I don't think you need to do all this backtracking. Every piece of garbage out there had a crew full of people dedicating their hard work and energy and every piece of grabage has at least one fervent admirer. If you are not that person, you are not that person and your job is to do justice only to yourself. Critique the movies as you see fit.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...sooo tangled...so very tangled. Yes, very tangled

I disagree that the critic's responsibility is to "try to give some sense of why [one] might want to see a film even if [the critic] didn't admire it." Isn't the purpose of a negative review to steer readers away from that movie (as you said, "help readers in the investment of two hours of their lives")? If you view an insipid, cookie-cutter film that you deem worthless, are you obligated to conjure up some worth for those who like their cookies precut?

I don't think so. In that sense, you don't owe an apology. Watching only the first eight minutes is another matter.

There are very few critics who would have published your first review; fewer still would have apologized and re-reviewed it. I don't think that what you did was immoral. But it may not have been good for your reputation, and it is comforting to know that you care enough about what you do and about how seriously you're taken to do a re-write.

We all have our blind spots.

I can never get enough of your words. Thank you for elaborating on this great discussion. All in all, though, it is still a horrible movie and my own gay community deserves better cinema.

Mr. Ebert,

I appreciate the honest reflection of this post. While I thought the review as structured originally was quite effective, I just don't feel intellectually comfortable with grading something based on just a portion of it. My greatest concern is that occasionally small moments in a movie give it some value. There are numerous examples in film history of bad movies with good performances or well thought out scenes. This past weekend's Max Payne was not a good film by any stretch but it did have one shot that I found extremely effective and compelling [when Moore rotates and dolleys the camera around Wahlberg's Payne as he stands in his family bedroom while the scene transitions from the bright light and joy of his old life to the colorless cynicism of the world after his family is murdered].

As an aside, thank you for your review of The Fall, a few months back. As a result I netflixed the Blu-Ray recently and I was overjoyed to find a masterpiece in Tarsem's amazing world. I can only hope that more viewers will pick up the film on DVD and Blu-Ray and have as rewarding an experience as I did.

In a selfish way, I'm glad that the events went down as they did, as it was interesting to see the process of how, why, and when certain films are reviewed.

As for the review itself, this may not be an apt correlation, but I think any minor league baseball pitcher would welcome the chance to throw a game in the majors, even if he might get shelled. "Tru Loved" got shelled, but at least it got to the big show.

That being said, I think going back to review the film in its entirety was the right thing to do. And who knows, this extra publicity might get it seen by a few more people.

Ebert: I am bold-facing all comments from people who have seen the film.

Thank you for this.

As someone who worked on the film, I'm glad you decided to watch it in its entirety. You still hated it, but that's really beside the point, isn't it?

And anyone who is gay who likes a movie simply for having gay themes isn't a true movielover.

I believe that gay teenagers and youth, and young people with gay parents are probably more likely to be open to this movie because its themes aren't presented on screen very often.

As always, Roger, you are the better man in these situations (and probably even better for it!) Seeing you as someone who has championed all films, big and small, in the past, I didn't see you doing anything other than stating your opinion, which you SHOULD do. I've always taken your motto "A film is not what it's about- it's how it's about" to heart, and I think you were doing that here. Kudos to you for going back and finishing the task.

I'm curious- did the technical issues you observed in the first 8 minutes improve? I'm guessing they didn't.

Roger, for what you have learned from this experience, and for the attention "Tru Loved" is ultimately getting, I have the feeling that after time has passed, you WILL be glad you wrote this review. You also make an honest, decent apology to the filmmakers, which for its rarity in the genre of Criticism will be something they will be able to point to with pride.

Not many people admit they're wrong in this business. Also, you show a lot more sensitivity than others in this "dog doesn't return other dog's phone-calls" business.

I still think what you did was entirely fine. While I think indie films are essential to the world of cinema, I don't think they should be given any special breaks for being an indie film. If it's no good, it's no good. If you shut off the DVD at eight minutes, that's what you did. And as an honest guy, you told us.

Take care.

Roger: I never expected that you would ever review a movie without watching it in its entirety again, but I wished you hadn't gone through the remainder of Tru Loved. The people behind the production of the movie surely deserved the appended review, but clearly you did not. I couldn't tell from the amended review if you had been drained from the mediocrity of the rest of the movie, or from the backlash from the previous review.

The irony of the whole thing is, I had been convinced Tru Loved is not a movie I would want to watch after reading a couple of paragraphs from the original, eight-minute review; now that I have read about the rest of the movie, I am absolutely positive I will never see it.

After reading the amended review of "Tru Loved" I believe that, regardless of the original's validity, we can at least put to rest the notion that the first several minutes of a motion picture do not portend its inherent quality. It is a extremely rare film indeed (I've never seen one) that can perform an aesthetic 180 degree turn once the shoddy filmmaking abilities of its cast and crew have been on display. Fortunately or unfortunately there is no masking a lack of talent in this medium. The "clangs" don't lie.

I'd say, if you were being incredulous about admitting fault a clever and ultimately boorish response would be to say you were exposing a broader sin committed by a media drenched society feeding on blurbs to give us talking points so we might be better able to shout down our partners, co-workers, and friends who participate equally in the exchange. But you are not that kind of reviewer. Admitting fault in a choice is quite an enlightened thing to do and I feel this to be a shift in the larger context of media and those constantly referred to as being saturated in it (I imagine a liquefied TV screen with images still blinking/static on it, something along the lines of Cronenberg, whenever I hear that phrase). So I ask this: should we open up the possibility of a new phase of the critical analysis of film. Since we seem to be in the dirty clutches of a mass doing away with of print let us assault the sins of print, the sins of the blurb generation. They demand the gist of everything and, if they follow their own logic that would quote the site description of a Google link to dismiss the person he was supposed to be engaged in argument with, he would find these actions ultimately pointless, as opinions crafted such as these follow one to the grave and serve the same purpose as our corpses. I have always admired your writing Mr. Ebert and would say that you are certainly not guilty of the crimes I have described. I have benefited greatly from the films you have exposed me to through your column. So this I think, a bit of you going cyberpunk terrorist/anarchist on us with this review, is hilarious. You were delivering the lines straight while being unaware of appearing the fool. This is classic comedy material as you have often pointed out. So I'd say forget the whole mess, if you are really feeling all that bad about it, you've got integrity and spunk! Ignore the wounded puppy in the corner after this and you'll do fine.

It is heartening to see that you have claimed visible responsibility in this situation; it is a much less tiresome and arrogant action than I have come to expect from many well-known, highly paid critics. I feel optimistic that in this instance, much like the time when you gave a Thumb's Up to Speed 2 (with ridiculous consequences), the general public will forget or at least forgive whatever about this situation offended/disillusioned them, and the negative readers who will attack the situation will feel the the same as they did beforehand, one way or another. Nothing to change that. I do hope that this has had the grudgingly positive result of helping you examine your essence and reactions towards films, good or bad, but I also in some ways sympathized with you on a few more basic levels; of the nearly 2,000 films I have seen, I wished I had in fact walked out of/changed the channel when I got the sense to abandon all hope on the production, as yes, life is short. It's also long enough for most people to see lots of films. Thank God for that.

I understand why you had an incentive to apologize and re-edit your review. But what I don't understand is why you must have the incentive in the first place. It seems like you are in the wrong for stopping at 8 minutes, when, according to the Gene Siskel ideology (If admission is being charged, the readers deserve a review.) you had every right to walk out and give it a one-star review. I haven't seen the film, and thanks to you, I won't. Because it probably isn't that good. To quote you one time: "In even my negative reviews, I try to give some sense of why you might want to see a film even if I didn't admire it." You have a way of writing reviews that most people agree with. This is appropriate as any other.

Computerworld is correct, but I wish they had added that you respond and listen to the responses. A blog is best when it contains give and take between the author and readers. Your presence, thoughtfulness, and willingness to listen to opinions in the comments is what makes this blog unique.

The second part of the review, the other 97 or so minutes, finally makes it complete. It comments on the film as a whole - the characters, plot, and the technical aspects. Before I read the second part I was considering seeing it. Its a situation that I sympathize with and there are some good reviews of it on the web. As of this writing it is at 57% on the Tomatometer, including positives from the New York Times and Variety. Now I have no interest whatsoever. Well done.

This whole stinkin' business over a junky little indie is really starting to irritate me. With two reviews and two blog entries you have now written four times as much as other films, films of actual merit, some even "great" that are currently in theaters. Trouble the Water a great and powerful documentary, Happy-Go-Lucky yet another astonishing achievement by the great Mike Leigh, or Rachel Getting Married have all been undermined by Tru Loved: which you describe as having potential camp value. This blog seems to have great potential to provide a source of an intelligent discourse about great film and great filmmakers. The best articles that meet said potential have been the entries on Nichol's Wit, the film of your life (La Dolce Vita), and the tribute to Paul Newman. More time spent talking about Tru Loved is just a waste of time.

P.S.
I read all of your reviews. When the original review of Tru Loved was first published I knew it was going to be the subject of your next blog entry. My fulfilled prophesy angered me because it was as if the review was written to promote discussion about what you did was right or not. I read your reviews before anyone else because I find you to be the most personal of any active critic; however, I'm ultimately reading to fulfill my greatest pleasure: insight into great movies. Remember your audience.

Good for you for reviewing the movie in full, even though it doesn't sound like it was a fun experience for you.

Wow. Roger. You did seem to have a lot of bile to spew for this film.

'Tru Loved' doesn't sound terribly different from most of the tripe put forth by University drama departments every year. It's the product of an annual cycle: freshman drama majors get together, discover they are all gay and that their collective gayness is the most important thing in the whole world, then they write and perform a terrible play about how hard/fun it is to be gay in high school. The only unusual thing about 'Tru Loved' is that it was performed in front of cameras rather than audiences.

Really, I'm surprised you haven't seen this movie before. At least it's getting some attention thanks to you.

Rog,

Don't feel too harshly towards yourself, though I think such remorse is an indication of your integrity. No one's perfect, and any critic who is "perfect" is probably a rather boring human being. No doubt there are films you once enjoyed and would wonder why now, and vice versa. Chalk this up to a similar bit of experience, and it is something I think many have learned from as well. Keep the light burning.

Wow. Roger. You did seem to have a lot of bile to spew for this film.

'Tru Loved' doesn't sound terribly different from most of the tripe put forth by University drama departments every year. It's the product of an annual cycle: freshman drama majors get together, discover they are all gay and that their collective gayness is the most important thing in the whole world, then they write and perform a terrible play about how hard/fun it is to be gay in high school. The only unusual thing about 'Tru Loved' is that it was performed in front of cameras rather than audiences.

Really, I'm surprised this didn't all sound terribly familiar to you. At least it's getting some attention thanks to you.

I think the psychiatrist joke is funnier when inverted. I know I laughed at it.

Roger, I understand your repudiation of the review, though I disagree with it. Thanks for posting your logic regarding the decision.

That said, I think you should be careful about saying you will "never" review another film without viewing it in its entirety. Do you think that would hold for a movie like Salò or Caligula? The Internet is huge and nearly anonymous—you can never please everyone. (This comment being its own evidence, obviously!) Setting yourself a rule like that will cause you misery in the future if you break it, because there are a million pedants sitting in the wings to "pillory" you for breaking it.

Roger, articles like this are precisely why I advise my students to read your work if they want to write better essays. I don't think your original review was unethical, but I'm glad you revisited your decision. Your discussion of your motives, your craft, and your reconsideration brought to mind the conflict between utilitarianism (Bentham would have loved your first review) and Kant's categorical imperative. Keep making the world safe for excellent prose!

Roger, you are interesting to me. Even your negative reviews are learning experiences, and your decision to walk out was a fresh reminder to me as an amateur director about the dangers of not engaging my audience. Frankly, I am more interested in seeing this film now than ever. Anyway, I like your new review, and love your assertion, as tru now as ever, that movies are miracles.
-Ben

Congratulations. Four Stars! Impressive.

And it is wild that you admit that printing that first review was not a "Farside Moment" with the Review that you had been saving for some particular moment and some ultimate poseur. (There are so many in your line of work, that inadvertently using this Review on such an unpretentious movie really was a loss.) However, with your marvelous gift for words, you should easily be able to find something to say about all the "message movies" about to come out this winter.

But then, if we didn't have "Message Movies" we wouldn't have any at all these days. I guess that's why I prefer Science Fiction. (i.e. The Nazi's aren't real, "V for Vendetta"; the Politicians aren't torturing real people, "Brazil" "Death Race 2000" "Casino Real" [either version, in fact any of the James Bond Science Fiction movies, really, Space Stations, rocket cars, Bond Girls...]; and there is almost always "Hope" at the end...

Glad you had the courage and fortitude to go back and review the film properly, in full, as anyone who truly appreciates good and bad cinema would have. Sorry to say that it's just as God-awful as before, since you didn't appear to change the star rating - and the description only makes it sound worse!

P.S. That wasn't a spoiler-ridden review, that seemed more like a scene-by-scene synopsis with criticism built in, no?

Dear Roger,

Well so much for saving yourself time on a bad movie! "I wasted time and now doth time waste me."

You've done the right thing every step of the way, now stop beating yourself up. Without you, I would never have seen "Diva," "Gates of Heaven," "Hoop Dreams," or "George Washington."

Just one question remains. Does this mean we can now expect to read your appended review of "Caligula?"

As one of the dissenting voices in the previous blog entry, I'd like to thank you for this thoughtful reconsideration.

Dear Roger,

I can only imagine how you must feel, since your reviews are delivered the world over, your signature cemented with each of them. On just a very small scale, I go through the same thing with this blog. Sometimes I respond, read my response later, and wonder, "Was my response insipid, or idiotic? Was it worthy of addition to Roger's blog? Should I give up the keypad altogether and devote my excess time to researching the fundamentals of camel jockeying?" Or, I see that my grammar was way off, because the thoughts in my mind are sprouting out faster than I can type, and then I carelessly click "Submit". There is not a film's revenue at stake when I foul, but I do risk a negative opinion of me by my hero.

The writer is often hardest on himself. I write fiction stories on occasion. With fiction, it is easier, because you can blame offensiveness on characters. When the character is you, when the hot white light is focused on you, and you feel you've been caught by the lens with a nasty case of eczema, you (if you are me) ponder and scrutinize beyond reason.

You have spent 40 years defining yourself and your ideas about film, and about life, for your audience. Most of those who criticize you, have never once looked at your website. They think of you as a thumb and know nothing of your Pulitzer or essays. All the rest who do know you, know that you have more than legitimized yourself in your profession.

I still think your review was great, but you are entitled to feeling like a jerk over it. Freedom of Speech is often associated with our wanting to express opinions that speak against that which we abhor, or to question that which seems unjust. But the flipside is that we can also use it, with honor, to work toward amending our own wrongs, or revising personal judgements made in haste.

One reward of a liberated society, is that we can err, forgive, be forgiven, and continue the dialogue. Who knows what may come of it?

Although I commend your willingness to consider everyone's comments and to re-think your position, I still say your decision to review the first eight or so minutes was totally cricket and that the review itself was well-considered and memorable. It's great to come across a piece that doesn't follow the standard format; it's great to be surprised. I've said it before and I'll say it again: your reviews are like good short stories.

Would you feel bad if, after your "North" review appeared, you learned that the film moved a young man to tears and that like North he too had trotted around the world looking for desirable replacement parents? No? Well, then, why do you feel bad in this instance? Because this film is low budget and well-intentioned? Does that excuse the rampant CLANGS?

You bailed on a bad movie and wrote a creative article about your experience. Sincerely, I don't really see the problem.

Mr. Ebert: I, for one, enjoy reading your negative reviews. In fact, I look forward to them. Has your new "rule" for viewing films now given you carte blanche to ignore the dreck in favor of reviewing the "good stuff"?

Ebert: Nope.

Dear Roger,

As in my comment made to the post "Don't read me first", I believe that the original review was very well called for, and that it should have been left as it was. I can only agree with what Jeff Fyke was saying above; It was your own choice and no film should be allowed the leniency just because it was made by an indie group, no matter how good or bad it actually was.
Let me demonstrate this with an analogy of some sort: let's say you started to watch a film, and at some point, early on, the film became unbearable to watch because one or more features made it literally unwatchable. The film could violently start to flicker (not because of a technical malfunction, but by design), or the sound could start to sway and degrade into a mindless noise followed by a low but poignant thump every five seconds or so. Also, not by mistake, but because the sound designer decided to have a field day and live out his dreams or release the animal within himself. Now, the film being as it is, the question is: would you make yourself see it to the end? Would you sit silently for an hour and a half and endure the artistic freedom the director has chosen to explore? I think we can all guess the answer.

Well, the same thing, only not that extreme happened while viewing "Tru Loved". Now, I am not implying that this film should not be seen, nor that it is as bad as the review suggests. It might even better than some films dealing with that particular subject. All I'm saying is that a film critic has his instruments tuned and sharpened a bit finer than one would presume. And that a certain film could very well cause him/her either to leave the theatre or to stop watching the film. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as that person admits what happened. You did admit it, and you also stated your reasons why it had happened. I see no reason to apologize nor a reason to write an article explaining why you were wrong. Because you really weren't. I will now quote a saying we all more or less know to be true:"Usually the first impulse is the right one". That applies to so many situations and fields of interest, that I couldn't name them all even if I wanted to. I am also sure that it applies to films as well. At that very moment you acted according to this universal truth. For what is the point of being Obi Wan Kenobi, if you never ever use the Force?

