People always tell me what a great job I have when they learn that I’m a movie critic, and I reply that, yes, it is a fun job, but unlike ordinary moviegoers, I can never walk out of a film that’s sucking. But that’s what Roger Ebert did, in effect, when he reviewed the indie film Tru Loved last week after watching just eight minutes of it. At least he acknowledged in the review that he was judging the film based on only the first eight minutes, but not until the end of the review. Later, he explained his decision on his blog (the piece read better that way, he said — in other words, he didn’t feel like he had to watch the whole movie to judge it, but you and I have to read his whole review to find that out). Now, however, he has reconsidered, apologized on his blog, and watched the movie in full and reviewed it (you can read both the original review and the new review here).
I think what Ebert did the first time is unprofessional, and he now seems to acknowledge that his first review did both the readers and the filmmakers adisservice. For one thing, his review of the partial movie contained an error about one of theactors that he would not have made had he seen the whole filminitially. Also, he notes that it’s a miracle when any movie comes together and makes it into the marketplace, and the least he can do is give it the respect of seeing it all the way through before rendering judgment. Ebert suggests now that the movie deserves extra consideration even beyond that because it’s an independent film, and he’s always been an indie champion. Indeed he has, but if he gives extra weight to subpar movies, he does no favors either for the indie film movement or for moviegoers trying to decide which films to spend money on. His job isn’t to advocate for indie movies (or against big-budget studio movies) but to advocate for good work.
Still, Ebert didn’t really change his opinion of the film after seeing the whole movie. One could argue that his opinion was tainted by the whole controversy that had arisen around the incident, though I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, since his review of the full film explains in rational and dispassionate terms why the movie doesn’t work (it’s basically agitprop meant to combat teen homophobia, he says, well-intentioned but full of cardboard characters and dramatically inert), while allowing that there are some audiences who might appreciate it anyway (teens starved for positive, gay-friendly role models). Maybe the makers of Tru Loved should have considered themselves lucky the first time, when the uproar over Ebert’s stunt gave their movie extra publicity, before he tore the movie apart scene by scene.
One point Ebert doesn’t address in his apology is that he’s, well, Roger Ebert. No other movie critic in America could have pulled off such a stunt without getting fired. I fear that, even though he corrected his mistake, he’s still set a bad example. At a time when film critics all over America are losing their jobs, it can’t be good for readers, editors, or filmmakers to think that what he did passes for professional, acceptable behavior among film critics and the outlets that publish their work, even for a moment.
More on film critics under siege:
The Oscars may be collateral damage in the war on film critics
Do we need more female movie critics?
Where have all the movie critics gone?
The war on film critics
I disagree. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what he did. I can sit through the first 8 minutes, for instance, of high school musical, and know that I don’t need to watch the rest to know my feelings towards it. Plus, I still respect roger ebert and don’t think he was unprofessional at all.
Gary, I think you’re in no place whatsoever to even begin to compare yourself to Roger Ebert and the legacy he has created. As far as I’m concerned, in the world of movie critics and their fame, he’s Ingmar Bergman, while you’re a mere Michael Bay!
I kind of agree, but the way Ebert has handled it seems more than adequate. Ebert has never been a cynical reviewer, and has always treated the industry with much more respect than most.
And the reason why he didn’t get fired is not just “because he’s Ebert,” but because Ebert’s better than most reviewers out there. When most film/television critics are nothing more than glorified film buffs and bloggers, you don’t fire one who can actually write about films well.
Mark: I’m sure you can sit through the first 8 minutes of something and know it’s not for you. So can I, but that’s not the point. The point is, as a critic, he needs to see the entire film before he reviews it — that’s his job (mine too, incidentally, and I have never reviewed a film I didn’t see in its entirety). As a private citizen, sure, make snap judgments all you want (and I do that in my private life). But when it comes to passing judgment in a public forum where readers rely on your expertise, it is absolutely a critic’s obligation to do the job, no matter how sucky the movie may be.
Was it Gary Susman who called BLADE RUNNER a “sci-fi misfire” some time ago? Man, I still want his head for that one! Like you said, Eric; nothing more than a glorified movie buff and blogger!
