby. After Jack,who's an actor,returns home from Turkey after filming a TV movie,he is strangled by Peter and Michael,mistaking him for a burglar. They are pissed at him for putting them through hell with the baby. Peter tells Jack,"We(himself and Michael) put our lives on hold taking care of this kid and now it's your turn." In another scene where Peter and Michael are shooting pool,Jack is having difficulty changing Mary's diaper("How do you put on these goddamn things anyway?")."Figure it out for yourself,d---head!",Peter answers. Things get back to normal when Mary's mother Sylvia(Nancy Travis) shows up at the trio's apartment to reclaim Mary. Sylvia planned to catch a flight to London,taking Mary with her. That didn't happen,realizing Sylvia would have been sorry eventually. So she returns to the trio's apartment. The trio themselves return to the apartment after they rode a cab to the airport from where Sylvia and Mary were gonna take off. The trio thought Sylvia and Mary had. Sylvia,who's an actress,complains to the trio that her hectic work schedule makes her not care enough for Mary. Peter,who's an architect,told Sylvia that he'd build one or two rooms for Sylvia and Mary,inviting them to the household. Jack told Peter and Michael in an earlier scene that Jack and Sylvia met while acting in a play. In the last scene,Peter,Jack,Sylvia and Michael are all pushing Mary in her stroller,with a long handlebar,accomodating four pairs of hands! This movie was released November 25,1987 and became a #1 blockbuster and remained in many theatres for 4 or 5 months. The success of this film spawned a sequel 3 years later entitled "Three Men and a Little Lady". ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Loved it
I don't know why, but I just loved this movie. Patricia is so charming(as usual). I'm definitely a fan of her. I liked how it was tied into the Amish community. The boy was so perfect. If he were older he'd be the perfect guy. The film had action, suspense, a moral, pretty gal, romance, and it was surprisingly engrossing . I liked the conflicts. It was fun to see how putting different types of people in different situations would work.

One of JGL's better movies
The plot was somewhat cheesey; but Joseph Gordon-Levitt's presence made it a worthwhile view. He does far better in this film than in that lame comedy "Third Rock".

GO PATRICIA ARQUETTE
It was really funny. Particia Arquette and Joseph Gordan-Levitt are wonderful. It had a great story, good acting, over-all it was cool. Rated PG-13 for: Language, Adult Situations, and brief nudity.

Disaster!
Absolutely horrible. Enough said. I must have been a murdering lunatic in a previous life to have to endure this visual torture.

An excellant movie
This movie was wonderful. Particia Arquette is a good actress, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt was by far better. Anyway, the movie is funny, although the beginning is a bit boring. Oh well. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Welcome To The Night Gallery
Those opening words by writer, host and all round creative genius Rod Serling paved the way for viewers to enjoy many intriguing stories of mystery, mayhem and the supernatural during the three year run of the classic series "Night Gallery". A brain child of Serling who had earlier been responsible for the creation of one of televisions most innovative and best remembered series in the classic "The Twilight Zone","Night Gallery was a regular anthology series on NBC that told stories of macabre happenings with surreal characters in often out of this world situations. This particular TV movie was the original pilot for the series and aired in 1969. It contains three individual stories and was adapted by Rod Serling from his own short story collection titled "The Season to be Wary". While varying in quality with the third story by far the weakest, all are rich in suspense and detail with stories one and two boasting top flight guest stars in engrossing teleplays.

All three episodes are linked by the presence in each story of a painting that literally guides the course of events, hence the title "Night Gallery". Rod Serling introduces each of the segments by the unveiling of each painting in turn and the viewer is then drawn into the story it has to tell.

Episode One which is the real gem of the trio is titled "The Cemetary", and stars a superb Roddy McDowall as a devilish young man called Jeremy Evans who has latched on to his previously unknown wealthy uncle. To hasten the time when he will recieve the old man's inheritance Jeremy deliberatly exposes him to cold winds upon which the old man dies of pheumonia. However Jeremy finds that life is not all plain sailing now as a mysterious painting on the staircase keeps changing and shows his uncle slowly rising from the dead in the nearby family graveyard. Slowly driven to insanity by the thought of his uncle coming after him from the grave Jeremy falls down the stairs in terror and breaks his neck upon which the real twist in the story reveals itself. But is that really the end of the story?

