• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Roger Ebert is dead...

Classic, unfiltered Roger in action.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCOf91smkXU[/yt]

Sorry, Cos. You were Fleebledy-Flabbledy Zip-Zab awful and he called you on it.
 
I was looking for one of my favorite reviews by him and Siskel on the X-Files: Fight the Future and haven't been able to find it :(. Dang it. It was nice seeing those two getting along in terms of a review. Loved how Siskel wanted to know when it was on the air so he could watch it. It was a very funny review and one I'll always remember from the both of them :).
 
If there is an afterlife, I hope the two of them have the chance to talk over the last few years in film over a large tub of hot-buttered popcorn very soon.

Posted by George Takei on Facebook...

3554_639154192780704_2101906443_n_zps924282cf.jpg
 
I watched Citizen Kane with Ebert's audio commentary tonight. Really remarkable. It was like a film class in a box. He was pointing out all sorts of things in the film that I'd seen but never observed. It definitely made me appreciate both Welles as a director and artist at the top of his game, as well as Ebert's love for and knowledge of film history and filmmaking.
 
I respect this man for the way he respected sci-fi & fantasy movies. For that alone, I love and mourn him.

Rest in peace, Roger, and tell Gene to save you an aisle seat when you meet up with him.
 
I think here it's appropriate to post two of my favorite reviews, both of which were Trek films.
Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home
When they finished writing the script for "Star Trek IV," they must have had a lot of silly grins on their faces. This is easily the most absurd of the "Star Trek" stories - and yet, oddly enough, it is also the best, the funniest and the most enjoyable in simple human terms. I'm relieved that nothing like restraint or common sense stood in their way.

The movie opens with some leftover business from the previous movie, including the Klingon ambassador's protests before the Federation Council. These scenes have very little to do with the rest of the movie, and yet they provide a certain reassurance (like James Bond's ritual flirtation with Miss Moneypenny) that the series remembers it has a history.

The crew of the Starship Enterprise is still marooned on a faraway planet with the Klingon starship they commandeered in "Star Trek III." They vote to return home aboard the alien vessel, but on the way they encounter a strange deep-space probe. It is sending out signals in an unknown language which, when deciphered, turns out to be the song of the humpback whale.

It's at about this point that the script conferences must have really taken off. See if you can follow this: The Enterprise crew determines that the probe is zeroing in on Earth, and that if no humpback songs are picked up in response, the planet may well be destroyed. Therefore, the crew's mission becomes clear: Because humpback whales are extinct in the 23rd century, they must journey back through time to the 20th century, obtain some humpback whales, and return with them to the future - thus saving Earth. After they thought up this notion, I hope the writers lit up cigars.

No matter how unlikely the story is, it supplies what is probably the best of the "Star Trek" movies so far, directed with calm professionalism by Leonard Nimoy. What happens is that the Enterprise crew land their Klingon starship in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, surround it with an invisibility shield, and fan out through the Bay area looking for humpback whales and a ready source of cheap nuclear power.

What makes their search entertaining is that we already know the crew members so well. The cast's easy interaction is unique among movies, because it hasn't been learned in a few weeks of rehearsal or shooting; this is the 20th anniversary of "Star Trek," and most of these actors have been working together for most of their professional lives. These characters know one another.

An example: Captain Kirk (William Shatner) and Mr. Spock (Nimoy) visit a Sea World-type operation, where two humpback whales are held in captivity. Catherine Hicks, as the marine biologist in charge, plans to release the whales, and the Enterprise crew need to learn her plans so they can recapture the whales and transport them into the future.

Naturally, this requires the two men to ask Hicks out to dinner.

She asks if they like Italian food, and Kirk and Spock do a delightful little verbal ballet based on the running gag that Spock, as a Vulcan, cannot tell a lie. Find another space opera in which verbal counterpoint creates humor.

The plots of the previous "Star Trek" movies have centered around dramatic villains, such as Khan, the dreaded genius played by Ricardo Montalban in "Star Trek II." This time, the villains are faceless: the international hunters who continue to pursue and massacre whales despite clear indications they will drive these noble mammals from the Earth. "To hunt a race to extinction is not logical," Spock calmly observes, but we see shocking footage of whalers doing just that.

