Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan [Director’s Cut]

6 reviews for Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan [Director’s Cut]

1. 

   Rated 5 out of 5

   Kindle Customer – April 13, 2011

   Released in the summer of 1982, the 30th anniversary of the U.S.S. Enterprise’s greatest big-screen voyage is fast approaching. With the famed 1966-69 television series’ original ensemble (William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, James Doohan, & Walter Koenig) gathered together once more, director & un-credited screenwriter Nicholas Meyer nimbly took up the challenge of reinvigorating an aging cast with a stellar intergalactic adventure featuring the return of Captain Kirk’s greatest television nemesis: the imperious genetic superman known as Khan. As a classy sequel to the first season episode (1966-67), “Space Seed,” this movie boldly answers the question of whatever happened to Khan (the late Ricardo Montalban) fifteen years after he and his band of marauding castaways were exiled to a remote planet by Captain Kirk as punishment for their unsuccessful attempt to steal the Enterprise. And the answer is the Federation’s worst nightmare: Khan’s superhuman terrorist group seizes its top secret Project: Genesis device, which is capable of destroying and regenerating planets, as the device’s possessor sees fit. The only resistance in Khan’s immediate path is the U.S.S. Enterprise, which this time is mostly staffed by cadets led by Admiral Kirk and Captain Spock.What is perhaps most impressive about Meyer’s feat (which is enhanced by Montalban’s intense performance) is that one doesn’t even have to view “Space Seed” beforehand to easily grasp who Khan is and the dark motivations behind his hellish vengeance sought against Kirk for the death of his beloved wife, a former Enterprise crewmember. With that said, the balanced script for this second Star Trek movie is nothing short of superb in poignantly portraying Admiral Kirk’s ongoing mid-life crisis. We can grasp his initial restlessness supervising the newly promoted Captain Spock and the other veteran Enterprise crew members serving as instructors on an ominous cadet training voyage. Further, the plotline effectively integrates several new characters, such as Kirstie Alley as Saavik; the late Merritt Butrick as David Marcus (Kirk’s previously unacknowledged son); Judson Scott as Joachim; the late Paul Winfield as the ill-fated Captain Clark Terrell; and the late Bibi Besch as Dr. Carol Marcus (who may perhaps be the true reason behind Kirk’s failure at long-term romances). Most notably, Leonard Nimoy’s final scenes as Captain Spock are no doubt the best ever filmed for his beloved character, and his last exchange with William Shatner in the Enterprise’s engine room is arguably the most poignant moment in the franchise’s storied history.On a side note, one of the film’s best underrated elements is the Kirk-Carol Marcus relationship. Specifically, it is spelled out that Kirk knows they secretly have an adult son whom he deliberately chose to stay away from during the boy’s youth, per Carol’s wishes. This mature plot twist is well-played, as it wasn’t a cliché back then that middle-aged action heroes had long-lost sons. Years later, TV’s “Six Million Dollar Man” Steve Austin and MacGyver, DC Comics’ Batman, and even Indiana Jones, among others, all would have these long-lost sons, but none of them come close to the poignant believability that Shatner, Besch, and Butrick bring to this subplot. Then, Khan has his own surrogate son, Joachim, which serves as a skewed mirror image to the turbulent Kirk-David relationship. As much as the film’s unforgettable ending is Star Trek II’s legacy, Kirk’s mid-life loneliness is what brings “Star Trek” closest to real life.With startling ease and on a modest, streamlined budget no less, Meyer concocts a highly intelligent, literate adventure film that deftly weaves timeless adult themes of untested youth, the inevitability of old age, vengeance, death, grief, and even possible rebirth together. Despite a major character’s climatic demise, the film leaves audiences with a spiritually uplifting experience about graciously embracing old age, with the vibrant enthusiasm of seemingly eternal youth. Khan’s fatal obsession with destroying Admiral Kirk is also reflected by quoting Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick.” Montalban’s seething delivery makes the use of such literary quotes seem perfectly believable. Additionally, Kirk quotes two famous lines from Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities,” bracketing the film as bookends reiterating how life and death are not just simply the beginning and the end. Rather, it is the philosophical manner in which one chooses to face them along the way. Upon hearing Leonard Nimoy’s ghostly echo via the closing captain’s log followed by the first bars of the end credits from James Horner’s memorable, nautical-flavored score, you will recognize witnessing a first-class, science fiction film that doesn’t insult viewers with tedious cliché-fests and unnecessarily gaudy special effects. This is the reason that “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” remains the bar by which all other Trek films have been measured and rightfully so.Rating: 10/10 stars. Appropriate for ages 10 and up (for occasional profanity and some mild gore).P.S. The numerous special features include vintage cast interviews, trailers, documentaries, etc. They complete an excellent package for consumers.

2. 

