Failure is hardly original. If it were possible to get negative stars that movie would have gotten them.
Don’t blame a reviewer for reviewing movies.
Cimino ruined Cimino’s career. A flop can be forgiven a bloated unnecessarily expense flop can not. His career was ruined before the movie came out due to his own actions. It would have had to be the best movie ever to overcome the production issues. It wasn’t, in any form.
Those sum up my opinion. I enjoyed his reviews in their own right and felt like he knew his stuff. Even if I disagreed with his review, it was usually still interesting/entertaining to read.
Refreshing in this era where film reviews feel like two hundred random people with blogs and “If you liked this video, smash that Like button and subscribe!!!” and none giving me confidence in their opinions.
I don’t believe Ebert ever specifically said, “If you make a film that’s original, different, unpredictable, and achieves its aims, then it’s a good film.” That he praised one film for those things does not mean that including them makes a film good, or that excluding them makes a film bad. Two movies can do the same thing, and one can do it well, and one can do it poorly.
The movie was already poorly regarded by that point; even in 1980 the general public heard about this stuff.
And let’s be honest; the second version is a bad movie. It just is. I know some people are now insistent it’s some kind of misunderstood masterwork; it’s not, and people will ALWAYS claim the big turkey was really a beautiful eagle all along, after a few years have passed.
I don’t understand why Ebert is to blame for writing a negative review (one of many) about a bad movie. That is his job, and frankly I don’t think reviewers had much to do with movies succeeding and failing, or else Transformers movies wouldn’t still be made anymore.
I have seen it and find it to be very average at best, but not, as claimed at the time, the biggest fiasco in cinematic history, which is where I take issue with Ebert. The vitriol was clearly based on the bloated budget and waste. Same thing with Waterworld, a very average film that was savaged due to the budget. You should judge a film based on what’s onscreen, not anything else (i.e. downgrading Chinatown because of Polanski’s later personal problems). If this film had been made for 1 million, it would have not have gotten the beating it did.
The OP just mentions the title of Ebert’s book, but the reason for the title is not mentioned, it was from Ebert’s take down of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, it was one for the ages:
I think his regular reviews were sometimes medicore and sloppy but his Great Movies pieces are usually excellent and an incredible resource for movie lovers, best read after watching the film. Since the OP mentioned Third Man and Casablanca, both of which I love, here is an Ebert analysis of the two films (spoilers):
I had watched both films several times when I read this but I hadn’t quite made this connection which certainly enriched my understanding of both films. It’s a good example of the kind of insight that a good critic provides regardless of whether you agree with his specific opinion.
Beyond that what made Ebert special was his sheer versatility. He could deliver a crisp, forceful opinion about a film on TV,do a detailed DVD commentary on Citizen Kane, write movingly about his illness on his blog, post a sharp, funny political tweet about the election. He really was a unique voice and personality which is why he is admired and missed
Hey, give him some credit. He roundly denounced Night of the Living Dead in a national publication – Reader’s Digest, no less – and that helped the film achieve Cult Status.
And if $100 million is supposed to be onscreen and it doesn’t show that should be part of the review. Yes My Dinner With Andre is going to be reviewed differently than Heaven’s Gate because they are different types of movies.
Agree to disagree- budgets for films normally aren’t known unless they are overblown. The money didn’t go to blow and hookers, it IS onscreen- four hour long period pieces filmed on two continents by a perfectionist director with ludicrous attention to detail, many sets, hundreds of extras- its there. He was in a unique position to get an unlimited budget and thought he was making the great American film and went for it- good for him for trying. If this movie made its money back, no one would be talking about it, and the reviews certainly didn’t help. It would have only needed to be the 15th highest grossing film of the year to have made its budget back.
So if Wallace Shawn had demanded $50 million to appear in MDWA, and the producers agreed, it would be a bad film due to a bloated budget not seen onscreen?
Because he was a great writer and a good person.
Just curious, not saying he wasn’t, but what is your basis for considering a total stranger a good person? Googling Ebert Charity, Ebert benevolence, Ebert donations gives no relevant hits.
Waterworld managed to make back its production cost, so apparently the critics couldn’t destroy it. And Ebert did not call Heaven’s Gate “the biggest fiasco in cinematic history” or anything like that.
You’re right about Ebert (I’ll never forgive him for recommending My Dinner With Andre), but oh so wrong about The Third Man.
Honestly, I don’t see how you could make a living as a critic without pissing off a lot of people. That’s a hell of a line to walk. Ebert’s reviews were often enjoyable to read, regardless of whether I agreed or not. And he deserves no blame for the failures of actual movie creators. But I find it hard to understand how he got so famous. And some of the movies he loved were just terrible.
I think it came down to the exposure that he and Siskel got through their television programs (Sneak Previews, then At The Movies). The two of them had a certain chemistry in their interactions (particularly when they disagreed with each other) – people didn’t just watch their shows to see their reviews, but to see the two of them. Plus, in the pre-internet era, their shows were among the most widely-available movie reviews out there.
from the review on his webpage-
"This movie is $36 million thrown to the winds. It is the most scandalous cinematic waste I have ever seen, and remember, I’ve seen “Paint Your Wagon.” "
Easy- here is what I liked about it, here is what I didn’t, this is why it touched me, etc. Without the ‘your movie sucks’ type insults. State up front if reviewing a musical that you don’t generally care for musicals, etc. 
I too loathe My Dinner with Andre, but hear the video game was awesome, and very popular among the Springfield intelligentsia:)
As for me, I liked Ebert for the simple reason is, his tastes aligned with mine. Aside from a often fun read, I got one bit of useful information from his reviews - would I like the film? I could not and do not go to every movie I want to, so having a useful guide to pick the ones to avoid is a big help.
Admittedly, this won’t work for everyone.
Now that he’s gone, I don’t read ANY reviews. There’s no one that I think provides any value for my time. I’d rather take my chances and just see the film.
But yes, Ebert wasn’t perfect. I’ve read reviews of his where is was painfully obvious he either didn’t watch the movie, take good notes, or understand what he was watching. But those were rare.
I loved Roger Ebert’s reviews. I bought his collected reviews and I read them over and over.
Most often, I would read them after watching a movie, because he wrote well, he was entertaining, he had something interesting to say, he supported his opinions, he often pointed out things that I hadn’t noticed, and he usually gave me something to think about.
Sometimes I disagreed with him. That didn’t bother me.
And I loved “My Dinner With Andre.”
I seldom read movie reviews now that Ebert’s gone.