Instead of providing a single human villain as counterpoint, "Star Trek IV" provides a heroine, in Hicks. She obviously is moved by the plight of the whales, and although at first she understandably doubts Kirk's story that he comes from the 23rd century, eventually she enlists in the cause and even insists on returning to the future with them, because of course, without humpback whales, the 23rd century also lacks humpback whale experts.

There are some major action sequences in the movie, but they aren't the high points; the "Star Trek" saga has always depended more on human interaction and thoughtful, cause-oriented plots. What happens in San Francisco is much more interesting than what happens in outer space, and this movie, which might seem to have an unlikely and ungainly plot, is actually the most elegant and satisfying "Star Trek" film so far.
and a companion piece
Star Trek First Contact
``Star Trek: First Contact'' is one of the best of the eight ``Star Trek'' films: Certainly the best in its technical credits, and among the best in the ingenuity of its plot. I would rank it beside ``Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home'' (1986), the one where the fate of Earth depended on the song of the humpback whale. This time, in a screenplay that could have been confusing but moves confidently between different levels of the story, the crew of the Enterprise follows the evil Borgs back in time to the day before mankind made its first flight at warp speed.

That flight, in 2063, was monitored by an alien race, the Vulcans, who took it as evidence that man had developed to the point where it deserved to meet another race. But now the Borgs, starting from the 24th century, want to travel back through a temporal vortex (how I love the ``Star Trek'' jargon!), prevent the flight and rewrite history, this time with Borgs populating the Earth instead of humans.

The latest edition of the starship is the ``Enterprise E'' (and there are plenty of letters left in the alphabet, Capt. Picard notes ominously). It is patrolling deep space when it learns the Borgs are attacking Earth. The Enterprise is ordered to remain where it is--probably, Picard (Patrick Stewart) notes bitterly, because he was a prisoner of the Borgs some six years ago, and ``a man who was captured and assimilated by the Borg is an unstable element.'' These Borgs are an interesting race. They are part flesh, part computer, and they ``assimilate'' all the races they conquer into their collective mind, which organizes their society like a hive. There is even a queen (Alice Krige), although she is not fat and pampered like an ant or a termite, but lean, mean and a student of seduction. One of the movie's intriguing subplots involves Data (Brent Spiner), the Enterprise's android, who is captured and hooked up to a Borg assimilating machine--which fails, because it can't crack his digital defenses. Then the Queen tries some analog methods all her own.

The central plot takes place as the Enterprise follows a Borg ship back through time to Earth, which, the Trekkers are dismayed to learn, is now populated by Borgs. To turn history around again, they need to be sure man's first warp flight succeeds. Earth is recovering from World War III, and a brilliant inventor named Cochrane (James Cromwell, the tall farmer from ``Babe'') has adapted a missile for this historic flight.

He leads a commune that seems to be part hippie, part survivalist, and spends much of his time listing to rock 'n' roll and drinking, to the despair of his associate Lily (Alfre Woodard). These two do not believe the weird story they get from the starship crew, and at one point Lily nearly fries Picard with a stolen gun. (He: ``Maximum setting! If you had fired, you would have vaporized me.'' She: ``It's my first ray gun.'') The plot moves deftly between preparations for the Earth launch, Data's assimilation tortures on the Borg ship, and a fight against a Borg landing party on the Enterprise, which Picard personally directs, overruling doubts expressed by his second-in-command, William Riker (Jonathan Frakes) and their own assimilated Klingon, Worf (Michael Dorn).

Some of the earlier ``Star Trek'' movies have been frankly clunky in the special-effects department; the first of the series came out in 1979 and looked pale in comparison to ``Star Wars.'' But this one benefits from the latest advances in f/x artistry, starting with its sensational opening shot, which begins so deep inside Picard's eyeball, it looks like a star-speckled spacescape and then pulling back to encompass an unimaginably vast Borg starship. I also admired the interiors of the Borg probe, and the peculiar makeup work creating the Borg Queen, who looks like no notion of sexy I have ever heard of, but inspires me to keep an open mind.