I was behind your original eight-minute review, but the new one is appreciated... for the new zingers.

"Your ol' dad here has copped a fair number of feels in his lifetime, and he never asked first. Sometimes he sure shoulda, but you live and learn."

I would pay a month's salary to go to a Roger Ebert hosted Film's-with-logic-gaps festival, or just have some commentary tracks for North and Young Einstein.

Dear Roger,

I think it's excellent that you've put so much thought into Tru Loved and your review and I'm impressed by your honesty. Even if as you say, it was inappropriate to publish on only eight minutes of a film, I did think your original review was worth my reading for the points you made, regardless of how well they characterized the film as a whole. It answered a question about film criticism that's bothered me for a while which was: 'no matter how bad movies frequently are, isn't there typically *some* standard of professionalism that they usually meet? Why don't critics seem to acknowledge that?' That you acknowledged it was satisfying to me.

I'm also a little curious about what you now think of your review on Caligula. That review, to me at least, was convincing enough and I felt no further curiosity about that last portion of the movie. Do you think critics should only be allowed to review movies that they were able to stomach every minute of no matter how grotesque, ugly, offensive or unpleasant the content?

You only failed in one respect. You've now spent far more time on the topic than if you'd have simply watched the last 90 minutes or so of the movie in the first place. Your original plan was to reasonably save time by dismissing drivel, now you've blown more time on the issue (though the new issue of the ethicality's been brought up, which is its own separate animal). We all trust you and've read you for years, and most of us have walked out on or ejected a film prematurely. If that's what you wanted to do it's your prerogative and any fuss over it is utter nonsense. {P.S. Please put Empire Strikes Back on your great movies list. Regards.}

I refrained from commenting last week,feeling that most of the hyberbole concerning "Tru Loved," to quote the Bard, was 'much adoe about nothing.' Actually I found the whole thing all quite Dogberrian.

Then this theory crossed my mind. Recently I broke a long time rule and read your your full review of "The Bucket List" prior to seeing the film. Although I wanted to see those two winterly lions in action...almost for sure...for the first and last time, I was nervous by the subject matter and the director. Your review saved me ten bucks and I thank you for it, but I didn't ultimately heed your implied warning. In Denver you can rent dvd's for a buck at the local McDonalds. So I recently weakened and rented the thing. I didn't finish it. As a fellow Cancer survivor with relapses,I found the film a total bummer and it so pissed me off that I still haven't quite completely got over it ...for almost exactly same reasons you stated in your review. And I thought maybe the same thing may have happened to you. Subconsciously you might have feared enduring yet another bummer and simply split to avoid any further psychic anguish. It is good to hear that this film appears to simply be a not very well made movie and not trauma inducing.

Finally,just look a the bright side. You did actually get to see Mr. Vilanch's performance...much like "North"... if you would have split on that irritating old turkey you would have missed Abe Vigoda's wonderful turn as the Eskimo grandpa.

Awareness and knowing are the greatest of qualities, so you're moving in a good direction. Congratulations and good work on being truly honest.

I'm sorry you had to sit through the movie completely. But I'm glad that you had to go through all this.

Not many would've come so clean, and the last one week underlines the dilemmas a critic, of even your stature, faces. Your love for truth, high above a writer's affection for his or her prose, is inspiring.

This whole thing, with the message above by "Blake Hyde," merely leaves me honest-to-God curious to know: What do you think of "Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom"?

Offhand, I can't think of another more deserving "provocative" title that warrants being fully Ebertized.

What with one thing and another, though, I don't expect that. So, Roger, just answer me this about "Salo" -- did you like it or otherwise?

Kudos to you, sir, for admitting your mistake and attempting to rectify it. That's more than most people in your position would be willing to do these days.

Unfortunately, it would seem that there's always going to be people who seize on your errors without bothering to find out if you've tried to rectify them. Our modern political discourse makes your "mistake" look like you forgot the salad forks when setting the table for dinner. That's why the really good people who could run for office and do something with the position won't run, because they know whatever mistakes they made will be dug up and used to hound them into irrelevancy.

I've reviewed a few DVDs for my blog where I couldn't finish them; even ones that were highly regarded, like "There Will Be Blood." However, my profile isn't as high as yours, so no one's ripping me a new one over it.

To me, it seems like that bit of schadenfreude in every person that makes people want to tear down high profiles to make themselves feel better. The people who will continue to wave it in your face probably never bothered to read your follow-up and will be content to feel smug about "having gotten one on you." Don't sweat it for too long.

The entire episode from start to, well, not quite finish burnishes your already extraordinarily stellar reputation in my mind. I absolutely loved the initial review as a piece of prose. It's the kind of informative and still terribly clever writing that I enjoy and admire. However, moments after finishing it I felt just awful for the people who made the film. A very, very good friend of mine is an aspiring film maker. I've helped him out enough on the script nearest and dearest to his heart that he's said he'd have to give me co-writing credit. I have another career that I'm entirely satisfied with, but in my dreamiest day dreams I think, what if we could make that movie, and could get Ebert to review it, and he liked it ...

Now I agree to a large extent with the suggestions that you've just got to call 'em as you see 'em as a critic even though even though you like to encourage indie films and everyone involved with a film generally works their asses off. Still, my mind wandered to the possibility that someone might just make some terribly rookie mistakes in the first few minutes of a film, but end up having something very intriguing and worthwhile later in the film. What if that happened to us, I thought? I might be tough skinned enough, and probably even my good friend would be as well, but there are many people I know in life for whom a similar situation in their life would just ruin them. My wife and I have long, long appreciated that you are a kind reviewer who still manages to be honest and informative and generally wonderful to read. I appreciate getting a further insight into your process of reviewing movies, even one's you don't particularly like, waiting to give a movie a chance if it's indie and you don't like it, etc. etc. I especially appreciate that fact that, as you put it, you try to give a sense of why one might want to see a film even if you don't admire it.

As always, great writers are worth reading, and maybe especially in the moments they'd rather forget.

Sometimes a story, movie, a tale, have to have a second go over to get the full effect. So many movie that was not suppose to meke it only make its mark though time. So Roger, Thumbs Ups, your man enough to know that somethings to need a twice going over and sometime even more than twice!

Even if you only sat through eight minutes of the film (To which my wife commented "In Psycho, that isn't enough time to get Marion Crane to the Bates Motel)", at least you were honest about it. You could have just kept it to yourself and we would never have been the wiser but we appreciate the fact that you at least came clean.

This is going to sound weird but you've always been my "Celluloid Yoda", teaching me through your reviews to expand my cinematic intellect. One of those lessons (though you never actually said it) was to always see a movie through to the end.

I have done that and to this day I've never walked out of a film or turned off the DVD before the film was finished. Wait! I take that back, I turned off "San Francisco" because Clark Gable was grating on my nerves. There, you been to confession and so have I. And now, since you went back and watched the end of "Tru Loved", I'll go back and watch the end of "San Francisco".

Lesson learned, Master Yoda.

Your first review was harsh, but entertaining and well-written. Your blogs and follow-up review difused a potentially dicey situation, while enlightening your readers about the nature of good film criticism and the difficult fortunes movie-making and marketing. As usual, you handled the situation with honesty and eloquence. No worries - Keep up the great work :)

So the film is still bad but now we know why you believe so, not imdb. While I agree with your editor that the first review should not have been published I never felt you honor or morality was in question. I hope the next one star review is funny enough for Your Movie Sucks II.

I think you made the correct decision to apologize. The people who made this small film may not deserve a good review, but they do deserve a full one.

But I do sympathize with you. When I dislike a film I'm watching I try see it all the way through, because I know if I stop I won't want to finish, and will have a nagging feeling there may have been more to it, therefore giving me reason to watch it again. So I understand how after pausing it you wouldn't want to finish.

Also, as a student writer and film-maker, I often have material that I think is great, but doesn't do any good. There’s a part of me that really wants to keep it, even as my heart tells me it's a mistake. So, you are not alone.

It also shows character that you could admit you made a mistake. So, my compliments, whatever they're worth from me.

Do you find it strange that you've now devoted more words to this film than just about any other I can think of on your website outside of maybe "Citizen Kane" and "Birth of a Nation?"

Don't get me wrong. I can't get enough of this stuff. Both your original and extended review provide a textbook class in the perils of bad moviemaking. And maybe Stewart Wade will one day make, if not a masterpiece, then a movie you can sit through out of something more than guilt.

But isn't your longer review sort of like kicking a legless kid when he's down? I know you had to be critically honest. But jeez.

Ebert: The blogs were not so much about the film as about the choices facing a critic. Now that I see a "critic" selecting as his "pick of the week" the trailers for two films he has not seen, I think we must be vigilant.

I agree with both sides. The first review: to show that you'd have to have bad taste in movies, if the way this film was made is your taste in how movies should be made. The second review: Having good taste and the observing of good taste are different--it's a debut film, after all, meant for a small audienc. And it seemed apparently only to later have real problems with the writing after those 8 minutes, which to me seemed like a 2 1/2 star review. Well done, Stewart Wade.

Frankly, I feel your extended review is less effective. So penitent were you towards the filmmakers that I got the sense that you were giving the film a more sympathetic eye than your original review suggested. The original review concisely explains your thoughts and feelings on the worth of the film; the extended review does not.

A movie that cannot hold the interest of an eclectic movie lover for longer than eight minutes is terminally flawed and should be reviewed as such.

(N.B. the amount of work put into the film does not make a dismissive review unwarranted. Countless man-hours go into the production of a film, but regrettably, even excellent makeup artists, sound mixers, dolly grips, etc. cannot save a film from fundamental troubles.)

Roger--

I loved the review. Honestly, I have always loved your work because I feel like you understand how the average viewer feels while watching a film. And there are movies I've turned off after 8 minutes--or less. You were honest about how much time you gave the film, and nothing in the review was misleading--it was quite clear at the end that everything you said could have applied to the first 8 minutes. And why should you be obligated to "give an indie film a chance"? Of course, as a critic, it is your privilege to champion brilliant indie films who might not have as much of an audience otherwise--but isn't it also your job to warn viewers about wasting their time on a dog of film that couldn't even hold your attention for 8 minutes? Don't apologize.

As one of your readers who commented rather harshly at you, I have to say your post-review analysis here is exemplary. I'll grant your justification for whether the review was unethical, and I applaud your decision never to review a movie without seeing it in its entirety. I am heartened that you are not so high in an ivory tower that you can't change your mind about something. It would have been very easy to stick by your guns, write off your critics with clever smart alecky remarks, but you didn't - you listened. That's awesome.

You may have been in love with your words, but in the end you proved to be more in love with your principles. This is a fantastic entry (and you're right, the commenters here are exceptional). Well done.

Fair and square.Clang! is a nice new word.I envy the fertility of your prose.

I have not seen this movie. Living in Oklahoma, there's an almost impossible chance that it will show up in a theatre. Do I try to support alternative, independent films when I can? Absolutely. Are they all good? Oh, damn no. What is the difference between a really bad indie film and a really bad mega-blockbuster? None. If you're going to judge all films as equals, and you've walked out on larger budget films before (well, Caligula), then you're neither playing favorites nor playing to the crowd -- you're doing your job. Let's be straight; anyone can make a film these days, but not everyone deserves to make a film. Messages need to be sent, but you can criticize the way the message is sent without criticizing the message. A few years ago, I had the chance to review an independent film involving Native American women, which, while I applauded the message and the attempts to get its ideas across, was distressing to watch in some parts. It should not have been made by the people who made it, but maybe couldn't have been made by anyone else. Irregardless, it's a bad movie, and I said so. It was poorly made, and the difficulty in viewing made it harder for the message to get across. What you did is Criticism, in the hopes that the people who read the review would not make the same mistakes -- using cliches and unimaginative film making to try and get something important across, and, because of the film's method -- not its message -- it failed to involve. What you did is what I would call a warning to other filmmakers -- make a bad film and it doesn't matter what you're trying to say because the audience isn't going to care. If you're going to symbolically "walk out" on a film, after how many years of sitting through boring indies, bloody awful slasher films, and Toys (Really. What a bad film), then that is a Message. In your case, I think the message was clear, and the manner necessary to put things in context and set up your point. That it was confusing to some people and maybe misinformed (not necessarily your fault, but a byproduct of IMDB's misinformation), has more to do with what people wanted you to do rather than what you did. If you're never going to do this again, that's fine, but it's too bad that so many people -- who we assume always pounce on any perceived weakness, like Tim on the British version of The Office -- decided to attack the messenger instead of the subject. I imagine this film could probably sell out in Chicago simply due to the publicity regarding this event. Hope they like it, and don't walk out. Then, they'd be hypocrites. If it is that bad, then their opinion of the film will be far worse than yours, and that will damage the film's reputation in both the short and long term. Thanks for the heads-up. And, really. Two-and-a-half stars for Toys? Only movie I've ever asked for my money back after watching (and completely unsuccessful).

Shane, I wouldn't wish "Caligula" in its entirety on my worst enemy. (He might enjoy it too much. His tastes are abominable.)

Roger, you have once again proven yourself to be one of my idols for a good reason. You made a mistake, but you did three things that many people would never do: you owned up to it; you turned it into an opportunity for growth and reflection; and you _did something about it_.

No, I wasn't crazy about the fact that you had bailed on the movie so quickly, but at the same time I could very clearly see why. (Mr. Brotman's rule of "If nothing happens in the first reel, nothing's going to happen" comes to mind.) You documented the process by which you came to the conclusion that you didn't need to see the rest of the film -- erroneous as it was -- and went back to see what you'd missed. Turned out you hadn't missed much, from the sound of it, but how else would you have known?

I'm also reminded of your experiences with "The Brown Bunny", which you reviewed twice -- once in its original, overlong and self-indulgent incarnation, and a second time in a more tightly-edited form that actually made it into a far better movie. What's more, you did it not because you wanted to take the wind out of the director's sails (or punch a hole in the bottom of his boat), but because, again, making *any* movie at all is difficult work. Getting it right is doubly difficult.

I see nothing wrong with what you did, and I see no need for you to backtrack. An engineer doesn't have to review all the blueprints for a bridge if he finds a major fault that can't be fixed on the first blueprint.

Movies have a rate of failure that would not be tolerated in any other field, especially not one with such deep pockets. Not even elsewhere in the entertainment industry is this level of failure found: in publishing, something like 75% of novels from major presses earn at least a small profit in the short term, and those that don't are often prestigious or culturally important enough to either attract new writers or earn money in the long run as the book is eventually taught in universities and schools. Similar percentages are found in music publishing (albums that don't sell a lot on average don't cost a lot to produce, although of course there are exceptions) and in the fine arts.

It seems to me that the main cause of this high rate of failure is that studios try to make a good movie out of good parts without determining whether those parts fit well together. That's like grabbing random jigsaw puzzle pieces and trying to mash them together without asking yourself if they come from the same box. I also think that because it's easier to determine the marketability of actors and directors than that of plot, pacing, and characterization, studios tend to downplay the importance of the script. They concentrate on what they can quantify.

I do feel sorry in one sense for the creators of this film, as I agree that in some respect they did not "deserve this" (although had the quality of the film been spectacular, you may have published an extremely positive review after having only seen 8 minutes).

But I applaud your review in this context. Like the creationism article, you have conducted a kind of social experiment by writing such a review. There was a purpose behind the action, and your thorough and thoughtful analysis of your own actions (and their repercussions) as well as the open forum of reader comments validates the experiment. It should not be conducted again, I agree, but it worked. It expanded discourse on the nature of criticism, public entertainment, and what makes movies great.

I enjoyed your first review and thought that revealing that all of that mess you described was only the first 8 minutes was a terrific punchline.

Still, it's great that you were honest and honorable enough to go back to a movie you did not want to see and give a full review to the whole of it. I did think there was no reason to bother with something that obviously wasn't very good and wasn't going to get any better...but the readers who argued that even a terrible work of art at least deserves to be judged and evaluated based on what's there from beginning to end were probably right.

I regularly read all of your reviews even if I have no intention whatsoever of seeing the film because they are all funny, entertaining, insightful, interesting or just good reading. As a matter of fact, you can often learn more and gain more from figuring out why a bad movie is bad than from hearing why a very good movie is good. You certainly can learn alot more about movies from a review of a terrible film than from a mediocre "eh" one.

I enjoyed reading the second review of "Tru Loved" because it gave me a very good idea of why this film failed and how (and so did the first one, actually). Like most of your reviews, it made me feel as though I had seen movie; it feels like a perfect description of what was on the screen. Even though the next 96 minutes sound pretty much exactly like the first 8, it's valuable to have a full review and to have the shorter one to compare it to.

Your readers should thank you for going this far for them :).

Roger,

You say in your new review that you wish you hadn't picked on a small indie film.

Yet I don't think you were picking on it in your first one, and bvesides, you clanged it quite a bit in this one.. something that could still be seen as picking on it.

Clang!

What I'm confused about is if your star rating and overall judgement of the film is the same or has changed now that you've decided to review the rest of it. Judging by your review it seems the same, but by your disclaimers and apologies i'm not exactly certain.

