http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090511/LETTERS/905129995
I like what he said about the black hole near the end...
I like what he said about the black hole near the end...
Interesting responce to Ebert
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
One of the better - if unnecessarily personal - responses to Ebert's review. I notice that Ebert posts it without comment, unlike the back-and-forth he's engaged in with some of the less thoughtful responses.
I think he's still the best reviewer out there. Just because he doesn't always like the same movies that I do doesn't mitigate that.
We take a suburban Sun-Times daily, so Ebert's our local guy. I used to agree with him more often than Siskel. But I don't know what's happened to Ebert; maybe he should retire.
This fellow has some good insight; I like the one where he hints Ebert's sticking to his Nemesis guns to spite his face. But I don't think he has to worry about Ebert ruining those young kids for Star Trek; they won't be reading him.
This fellow has some good insight; I like the one where he hints Ebert's sticking to his Nemesis guns to spite his face. But I don't think he has to worry about Ebert ruining those young kids for Star Trek; they won't be reading him.
I agree with Dennis, I still think Ebert has some very interesting things to say about movies, and sometimes he sees something in a film that others don't. But I also think that, as the counter-reviewer suggests, he has become a bit rigid in his biases, and in order to support those biases, he's thown out multiple, incompatible arguments.
Having said that, the guy is not above changing his mind on occasion. The fact that he posted it without comment suggests that it made him stop and think, and that's something.
Having said that, the guy is not above changing his mind on occasion. The fact that he posted it without comment suggests that it made him stop and think, and that's something.
Well, there are people who don't think this is a very good movie. Not all of them are devoted TOS fans or annoyed artistic types, some of them are just folks who like movies.
number6
Vice Admiral
I've always liked Ebert, since he and Siskel were stuck, in PBS Limbo, alone on Saturday nights. His is the lowest-rated review of the new film among big-name reviewers. I read the review fully.
He seems to hold some kind of grudge that this letter writer delineates. All of the plotting, scripting, acting and technobabble Ebert picks at is clearly and easily found in films he gives a far better rating. So what is his issue with STrek?
Who cares, I stopped taking a critic's view of what I should see when I... oh, learned to form my own opinion?
He seems to hold some kind of grudge that this letter writer delineates. All of the plotting, scripting, acting and technobabble Ebert picks at is clearly and easily found in films he gives a far better rating. So what is his issue with STrek?
Who cares, I stopped taking a critic's view of what I should see when I... oh, learned to form my own opinion?
True, not everyone likes the movie, but the vast majority do. So what good is a movie reviewer whose opinions differ from the vast majority? In the past I've disagreed with Ebert but I least respected his reasons. This time, as noted by other posters, he clearly holds some sort of grudge against star trek, holding trek movies to a higher standard than he does other movies. How sad for him.
If you think the point of writing or reading movie reviews is limited to a very narrow consumerism - like a restaurant review - then probably nothing, for you. Someone who happened to agree with that reviewer most of the time - or knew reliably how their own taste varied from the reviewer's - might still find them useful.
That said, there's a lot more reason than consumer guidance to be interested in what an intelligent, entertaining writer with a passion for and knowledge of their subject has to say. Certainly the "should-I-buy-this-brand-of-cat-litter" criterion would have put a lot of good writers out of business quickly. John Simon comes to mind.
I've read Ebert's Trek reviews and by no means does he "hold Trek to a higher standard" - just because Trek fans resent being told that their favorite hobbyhorse is made of wood doesn't mean the messenger is the one with the problem.
Last edited:
I went WTF on the science screed in his review. But otherwise the criticism was fair, I thought. Going from my memory of his review, I just think the bottom line is he didn't find the movie that stimulating. I mean, again, if memory serves me, at the end of his review he seemed glad the characters were back and all, but he wanted to see them face more interesting challenges. In other words, he is looking forward to a sequel. A weird thing for a movie you don't like.
I know that is the issue that some people have with him. Not liking him, or other critics because they share the opinion of a film. But not with me.
My issues with Ebert are equally on films that he likes that I like and ones he dislikes and I to dislike. But in which his reasons getting to that opinion are baffling. Letting a single detail or quirk define his whole assessment of a film. He is truly no better than the people who inhabit these and other forums. He just writes better.
At least he's not the sh!tstain of a reviewer called Armond White.
