1. This is unprofessional any way you cut it. I'm all for turning off movies that aren't proving to be enjoyable. But to review a movie, you MUST watch the whole movie to make a final judgement on it. His whole excuse that the "rating only applies to the first 8 minutes" is just plain ignorant. The film is still listed with the negative rating on his site, which will lead many people who don't read the review to assume the movie is bad, when he's in no place to make that judgement.

Posted at 1:07PM on Oct 19th 2008 by DylanG

2. Depends how you define quitting. I purposely walked out of "Black Hawk Down" after an hour of its assaulting my senses; there may be great technical achievement there, but I just found it unwatchable (or at least unlistenable).

On the other hand, I found "Batman Begins" so engrossing that I fell asleep in under an hour...

Posted at 1:08PM on Oct 19th 2008 by Mark H Wilkinson

3. Not sure about the sleep criteria. I mean, I've nodded off during a good movie or two, but when I flat-out tried to fall asleep during a screening of Happily N'Ever After, it was as if the movie wouldn't let me...

Posted at 1:10PM on Oct 19th 2008 by William Goss

4. I have to agree with Dylan. I do think he had every right to give up on the movie if he thought it was that bad, and I'm ok with him only reviewing the first 8 minutes, but the way it displays on his site is completely misleading. He should have given the star rating an NA or said right at the beginning that it was a partial review. Of course it is also up to the reader to look for more than one person's opinion before deciding to see or not see a movie, especially if one of the reviews they are reading is from Ebert.

Posted at 1:29PM on Oct 19th 2008 by Herff

5. "Of course it is also up to the reader to look for more than one person's opinion before deciding to see or not see a movie, especially if one of the reviews they are reading is from Ebert."

Agreed.

Posted at 1:30PM on Oct 19th 2008 by William Goss

6. It's pretty weak that Ebert would do that, but not unexpected.
He's been going downhill for a number of years, and I'm not even sure
he watches any of the movies he reviews all the way through.

Read his reviews for Wanted and Tropic Thunder and notice how he mentions one or two plot points from each movie that are clearly incorrect (and one could know that they're wrong even just by watching the trailers of the movies).

Posted at 1:38PM on Oct 19th 2008 by Paul

7. I don't find anything wrong with it. If the obstacles up front are insurmountable, why even bother finishing it? I'm fine with any critic doing this, actually. Should a food critic devour every bite if the first two are revolting? Should a game critic sit through 20+ hours of gameplay if the first 2 hours are miserable? As long as it is disclosed, I have no problem with extrapolation.

It's not like Ebert is a building inspector who must examine every rivet for safety's sake. Movies are linear, if the filmmaker cannot provide enough incentive to move on down the line, why suffer through it?

Posted at 2:33PM on Oct 19th 2008 by Peter Hall

8. agreed.

Posted at 2:51PM on Oct 19th 2008 by eugene

9. Ebert is and forever will be the most illustrious film critic. He said in his review that this was only like the second movie he has walked out on. I find it perfectly fine. Ebert has seen enough movies in his day and he knows what's what. And I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. The fact that he was honest enough to come out and say he walked out is the difference between him and a lot of other film critics. I mean this isn't even a big deal, it is only because it is Ebert that anyone even cares and that should something about the caliber of this mans reputation. And lets be real whether people like or dislike or don't care about what he's done it won't really effect him, he won't be fired, he won't be "picketed", and I sure hope he doesn't quit. This was just one independent movie, that he choose to see, that he walked out on, it had to happen sometime.

Posted at 4:58PM on Oct 19th 2008 by Tyler

10. I try for 20 minutes but i didn't last that long on a few recently. You know crap when you see it...

Posted at 9:10PM on Oct 19th 2008 by YouFaceTheTick

11. I'm reminded of Loveline and how Drew and Adam could sometimes know everything about a caller from hearing how they said 'hello'. When you've seen and written about as many movies as Ebert has, I grant full license in detecting garbage in the first 8 minutes and knowing the rest isn't worth watching.

Posted at 10:02PM on Oct 19th 2008 by Paul

12. Maybe eight minutes in he realized he had a life he'd rather live.

Posted at 8:06AM on Oct 20th 2008 by Luke

13. Ebert's probably got a higher ability to sniff out the crap, so perhaps his 8 minutes is understandable -- he's been in the business longer than I've been alive.

Usually, it's about 20 minutes in when I give up. 'Congo' was my first walk-out. 'Alexander' one of the more recent turkeys that come to mind.

Still wish to this day I'd left 'Pearl Harbor'.

Posted at 8:37AM on Oct 20th 2008 by taustin

14. Thank you! I couldn't remember the last movie I'd given up on, cause I go back and finish just about everything, but I gave up on Pearl Harbor after maybe an hour.

Posted at 4:09PM on Oct 20th 2008 by Herff

15. I think that what he did was definitely provocative, but he does state in the review that it only covers eight minutes. Most critics would have walked out and left it at that, instead Ebert used his review to spark discussion. He could have sat through the whole film and lambasted it, instead he made a decision based on a long career of watching and reviewing film. Sounds to me like the filmmakers got off easy. First time directors should cut out his review and keep it in their wallets.

-The only movie I ever walked out of was Charlie's Angels. It was at the ten minute mark. Now I don't walk out, I just fall asleep.

Posted at 1:07PM on Oct 20th 2008 by rockyOnasis

16. Dragon Wars. I was watching it at home, and I ejected the DVD 10 minutes into the movie. It wasn't even worth that much of my time.

Terrible, terrible, terrible movie.

Posted at 1:07PM on Oct 20th 2008 by Brian

17. I applaud Ebert for employing the "Life is Too Short" principal in his everyday life. I was wondering about his 1/2-star review for "Tru Loved", but I didn't get the chance to read it to find out the details. Now I am intrigued.

The earliest I ever walked out of a film is about 6 minutes into Juno. I walked out right after the pregnancy test/convenience store scene. "No way I'm sitting through shitty hipster doofus dialogue like this for an entire movie" I said to myself. That was the weekend it opened. After hearing about how blogging great it was from everyone and their teenage unwed mother, I decided to give it another shot and went back a few months later. I only got through the second viewing with a lot of patience and the assistance of a flask full of Captain and Coke.

Posted at 1:07PM on Oct 20th 2008 by kevjohn