Roger Ebert Thought This '90s Star Trek Movie Was Better Than The Wrath Of Khan

Of all the "Star Trek" movies to date, it's generally accepted that Nicholas Meyer's 1982 film "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" is the best one. This, of course, is a matter that can be spiritedly debated, and I will hasten to declare that Robert Wise's 1979 film "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (which isn't boring) and Meyer's own 1991 essay on crumbling idealism "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" are both superior to "Wrath of Khan." But my opinion is that of just one Trekkie, and is by no means definitive or immutable. I will also do very little to disparage "Wrath of Khan," feeling it a solid, dramatic film with excellent character work, notable themes about aging, some large sci-fi ideas, and a fun, wicked antagonist played by Ricardo Montalbán.

Roger Ebert reviewed numerous "Star Trek" movies before his death in 2013. And it was clear he was never much of a Trekkie. Ebert never deigned to bless a "Trek" flick with four stars, despite being a big fan of sci-fi in general. He only gave "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" three stars, arguing that epic sci-fi concepts work best when we're not exploring them with characters we've known for over a decade. He similarly gave three stars to "Wrath of Khan," feeling weirdly opposite about it, saying that it was a really good character piece.

Ebert, however, awarded three-and-a-half stars to two other "Star Trek" movies, including Jonathan Frakes' 1996 film "Star Trek: First Contact." He called it "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." Many Trekkies like "First Contact" as well, however, so Ebert's opinion falls in line with popular opinion.

For the record, Roger Ebert also gave three stars to "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock," three-and-a-half to "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," two to "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier," three to "Undicovered Country," two to "Star Trek Generations," two to "Star Trek: Insurrection," two to "Star Trek: Nemesis," and two-and-a-half to 2009's "Star Trek." After Ebert's death, critic Matt Zoller Seitz gave both "Star Trek Into Darkness" and "Star Trek Beyond" two-and-a-half stars for RogerEbert.com, whereas critic Clint Worthington gave "Star Trek: Section 31" only one star.

Now, Ebert would've been the first to tell you that star ratings were the bane of his existence and were not meant to be taken comparatively. He tended to give star ratings based on how successful a film was on its own merits and not on a universal scale of greatness. Ebert wrote often about how much he detested the star system of ratings. As such, not all three-and-a-half star films are necessarily better than all three-star films. Seeing as we're dealing within a single sci-fi franchise, however, it may be perfectly safe to take Ebert's ratings as comparative.

And on that gauge, Ebert found "Star Trek: First Contact" to be one of the best in the franchise. He admired its time travel plot and special effects, which is noteworthy since Ebert generally felt that the visual effects for most "Star Trek" movies tend to be a little clunky. In particular, he enjoyed the film's opening shot a lot, which starts inside the eyeball of Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) and pulls outward, revealing an unimaginably vast Borg ship.

"Star Trek: First Contact," for the uninitiated, follows the Enterprise-E back in time to the year 2063. The malevolent race of cyborgs, the Borg, have traveled there first and aim to attack Earth when it's on the eve of making its first faster-than-light spaceflight. Roger Ebert liked how this storyline was complicated but clear. He added, "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." 

Ebert did note that: 

"'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." 

This is an odd observation to make of "First Contact," which has a higher action quotient than any "Star Trek" movie produced before 2009. But it was intriguing enough to interest Ebert. As mentioned, he also loved "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," which was another time travel story. Perhaps he liked seeing "Star Trek" characters displaced from their future setting. 

In his review of 2009's "Star Trek," Ebert admitted to having grown tired of the "Star Trek" property and being kind of over it. "Like so many franchises, it's more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no 'Star Trek' has gone before," he wrote." We can only postulate what he might have thought about "Section 31," which /Film's Jacob Hall dubbed "B-movie trash (in a good way)" in his review.