Siskel & Ebert At the Movies - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2014
- The Summer of 1984, I saw this with my childhood friend Devin at Galleria at Tyler Movie Theater in Riverside, California, now a Barnes & Noble, even collected Taco Bell's Star Trek III glasses... 8-) • Star Trek III The Sear...
this is the most underrated of the Trek films. It's always 2,4 & 6 are the best .. but 3 is also very good and overlooked
It is a very underrated ST film, it was a good follow up to ST2
4 and 5 are the worst.
It was a more personal journey rather than a fate of the universe type story. I think a film like this should have a little humour in places
It wasn't overly obnoxious with the comic relief. Like I said, it's a personal journey so it doesn't have to be too serious all the time. Because the film isn't balls to wall action all the time, it needs light hearted moments to keep the dialogue entertaining
Agreed. Christopher Lloyd was a lot of fun, although not as good as Khan. And there were lots of important developments (Kirk disobeying Starfleet, his son getting murdered, the Enterprise blown up) that carried a lot of weight and used as canon. And I didn't mind the comedy. I thought McCoy acting like Spock was funny.
“The first one was kind of a low-budget Star Wars”
lol the first one had FOUR TIMES the budget of Star Wars
Ebert is so surprised that Siskel agrees with him!
Maybe they should have had a knock down drag em out like Kirk did with Krug:)
These old reviews makes you glad Spock lived and Genes Dead.
I love how Siskel gives away the plot and the ending!
Spoiler before Spoiler Alerts.
+Scott Lance Like he said, it's not as though they _weren't_ going to find Spock at the end. Although, he *did* play around with the *real* spoiler for the movie at the time, i.e. the fate of the _Enterprise,_ when he specified only that the *crew* would be fine after the Bird of Prey battle.
icemachine79 Spoiler alerts are for imbeciles. If your enjoyment of a movie is damaged by knowing how it's going to develop/end, then really you (not YOU, but people in general) need to grow the hell up! I've lost count of the books I've read and films I've seen where I've already known what's going to happen. But as some people say, it's the journey that matters, not the destination.
Spoiler alerts are for people who want to enjoy the journey, not have it mapped out for them.
its the title of the movie lol
There will never be a duo like them ever again!!!!
"Bones, have you lost your mind?" No, he just gained another one!
“The nature of humanity and the nature of intelligence.” You just described TMP hahah
That was my instant thought too!
Yeh, he got TMP total wrong on budget and plot. TWOK was just an action movie.
I love how even back then killing off a character was met with: "They'll be back."
I SAW THIS EPISODE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY AIRED. THEY NEVER DID MENTION THAT THE ENTERPRISE WOULD BE DESTROYED IN THIS FILM. THAT SHOCKED THE ENTIRE AUDIENCE. SOME EVEN IN TEARS.
Which is ironic considering the trailer and TV ads all mention it.
Quite right! I remember getting emotional. After all, that was the death of the original ship which had been renovated from the TV series. It was like a major character died.
@@Vaderd2k926 so true.👍
Yes, I saw it in the theatre and there were gasps from the audience.
I saw this before I ever watched Let This Be Your Last Battlefield.
I've never seen this review before, Thanks for sharing, and God bless!!
Quentin F. They were a staple of viewing in the late seventies and through the early 90's. In The Dark Ages, before just anyone could write up a review for anyone to read. Regardless of the quality of the review, but still.
@@mikeshaffer4912 *90s.
Ebert in 1984: This is a good movie
Ebert in 1991: 1, 3 and 5 are bad.
They really only disliked STV. I like how they pinpoint the characters as the reason to love them. Absolutely true. ST:TMP is great for style, and a little bit for character at the end, but it's with STII that we really take off.
the character stuff in TMP is the best man, spock’s arc in that film is the best character arc in any star trek movie. additionally the V’Ger stuff with the celibate lady is great character stuff.
I saw this review the Saturday it aired on my local ABC channel and I LOVED IT ! I thank you for putting up this clip; it really brought back memories !
That was an AWESOME WEEK for this Trekkie ! I think either the Sunday after this review or the Monday, I won sneak preview tickets from a local radio station for Star Trek III: TSFS for the Thursday before It was released in all theatres in my city ! With the sneak preview, I got an AWESOME Star Trek III: TSFS t-shirt, the one with Spock's almost crystal featured face and the theatrical movie poster, and a little tiny cardboard pamphlet and StarFleet sigil envelope that the tickets came in. I was in Trekkie HEAVEN !