Episode Two is the justly famous episode "Eyes",that stars none other than veteran Hollywood actress Joan Crawford in what was without doubt her most memorable television apearance. Here she was directed by a rookie director at the time, the now famous Steven Speilberg in his first directing opportunity. Joan plays Claudia Menlo an extremely wealthy Park Avenue Socialite who has been blind since birth. Hearing of an innovative approach to eye surgery whereby with a willing donor vision can be returned for roughly twelve hours, Claudia sets out to secure this opportunity for herself no matter what the cost. Totally ruthless in her dealings with others Claudia blackmails with incriminating evidence Surgeon Frank Hetherton to perform the surgery when a donor Sidney Resnick (Tom Bosley) is found. Resnick has gambling debts and is willing to sacrifice his eyes to get mob members off his back. The surgery is performed but just as Claudia removes her bandages New York experiences a total blackout leaving her as much in the dark as before. As ordinary daylight begins to break and Claudia sees not only the painting of herself she had commissioned but also her first sunrise she finds however that she has paid a very big price for little return resulting in tragedy.

Episode Three, "Escape", is the weakest of the stories and tells of a former Nazi Officer Herme Arndt (Richard Kiley) now going by the name of Josef Strobe who has fled to South America to avoid detection for his war crimes. While visting a museum he becomes intrigued by a painting of a fisherman and the tranquil setting in the painting makes him keep coming back to the painting each day secretly wishing he was that fisherman. He encounters a former Concentration Camp survivor in the museum who is aware of his former identity. Repeatedly seeking to become that fisherman in the painting however his wish is unfortunately granted but not in the way he expected when he becomes a part of a much more sinister painting moved to where the earlier painting used to hang. In this new painting Strobe will more than pay for his war crimes for all eternity.

Superbly linked together by an appropriately eerie narration by Rod Serling much like he did in his "Twilight Zone", series, "Night Gallery", makes wonderful viewing for those that grew up with the great anthology series of the 50's, and 60's decades. "Night Gallery", the TV movie was really Serling's last significant work for television and it was responsible for giving the green light to the successful series that followed over the next three seasons. Episodes One and Two are the really great stories here, thanks to the tense writing by Serling and the top notch performances by Roddy McDowall and Joan Crawford. The musical score employed throughout the segments also is highly evocative and adds tremendously to the eerie atmosphere employed here. I highly recommend "Night Gallery", for its great storytelling and as the last chapter in the career of one of television's most innovative pioneers, the legendary Rod Serling.

Flashforward: 1969-1972
Midnight never ends in a private showing dedicated to you, the viewer.

Rod Serling, with his perfect stage voice and brilliant mind has been missed since his death years ago.

These pilot episodes are very good, very unusual, and very, what's the word...nostalgic. You'll see. :)

The first offering is one where a black sheep nephew with an itch plots to do away with his uncle so as to reap his inheritance early. In this he was successful, until he begins notice odd little changes on a painting of the family graveyard which rests just outside the walls of the familiy mansion...

I won't touch the other two, they are great in their own right, but the first is the best of the three.

This strange gallery may show you the Flip-Side of Satan.

Classic Serling with Mod Roddy and Mommy Dearest Joan.
Here's some classic 1960s TV; the movie debut of Rod Serling's "Night Gallery". Though the series lapsed quickly into B-TV oblivion, this film stands out as fresh, original, and even profound on some level. Serling introduces his 3 original stories as 3 art gallery paintings and we start off with Roddy McDowell, all Modded up and with a Southern accent. He kills his uncle for the inheritance, but the painting by the stairs is scaring the daylights out of him. Ozzie Davis does a convincing (Mr.) Portifoy who's after some inheritance of his own.

