Ebert Regrets Reviewing 8 Minutes of 'Tru Loved'
Filed under: Gay & Lesbian, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand, Cinematical Indie
The necessary background is here. Last week, Roger Ebert posted a one-star review of the indie drama Tru Loved. At the end of the scathing piece, he revealed that he had only watched 8 minutes of the film -- and that "after that, you're on your own." In a blog entry, he defended the review on aesthetic grounds: he placed the revelation at the end because it worked there. That post generated some 500 comments, and Will's post here a somewhat less impressive 17, splitting pretty evenly between commenters who sympathized with Ebert's life's-too-short impulse, and those who thought giving one star to a film he quit on, and hiding his dereliciton of duty at the bottom of the review, was not cool.In a follow-up entry, Ebert agrees that it wasn't cool. He insists it wasn't unethical, but admits he shouldn't have done it. As penance, he watched the rest of the film and added a section to his review. "I will never, ever, again review a film I have not seen in its entirety," he says. "Never. Ever."
It seems to me that there has to be a middle ground here. There's nothing wrong with quitting on a film and then writing about it, perhaps shedding light on why you walked out. But you have to front it. And you can't claim it's a review -- that means no star ratings. I walked out of The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor and wrote about how awful it was. I don't think I did anything wrong. But I didn't pretend to be reviewing it.
That said, Ebert's addendum to his original "review" is characteristically insightful and well worth reading. And by the way: has anyone actually seen Tru Loved? What's its deal?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-23-2008 @ 11:00AM
Mike said...
I think you're splitting hairs. If you're a film writer and you write an opinion about a film, from a layman's view point (99.9% of your readers) it's a review. Period. I don't care if it doesn't follow your standard template that you normally use, it's a film critic writing about their experience watching the movie.
That said, I'm not opposed to a critic writing about a movie that they walked out of. It seems unrealistic to make some people sit through a film as painful as this.
Just stop kidding yourself. It was a review.
Reply
10-23-2008 @ 11:21AM
ML said...
I don't mind a reviewer saying basically "I walked out of this film & here's why." But I'd rather that than something along the lines of "I hated the film, and, oh, by the way, I saw less than 10 minutes of it." The second gives a false impression (that the reviewer saw the entire picture) until the "final reveal." A review shouldn't have its own plot twist.
Reply
10-23-2008 @ 3:05PM
GL said...
I find it funny that you have to read the whole review to get the message.
...and ditto to what Mike said in the first post.
Reply
10-24-2008 @ 12:09PM
McFly said...
There are times on my job that I don't enjoy what I'm doing--meeting after meeting that resolve nothing--or disagree with the task at hand--creating a document that exists for no other reason than to cover my boss's boss. But I endure those things because I get paid to do my job. As a film reviewer, if you cannot sit for a hour and a half to endure a bad movie, than I think you shouldn't write any review and therefore shouldn't get paid for that time. It's your job to watch ENTIRE films and put the experience in writing. Walking out on any movie at any time is a disservice to your readers and your profession.
Reply
11-06-2008 @ 10:03AM
Crystal said...
Well, at least he felt bad about it. That was very cool of him, to go back and at watch the film. LOL
Reply
10-29-2008 @ 9:10AM
Tom Houseman said...
I write reviews for my college newspaper. A few years ago, I walked out of Date Movie after 11 minutes, and wrote a review of it titled "My 11 Minute Trip Through Hell." I feel like as long as he makes it clear that the movie was so unbearable that he couldn't sit through it, I don't have a problem with him not having seen it. But he shouldn't withhold that information, as it does affect how people interpret his opinion.
Reply
10-29-2008 @ 11:40AM
jonathan said...
He didn't withhold any information. He disclosed that he only saw 8 minutes of it. It doesn't matter that it was at the end of the review, it's not that long. Besides I often look at the end of reviews for some sort of summary. Ebert was completely justified in his initial review, but I also respect him for going back and completing the review of a movie that turned out to be, it seemed to me from reading his review, worse than he initially though, although he kept his rating at 1 star.
10-29-2008 @ 11:23AM
nick said...
Good for Roger. If you want to read reviews of movies from two guys haven't even seen a single minute, visit thisisthenoshow.blogspot.com
Reply
10-30-2008 @ 3:10PM
Robert George said...
Wasn't Roger Ebert one of the few critics back in 2005 who thought "Crash" was worthy of the Best Picture Oscar instead of "Brokeback Mountain" which was the favored film to win?
Could it be homophobia behind it?
Reply
10-29-2008 @ 4:08PM
Small Town Sim said...
Writing about how much you dislike a movie IS reviewing it whether you call it a review or not. I'm sure people who read a blog make a decision about whether or not to watch it based on what they read... just as they do after reading an 'official' movie review.
You have to take your lumps right along with Ebert. It's just wrong to write about a movie that you didn't watch thru to the finish. Too many things can happen- the movie can take a different direction- you'll never know.
I don't think anyone will hold it against anyone for walking out on a title- but in my opinion- you forfeit your 'right' to tell us how bad (or good) it was because you don't even know how it ended.
Reply
10-30-2008 @ 6:36AM
Captain Krunch said...
No way! Critics get paid quite alot of money. Making money from giving there point of view of how good a film was by another persons creation. It can be a tough job if your reviewing something that's a load of crap, something you hate, but that's part of the challenge. I often write reviews for films on my mates website (and no I don't get paid lol) but the real challenge is writing a review for a film you normally wouldn't like and giving an unbiased verdict.
Ebert you naughty bloke!
Reply