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

[CordrazineOD]

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.

So which is it? Does his 2.5 stars constitute Thumbs down or up? Wait, why do I care? He gave 3.5 stars to the Phantom Menace, for god's sake! This movie has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes and there are people commenting here as if Ebert's review (one of only four negative reviews) alone validates all their prejudice toward this movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, I'd take Ebert's reviews over the whole collection of the other folks who're cited in the T-Meter aggregation over there. I don't say that as someone looking for "validation for my dislike of the movie," because I'm 100% positive about the flick, but because of my long familiarity with and respect for who Ebert is and what he does.

The fact that he likes films that I don't and dislikes some that I do is immaterial in that regard.

 

[Ptrope]

I'd say that someone who provided a full-length commentary for the movie Dark City is more than qualified to analyze and criticize science fiction, and to know full well what those two words together signify.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And, of course, a lot of people who know just as much about science fiction as Ebert does like the movie very much. There is no "final word" from some authority on the subject. In fact, most folks who are attached to a formulated definition of "science fiction" are simply obsessive bores on the whole subject...as Kurt Vonnegut suggested at least once. I notice that Ebert wastes no energy at all upon definitions of "science fiction."

All that matters in the long run is how many people like the film and whether the studio considers it a success.

 

[Amaris]

^ Which I believe it will, on both counts.


J.

 

[urbandk]

I'm as guilty as the next guy of being "my way or the highway" about this film, but as I've already mentioned, I respect Ebert's opinion. I think he's currently the best, most influential film critic.

 

[donners22]

Ebert made a cameo in the greatest TV series of all time, Early Edition, so I'll give him a bit of latitude...

 

[Amaris]

Seriously, how can you not love THIS guy?

J.

 

[Sector 7]

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?

Post, not poster. Therefore, I'll take the high road this time. You may continue to wallow in your ditch if you so desire.

 

[Gojira]

I don't think Roger Ebert has ever been a fan of Star Trek. While reading this review I felt like he was criticizing Star Trek as a franchise, or a genre within science fiction, rather than specifically criticizing this movie.

Some of his criticisms of Star trek in general such as the implausibility of time travel, the use of warp speed are not just specific to this movie!

I thought about these things during ?Star Trek? because I could not help myself. I understand the Star Trek science has never been intended as plausible. I understand this is not science fiction but an Ark movie using a starship. I understand that the character types are as familiar as your favorite slippers. But the franchise has become much of a muchness. The new movie essentially intends to reboot the franchise with younger characters and carry on as before.

This critique as written above is more of a condemnation of Star Trek in general and could be said, and has been said, by Roger Ebert before.

 

[Goliath]

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

Was anyone else surprised that the username William Shatner was still available until yesterday?

 

[donners22]

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?

Post, not poster. Therefore, I'll take the high road this time. You may continue to wallow in your ditch if you so desire.

I do hope that was intended to be as ironic as it is.

 

[Amaris]

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

Was anyone else surprised that the username William Shatner was still available until yesterday?

As far as I knew, actors' real names are reserved for them.
As far as I know, you have to be William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Nichelle Nichols, etc, to use that name.

J.

 

[urbandk]

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

Was anyone else surprised that the username William Shatner was still available until yesterday?

As far as I knew, actors' real names are reserved for them.
As far as I know, you have to be William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Nichelle Nichols, etc, to use that name.

J.

Evidently not.

 

[Michael Chris]

Unless that really was William Shatner!!

 

[Sector 7]

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?

Post, not poster. Therefore, I'll take the high road this time. You may continue to wallow in your ditch if you so desire.

I do hope that was intended to be as ironic as it is.

Thank you for noticing.

 

[Akiraprise]

Unless that really was William Shatner!!

It wasn't.

 

[Aragorn]

The "Where's your Pulitzer?" argument is pathetic. It's like when someone (usually an ex-athlete) says you can't criticize an athlete because you never played the sport. Well by that same standard, you can't say anything good either.

 

[Nardpuncher]

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

Beaker is that you?

 

[joneblaze]

Im shocked Ebert only thought it was fair,i guess he prefers the pacing of the T.V series and the previous Trek films.