``Star Trek'' movies are not so much about action and effects as they are about ideas and dialogue. I doubted the original Enterprise crew would ever retire because I didn't think they could stop talking long enough. Here the story gives us yet another intriguing test of the differences among humans, aliens and artificial intelligence. And the paradoxes of time travel are handled less murkily than sometimes in the past. (Although explain to me once again how the Earth could be populated with millions of Borgs who are expected to vanish--or never have been--if the Enterprise succeeds. Isn't there some sort of law of conservation of energy that requires their physical bodies to come from, or be disposed of, somewhere, somehow?) ``STFC'' was directed by Frakes, who did some of the ``ST Next Generation'' shows for television, and here achieves great energy and clarity. In all of the shuffling of timelines and plotlines, I always knew where we were. He also gets some genial humor out of Cromwell, as the inventor who never wanted fame but simply enough money to go off to a ``tropical island with a lot of naked women.'' And there is such intriguing chemistry between Picard and the Woodard character that I hope a way is found to bring her onboard in the next film. ``Star Trek'' movies in the past have occasionally gone where no movie had gone, or wanted to go, before. This one is on the right beam.
 

Seconds that. He was one heck of a good reviewer and he'll truly be missed. He was a treasure and I enjoyed watching him and Siskel on 'At the Movies' and later him and Roeper. It's not going to be the same :(.

RIP Roger, and may you and Siskel be up there in heaven, reviewing films once more.

Indeed, he was. Much of my childhood involved watching "At the Movies", and there was nothing more fun than watching Gene and Roger get into a heated debate about a particular movie. One of my favorite quotes by Roger was about The Last Airbender, where he said "The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented."

I relate to this. I also grew up watching Siskel & Ebert back in the 80s and 90s as well. I remember being a child and watching them in the 80s when they were "At the Movies". I was telling this younger co-worker yesterday that's in her earlier 20s that before the late 90s, Siskel & Ebert were the best way for ordinary people to get a sneak peek at a new movie and get a review of eagerly anticipated films. These guys predated Harry Knowles and AICN. I still remember them reviewing many 80s and 90s films from Gremlins in the mid 80s to Terminator 2: Judgement Day back in 1991.

You feel the tug of time when so many of these people that you grew up with and took for granted start to pass away, and then you meet young adults who are 7, 10 or 12 years younger then you who have no clue who they are. *sigh*
 
Didn't think much of him as a film critic, especially regarding his prejudice of the horror genre, but he was clearly a huge movie lover and it is sad he had to end his life so painfully.
 
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.
 
Seconds that. He was one heck of a good reviewer and he'll truly be missed. He was a treasure and I enjoyed watching him and Siskel on 'At the Movies' and later him and Roeper. It's not going to be the same :(.

RIP Roger, and may you and Siskel be up there in heaven, reviewing films once more.

Indeed, he was. Much of my childhood involved watching "At the Movies", and there was nothing more fun than watching Gene and Roger get into a heated debate about a particular movie. One of my favorite quotes by Roger was about The Last Airbender, where he said "The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented."

I relate to this. I also grew up watching Siskel & Ebert back in the 80s and 90s as well. I remember being a child and watching them in the 80s when they were "At the Movies". I was telling this younger co-worker yesterday that's in her earlier 20s that before the late 90s, Siskel & Ebert were the best way for ordinary people to get a sneak peek at a new movie and get a review of eagerly anticipated films. These guys predated Harry Knowles and AICN. I still remember them reviewing many 80s and 90s films from Gremlins in the mid 80s to Terminator 2: Judgement Day back in 1991.

You feel the tug of time when so many of these people that you grew up with and took for granted start to pass away, and then you meet young adults who are 7, 10 or 12 years younger then you who have no clue who they are. *sigh*

Yep. No doubt. It hits you hard, and reminds us all that time passes fast and stays still for no one :(. So sad about that, that the younger adults (some of them at least) have no idea who he was/who they were.
 
One of the most simply eloquent and realistic essays I've read about life and death in ages:

Link

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.

