Roger Ebert watches eight minutes of movie, reviews it

Double Down

A New Kind of Thrill
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,801
Reaction score
0
Points
31
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081015/REVIEWS/810150277

Roger Ebert's Journal
If you ever intend to read my review of "Tru Loved," please read it now (above). This is so essential that I'm taking a risk by posting this blog entry on the same day the review goes up. The review brings into focus a belief that is at the core of my critical approach. I have cited it many times. Please forgive me for repeating it. As the critic Robert Warshow wrote, "A man goes to the movies. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man." In other words, whatever you saw, whatever you felt, whatever you did, you must say so. For example, two things that cannot be convincingly faked are laughter and orgasms. If a movie made you laugh, as a critic you have to be honest and report that. Maybe not so much with orgasms.
If you reached the end of my "Tru Loved" review, you found that I stopped watching at about eight minutes. How did this discovery make you feel? My editor, a wise and expert woman who has saved my ass many times over more than 20 years, was horrified.
She e-mailed me: "Just got down to the part where you mention that you watched ONLY eight minutes of this movie. I don't blame you but do you really want to open that door? I fear your admission will start people wondering whether this is a regular practice. Of course it's not but you don't want to raise those suspicions. The alternative: take out those grafs. Or I could kill the review and we could try to find a substitute. Your original review is clever and well-written but I think morally dishonest because you conceal your MO until the very end."
This is a valid point of view. I thought about it. I defended running my original review. I have been asked countless times, "Do you ever walk out of a movie?" My answer is that I almost never do, but when that happens, I always mention it in the review. At this moment, I can actually recall only one movie I've ever walked out on: "Caligula" (1979) I wrote in the first paragraph of my review, "Disgusted and unspeakably depressed, I walked out of the film after two hours of its 170-minute length."
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.
Another question may come up. Was my review negative because the movie is pro-gay and I am anti-gay? Not at all. "Tru Loved" was never screened for critics in the Chicago area, so far as I am aware. Knowing it was opening, I looked it up on IMDb and found this plot summary: "Recently relocated from San Francisco to conservative suburbia by her lesbian mothers, Tru struggles like all teens to fit in and find love, but her quest is complicated by sexual politics, closed minds, and closeted friends as she seeks to establish her school's first Gay-Straight Alliance."
Sounded interesting. I obtained a DVD screener. I wanted to see the movie. It was opening here on only one screen, but I've been trying to review more such indie movies (also this week: "Toots" and "Moving Midway." Last week: "A Thousand Years of Good Prayers" and "Anita O'Day."). I started viewing with an open mind and my customary hope that I would enjoy it. I did not. In some way, a film must seal the deal with us. It must make us willing to watch to the end. Even when a film doesn't do that for me, I keep watching because, if nothing else, I can get evidence for a negative review.
With this film, I believed I had all the ammo I needed, not involving the movie's story, but its competence. It did not seal the deal. It left me with no confidence that it would be able to. If nothing else, I hope the review reflected the stream of consciousness that can take place when a movie loses a viewer's sympathy and goes wrong.
At the end of the review, I appended this imaginary Q&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.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, really, because he admitted that he left after eight minutes. A reader is free to do with that information what they will.
Had he written a review after watching a movie for eight minutes, but then not admitted it, we would have a problem.
 
That is why I love Roger Ebert.
 
To be fair, his job is to review a film in its complete form, he doesn't have the privelege of walking out, that's up to joe the public who are paying to watching.

if i was getting paid, then i woudl do what i like to but he does have an obligation to those who are going to fork out cash.

Otherwise what opinion he gets will always be a flawed one
 
To be fair, his job is to review a film in its complete form, he doesn't have the privelege of walking out, that's up to joe the public who are paying to watching.

if i was getting paid, then i woudl do what i like to but he does have an obligation to those who are going to fork out cash.

Otherwise what opinion he gets will always be a flawed one

He can walk out on a movie like this if he wants to. Seriously, does anyone really care about Ebert's opinion of "Tru Loved"? He gets paid to review real movies.

The trailer for this is hard enough to watch.
 
He can walk out on a movie like this if he wants to. Seriously, does anyone really care about Ebert's opinion of "Tru Loved"? He gets paid to review real movies.

The trailer for this is hard enough to watch.
its hes job to watch movies and then writite reviews right?

does he get the same paycheck if he watches one movie 8 minutes and writtes a review and a different movie 2 hours?
he is payed for the review right? for the review he needs to watch the movie.

if you work in the company and if you on wednesday dont want to work you dont just go out after 8 minutes.

is this hes main job?
 
He can walk out on a movie like this if he wants to. Seriously, does anyone really care about Ebert's opinion of "Tru Loved"? He gets paid to review real movies.

The trailer for this is hard enough to watch.
That's fine and dandy, just don't pay the guy to do it.

I can review a film after 8 minutes and put it up on the hype, no one cares.

