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

[TheBrew]

Thumbs Down: Go to the home page and look under "still playing" there will be Star Trek listed.

Thanks. I was looking under the "just opened" movies and didn't see it. I sit corrected.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

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.

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?

Well mine's sitting on the shelf right next Al Gore and Yasser Arafat's Nobel Prizes and Jethro Tull's Grammy for best heavy metal album.

Awards don't lend anyone any more credibilty. Like I said, I haven't felt Ebert was relevant in years, this review notwithstanding.

 

[Borgminister]

Ebert's (and Siskel's) opinion used to matter to me, long ago.

Now? Not so much.

 

[Mr. B]

Read his review of Wolverine and you'll know what one of his clearly negative reviews is like. That should put some perspective on his Trek review.

LOL, no kidding. His review was more entertaining than the movie.

 

[Cyke101]

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've 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.

I'd hardly call Ebert an elitist. This is the guy, after all, who gave the third X-Men film 3 stars because it had no thought, and called out the Brown Bunny simply for trying too hard to be artsy. 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.

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.

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.

Are you sure it's not an indictment? This *is* a thread about Ebert in a Trek forum, after all. If he gave the film four out of four stars, would you still be making the same post?

I've been reading his reviews since the 5th grade. I didn't know what the word esoteric meant back then either, but they seemed sensible. I didn't agree with his assertion that The Fugitive was better than Jurassic Park, but if a fifth grader finds an article condescending, he doesn't go back to that writer.

 

[Shatterhand]

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.

You know that famous picture of Picard with his face covering his palm? The one that people use to project their displeasure at a really vacuous statement?

If there was ever a post that deserved it, it's this one.

 

[Sky]

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.

Yeah, that's what I think too.

I have now seen the film twice (IMAX premiere was today in my country) and have to say I agree with many of his points. The things which irked me the first time I saw the film still irked me today, and in a couple of places much more than at the first glance, but I also noticed all kinds of new delightful details.

I think XI can be a good start for a new series of Trek films. I just wish the next film is a bit... smarter, maybe that's the word I'm looking for?

 

[Falcor5]

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 dont know he loved Star Trek First Contact back in the day.

 

[Neroon]

It's possible to like this movie - which he clear does - without attributing to it virtues that it seems to lack.

And that's precisely what I'd be concerned about myself in reviewing this movie - which I wont' be seeing until Friday actually. I tend to get so lost in films that are designed to impress in ways this film seems to possess. So I get a little giddy and do just what you said - attribute virtues that aren't there.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Are you sure it's not an indictment? This *is* a thread about Ebert in a Trek forum, after all. If he gave the film four out of four stars, would you still be making the same post?

I've been reading his reviews since the 5th grade. I didn't know what the word esoteric meant back then either, but they seemed sensible. I didn't agree with his assertion that The Fugitive was better than Jurassic Park, but if a fifth grader finds an article condescending, he doesn't go back to that writer.

esoteric

esoteric: understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions.

So in this case I guess the word esoteric is an esoteric reference.

To answer the question, no I wouldn't be commenting on Ebert out of the blue but if he was brought up for any other review, my response would be the same.

 

[Shatterhand]

I read the review; it was pretty fair, and even though I haven't seen the movie yet (tomorrow!!! Woohoo!!!), I can see where his points may have merit. I'm certainly not going to jump on Roger Ebert's back and browbeat him for not giving it a full four stars; I certainly give him far more credit with his reviews than that complete and utter imbecile Armond...whatever his last name was...who gave the movie a "rotten" on RottenTomatoes.

 

[Amaris]

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.

My thoughts exactly. I love Roger Ebert, and his respect for the art form is genuine. He's not elitist, he's not tres art house critique, he's Roger Ebert, and he damn well loves his movies. If Roger gives this movie 2 1/2 stars, it means I'm going to really enjoy this movie. As a critic, he has to look for every form of failure, no matter how slight. I, as a moviegoer, don't have to do that. I can sit back in my chair and enjoy a really good flick. It's not a job, and it's not an analysis, at least not on the first run. I couldn't be a first run movie critic, I would miss all of the greatest stuff because I would have to take notes, break it down into it's various degrees of failure and success, and dissect it to bring something meaningful from it that relates to the target audience. I just want to enjoy my movie first time out. I'll work it over later.

