Re: Roger Ebert is dead...
He lambasted Star Trek V back in 1989 and said some pretty biting and unflattering things about the film (but then it's difficult to find a critic who didn't) and I remember being taken aback at the time because it was the first Trek film he didn't like. In fact, he thought it was just plain terrible.
As time went by I came to recognize that most of his criticisms were valid and correct in spite of my personal attempts to make the fifth movie seem better than it was. Cheesy special effects: check. Villains (specifically the Klingons) you don't care about: check. Secondary supporting characters who are introduced with a lot of dialogue and setup and then given nothing to do: check. Sloppy direction from Shatner: check.
That was the beauty of Roger.
You could disagree with his points, you could like a movie he seemed to hate, but if you were honest about it all, you could see where he was coming from because you knew he was really watching & understanding the movies.
I think a lot of other reviews are based on more superficial viewings by people that are just trying to make a splashy sounding review.
Rimmer, on what period of history to live in-
“Well, It’d be the 19th century for me, one of Napoleon’s marshals.
The chance to march across Europe with the greatest general of all time and kill Belgians” - (White Hole).