Personally, I think people are still overreacting to the partial review. As someone who often reads reviews before seeing movies, I want to know exactly how the reviewer felt about the movie. If you felt it was bad enough to walk out of after 8 minutes - or, in this case, hit STOP on the DVD player - then so be it. I think if a review by virtually any other critic was posted admitting they only watched 8 minutes, I would probably never take that review into consideration. Like many others, I have read numerous of your reviews and feel I can get a good idea for what a movie is, or at least a hint, by reading them. This is just a credibility that each reviewer has to build up, normally by actually watching movies.

However, I still have to make a decision as to whether or not I want to watch a movie after reading the review. You saying "1 Star" doesn't make the movie cease to exist. Assuming you tell us in the review, then it is instantly up to the reader to take it or leave it. I could just as easily decide that maybe the movie got better and decide to see it anyways. I agree whole-heartedly that a reviewer should state within the review whether or not they saw the entire movie. If they don't, they should be fired for being dishonest. However, I don't think there is any law that says a person must only review a movie they have seen all the way through - we only assume that is the case if not stated otherwise.

That being said, let's hit the point of your review somehow damaging the movie. If the movie truly is bad - at least in your opinion, which we all have the right to agree or disagree with - then I feel we have a right to know beforehand. You most certainly have a right to walk out on a movie, so don't feel you need to stay so you can get a review out of it. If there were some company, let's say an insurance company, charging outrageous rates for horrible premiums, I would want someone to tell me. Is that unfair to them? It's their own fault for offering a horrible product, so if they want to compete they need to figure that out the hard way. If getting horrible reviews to a first film helps a director maybe figure something out, then isn't that for the better? I applaud you for helping the cause of many good indie films, especially if that means abstaining from a review until the movie is able to get a release. But, if a movie is so inherently bad, readers have a right to know that and not have it withheld from them. Again, this is assuming full disclosure of what the review "is" within the review itself.

A review is what it is. People who review video games often don't play more than 30 minutes of a game before giving it a review. True, that's a bit different, but whatever is necessary to get the point out in a review is enough for me. Again, I think that as long as a review is honest about what it entails, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. Why is it unethical if it is honest? If people repeatedly ask for a reviewer's opinion, they need to be able to take them in both forms.

I am entertained that the user rating is at four stars right now.

Following is the letter that I forwarded to the editors of the Sun Times prior to Ebert's most recent blog and revised review. While I disagree with his opinion, I continue to hold Roger Ebert in the highest esteem. Thank you Mr. Ebert for the your honesty and integrity.
*******************************************************************
In an effort to begin with full disclosure, I am the producer of the film, "Tru Loved." I am the partner of the writer/director of the film. And, I am a life long fan of Roger Ebert.

Siskel and Ebert helped ignite my joy of films. Their sophisticated discussions and keen analyses defined quality film criticism for generations. Roger Ebert remains among the most thoughtful reviewers with a clear love of film that translates to audiences everywhere. While viewers and critics may disagree, I have found his judgement to be impeccable. His decision, however to thoroughly review "Tru Loved" after viewing eight minutes and five seconds of a 103 minute film is stunning. The review includes a fairly thorough examination of scenes, situations, and characters that he did not witness because much of what he presented in the review occurred after the first eight minutes of the film. Roger Ebert most certainly is justified to walk out of a film as is any one of us. It, however, appears to be an unusual lapse in judgement to provide a detailed journalistic review of a film that one has not seen. Roger Ebert, unfortunately, placed himself in the position of a bully involved in an unwarranted and un-informed attack of a small feature film that has made meaningful connections with communities throughout the country. I do not believe that Ebert is a bully. I believe that he simply made a mistake; experienced a lapse in judgement. And that has happened to all of us at one time or another.

I continue to celebrate Roger Ebert for his contributions to entertainment and to our society. He is a tremendous and deserving influence and I will remain a fan.

Sincerely,

Antonio Brown
Producer

Ebert: Thank you for your sincere and not unwarranted letter. I will only say that I identified the sources for any information in the first review that I did not witness in the movie.

Roger,

The "Tru Loved" quagmire was an interesting diversion, and your apology to the filmmakers was clearly heartfelt. This is all well and good, but why are "we" spending so much time on this movie, when "we" are ignoring the Answer Man column? If I don't get my weekly Answer Man fix, I get the shakes somethin' awful, not to mention heart palpitations and night sweats. How could you do that to a fellow Creationist? May God smite thy keyboard, and may ye recognize the error of thy ways! REPENT good sir!

Please consider answering this question in your next Answer Man column, whenever the heck you finally decide to get things back on track. (HA!)

Ebert: The Answer Man appears every other week like clockwork. This Friday's new headline: "Why 'rent it' is terrible advice."

Your earnest and humble reflection in this situation only goes to prove your integrity and thoughtfulness in how seriously you take reviewing movies. Give yourself a break, my friend.

Dear Roger,

It’s past 1 a.m. and I’m compelled to write in again on this topic, having just read your second review. Frankly, it’s a much better review, and very funny. Now I’m really looking forward to your “Caligula” amendment. What really got me going was your Ebert’s glossary term, “the klang.”

I recently Netflixed “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” I skipped it in the theaters because all of my friends told me how horrible it was. Now that I know the term for it, I realized that watching that movie was like incessantly hearing a drunken Ethel Merman impersonator with the amp cranked to 11 singing:

Klang Klang Klang went the trolley! Ding Ding Ding went the bell!

I can only assume that your fondness for it (3.5 stars!?!) can be attributed to an overdose of Scrooge McDuck comics in your youth and perhaps Vicodin during your recent convalescence.

Also, I had to look up the word “chasuble.” You Catholic kids, you...

I have a hard time just reading the title of that movie. I don't know how you made it through 8 minutes in the first place.

Roger:

You were right all along. You stated clearly that your review was based on the 8 minutes you watched. If a movie-goer really wants to know what the other 89 minutes are all about, they should see the movie for themselves and take your review of the first 8 minutes into account. People are so testy and high-handed these days. They really need to get over themselves. You did nothing wrong.

I hope you read this.

Take care,
Sean - Pittsburgh Pa.

I worked with and rented a room from Stewart Wade several years ago ('00 - '02) and I was stunned to come across his name like this! (At the time, he'd just completed his first short film & was sending it out to festivals.)

Unless he has changed in that time, you might feel better to know that he is a really great person, even-tempered and kind-hearted. I'm sure that he's simply gratified to be in the position to make movies, and will take your review in stride.

Maybe I'm overstepping by trying to speak for someone I haven't seen in years, but as a regular reader of yours, it's wild to have a personal connection, and I figured I'd contribute while I have something worth saying.

I applaud your honesty. More to the point, your explanations are rather moving.

There are two sides to this whole thing:

First, your reviews are archived on the net, and remain there forever, and as such can turn into short prose independent of their original intention. Most of the time, I revisit old reviews of yours (or other favourites) just to enjoy the pieces in question, and it usually has nothing to do with whether or not I am planning to see the film in question. When taken as short essays, the moral bounds about the reviews are much less tight.

However, there is the fact that a large number of your audience, possibly the majority, read your reviews on the day of, or around, a film's release. In which case, it is true, people might start to get the wrong idea.

But you hit the nail on the head when you bring up the brouhaha regarding the original creationism piece. If people are willing to relinquish analytical skill to arbitrary, and momentary, judgment, well, then that's their cross to bear.

Having said that, the fact that the film in question was an indie does introduce a further element of complication into the whole thing. But then again, our critics are our friends, for they show us our own faults, as Ben Franklin said. I think it is indie features that need the advice of a critic the most, however snarky that advice might be.

Final word: I don't think you did anything wrong, at worst, it was literary legerdemain; at best, it was a funny review.

Eh, I stick with my original points. Just because it's an indie, doesn't make it good. Just because it has a message (and yet, for the life of me, I still can't understand what this message is, other than that gay fathers are just wacky) doesn't make it good. Just because it was made with a 'heartfelt' effort, doesn't make it good.

This is bad art. You can appreciate the amount of work that goes into a velvet painting of fat Elvis (also regarded as camp) but that doesn't make it good.

This movie is bad. Bad bad bad. Insulting to the gay friends I inflicted it on as well (one of whom started his own GSA in a small town; no Australian football coaches in sight, I might add). But mostly it's just bad. And hacky. And about 90 minutes too long.

On the other hand, I suppose life is about minimizing regrets. If you regret not biting the bullet for your readership by staying through to the end of this tripe, it's your decision to make amends.

Mostly though, I wish that you had let this 'film' and your original, walk-out review, stand on its own merits, 'Tru Loved' having none, your review having lots. Other than that let bygones etc.

One more thing: Nobody who knows Roger Ebert's review track record, could possibly think he's homophobic. Siskel and Ebert were champions of progressive films about homosexuals going way back.

Roger wrote, "If I had seen the entire film, a review, however negative, would have been appropriate. But in reviewing the first eight minutes, I was guilty of too much affection for my prose."

Roger, there's nothing amiss with your having too much affection for (your) prose. One can hardly find your vanity or candor culpable when the basis of this whole matter, the thing that engendered your review, was, in fact, your expertise. Your trenchant instinct told you that the film failed, and will continue to fail, in the fundamentals. (I say trenchant because it would have taken other people more than eight minutes to get to the judgement that you had passed.) You've seen countless other superior films to know that it just won't work. I believe what happened here was that you got a glimpse of the talent of the filmmakers and saw early on that they sorely needed improvement.

I'm sure we all know that filmmaking takes a lot of pre-production planning and preparation. Even before your "infamous" 8 minutes, Roger, there had been hours and days spent by the filmmakers infusing their talents into the material. Such a process dictates that the collective talents would have already steeped the material (I'm guessing around 75% ~ 85%) by the time the camera begins to roll. Additionally, the first shooting doesn't always begin with the first scene. So, yes, I would have to say that a film's first few minutes can actually augur shoddiness or competence for the remainder of the time, especially if a lot went on during that period (of which I'm guessing IS the case of "Tru Loved").

I hope readers do not mistake this as a reproval for "Tru Loved." I definitely do not mean to imply that the film is shoddy enough to warrant disregard. Having not seen the film myself, I take Roger's word for it. He knows his trade.

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

Roger, according to Wikipedia, in 1996 you made the "Boulder Pledge," wherein,

Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community.

Now in 2008, you pledge,

I will never, ever, again review a film I have not seen in its entirety. Never. Ever.

Just asking if you already have a name for this pledge. Maybe the "Tru Loved Pledge"?

(^_^)

Mr. Ebert,

Don't worry about it. Don't beat yourself up. You introduced me to Werner Herzog. Because of you I now watch the "Three Colors Trilogy" on a yearly basis. You gave me David Gordon Green (pre "Pineapple Express", of course). Without you I would have never watched "Do the Right Thing."

You're humanity shines through your reviews. Thanks for that.

"I will never, ever, again review a film I have not seen in its entirety. Never. Ever."

I feel the same way. Life is too short to watch some movies as a regular moviegoer. But I think our responsibility as a critic almost always requires us to see the whole thing. Even if we "know" what we'll rate the film by the first reel, it is certainly possible (no matter how unlikely) even something in the final minute could change our opinion. I believe that happened to you towards the end of the Meg Ryan boxing movie "Against the Ropes" several years ago. Like your colleague Richard Roeper said, "I sit through the whole movie so you don't have to."

Roger,

I believe you to be a thoughtful and perceptive person. I often quote you or use your insights as inspiration in my writing and daily life. One thing I admire the most about you is that you're unafraid to "get your hands dirty" i.e. you're not afraid to admit you like certain less-pretentious films and genres, and perhaps more importantly, you admit where you are wrong. Your reviews have lead me to numerous films I would not have viewed otherwise and while I don't feel our tastes are particularly intune, I can ALWAYS tell by reading one of your reviews if I will enjoy a particular flick (some by your NEGATIVE reviews!).

Regardless, I think it's admirable for you to try to make amends but I commend you for your decision in the first place. You're willingness to express yourself and your position and take a risk is what sets you apart from other reviewers. You have a valuable niche in today's society and I just wanted to thank you for that.

sincerely,

Eric

I just wanted to chime in and say that I think you've done the best you could now to rectify a bad situation (that admittedly, you created). While I can understand that there are those that will harbor ill feelings after this little experiment, everybody's a work-in-progress.

Lesson learned: "Walking out of a bad movie that you intend to review, only means you have to go back and watch said movie all the way through. Thus you cost yourself the time of your interrupted showing, plus the time of your second."

I was tempted to write "knowing", seeing as I had an unintended rhyme going. Nuts, I did it again. I'm ending this. Looking forward to your next blog!

Mr. Ebert, if anyone ever asks me why I think you are head and shoulders above any other film critic, I will simply point them to this review and these two blog entries.

You have proven yourself truly honorable.

I disagree with your decision to write a second review, but I read both reviews. The first one was better. If I wasn't already aware I don't think I would've guessed that Roger Ebert had written the second one. Maybe there were time constraints or external pressures of some kind, but I don't think the review came anywhere close to reaching your usual high standards.

Either way, the first review made the movie sound bad; the second review made the movie sound atrocious. This reminds me of that story from Fight Club. There's a scene where Marla and Tyler have sex followed by Marla stating, "I want to have your abortion." The producers were upset by the line and asked David Fincher to change it. After hearing the new line ("I haven't been f***ed like that since grade school."), they wanted it changed back, but to no avail. I have to wonder if the fans of the film wouldn't be more happy with a "non-review" of a film they admire than one that makes the movie sound like a train wreck.

The crux of the matter, for me, is right in the middle of your post: "I was guilty of too much affection for my prose...Many writers are loath to see any of their immortal words be, as we quaintly say in the newsbiz, shit-canned."

As a writer myself I can definitely relate to that. It's easy to get carried away when you're on a roll (and I think that's why there's been such a proliferation of negative criticism on the Web). But I think you came to the right conclusions: the review wasn't unethical, but it was a little unfair.

Bless you, sir. I've read the added review for "Tru Loved" and now I'm pretty sure I don't want to see it. That's a big load off my mind.

By the way, does this mean you're going to finish watching "Caligula"?

Hi Mr. Ebert,

While I do think that your original review (based upon an 8-minute viewing) was just wrong, the extent of backtracking you've done here more than makes up for it.

I felt you were a little too effusive in your backtracking, however. As a professional reviewer, you realized you were originally wrong, admitted that (in my opinion) and re-reviewed the film. I don't think more should be expected from you in this regard.

As for the lady who liked the movie and was in tears, generally I've seen that people tend to like books, music and movies that they identify with, and that was what seemed to have happened here, and you should not be feeling guilty about that.

Regards,
M. Patel

stop the damage control, I liked your original review. let the critic (or average Joe) who hasn't stopped watching a movie after the first eight minutes throw the first stone.

and when did it become the agenda, duty or goal of any critic to be positive or "give the movie a chance?"

personally I've enjoyed how in the past few weeks/months you've explored your craft, and what exactly it is that you do. I think that plenty of ignorant people are reacting to this current issue

I also believe that it's your job to review a movie. whether there is no review, or it is a good review, a bad review or an uninformative review is up to the reviewer and the reader of the review.

The question I have for you Roger, is, how often do you view movies, or part of movies, and not write or submit reviews?

Is this a regular practice?

Thanks for your honesty - this blog is great!

I am tempted to introduce a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography "A man of truth must be a man of care."

I am looking forward to the next batch of reviews so this movie will disappear. Thanks for your honesty and response. I feel bad though for being part of the group that pushed you to watch the whole thing.

I am sure that those involved with "Tru loved" appreciates any publicity since it was only shown in two theaters last week, according to the weekend box office report (accessed through Yahoo Movies).

I also disagree that just because a critic gives a low rating to a movie that it means it will fail or that it won't be one I like. I truly enjoyed "Medicine Man" with Sean Connery and I think that you gave it 1 star and a poor review.

Thanks for the reviews of independent movies I look forward to seeing what you think of "Let the right one in". It seems intriguing.

I am tempted to introduce a quote from Mahatma Gandhiji's autobiography "My Experiments with Truth","A man of truth must be a man of care."

I am looking forward to the next batch of reviews so this movie will disappear. Thanks for your honesty and response. I feel bad though for being part of the group that pushed you to watch the whole thing.

I am sure that those involved with "Tru loved" appreciates any publicity since it was only shown in two theaters last week, according to the weekend box office report (accessed through Yahoo Movies).

I also disagree that just because a critic gives a low rating to a movie that it means it will fail or that it won't be one I like. I truly enjoyed "Medicine Man" with Sean Connery and I think that you gave it 1 star and a poor review.

Thanks for the reviews of independent movies I look forward to seeing what you think of "Let the right one in". It seems intriguing.

I am undecided about whether you should have published the original review, but I greatly admire the process you went through, to conclude that you shouldn't have.

I think you know *exactly* how very good you are at what you do. And yet you take the time to monitor your own behavior, watching out for mistakes you might have made and analyzing the cause of those mistakes, so that you can do better in the future. That combination of self-confidence and self-criticism is a goal to which we should all aspire. Well done, Roger!

I also come away thinking that the body of your work consists not only of a sequence of movie reviews, but as a sequence of lessons on how to be a movie reviewer.

Dear Roger,

I think the fact that you produced the first review, then the first blog entry, then reading all 500+ comments, then making adjustments as you see fit, and then producing a second review, and then the second blog entry, speaks volume in itself.

I wonder how many other movie critics would have done what you did?

Then again, that is why I come back to your reviews time and time again, and my guess is the same for many others who are with me.

