Open Forum Friday: Should Critics Review a Movie If They Haven’t Seen It All The Way Through?
Have you ever wondered how film critics can possibly handle sitting through so many terrible movies on any given week? I mean, it might seem like they have a pretty sweet gig when you hear about them getting into advance screenings of cool movies, but just think about how much crap there is in between all the good stuff! Well, it seems that sometimes they don’t bother sitting through the crap after all. Last week, Roger Ebert caused quite a bit of controversy when he wrote a review of an independent movie called Tru Loved and admitted at the end of the piece that he had only watched the first 8 minutes. Apparently that was all the viewing he required in order to decide that it was a 1 star movie.
The story doesn’t end there, however, because almost immediately Ebert began to get criticized for admitting that he turned it off 8 minutes in — first by his editor, then by his readers. He put up a blog post defending himself and claiming that he was only trying to be honest, but the uproar continued. Eventually he relented and went back to watch the whole thing, penning a new review and promising in a follow-up post that he would “never, ever, again” review a movie he hadn’t seen all the way through. Now clearly this opens up a pretty big issue for discussion. Do film critics have an obligation to watch a movie from beginning to end before commenting on it? If someone hates a movie so much that they walk out on it, does this invalidate their opinion? What if you show up late to a screening and miss the first 10 or 15 minutes? (The issue’s even bigger in the game industry, where a video game can take a good 40+ hours to finish, often with multiple endings, alternate paths and game modes.) So what exactly are the rules and ethics for writing a review? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (19)
I certainly prefer that people who review or critique films actually, you know, *watch* the films in question. I think if a movie is so bad you have to walk out of it eight minutes in that doesn’t necessarily invalidate your opinion that it’s terrible but I also don’t think it gives you much of a leg to stand on if you’re trying to talk about the movie as a whole.
Walking out is a reaction, not a critique, and if I want pure gut reaction of the “It sucked” kind I could be getting it from any number of Joe Nobody bloggers, not legit and revered critics.
Plus, I don’t understand walking out of a movie in general. I paid my $10 to be there, I might as well stick around to the end and then act like a martyr for having sat through it. I know that critics don’t pay to see their movies, but even then I’m not sure I understand walking out of a *free* movie either.
Posted by Liz on October 24th, 2008Also, did this site just get wider?
Posted by Liz on October 24th, 2008Yep the site just got a little bit wider.
I agree with you about walking out of movies. Once I’m there in the theatre, I’m pretty much committed. When watching stuff at home though, it can be a little too tempting to just turn it off if it sucks.
Posted by Sean on October 24th, 2008I’m the same, which is why I don’t like watching movies I haven’t seen on DVD for the first time.
Posted by Liz on October 24th, 2008I agree that it can seem both dishonest and unsatisfying if a critic has not reviewed a film in its entireity. However, critics are employed for their responses, and the articulation thereof, and, as Liz said above, distaste for a film that is so intense so as to make one stop watching is a valid response. If a film completely ceases to interest you at some point in the film, it has failed as a film to you. Perhaps not to others, but film, like any other public (shared) creative medium, is about individual response: The director directs, and the viewer views.
Posted by Matthias Galvin on October 24th, 2008This is Roger Ebert. He left for a reason. I think this should actually speaks volumes about the film and not him. Had this been a lesser known critic such as Harry Knowles, the guy from IGN, or John Campea, I could see it as a bigger issue.
Posted by Captain N on October 24th, 2008He got caught, that’s all. He looks like an ass because of this, but this certainly isn’t the first time he’s done it.
And as far as the other critics getting on him over this– please! They have all done this at one time or another I’m sure.
And I don’t really like Ebert, but I feel bad– he looks like absolute shit.
