Carl Icahn Now Wants ALL Of Lionsgate 
Action Comedy TV: Showrunner Matt Nix 
SAG National Board Approves Joint Bargaining … 
The long respected film critic really stepped in it this week when he wrote a long negative review of a movie without revealing until the very end that he only saw the beginning of a 99-minute film before he stopped watching. (Ebert wrote at the finish of his critique: "The rating only applies to the first eight minutes. After that, you're on your own.") Here is Ebert's own blog defense: "My editor argued that in my Tru Loved review, I should reveal in the first paragraph that I drew the line at eight minutes. I protested. That would pervert the flow of the review. Everything after would be anti-climax. What I was trying to do was recreate my thoughts as I watched the movie, and show them leading inexorably to my eventual decision. But was I placing my regard for my prose over the rights of the movie? I hope not. I hope the review truthfully records the process I went through." Sorry, but his argument is lame to the extreme. How can you base a review on 8 minutes of a 99-minute film? Most of us could name hundreds of terrific films that started out horribly. Conversely, if people had only seen the first few minutes of Godfather Part III, it would have looked like a worthy final installment to Coppola's mob masterpiece. I think no reviewer should dare critique a film without seeing the entire film.
Roger Ebert Leaves The Lede For Last
Comments (41)
|
Post a Comment
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, don't get your facts wrong, and don't bore me.
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
I just watched the trailer… I can see Mr. Ebert’s point. I wanted to turn off the trailer.
I think the first 8 minutes should be available online. Then, there should be a survey on whether or not they would choose to sit through the rest of the film.
I don’t think it was a horrible thing that Ebert did. You can tell a lot about a movie in the first few minutes. Script readers and people in development know that the first ten pages of a screenplay are very telling about the writer’s talent (or lack thereof).
Black Widow comes to mind. The first 40 minutes was so-so. Then it got real good about halfway through.
This is a sad and bizarre move by Ebert, whose
judgment is no longer what it was.
He’ll rave over absolute junk (like the latest
The Mummy travesty) but then trash a movie based
on eight minutes’ viewing and an IMDb summary. If that’s
good enough for him and the Chicago Sun-Times, why
doesn’t he just stay home and watch trailers
online?
It’s time for Roger to pass the torch to younger hands.
I totally agree that writing a review based on only a portion of the film is a disgrace. Irregardless of the quality of the film, that’s just not professional or basing views on a fully formed opinion.
But then I never thought much of Ebert, so eh.
I don”t know…If it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd…It’s crap.
And with the rest of industry making snap judgements regarding writing, acting, and talent overall I find it amusing that a critic would boomerang the same back to Hollywood.
I’m a big fan of Roger Ebert but seriously, his job is to watch and critique movies. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that he actually sees a film before he rips/praises it.
Roger is a terrific writer and critic. I agree on many of his reviews not all. But this is wrong.
I appreciate Roger’s health difficulties, but I had long ago lost any appreciation for Roger’s “logic” when at the academy awards pre-ceremony red carpet broadcast, he revealed what had to be the number one spoiler for “The Last Samurai.” When I protested that perhaps many (including myself), had yet to see the film, he wrote me a total WTF letter denying that he had done so, and doing so in a way that would only make Lewis Carol proud. His letter was so entirely … well weird that I let the matter drop. I don’t debate guys with long beards, crazy eyes, and brandishing an empty bottle of Ripple either: There’s just no point.
I gave up Roger’s “reviews” long ago, when 90% of them were little more than plot synopses: spoilers included.
I wish Roger the best of health, but damn, man, there’s a lot to be said for checking out of one’s career at the top of your game rather than a decade later.
Roger should have heard retirement’s beckoning years ago, but since he hasn’t, I wish I had some hope that he would see that when you want to write film reviews of films you haven’t seen, ya just gotta take that gold watch and go.
“Hundreds of terrific films that started out horribly”????
Sorry, a horrible beginning makes “terrific” impossible. The best you’re gonna do at that point is “so-so.”
Thandie Newton’s Condoleezza Rice was the worst acting performance I have seen in a long time..
Thandie should go back to acting school or maybe another line of work.
