Before you read anything else, read Ebert's ruthless 1-star review for Tru Loved:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...810150277/1023

Next, read Ebert's thoughts on the controversy:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008..._me_first.html

Enjoy!

Roger reviews movies. From his review, this movie wasn't just bad from a story-telling sense, but was so poorly shot, edited, acted, etc. that it really didn't qualify as an actual film. Hence, he was justified in walking out.

It's far from his most controversial review. Remember this is the guy who gave Godfather II AND Cop and 1/2 three stars.

Yeah, Godfazsha II was the lowest rated of the trilogy for him.

I'm just impressed he gave it 1 star instead of 0.

Is that true?!! What a retard he is ...Cop and 1/2 was at least a 3 1/2 star movie.

Attending the Chicago International Film Festival this year, I was waiting in line with some friends. I brought up a waiting-in-line moment from an earlier incarnation of the fest about 3-4 years ago. This was before Ebert encountered this last set of health issues. I was waiting in line, attending a screening solo, and Ebert was exiting some other screening. On his way out, he passed right in front of me, paused, turned and addressed a young man standing in front of me, "Don't I know you from somewhere?"

Apparently he did, and the two shared a brief conversation. And I was thinking to myself, "Do I have anything to say to Mr. Ebert?" Had I a pen and a program of the fest, I might have gotten an autograph for a friend. But for me, all I could think of to say would be "Your writing has really declined in the past few years."

And really, what purpose would that serve? As much as I had acquired a distaste for his writing at the time (not his taste in movies, just the way he wrote of them), I still respected the man immensely, enough not to waste his time with other inane questions. So I bit my tongue. And the critic finished his conversation and proceeded off to wherever he may have been going.

So I haven't read many of his reviews since then. I have read more since he left his show. And I told my friends waiting in line with me, that my opinion has changed. The above review has cemented my position:

The man's writing is at its sharpest I've known.

Fantastic review. He owes the movie nothing except his experience.

I couldn't care less about his star or thumb ratings.

People waste too much time getting all wound up over other peoples' opinions.

Ebert has explained numerous times that the stars are imposed on him by the paper, and he doesn't bother making sure he's consistent in how he uses them -- if he found Cop and a Half surprisingly good for a kiddy film, he might give it 3.5 stars; if he was disappointed by Godfather II, he'll demote it half a star, but that doesn't mean he thinks both are equally good, he just holds one to a higher standard than the other.

I've always been a fan of Ebert, he's probably the only critic I agree with more than 50% of the time. I also have no problem with him writing a review for a film he walked out of 8 minutes in - Telling us he left 8 minutes was DEFINITELY the right choice.


Although he probably spent 10x as much time writing his "defense" blog, responding to people criticizing his decision, discussing his review with his editor, etc. than he would have had he just sat through the damn movie.

Of course he probably got 10x the publicity doing it this way than he would have just writing a regular review. It worked out better for him, and although it was a bad review, it will obviously bring more attention to Tru Loved than any other review (even positive reviews).

This is one of the stupidest reviews Ebert has written. The guy is clearly lacking in sound judgement at this point, his reviews have become ridiculously erratic and untrustworthy. I don't even know what this movie is, it probably does suck, but walking out after 8 minutes? Why did he even bother writing this up? Maybe a failed attempt at humour? And the OP calling this shit "controversial"..

I thought the op would've thought the controversy was from the Palin comment Ebert wrote in the review. I thought politics were off the table when it came to reviewing movies. But i'm guessing it stems from Rodger walking out.

But in all honesty, he had every right to walk out of the film. The man is nearing death. He should watch movies he'll enjoy.

That is a pretty damn great review. FWIW, I thought his most controversial review was of Garfield 2.

Ebert's star system uses a curve in grading. Just because he gives two completely different movies the same number of stars doesn't mean that one isn't better than the other, rather he awards stars on how good the movie is for the type of movie it is. He gave Phantom Menace 3 1/2 stars.

What I do find particularly frustrating about Ebert's reviews is that he sometimes just doesn't seem to be able to understand a lot of the movies he trashes. Blue Velvet and The Usual Suspects come to mind.

Ebert has also mentioned that he would rather not use a star rating, but that the newspaper insists on it.

I'm just wondering how he saw as much as he described in only 8 minutes.

Regardless of how much stuffing you pack in, it usually takes far less than 8 minutes to smell the turkey...

JImmy

The guy still has his sharp wit, and that's primarily why I read his reviews if I ever do. There were some great lines in there.

He didn't walk out on anything. It was a DVD screener. He merely turned it off. (Nitpick, I know, but it seems that most people commenting haven't even read the articles).