EXCLUSIVE: I’ve just been told that Penske Media Corp has terminated Elvis Mitchell after more than 3 months as Movieline.com’s chief film critic. The early end to his contract follows a company investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mitchell’s recent review of Summit Entertainment’s Source Code for the site. The company is making no formal announcement. But here is what I’ve been able to find out. [Full Disclosure: PMC also owns Deadline.com, but all its media properties are managed separately.)
A Summit rep tells me that Mitchell was shown a final cut of the film Source Code on February 24th in NYC. His review of the movie appeared on Movieline.com on March 31st. That same day, the pic’s director Duncan Jones tweeted, “Find it odd Movieline choose to complain about Jeffrey Wright smoking a pipe, something in an old draft of the script thats not in the film.” The reference was to what Mitchell had written in his review: ”It’s up to Jeffrey Wright, as the administrator supervising the Source Code — the machine that keeps firing Colter back, back, back to the recent past — and his eccentric brio to keep the silliness from piling up like ash from his pipe. That’s how you know this film is science fiction — someone is smoking indoors in the United States — and that Wright is a martinet whose malevolence must be checked.”
After the director’s tweet was brought to Movieline’s attention, I questioned an editor there who emailed, “We’ve indeed been working hard for a week to ascertain exactly what happened…” When Movieline asked for a formal explanation, Mitchell told editors that he was at the screening and that it was all a misunderstanding and that he would provide a written explanation. Now Mitchell’s contract has been terminated early.
A former New York Times movie reviewer hired in late 1999 until he departed in April 2004, Mitchell was announced as Movieline’s Chief Film Critic on January 12th of this year joining the site’s Chief Critic Stephanie Zacharek and staff critic Michelle Orange. At the time, Mitchell was described by Movieline as ”a leading voice not only in film criticism and popular culture but in the business of film, all of the things that Movieline is about”.
I’ve known Mitchell personally since 1996 and believe him to be a brilliant writer and reviewer. But controversy also has caught up with him again and again over the years. Some of it was captured in this New York Magazine article published right after he left the NY Times. Most recently Mitchell was announced as co-host on Roger Ebert’s new review show Ebert Presents At the Movies only to have his departure announced shortly after the premiere date was announced. Before that, Sony’s Columbia Pictures announced it was hiring Mitchell to start a New York office with producer Deborah Schindler in March of 2005. The studio hoped Mitchell would scout new minority talent and make movies for minority audiences. But he never showed up for work, insiders told me at the time, so Schindler headed the office solo. To this day, no one at Sony knows why Mitchell went AWOL, and he refuses to talk about it. Before that, Mitchell also had a stint as director of development at Paramount under his pal Brandon Tartikoff but departed after six months also under controversial circumstances.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.






If he based his review on reading an early draft of the script and he did not actually turn up to the screening, he should never be allowed to review movies again. His journalistic integrity has been brought into serious question, and he should never work again.
Sounds like anonymous is someone who got a bad review from Elvis Mitchell (phoney that he is.)
Elvis DID attend the pre-SXSW screening in midtown Manhattan. Ask the other attendees who saw him there. He DID NOT fall asleep. Ask the people in his row. Regardless of whether you like his criticism and even if you have been on the wrong end of his reviews, you should acknowledge that he has an encyclopedic knowledge of film & a deep understanding of the medium. Anyone who’s talked with him for any length of time would acknowledge it. “The Treatment” on KCRW is one of the best interview shows about film because he asks questions and makes legit connections that filmmakers have not heard before in their months of press and are impressed by. Just listen to any of his interviews with Jason Reitman or David O. Russell’s recent chat for “The Fighter.” It comes out of the incredibly extensive research he does for each interview. It would be nice if the commenters on this blog did a fraction of that same work before posting.
Nice try, Elvis Mitchell.
He may have had it at one time, but he has gotten lazy and sloppy. To use a draft of the script as a reference instead of his own notes he was supposed to take during the screening is deplorable. People aren’t going to be impressed with your vocabulary when the facts are wrong. He clearly has some issues and believes that he has far more power than he actually does. His reviews haven’t been objective for years and this is proof why. He doesn’t pay attention during the film and just writes about his predetermined perceptions based on people he doesn’t like in the industry. Perhaps he is using his influence as a film critic to take revenge on people who have wronged him in the past. Who knows? All I know is that I never take his reviews seriously and now nobody else will either. There is only so much damage you can do to your reputation and still be a player in the industry. I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of Elvis Mitchell, but the next time we see him it will likely be reviewing movies in some publication with a readership of about 20 or a site which doesn’t even register on Google.
