'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

In order to do them all justice, High-Def Digest is reviewing each film in the 'Star Trek: Original Motion Picture Collection' individually. We'll get into the nitty gritty of each movie as we cover each title, but overall, the complete set is an easy recommendation.

Josh is swimming with the whales of 'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.' He says this has never been his favorite Trek, and that time hasn't been all that kind to this nutty little adventure. This Blu-ray has the weakest video of the set, but hey, it's still stronger than the best DVD release. Audio is good. Extras would fill an improvised Seaworld tank jammed into a Klingon Bird of Prey.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2467...oyagehome.html

[HuskerGuy]

Though I bet that it's one of Hayden Panettiere's favorite movies of all time

Lol

[nmcmahan52]

this one is pure cheese but i liked it, definitely the worst bd pq wise

[crazzeto]

Actually I'm pretty sure life support was affected by the probe, I seem to remember that being an issue... It's been a while since I've seen the movie though. Anyway I'll reserve judgement until my blurays show up, but I loved this movie. Not as good as TWoK, but ofr me it will always have a speacial place in my heart.

[ack_bak]

I actually prefer IV to both III and V. But I am not a hardcore Trekkie as well. I also noticed the soft picture on IV. I honestly thought my contact lenses were just dry. I also thought that perhaps DNR may have been used that scrubbed the fine detail away. PQ wise, it was just okay for me. I think Josh's scores are pretty spot on for PQ/AQ. I personally would have rated the movie itself a 3-3.5 stars

[DrMaustus]

After all that trashing, it's still "recommended" Josh?

It's funny that you mentioned the idea of "parking" the ship in Golden Gate park. Even as a young kid I thought that idea was stupid.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by DrMaustus

After all that trashing, it's still "recommended" Josh?

It's funny that you mentioned the idea of "parking" the ship in Golden Gate park. Even as a young kid I thought that idea was stupid.

Yes, that part really bothered me as well. It is pretty clear that they wanted to make this movie campy and light though, and I think they succeeded. There were parts of the movie that I found extremely funny.

[Dragonyeuw]

Some of Spock's dialogue in this movie is hilarious. His attempts to use profanity and the 'yes,no,yes,no I love italian and so do you' scene was hilarious. Also liked that Chekov got 15 minutes of sunshine in this film.
However, yeah parking in Golden Gate park was dumb, the probe didn't cut off all the electronics( the ones needed to forward the plot like Life Support and communcations still worked, how thoughful of the probe), and it generally felt like an after-school tv special with the beating over the head 'save the whales' message. However, I do appreciate it's lighter tone after the emotional ride of the prior two films.

[Filmmaker]

Sigh, more hyperbole from our good friend and grand authority on quality cinema, Josh Z:

"Although 'Star Trek III' had been successful, it wasn't nearly as big a hit as the earlier films in the series."

STAR TREK II made $78,912,963.

STAR TREK III made $76,471,046.

I don't see how a drop of $2.5 million warrants the use of the adverb "nearly", especially when you take into account TSFS's competition at the 1984 box office versus TWOK's 1982 one.

[Hastor]

I too loved IV, I guess I'll stick with my laserdisc for now. This collection is tempting, but with the one I'd likely watch the most being the poorest in quality, and likely Director's Edition double dips in the future, I think I'll hold off until they all at least look as good as the first two. I'm pretty sure this was a rush job to cash in on new or revived Trek fans after the release of the new movie. Sure this movie is goofy, and that is why I love it. It is the one Star Trek comedy movie, and I like knowing that the series doesn't always have to take itself too seriously. I seem to hear more quotes from this movie than any of the others, mostly funny stuff. The only thing that bugged me was Scotty's quickness at using the computer to show a model of a molecule 10 seconds after he didn't know that you couldn't talk to it. But then I saw it long after '86, and in '86 I don't think most of the public understood computers enough for this to be as noticeable as it is today.

[HuskerGuy]

Originally Posted by DrMaustus

After all that trashing, it's still "recommended" Josh?

It's funny that you mentioned the idea of "parking" the ship in Golden Gate park. Even as a young kid I thought that idea was stupid.

Considering he is reviewing the entire set (albeit one film at a time), I'd assume the "recommended" refers to the set itself.

[Boston007]

I loved IV, and liked it much more than 3 and 5, sorry.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by HuskerGuy

Considering he is reviewing the entire set (albeit one film at a time), I'd assume the "recommended" refers to the set itself.

Bingo. Since you can't buy Trek IV on its own, the "Recommended" covers the box sets that it is part of.

You'll also see Star Trek V get a "Recommended" rating for that reason.

[pharbath]

Booo,

I have always foiund IV a very enjoyable film.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

STAR TREK II made $78,912,963.

STAR TREK III made $76,471,046.

I don't see how a drop of $2.5 million warrants the use of the adverb "nearly", especially when you take into account TSFS's competition at the 1984 box office versus TWOK's 1982 one.

To demonstrate that I do in fact take feedback seriously, I've edited that portion of the review to remove the reference to STIII not being as financially successful as its predecessors. I had my numbers wrong, and you were right to point this out.