People who actually want to call themselves “critics” should probably not use the word “sucky”.
It makes a fun party game, though. Classic Movies Roger Ebert Reviewed after Seeing Only 8 Minutes: Psycho- Standard melodrama about a young couple embezzling money to elope. No surprises.
Planet of the Apes- Bizarre sci-fi film about astronauts crash-landing in the desert. No apes to be found.
I can’t count how many times people read EW reviews and angrily claim the reviewers didn’t watch the film. So when Roger Ebert, respectable critic he may be, actually admits it, we should allow it to slide? I think not. It’s exactly the same thing Lisa Schwartzbaum did when she signed off recent ‘torture porn’ horror (a label I personally spite) without actually watching at least one or two of them. Sure, moviegoers can have the privilege without being scrutinized, but when you’re a critic, you don’t have that luxury. They need to watch through the entire film to give it a fair analysis.
I’m glad Ebert realized his mistake, but still disheartened he did it in the first place. When you’re one of the few critics people take seriously without overblown accusations of pretentiousness, why would you risk deluding your credibility?
By the way, Ebert has now completely jumped the shark. Whether it is because of his recent near-death experience, he is devoting far more of his time to political writing, and doing rather poorly at it. His movie reviews are almost an afterthought and you can guess with nearly 100% accuracy how his review is going to come out by looking at the movie’s political viewpoint. The world ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Oh, you’re right, Eric — forgive me for using colloquial language in the virtual anonymity of the blogosphere. I should have chosen “subpar” instead of “sucky.”
And Eric Friedmann, I don’t even know why your cranky behind is still here with all the complaints you have towards this mag (life too dull?), but in the middle of all your vitriol, you should at least do a bit of research on who actually reviewed Blade Runner. It wasn’t Marc Bernandin (who made the ‘misfire’ comment). Both Owen Gleiberman and Dalton Ross reviewed it too (the former during its theatrical and later with the director’s cut; the latter with the recent Blade Runner DVD set) and gave it nothing less than an A or A-. This also reveals the biggest flaw with EW readers: some of them fail to realize the mag’s voice is anything but unified between the multiple editors, contributors and writers, and it often leads to confusion. This is why it’s better to judge the reveiwer and not the entire magazine with individual opinions. Otherwise, it would be easy to think EW’s a Blade Runner hating mag off one editor’s remarks when EW’s mostly supported the film since it’s release.
I found the 8-minute review piece utterly fascinating. Yes, there was one error regarding casting, which he got from imdb–but everything else was based entirely upon the ineptitude of the actors and filmmakers… unnatural line readings, stereotyped characters, story cliches. He had enough material from the first 8 minutes for a full review. The second review focussed more on the story, and why it only serves to preach to the choir. In both circumstances, RE has been honest and forthright about his reviews, even if he felt the first review read better in putting the disclaimer at the bottom.
Me, I think he should have put forth a one-star review with an asterisk next to it. That would have been funny to look at.
t3hdow, I thought I told you a long time ago that you should be somewhere molesting farm animals!
If that’s too difficult for you, then try a getting a real f*cking job!
I can just see it now:
“So what do you do for a living?”
“Oh, I write web blogs for EW magazine…hey, wait a second, where are you going? Come back! What did I say??”
What Roger Ebert did was odd, but you also have to consider that this is a man who has spent a HUGE percentage of his life (not to mention the last half century) sitting in a dark room watching hours of tripe. I think he’s allowed to have a bad day, don’t you? Props to him for seeing the error in his ways.
Molesting farm animals Eric F.? Really? Isn’t that comment a little crude for your mature, inquisitive mind? And really, the swearing after criticizing someone else for using the word ‘sucky’? A bit low key for a reformed moviegoer like yourself? How about you quietly go back to work and I’ll continue working towards graduate school, so I can get a real job, m’kay?
And Gre, I’m willing to let Ebert slide, because he is a great critic and he does watch many terrible films, but we should still call him out on his lapse of judgment. Most other critics wouldn’t have the get out of jail free card if they pulled a similar stunt. The rottentomatoes.com fanboys, along with other moviegoers, would eviscerate anyone else.