   Rated 5 out of 5

   Cary L. Brown – October 20, 2012

   Star Trek has had its high points and its low points over the years. There have been some tremendous storys told, and some… lackluster?… ones, and some just terrible ones.Note that I grew up with the original series. Yes, there have been additional spin-off type series, supposedly set in the same universe, and they can be treated individually, but as far as I’m concerned, “Star Trek” is the original TV series and the movies based upon that, not “The Next Generation” or “Voyager” or “Deep Space Nine” or “Enterprise” or the new “reboot movie” done by JJ Abrams a couple of years ago. Those are all largely separate enntities, all of which (yes, including the new flick) have different characters, different situations, different storytelling techhniques, and so forth. This doesn’t NECESSARIlY make those other spin-off ideas worse, or better, just different. You can make your own calls about the quality of each individual spin-off. In other words, I’m just defining my terms here.That said, we can easily put the severan TNG-era movies into the comparison, as this movie far eclipses those as well.In 1979, “Star Trek – The Motion Picture” came out. It was the big-screen continuation of the original Star Trek TV show, supposedly “updated.” The quality of the visual effects was spectacular, and the new ship (it’s not the same ship, it just happens to have the same name and the same general configuration) was pretty to look at. The same actors were playing the same roles.But… the FEEL was all wrong. It lacked the real, HUMAN, interactions which were at the core of the original series’ best storytelling. So we had a ship which felt dreary, depressing, and dehumanizing inside. We had costuming which might have been comfortable, but was visually dull and drab. We had dialog which occasionally “hinted” at the close “just like us” human interaction which the original series was so successful for using, but mostly, it was actors staring at pretty lights with badly-acted “awestruck looks” on their faces.SO… despite being a technical masterpiece (for the most part), this first movie was not considered the sort of blockbuster which would have been required to make additional movies.Fortunately, someone at Paramount realized that it wasn’t the fault of the cast, or of the overall concept, but rather of the leadership for the production, which led to the storytelling failures of this film. And they realized that they had a lot of property, built for that first film, which would be able to be re-used at very little cost for additional films.SO… they dumped the production team (including Star Trek’s creator, Gene Roddenberry, who at this point had lost track of what he’d originally known so well when creating the original series!) and hired an entirely new production team. A team who had no attachments to Star Trek whatsoever.They hired a well-known TV line-producer, Harve Bennett, as the executive producer (taking over from ROddenberry). Bennett was someone who understood budgeting, scheduling, and the proper way to “hire the right people and then get out of their way,” all areas in which Roddenberry had failed, very badly, in while making TMP. Bennett held sway over the majority of the remaining original-series films, with just a couple of exceptions, and much of the success of the films he led can be laid directly at his feet.They hired a really good director, who understood what the director of “The Motion Picture” had failed to grasp… science fiction is just set-dressing, and the storytelling must be about PEOPLE, not about “fantastic special effects” or “high-concepts” even if you’re wrapped up in those things. All the “science fiction” trappings of the story are there for is to open up possible HUMAN storytelling which might not be practical in “real world” situations. Nicholas Meyer got that, and got it very, very well. He, frankly, didn’t care at all about the “space” elements of this, but he clearly understood the CHARACTERS.The budget was reduced, dramatically, from what was available in the first film. Nevertheless, they had enough budget to create a new ship (the Reliant, a sister ship to the Enterprise) to make new uniforms (which seemed more real, and were much more visually appealing, patterned in large part upon real-world military uniforms). They re-used quite a bit from the first movie (the two of the new sets… the space station transporter room and the Enterprise torpedo bay… were both repaints of portions of a set… the Klingon bridge… from the first movie, for example), they raided “stock prop” warehouses for set-dressing (the same “scifi set dressing” bits seen in this film were seen in dozens and dozens of other 1970s, 1980s and 1990s TV shows), and so forth. Heck, they made new “communicators” from found equipment from the local Home Depot!They did hire Lucas’s special effects house, “Industrial Light and Magic,” to do the visual effects, and they did a fine job, Again, to save money, they re-used some shots from the first film, so while the model of the Enterprise did get a new paint job or this film, it still has the original paint job in quite a few shots.My point is simple… they were FRUGAL in this film. Instead of planning out science-fictiony spectacle, as the first movie did, they focused almost entirely on the human storytelling. The other stuff was, as it should be, all “set dressing” to help the audience forget that they’re watching actors on a soundstage. And it worked… magnificently. (A lesson which J.J. Abrams seems to have failed on, in my judgement, in his reboot movie.)The storytelling in this film is what makes it rise head and shoulders above any other Star Trek film, and over most non-Star Trek films for that matter. We get characters who we can imagine actually knowing, and liking, in real life (something we had in the best examples of the original series as well, but