Next we are on New York's 5th Ave. where Joan Crawford is blind and rich. She blackmails a doctor to do an operation allowing her 12 hours of sight...the catch is Tom Bosley has to donate his eyes for her. The moment she takes off her bandage for her 1st glimpse of sight a citywide blackout occurs. This is classic Serling (Beware of consequences) and even more profound and trippy than many Twilight Zone episodes. Not to mention this was Steven Spielberg's directorial debut. The final scene with Crawford getting a first and last glimpse of the sun has some profundity to it. Really the second the blackout hits we enter a surreal dimension, and we hear her thoughts "I want the sun", the window breaks, and we come back to Serling's gallery.

These first 2 stories I remember vividly from seeing them on early '70s TV as a kid. So it's really got the nostalgia factor going on. The 3rd story is a bit of a throwaway about a Nazi war criminal in South America.

Get this for the 1st 2.

Spookier than most made-for-TV films
This pilot film for Rod Serling's final TV endeavor NIGHT GALLERY is a three-part omnibus that is far spookier than most made-for-television projects. Serling's own morality tracts are here bought together in a delicious mix of suspense, terror, and melodrama.

The first story concerns a greedy nephew (Roddy McDowall) who deliberately leaves his uncle exposed (George Macready) open to the cold, so that his death will result in McDowall grabbing onto the family fortune. But there is a painting in his uncle's vast collection that, bit by little bit, proceeds to drive McDowall to utter madness because of what it depicts--Macready coming back from the grave!

Story #2 concerns a blind woman (Joan Crawford, in one of her last roles) who blackmails her doctor (Barry Sullivan) in giving her an occular transplant so that she may see, even if it is only for twelve hours. The operation is in actuality a success, but when her 5th Avenue penthouse is thrown into darkness because of the great 1965 New York blackout, she's led to believe it was a disaster.

Story #3 focuses on a Nazi fugitive (Richard Kiley) eking out an existence in Buenos Aires who becomes entranced by a painting of a fisherman in an art gallery, and who longs for Escape. But his past is about to catch up to him; and the twist ending is not quite what he had in mind.

Superbly scripted by Serling, from his collection of short stories entitled "The Season To Be Wary", NIGHT GALLERY is superior suspense entertainment. Boris Sagal and Barry Shear do effective jobs in the direction of the first and third stories, but it is the Crawford segment that gets the most attention--and for good reason. This marked the maiden directorial effort of a young man from Phoenix, Arizona named Steven Spielberg.

Billy Goldenberg's eerie, Herrmann-influenced score puts the capper on this one-of-a-kind TV movie. With Halloween fast approaching, NIGHT GALLERY is well worth searching for.

A must have for true Rod Serling fans
They just don't make 'em like this anymore!

To this day The Twilight Zone is one of my all-time favorite shows. It wasn't until recently that I re-discovered Night Gallery and learned that Rod Serling was behind this colorful, modernized series as well. Like TZ, Night Gallery's stories veer off the path of reality and venture into worlds of wild imagination never known before. Rod Serling was a master of mystery, macabre and leaving the viewer with incredible imprints from his mind.

The story I like best from this particular tape is the first one. Roddy McDowell and Ossie Davis give chilling performances and the storyline is truly eerie. I remember seeing this as a child and it really scared me. Watching it again bought back the same experience. "Eyes" with Joan Crawford also has an unforgettable twist for its conclusion.

Track this one down and add it to your collection and for those who want to see all the NG episodes, Columbia House has the series included in its extensive library, as well as The Twilight Zone. There are also Night Gallery and T.Z. Companions available here on Amazon that chronicle every episode of both series. Both are excellent resources for true Serling fans.

CLB. ... Read more

Reviews (141)

Another fine "Special Edition"
Once again, a fine special edition has been released for these venerable Star Trek movies. In this film, the crew heads off to the newly-formed Genesis planet in the stolen Enterprise. They meet up with Klingons newly arrived to try and steal the secret of the Genesis Device, which they call the "Greatest weapon ever invented." This film is clearly more light-hearted than TMP or TWOK, the previous two films in the franchise, and introduced the plot device of sending each crewmember off on their own mission before pulling them back together. As such, we see more of Sulu, Uhura, and Scotty than we are used to, which adds rather than detracts from the story. Another highlight is the scene-chewing performance of Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon commander, in perfect opposition to William Shatner.

