Ebert.. "Star Trek" 2 and one half stars
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
This. Ebert is actually far more sympathetic to genre films than most "serious" critics. He is rare among such critics as he, generally, judges films in terms of their intentions, rather than against some arbitrary measure of "cinema as art". On the other hand, he understands film as a broad form of art and is not tied to a specific genre, allowing him to place his reviews in far broader (and more meaningful) critical context than a "genre" reviewer.
Gene Siskel did, indeed, like Star Trek. Roger Ebert has not been a relevant film critic since Gene passed away. The last time I caught him, M. Night Shyamalan was his guest co-host.
Siskel may have liked Trek more, but Ebert comes at it and at sf films in general from the perspective of a life-long science fiction fan (active in - *ahem* "organized fandom" in his youth), who's read heavily in the genre and appreciates it more fully than most movie or tv critics. His enthusiasm for sf, though, never seems to overrule his sensibilities where the art and craft of cinema are concerned - movies are his great love.
As far as "relevance" is concerned, Ebert was always a more discerning and generally better critic than Siskel, period - he didn't lose a step because of having to go on without the other, since Siskel never had a thing to do with Ebert's abilities in that regard (both were quite successful as critics in print for decades before the masses discovered them through the miracle of passively sucking on television). Rolling one's eyes about his having had M. Knight as a guest host on his show at one time or another, without context, is an incompetent and - yeah - irrelevant shot.
As far as "relevance" is concerned, Ebert was always a more discerning and generally better critic than Siskel, period - he didn't lose a step because of having to go on without the other, since Siskel never had a thing to do with Ebert's abilities in that regard (both were quite successful as critics in print for decades before the masses discovered them through the miracle of passively sucking on television). Rolling one's eyes about his having had M. Knight as a guest host on his show at one time or another, without context, is an incompetent and - yeah - irrelevant shot.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
^that quote was in jest
EDIT. Aarghhh you guys are too goddamned fast!
No it wasn't. He made it very clear that he was not a fan of Star Trek. He didn't put it down, he just made it clear he was not a fan.
I'd hardly call Ebert an elitist. This is the guy, after all, who ranks the popcorn-fare that are the Hellboy flicks up there with First Contact, and called out the Brown Bunny simply for trying too hard to be artsy. He defended Anime as a legitimate art form when every critic poo-pooed on the category. But yeah, I'd rather get a well-thought negative review (and even then, it's slightly negative) than a gushing brown-nosing positive review like his successors in "At the Movies" constantly throw at the audience. I'm still going to see the movie and I expect to disagree with Ebert's criticism. Critics aren't supposed to agree by sheer default, that's why they're called critics.
Also, Siskel said INS was the finest Trek movie he ever saw. Trekkie or not, he liked the Trek. He also gave Generations a bit more approval than Ebert did, in another split vote.
I think Ebert's one of the most reliable critics out there. I've read so many of his reviews over the years that even if he isn't enthusiastic about a film I can usually tell if I will be or not. I wasn't expecting a rave from him on this one, and he didn't deliver it. Which is perfectly okay.
The thing with knowing which critics suit you and which ones don't is consistency. If they agree with you most of the time, that's great, but not absolutely necessary. I can read Ebert and know how I'll react to a film, regardless of what specific opinion he lays out.
The thing with knowing which critics suit you and which ones don't is consistency. If they agree with you most of the time, that's great, but not absolutely necessary. I can read Ebert and know how I'll react to a film, regardless of what specific opinion he lays out.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
Screw that (and this is not indictment of this particular review BTW), Ebert makes nothing but snooty, esoteric observations about all films to the point, as someone earlier said, it makes him irrelevant to an the average film goer.His opinions on film are pretty meaningless.
Kind of like how Star Trek has become irrelevant to the average TV viewer.
Honestly, I'd rather get input on film from James Lipton as he can relate more to an average audience than Ebert can.
Ebert's criticisms are understandable, and I appreciate that. And I think this is still a positive review, right? He said it was FUN.
Thumbs down is not positive.
I think the problem is that Ebert is reviewing this movie expecting it to be more harder sci-fi, especially compared to Star Wars. However, he did give it a recommendation and I love the guy so much that I can't even hate him when I disagree with him. IMO, he is a true gentleman when it comes to taste and is well spoken in his blog.
Was that a thumbs down?
Yeah pretty much. The star scores (which he's said many times he only does because he pretty much has to) aren't his main thing. There's more varying degrees to movies and as such, there are to his reviews as well.
Basically, the stuff that irked him is the stuff I don't really care about and the stuff he liked is the main reason I want to see it in the first place. So I found it incredibly helpful.
Yeah, if you look at the home page for Ebert you can see it as such near the bottom right.
Ebert's review should be taken as urging Abrams not to forget Trek's soul. I think he truly doesn't want to see the franchise devolve into just another series of pure mindless high budget action flicks.
To me, the review is like reading a professor's justification to a student about why he has to give a lower grade to the student than he wished he had to. And like a good professor, he explains how he thinks the student can improve.
To me, the review is like reading a professor's justification to a student about why he has to give a lower grade to the student than he wished he had to. And like a good professor, he explains how he thinks the student can improve.
Are you seriously tying Ebert's "relevance" your personal viewings of his TV show which he no longer appears on because his thyroid cancer? Where's your Pulitzer?Gene Siskel did, indeed, like Star Trek. Roger Ebert has not been a relevant film critic since Gene passed away. The last time I caught him, M. Night Shyamalan was his guest co-host.
Yeah, I couldn't see a thumbs rating anywhere on the site. He gave a 62.5% (going by the star rating) which seems like slightly positive.
Similar threads