Nikki c’mon. Give the guy a break. He’s been doing this for over 30 years. Reading his blog you totally understand his position. You’re criticism concerning the matter is just another example of you being a grinch.
There are some films that are so bad that one must cut the wire before more damage can be done to the psyche. That’s how I felt about the Rob Zombie Halloween remake last year. Within the first ten minutes I knew in my heart of hearts that this was going to go down as the worst movie I have seen yet. Although I didn’t walk out, but after the 30 minute mark that’s all I kept thinking about doing. Life is short. Cut the cord before the crap flows. Go Rodge!
Ebert is a highly consistent reviewer. He basically gushes profusely over every film ever made; that is, unless by some tragic twist of fate for a film, one of his idiosyncracies kicks in and Mr. Hyde takes over.
Check out his metacritic.com score: he rates films 9% higher than other critics in an industry known for pumping out drek and buying off critics with junkets and giveaways.
If one is fortunate enough to get paid to eat popcorn and not fall asleep, it nevertheless still requires you to actually see the movie, or at least the pretense of actual viewership. If a movie is that bad, it doesn’t even deserve review space, let alone grandstanding — the equivalency of a schoolyard bully.
I haven’t seen the film Ebert reviewed, it may be a good one. However, in his defense I have on more than one occasion also walked out on a movie after only watching the first few minutes.
I made the judgment that quick. And more often than not, someone who had sat through the film would later tell me I was right to exit, I didn’t miss anything.
How many times have the best parts of a film been shown in trailer teases, but the rest of the movie was bad?
It’s his job to sit through the film and watch it all as a reviewer, I understand that. All I’m saying is I’ve been there before and can fully understand why he left.
Ebert in his own words is clearly conflicted about the decision but to his credit – again, in his own words – he discusses his decision to make walking out of the movie part of the review . It’s not like he hid the fact from the reader or has a history of doing it. Walking out of the movie was, in essence, part of his movie going experience.
And from reading the above posts, it’s something we’ve all done or have considered doing at least once in our movie going lives.
Not to mention the movie will likely garner some additional box office via the curiousity factor.
14 comments in and not a one betrays a glimmer of the possibility that the poster clicked through and READ Ebert’s article. It seems everyone’s prejudices (positive or negative) are on display and no one’s willing to be confronted with facts which might cause them to think again.
I don’t know how many of these people are really involved in Hollywood, and how many are using this feature as a handy fire hydrant. Ms Finke, who provides excellent information on a near-daily basis, and her band of commenters are two separate entities, and her track history of accuracy does nothing to contradict the fact that some of her commenters are barking.
I’m sorry, I didn’t read the whole article. But I’m sure I didn’t like it
.
He shouldn’t be allowed to assign a star rating to it, because that star rating might be published in newspapers. Those newspapers will NOT run the disclaimer of “Only 1 star based on 8 minutes of the film”. People who see that it got 1 star from him will think he saw the full film.
Even if the film is terrible, it’s wrong of him to do.
Maybe it’s just me, but after about 8 minutes of “Barton Fink” I would have called it a terrible movie. Having seen the whole thing, it’s one of my favorite Coen films, and I think the fact that it starts so slowly, and still winds up being a great film is a testament to their ability as writers. On the flip side, some movies are so terrible in the beginning and don’t improve, but who are we to say? What gives Roger Ebert the right to watch 8 minutes and decide this is one of the bad films, not one with a stellar and redeeming third act?
It seems like the people who are angry about this don’t read Ebert anyway. Maybe he should go back and finish the movie and then write a long and detailed review explicitly pointing out what a steaming pile of crap the film is.
I’ve been reading Ebert for 40 years. No film critic even comes close as a writer. As a critic, the rap on Roger has long been that he’s far too generous with the “thumbs up.” He’ll find something positive about the worst stinker.
So maybe he had a bad day, or maybe his meds kicked in early, but folks, we’re not discussing Godfather III here. Maybe Ebert is just drawing a line in the artistic sand and yelling that he’s not going to sit through crap anymore. Good for him!
Ebert minus Siskel = jump off the balcony
Jesus, Jhonny, Johnson – talk about a mountain out of a mole hill.