Unfortunately, the film tends to be repetative. It starts off with a flashback to Wrath of Khan to bring the audience up-to-date. That's fine, but these moments are relived again when Sarek visits Kirk 20 minutes in, and YET AGAIN at the end of the film. Thus, this 100-minute movie only contains 80 minutes of new material, and repeated watchings tend to leave you fidgiting. In addition, the sound-stage sets of the Genesis Planet (and Vulcan) are impressive, but not the same as actual location footage. However, it's a worthy addition to the Star Trek family, it simply suffers in comparison to the two movies on either side of it.

Likewise, this special edition is good, but not as good as those for TMP and TWOK. The highlights are the text commentary by the Okudas, a featurette (25 minutes) on the development of the Klingon language, and the ILM featurette on the effects. The general making-of feature is interesting (Shatner is amusing in a faux-pompous way), but is mostly a repitition of the audio commentary. The print is curiously grainy, in contrast to the obviously cleaned-up DVD versions of the previous 2 films.

What Odd Numbered Curse?
Despite the holes in the plot and the need to willingly suspend disbelief at times, Star Trek III is among my favorite of the original cast films. I even like it better than Star Trek IV.

The special effects in this film are really good and I love James Horner's score enough to have bought it on cassette. There are many dramatic visual moments, including when the Enterprise approaches the giant space station orbiting Earth and the destruction of the Genesis planet, and of course, the destruction of the Enterprise.

The cast is in their usual fine form. Uhurua gets a smaller role in this movie because she stays behind, but she does get one really good scene giving a young Starfleet cadet his comeuppance. Scottie gets to shine as temporary engineering officer and vandalizer of the new starship Excelsior. McCoy is funny, occasionally slipping into his Spock mode. One of his best lines, upon hearing that he is carrying Spock's "katra" inside him is "It's [Spock's] revenge for losing all of those arguments!" William Shatner has a really good dramatic scene when Kirk learns that his son has been killed by the Klingons. Christopher Lloyd is good as the Klingon commander Kruge. Unrecognizable as one of his subordinates, Maltz, is the guy who played Dan Fielding in the Nightcourt sitcom on NBC.

Merrit Butrick and Robin Curtis are not particularly memorable as David and Saavik, but accomplish what is expected of them. Another reviewer observed that the film barely hints that Saavik sleeps with the young Spock as he experiences Pon Faar. I read the novelization of Star Trek III, and not only does it make it clear that she is "intimate" with him, if indeed Vulcans can be intimate, but that she also sleeps with Kirk's son David as well before they go to the Genesis planet. Had it been included in the film, it really would have added another element to it, though in the end it might have been distracting too.

It is a bit of a coincidence that Kirk gets Spock off the Genesis planet at just the right age, and the way in which Spock is brought back is a bit hard to swallow, after all, even the Vulcan high priestess declared that the process had not been done in ages, and then only in myth. Why would Spock then be confident that it would work? Then again, since all of us Trekkies wanted Spock back, we won't quibble. Star Trek III is a good combination of action, humor and drama. If there is an off numbered curse in the Star Trek movies, it clearly does not apply to this one.

Kirk and Co. have the balls that no one else in ST ever had
Another classic trek movie, this one taking place directly after the famous Spock death scene in Wrath of Khan. But Spock was just so hip and cool in his stiff, emotionless, Spock-ish(??) way that they had to bring him back. And Kirk and the boys do it in style.

The story is basically this: Ambassador Sarek (Spock's father) comes up to Kirk and makes it known to him that his essence may be living within a crew member of the Enterprise. They discover it is McCoy (which is hilarious, considering Spock and McCoy's quirky friendship), which explains why many in StarFleet thought he had been driven insane, and locked him up for it. Kirk and the boys spring McCoy out of the cell, steal the Enterprise, and head into space on "personal matters."

Even if this movie lacked in action, which is does not at all, it would have plenty in hilarious dialogue. There are many examples, such as when McCoy tries to hire a mercenary at a bar (very reminiscent of the Star Wars cantina, clientele et al). McCoy tells him, "Place I name, money I go." And the perterbed alien (eerily reminiscent of George C. Scott and Dr. Evil) fires back, "Place you name, money I name or else bargainnnnnnno." It hilarious the way he says it. Another funny part comes when Sulu jokingly prods a bored Federation security guard, "Keeping you busy?", the guard slowly, menacingly stands up from his chair, towering over the short Sulu and says, "Don't get smart, tiny." It isn't so much what they say that's funny, it's the body language and the intonations, brought out in full by first-rate directing by Leonard Nimoy.

