Tuckerfan was clearly referring to their review of Yentil, which may be an entirely different movie. 
And the timer bit.
Not possible that I’m misremembering the program or have it confused, since I rarely watched the Jeff Lyons show, and shortly after the program originally aired, I found out that one of my dad’s employees at the time was a big Babs fan, and I proceeded to use the comments that Siskel & Ebert made on the show to rag on him about it. That’s Ebert’s newspaper column review of the film that you’ve linked to, and not anything doing with his show, and I’ve noticed that there’s been some differences between his comments on the shows and his newspaper column. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, since it’s quite possible that he figures there’s a different demographic for each, so he probably structures the comments differently for each one.
See here - a thread I started about some errors he made during his review for Ronin. There’s some others mentioned in there.
True, but I’ve never heard of him panning a movie on the show while raving about it in the column, or vice versa. In his written review, he does take on the issue of Streisand’s age, and in a way that could seem unflattering to a casual reader: he admits it’s somewhat ridiculous that Streisand would attempt to play a 17-year-old, yet his review was actually admiring of her chutzpah.
Roger obviously doesn’t speak German either.
He constantly refers to the film as “Das Boot” pronounced like the English word for cowboy footwear. In German, it is pronounced exactly the same as “Boat” in English, just spelled differently. Same with names of German actors and other films. This is not a big deal and I don’t expect reviewers to speak 20 languages, but Roger seems to massacre the German language worse than anyone else I have heard on television. Maybe he is equally bad in French and Italian.
Still - I like Roger. Now maybe someone can explain how so-called-film-critic Gene Shalit stays on the air with his one sentence, nonsensical snippets that have nothing whatsoever to do with the film he is supposedly reviewing.
I’ve read Ebert’s reviews regularly for years, and I have noticed occasional misquotes or factual errors–moreso than I’d expect from someone in his position, really.
But if you think about it, he reviews up to five films every week, and probably sees even more. If I saw and wrote about that many movies every week, I’d misremember a few things, too. There’s also no one to fact-check for him, since he is one of few who have seen the movie by the time it comes out. It’s also easy to change details around when you roll something over and over in your head, as a good movie critic will.
So I don’t worry much about it.
Well, unless someone’s able to turn up a videotape of the show, or a transcript of it, we’ll never know for sure.
Truer (and more confusing) quote marks have never been typed.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19941014/REVIEWS/410140301/1023
Wrong.
Hero hands Dana the croissant and exposes her breast. He butters the croissant, then her breast. He sprinkles cinammon on the croissant, then her breast. She eats the croissant while he licks her breast. His mouth never comes into contact with the croissant.
Some will say that this is a minor detail. I say a scene involving Dana Delaney’s breast really sticks in your memory.
To be honest my comment was not based on a general memory of various Ebert threads and discussions, and I can’t at present defend my claim that he frequently fails to watch the entire movie, because given the number of movies he watches I’d have to come up with dozens of examples for that to be literally true. I managed to find a couple in a few minutes of relatively disinterested searching, in “Fargo” and “Saving Private Ryan” but I’m not even sure the “Fargo” error is because he didn’t watch the movie (he misunderstood the complex nature of the hapless Jerry Lundegaard’s scams.)
What? The idea that he finds women sexy? 
I seem to remember someone complaining about him making a major mistake in his review for The Italian Job (the remake), something about the weight of a safe. Haven’t seen it so I can’t really comment. I will say that I enjoy most of his reviews so much and they are quite detailed and insightful, I’ll forgive him a mistake or two once in a while.
Ebert allegedly missed a rather important and un-missiable-unless-you’re-not-watching plot twist with respect to how the loot was spirited away, which I won’t repeat here as it’s a spoiler.
However, if in fact he did make this error in his review, it’s been revised for the review on his Web site.
Really? I’ve never heard even one person pronounce it any other way than “Das Boot”. I’m not debating whether your assertion about the German pronunciation is correct; I’m just saying that nobody ever says it that way.
That being said, Ebert does sometimes get some details wrong in his reviews, but he is generally willing to admit it openly when he’s made an error and someone points it out. While in a lot of cases I don’t agree with his opinion of a movie, he is one of the few film reviewers out there who actually has a lot of knowledge about film. When you see as many movies per year as he has done every year for the past four decades, you’re bound to learn a lot and lose a few details at the same time. Hell, with crap like Resident Evil, he’s lucky (or maybe not) if he remembers the basic plot five minutes after he leaves the theater.
FWIW, I say it that way, and I don’t speak German. It’s just that I heard some time ago that this is the correct pronunciation, so that’s what I go with.
I just realized what I said was ambiguous. I mean that I pronounce the word “Boot” in the title like the English word “boat.”
I caught him redhanded!
Take a look at the review for The Italian Job. The second paragraph says:
Nothing wrong there. But what happens if we go back in time and read the original version of the review, published in June of 2003?
The bolded sentence is a severe factual error. Spoiler for those who haven’t seen it:
The getaway boat was a diversion. The safe sinks to the bottom of the canal where it is cracked by scuba-diving safecrackers. Not that this is any more plausible, but there ya go.
So it seems Ebert has engaged in some reviewer revisionism. For shame. I’m sure other long-since corrected errors could be dug up with this method, but I do not have the patience.
I generally like Ebert, though I do notice a lot of errors in his stuff. (Especially since I tend to read reviews after I see a film.)
Ok, I realize this is Russian, but I recently heard him pronounce Potemkin for the first time. I’ve never heard anyone say Potemkin in the past and I always assumed you stressed the “Po” as in Pokemon. Ebert stresses the “tem”. Can anyone tell me what the correct pronounciation is?
I don’t know Russian pronunciation. Po-TEM-kin is the standard Anglicised pronunciation.