If there is anything that I gathered from observing this whole event, it is that you are a thoughtful and conscious human being, and I am honored to be able to be a participant in your thought process through this blog.

Thanks.

Dear Roger,

I wish there were more people like you strategically placed world-wide.

Thank you for leading the way in accountability. When you revealed your actions and motives you included us in your integrity.

"For them it must have been like a drive-by shooting."

In this day of economic turmoil, it's probably more like a walk-by shooting. ;)

I'm glad you did the right thing by admitting that you hadn't seen the entire movie, rectified it by watching it and reviewing it both times.

The only movie on DVD that I've stopped and didn't finish was Borat. Although I laughed often, the character's actions made me so uncomfortable that after about 45 minutes, I couldn't bear the thought of watching another minute. I never bothered to write a review and I won't until I finish the movie in it's entirety, which will happen someday. Not now, not soon, but someday.

Well Roger, in all my years of film watching I have walked out of two films, "Death Ship" (1980) and "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" (2003). Unfortunately, I sat through the entire uncut version of "Caligula" (1979), though genuinely wish I had fled after the first horrifying hour. "Ghost Ship" was just bad and I wasn't in the mood. "Kill Bill" was offensive and rather dull (have since watched both Kill Bills and my opinion has not changed). What does all this mean? That in all my moviegoing years, viewing thousands of movies in all shapes and form, there is about a .00006 chance that I will walk out - and I sat through "Orca: The Killer Whale" (1977). I have the good fortune of being able to refuse to watch such films as "Funny Games" (1997) or "Salo, or the 120 Days of Something or Other" (1977), mainly because I do not get paid for it. But your good fortune comes from getting paid for it. A reviewer owes it to the reader, however disrespectful the filmmaker may be of them, to see the entire film before writing a review. That's my belief, but then again I work in PR....

I'm with Chad and Terry. I like Roger because he's Tough on Crap. There are too few people in America still qualified, and brave enough, to make these kinds of judgement calls and we consult them in order to learn, not to look for opportunities to brow-beat them into submission to our sentiments.

Ebert,

I often search your site for all reviews ranked between zero and one stars. The fact you've got a book dedicated to negative reviews suggests I'm not the only one.

So thanks for giving us two negative reviews for one movie. Out-fucking-standing.

Cheers,

Ben

Terry: Isn't the purpose of a negative review to steer readers away from that movie (as you said, "help readers in the investment of two hours of their lives")?

I don't generally like horror flicks, but "May" sounded so interesting in the review that it seemed like something I would like, and indeed, it was. But I didn't just watch it because of the star rating; I care more about the reasons for that rating.

Dear Roger,
I'm impressed with your moral fiber. I'm sure it was your conscience that sent you back to view the whole of a film that you knew would take you to the farthest shores of mediocrity.
However, I'm also dismayed by a theme from your full review and repeated in this blog entry: to wit, that all films deserve some sort of respect. I don't expect you to be the Dale Peck of film reviewing, but you know very well that anything worth doing is worth doing well and when filmmakers produce a bad film they simply haven't bothered to do well. They could have studied more great films, read more, thought more. So, the filmmakers get what's coming to them.
There are no special rules for indie films, either. It is no miracle they are produced, unless miracles have become much easier since Moses' day. You have your Fred Olen Rays who squeeze out some pretty mediocre indie stuff quite consistently. If it's awful and time is short and life piled on life were all too little, then let the indie film be consigned to oblivion, even before it gets 'a chance'. There's something pleasantly Darwinian in the fine arts.
You needn't hold any secret shame over either your first or your second review. Although I think it's morally superior that you did ultimately review the whole film, you certainly had no duty to do so (I think the word is 'supererogatory').

Oddly enough, I think a lot of people will be more inclined to watch the movie if they only read the short review. It may have been less fair, but it was funny (nice Palin dig, Mr. Ebert) and it didn’t convey quite how much of a slog the experience of watching movie seems to be. Now, I don’t ever want to go anywhere near it because I feel exhausted just from reading about it.

Thanks for the interesting blogs about a movie that does not seem all that interesting (even after reading your appended review). While I enjoyed your original take on the film, which was an entertaining departure from your typically astute reviews, I agree with those who think the review was unfair. I would even go as far as saying that you were treading an ethical line, even despite your disclosure - whether it came at the start or end of the review is redundant, assuming someone will read the entire review.

You sometimes indicate that one of your roles as a reviewer is to let consumers know whether or not a movie is worth their time and money. In your original review, you gave your negative impressions of the first 8 minutes, creating a conundrum for movie-goers: Do they wait 8 minutes until entering the theatre to see the rest of "Tru Loved", as per your implied suggestion, or do they subject themselves to 8 minutes of bad cinema and then carry on with the rest of the movie, assuming that it is only fair to watch a movie from the beginning?

At this point, how do you feel about revisting a film that clearly gave you a bad impression wihtin the first few minutes? Interestingly, your appended review for "Tru Loved" seems significantly longer than the typical Ebert review. Are you atoning for your initial reaction by spending what seems to be substantially more time writing about "Tru Loved"? If so, what does this say to you about your initial reaction? What are the potential implications for following your gut instincts based on decades of watching and reviewing films?

One other observation: Ebert gives 1 star and the average site user review is 4 stars. Ignoring the absurdity of applying star ratings to reviews, how might one interpret this? Is your review way off base because you only watched 8 minutes, or are site users attempting to right a perceived wrong?

Ethics/Smethics.

Roger, may I now complain to my newspapers when my horoscope goes hooribly awry? Man, I was supposed to find true love today....I am suing! They deceived me! Oh, wait: you are telling me that the horoscope is for entertainment purposes?

Let me just take a stab at this: your review is for entertainment purposes. I found it entertaining. You win. You are not inventing a cure for cancer or re-inventing the wheel. You are writing movie reviews. I have the ability to read or not to read them. Nothing forces me. You came clean in the review about what you did. I found that abundantly awesome. I wish I could walk out on a client when I reached my fill-point of b.s. like you did on that movie. I may try it. We should call it "pulling an Ebert". I think I am coining that phrase (TM Mickey (pending)).

If I can say one thing to you, Mr. E, from a whelp of an attorney who swims in manure most of the day, you are a writer. You write to not only to inform, but to entertain. You informed me and you entertained me, and I would opine that we share very little in common in terms of worldview. I say keep it up, and also, if another movie rots as much as you believed Tru did, bag it and tell me why the movie sucked. I am an adult and still can decide to go or not go. And if these Hollywood phonies or dime-store liberals whine and cry that you either offended them or hurt their feelings, I say you did your job. You hurt my feelings two when you gave Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones two stars, and I got over it.

Be well, my man.

This is ridiculous. You're a film critic- why are you defending, much less apologizing, for a review you've written? It's not as though you attempted to deceive the public into believing you'd seen the entire film. You hated it, you walked out, and you were honest about it, and you gave your opinion.

All of these business related questions about your effect upon the success of the film are irrelevant. Why should it be shielded from criticism merely because it was independently made? I sympathize with the fact that it's extraordinarily difficult to produce and release an independent film, but that doesn't mean you should grant such projects leeway when they, for lack of a better word, suck.

grendelkhan: What is the purpose of a review, then, if it is not to supply the reader with information about the worth of a movie, i.e., whether it's worth seeing or not? The reader of course makes his or her own decisions, and reviews do serve purposes outside of recommendation -- their own entertainment, for example -- but the fundamental (defining) purpose of a critic is to recommend/not recommend the material reviewed. The recommendation is usually implicit, not explicit (i.e., few reviews say "do/do not go see this movie). The star system is merely a heuristic device -- the judgment is contained in the review, not the star.

You are suppose to watch films and review them and I know that as a reader If I want to read one of your reveiws for a film I want you to watch the whole thing. Over the years your bias and now your arrogance has made you unqualified film critic. You are unreliable and your opinion just doesn't matter to many people anymore.

Ebert: Bias? How was I biased? Against homosexuals? Against indie films? These days the autotype function of some word processors seems to automatically enter the word bias into all sentences containing the words movie critic, liberal, or Darwin. It slipped up on reviews because you spelled it wrong.

I'm glad you managed to see the entire film eventually, but this tempest in a teapot reminds me that there are any number of reasons that I'm glad I'm not a film critic, some of which aren't worth printing.

I'm actually impressed that you gave a bad film even eight minutes to catch and retain your attention. If a film doesn't capture some part of me within the first two and a half minutes, and can't retain my attention through the end of the first five, it's a pretty clear sign that either the film was not crafted for my enjoyment and I shouldn't continue wasting my time, or that the film's creators have managed to market a product that's not worth anyone's time or money.

Was this 'just the first eight minutes' review a truly great idea? I don't know, but I know I've certainly felt deceived at having been lured into viewing a film for all the wrong reasons, so I can definitely understand. I realize that as a critic you have a larger responsibility, to review the films you see in their entirety, but let's be honest, some films have been crafted so carelessly they're not really worth the effort to write about.

Certain forms of silence can be quite deafening, and perhaps in this case, it might have been a useful tool. On the other hand, film makers have no particular right to cry foul when the audience catches on and calls their bluff, and a film critic's unvarnished first reaction can serve as a useful lesson for all concerned.

I mostly wanted to thank you for having always been honest in your reactions to the films you see, it can't be an easy task.

If I had your job, I'd have died of boredom or annoyance quite a long time ago.

I'm not sure if this was your intention, but I've been following some of your recent posts - this situation, obviously, and the creationism piece - not only as writings, but as social experiments. Yes, there were undeniably ethical issues at stake here, and maybe even some kind of effect on the immediate reputations and financial well-beings of a small group of filmmakers. These are not to be taken lightly. However, I wonder: you have written by now, undoubtedly, some billion plus reviews. Rather than add another, you instead create a venue in which substantial issues can be discussed, and essentially shake things up a little bit. I would argue that shaking things up is, in itself, generally a good thing to do, irrespective of motivation and consequence.

And yet ... it seems wrong to say that we took part in this useful and lively discussion at the expense of this particular indie film (which could be replaced with a thousand others like it). But maybe I am saying that.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but really, what is the big deal? The movie makers got some free publicity out of this "debacle"(probably more PR than a more conventional review (you probably did them a favor, frankly), and we all got to talk amongst ourselves in hushed or heated tones etc. A good time was had by all.
I may want to someday see this film that only rated 8 minutes of your time. I most likely would not have seen it anyway, though, due to living out in the suburbs and not being all that interested in Young Love.
I think you were honest (if you hadn't been--that would have been a game changer for me in terms of this issue). I also think you made a mistake--some films take more than 8 minutes to find their feet. I also think that if I were you (and how odd that would be), I would have been guilty of doing this much more (and probably have lost my--that is, your-- job because of it). So, this becomes a quirky footnote in the life and times of Roger Ebert. Ok by me....

Dear Roger,

I've been keeping tabs on this whole thing, and I wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for your thoughts in "Definitely read me second." I did not agree with your original reasoning for posting the original review, although it was enjoyable to read. I was quite dismayed upon finishing it, and then felt that many of my fellow readers were a bit off in their interpretations of why not watching the whole film was ok. This post makes me feel much better about the whole thing. I'm very glad that you've decided to only review films that you've watched in their entirety. This, I feel, is the best course of action, and, as you pointed out, is the only fair way to approach a film review.

Second, thanks for taking the time to write this extremely honest post. I know that I certainly don't find it to be any fun to have to admit when I'm wrong, and I admire the backbone it took to lay out your conclusions the way you did. I believe that all people deserve common courtesy, but respect is a different matter. It's earned, not given. I've respected you as a critic for years, but with your handling of this situation, you've earned my respect on a much more fundamental level. Even though we've never met, and may never will, I'm now convinced you're more than just a great film critic. You, sir, are an honorable man.

All the best,
-Adam

In an interesting coincidence, on the same day that I read your initial review for "Tru Love," I'd been browsing your "At the Movies" archive and came across Siskel and your discussion of the Chris Farley (erm) comedy "Black Sheep." Siskel admitted to walking out before the film's finish, and he seemed to feel a little guilty about it. You responded, "It's not wrong as long as you admit that you did it." I read your "Tru Love" review as maintaining that rule, and I initially thought little of it. Though it did prompt my initial question to you, about how long you'd have lasted through the "Duece Bigalo" sequel if it had come on a DVD screener; I was surprised at your admission that you'd have finished it. Could "Tru Love" truly be more grueling an experience than "Bigalo"? If you'd hit the pause button for such a wretched film, could you have really brought yourself to press play again?

The pause button indeed is a powerful weapon, I think. It halts the movie for us, bringing us back into the real world. The pause button can be sobering, and its power can be absued. For my own website, I only ever stopped watching one film that I ended up reviewing (Dario Argento's "Phantom of the Opera"); I hit the pause button at about the 40-minute mark to have a bowel movement, and I couldn't bring myself to press play again when I realized that the bowel movement had been more interesting and rewarding. Besides, I was confident that the film wasn't going to get any better, and it took the pause button to help bring about this conclusion. Still, 40 minutes is well enough into the film to make that call; many of your readers didn't think 8 minutes was far enough. Nevertheless, as long as you admitted it, I felt you hadn't cheated.

But in retrospect, I suppose two things started to bother me about your line of reasoning: 1) As other readers noted, regardless of your admission, that review was going to end up appearing as a grade on Metacritic and Rottentomatoes, and that hardly seemed fair if it was being weighted against critics who watched the whole film. Right now, Metacritic has your review with the quote, "Tru Loved as a movie is on about the same level as a not especially good high school play." Do they owe it to their readers to let them know you didn't see the entire film? Is that their responsibility? I'm not sure. 2) This next one was difficult to articulate, but you nailed it in this blog entry: After you hit the pause button, you reasoned, "There's my review right there." Fair enough, but do we watch movies simply so that we can write a review for them? If so, that's kind of like doing a book report for a class assignment having only read the sparknotes. You might get a passing grade, but it's only busywork. What about the book? As you've noted, it takes a miracle for a movie to be made, especially indie films. So there's your review, but what about the film?

Excellent post. I must once again say that this is the kind of transparency journalism needs, and blogs can offer. You've used your blog to its fullest capacity with these last two posts.

I bow to your ethics and candor, sir. Not many in your stature would humbly admit to a mistake and amend what they feel a faux pas, and that is refreshing.

Curiosly, I find myself less interested in the film after reading your in-depth full-length critique than I did after perusing the swifter, looser commentary on the 8 minutes. However, I didn't even finish reading the longer review. I'd heard all I needed to know, and, quite frankly, the first review was all I needed to read.

My opinion has not changed. I still won't see the film. If anything was detrimental to the film's progress, it was it's own failings, not the review, and I trust you, Roger Ebert, to inform me of flaws that make a film less competent. That is why I, and countless others, read your reviews: you define what we feel as an audience. As I mentioned in another review, I have a confidence in your abilities as a competent critic to knowingly warn me of a movies blemishes or highlight points of radiance. The first review did just that, and even though it covered a mere 8 minutes of footage, the fact that the second review, of which you sat through the entire thing, was basically an elongated paraphrase of the same review, proves that you knew what you were talking about all along.

Having not seen the movie in question, any commentary I can offer here is obviously limited to my opinion on your reviews.

I appreciated the initial review for your witty writing style; the 'punchline', as you call it, was well executed. Even more, though, I appreciate your follow-up comments. A sincere apology is a difficult thing to write or say, particularly in such a public forum. Your honestly was refreshing, and much appreciated.

The addition does weaken the writing in your review, but it's also quite a bit more convincing in the negative than the original review. Not only were the first eight minutes unimpressive, but in the addition, the movie doesn't improve enough to make you change your mind.

Thank you for both reviews and blog entries, and more importantly, your honest opinions.

Dear Roger,

I'll keep it short, since you have a lot of comments to read! Thank you for updating your review of the movie. I think that was fair, and I think it's admirable of you to respond to so many of your readers' comments. I'm glad you more thoroughly explained your reaction to Tru Loved. I enjoyed it, but I do hope Stewart Wade takes the constructive criticism to heart for his next movie.

i'm kind of humorously sickened and outraged that you should have to apologize or publicly display regret over your review. i love your negative reviews (and i'm not alone, or you couldn't have published a book full of them) and find them at times as illuminating as the positive. (as long as you are not trashing a film i love, which, by percentages, doesn't happen as often.)

i agree with the concept that if money is being charged, reviews and honesty are necessary. so what if it's an indie? despite the fact that the perpetrators may not be rich, may in fact be struggling, why they should be coddled if what they've made is crap? what gives someone a right to spend a year and thousands of dollars to make crap? if you're going to go to the trouble of putting a film out to the world, it ought to be good! or at least make every effort at quality. if the film is as cliched and groan-inducing as you say it is -- isn't that in fact HARMING the dual causes of gay rights and indie filmmaking?

OR -- if it doesn't matter, if the filmmaker and the audience are not on the same page with the reviewer and the conventions of "film" (classic example: tyler perry's film), and that isnt' a bad thing, then why worry? i really doubt the review had much impact on the target or potential audiences.

Ebert: Uh... two books.

roger,

two things:

1. you did as baseball umpires and football referees sometimes do - you put yourself ahead of the game and forgot that without the game, you wouldn't be there ("there" meaning such an intricate and integral part of the world of film").

B. you were not the first nor will you be the last to do so.

a quote - "i always admire a man who does great things, and i admire him more if can admit when he hasn't."