There are tons of great action scenes, and even a stabbing death which is implied, but not shown, making it action-packed but still accessible for the whole family. A memorable performance by Christopher LLloyd as a Klingon renegade is also within this fine film. It's not as good as The Undiscovered Country, but it stands firm not only as a great Trek movie, but just as a great movie overall.

one for all, and all for one
Leonard Nimoy spent most of his time behind the camera directing this film, and though I miss his presence as Spock, it's one of my favorite of the Star Trek series; it's more subdued and introspective than the others, and the overall theme is friendship, and risking one's life for a friend.
The year is 8210, and the plot centers around "The Genesis Effect", an experimental device that can be placed on a "lifeless space body", like a dead moon, and make it flourish with life, but because one of the scientists used risky methods, "life" is happening at a fast clip.
The evil Klingons of course, in their constant lust for power, want the "Genesis" secret, and Admiral Kirk must stop them.

William Shatner is fabulous as Kirk; I've always found him to be a unique, immensely watchable actor, and all the original ensemble cast is wonderful: DeForest Kelley ~ McCoy, James Doohan ~ Scotty, George Takei ~ Sulu, Walter Koenig ~ Chekov, Nichele Nichols ~ Uhura. Added are Mark Lenard as Spock's father Sarek, Robin Curtis as Lt. Saavik, Merritt Butnick as Kirk's son David, and Christopher Lloyd as the Klingon Kruge. Dame Judith Anderson plays the Vulcan priestess TLar, in a scene that is high camp, and quite marvelous.
There are some nifty special effects on the Planet Genesis, and some nice cinematography by Charles Correll, as well as an exceptionally lovely score by James Horner. Leonard Nimoy gave this film a moody, thoughtful atmosphere, and it works for me, and I find the ending quite touching, no matter how many times I see it.
Total running time is 105 minutes.

20 Years of "The Search For Spock"
"How many fingers am I holding up?"
"Thats not very damn funny."
- Kirk gives the Vulcan Salute to Dr. McCoy as they both escape a trip from The Federation Funny Farm, and look for a lost pointed ear friend in "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock"

Its been 20 years to the day since the search began in this third and underated entry in the "Star Trek" saga. "The Search For Spock" is an adventurous (if corny) film that teaches a lesson in the loyalties, & importance of friendship, no matter the consequence.

Picking up where "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan" left off, with the death & funeral of Captain Spock & the birth of the Genesis Planet, "The Search For Spock" begins with the crew of The Enterprise limping home after the battle wrath with Khan, only to find out that the Federation has decided to decommission the legendary starship & reassign most of its crew. Whats worse is the fact that Dr. "Bones" McCoy is having a sort of nervous breakdown, breaking in to Captain Spock's sealed quarters and giving Admiral Kirk an errie message from the grave.
When Spock's father, Ambassador Saarik, arrives informing Kirk that Spock isn't dead, but, is in a state where mind & body are in seperate forms, its up to both, Kirk & Saarik to find who has Spock's marbles (McCoy has them) & where Spock's body rests (on The Genisis Planet). Once both are retrieved, and thru an ancient Vulcan ritual, only then can Spock become his old self again. With the arrival of the Kilngons, looking for the secret to Genesis, its a race against time as the planet becomes unstable and starts to deteriate at an alarmingly fast rate. The search isn't without sacrfice & Kirk loses the two things he holds dearest to him in order get his friend back.

"Star Trek III" is one of those films thats pretty much written for fans of the series (if this film was your introduction to "Star Trek", I'm pretty positive your reaction was more of a "Huh!?" with a shrug of the shoulders). I hold this as the fifth best in the series tieing it with "Star Trek: Generations" ("II" & "First Contact" are the two best in the series).