I don’t expect to die anytime soon. But it could happen this moment, while I am writing. I was talking the other day with Jim Toback, a friend of 35 years, and the conversation turned to our deaths, as it always does. “Ask someone how they feel about death,” he said, “and they’ll tell you everyone’s gonna die. Ask them, In the next 30 seconds? No, no, no, that’s not gonna happen. How about this afternoon? No. What you’re really asking them to admit is, Oh my God, I don’t really exist. I might be gone at any given second.”
.
.
.
...“Kindness” covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.
.
.
.
...In 1988 [Paul Cox] made a documentary named “Vincent: The Life and Death of Vincent van Gogh.” Paul wrote me that in his Arles days, van Gogh called himself “a simple worshiper of the external Buddha.” Paul told me that in those days, Vincent wrote:

"Looking at the stars always makes me dream, as simply as I dream over the black dots representing towns and villages on a map.

Why, I ask myself, shouldn’t the shining dots of the sky be as accessible as the black dots on the map of France?

Just as we take a train to get to Tarascon or Rouen, we take death to reach a star. We cannot get to a star while we are alive any more than we can take the train when we are dead. So to me it seems possible that cholera, tuberculosis and cancer are the celestial means of locomotion. Just as steamboats, buses and railways are the terrestrial means.

To die quietly of old age would be to go there on foot."
 
I will say that one thing I didn't like about his reviews, particularly in his later years, was how he bluntly infused his personal politic into his reviews. Check the last sentence of this one, which comes out of the blue, zings the reader, and leaves unchecked, with no sense of balance.
 
I will say that one thing I didn't like about his reviews, particularly in his later years, was how he bluntly infused his personal politic into his reviews. Check the last sentence of this one, which comes out of the blue.

You know what? When you write an opinion piece, about anything, you're allowed to express your tastes and opinions. Ebert was a master essayist.

You can not "like" it, but he wasn't doing anything wrong or by mistake. If you think his remark about health care in that particular review was "out of the blue," you flunked the exercise.
 
Roger's politics never bugged me. I could have cared less what side of the spectrum he fell on because I didn't read or listen to his film reviews for what he thought about the political situation in the country or which candidate or side he felt more favorable toward.

I wanted to know if the movie was worth seeing or not. Have you read Michael Medved? The man's a far more political film reviewer than Ebert ever was.
 
I will say that one thing I didn't like about his reviews, particularly in his later years, was how he bluntly infused his personal politic into his reviews. Check the last sentence of this one, which comes out of the blue.

You know what? When you write an opinion piece, about anything, you're allowed to express your tastes and opinions. Ebert was a master essayist.

You can not "like" it, but he wasn't doing anything wrong or by mistake. If you think his remark about health care in that particular review was "out of the blue," you flunked the exercise.

Precisely.

I became quite familiar with Ebert's reviews while in grad school (my thesis was on cinematic history and my research included a large dose of film criticism). I was, of course, familiar with his work before then, but in a casual way. I came to appreciate a number of aspects of his reviews--the way he judged films against their ambitions (rather than the oh so tedious "if it ain't Kurosawa it's crap" approach of many others I had to wade through); his writing style; his willingness to praise or skewer the same actor, director, screenwriter…based on the work being evaluated (generally, no one got a "pass" based on reputation alone); his sheer enthusiasm for the medium of film…

I did not always agree with his reviews (my disagreements were almost always about things he disliked that I enjoyed--but it was rare when I did not enjoy a film that he praised), but there is no other critic (dead or alive) I've read whose views more closely match my own about film. I can certainly make my own way through the cinematic world without someone to hold my hand, but I am saddened at the loss of a reliable guide to my cinematic enjoyment. I will also miss the deft wit of the author of "Thoughts on Bill O'Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse".
 
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.
 
Yeah, there's just no way a credible review of anything without imparting your own bias, opinions or politics into it. A bare review or summary is exactly that - a summary. Ebert excelled at sharing his opinions and the ideas that sprung forth from the interaction of those opinions and the movies he watched to review. It's something of a lost art form in this day and age of the blogosphere where just about anyone can write what they think constitutes a "review."

Besides, if anyone is going to have to kvetch about the electricity on the starship Enterprise, I'd think Ebert would have earned the right to do so ages ago.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top