And don’t get it twisted… We aren’t getting paid like he is to write our comments, so expecting commenters to do the research you are asking for is just moronic. We know what we like and don’t like and really don’t need people like Elvis telling us what that is. I rarely agree with film critics in their overall assessment of movies anyway. I go to the movies to be entertained. If the filmmakers succeed in that, then I say it was a good movie. Who the fuck cares how much research a film critic did to try and discredit the historical or mythological accuracy of a film? I’m there to be entertained. If I want reality then I’ll watch a documentary. Maybe he would be better off submitting reviews of those.
Anthony, I completely agree that you shouldn’t rely on a film critic to tell you what to like and that this incident was sloppy. Also, reviews, by their very nature, are subjective and even the best in the business have favorites, but I’d be interested to see your examples of these revenge-driven reviews. If you re-read my post, you’d see that the research I was talking about was not for his reviews, but for his interview show, “The Treatment.” And I only reference the research in light of the vast amount of people posting with half the facts and furthering a story that’s just not true. If they’re going to attack someone’s credibility, they should display some. Bottom line, he was at the screening.
As someone who actually did get a bad review from him years ago, I feel an odd need to say a few words in his defense.
Has it ever occurred to you that he quit his job? He’s a guy with a lot of opportunities, a big ego, and maybe a short fuse.
Some people are serial “take this job and shove it” types. Elvis may be one such case.
Never really read him as a critic much, but I enjoyed his TCM show while it was on and hoped for another season.
Hey may have done wrong by this, but for as much as he’s done to the film criticism community, the man deserves a second chance – without a doubt.
Based on what Nikki wrote, it sounds like he’s already had his second chance.
Sounds like he’s been given quite a few chances, and keeps fucking up. How many chances does he get?
so what i am guessing is he didn’t actually see the movie but read the script instead? or am i missing something
“an old draft of the script”
I’ve never liked him, never agreed with him, and I’ve never understood why people put him up on a pedestal like they seemed to. I’ve seen him do countless interviews at screenings over the years and every single time I walked out thinking he was the most pretentious, arrogant and uninformed critic ever. Perhaps others are finally seeing through him too. Karma!
Agreed. Elvis is a pompous ass and his track record has not been great. I hate when bad things happen to good people, but that doesn’t apply to Elvis.
Absolutely agree. Such an a-hole to everyone he comes in contact with that doesn’t agree with him. He walked out of a black talent film screening at Sundance and he was ON THE JURY.
So glad his BS is coming into public view.
dear blackgirlinla,
i worked that festival that you’re referring to, and you my dear are full of shit. i think you’re confusing him with Mos Def who never fucking showed up to any of the films hence why Elvis was brought into replace him because by the time we realized Mos Def wasn’t doing his job Elvis had already seen half of the films, so he stepped up and took his place. also, no need to make it a black/white thing. you could of just said a talent screening.
as for Elvis being fired, maybe he deserved it, maybe he didn’t, and who are we to judge. i know and trust Elvis. and this is just one hurdles he will make it over.
Sentences need to be started with capital letters, boss.
Man, you’re lame.
Ugh. Really? REALLY?
i’m just catching up on my deadline reading….i’m curious…and not to pick on your post specifically….but it seems like the article….and some of the other posts indicate that elvis has been given chance after chance….and he keeps getting terminated for something that is “similar in pattern”….just curious how many times will this man be allowed to be hoisted over the hurdle….brilliant as he may be as a writer and give insight into a film…..
Fellow critic and supporter of Elvis here…
1. Just because he is Black does not make him obligated to pay special attention to Black filmmakers, ie sit through a movie that he doesn’t like.
2. True, being on the jury and walking out of a film is a bad look, however, they don’t rank the films. They just pick a winner. If he knew this was not in contention to win, then he need not give it anymore time.
3. Sometimes at film festivals like that, people plan on watching films in chunks because of the scheduling. Perhaps he saw the rest later or had a DVD screener.