However if it's his job then he is in breach of it.
 
its hes job to watch movies and then writite reviews right?

does he get the same paycheck if he watches one movie 8 minutes and writtes a review and a different movie 2 hours?
he is payed for the review right? for the review he needs to watch the movie.

if you work in the company and if you on wednesday dont want to work you dont just go out after 8 minutes.

is this hes main job?


We don't know that he got paid in full for this review, nor do we know if he gets paid per-review or if he just has a normal monthly thing and he does however many movies he can. Feel free to enlighten me on the inner workings of Roger Ebert's contract.

He's done this twice in his entire career, is it really that big a deal to you? :whatever:
 
If I am financially involved with "Tru Loved," then I would be happy Ebert left after eight minutes. I get the feeling that he would not have improved his review had he stayed the whole time, but now people are talking about a movie they otherwise would not have.
 
If I am financially involved with "Tru Loved," then I would be happy Ebert left after eight minutes. I get the feeling that he would not have improved his review had he stayed the whole time, but now people are talking about a movie they otherwise would not have.

Exactly.
 
Not that I will go see it or anything, though.
 
I haven't heard good things about the first eight minutes of it.
 
Can I just say that other than the first 8 minutes this movie ranks alongside the Godfather as the greatest movie of all time.
 
Apparently not, but you could make a case for the last 90.
 
We don't know that he got paid in full for this review, nor do we know if he gets paid per-review or if he just has a normal monthly thing and he does however many movies he can. Feel free to enlighten me on the inner workings of Roger Ebert's contract.

He's done this twice in his entire career, is it really that big a deal to you? :whatever:
where do oyu think you are?
this is a forum. someone opened a thread and posted my thoughts .

now we can have a debate. what should i do? ''ohhhh hes such a cool guy. he doesnt care. he f.. the system. ebert for pr:hehe:esident. ''
 
That's fine and dandy, just don't pay the guy to do it.

I can review a film after 8 minutes and put it up on the hype, no one cares.

However if it's his job then he is in breach of it.

Have you ever read a piece he has written? He can do whatever he wants. His passion for film and great writing skill is what he gets paid for.
 
i still want to know why on this world people are paying someone for an opinion.
 
i still want to know why on this world people are paying someone for an opinion.

It isn't an opinion. See that is what you get from the hack critics. With Ebert it is an interpretation of the work. A discussion. Like a great film class for free. His star system is irrelevant, the writing is what is important.
 
I've never walked out of a movie. I want to watch the whole thing so that I can blast it fairly.

Though I DID almost walked out of 'Be Cool', one of the worst movies that I've seen in a LONG time.
 
I've never walked out of a movie. I want to watch the whole thing so that I can blast it fairly.

Though I DID almost walked out of 'Be Cool', one of the worst movies that I've seen in a LONG time.

I never put myself in that position. I have rented films I have not finished, but in the theater I go to see something that I know at the very least will be interesting enough that I can sit through it.
 
It isn't an opinion. See that is what you get from the hack critics. With Ebert it is an interpretation of the work. A discussion. Like a great film class for free. His star system is irrelevant, the writing is what is important.
isnt this basicly an opinion ?
 
isnt this basicly an opinion ?

Not according to my English Professor. An opinion is on quality. Is the movie good or bad? An interpretation is of the work as a whole. A film can be great, but it may not grab you. Think of how many critics write what feels like a list. Script was good, acting below par, sets were a little iffy, but the score was to die for.

Much more of a personal thing with Ebert's writing. He speaks on what the film does for him. He'll even admit when something just doesn't strike him, even though it is technically strong.
 
This might be his greatest review ever:

Rapa Nui
By Roger Ebert Sep 30, 1994

`Rapa Nui" slips through the National Geographic Loophole. This is the Hollywood convention which teaches us that brown breasts are not as sinful as white ones, and so while it may be evil to gaze upon a blond Playboy centerfold and feel lust in our hearts, it is educational to watch Polynesian maidens frolicking topless in the surf. This isn't sex; it's geography.

For years in my liberal youth I thought this loophole was racist, an evil double standard in which white women were protected from exposure while "native" women were cruelly stripped of their bras, not to mention the equal protection of the MPAA. While watching "Rapa Nui," in which there are dozens if not hundreds of wonderful bare breasts on view, I have changed my mind. Since womens' breasts are the most aesthetically pleasing part of the human anatomy, it is only a blessing if your culture celebrates them.

The movie, which is sublimely silly, takes place in the South Seas in the carefree days before missionaries and other visitors arrived to distribute brassieres, smallpox, and VD. The action takes place on Easter Island, "the navel of the world," whose inhabitants languish under a senile king. The king is of the Long Ear tribe, which has enslaved the Short Ears and impoverished the island by building dozens of giant stone faces. The purpose of the faces is to attract the great White Canoe which the king believes will carry him off to heaven. No face can be big enough. "Build another one," he tells the slaves at one point. "Then take the rest of the day off." This is a king, played with superb comic timing by Eru Potaka-Dewes, who has lots of good lines. "Tell me you won't make fish hooks of my thigh bones," he tearfully implores his high priest.

