A lot more people know Roger Ebert than probably have ever read one of his reviews. So it might come as a shock to most how extremely funny Ebert can be (take his book “Your Movie Sucks” for instance). A few weeks ago we focused on one of Ebert’s Movie Answer Man column’s where he responded in computer abbreviation speak to a fan of Disaster movie.

This week Ebert reviewed Tru Loved, a movie in which he only sat through the first eight minutes. It received one star. The funny part of the whole thing is that Ebert wrote a full review criticizing the film, and doesn’t reveal the fact until the very end. I think Film Threat called it the first review to have a plot twist at the end, and I would tend to agree. Ebert even blogs about the conversations he had with his editor about if it was the right thing to do. I haven’t seen Tru Love, and probably won’t. I think I trust Ebert’s opinion too much at times, even when its based only on 8 minutes.

  • Yet Ebert sat through all of the deeply flawed "W." and gave it Four Stars. Now that's funny.
  • Christopher Marc
    I think Ebert should have sat through the whole thing if he was going to give it stars...a better thing would been to give it zero stars because it was so bad it made him walk out...

    It may be Ebert and I take his opinions seriously...but this won't help his reviews to be taken seriously if he writes about films he can't even sit through...everyone knows what it's like when your stuck watching a horrible movie but he does this as a living....I'm sure this is going to be a one time thing, because the man is a professional...but it was unfair to the people involved with the film by reviewing it on the basis of 8 minutes...
  • Dan
    Ebert's getting older and saltier. He's starting to realize that, even as a movie reviewer, life's too short to sit through really bad movies.
    Just wait, within a year he won't even rate movies anymore. He will simply list how long he managed to watch the movie for and then file his list of grievances with the filmmakers as a review. If he manages to sit through an entire movie, then we will know that we have the next Godfather on our hands. He'll be like the groundhog, except... well... never mind, he is exactly like a groundhog.
  • Christopher: If you read the review, he ends it with a Q and A:

    Q. How can you give a one-star rating to a movie you didn't sit through?

    A. The rating only applies to the first eight minutes. After that, you're on your own.
  • Bull
    Why don't you actually read the review before commenting on it.

    Ebert and Peter Travers are the two movie reviewers I actually trust and will take the time to read their assessment of the film.
  • Goobity
    Right on, Ebert! There are many who can watch a four minute trailer and tell you a movie will suck in it's entirety, without actually having to sit through the whole thing. What's the difference?
    Would you rather read a review that reveals, " Well, the first hour and fifty minutes sucked ass, but that last eight minutes...wow!"
    Come on.
  • ruth gold
    I'll still see it - he may have hated it, but I'm gay, I'm in high school, and i've been waiting to see this one.
  • Dennis M.
    Not to sound like a broken record or anything but I remember Ebert stating that he only reviewed the first 8 minutes, and nothing more. He specifically spells this out in his blog post for those interested.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/dont_re...

    As for ruth gold. Just because your gay and in high school doesn't mean you have to sit through a shitty movie that might have some resonance with you. Be above that dude.
  • kip
    I don't usually read reviews, because I find critics sometimes can't see something for just being goofy fun or silly. I'd much rather just see it myself and make up my own mind. I will say that Ebert is probably one of the few critics that I do read and look at occasionally just to see what he thinks. So if he says it wasn't worth the time or effort to sit still and watch, I am kinda persuaded not to see it myself.
  • Jamie
    Ebert just keeps getting better with age.

    Maybe he should branch into writing a column about whatever he wants. Not just movies.
  • Kokushi
    According to Ebert: Mummy 3 3/4 > The Usual Suspects 1.5/4 and Reservoir Dogs 2.5/4, Ebert is a very good critic but even those ratings are crazy.
  • Christopher Marc
    @Peter

    my bad
  • Bill - "Why don’t you actually read the review before commenting on it."

    That's an awfully ironic statement, don't you think?
  • Goobity
    @ Ruth: The fact that you're gay and in high school doesn't mean you have to enjoy or support shitty movies. Does it?
  • tim
    @kokoushi

    i believe ebert has said that the stars are relative to the type of movie he is reviewing, the mummy in no way takes itself seriously, its a fast and fun ride, it's a b picture, and it's pretty fun for what it is, Usual Suspects, he defends his reasons for disliking it, and i believe it's on the basis of not liking an unreliable narrator. So where as i think that is clever, ebert finds it insulting, fair enough right? differing opinions.
  • Wordy Dude
    Ebert is a total douche and always has been. This is merely more proof.

    How anyone could be a "fan" of a movie critic is beyond me. The only requirement to become one is to have a massive ego and to put your ass in more free seats than anyone else. And Ebert can't even hold up that end of the deal.

    And now he's trying to collect a paycheck for his hack review of a hack movie that he couldn't even sit through for 8 minutes. Then don't write a review turd blossom! And for god sake don't actually expect to be PAID for that.