I’ve always loved Elvis. His reviews are literature on their own. Read the lush language of what is quoted above even. This error is embarrassing, but that movie did suck. I wanted to walk out of the screening I was reviewing, but I was sitting near the filmmaker, who, yes, tweets about things like that. Had I read the script beforehand, I might have done the same thing as Elvis though haha. Would have been nice to save myself the aggravation of watching Jake Gyllenhaal, although it was fun to see him die so many times.
I basically think elvis is an ahole for reasons other than those mentioned above (so he mentioned a pipe. who cares, etc.). but i think this comment is pretty persuasive and am wondering WHO WROTE it because i’d like to read his/her reviews.
karma?
wow, suzana, I couldn’t agree more. I saw him interview the coen bros (among others) and they seemed to be totally bemused at his asinine nonsense questions. as was I. Every time I heard from him or seen him, I felt like the world had gone crazy. what a relief that it wasn’t just me.
He’s like the anti-cheater — reading the book instead of seeing the movie.
You sir, just made my night.
Honestly though, it seems to me that Mitchell probably saw the movie at the screening and then went back and read the script for reference while writing his review. According to the article there was a month between the screening and the release date…maybe he didn’t get around to writing about Source Code until later and wanted to refresh his memory.
And even if this isn’t the case, why didn’t he just claim it since it seems pretty reasonable to me.
. . .or maybe the pipe came out in a later cut? What a silly discussion and I’m ashamed of myself for reading it when I should have been working!
This was the first comment to make ANY sense to me. Good on you for thinking rationally. Man, people are crazy sometimes.
Let’s not forget that Pauline Kael did this in her first published review — a hysterical McCarthyite screed on Salt of the Earth that quoted, verbatim, multiple lines of dialogue that appeared in the script but not in the actual film. She not only wasn’t fired but saw fit to republish it in “I Lost It at the Movies” (with no correction) and went on to a long career full of similar screwups.
That’s a first. Usually people cheat the other way around, watching something instead of reading it.
The incidences you mentioned are all so weird and mysterious. Is he a functioning alcoholic/addict? A temperamental diva who doesn’t want to put in the effort to work anymore? Or just a simple flake? I’ve looked up to him for such a long time, but his recent behavior is odd and disappointing.
Why is it that the qualities of smugness and snottiness can still propel a critic to the top? Elvis Mitchell is of the Rex Reed, John Simon breed – haven’t we had enough of these egomaniacs? Give me Leonard Maltin or Roger Ebert any day. Or the two bright young hosts of Roger’s new show for that matter.
S. Ray-
Roger Ebert admitted to once(or was it?)reviewing a film he only watched a small part of. So much for professionalism.
I never read a review before I see a film. I don’t care what some self-important critic thinks. It’s all completely subjective. If you want to let someone choose what films you see or music you listen to, knock yourself out.
Mitchell is verbose and some people confuse that with brilliance.
Critics have their purpose.
Me, personally, I do listen to critics and they can sway my decision to see a movie in several ways.
1.) Say I saw Transformers and I thought it was horrible (which I did), and then Transformers 2 comes out. Should I go or not? Critics say it’s awful, so I don’t go.
2.) Say there is a movie based on the trailers and previews you couldn’t PAY me to see. If the critics say it’s good, I will check it out. Iron Man and Pirates of the Carribean were great examples where I could have cared less. But the critics praised them both, I went to see them both and were pleasantly surprised by both.
3.) Say there is a small film that doesn’t have mega marketing dollars and so I’ve never heard of. If the critics like them, I will go see them. I’m always a sucker for a good movie no matter how small the budget.
Now, there are some movies I know I want to see and purposely avoid critical reviews until AFTER I see them. I don’t want them tainting my opinion.
To hold critics to any other standard is just ridiculous.
black chick,
If you go and see Transformers, as you said, and think it’s horrible then why do you need some critic’s advice when Transformers 2 comes out? Especially if the same critic said the first one was great and you hated it. Why would you trust his or her judgement?
If the critics said 2 was great and you hated the first one would you go to see 2 because a critic said it was good? If so then you get what you deserve.
Also, you said you “could have cared less” about movies such as Iron Man and Pirates. If you “could have cared less” that means you did care what they thought. If you had no interest in what they had to say then you “couldn’t have cared less’, which is the correct use of the phrase.
Regarding the comment about Roger Ebert once admitting to reviewing a film he only watched a small part of — that’s purposefully misrepresenting the situation. He “admitted” to it in the review itself. It was a weird thing to do, but there was no lying or cover-up or anything. (He later said he regretted it anyway and wrote a different version of the review after seeing the whole thing.)
