andrewlion19

Damn, The Motion Picture has a bad rap around here. It is a slow burn sure but its pure sci fi on a scale we rarely ever see, and its undeniably Star Trek. Not to mention some of the most incredible visuals in the genre and a fantastic soundtrack. I appreciate the way it's a polar opposite to Khan while also being the soil that Kirk's story takes root in for WoK. EDIT: Not to mention some great character work, like Bones' reintroduction and everything with Spock. It's a great movie that has suffered a lot from people only watching it on their dinky home movie setup.

There's a real lack of perspective regarding superhero movies, and until enough time has passed, we really can't have a substantive conversation about what the "best" or "most important" one is. I mean, the only one that has any kind of consensus around it in terms of lasting importance would be the original X-Men, and it's objectively awful. I feel like once the dust has settled, the superhero films that stand the test of time will be different from what we expect.

Trusting IMDB over a film expert is like trying to correct your history professor because of something you read on wikipedia.

If I wanted a list of films like this I'd just go look at the Criterion Collection release list, yeesh. These are all great films, no doubt, but why is a glut of popular and genre movies a bad thing? Classic films already get a ton of recognition and discussion in film circles, let's have a Canon that recognizes that there are more great films out there than what you'll find on an AFI Greatest Films of the Century list.

Well if you just don't think the movie is all that great then the cultural discussion doesn't even matter, but like I said before people are undervaluing how great this movie is. We have so few examples of a genre movie like this, that are so well plotted and themed and executed, that they can and do easily break out and touch people who otherwise have no interest in the genre, that we can really hold them up as an example of what cinema can be at its best.

Again, divorcing a film from its larger cultural context is a valuable tool for analysis, but it shouldn't be the greatest part of the standard by which any film is judged, especially one that is part of a series that has steeped so thoroughly into our cultural landscape. Furthermore I couldn't disagree more with saying "This isn't the cultural Canon." It absolutely 100% undeniably is the Cultural Canon. What could be more indispensable to a student of our culture than a list of the greatest works it produced and commentary to put it in its proper (again, cultural) context? If we were to quantify culture, what else could it be collection of the finest works it produced? This is how we judge the civilizations of the past, and it's how we will be judged in the future. If that's not the function of The Canon, I don't know what is.

I've read a lot of comments in this vein, so this reply is really meant as a rebuttal to all of them and not any one in particular. Trying to cut Wrath of Khan from its roots in previous Star Trek and the larger cultural context of it being a movie featuring the massively recognized characters of Spock and Kirk is a belittling approach. It's a valuable thought exercise to take this movie out of context and make it stand on its own merit, but it should not be the final word on if this is or isn't a great film. There are few cultural forces that have so completely permeated our collective cultural consciousness as Star Trek. It truly has done this on a scale that is almost without comparison, the results of which can be seen in the way it created the modern concept of what a "fan" is, the way it inspired so many people to go on to be doctors and scientists, and has spawned sequels and prequels for over forty years. If we fail to take this into account when we make our judgement of the movie, we not only do it a disservice, we also miss the forest for the trees in a huge way.

Star Trek II is the greatest example of a kind of movie that is underappreciated and undervalued in the discussion of what a great film can be. Wrath of Khan is a film marinated in its themes: themes of aging, death, experience vs genius, youthful vigor vs elderly hesitation. Heavy concepts, ones that we will all face in our lives. It is focused on its objective. Every plot, scene, beat, and line advances these themes while simultaneously propelling the story forward in an energetic way. It is a film about our past as much as it is about our future. The film has a wistful tone; we're eager and happy to see these characters again, even as we quickly realize that things have moved on. We're beyond the Kirk that we last saw in The Motion Picture, there is no youth left in this man anymore, and he has to rediscover what his role is in a future that is going to keep on moving with or without him. It is anchored in our past as well, through the repeated references to great literary works. And it does all this effortlessly. On the surface we see a fun space adventure film, an unapologetic product of pop culture, made on a budget by a major motion picture studio. This was never required to be anything other than that, and yet it is so much more. A deconstruction of some of the greatest pop culture icons of its day. An exploration of truly universal themes. An earnest emotional tale of friendship and family. It is entertainment and art, in a tradition as old as the Iliad. And that's what a truly great film can be, friends. Don't underestimate the value of it when its staring you in the face, honest and bold.