    Roger Ebert: Today's lamest person in the world!
  • God
    @ Wordy dude

    Roger Ebert = famous Pulitzer Prize winning writer

    You = uneducated loser with an AWFUL sense of humor
  • Aaron
    Ebert is more of an artist than most of Hollywood.
  • Jack Donaghy
    After watching the trailer, I can see where he was going with the review. Garbage.
  • Kokushi
    @tim

    I know and but because the movie didnt take seriously wasnt crap?Beverlly Hills Chihuahua didnt take himself seriously also, but really mummy 3 was better than TUS or Reservoir Dogs? NO, simple as that, when yettis did a football play and celebrated thats when credibility was out of the window and also according to Ebert: The Godfather 2 (3/4) > Godfather 3 (3.5/4), Sofia Coppola was easily one of the worst performance of the 1990 and of the 90s also and ruined 50% of the movie.
  • Baron Von Cheddar
    Ebert, among others, dislikes the star ratings system. It only serves as a blurb for readers who can't be bothered to read the actual review. Don't look at his star ratings as establishing a hierarchy of film greatness. Read the full review and sort out where you and he differ.

    I like his reasoning and his arguments. Films are mostly a subjective experience not purely objective. Following a critic like Ebert means you need to come to understand his personality and his experience when you read his reviews.

    Disagreeing with him or any other established critic should be the same as disagreeing with your best bud whom you spent a decade of Saturday nights watching movies together.

    And let's face it most of you and your best buds would have likely walked out on Tru Loved ... if you'd even gotten so far as to go see it.
  • Ebert is probably my favourite critic, and honestly, I don't even agree with what he says half the time. He can be insightful and very often, offer a perspective on a film that I've not explored, and this to me is brilliant. He's also extremely well written, and as witty as they come, so no matter what he writes about, it's always a good read.
  • Wordy Dude
    @ God

    A Pulizter Prize in criticism means what exactly in this discussion? That what Ebert does is somehow special now? Beyond reproach? That his eight minute review carries the stamp of legitimacy?

    It wouldn't matter if he had a trophy case full of Pulizters, Oscars, or Nobel Prizes. Reviewing a film for money without actually watching the film is lame. Doesn't matter WHO does it.

    But if you prefer to attack me rather than my argument, so be it.
  • Pretty sure that's against the unwritten movie critic code of ethics, but if anyone can get away with that, it's Ebert.
  • God
    Don't play that card - your argument was that all film critics, and especially him, were "total douches." Is that your argument that I was attacking? Nice.

    I don't agree with most film critics, but Ebert is one of the most witty, funny, and generally awesome writers to come around in awhile. His Pulitzer wasn't in "criticism" you fucking idiot. Do you even know what getting awarded that amounts to? Why don't you Wikipedia it - he is more then just some lame film critic trying to make a name for himself.

    Try reading one of his reviews, you could use some different insight.
  • God
    Oh yeah, sorry I don't have a retort for the "argument" that reviewing a film without sitting all the way through it is "lame." Damn man, the burden of countering such an argument blows my mind!

    "Man that shit was lame as hell, so I don't care if he is a good writer." Sorry if I don't hit at the heart of that stimulating reasoning in my responses.
  • Wordy Dude
    God: "His Pulitzer wasn’t in “criticism” you fucking idiot. Do you even know what getting awarded that amounts to? Why don’t you Wikipedia it ...

    Wikipedia: In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism.

    Wordy Dude 2. God 0

    Game over.
  • Bruce Campbell
    "Man you are right, what a total douche - completely lame." (Wordy Dude's incredible response).
  • ruth gold
    I didn't say I'd love it I just said i'm looking forward to it. I plan to watch the whole thing - i have a right to do that just like ebert's got the right not to.

    fyi, being gay in high school and closeted surrounded by a bunch of people who think your a freak, means sometimes it's good to know that you might see a bit of yourself in a story on screen somewhere. that doesn't mean it's going to be good - it could suck - it just means i have a bit invested in seeing it. no need to pour on the hate because i want to spend my money on it and give the whole movie a look, right?
  • Joe
    A lot of critics watch bits of a movie, or don't pay attention through them, and write full reviews based on them. These reviews usually turn out painfully off-the-mark.

    I trust Ebert, he knows what he's doing, and something tells me the movie might not be all that good.

    (I reviewed Eragon two years ago after walking out at the 45-minute mark, it was painfully bad.)
  • Bruce Campbell
    Well said ruth.
  • zefal
    The movie is about how Tru moves from idyllic San Francisco to "conservative
    suburbia" with her lesbian mothers. This just in: Except for some jocks and those who doth protest too much, today's suburban teens are mostly cool with people who are gay, except those residing in the Palin Belt.

    Ebert didn't say anything about the homophobes who live in the "Obama belt".

    70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/7...
blog comments powered by Disqus