lacked, entirely, in the first movie). We got drama from situations which, while wrapped in science-fiction trappings, were really about the most fundamental human emotions… a villain who has (understandable, if irrational) rage issues directed against the hero, and a hero who feels that his life is “winding down” and sees all the lost opportunities and mistakes behind him.It’s a trope that “Captain Kirk slept with every girl he met” in the original series (it’s not really true, by the way, but it’s a trope nevertheless). This movie showed the “leading man romantic” role he often filled in a very different light, by introducing the great love of his life, the “little blonde lab tech” he was mentioned as having “almost married” in the very first appearance of Kirk in the original series, and it turns out that he also has a son… a son who doesn’t know that Kirk is his father. It actually explains quite a bit, and shows that there are consequences we all have to deal with for our choices. And, thankfully, this turns out OK in the end (at least in this film!)The dialog is written so well, even with somewhat different visuals, there’s no question but that these are the same characters we know and love from the original series. It’s dramatic, when appropriate, funny (in a realistic way, not a slapstick way) when appropriate, and just COMFORTABLE all the rest of the time. No stilted “science-fictiony” dialog, just normal people having normal conversations about imporant things in their lives.The acting also reflects the pinnacle of the Star Trek films, and is a key element to the above. Nick Meyer did a terrific turn as director, and as a result even some of the more lackluster actors turn in terrific performances. I’m not a huge George Takei fan overall (“Sulu”), and I never really liked the Chekov character (though I grew to love Walter Koenig, the actor who played him, through watching Babylon 5) but this film shows both of these guys at their best. Nichele Nichols, as Uhura, does a good job, but she’s probably the most underutilized original-series actor in this film (a sad but necessary requirement of reasonable storytelling (the comms officer is seldom going to be a major player in real-life events, and in this film, the storytelling tool priority over “giving everyone their moment”… something later films ended up trying, way too hard at times, to do) James Doohan’s turn as Scotty in this film was also “lightly written” but had some really good moments. But, as with the original series, this movie was built around the “big three trio,” Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.One of the things that made the original series work so well was that the big-three characters sort of grew into psychological archetypes… Kirk as the “superego” (The psychology term for the part which makes decisions, based upon the input of the other two elements), the “ego” (the logical, rational side of our mind), through Spock, and the ID (the emotional, feelings-based side of our minds) which obviously was McCoy. This is very clearly played out in a sequence in this film, set in Kirk’s cabin, where they discuss the concept of “Genesis” in this film.Finally, this film did something I LOVED. It took risks, and make “permanent” changes to the status-quo, in universe. (I put “permanent” in quotes because, unfortunately, some of these “permanent” changes got reversed later… so the brave choices made in this film largely got erased in later films, putting us back into the “status quo,” which was just a horrible mistake as far as I’m concerned!)The best films, but best TV shows, the best storytelling in general, must involve REAL GROWTH AND CHANGE. This is part of why Babylon 5 remains my all-time favorite TV series… and why, from a pure storytelling perspective, Deep Space Nine may in fact be the best drama told in the Star Trek universe. You have to have real jeaopardy, real risk. Characters… BELOVED characters… need to be at real risk, and occasionally may need to die… and STAY THAT WAY.Otherwise, none of the storytelling ends up having any real impact.This film made real changes. It introduced two three major new characters, all of whom should have become part of the “recurring cast” for future films (but one of whom was never seen again, one of whom was later removed entirely, and one of whom was badly recast… no offense to the replacement, but this character ceased to be the same character!)The situation at the end of the film isn’t the same as we saw during the original TV series, or at the beginning of the film. Characters have changed, new relationships are being formed… and new character dynamics would likely be present in future films. It was… perfect. It just works. Beautifully.Later Star Trek movies were still fairly good, to varying degrees, but they lost sight of the “story first, above all” on occasion… needing to give every actor their “moment” in each film (even if it doesn’t really serve the storytelling), or drawing back from taking big risks, or (worst of all) REVERSING the “changes” which this film gave us, instead putting us back into the “same thing, with no changes, but with older actors” situation.The last “Original series” film was also the second best… “The Undiscovered Country.” It’s no shock that this film was also helmed by Nick Meyer, and while a bit lesser than this film, it’s a fine film as well. And it also deals with real change, albeit in different ways.If you only watch ONE Star Trek film, this is the one to watch.

3. 

   Rated 4 out of 5

   Leia Waters – April 28, 2023

   Legendary. Shatner and Montalban in their prime.

4. 

   Rated 5 out of 5

   Doug – May 5, 2023

   No issues with the quality

5. 

   Rated 4 out of 5

   Pamela E Bowsher – May 24, 2023

   My Star Trek movies collection is complete now.

6. 

   Rated 5 out of 5

   nae – June 26, 2023

   Watched as part of an old Star Trek movie binge. Exactly what you’d expect