- me

I can't speak for others but I am sitting here with a bag of popcorn reading this blog. This stuff is amazing!!!! The give and take, back and forth of the original review and subsequest blog and then the re-review and then this blog with the mea culpa????? OMG this is fascinating!!!!!!!
Roger you are an amazing critic and you are an even better person. It is an honor to read your words and I am a lifelong fan. I also think your friend Gene is up there smiling. Thanks for your time and please keep up the exceptional work.
Bill

I see nothing wrong with reviewing what you have seen of a film when you disclose that context.

You have nothing to be ashamed or regretful about Roger. I can't imagine one review crushing a film or a filmmaker even if it is someone as prolific as yourself.

I don't know what the whole fuss is about. If the first eight minutes of a film are not only boring, but horribly executed, there is almost no reason to continue watching it. Even if you think you shouldn't have written the review or if you think you should have finished the film, I think that all the people here who are flaming you need to realize that you are a person. No one can sit through a piece of garbage for 2 hours; even if you did, I would consider it worse to only pay attention to the first 8 minutes but watch the whole film than it is to only see the first 8 minutes and admit it. So, in short, I personally don't think you made a mistake, a reviewer must speak his mind (as you always say) no matter how negative, but I think that everyone has to get past it.

Admitting that you are wrong is truly difficult. I am glad that you have done so openly.

In theory, I am disappointed to see that you had faulted a movie after only eight minutes. There are many films that are easily understood to be a waste of time 30 seconds after the title is displayed, but judgment should be reserved until all you have all of the facts.

That being said...you eight minute review was honest. Honesty, no matter how painful, is preferable to all else. I enjoyed reading your eight minute review; it was quite witty and succinct.

Just think, if you had not written that review, all of these comments would have never been digitally created. That would be the real loss here.

...Now, that's psychiatry!

Welcome back. You've done everything as repromised and to all that read the review while considering watching the movie...you are not supposed to do that!..., don't you like surprises?!

Eh.

If there's ever a sequel to Caligula, I will allow you to sit through 2/3rd of it before walking out, like you did for the original.

Yeah, 8 minutes is....A little too not enough time, to coin a phrase.

I avoided commenting last time because....Well, you told us. Every movie has people who love it and worked hard on it. Even Caligula!

And a negative review can hurt ANY movie's chances. Isn't that part of the point?

-Nighthawk

I disagree with Brian, your reviews matter to me, Roger. I actually trust rogerebert.com over the aggregates compiled on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.

Sometimes we cannot choose the movies we end up seeing. In such cases even if I know my next two hours are going to be hellish, it helps when there's a Dante so I have some inkling of what it'll be like. I guess you sort of turned away at the gates on this one, but I must say it has taught me a lot as a reviewer. While I initially sided with your original post I feel now that I could never review a book that I did not actually read. If ever I am given something that I cannot finish, I shall send it back and write nothing.

By the way, I was confused when you called 'American Carol' a Michael Moore satire, until I realized it was not a satire BY that director but rather a satire ON him.

I always get a kick out of your negative reviews and I thank you for providing two great reads. I wasn't offended, so much as baffled, as to why, out of the hundreds of horrible movies you've seen, you decided to walk out on this one.

This is a great democratic forum----just as a critic is not a mere passive reflector like the moon,a blog can enlarge the process of dialogue to a wide circle of persons connected by some common thread.It's a creative,transformative,affirmative,joyful and soul enhancing encounter---excuse clangs!,if any!

Mr. Ebert, I promise you that Stewart Wade is jumping for joy because of this -- the mere fact that you know his name probably does it for him. He is an obscure indie filmmaker who made a bad film that will now sell because of your review and as bad as the film may be he can hide behind it's intentions (a very sensitive subject at hand) thereby becoming immune to any serious public blows -- enabling him to build a career. Good for him. Should he contact you he'll of course play the victim who tried to make a film with a good message, politely accepting your apology. I though your initial review was brilliant and showed everyone why you're still the best film critic in the world; why shouldn't a film review be entertaining? I understanding helping indie films but at what cost? If a film is bad then it's bad.

I'm impressed that you've admitted that it may have been wrong to pick on a small independent film and that you've rightly pointed out what an acheivement it is to make any movie at all.

However, I don't understand this idea that small films should be championed. *Good* movies should be championed, regardless of who and where and how made them.

Michael Phillips and Richard Roeper once briefly argued on the show over an ambitious independent movie that failed to pass muster. Although they both gave it thumbs down, Roeper called it among the worst movies of the year and thrashed on it pretty heavily. Phillips then defended the movie and asked Richard to "save his bile" for big studio junk and not an independent movie that tried something different and failed nobly.

Well, yes and no. Dreck is dreck and an incompetently made, pretentious or hollow independent movie is just as offensive and distasteful as any witless action flick.

There's no reason to spare a cheap Sundance imitation that'll waste two hours of your life and bore and annoy you. Not if it was made with the best intentions in the world.

This blog is a living thing! It's a jostling crowd,a noisy tavern---may one raise a toast to the health of the courteous host!

Dear Roger,

If I may be so bold and address your one-act play about Bill and Hillary and Obama...I hear Hillary responding to Bill in this fashion about whether she should accept Obama's offer of an appointment as Supreme Court Judge...

Bill (pauses, then thoughtfully): Hillary, I'd do it. Three things. One, it gives you an important role in the country's future. Two, it solidifies your place in history. Three, no more goddamned campaigning.

Hillary (pauses): Here's my three. One, a supreme court judge is always on defense. Two, the time is ripe for action and I want to be a part of it. Three, to hell with history. We already burned that bridge.

I hate to open a comment this way just because it sounds awfully . . . trite, I suppose, but I am a gay teenager, and I often am dumbstruck at the state of 'gay cinema'. I've seen a few gay themed movies, and I don't think I've ever seen one that could conceivably be called funny, touching, or romantic.

Well, perhaps I should say I've never seen a 'gay film' clearly made for gay audiences that fit those adjectives. Wong Kar Wai's Happy Together is one of my absolute favorite films, but I suspect that is because it was made with the intention of being a great film first and foremost. It doesn't think that being gay is a particularly interesting thing. The characters ARE gay, and their romance is troubled. But their romance is troubled because they're in a Wong Kar Wai movie, not because they are gay.

Just my two cents.

Hello Mr. Ebert:

I have been following the progress of this movie review since it was published last week. I didn't know what to say about the subject because at the time, I felt you had done the right thing and I didn't give a second thought as to why. But with this new blog entry, and your admission that you went back and reviewed the whole film, I realized what it was coming to: always give films a full chance, then review them.

I do write movie reviews in my spare time on my MySpace blog and very rarely do I not write about a movie that I haven't seen in its entirity. Some films though can be so torturous (like this year's "21") that they only make me angry to such a point that I can't bare to review the film without being so negative. I have no problem being negative if I have to be, but if the film makes me mad, then we do have a problem.

It is highly possible that I will see "Tru Loved" at some point, but I always enjoy reading your movie reviews because even if it's a movie I loved and you hate, I'm always open to reading your opinions on it, even when I think your wrong. It's all about an opinion, and if someone doesn't agree, it doesn't mean it's the real truth. This past summer saw "The Happening" getting trounced on by every critic and moviegoer in the country except by people like you, a friend of mine from Pittsburgh, and myself. I'm pretty sure we're not alone in our defense of that film, but as I went on to say, "It's not exactly a bad film, it's just a film with limited appeal." A lot of films are like that. Hell, even this film probably suffers from that, but every film has an audience, and no matter what, it will be found.

I think these last two blogs and your review(s) for this particular film has reaffirmed why you will always remain the consummate movie reviewer. You love movies, and you made clear that you'll go back to something to finish watching it, no matter how bad it is. I have never walked out on a movie, but I have turned off films I have started watching on TV, only to finish them at another point. I do my best to never give up on anytthing, but in the process of two reviews, you managed to say that you stopped watching the movie at 8 minutes, and then proceeded to go back and watch the rest. Any movie critic that can admit that he has done that is a truly brave man. And in that regard, that's what you are, Mr. Ebert. And for the record, I loved "North", but I was 10 at the time. I didn't understand the term "insulting your intelligence" at the time. Now I do and I see where you're coming from. Your review for that film will always be a classic, even if there are people out there who actually love that film.

--Nicholas Vargo

I enjoyed reading the original review (as well as all of the aftermath) but I'm still a bit confused by your rationale for its structure. You've said twice now that you wanted to reproduce the thought process you went through while watching the film, but your review contains information that you learned from IMDB. I don't see how the IMDB information could possibly be a part of your thought process unless you were browsing through the film's IMDB page as you watched the movie.

Ebert: I reproduced the thought process but not the writing process, which of course followed.

Dear Roger;

Please correct me if I'm way off base here, but I get the distinct impression that you've sort of put yourself out there on the plank so to speak, and that there was clearly no need to do so. You could just as well have easily seen the "Tru Loved" film in its entirety without expending much effort and had written an appropriate review. And while I understand that it is your job as a critic to technically see every film, I still enjoyed reading your response to the backlash regardless of any facts regarding the recent review or lack of one.

I believe what I'm trying to say is, don't feel that you need to somehow justify yourself to the public or apologize in any way; either for falsely representing yourself and your work or vise versa. After some of the stuff you've done, the film makers should be catering to your needs as to why their film didn't meet your expectations in the moment. Forgive me if I'm out of line or wrong when I say this.

The point is, we've all seen movies or been through experiences that we've either walked out of or liked to forget. I once read in fact that you once wanted to walk out of a slasher film, since you had mentioned that the audience was getting cheap thrills out of it and it offended you. You resisted the temptation and proceeded to finish the film anyway. I recall you wrote having left with a sense of remorse and felt sorry for the audience. Personally, I'd like to forget having ever watched "Salo: 120 Days of Sodom" and "B.R.A.T.Z." or any of those dreadful "Saw" pictures that seem to come out every Halloween. Personally I think there's something wrong with a movie-going public when their main form of movie entertainment is watching other people torture one another on screen. Trash is still Trash, no matter how you dress it. I for one believe that if an experience is harmful to a person's attitude, their beliefs or emotions, I think that they should separate themselves immediately (in most instances). People in fact do it all the time without even realizing it. I'm sure you've attended weddings when the bride or grooms didn't go through with the ceremony due to cold feet, but I'm slipping off-topic here.

As for all those people out there who feel you are either unqualified, baised or off-base or rusty; I'd advise you to not listen to people like that for several reasons.

Reason #1) Its impossible for any person not to be just a little bit biased 90% of the time. Of course, those so-called biases could be referred to as inclinations, tastes or collective wisdoms. We as people each share our own ideas about certain things. For example, I don't enjoy watching Sports very much, nor do I condemn those who treat American Football like a form of religion.

#2) I believe that you're more than qualified to do what you do for two reasons. A) Nobody seems to love movies more than you do. And B) Judging by your actions in writing this blog response to your review, it seems to me that you're a person of high integrity and moral standing in terms of being honest about what you do.

#3) People in this world are quick to criticize others. Most of the time that is due to their own lives being a wreck, or because they themselves have not measured up to their own standards. Believe me when I say this, that all criticism stems from personal inadequacy. If everyone was cool with themselves all the time, we'd have no need to poke fun at our neighbors. If our current Presidential election doesn't convince you of that, I don't know what will.

I'll say one more thing, you made an excellent point when you said that you only reviewed that single portion of the movie. You said that: we were on our own for the rest of it. Which, I'd say is a pretty profound way of saying, judge things for yourself, which is the goal of all criticism: to make clear what is worthy and to possibly illuminate to others that they themselves are often the best judge and that they should not rely on word of mouth or authority to tell them so.

So you see Roger, you did you're job well I think. Nothing at all to fret about.

Reading the Tru Loved re-review reminded me how much I miss Gene Siskel. I liken this movie review to your review of Masterminds, which is easily one of my favorite written reviews. Masterminds is also an awful movie you had a hard time concentrating on. The interplay between Gene and you, though, when you are reviewing it on the air is truly the best "At the Movies" review ever. I despair that the world will never know what a joy it is to hear Gene just cut straight to the heart of a movie and say exactly what he feels, i.e. "This is when it gets rough." Wow, Siskel & Ebert & Tru Loved, one can only imagine. I admire your integrity Roger, and that is why I am a fan.

And the new show should really be called..."Nowhere Near the Movies"

When I read the review of tru loved and then your blog entry tittled "Don't read me first" I was of course not offended, because you admitted that you had only seen 8 minutes and, although I felt it was made as some kind of crazy experiment, I didn't feel it was unethical.

I read some comments saying that you didn't see some movies you reviewd and that in showed in your reviews, but i didn't agree with them; I have read some mistakes in your reviews, but they were not great mistakes that made me think something like that.

The reason for me writing this comment is your review of tropic thunder, wich made me go to see the movie yesterday. I was surprised with it, because the plot in the movie was different to the one I remembered reading in your review, so I re-read it and found some significant mistakes in it:
(spoilers)
1) You say Speedman's Simple Jack role saves "their" lives when they're taken prisioner, when it only saves his.

2) You say "Speedman, acting as producer, fires the crew and announces he will direct the movie himself", wich is completely wrong. He even thinks that Cockburn is directing for long after he dies. He, for example, screams to him to cut the scene when he is being tortured.

3) "[Speedman] explains that hidden cameras have been placed in the jungle and will record everything that happens". Cockburn explains that.

4)"These actors, even the five-time Oscar winner, almost seem to believe so, a tribute to their self-centered indifference to technical details". Lazarus, the ive-time Oscar winner is always completely sure that Cockburn is dead and that they are not filming a movie. That's why he makes Speedman to stay down when the terrorists fire at them and then he takes the map away from him.

I, of course, am not saying that you didn't see the film, as I cannot know it (nor I want to believe it, as I in some way admire you, as the only movie critic I find woth reading), but I'm saying that, at least in this particular review, you were not much careful at its writing. Things like this may have the quality to make people think that you don't see the movies that you review. I don't know if what I just wrote is out of place in this blog entry, and if it is not, I'm sorry.

P.S. Pardon my bad English, as I was not born as an English-speaker.

Terry: The recommendation is usually implicit, not explicit (i.e., few reviews say "do/do not go see this movie). The star system is merely a heuristic device -- the judgment is contained in the review, not the star.

Man alive, you have a lot of integrity. Thanks for this.

You published the review with the considered conviction that it was just, and, through discussion, came to change your mind. You made things right.

I don't think a person can be expected to do more.

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there." - Rumi

Oh, Mr. Ebert, please don't feel like a jerk! You did your job to the best of your capacity, and you wrote an honest review that reflected the emotional journey the film took you on. You have sat through some of the most insufferable pieces of garbage known to man, had your eyeballs and intelligence assaulted by some of the most un-holy images I can imagine, and you did it all so we wouldn't have to. I think you're allowed at this point in the game to say one in a while "Ya know, I just don't feel like watching this" (my girlfriend decided after five minutes that she didn't like Bringing up Baby...Bringing up Baby for Pete's sake!). Personally, I can usually gauge how I'm going to feel about a film within a few minutes or even seconds, as I can usually tell fairly quickly if I am going to appreciate the film's visual language or not. Life is too short for bad movies.

However, the fact that you have changed your review and gone back to review the whole film shows the kind of critic you are, and more importantly what kind of person you are. You recognize how your words affect so many people, and you are sensitive to this power. A lesser man would have told the film and its fans to stuff it. But you take the moral high road and correct any wrongdoing in the interest of fairness, and in the interest of doing your job as well as you possibly can. After all these years, you continually find new ways to impress me.

Moral of the story, you're a good man and a good critic and you shouldn't think otherwise!

I've had conflicting thoughts about this "Tru Loved" situation from the beginning.

1. If any other critic had reviewed only eight minutes of a movie, we'd all be crying bloody murder. But Roger has gotten a pass in some circles because of his impeccable credibility. Granted, he has earned that credibility. Still, I can't help but feel slightly squeamish and hypocritical that we are affording leeway in this instance just because Roger is a Pulitzer Prize winning writer and, more personally, someone we've spent years with on TV and in print.

2. If I had worked on the film in any capacity, I'd be crushed by the review (as Roger himself has admitted by likening his actions to a "drive-by shooting"). However...

3. Irrelevant or not, the controversy surrounding the movie has undoubtedly helped it. So far, we've had (1) the original review, (2) TWO blogs about it, and (3) an additional review added to the end of the original. Any indy film would die for that kind of publicity. If "Tru Loved" was gunned down in a "drive-by shooting," it has since awoken from a coma in miraculous fashion.

The bottom line: Like "The Brown Bunny" or even "North," I believe MORE people will give "Tru Loved" a chance because of Roger - out of curiosity, if nothing else. The film may not ever be financial success, per se, but I think more people will SEE it. That's ultimately what any artist hopes for. When all of the heat dies down, I think everyone involved in the movie will look back on this incident with a certain fondness because it ultimately exposed their work to a wider variety of people than otherwise possible.

Last week, when your first review was published, it was one of only six reviews posted on the rottentomatoes site for this movie. Now, one week later, there are still only NINE reviews posted for this movie. So, while you should have fist reviewed the movie in its entirety (if you reviewed it at all), the resulting debate is surely BY FAR the best thing that could have happened to this movie, which opened on TWO screens last week.

