Ebert.. "Star Trek" 2 and one half stars

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

If anyone cares. Spoilers if you click this link:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997

I like Ebert, but his reviews are becoming more and more irrelevant. With sci fi films especially, he picks one or two details and just rags on them.

 

[Bounty]

Seems like he reviewed the movie he expected to see rather than the movie he went to see. And two of his criticism are plot points he seems to have slept through.

 

[BenRoethig]

Ebert reviewing this kind of film is like Porsche magazine reviewing a Silverado. Its not something he likes or understands. They really should have genre film critics instead of just generic ones who end to greatly prefer arthouse-type flicks.

 

[John Picard]

Ebert reviewing this kind of film is like Porsche magazine reviewing a Silverado. Its not something he likes or understands. They really should have genre film critics instead of just generic ones who end to greatly prefer arthouse-type flicks.

I dunno. Siskel and Ebert gave a Thumbs-Up to RoboCop back in the day.

 

[WarMaster1701]

He does not like the sci-fi part of the film. He took it and ran with it

 

[Michael Chris]

Yeah, and too Serenity as well

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sorry, I think it's a fine review. Ebert is always Ebert, God bless 'im, and I'm more impressed by his two-and-a-half stars than by most of the tabloid and Internet chatterers at Rotten Tomatoes.

Though he gets some details wrong, he's more right than anyone involved in making this film as far as the science is concerned and as far as any distinction between imaginative science fiction and space opera goes. It's possible to like this movie - which he clear does - without attributing to it virtues that it seems to lack.

 

[indranee]

he's okay. at least, he's honest. this movie does have some glaring holes, and he did point out the "despite all that"...

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Generally speaking, I like Ebert. I really do. If he says "go see Snooty Art Film. The scene with the mimes and the ping pong balls will change your life," it probably will. But I don't think he gets genre films anymore. I doubt he has the patience or enthusiasm for them. He may have been hoping for a film about speculative science in its purist form, but I'm expecting a summer thrill ride that doesn't suck. Hope I'm not disappointed.

 

[Franklin]

As I said in the RT thread, it's a good critical review. He just would've liked to have seen more substance behind all that energy. As he said at the end, now that they've established the characters, let's see them get on to testing their character.

I'll also ask this question in this thread since I'm here: Between Ebert and the late Gene Siskel, was Ebert the one more generally critical of Star Trek? I thought Siskel was the one who had a softer spot for it. Could have them mixed up. Could be entirely wrong. Damn clouded memories.

 

[indranee]

to ManOnTheWave:

you won't be. he's not looking for what's needed for Trek at this point. he's looking for what's yet to come.

relax and go watch it.

 

[William Shatner]

The man is a fucking genius and tells the truth about this dogshit excuse for a film.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

they both liked Trek, but I think Siskel liked it a tad more

 

[indranee]

Siskel really liked Trek, if I remember.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

There have been Trek films that Ebert has reviewed very favorably in the past: he gave 3.5 stars to The Voyage Home and First Contact and 3 stars to The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock. He gave 2 stars to The Final Frontier, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis.

If he didn't like Star Trek as much as most reviewers, well, that's fine. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

 

[Patrickivan]

He didn't exactly dump on the movie either... He pretty much said it was an okay generic action in space adventure. Not a glaring review in the positive, but not terriblly negative either. From what I have seen, and I will finally get to see the movie soon, it really does seem like a lot of mindless adventure with big mindless explosions tempered by other silly plot devices.

But, for good or bad, it's Star Trek and I'm still going to see it. And I don't think this review is bad enough to sway the general fence sitting public who don't really have an interest in Star Trek, one way or the other.

As for if he's qualified or not? Well hell, let's just have the fans of Star Trek reviewing it- that'll be great. There certainly won't be any arguments there! He's a critic- he'll like it, not like, or be indifferent. He was mostly indifferent and backed up his opinion more then most fans here do.

But as the consumer, it's up to you to decide if you want to read the reviews by MULTIPLE sources. Then, and only then can you make a reasonable choice. Then you can either go, and decide for your self if you like it (as only you can), or not go, and never really know.

And Picard, Robocob WAS a kick as movie (back then). Now that's a movie I would like to see a re-make of!

 

[Mr. B]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good review. Considering this film is largely about distilling the franchise into common blockbuster fare, I'd say it's pretty generous.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Siskel really liked Trek, if I remember.

Nope.

He was good friends with the late Michael Piller, but he wasn't a fan.

I distinctly remember his review on TV of INS (which he liked) where he said:

I wouldn't know what a Klingon was if one came up and bit me. I don't even know if Klingons have teeth.

I've been sick of Ebert for a long time. He's a typical elitist when it comes to film, however it doesn't mean that this particular review doesn't have merit.

But based on the overwhelmingly positive response it's received, I'd say that he's probably dead wrong on this.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

you won't be.

Sweet.

And as I recall, Siskel and Ebert together used to say that Trek had to be reviewed as it's own thing. And they tended to do so. It was Nemesis that had Ebert saying he was sick of shields being down to x%.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good review. Considering this film is largely about distilling the franchise into common blockbuster fare, I'd say it's pretty generous.

Well, you think it's a good review because...

Well, you know why.