The priest, however, has the movie's best line: "I'm busy! I've got chicken entrails to read!" Meanwhile, sweating slaves pull giant sledges and plot rebellion.

The plot stars Jason Scott Lee as Noro, a young Long Ear who has fallen in love with a Short Ear girl, the breathtakingly lovely Sandrine Holt. He goes to the chief for permission to marry her, which is granted - but on two conditions. 1) He must win the annual competition among the young men of the island; 2) She must spend six months locked in the darkness of the Cave of the White Virgin.

This is a lot better deal for him than her. The competition, sort of a Polynesian triathlon, requires the young men to climb down a cliff to the sea, swim to an offshore peak, climb the peak, steal the first eggs of spring from birds' nests, swim back with them, climb the cliff, and present the eggs to the chief. Break an egg, and you're an omelet. Meanwhile, the bride-to-be slowly goes blind in the Cave of the White Virgin, so called because that's what you become after you lose your tan in the dark - always assuming of course that you were a virgin to begin with.

Concern for my reputation prevents me from recommending this movie. I wish I had more nerve. I wish I could simply write, "Look, of course it's one of the worst movies ever made. But it has hilarious dialogue, a weirdo action climax, a bizarre explanation for the faces of Easter Island, and dozens if not hundreds of wonderful bare breasts." I am however a responsible film critic and must conclude that "Rapa Nui" is a bad film. If you want to see it anyway, of course, that's strictly your concern. I think I may check it out again myself.
 
Last edited:
Haha, only 8 minutes? Siskel must be turning in his grave right now.:csad:

Even movies I've hated after the first 10 minutes, I still sat through them. Hoping it would pick up.
 
This might be his greatest review ever:

Rapa Nui
By Roger Ebert Sep 30, 1994

`Rapa Nui" slips through the National Geographic Loophole. This is the Hollywood convention which teaches us that brown breasts are not as sinful as white ones, and so while it may be evil to gaze upon a blond Playboy centerfold and feel lust in our hearts, it is educational to watch Polynesian maidens frolicking topless in the surf. This isn't sex; it's geography.

For years in my liberal youth I thought this loophole was racist, an evil double standard in which white women were protected from exposure while "native" women were cruelly stripped of their bras, not to mention the equal protection of the MPAA. While watching "Rapa Nui," in which there are dozens if not hundreds of wonderful bare breasts on view, I have changed my mind. Since womens' breasts are the most aesthetically pleasing part of the human anatomy, it is only a blessing if your culture celebrates them.

The movie, which is sublimely silly, takes place in the South Seas in the carefree days before missionaries and other visitors arrived to distribute brassieres, smallpox, and VD. The action takes place on Easter Island, "the navel of the world," whose inhabitants languish under a senile king. The king is of the Long Ear tribe, which has enslaved the Short Ears and impoverished the island by building dozens of giant stone faces. The purpose of the faces is to attract the great White Canoe which the king believes will carry him off to heaven. No face can be big enough. "Build another one," he tells the slaves at one point. "Then take the rest of the day off." This is a king, played with superb comic timing by Eru Potaka-Dewes, who has lots of good lines. "Tell me you won't make fish hooks of my thigh bones," he tearfully implores his high priest.

The priest, however, has the movie's best line: "I'm busy! I've got chicken entrails to read!" Meanwhile, sweating slaves pull giant sledges and plot rebellion.

The plot stars Jason Scott Lee as Noro, a young Long Ear who has fallen in love with a Short Ear girl, the breathtakingly lovely Sandrine Holt. He goes to the chief for permission to marry her, which is granted - but on two conditions. 1) He must win the annual competition among the young men of the island; 2) She must spend six months locked in the darkness of the Cave of the White Virgin.

This is a lot better deal for him than her. The competition, sort of a Polynesian triathlon, requires the young men to climb down a cliff to the sea, swim to an offshore peak, climb the peak, steal the first eggs of spring from birds' nests, swim back with them, climb the cliff, and present the eggs to the chief. Break an egg, and you're an omelet. Meanwhile, the bride-to-be slowly goes blind in the Cave of the White Virgin, so called because that's what you become after you lose your tan in the dark - always assuming of course that you were a virgin to begin with.

Concern for my reputation prevents me from recommending this movie. I wish I had more nerve. I wish I could simply write, "Look, of course it's one of the worst movies ever made. But it has hilarious dialogue, a weirdo action climax, a bizarre explanation for the faces of Easter Island, and dozens if not hundreds of wonderful bare breasts." I am however a responsible film critic and must conclude that "Rapa Nui" is a bad film. If you want to see it anyway, of course, that's strictly your concern. I think I may check it out again myself.

This is such a funny review, that I might check out the movie through Netflix someday. :woot:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,164
Messages
21,908,501
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"