Leonard Maltin, critic?
It would be nice if this were the only instance of a critic not actually watching the film they’re reviewing, but it seems pretty clear that it’s not.
Clearly, this is only one side of the story and I agree with your comment.
There was a problem a few months ago, whether some critics actually saw Channing Tatum’s Son of No One before they gave it negative reviews.
Also, other example Brian Austin Green has a comic book movie coming out on DVD in May, called Cross one site stated “the worst superhero film ever made” without actually watching the movie just by judging from the trailer alone (come on he has seen every comic style movie throughout the world – I think not). The reviewer for Cross even copied from another site their basic review with slight exaggerated headline etc.
Now these two movies could be really really bad but my point is why are lots of critics getting extremely hard on movies when they clearly haven’t seen it?
IMPORTANT: Again, most of the time they cut and paste from other sites and make slight changes that all, SO any sane fan shouldn’t take them seriously.
I predict this current situation, there is more to this story….
Thankfully, the final judge on movies is ME by actually watching it, no matter the quality of the trailer or review – sorry not going to take the word of a critic, who in my opinion generally seem to biased to a particular studio or star.
Do we actually need critics surely we can think for ourselves??????
Elvis is not the first and will certainly not be the last…
If I had a history of dubious behavior, like the one you detail in the latter half of this article I would never be able to get a job, yet this guy has a resume like that and continues to get hired for high profile, well paying gigs. I dont get it.
Reading the book and not the movie….he’s the bizarro-Costanza???
I truly lol’d.
Maybe he didn’t even read the script, and wrote the review of coverage he got from a friend.
Amen! I’ve seen this guy moderate many screenings and I I’ve never seen him ask a non bullshit question. He seems to put all his attention on his cool appearance, rather than really thinking through the movie or director. It honestly plays like he’s somewhere else in his mind, stalling and bullshitting to get through the Q&As.
Having personally dealt with at least 3 execs who had addictions issues, this repeated behavior sounds very similar. He obviously may not have any substance abuses issues, but then his lack of understanding about what is expected in any job (Hollywood or anywhere) is beyond comprehension.
Addiction was the first thing I thought of. Not showing up for work, bizarre non-explanations, etc.
Compulsive addictions are awful, and I feel for those who suffer from them. The problem with addiction is that it chews reason and spits it in your face. The smarter you are the worse it feels, since your mind can do nothing for you.
Well, he obviously didn’t see the entire film or he never would’ve written about Jeffrey Wright smoking a pipe. Yet he wrote a review on the movie anyway. Sounds like grounds for termination, as the entire foundation of being a film critic is to watch the film one is reviewing.
These commenters are quick to judge. I’d like to hear Elvis’s side of the story. His Kcrw show is one of the best interview shows around. No fluff. He’s a smart guy in a bad situation.
He commented on something that wasn’t in the film he was reviewing.
What can ‘Elvis’ side of the story’ do to alleviate the gravity of that professional misconduct?
But it was in the draft, which I’m sure he used as a reference when writing his review. Did he mess up? Certainly. I don’t think many would listen to his side of the story anyway, as is clear from these comments.
He’s a fraud, plain and simple. Always was, always will be.
nice to see that someone who was somehow pretending to do his job and getting by by phoning it in has finally been discovered. he sounds like half the people i work with in hollywood.
What about that bizarre incident when he was a no show for the critics job at the LA Times, then said he had never been hired? Or when the Detroit News reported all those IRS bills he owed, and that incident where the border patrol at the US-Canadian border stopped him for having 12K in cash in a cigar box?
He was at the NYC screening of Source Code.
I can also confirm with sources that he attended the SXSW screening of the film as well.
Somehow I think we’re missing some information here.
Did he take a nap during not one but two screnings? Did he leave one or both 20-30 minutes in? Or was the problem him basing his review on the script (a script he probably shouldn’t have read/had access to) and the film?
If the former, Jeff Wells regularly cops to reading scripts before seeing movies? In Wells case, of course, he’s self-employed, but I’d think he’d run the risk of losing his spot on press lists if studios were unhappy with him mentioning scripts he’s read.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Just because his body was present at the screenings doesn’t mean he actually watched the film though
ELVIS, has left the building!!!!!!!!!!
I love Elvis Mitchell. He has the best program about filmmakers – The Treatment. It’s is informative and awesome.
