 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 21, 2019 - 6:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Glad to post it for you, Henry.
geez, i still miss both those guys,
and it is indeed such a good film, it's nice to see Gene enjoy a film, he could be a tough critic.
Gene liked the film for the right reasons but geez did he get everything else wrong in his opening monologue and review of the film! He was really fumbling on his words, I wonder if he was drunk?
Roger was always a more elegant speaker for certain.
I think Gene was always a tad more snooty, less "man of the people" about his movies. Roger was more generous, sometimes cutting slack to movies that I could not stand. But Roger understood the value of TMP whereas Gene clearly did not. I always liked this bit of Roger's review for TMP; https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-trek-the-motion-picture-1979
" Such reservations aside, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is probably about as good as we could have expected. It lacks the dazzling brilliance and originality of 2001 (which was an extraordinary one-of-a-kind film). But on its own terms it's a very well-made piece of work, with an interesting premise. The alien spaceship turns out to come from a mechanical or computer civilization, one produced by artificial intelligence and yet poignantly "human" in the sense that it has come all this way to seek out the secrets of its own origins, as we might.
There is, I suspect, a sense in which you can be too sophisticated for your own good when you see a movie like this. Some of the early reviews seemed pretty blase, as if the critics didn't allow themselves to relish the film before racing out to pigeonhole it. My inclination, as I slid down in my seat and the stereo sound surrounded me, was to relax and let the movie give me a good time. I did and it did."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