I think Siskel & Ebert hit the right notes on part II and IV, but they overlooked the best points of SEARCH FOR SPOCK. And when it comes to the second of a three-story arc, the second is usually the best.
Star Trek III: Search for Spock is 40 years old!
Made $76.5 million domestically and $87 million worldwide
It's tough to make a decent follow-up to 'Wrath of Khan' which is still considered to be one of the best Star Trek films but the late Leonard Nimoy makes a very good directorial debut
This is actually a very well-made sequel despite the even numbered entries making fans and critics very disappointed
It still has big death scenes, strong moments, and it feels very operatic
Christopher Lloyd makes for a decent villain but the character is more of a one-note player unable to match the late Ricardo Montalban
Kirk gets some very dark character moments gaining something but losing something in the process
And despite the controversy of fans addressing a huge retcon while also making Starfleet an antagonist the film still works thanks to fantastic special effects, some cool mythos when it comes to the Vulcan species, a decent pace, and balances action, adventure, and character drama
James Horner's score is spectacular as always
Each of the crew members get their chance to shine
And there's many biblical themes of life, death, and rebirth
The concept is nice even though Spock is not on screen for a lot of the running time his spirit and essence is present throughout
The destruction of the Enterprise is quite epic too and they give it a lot of weight
The characters' affection for each other going beyond the uniform clearly shows as well as how imperfect an organization like Starfleet is
A crew is willing to sacrifice everything for a fallen friend showing this movie's sentiment and spirituality
Nimoy manages to get across Christian themes and scientific ethics--how quickly it moves and the dangers of it
It’s not as great as its predecessor but still a very watchable entry in the franchise being the more drama-based one
I remember watching this review on tv when it first came out
Thanks for uploading this! Agreeing with Siskel here, I wanted 3 and a half! I had been impressed by Christopher Lloyd's performance since it was such a departure from his character on Taxi. Sulu has my fave line in the film: Don't call me "Tiny", LOL! Too bad Kirstie didn't return, she was great in Wrath of Khan! McCoy at the bar was hilarious, one of the funniest moments in Trek EVER! Nimoy is missed, I will always be a Spock fan!
They both got it correct. It's a good movie. Not a great one but not bad.
Life in the 413 It contains one of my favourite lines ever :) Kirk: "Beam up the Vulcan too!" Kluug: "No!" Kirk: "But why?" Kluug: *"Because you wish it."* Lol. Classic villainy there by Kluug :)
*Kruge
It's a good movie. Better within the context of the other 2.
Thanks for giving away every major plot point, guys.
I love seeing Doc Brown play one of the most evil Klingon in all of Star Trek. And i love the epic fight between him and Kirk in the end.
this was the good old days
There’s a difference between good and great. My favorite Star Trek movie is The Undiscovered Country but The Search for Spock is my favorite part in the Genesis Trilogy. Leonard Nimoy was a great director.
I liked it more than Wrath of Khan personally, it's what I felt that movie should've been.
III is the 2nd best Trek movie of all 13 movies. (II, III, VI, IV, FC, ST09, STID, TMP, GEN, STB, V, NEM, INS)
TMP wipes the floor with all of 'em !
I love this film
It's not a perfect movie but it is an important one. 3 points that do bother me with it is 1) The admiral was proven right in saying the Enterprise's day was over. 2) Kirk's son dying is so close and more important than the Enterprise being destroyed. 3) There is what I think is an editing mistake where Kirk wants to head to Genesis before the Grisham confirms Spock's existence. If it is a mistake I understand why, with it being too long a gap away from Kirk and company. But it sticks out to me
I wish those two were still alive, I wonder what they think about all the harry potter movies, Jurassic Park 2 and 3, Dawn and Rise of the planet of the apes, the Narnia movies, The Muppets, Muppets most wanted, etc. etc.
Janie Doe They were both alive when JP 2 came out, and both disliked it. Sadly, Siskel was gone when JP 3 came out, but Roger was still around. And he gave it a thump up.
+Janie Doe Really would love them to talk about Interstellar, Gone Girl and so many other movies.
what happened to them? (edit- I just wikid them...damn sad :(
Gene missed The Matrix, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, the Fast and Furious movies, the Planet of the Apes reboot series, Nolan’s genre movies and the MCU. Would’ve been great to hear him rip into most of them with Roger.
"The first one was like a low budget Star Wars...." wtf is he talking about. Complete opposite of that.
More like low budget 2001.
exactly TMP cost about 3 or 4 times as much as SW lol
Weird seeing Max Taber (Christopher Lloyd) from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" as a klingon.