The Klingons finally get some much needed screen time in this film. Since they were the main nemesis in the television series, it was only a matter of time before they would show up (the Klingons make a cameo in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"). A year before he went "Back To The Future", Christopher Lloyd gives a great performance as Commander Kruge, the greedy, power hungry Klingon commander. Kruge is much better than the two Klingons in "Star Trek V". Those two reminded me of the Wonder Twins from the "Super Friends", for some reason. The Klingons in "Star Trek VI" came across as more regal and honorable than threatening and coldblooded, like Kruge is. As for Shatner and the rest of the cast, all are also great & age gracefully in their respective roles.
James Horner's score to "III", like "II", is one of the better scores in the series (acutally, I think, its a lot of reused score material from the previous film, but, I just get so tired of hearing Jerry Goldsmith's opening theme from "The Motion Picture". Its been used in at least half of the the ten films, as well, as the opening theme to "The Next Generation" series). Leonard Nimoy directs his first of two "Trek" films ("III" is his directorial debut) and gets a lot out of his actors and does a good job overall.

The 2 disc DVD edition to "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" is worth owning and is better than "Star Trek V" on any given Sunday. Join the Search. ... 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 (3)

Funny About Love
Let me begin by saying that I read the review about this movie by "petershelley". WHOA! How could anyone be so opposite of everything this movie was about!! He does not have a clue and I mean not one about life, people, love, emotion, vulnerability and what it is really all about. This guy is so off base I actually pity what a superficial life he must live. He needs to get off his pedestal and get down here where the real people live. I believe that the performance by Gene Wilder was phenomenol and I could FEEL his pain when his wife walked out the door after their break-up. Knowing Mr. Wilder's history with his departed wife, Gilda Radner, one can only guess at his source of the emotion he exibited in that scene. No wonder I could feel it-I don't think you call that acting. I think it was real. Does Mr. Shelley know what it feels like to want to have a child and not be able to? I think not. If he did he would understand the motivation behind the actions of Duffy in the movie "Funny About Love". ANYONE who has been there knows that you CANNOT intellectualize about such a thing as Mr. Shelley does in his review. IT JUST IS. Christine Lahti's character represents so much of what it is to be a woman these days and try to be everything to everyone and not lose herself and her dreams and ambitions. She very much needed to know that Duffy loved her more than he loved the dream of having a child. That what we have in the here and now is all we really ever have, and even that is temporary. Mary Stuart Masterson of course brought so much humor to a really pretty sad situation. Because of her ability to love unconditionally she was able to give something extraordinary of herself to someone she loved and cared about without having to OWN that person. She was able, out of friendship or love, to fulfill the dream of another human being and complete his life. What greater gift is there on this earth? What an amazing movie, I loved every minute of it and can't believe it has taken it over 10 years to cross my path. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE and of course "Immediate Family" is right up there with it. Alexis Baughman

Gene Wilder Rules In This Romantic Comedy!!
Gene Wilder rules in this romantic comedy also co-starring Christine Lahti.It's a must see!!

Duffy Bergman¿s biological clock is about to go off
This tale of Gene Wilder as a Gary Trudeau-like celebrity political humourist doesn't work as comedy, drama or romance. The screenplay by Norman Steinberg and David Frankel is based on an Esquire article by Bob Greene entitled Convention of the Love Goddesses, which is represented by Wilder speaking at an all female college, declaring that men are "self-pitying" and in awe of women. However this hardly qualifies as feminism, which director Leonard Nimoy amusingly plays with by having Wilder's car pass a line of phallic trees. The only relationship he seems to have with a woman where Wilder isn't controlling or negative is his affair with the much younger Mary Stuart Masterson, and even this is invalidated by his unwillingness to declare his emotion, echoed in Sotto Voce being the name of a featured restaurant.
The main romance here is with Christine Lahti. At first her disinterest in him gives her some strength. She is a waitress at a book signing event of his yet unimpressed with his fame. However wardrobe dress her in Annie Hall-wear and soon she is revealed to be self-consciously weak, which diminishes Lahti's otherwise appealing qualities. The inability of the couple to bear a child sours their relationship, and Lahti bears the teary-eyed guilt.
What is noticable about the treatment is the parallels to be made with Woody Allen movies, specifically Annie Hall and Manh