As a former movie publicist and a former movie critic (not at the same time!) I can tell you that, in the first incarnation, I used to slip pressbook synopses of movies to certain critics who fell asleep for various reasons as press screenings. They then had the grace to write “notices” rather than reviews. But that was the old days. Later, as a critic, I would often request a script so I could confirm character names, locations, and details that were important for the review but whizzed by too fast on the screen or never made it into the PR materials. I was seldom given scripts because of studio paranoia (this was before The Daily Script and other websites), but that was the old days, too. As for Mitchell, whatever his story, he does seem to have more strikes against him than a box of matches.
I think that sounds like the most likely scenario. If he blanked on the movie after the screening, he might have referenced a script when he wrote up the review and didn’t catch the changes.
Writing a notice based on a press release is far more upstanding than merely reviewing the poster, as some critics do.
Sounds like Mitchell at least reviewed the script (even if he did skip the movie). From now on all directors should front load false Easter Eggs in posters and scripts to catch reviewers who cheat.
Only Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a bigger fraud and self-promoter than Evlis. Both of them would have been fired long ago if they were paler. Yeah I said it. If it’s true, is it racist?
Having sat through lectures by both of them, I was astounded by the lack of preparation and contempt for the audience in both cases.
Mitchell was so far over his head at the Times it was embarrassing for all concerned. They should have fired him after his first half dozen “reviews.” There are 20+ critics, black and white, who could have done a better job.
To Bill Johnson:
Maybe you are a New York Times insider and privy to the Kremlin-esque intrigue of that once vaunted institution, but what I read by Elvis Mitchell in the Grey Lady was usually thoughtful and well written, if a tad rambling and self-indulgent at times.
To suggest that nearly two dozen other critics out there have his writing chops is patently ludicrous. And one only has to read Rotten Tomatoes to see that most of what passes for film criticism today – and many of those RT critics, though not all, are white — is execrable, jejune, navel-gazing prattle. Most of it, I might add, is grammatically challenged and syntactically middling as well.
That said, having read here some of the previous “issues” Elvis allegedly has had with timeliness, punctuality and, perhaps, in-print pomposity, I might stand corrected in having criticized Roger Ebert for dropping him from his respected PBS show. Maybe Ebert knew something was befoul all along… and maybe Mitchell’s recent firing from Movieline is a clarion call for him to get help (or for someone out there to help him!)
Elvis deserves a better fate than that which the nattering nabobs of negativism here are ululating. Try to be human (and humane) for a change people!
Gosh no, I am not a Kremlinologist. Maybe after some study, though. But I did read the self-indulgent, lazy horseshit Elvis tried to pass off as reviewing. Sorry, I grew up reading real reviewers and he ain’t one — read Kael, read Bogdanovich, get a clue. Elvis’s stuff was high school writing compared to any decent reviewer. And it was in the Times. Deplorable.
Bottom line, they would have fired a white guy without dreads for trying to pass that shit off as actual work.
Heck, at least you didn’t try to defend that arrogant, pathetic, wanna-be, self-aggrandizing 3rd rate prof Gates.
If that guy was a white prof of econ at Ball State he would have been fired. Not given tenure. A fraud of the first degree.
“…rambling and self-indulgent…”
You definitely know that of which you speak.
A special recognition for the use of “nattering nabobs of negativism.”
“Nattering nabobs of negativism” was a quote from a speech given by Spiro Agnew (who was VP under Nixon – I don’t know how old or savvy you are) and written by William Safire.
There are many people who know the meanings of words like ululating, although not many of them would put it to use without making a conscious attempt to do so. And many are perfectly capable of coming up with “nattering nabobs of negativism,” although the problem with alliteration is its self-awareness and so it doesn’t sound nearly as witty as intended.
There is more to writing than writing well, and at the highest levels it separates the intellectual rockstar from the pompous douche. Write something normal, quick! Because based on that one post, you’re all about the latter.
Way to jump to conclusions, everyone. It’s very easy to imagine a situation where a reviewer both read the script and saw the movie and then got the mental images mixed up. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but given that none of us knows the details, it doesn’t make sense to make judgments.
Is it possible he saw the movie but used the script as a reference point when writing and made the mistake that way? I don’t know why, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. I bet he sees so many movies they are hard to remember. Quick look at the script for a refresher and – oops- wrote about something that never made it into the movie.