It’s not like he tried to make out like he saw the whole film, he came clean about it and that’s worth something. When I have a friend who walks out on a movie I sure as hell want to know what made him do that so early on.
It’s actually a kind of poetic justice, anyone who reads the full review will know they can’t take it 100% because of the review’s limitations. But those who didn’t read until the end are guilty of the same crime as Roger.
I’m pretty sure most critiques don’t have the decency to tell their readers when they make an early exit – we should aplaud Ebert for his honesty.
i saw the whole 99min film (at a film festival) that Ebert spoke of and i wish i had walked out in the first 8 minutes.
and by audience reaction, i wasn’t alone in thinking that.
Good for him.
Pity he didn’t do the same for that shitfest BATMAN AND ROBIN.
There’s a point that everybody has missed so far (as I write this, the last posting was 10:55 PM 10/17): Roger Ebert did not walk out on “Tru Loved.” He never says he did. He says he stopped watching it. This is because Ebert and his thumb were sent a screener. What he did was, he popped the DVD. He didn’t have to leave the house. He didn’t even have the decency to fast-forward and spot check it to see if, indeed, it got better. As a former newspaper film critic, I know his frustration (I wish I could fast-forward every movie that Wes Anderson ever made, but that’s beside the point). Unlike audiences, critics are paid to watch the whole thing or else they shouldn’t publish. Ebert’s critique could have legitimately begun and ended with his disclaimer, and his editor was right to suggest a sub. The sad thing is that Ebert is a champion of film, particularly indie film. The only bias I’ve ever been able to detect — and Siskel shared it — is giving bonus points to any movie made in Chicago or by anybody who has a connection with Chicago. As it also happens, I know the people who made “Tru Loved” and I hope they promote this shun to a fare-the-well, although it’s gonna be hard to hype a movie that’s been branded as a critic repellant. As for Roger’s legacy, he has the triple threat of the Pulitzer, this affair, and “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.” Um, pots and kettles, anyone?
Was this film viewed by Roger in his home or in a theatre? It takes more discipline to stay with a bad movie at home then walk out on one. At home you can just hit “Stop” on your player.
I’ve never walked out on a movie in a theatre – and the only movie I can remember others walking out on was “Natural Born Killers” in the summer of ‘94. Sometimes 8 or 10 minutes is enough before feeling like you can’t devote any more time or thought to it. It took me 8 minutes to realise “Crash” was an ugly, hate-filled, minipulative movie. But I still viewed the entire thing. I even re-watched it again recently, curious to see if I’d have a change of attitude towards it. Um…Nope!
I do wish Roger had viewed the entire movie, though. Some of his best reviews ever are from movies he has hated such as “North”, “Caligula” and “I Spit On Your Grave.” I’ll never understand his vitriol towards “Blue Velvet” though.
Not sure why this is such a big deal. He admitted that he hadn’t seen the whole movie, even if it wasn’t until the end of the review. So what’s the problem? Some people who didn’t make it to the end of the review got the wrong impression? Well, not reading his entire review is the equivalent of walking out of the movie early, so anyone who would be upset is in no position to judge. And like one of the other comments pointed out, the trailer is appalling. Ebert has had a few brushes with death recently. He knows life is precious, and not to be wasted on trash like that movie. Haven’t you people read Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink?
Ebert gets zero stars from this critic
10/17/2008 4:55:31 PM
After learning that Roger Ebert defends writing a full-column review based on an 8-minute scrap of film, I don’t feel so bad about not reading movie reviews. I give a cursory glance to the score rating the movie received, and move on.
That’s my choice, as a reader. Ebert should not have that choice as a critic. These people are paid — some quite handsomely — to judge bodies of work, not 8-minute sound bites.
The newspaper industry has been battered by storms of reporters who fabricated, columnists who plagiarized, and advertising/circulation managers who cooked books. We’ve had a few concert reviewers write about shows they never attended, but none at Ebert’s level of syndication that I can recall. He and his “wise and expert” editor (his words) have given readers another reason not to trust the “morally dishonest” (her words) review.
Let us hold our collective breath to see if papers across the country will drop his reviews from their slate of columnists.