Posted by Jon Rocks on October 24th, 2008I think the reader of the critic must be smart. Honestly if the Ebert critique gives a sense of what he felt the movie was about and it seems reasonable to believe that the first 8 minutes could through following the narrative formula accurately predicit a movie then that’s all well and good. Hell I’ve seen people cite reviews by head up their ass philosophers where the whole point is to draw some overwrought critique based on the conclusion they want to come to. Criticism is the sort of thing that everyone should take with an enormous grain of salt … but don’t let it raise your blood pressure
Posted by Ian on October 25th, 2008I think its fair for Roger to describe exactly what happened, and why he did what he did, but not critique the film as a WHOLE because he wasn’t there to do that!
Posted by entertainmenttodayandbeyond on October 25th, 2008Everytime I see that pic of Ebert I think he’s wearing a bib. Like he just sat down for a meal of barbecue or lobster.
I love a review of 8 minutes of a movie.
Posted by Greg on October 25th, 2008I’ve done a review of a film I walked out on, granted I watched about half of it, it was Epic Movie by the way, but it was more than I could bare.
But I think instead of trying to review a movie you’ve only seen 8 minutes of you should just say that even after 8 minutes the movie was so bad that you had to leave and leave it at that.
Posted by swarez on October 25th, 2008His original review does note how much he saw and how he supplemented the article from other references. That’s a bit cheeky but overall it is honest so I think it is fine.
Personally, I’ll write a ‘non-review’ for a film I’ve turned off or disliked so much where I think there is value to potential viewers of the film to know what it was that got me all grrrrrr! about it, but it’s always brief and notes specifically what turned me off.
I don’t want to spend time nor energy to write a full blown for a film that I didn’t watch the whole way through, nor is it really fair to the film.
Posted by Shannon the Movie Moxie on October 25th, 2008I think critics should admit when they’ve slept through parts of a movie. I can guarantee that any reviewer or critic over 40 years of age drifts off while watching a movie. Beginning with Star Trek Nemesis, I haven’t been able to stay awake for any movie. Never trust a review from anyone over 40.
With the regards to Film Hunk, I mean Junk, being wider, my monitor at home only supports a max 640 x 480 resolution. And for some reason, I don’t get a scroll bar. So I can’t access things like Most Recent Comments.
Posted by Reed Farrington on October 25th, 2008If Film Junk is responsible for forcing you to finally upgrade to a computer that supports resolutions higher than 640 x 480, I’ll feel like we really accomplished something special.
Posted by Sean on October 25th, 2008And you call yourself a geek Reed. For shame.
Posted by swarez on October 25th, 2008NO!
Posted by Bob The Slob on October 25th, 2008I think this is silly. Ebert admitted that he only watched 8 minutes. He’s totally open about it being a device in his piece. If you want to read a review by someone who watched the whole movie, I’m sure you could find it.
It would be aggravating to me to have idiots whining about what my job was like this. Especially considering this is fucking Ebert and his job is supposedly a creative one, you’d think he could be given a little leeway to write what he wanted.
Posted by Joel on October 25th, 2008If you don’t watch a film all of the way through, you shouldn’t give it a score. It’s as simple as that. If you want to write an opinion piece about why you walked out eight minutes through, it’s a different story, but don’t label it as a review. It’s misleading, dishonest, and lacks integrity.
Frequently critics get criticised for not having an investment in films because they get to see them for free. The flipside of getting to see them for free is that they’re obligated to watch the whole thing. In the UK, the FDA screening rules are that you should sit through the entirety of the runtime, as you can’t possibly give a balanced and fair critical analysis based off of anything less.
Ebert gets away with a lot because of his name. If a staff writer for a film magazine had come out and said that, they’d be fired. It’s unacceptable for someone who labels themselves a professional critic. Yes, it may be the biggest pile of dross ever, yes, you may want to scratch your own eyes out before the end. But it’s your job to watch it, and review it. Let’s face it, it’s not difficult to get paid to sit in front of a screen for an hour and a half, then churn out 400 words on it.
Shame on you, Roger Ebert.
Posted by Jim on October 27th, 2008I heard from several sources that people didnt recieve the product they bought from amazon
Posted by FrankFN on June 15th, 2009is this true?
Leave a Reply