# Factual errors that Roger Ebert has made **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 10, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885 "2005-07-10T21:11:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/21 "2005-07-11T13:07:15Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > He said that _Lost in Translation_ was brilliant and moving, proving conclusively he’d never seen it. Hardy har. I loved that movie. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/22 "2005-07-11T13:07:49Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > I read Ebert’s review, then read John Scalzo’s review of his review. I also saw this movie for the first time about 2 months ago, and frankly, I don’t see any mistakes in Ebert’s review. > > I see Scalzo whining a lot, and calling the use of the phrase “on the Internet Movie Database” a whole paragraph, but I didn’t see any mistakes about the plot of the movie in Ebert’s review. > > \ Shades of Michael Moore! ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/23 "2005-07-11T13:09:50Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Back when him and Siskel were still on PBS, they reviewed _Yentil_ and both of them panned the movie, saying things like they couldn’t believe someone as old as Barbara Streisand could try to play someone as young as her character was supposed to be, and that a 97 page book really isn’t long enough to base a film on. Then, years later they did a retrospective Babs career, and both of them claimed to have loved _Yentil_ from the start. Ebert’s [original review](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19831209/REVIEWS/312090302/1023) of _Yentl_ gave it three and a half stars. Is it possible you’re misremembering the original _Siskel & Ebert_ program, or confusing it with one of the rip-offs (Jeff Lyons and Michael Medved perhaps)? > [@CalMeacham](#): > > In his review of **Aliens** , I believe, he stated that the film had already been made several times – as **Alien** , **The Thing** , and **Invasion of the Body Snatchers**. well, Alien ain’t Aliens (the former, many SF film fans feel, owes more than a little to the 50s film It! The Terror from Beyond Space), The Thing is based on John W. Campbell’s story “Who Goes There”, and TIotBS is based on Finney’s novel “The Body Snatchers”. None of them have anything to do with each other in either origin or plot. On occasion Ebert has shown that he is, in fact, familiar with science fiction, but here he sounds like a typical mainstream critic ignorant of the genre and not terribly concerned about it. Ebert’s [review of _Aliens_](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19860718/REVIEWS/607180301/1023) says nothing of the kind. His “Great Movie” [review](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031026/REVIEWS08/310260301/1023) of he first “Alien” mentions Howard Hawks’ “The Thing” as an influence, which frankly is not much of a stretch. Come on, folks … practically every review the man ever wrote is available online. In a thread specifically devoted to pointing out inaccuracies, is it too much bother to surf over to [RogerEbert.com](http://RogerEbert.com) and check your **own** facts? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/24 "2005-07-11T13:14:17Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > Come on, folks … practically every review the man ever wrote is available online. In a thread specifically devoted to pointing out inaccuracies, is it too much bother to surf over to [RogerEbert.com](http://RogerEbert.com) and check your **own** facts? That is what I said! 😃 Ok, I’ll stop with the “jokes”, now. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/25 "2005-07-11T13:27:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by CalMeacham > In his review of Aliens, I believe, he stated that the film had already been made several times – as Alien, The Thing, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. well, Alien ain’t Aliens (the former, many SF film fans feel, owes more than a little to the 50s film It! The Terror from Beyond Space), The Thing is based on John W. Campbell’s story “Who Goes There”, and TIotBS is based on Finney’s novel “The Body Snatchers”. None of them have anything to do with each other in either origin or plot. On occasion Ebert has shown that he is, in fact, familiar with science fiction, but here he sounds like a typical mainstream critic ignorant of the genre and not terribly concerned about it. > Ebert’s review of Aliens says nothing of the kind. His “Great Movie” review of he first “Alien” mentions Howard Hawks’ “The Thing” as an influence, which frankly is not much of a stretch. It wasn’t his original review of Aliens. IIRC, it was in his book **I Really, Really, Really Hated This Movie** , and he definitely did say it. ---
**Author:** ![Silentgoldfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/26 "2005-07-11T13:44:14Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > It wasn’t his original review of Aliens. IIRC, it was in his book **I Really, Really, Really Hated This Movie** , and he definitely did say it. When you don’t even have the name of the book right… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/27 "2005-07-11T13:46:00Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > Review-wise? How 'bout the fact that he gives the original _Die Hard_ two lousy stars, then turns around and gives the univerally panned sequel to a _rip-off_ of \*Die Hard \* (_Speed 2_ ) three-and-a-half stars? Any credibility he had left after that was gone, as far as I’m concerned. Not only is this not an issue of fact, it’s not even an issue of credibility. It’s just a matter of opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/28 "2005-07-11T13:50:11Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > It wasn’t his original review of Aliens. IIRC, it was in his book **I Really, Really, Really Hated This Movie** , and he definitely did say it. In any case, this isn’t an instance of a factual error. It’s his opinion about how similar the movies are that you disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/29 "2005-07-11T13:56:23Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > It wasn’t his original review of Aliens. IIRC, it was in his book **I Really, Really, Really Hated This Movie** , and he definitely did say it. 1. The book is called _I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie_. 2. _Aliens_ isn’t in it (not surprisingly, since Ebert gave it a thumbs up), although \*Alien Resurrection \* is. 3. Even that review doesn’t contain anything resembling your quote about the film being a remake of \*The Thing \* and _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/30 "2005-07-11T14:06:39Z")
> [@](#): > > I can’t trust any writer who thinks a sequel to Resident Evil would be any cause for celebration. I don’t care if it was based on a video game it was still a crappy movie. A bigger problem is that Ebert’s review passed over bigger problems in the movie. He actually panned the few things that did make sense, ironically enough. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/31 "2005-07-11T14:09:25Z")
Sorry, folks, I’m doing this from memory without the booksd in front of me, but Ebert definitely did state what I credit him with in one of his books. I started a thread on this at the time the book came out, but it was a few years ago. And it _is_ a factual error to claim that Alien, The Thing, and Body Snatchers are all versions of the same story. ---
**Author:** ![Winston\_Bongo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a9adbd/32.png) [@Winston\_Bongo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winston_Bongo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/32 "2005-07-11T14:21:19Z")
In his review of **Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy** , Ebert seems to think \*The Salmon of Doubt \* was one of the Hitchhiker books. It was actually an unfinished Dirk Gently novel. And yes, this is nitpicking on my part, since Ebert openly admitted his ignorance of Adams’s work in the review. But it’s the only factual error I can recall at the moment . . . ---
**Author:** ![Silentgoldfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/33 "2005-07-11T14:25:05Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > And it _is_ a factual error to claim that Alien, The Thing, and Body Snatchers are all versions of the same story. Not really, since the only times I’ve read him lump them together is when he complains that aliens would probably have better things to do with their time than be evil, a link that those 3 movies do share. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/34 "2005-07-11T14:31:26Z")
I can’t find my posts using the Search feature – evidently it’s too old. It might have been one of his Video Companions (now his Yearbooks) that had the quote: [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0836236882/qid=1121092904/sr=1-20/ref=sr\_1\_20/002-2229313-4816050?v=glance&s=books](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0836236882/qid=1121092904/sr=1-20/ref=sr_1_20/002-2229313-4816050?v=glance&s=books) But I don’t own the book, so I can’t look it up, and the relevant page isn’t on Amazon. [quuote]Not really, since the only times I’ve read him lump them together is when he complains that aliens would probably have better things to do with their time than be evil, a link that those 3 movies do share. [/quote] Nope - he actually says that “this movie has been made three times” befoewe citing the films – he’s clearly implying that they are all versions of the same story, not simply that the aliens had better things to do. It might have been critic’s broad sweep – not intending to literall suggest that they were the same film or from the same source, but that they were too similar. But as worded, it cleaqtrly implied that they were all versions of the same story. And, even as a broad sweep, it’s inaccurate. By no stretch is Body Snatchers the same as Alien or Aliens. And The Thing is significantly different itself. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/35 "2005-07-11T14:32:18Z")