I appreciate your taking the time to review the movie in its entirety, but your conciliations should have stopped there. If a movie deserves a review in the first place, then it deserves whatever that review dishes out, and whatever that review does for its box office chances is irrelevant. And if a movie is utter crap, there is no need to force yourself to imagine what someone else could possibly see of value in it. You are reviewing YOUR experience, as you have often noted before.

Because a lot of people are commenting on what the role of a critic should be, I want to say that I read your reviews because I like reading your writing and I like movies. I don't always agree with your opinions, but I like reading what you have to say. Do I use your reviews, in part, for guidance? Absolutely. But, honestly, I defer more frequently to the consensus of rottentomatoes.com than to any one critic's review. But now we're getting off track. My point is that your reviews are worth more to me than a simple recommendation. I read your reviews and your books because you write about something that interests me, you're interesting, and you're the best at what you do.

When first I heard that you turned the movie off after eight minutes, you kind of entered into a group of people I generally detest: the kind of people who turn off movies after eight minutes. I worked at a video rental counter years ago and nothing aggrevated me more than to have a customer return a movie with a sneer and say “I got bored so I turned it off after five minutes”. Most of the time they were snubbing good movies. Your bail-out was a movie you found to be a turd. So I can’t really blame you.

But I’m over my initial shock. You once wrote “Don’t waste time watching a movie you’re probably not going to enjoy” and I think that’s what you’ve done. I’m back and forth on this issue because part of me says that you should stick it out and another part of me says don’t lose 90 minutes on garbage.

I read both reviews and they sound (in context) similar although I did notice that the second review goes into more length and detail than your normal review of most movies whatever the verdict.

Was this out of guilt?

Mea culpas are rare in today's media, so I appreciate how openly you express regret over your eight-minute review. On one hand, I didn't think you were at fault since you were honest in that you only viewed eight minutes of the film, and the attention from this small controversy is probably more publicity than the film would otherwise have gotten. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity; that's not always true, but sometimes it is.

On the other hand, "Tru Loved" isn't the latest effects orgy from Michael Bay or the latest cynical schlock exploitation film, in which cause your guilt might have been mitigated. (I know mine would have.) It's a small independent film whose makers probably had the best of intentions and deserved at least the consideration of having their film screened and reviewed in its entirety. In addition, those of us who use Metacritic notice that your recorded rating of the film dragged down its average dramatically, and they didn't include a little asterisk explaining that your single star applied to less than 10% of the movie. That undoubtedly would have a damaging effect on the film's chances for success.

Perhaps there is a middle ground. If it was unfair to publish your thoughts on those eight minutes as a full-fledged review, maybe it would have been better off as a separate essay, and following your punchline you could have opened the floor to opinions about walking out of films early.

Why did your editor publish this review in the first place? You clearly state that she had reservations about this review. If you have power to publish over your editor, then why have an editor at all?

Ebert: Oddly enough, she publish it! I didn't see the physical paper because we are at a health spa in Mexico right now. Only found out yesterday. She says the decision was finally inevitable because of a lack of space for so many reviews on Friday.

Wow, really opened up a can o' worms on this one didn't ya Rog? Well. Time heals all wounds and while I don't agree with posting the review... in some bizarre way I think this has SERIOUSLY helped the film. I'm actually interested in seeing this thing now since it's stirred up so much controversy. Perhaps only in a sick Mystery Science Theater 3000 way, but still... I'm interested.

After reading your second review it sounds like an even worse movie. Crazy.

I guess I should note that Tru Loved won the audience award at PIGLFF, which is solely based on balloting by the paying audience. This seems to be a clear case of a film which resonates with the gay & lesbian audience. You'll note that there are also many award winners at Sundance and other film festivals which baffle critics. In any case, I love all the writing that you've done around this film, demonstrating what I've long suspected: It's a lot more fun to write about a 1-star film than a 4-star film.

When I was working as an usher at a movie in 2000 I think I had a rule that I'm not sure applies to every theater, which is that if you walk out of a movie at around the 15 minut point then you still get a refund. It depends...but I'm sure it is a pretty flexible deal. Only one person came up to me, personally, to request a refund, and it was for "The Legend of Drunken Master", starring Jackie Chan, and he said he was insulted by the movie. I wanted to tell him he was crazy, but just said ok if its only been about 15 minutes into it. He is just not a fan. Drunken fighting (or boxing) is for Kung-fu movies what Superman is to super heroes...that super hero inside all of us.

It is never wrong to apologize. But it is sometimes unnecessary. This is one of those times. Your original review fairly reflected your opinion of the movie, and fairly warned the reader that it was based on the first eight minutes. This faithful reader, for one, is confident you would not make such a radical decision unless the amateurish quality of the production was beyond any hope of redemption. Those who disagree had the information they needed to go and see for themselves.

I'm surprised no one has yet quoted the exchange between George Bernard Shaw and a young playwright who asked him to attend and critique the premiere of his new play. Shaw reported he'd dozed off.

Playwright: But I asked you to review it!
Shaw: Young man, sleep IS a review.

Is there some reason you could not run for national office? Sincerely, this country needs/deserves candor, honesty and someone remotely capable of reflection.

I don't feel it is necessary to create some unwaivering rule that you will never, ever review a film that you have not seen in its entirety. Personally, I WANT to know if a movie is so bad it made you walk out (or stop the DVD player, that is). Why suffer through additional hours of terrible film-making just to "earn" the right to publish a bad review?

Your duty as a film critic is to your readers, not to the film-makers and producers and actors. To the film industry, you are a marketing tool. They do not want honesty; they want hype. To your readers, you are a guide. You provide trusted opinion. All we ask is that you remain truthful about your impressions, and we'll take it from there.

I say you SHOULD walk out if you want to and do so more often. In fact, that should be your new lowest rating: Below a 1/2 star or no-star rating... below the tired "Thumbs Down"... there lies the dreaded "Walked Out at X minutes." I think that would be hysterical; but maybe that's just me.

I suppose I am most concerned that this incident, along with your desire to encourage independent film-making, will now cause you to give too much credit to movies that do not deserve it. I hope this won't be the case.

You know, Mr. Ebert, for years, I have read your reviews - not religiously, but as the only individual film critic that I pay more than momentary attention to.

Even when I disagree with your conclusions, an event whose frequency depends largely on the genre of film reviewed, I have always found your reviews to be AT LEAST serious, lucid, well-informed, and often bringing to light elements I did not notice.

I disagree with you politically; and most likely would disagree with you on many, many things outside of the world of film.

But you are a serious student of film, and within that scope, even when I disagree with your conclusions, I am never left without a sense that you respect the material, even in cases where the director or screenwriter clearly did not.

I was, therefore, annoyed to read the "eight minute" review; I felt it was a cop-out. If you hated the film, and absolutely could not force yourself to remain in the theater, then that should have been your review in its entirety.

But here, you have proved once again that, regardless of the stances you hold which differ from mine, you are a serious professional, and you bring credit to your profession, which has sadly otherwise brought little credit to itself.

Whatever may be said about you, Mr. Ebert, you have done well here; I don't believe this will affect your reputation, other than to highlight that you are a man willing to admit when he has made a mistake - all too uncommon these days, and valuable by virtue of its rarity.

I have only a couple of comments:

1) The partial review 'outrage' has helped this movie more than any positive press could. The directors should thank you.

2) After thousands(!) of reviews, I think you should be allowed your Mulligan. I view the rest of the critics lambasting you as I would view Britney Spears saying Bach was a chump.

However, I liked how you handled the feedback, and you probably did what was right by giving another hour and a half of your life away. But don't let them get under your skin, they aren't worth the worry.

Thank you for this entry. "Tru Loved" isn't a movie I would ever be likely to see (based purely on limited time) but the dual reviews you provided have been one of the highlights of your column for me this past week. The intelligence of your writing makes it worth reading and your willingness to apologize shows that personally you're a class act as well.

Even if the review of the film wasn't all-encompassing, you made it very clear that it was not meant to be. I am not sure why you feel the need to explain yourself to your audience. You treat us like well-informed, thoughtful people, and that is why we read you and buy your books. I, and my boyfriend, read your reviews because of your excellent prose and I found this particular review to be particularly entertaining and thought-provoking.

We usually base our viewing habits on the film trailer or prior knowledge about the actors or makers of a film. Occasionally, if you say that you connected with some part of the movie, it will give us extra impetus to want to see it in the theater than on the small screen. We especially value that you usually try to tell your audience what entertained you about a movie, even if you end up giving it a negative review. We respect your honesty; so when we walk into a film that you spoke well of but that we didn't enjoy, we can usually say "well, I didn't like the film, but Ebert was right about X."

Pick any film in this history of film and it is going to speak to someone. Your last line about the woman to whom the film spoke, my guess is that any flick about two moms would have spoken to her, no matter how good or bad the film was. But if that is what you care about as far as movie reviews go, at least let it be a GOOD film that tries to change people's minds about lesbian and gay parents. I feel that you're doing way too much defending, and something that should have been a fun enterprise has turned sour. It will still remain a favorite review in my book. You're one of my favorite writers, and thank you for trusting me to have the intellectual capacity to make my own decisions about film viewing!

Roger, you didn't do anything wrong. You clearly stated in the original review that you only saw 8 minutes of the movie. I've read many reviews from other critics who got specific plot points of a film COMPLETELY WRONG. I have a suspicion that several critics are absent for entire sequences. Probably getting popcorn, taking an extended restroom break, or asleep in their chair. And they don't have the integrity to admit it at the end of the review. This has been blown way out of proportion.

With respect to Roger Ebert, who cares? People walk out of movies all the time. If those eight minutes were that bad, then he had every right to walk out. I don't buy into the whole because it's an indie film you automatically have to like it, or have to give it some glowing review in hopes that more people see it. That's what DVD is for. The only thing critics shouldn't do is give away the endings to movies in their reviews. Other than that, let's find more important things to worry about.

Oh, you will never rid yourself of this! This review (and its baggage ) is the equivalent of a sex tape. It sounded like fun when you embarked on it, then you wished you never did it. Ultimately, you'll reap some kind of gain out of it. I just don't know what it might be.

Lemme know when it arrives.

There are a few things I am bothered with in this whole chain of events, so I'll go one by one.

First of all, I don't believe you were wrong to review the film as you did the first time, in the fashion and order and tone you did it.

Second, in my opinion, a critic's job is not to advocate for a film, but rather to as objectively as possible present a film for the reader, augmented by that critic's experiences, knowledge of the medium, and social awareness. Now where this gets interesting, for the reader at least, is that no person can be completely objective, and therefore in some form integrates his or her own self (beyond those three elements) into the review. Thus the critic is angered, or effusive, or enthralled, or heart-broken.

I feel you Mr. Ebert have been pressed into a rather unfortunate position. Some of your peers have decried your original review, and you for that matter, as somehow harming the profession. This is of course baseless, and rather evidences their own self-interest - they condemn you in order to preserve and enhance their position relative to you, and they also neglect (unlike many of the intelligent readers and commenters here), to measure this single review against the pattern of your greater corpus.

Thus, the single mistake made by those who look unfavorably at this situation is seeing it as an isolated event, which robs it of its significance (that you don't do this often) and its relevance (that you were not in a particularly intolerant mood, but that this was to you, actually a bad movie).

You're job is not to be omnirepresentative - you don't like a movie, I may like it. You cited the reader who was very touched by the film - good for her, but for you to express anything but the true manner of your reaction would be false at best, disingenuous and deceptive at worst.

And finally, considering your apology to those involved in the movie - it is undeniably genuine, but I wish it weren't so. Why? Film is not an insular creation - it is meant to in some way touch upon the soul within us, to challenge us to reconcile its presentation of "a" world with our view of "the" world. In other words, the watching of a film is an inherently reactive experience - its relevance is attained in the degree to which it encourages us, touches us, incites us, unnerves us, and in how aware we are of those reactions. Therefore, for me at least, the purpose of the critic is to react, and to document that reaction, for good or for ill, such that my experience in seeing the film is all the more textured and multifaceted. And for me, there is no requirement of time before the film, only a requirement of genuineness, which sadly Mr Ebert it seems you have been pressured to deny - even repent for.

Yes, you should have viewed the entire film before reviewing it, but don't be too hard on yourself. You've done more to enhance the art of film criticism than anyone else of your generation. You are only human, and you are entitled to an occasional mistake. I'm sure that most of your fans, at least, will forgive you.

Wasn't it Spyros Skouras who said, "If nothing happens in the first reel, nothing is going to happen"? I have found that invariably, if a film doesn't at least grab my interest in the first reel, it isn't going to grab my interest in subsequent reels either. Furthermore, if the first reel of a film is badly made, it's not likely to get better in the remaining reels.

Time and money are both precious. I don't want to waste my time and money on a bad film, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to waste your time on a bad one, either.

As a long-time reader, I'm wondering why the "Hey, it's Frank Sinatra" Moment" became the "Hey, it's Donald Trump" Moment.

Ebert: Good point.The Moment first gained wide visibility in Mike Todd's "Around the World in 80 Days." I think the switchover came about halfway between Sinatra's death and today.

What the heck is 13:41 54?

Ebert: 101 minutes 54 seconds past noon. Clock was a little slow.

Roger,

As a college graduate who didn't finish every book on which he wrote an essay, I thank you for providing an example of a man with integrity. One needs as many as one can get.

I don't think it was necessary to go back and watch the whole movie, and yet I'm happy that you did, and gave it a more in-depth review.

It's true that it's a miracle that any movie gets made (and it's also a miracle when they get distribution), but not all miracles are equal. As I said before, it's nice that somebody got together and made this movie, but at this point, they still seem to be students who need to learn more.

Personally, I think that even if you had for some reason refused to watch any more of the movie, the "Tru Loved" review would still have been pretty good. Aside from the eight-minute thing, the initial published review is still a fine one, one that a kid who wants to be a filmmaker could come across, read and learn a great deal from. It seems cheesy, but I'm of the opinion that you learn more about filmmaking from a good review of a bad movie than from most great movies on their own.

Honestly, Ebert, there are films that I just stop because I can't really take anymore. A lot of these are indie films. I go by the philosophy that if a film doesn't completely grab you by the first few minutes, what's the point of watching the rest? Would you have given it a better rating if you watched the whole thing? Maybe...maybe you would've added half a star more. But don't be ashamed or feel bad about the fact that you hurt the director and the actors because you gave it a bad review. If I made a film and was getting into festivals and had a limited engagement someplace and then you wrote that you didn't like the film...and not only didn't like it but only watched the first 8 minutes and decided you didn't like it, then I would welcome the criticism because obviously I did something wrong, I didn't grab your attention enough to keep your butt glued to that seat and watch the rest of the movie. (P.S. I'm making an indie feature right now, and would love for you to watch it..but if I make you turn it off within the first tne minutes, Mr. Ebert, then you darn well know I'm going to go back and re-edit because I did something wrong).

Point is, you don't have to feel ashamed for anything. And I'll make a statement. The state of Independent films are perhaps at it's best and worst years. Why? Because with new technology and more and more students filling up classrooms at film schools each year, the abundance of movies are becoming overwhelming. Hundreds of thousands of short and feature films are produced every year by some well to-do kids wanting a bigger piece of the pie. So they call up a local college band, get their friends, and make some moving film about being gay...or about suicide, or about teen pregnancy, or some horror film about ghosts that looks strangely like Ring-U. All generic things we've seen before. And if you're going to do something we've seen before, add some type of originality to it. For example, let's take yet another successful Indie film: Robert Rodriguez's "El Mariachi." Standard Action film. Nothing too great. But why did it stand out? Because it wasn't just your run of the mill indie film. There was something to it...a kind of poetry masked in blood. It moved along steadily and had good pace and story-telling. And look at where the film landed its director! Didn't that film captivate you in the first 8 minutes? And for only $7,000 dollars!

I guess the problem would be with film schools. Majority of film schools will teach students how to make hollywood type films, spend a bunch of money, and do all that stuff, but it won't teach these kids how to be good writers, good visual artists, or even how to properly direct the action that is going on the screen. I know, I've went to one. And I'd like to think that Rodriguez and I share a common mentality that (I don't think) has changed over the last 20 years: The majority of films that come out of a film school format are BAD. No way around it. These kids have no idea what they're doing and end up just making films like this one or take an easy road and make torture porn...which comes out badly anyways because they don't know the fundementals of horror films. We also share the mentality of "creative types" compared to "everyone else." See everyone else will take what they learned in film school and apply it to whatever they decide to make...usually it fails. The creative types hate school, and do horribly at it, but somehow seem to make it on their own accord. Like John Carpenter, Steven Speilberg (didn't he get a C?), Robert Rodriguez, Quintin Tarantino, and Kevin Smith (to name a few).

To bring this to an end, Mr. Ebert, your review was just that, a review, and you shouldn't scrutinize yourself just because you didn't give review it fairly. It's irrelevant because it really is just another run of the mill indie film that you and I see all the time. And just because it didn't captivate you in the first 8 minutes shouldn't merit other people to call you out on any sort of thing. In the time I've been watching you and reading your reviews, you've always done a good job, and for Tru Loved, you did nothing less than a good job. It shouldn't matter if you watched only 8 minutes of the film, who would expect you to watch an entire film if by the start of it you already can tell you're not going to like it much? Just my two cents.

I started to read your review, but stopped after 8 words...

...