Ebert’s job is to watch it ALL so, if it sucks, we don’t have to. Conversely, if he’d told us upfront it was “soooo bad” that he couldn’t stand it more than 8 min, well, that’s a review in and of itself. But to withold the info ’til the end is nonsense. It would have been possible to do a one-line review too–the classic example being Burt Prelutsky’s infamous L.A.Mag review long ago of “Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang” which was, in toto, as follows:
“This movie starts off with a bang but winds up chitty.”
But at least Burt watched the whole thing. Ebert’s time has passed, he’s been ill, and it’s time to retire.
I’m amazed by how many people here are making
excuses for Ebert’s inexcusable behavior.
He is paid to see movies in their entirety
and then review them. Period.
He is not paid to give star ratings to eight-
minute snippets of movies. Period.
It’s nothing short of defamation to suggest that
other critics do this sort of thing, yet fail to
admit it the way Ebert has. I think most movie
critics, and I know a few, have a much greater
sense of professionalism and dedication than
Ebert obviously does.
At the very least, he should have withheld his
star rating, which is supposed to be based on
a complete viewing of a movie.
Ebert’s editor obviously realizes this, even if
he doesn’t.
But has anyone here watched the whole movie itself?
People passing judgement on him when they in fact have not done the action itself they supposedly require.
How American.
I read the first 8 sentences of Ebert’s “review”. So I missed the twist ending. It read like the usual move critic crap. I have friends. I don’t need Ebert. Neither do you.
And to those making excuses for him … excuse me?? He’s been doing this for x amount of years. Doing what exactly? Going to free movies?? Please. It’s exactly because he HAS been doing this forever and getting free DVD screeners to watch at home so that he can then collect a paycheck that he ought to show some decency to either watch the whole film or pass on reviewing it since he obviously knew it wasn’t for him.
Grow a pair Roger. Watch the whole free movie. Or send back the free DVD.
If you’re too old to watch a movie — you should retire. Not result to pompous hackery.
@ don
Watching the movie is irrelevant to the main point, since its quality has no bearing on the argument. Even if it is the worst steaming pile of cinematic feces in recent memory, Ebert’s *job* is to watch it and review it. He failed to perform his job and people are calling him on it. End of story.
For your asinine assertion of hypocrisy to make sense, the people criticizing Ebert’s lack of professionalism would have to be ditching their own particular jobs in a similar fashion: “Sorry, boss, I’m pretty sure I know how the rest of today is going to turn out and since it’s likely to suck, I’m going to knock off before lunch. But make sure you pay me for the full day.”
If somebody gets paid (extremely well) to provide a service, I don’t have to provide the same service in order to cite their laziness or lack of professionalism.
It’s called accountability. And if, as you assert, Americans really do have a corner on that particular idea, then I fear for the rest of the world. Particularly your neck of the woods. You ignorant, illogical, bigoted boob.
And yet he sat through all of “Brown Bunny”.
Come on Roger, this is pretty weak. No one’s buying it.
I had posted my thoughts here, and on the Poynter Institute website… and Roger Ebert responded. Check out his attempt to defend himself, if you can call it that:
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=32178
He says I obviously didn’t read his review or his blog. I quoted from your blog in my letter, fool! How was I able to do that unless I’d read it?!?
I disagree. When a critic forces himself to sit through something he would never sit through if he wasn’t a critic, he perverts his judgment. When you’re constantly subjecting yourself to amateurish garbage, mediocrity seems great in comparison, and that’s not the mentality you want a critic to have.
Ebert has always been a whore — why is this surprising to people after 30 years? This is the guy who let Disney produce his review show with Siskel…and then never gave a major Disney release a bad review. He’s a good writer, but that doesn’t make him an honest critic. The only thing that made him stand out was his Abbott & Costello act with Siskel; when he died, so did Ebert.
All I want to know is where was the righteous indignation over Rex Reed giving Iron Man a bad review without having seen a single second of that movie?!?!
If you’re going to flame Ebert for only doing 8 minutes of his job on Tru Loved then you really need to tar and feather Rex Reed over seeing not a frame of Iron Man and then proceeding to savage it.
Fair’s fair after all
Somewhere Gene Siskel is recoiling in his grave.
Look at his review of Street Kings. He may not have liked it if he saw it, but at the time, I said, “He didn’t see the movie.”