OK, I’ve dug up **CalMeacham’s** quote. It’s from Ebert’s [review](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19820101/REVIEWS/201010349/1023) of **The Thing,** and it looks like Cal has a case: > [@Roger Ebert](#): > > The original story was called “Who Goes There?” It was written by John W. Campbell, Jr., in the late 1930s, and it provided such a strong and scary story that it inspired at least four movie versions before this one: The original THE THING in 1951, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS in 1956 and 1978, ALIEN in 1979, and now John Carpenter’s 1982 remake, again called THE THING. Note that while Ebert is wrong WRT “Body Snatchers,” he does not mention **Aliens** (it hadn’t been made yet), and **Alien** certainly owes _some_ kind of debt to “Who Goes There?”. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/36 "2005-07-11T14:32:46Z")
Since the topic was apparently initiated by a comment of mine in another thread, I was interested to see what would develop, but I’m not really sure where this thread is heading. My original concern was a claim that Ebert often does not watch the entirety of a movie that he is reviewing. Another post claimed that it is “well-known” in the Chicago community that he makes long trips to the snack bar. I asked for solid proof of this. I’m not sure that pointing out factual errors in his reviews is solid proof that he doesn’t watch a movie. There are many other explanations – he doesn’t pay close attention; he misses things while taking notes; he sees versions of movies that are changed before general release; or (what might be more common than not) many movies do not clearly communicate important points in a manner that is readily understandable to a casual moviegoer (as opposed to someone who has, say, read the book or other supplemental materials, or has viewed the movie more than once, or is keenly interested in the subject and paid special attention). That aside, if we’re still interested in cataloguing errors in his reviews, can we stick to actual errors regarding events depicted on film rather than perceived errors in his analysis or conclusions about a movie? If you disagree with his thoughts about a movie (how similar it was to other movies) then that is hardly proof that he wasn’t paying adequate attention (either because he was at the snack bar or something else). ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/37 "2005-07-11T14:47:54Z")
Many thanks, **Nonsuch** – As I said, I don’t have the book (and if I had, it wouldn’t be at work). I still can’t let him off the hook on “Alien” – his wording insists that it was based on Campbell’s story. while it’s true that the claustrophobic atmosphere and “creature on the loose” in a closed environment almost certainly had some influence on the film Alien, most folks feel, as I noted above, that Alien is basically ripped off from Jerome Bixby’s monster-on-the-spaceship flick It! The Terror from Beyond Space, to which it owes a helluva lot more. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/38 "2005-07-11T15:13:15Z")
> [@Winston Bongo](#): > > In his review of **Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy** , Ebert seems to think \*The Salmon of Doubt \* was one of the Hitchhiker books. It was actually an unfinished Dirk Gently novel. And yes, this is nitpicking on my part, since Ebert openly admitted his ignorance of Adams’s work in the review. But it’s the only factual error I can recall at the moment . . . What he actually says is, > [@](#): > > The movie does not inspire me to learn lots more about The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide, The Salmon of Doubt, and so on. Like “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou,” but with much less visual charm, it is a conceit with little to be conceited about. He doesn’t actually claim that Salmon is one of the Hitchhiker books. He sort of implies it, but since you nitpicked first. . . ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/39 "2005-07-11T15:24:04Z")
He does call them scientists. Ebert says > [@](#): > > Alice/Janus Prospero/Marsha Thompson and her colleagues are **highly trained scientists** , which leads to the following exchange when they stare at a pool of zombie blood on the floor. This is wrong. While yes, most of my review of the review is a rant that is a factual mistake about the movie. Just like the OP was asking for. ---
**Author:** ![Misha77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Misha77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misha77)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885/40 "2005-07-11T15:51:27Z")
Yeah, **acsenray** , I don’t think this thread will provide the proof that you were looking for. I read Ebert’s reviews a lot, so I was a bit taken aback by **Rickjay** ’s comment. But it looks like Ebert doesn’t make factual mistakes THAT often. Maybe I’d see it differently if I were a more hardcore cinephile. As for whatever mistake I believe I caught him in, none of the responses are ringing any bells. Perhaps it may have been the _Raising Victor Vargas_ misquote, but I thought it was something more glaring than that. Either way, I find the discussion interesting. Nitpickery, sure, but it’s not like Dopers haven’t been accused of that before. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-errors-that-roger-ebert-has-made/311885.md?page=3)