Honestly, I don't know how critics can make it through some of these flicks. I recently watched part of an episode of Dukes of Hazzard where a dwarf-ish space alien lands and is befriended by the Dukes as he seeks shelter from the exploitations of Boss Hogg. It was one of the worst things I've ever seen in my life, and yet it's episode rating on imdb is a full .7 to 1.0 higher than the likes of Glitter/From Justin to Kelly. Maybe they should just allow you guys to BYOB and start playing drinking games if the movie starts to reek. You could rate the film using beer glasses instead of stars.

Actually, Roger, I'm surprised that you (and film critics in general) don't walk out of movies more often. Considering the number of crappy movies that are put out every year, I'm surprised that you have the patience and stamina to sit through them without walking out.

I could never be a film critic. There are numerous movies -- i.e. "Norbit," "Deuce Bigalow," any slasher movie -- where I would walk out before the opening credits were over. If forced to sit through them, I would spend the length of the movie gnawing huge gashes in the back of the seat in front of me. As a serious movie-goer, I prefer to read the critics' reviews, and to choose to see good movies and avoid bad ones.

But as a critic, Roger, it is your job to watch movies and review them. You are getting paid by the newspaper or publisher to provide your views. You have *chosen* to be a critic. And this means, generally, that in order to give an honest assessment of the film, you must sit through and watch the whole movie, for better or worse.

So you "walked out" on one movie in forty years of reviews. It doesn't mean you are a bad or dishonest critic. (After all, you *admitted* in your review that you "walked out," and that your review was only of the first 8 minutes.)

The important thing is, when you believed you had made a mistake, you went back and tried to correct it. You watched the movie again, and wrote a review of the rest of it. Problem solved. Let's move on to better movies.

What's the old saying? "Those who can admit their mistakes shall be better men for it. Those who refuse to admit their mistakes shall become President of the United States, start unneccessary wars with Iraq, allow Wall Street fat cats to destroy the economy..."

Well, you get the idea.

A film I am still determined to see because of it's reported historical accuracy and interest--Jinnah---turned out to be the most discomfituringly clang!iest----one long CLANG!,in fact---and my stamina and patience failed me at the 15 minute mark so far.

You wrote an honest review. You have nothing to regret. Good criticism is as much the entertainment of the prose as it is the film commentary. In fact, the two go hand in hand. No one reads boring film reviews. The fact that you walked out on the film - especially given your plainly stated rule about not doing such - was as honest a review of the film as anything else you said, ESPECIALLY given the fact that you generally do not do such a thing. I admire you and confess that my fortitude is not in a league with your own. You were honest. Regret nothing. Learn from it maybe, but regret nothing.
Kristofer
Editor
B-Scared.com

Roger - May/June of 2006, when I read of your illness and that you were in critical condition in the hospital, I cried. I cried for half an hour straight. I prayed that you'd recover and I'm agnostic. At the time, I couldn't imagine never having your perspective on new movies, whether I agree with it or not. I still can't imagine that.

I've read your reviews for over 15 years.

You're man enough to admit this one huge mistake you made in all those thousands of reviews you have written. Not to trivialize the "strident" initial review, or Tru Loved itself, but I think you've earn a little grace from the public and fellow critics.

Mr. Ebert, your original review is one of your best since "Armageddon", possibly. No need to backtrack and apologize!

Roger,

You are a remarkable person, a superstar in our business who actually is a human being willing to share your feelings.

I love movies, see everything I can, read reviews by the bucketful, and yours are always -- always -- the most reasoned and intelligent.

I agree with many posters that you didn't need to go further than your first review, but respect your decision to revisit the film.

That said, I've always felt that if people are being charged to see a film, or play, or to read a book or listen to a CD, they deserve to know if they are spending their money wisely. Everybody tries hard. I tried hard in writing a mystery novel that nobody read. Doesn't mean that a reviewer shouldn't tell people my effort was a waste of their time. Fortunately, that didn't happen, but I would have understood had that been the case.

I've seen plenty of movies that could be judged after the first 8 minutes. You did the right thing.

As always.

Roger,

Now this subject has started a second string of comments on CNN's website....ironic how few of the people who commented there actually read your original review...

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/was-roger-ebert-wrong/#comment-8926

If I understand your appended full review correctly, it seems like nothing happened in the remaining 71-1/2 minutes (or whatever) to change the review you wrote based on the first 8-1/2...

Reminds me of some controversies I used to have with my wife earlier in our marriage, in which I could accurately finish her sentences for her. It still annoyed her (to put it mildly) because the point of the conversation with her was not merely imparting information but also the social experience (of being listened to). Now, this analogy, to me, does not apply to your review, I still think your original review was just fine and dandy and it was merely reinforced further by your review of the movie seen in its entirety. However, it does sound like the people who objected to your review were objecting less to its validity than to a violation of what they thought should be the overall social context between reviewer and movie.

Please don't apologize Roger. This was -- by far -- my favorite review that I have ever read... and it was probably a fair one. It sounds like the kind of movie that makes you mad at yourself for sitting through. I think you should apologize for apologizing! ;)

And now for something completely different....

H.L. Mencken heaped his journalistic scorn on a man who felt he didn't deserve to be the subject of repeated attacks on his integrity. The victim and his supporters finally went to the newpaper office and confronted Menken, accusing the Sage of Baltimore of being grossly unfair. Mencken agreed that indeed he was being unfair but that his job wasn't to be fair. His job was to get his point across.

Keep getting your point across Roger...that's what you're good at.

IMHO this entire contretemps is risible. While you are probably correct that reviews of partially viewed movies should not be published, it seems as if you have now tripped over yourself backpedaling. Should we take pity on the indie filmmakers because it is difficult to get a film made? Do we tiptoe because a movie is so sincere and heartfelt about its subject? Should negative reviews be tamed because somebody out there is bound to be deeply affected by almost any movie? To treat the artwork in this way seems to me patronizing to the artist and condescending to the audience. And despite your litany of "clangs" your second blog and the last two paragraphs of your second review seem to me to accomplish both.

Dear Mr. Ebert,
One of my favorite books of yours is "I Hated, Hated this Movie". It contained some of your most inspired writing; equating Airport 79 to a high school science fair was especially funny. Based upon reading your reviews, it would seem to me that your best work is either for really good movies or really bad movies. So my suggestion is that the next time you find yourself sitting through a bad film don't think of it as a waste of your time, view it as an opportunity for inspiration. If you cut your losses early, every minute that you miss could only subtract rather than enhance your review. You have directed me to some really great movies, protected from turkeys and changed the way I look at movies - I hope this experience doesn't discourage you from continuing your work:) Also, I'd just like to add that since I'm not a critic, I do cater to "Brotman's Law" which as you note in your glossary: is if you haven't seen anything good in the first reel, you are not going to see anything good by the last reel. It has saved me countless hours of my life!

Mr. Ebert,

Ha Ha... I knew you had lost it after this comment from you Wolf Creek review,

"If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more."

Your opinion is one thing. Condemning viewers because you found a film disturbing is quite irrational. Now you review a film after only seeing 8 minutes of footage... Ha ha that is too funny You should just view the Trailers and give us your informed opinion. Please do us all a favor and retire!

-Dick Hollywood

ps. Mr. Siskel would be ashamed...

It is so refreshing to find someone accepting responsibility for a mistake these days. Thank you for also sharing what you learned from the experience. My admiration for you has only increased.

Mr. Ebert --

I'm glad you admitted you were wrong, that your editor was correct, and that you apologized to those associated with the film. As an editor, I would never allow a review of such a small slice of a piece of work stand as the review. Would you accept a review of a restaurant if the writer only wrote about the bread and maybe two bits of an appetizer, or a review of a book based on just the first chapter?

on imdb this morning...

"Critic Ebert Criticized By Critics

23 October 2008 2:48 AM, PDT

After initially defending his decision to write a scathing review of the indie movie Tru Loved after walking out after the first eight minutes, Roger Ebert has had a change of heart. In a message posted on his website, he concedes, "In reviewing the first eight minutes, I was guilty of too much affection for my prose." Later, he vows: "I will never, ever, again review a film I have not seen in its entirety. Never. Ever." (He has since seen the entire film and posted a detailed review of it.) Some of Ebert's fans and fellow critics are not willing to let him off the hook so fast, however. In the Los Angeles Times, media columnist Patrick Goldstein writes today (Thursday): "If there were ever an act that indelibly painted critics as elitist snobs, it would be America's best-known critic reviewing a movie after only bothering to watch for eight minutes." Orlando Sentinel critic Roger Moore sayes that writing a review of a movie based on its first eight minutes is "not cricket." He then concludes, "If we're going to start writing reviews of movies we haven't suffered all the way, or at least most of the way through, the way most people who shell out $10-12 do after they've spent the cash, we're all doomed." And Gary Susman, a sometime critic who writes the PopWatch blog for Entertainment Weekly's website, comments: "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 when he did passes for professional, acceptable behavior among film critics and the outlets that publish their work, even for a moment."

Joey again: I thought I would post it in case you didn't see it. Do you care what these people think?

Ebert: Yes. I may not agree, but I care. I was warned that the backlash about an apology would be greater than the original deed. But as Harry Truman said, etc.,

Wow... Roger Ebert is human and actually made a mistake. My opinion... One has to take into account Mr. Ebert's decades of service as an outstanding journalist and his apology, as well as his remarkably candid explanation of what he did and why.

This kind of public crucifixion of a human being who slipped and made an error is judgement is the very thing that turns people off of things like politics. How did we get to the point were we expected folks in the spotlight to be perfect and walk on water.

Hey, everybody, make your mistakes, learn from 'em, own up to 'em, forgive 'em and move the hell on.

I agree with you original decision to only watch a portion of the film. After all of these years, thousands upon thousand of film reviews and your general proclivity to give indies a chance I trust you. I once knew of a watch/clock repair man who was the very best at his trade. He could design/fix/recondition any timepiece to highest degree of workmanship. Naturally, he was inundated with people wanting him to repair this old clock or that watch. As he got older he finally made a rule that he would only work on clocks/watches that interested him or were a real challenge. Of all people he knew time was running out and he did not want to spend it on a Timex. All of our time is running out so to speak and I believe your readers trust you like a friend. I think you have more than earned the right to cut a review short, with disclosure, and move on to the next film.

Hey Roger,

Don't know if you're reading all of the comments on this blog as well, but here's my two cents on it.

I write reviews (film-forward.com, little NY based indie/foreign film siete) and on the comments section of IMDb. In full disclosure, I've written reviews from time to time without watching the whole movie or walking out midway from the theater (mostly when I was a lot younger in my teens and didn't know any better). I've since gone back and re-edited many comments to reflect how I felt after finally seeing the whole movie.

But I think the difference here is in reputation. Simply that I have none, and know really which movies I skipped out on and wrote reviews for myself, while you are basically the creme-de-la-creme of movie reviewers, basically in the world (maybe Sarris and Hoberman and a couple of others, maybe AO Scott at NY Times, are as prominent in my current consciousness now that Kael passed on), and since you're a) getting *paid* to do this, and b) have a great talent at dissecting what works or doesn't work about "how a movie is about it" as you mentioned, it puts you under more scrutiny. It was the right thing to back-up and make an addendum to the review, if only because your so high on top of the field of film critics that one can only go down from there- and considering how long you've been in the business it wouldn't bode well.

Lawyers often talk about agency - a lawyer is the agent of a client - and the duties (e.g. confidentiality and competence) that are owed because of these relationships. If I was a travel writer in 1986, would I need to travel to the Ukraine to say that the areas around Chernobyl should be avoided? If I was the agent of people planning trips, probably not. But if I thought my duties were owed to some Lewis & Clark idea of "exploration," maybe I would feel compelled to travel to the Ukraine to see the effects of the disaster first hand.

At first, it seemed as if you were the agent of filmgoers, and a review after a short viewing was sufficient. Now it seems as if you have been persuaded that you are actually the agent of "cinema," which has some overlapping and some entirely distinct obligations.

I have seen the film and I thought it was entertaining. It was a bit on the cheesy side but it still provided a lot of good laughs. I watched it at the ImageOut LGBT Film Festival in Rochester, NY just this past weekend -- a packed theater of very diverse audiences including straight allies. It was very well received and got a thunderous applause at the end. The film is probably meant more for film festival audiences, especially the LGBT ones. Most people outside of those probably won't get the film. You certainly didn't. I'm glad you published a full-length review after watching the whole film. But it sounded like you were truly nitpicking just to justify your earlier faux pas of a review. But you are certainly entitled to that even though I do not agree with it at all.

I don't think the film sets out for homophobes to see the light. It's really more for LGBT youth who continue to be bullied around in schools and who rarely see themselves represented well in today's cinema. The film's very valid message certainly trumps all the inadequacies and shortcomings that you mentioned in your review. And honestly, it's not as bad as you make it to be. It's definitely better than some of the films you reviewed well.

I loved the first review, felt so-so about the second review until the last paragraph, and hated that last paragraph. I'm not much fonder of this blog entry.

The first review was everything I love about your writing -- concise, witty, and to the point. There was no dishonesty, and you were exactly right in keeping the denouement until the end (right from a writing perspective, and right from a review perspective).

The second review was OK until the last paragraph, and then it wandered into pandering. "This is a bad movie, but, hey, it takes a miracle to make even a bad movie, so give them a break." No, I won't, and neither should you. A bad movie is a bad movie, whether it costs $100K or $100M to make. You don't get a break just because you're an indie, and you shouldn't get a break just because your movie is politically correct. (If this had been a movie about Neo-Nazi's would it have gotten the same pandering paragraph? I think not.)

You didn't harm the chance of an indie film because you didn't finish it, any more than you harmed it by giving it a bad review. That makes you responsible for their movie, which you're not. They harmed the chance of an indie film by making a bad movie.

I don't care if you don't finish a really bad movie; frankly, like many others, I'm surprised you don't walk out of more than you do. A review that says, "This movie was so bad I walked out after ten minutes" is no more or less useful than a review that says, "I watched this movie to the bitter end and it was HORRID". And, as you proved in your original review, the former can be much more entertaining.

This whole thing is, to my mind, much ado about nothing. But it has prompted me to write, and so while I'm here I must tell how much I appreciate your body of work. You make me want to be a better movie-watcher, and even your reviews of bad movies reveals your love of good ones. You are a national treasure. Thank you.

Dear Roger
You were right to judge that movie based on the first eight minutes.
I once saw A TERRIBLE MOVIE called 2001 a Space Odyssey. All it was about was a bunch of monkeys eating tapyrs and clubbing each other with bones. After eight minutes it became obvious that this was all the movie would be about so I turned this stinker off.
I once saw A TERRIBLE movie called "Psycho". All it was about was a secretary who stole a couple thousand dollars from her boss, then went on a road trip. A cop stopped her but let her go. Was this the most exciting idea this director could come up with? After eight minutes I turned this snoozer off.
I once saw A TERRIBLE movie called "The Wizard of Oz". It was about a girl on a farm in Kansas who was ignored by her foster parents and hassled by the old lady next door. Oh yeah, it also had some "comic relief" in the form of three goofy, unbeleivable farmhands. Worst of all THE WHOLE THING was filmed in sepiatone! Who would sentence a child to sit through such a humorless, unimaginative, colorless film? It didnt even have any songs in it. I turned it off after eight minutes, of course.

Dear Roger,

Please don't be harsh on yourself! I know this is a tendency of all human beings... but I think wise men are not those who make mistakes, but those who make them and stand up for them, as you have... therefore no grugde is hold against you. I'll continue reading your reviews as I've always done. Hope this might cheer you up!

BRENDA :D

Roger, I don't think you committed a crime. I used to be a script reader for a well-known film producer. Do you think we read every page of every script that came in? As you probably know, the first 10 pages of a screenplay is indication of a writer's talent, or lack thereof. A truly great script will grip you on page one. I'm not saying that I stopped at page 10 with every script, but at that point we can usually determine whether or not the material is worth anyone's time. When a decent script comes along (there are very few good ones, so decent is good enough), it stands out. It is not very surprising that you did not change your one-star rating for Tru Loved.

I'll just cut to the chase. If a movie is gonna make it to the big screen, then it should at the very least be somewhat, kind of watchable. Because if it's not, then it's really wasting the opportunity of a really good independent film to make it, and just giving the community a bad name. So if anyone should be sorry, it should be the cast and crew. If their thin-skinned, then they could of opted to just release it on DVD, that way they could of avoided even 8 minutes of it being reviewed. One knows in he editing room if they have a stinker (I'm talking a truly bad movie). Maybe they'll learn from this experience, if you want to go out into the ocean, then make sure your boat doesn't have any leaks.

And another thing, I think the film making process is less of a miracle, then it once was. The rules have changed. What once was a expensive uphill battle even for the smallest of film, is not so expensive any longer. It's still a very tricky complex art, and making a good film is a miracle, with or without money. But with the advent of digital I feel we don't have to treat the independent films with kid gloves. We don't need our theaters to become a slightly better version of YouTube. Don't beat yourself up over giving it an 8 minute review. If we are remembered for our flaws, then I'll remember the time you made a witty review about the first 8 minutes of a bad film (what was that film called again?). Anyway, your review (the first one) was more of a miracle than the film (or maybe not, it is somewhat of a miracle that someone can make a film that bad).

If any one's responsible from ruining Independent filmmakers chances, it's them... not you.

Movies like this one are an insult to the LGBT community and beyond. Let your review stand! I am sick and tired of gay-themed movies with poor production values, bad acting, and bad writing that are then marketed to us, who end up going to see them or renting them because we have few choices to see our realities ever represented on the big screen in a complex way, whether in a light comedy or serious drama. At any rate, I turn off movies like "Tru Loved" (and no I don't need to view it to know what it is like) after two minutes so an eight-minutes-of-the-movie review was all I needed.

