China’s Wanda Group Agrees To Pay $2.6B For AMC … 
Weinstein Clarifies ‘Sapphires’ Remarks; Best … 
How Agencies Did At This Year’s Upfronts: New … 
BOMBS AWAY! ‘Battleship’ Sinks To $25.3M … 
‘Lawless’ Premieres As The Weinstein Company … 
David Guarascio And Moses Port To Run … 
‘Beasts Of The Southern Wild’ Co-Writer Lucy … 
Fox Searchlight Fetes ‘Beasts Of The Southern … 
D.V. DeVincentis Sinks Teeth Into ‘The Night … 
Universal Buys ‘The Disciple Program’ As Mark … 
‘Madagascar 3′ And A ‘Big Brother’ … 
UPDATE: Facebook’s Big IPO Trading Day Results In A … 
UPFRONTS 2012: The Year Of Underdogs, Comebacks & … 
YRF’s Uday Chopra To Finance Nicole Kidman-Starrer … 
Cannes Swirls With Talk Of Convergence Between Distributors … 
TNT & Lifetime Looking At Cancelled CBS Drama … 
Women Dominate Early Competition Films As Marion Cotillard … 
Doug Liman Reacts To ‘I Just Want My Pants … 
Disney Sets Jesse Wigutow To Script ‘Peter And The … 
Anthony Mackie In Step With ‘Runner Runner’ 
Should You Buy Facebook? A Few Things To Consider Before … 
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.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
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.”