For the record, any man as accomplished and well known as he that can write a book and call it "Your Movie Sucks" with that disgruntled Ebert face on the front cover, well he's all right in my book.

J.

 

[indranee]

^very true, John

 

[Franklin]

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.

My thoughts exactly. I love Roger Ebert, and his respect for the art form is genuine. He's not elitist, he's not tres art house critique, he's Roger Ebert, and he damn well loves his movies. If Roger gives this movie 2 1/2 stars, it means I'm going to really enjoy this movie. As a critic, he has to look for every form of failure, no matter how slight. I, as a moviegoer, don't have to do that. I can sit back in my chair and enjoy a really good flick. It's not a job, and it's not an analysis, at least not on the first run. I couldn't be a first run movie critic, I would miss all of the greatest stuff because I would have to take notes, break it down into it's various degrees of failure and success, and dissect it to bring something meaningful from it that relates to the target audience. I just want to enjoy my movie first time out. I'll work it over later.

For the record, any man as accomplished and well known as he that can write a book and call it "Your Movie Sucks" with that disgruntled Ebert face on the front cover, well he's all right in my book.

J.

Well put. I remember watching "At the Movies" with Siskel and Ebert back when TUC was released. They really didn't want to like the movie. They pointed out a fair number of faults. But they both said the movie had a heart (not their words, but their sentiment) and recommended it.

But the thing I remember most is Ebert saying that his mind started to wander during the movie. He started to wonder what the actors were thinking as this finale movie was being filmed. What ran through Nimoy's mind that last day he drove into work to put the ears on? Things like that. A really human feeling about how these actors playing out the string must've felt. It's a weird melancholy and sentimentality that a lot of critics would not admit to having.

 

[Lythia]

I think his review as written is okay. He seems pretty fair and brings up what he feels are valid points. However, I thought 2.5 stars on a 4 scale should have rated a 'fresh' rather than 'rotten' rating on RT, and one thumb up, rather than one down. That's the only beef I have with his review at this point. I'm betting I'll have a slightly different opinion tomorrow evening after I've seen the movie myself.

 

[urbandk]

I like Ebert and trust his reviews. Even if on balance I disagree with his assessment, his opinion has merit to me.

His Star Trek review was valid and fair. I recall his Superman review that was one of the few that really seemed to "get" what was wrong with that film. I love the new Star Trek movie and am willing to forgive its faults. As he asserts, it's effective space opera and entertaining. Is it great cinema? No, it's not, but it's a good movie in my opinion.

I'm hoping for a sequel that's less hurried and relies on fewer McGuffins.

The triumph of this film is its ability to weave together the tapestry of Star Trek past and present and to provide the foundation for a rich future, rich in both senses.

 

[Ptrope]

Well [my Pulitzer is] sitting on the shelf right next Al Gore and Yasser Arafat's Nobel Prizes and Jethro Tull's Grammy for best heavy metal album.

Just to be accurate, the award was not for "best heavy metal album," as a unique genre, but a combination of "hard rock/heavy metal," and Crest of a Knave is a pretty sophisticated album with some real hard rock in it. The mistake was in combining the genres (the only time they did it), not in giving the award. Besides, the flute is a heavy, metal instrument .

Ebert probably listens to Tull, too ...

 

[I am not Spock]

Aren't they listed as seperate categories now, though? Hard rock and metal awards? Or am I wrong?

 

[Ptrope]

^^ Yep! They are, and you're not .

 

[pookha]

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 dont know he loved Star Trek First Contact back in the day.

i may not agree with the review after i see it but to say that ebert isnt qualified to review a genre film is laughable.

ebert was a sf from a long time back.
in his more interesting youth i heard about at least one of his adventures at one of the more sf fannish cons.