Dear Mr. Ebert,
I don't think you should regret the decision to write the original review. The feelings of a kid who saw and felt moved by an awkward but well-intentioned movie or the feelings of the filmmakers are besides the point. You weren't taking a cheap shot or wallowing in your position of power as critic. Glancing through most of the comments, most people seem to appreciate this. They know your track record of championing indie films, sitting through 99.997% of all the movies you've reviewed and making clear the rare times (roughly once every six years or so) when you walked out. I agree, there's no point typically in running a negative review of a very small film most people would never hear of otherwise. But when you find a fresh, revealing way of talking about criticism and your reaction to a movie, why not? It was not callous or mean or cheap or wrong in any way. Yes, getting any tiny film made is a miracle. But making a GOOD one is even more miraculous (Ballast being a recent fine example) and you can't grade on a curve or worry about their feelings. The nice thing is that it's always clear you love movies and come from the perspective of someone who sits down and roots for a movie to be good. If anyone has been to EbertFest, they would hear a stream of stories from filmmakers who have had their lives changed by you championing their work and rooting for them when others had moved on. The nice thing is that the people behind Tru Loved will now know you will probably go out of your way to see their next projects, all with the hope that you can say something positive about them. For the record, I have walked out of the movies MegaForce and Blame It On Rio but was trapped in a car at a drive-in watching Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo and couldn't escape what can be termed a movie in only the broadest sense of the term.

I found the blogs contained fascinating insight into the processes of your film criticism. As a die-hard fan of your written work, it was something akin to a behind the scenes featurette, and if the only thing the film produces is a larger discussion about the ethics of criticism, then it's creation has at least a good reason for it's existence.

To put in my two cents, I think as long as you're honest about how much of the film you viewed it's a fair review, although it isn't as helpful in judging the movie's worthiness as your others.

If re-reviewing makes your readers and editor happy, it's fine with me. It seems like a waste of your time, though. I never saw the problem with reviewing the first eight minutes.

To me, a film/book/game/building/event/whatever can be art, but most are simply crafted products...and that's okay. Judging a film artistically just on its first eight minutes would be wrong. But if the craftsmanship is obviously garbage, why bother?

If I were reviewing a book, which I've done non-professionally, and the first chapter is a mess of run-on sentences, horrible grammar, and is formatted as one single paragraph that clearly never met a spell-checker...is that not a valid review?

I recall a review of a computer game from several years ago: The magazine's staff were unable to get the game to run for more than a minute without crashing, even when the game publisher's people came to help. Even on a computer the game publisher provided, the game kept crashing. Some people posted complaints about the negative review, saying if they couldn't get the game to run, they shouldn't have said anything. I've never been able to follow their logic.

For the record, I saw the film and appreciated it. I also posted on your original blog, that you should go back and see the whole film and re-review it.

I'm very glad that you did this, as I truly believed (and still do) that is was the right thing to do. Despite your dislike for the film even after seeing it in its entirety, I appreciated reading your conciliatory comments. They don't undo the significant harm done by your original review, but at least they show that you were willing to reconsider your position, and give Tru Loved a complete viewing and review. You've tried to make amends in a small way. Your new commitment is the right direction forward ....

"I will never, ever, again review a film I have not seen in its entirety. Never. Ever."

Hi Mr. Ebert, reading this Tru Loved saga has been thoroughly entertaining. It has probably given you enough material for one chapter of your next book. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if someone holds a Tru Loved gay film festival.

But may this be the last of it! Don't be like the athlete who blows the last play of a championship and has people replay it for him over and over and over. Let it be s---canned, flushed, and gone. Either that or start selling Tru Loved t-shirts and merchandise from your website (cool!).

Further thoughts:
- the world is not lacking for films on gay persons or culture. See Capote (shot in Winnipeg), De Lovely, Philadelphia, In and Out, The Hours, Brokeback Mountain, etc.

- lowering the bar or giving sympathy or undue favour to subgroups promotes mediocrity and injustice, not excellence.

- I vigorously disagree with your vow never to walk out on a film again. Three words: Wolf Creek II.

- wondering, will your loss of speech let you experience a movie like Touch the Sound in a different way?

live long and prosper Roger

"Clang!":

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WallBanger

Ebert: The link is worth following, and includes this quote by Dorothy Parker: "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."

Your editor was right.

I adhere to the notion that the best way to see a movie is by light projected through celluloid onto a large screen in front of a sizable audience that gives it their full attention.

Except when you have a DVD that you can pause.

I must be missing something. As a viewer, I might well decide after 8 minutes, or ten, or fifteen, that a movie is terrible, ans stop watching - walk out of the theater, hit the stop button, whatever. Maybe the last 30 minutes of that movie is a transcendant work of art, but frankly if the first chunk really blows, I'll never bother to see the rest. I see no reason why a critic can't use the same judgment call any viewer would, as long as its disclosed that he or she bailed after "x" minutes.

So I see nothing wrong with the original review. You want to go back. watch the whole thing, and post additional perspective - great, that's interesting, though perhaps your time would have been better invested in a movie that you found, from the beginning, watchable. But hey, its your time.

I just don't see where there is any obligation to do that. No obligation to the people who worked hard on the film, because you don't intrinsically owe it to them to watch their film in the first place - at all, in part, or in whole.

On the subject of incomplete reviews, I noticed that the "headline" on your reviews is missing. For example, the review of "Happy Go Lucky" is headlined by "There's a smile on my face, for almost the whole human race," however, at the url of the entire review, the headline is no where to be found.

I only bring this up because I was trying to rediscover a review that I incompletely read, and I only remember the headline.

Isn't the headline a part of the review? Are headlines written by you or by someone else? Isn't the headline a critical part of the concise summary of the movie? Those few words do an amazing job of conveying the 'feel' of the review.

Thanks!

Ebert: Jim and I collaborate. I've forwarded your message to the web gods.

I have been following your posts on Tru Loved and see nothing wrong with what you did.

Much like a film is the creative output of a group of artists, its review is also the creative output of a film critic. So, I believe it is your prerogative whether you watch the film completely or not and it is your prerogative where you mention that you didn't watch the complete film as long as you mention it somewhere.

The effect of reviewing a film you haven't completely watched on your readers will, of course, vary. I will still read your work, no matter what, but some readers might not like what you did (though I feel they will still read your work as well).

Coming to the other issue of squashing a low budget indie (and the artists involved) with your review.. I blog about my film watching experiences and I have also faced this dilemma early on when I had to write about a film that I hated. I understand the effort that has gone into the making of a very bad film but I have to do my job. Anton Ego's words come to mind..

after reading the Miami Herald article I have to say it again-

I liked your review! isn't the fact that you only watched the first eight minutes a critique in and of itself??

and the Herald needs to hire more talented writers... eesh

The troubling thing about the original review isn't that you were picking on an indie effort, or even that you criticized a film without watching the entire thing, but that you did so in your capacity as a professional film critic. If you were paid for your published review (please correct me if in this case you were not), then it was unethical to not bother watching the complete film before composing your review.

The average Joe can't be expected to waste their time on something they deem worthless in the first eight minutes, but a professional reviewer (especially one of your caliber) is expected to take in the entire film and give it a chance past those eight minutes, no matter how terrible. Especially when it's a little indie flick. You CAN spare the time, because it's what you're getting paid to do. It's great that you were honest, but it was like a mechanic saying, "There's nothing wrong with your car. But just so you know, I only checked the oil and the power-steering fluid."

You wrote a nice piece of prose, but it wasn't a review of the film. Two options could have easily avoided this controversy:
1: Post the piece on your blog rather than submitting it as a 'review'
2: Having composed your piece, finish watching the movie. If it changes your mind, write a new review. If it doesn't, change the end of your piece to say something along the lines of, "I wrote the above after stopping the movie at 00:08.05. After watching the rest of the film, I still feel that what I have written tells you everything you need to know about this movie."

Hi Roger,

My first post! Since much has already been said and written about this issue, I'd like to simply state I'm glad you've vowed not to publish reviews again without having viewed the entire film. I've been a long-time reader and fan of your work, and while I trust your viewpoint and have no doubt you were 100% accurate with your first, 8-1/2 minute review, in the end (I believe) it is the critic's duty that, once they've decided to critique a movie (or book, or album, etc.), they should "go the distance" with that film.

That said, I'm sure a critic of your stature and experience can probably tell very easily within the first few minutes of any film whether you will like it or not, or more accurately, how you will experience that film. I knew 3 minutes into I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry that it would be a bad movie. I stuck it out until the end, hoping for at least a few laughs (I laughed twice, to be exact) and, after all, I paid for it.

BTW, remember that film Chaos you reviewed a few years ago? Perhaps you'd like to forget? Just wondering if you made it all the way through on that one, since it sounded awful - much worse than Tru Loved.

Hey Roger, good work on it all. Don't lose any sleep about what all the troublemakers out there say. They're trying to make themselves more famous by attaching their name tot he most famous film critic alive. If you felt compelled to rewatch the tripe and re-review it, cool, but now - f**k 'em. And please feel free to give one-star reviews; you do no favors either to moviegoers or the artistic state of the medium to go easy on junk.

Roger,

Don't be too hard on yourself.
I was a KeyGrip / DollyGrip for many years, and while I'm not using my "real" name here (can't tell, eh?), it's only to protect myself from the films I've helped released to the unsuspecting.
Films that were a bit like this:

http://www.firesigntheatre.com/albums/nextworld1.mp3

- only they're serious efforts at drama - have you ever seen a line of grips (think Radio City Music Hall's Rockettes) uncross and cross their legs in unison while rolling their eyes?
Like that.

I mean, really - who hasn't fast forwarded through the terminally predictable?

http://www.firesigntheatre.com/albums/eykiw1.mp3

Critics!
How many time you hear that as an expletive? Well, we feel you Bro, the Grips have got your back - we're not as dumb as we look, after all who do you think keep the Electricians keep from killing everyone - yeah, that's us, little known unsung things make the world go round.

You keep fast forwarding, it'll put years back in your life, and as we all know, life's just too short.
It's a fast ride down a short pier and we're all Bozos on this bus anyway.

http://www.firesigntheatre.com/albums/bozos1.mp3

hylas

[quote begin]Ebert: Bias? How was I..It slipped up on reviews because you spelled it wrong.[quote end]
Great retort! :) But while I greatly appreciate and admire your reading and taking every comment seriously, I do not understand why you (and some good people I've known on other forums) feel the need to RESPOND (too lazy to use italics) to comments like the one above - typed without much thought as proven by the abundance of "you"s and instances of personal opinion masquerading as "statements of fact".

Now I'm guilty of not putting too much thought into a post myself. :) Adding to the previous one and referring to an earlier discussion, a 'proper' online forum for discussing movies sounds absolutely fantabulous on paper, but you'll likely only see more of the "you're a bad man" kind of trash. Stuff like that is the reason I've pulled the plug on most of my online reading, so PLEASE don't go ahead with this!

About 17 or 18 years ago, I wrote a negative review of "Romero" for my college newspaper. I was helping clean up the movie theater after the screening and formulating the review in my head. I noticed a girl from my dorm sitting alone, in the middle of the theater. She had her head in her hands and was sobbing. The girl and I were on friendly terms, and I knew my review was going to offend her. But I felt obligated to review the movie -- I had promised my editor a review -- and I knew I had to be honest about what I felt. I didn't hate the movie and I agreed with its point-of-view, but I felt it could have done its job so much better. So I tried to get that across in my review.

The review was published and the following week a column written by the campus minister (actually an advertisement, since it was a public school and the campus minister wasn't actually a student or faculty member) blasted me and my review. I was informed that more than one student-Bible-study group were angry with me and spent long periods of time talking about my review.

The crying girl and I didn't talk much after that (if at all).

Do I regret publishing the review? No. It was honest and I was still learning how to properly frame my opinions for others. I do wish, however, that I had learned a little faster. But even if I had, we're constantly learning how to write better and how to express ourselves better.

I guess even a movie critic with 40 years of experience (and one of my favorite writers in the world) can still learn a few things. Let's just agree not to regret the lessons.

At first I did not believe, but watching the video, I was shocked!!!Barack Obama met with Father of Russian mafia 5 years ago!!!![url=http://91.203.70.58/input/in.cgi?10]watch the video now[/url]

Dear Roger,

I *loved* your first review. I thought it was interesting, coherent, and funny, and the Q/A at the end tied it together perfectly! I also respected your right to not watch the entire film. It didn't strike me as unethical or wrong in any way. You fessed up at the end, and I don't use you as a stand-in for my own opinions anyway. (Your reviews are important to me because they provide depth to my own experiences... they don't supplant them.)

I understand that some people may believe you, uh, *sinned* by not watching the entire film. I believe, however, that as a film critic your responsibility towards me (as a reader) is to honestly and intelligently record how you view a movie. You provide only one map to the territory. That was your map. Your editor has standards, and as her employee you choose to follow them or not. You have standards, and I am appreciative of those standards and show that appreciation by reading your reviews. However, if I disagree with you, I can also choose to no longer read your reviews. (Gee, I love free will.)

Also, to imply that your review could strongly affect a film's success is untrue. Not that *I* don't think you're brilliant and witty, but the general movie-going public doesn't seem to give a rat's ass how many stars you give movies, or there are some very mediocre movies that wouldn't have grossed bazillions.

I'm sorry that you perceived your review as similar to a "drive by" to the filmmakers. (I think it was more like a "reality check".) And I'm also sorry that one clever review generated so much negative hoopla.

I have to wonder about what impact this will have on future filmmakers. If indeed the world begins to believe that you are an eight-minute man (when it comes to reviews) will they be spend more attention on to their film's opening sequence?

-Will we start seeing eight minute film categories at festivals?
-Will you publish a book entitled: "I Eighted, Eighted, Eighted This Movie"?
-Will John Woo start releasing the doves and doing camera rotations earlier in his films?

For that matter, what else will start to be evaluated by the eight-minute mark?
-Will married couples start celebrating their eight-minute anniversary?
-What will President Obama accomplish in his first eight minutes?
-Should we end comments in blogs that take us any longer than eight...

Ebert: I draw the line at eight-minute eggs.

As a writer (an amateur writer, but a writer nonetheless), I know how it feels to write something oh-so-snappy and you know you really shouldn't let it stay like that, but it just seems so GOOD and to do it "properly" feels like it would take away from it. And then you do leave it like that and are the subject of a firestorm of criticism and realize you maybe should have given in and wrote it "properly." Been there, done that, got in heaploads of trouble for it. So you have ALL my empathy and support. And I think it was very classy of you to backtrack and apologize and re-write, especially since doing so keeps the controversy up for discussion that much longer instead of letting it blow over. That takes more guts than most people realize (again--been there, done that, all my empathy).

I disagree with you a lot of the time (one of the items on my very long list of things to do before I die is: #65- Have a heated argument with Roger Ebert), but regardless of our lack of agreement on movies, I respect you as a critic and am fully supportive of your eight-minute review, and even more supportive of your subsequent apology.

As a parting note, I daresay that at this point in your career, anyone who thinks this incident taints your cred as a film critic and turns you into the 8-minute-review-guy is probably not the most intelligent person out there anyway and I wouldn't worry too much about them.

I have just read your first two messages on your blog about "Tru Loved". although I would fight hand over nails to your right to publish the first review, I am relieved that you went ahead and watched the whole movie to give it a second chance. I understand your feelings that you wanted to keep your original compisition"as is" but no movie should be judged by its first 8 minutes(except possibly "Something About Mary"). Keep up the good work
David G

Congratulations on joining the ranks of derrièrist critics:
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/12/triumph-of-derrirism.html

Ebert: The acid test of the ancient distributor's definition of a great picture--"a tukkus on every seat."

I can understand feeling a little remorse but I think after so many years in the biz you have the authority to dismiss something after eight minutes. Sure, it was a novelty and one-off approach, but the point is that all it took was eight minutes for the movie to sabotage itself and raise so many red flags that, for all intents and purposes, you didn't need to go any farther.

It's like if you picked a girl up for a blind date and soon as you met her you saw that her teeth were rotten, she picked her nose and smelled bad. You know what? That relationship really doesn't need to progress any further.

Well, that's 8 minutes more than he gave to Drag Me To Hell! Still would love to read Rog's review. I was gripping my armrests.

Reading over this, I think that you made the right decision in apologising for your original review. Not because you stopped watching after eight minutes because that is your right as a reviewer and needed to be stated in the review.

The problem was - as you mentioned in your entry here - that you only mentioned you stopped watching when you did at the end of the review and not at the beginning. Being such a rare occurrence over the course of your long career, this was highly significant and needed to be the central theme of the review, not reduced to a punchline at the end.

I think the star rating was also an issue here as an official film review with a star rating leads readers to naturally assume that it is an assessment of the entire film from beginning to end. If you had decided to post your original review as purely an entry in this journal it would have been acceptable because in that context it would have been a personal piece on how a film within a few minutes can violate fundamental rules of filmmaking. Giving a star rating to a film you have seen only a few minutes of is a redundant exercise.

One question comes to mind: if you had watched this in a cinema is there any chance you would have walked out on it at any stage? Doing that is a much bigger statement than stopping a DVD I would have thought.