I love Christopher Lloyd but I never bought him as a Klingon. He should have played a Romulan.
interesting comment "low budget Star Wars" considering ST1 budget was $35M & Star Wars IV(first one) was $11M
And the fact it’s nothing like Star Wars
Jesus- spoiler warning! These guys just give away the whole movie, lol!
Talk about spoilers! They just didn't give a fuck back then.
I peed on Ebert once at a club in the eighties
Siskel, as usual, sounds a bit snooty like many film critics. A completely different species who run on opinions.
At 1:00, Nimoy should have actually sat in the chair.
6,2,3,4,5,1 my order
Does anyone have the review of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?
+Amit Divecha It ought to be here somewhere, but I saw it. They liked it.
Think Khan is the better squel and up till the fourth part that was the best Star Trek film.
its available now along with Star Trek I (cant find V tho)
I'll take Star Trek III over VI anyday of the week.
Hey, I'm actually not alone on this, lol. VI was fine, but I think it's the most overrated in the franchise. Christopher Lloyd was awesome as Kruge. My second favorite villain behind the obvious one.
wasent christopher the bad guy in 3? dident mention him
It was a good movie, not a great movie, but a good one.
Gee, he said Star Trek III was good here, but when Ebert critiqued The Undisovered country, he claimed this one was BAD, and the sixth movie was GOOD. The third movie will always be better than the sixth one.
I'll take VI over III any day.
VI is secretly the best.
An inconsistency, hey guys, George Lucas' Star Wars Special Effects Team or as it was already known as ILM; Industrial Light & Magic well before 1982, also did the special effects for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan!
These two had a bizarre habit of slamming the effects of the Star Trek films, saying they weren't as good as those in Star Wars. Um... II, III, IV, VI, Generations, and First Contact all had effects by ILM. What the hell were they talking about?
Ebert gets his descriptions of Star Treks 1 and 2 the wrong way around - I would say 2 was a low budget Star Wars and 1 was the one about ideas, etc. Very strange of him to get that the other way around.
I think what he actually means goes along those lines: Star Trek 1 relied too much on special effects and while impressive, they are not on the same level of Star Wars. Star Trek 1 had high philosophical sci-fi concepts, but they were not fleshed out well and the overall story was lacking. Star Trek 2 on the other hand had several philosophical ideas in it, like Kirk not believing in a no-win scenario but having to face one and of course "The needs of the many...". These concepts actually fit right into the story, that's why Ebert probably remembers them better.
@@mikeretromeister8646 I think TMP fleshed out it's ideas perfectly. The journey starts out as intent to destroy the V'ger, there is some action, then the film becomes a journey to further understand what V'ger is. I felt the awe, wonder, and treachery of exploring the universe and best of all, the audience is left contemplate what actually occured when Decker sacrificed himself. Star Trek 2 is intelligent and I felt the character drama but it's bluntness regarding the delivery of it's themes was a bit of a turn off. Wrath of Khan is a good space adventure but I found TMP to be less conventional and more provocative.
You're exactly right. Ebert gets it completely wrong. It astounds me that anyone could compare Star Trek 1 to Star Wars. Did he even watch the movie? Star Trek 1 is definitely the more science-ficton type of film. Star Trek 2 is the more space adventure type of film that Star Wars is. There's the Genesis idea, but it's a tiny plot device. The main thing is the human drama between Kirk and Khan, and there's very little sci-fi about that. He even makes the Darth Vader comparison with Khan, yet he insists Star Trek 1 is more like Star Wars.
The volcano planet?
Genesis planet blowing up they meant. Kinda like Mustafar from Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith but no buildings.
The first movie was a low budget Star Wars? What is he talking about?
I think Ebert either paid minimal attention to genre films or he was undiagnosed with some mental disorder that hampered his understanding of basic concepts. Hearing him talk about movies is seriously cringe-inducing at times. This is one of them.
+otakuraocklee Yeah, considering the budget of Star Trek - The Motion Picture was 46 million, which was a lot higher than any of the original trilogy Star Wars movies. The first Star Wars was 11 million, Empire Strikes Back 18 million, and finally Return of Jedi at 32.5 million.
some of TMPs crazy 45m budget went on the aborted 2nd tv series and previous attempts at doing a movie..but even if you deduct some $s TMP will have still cost about 30m
The first Star Trek wa every expensive but aspects of it feel undercooked and cheap. Star Wars feels alive and energetic and excitement
I thought this was always the weakest of all.