Film critics usually file a review or two they’d like to take back.
This critic still winces over giving “Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!” a passing grade.
So it’s likely legendary film critic Roger Ebert wouldn’t mind amending a critique or two from his Pulitzer Prize-winning career.
But I wonder what he thinks of this review he wrote after seeing “An Inconvenient Truth” in today’s post Climategate world:
“Global warming is real.
It is caused by human activity.
Mankind and its governments must begin immediate action to halt and reverse it.
If we do nothing, in about 10 years the planet may reach a “tipping point” and begin a slide toward destruction of our civilization and most of the other species on this planet.
After that point is reached, it would be too late for any action.”
Earth to Roger: Have you read the news lately?
WWTW may not be right as rain about every movie, but I sure as heck don’t go out on a limb like that.
Ebert ends his review in histrionic fashion:
Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be “impartial” and “balanced” on global warming means one must take a position like Gore’s. There is no other view that can be defended. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, has said, “Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” I hope he takes his job seriously enough to see this film. I think he has a responsibility to do that.
Cue the Sinatra song. Please. For Roger’s sake.
Related posts:
on 
on 
on 
on 
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I used to enjoy reading Ebert’s reviews, but his vitriolic remarks towards anyone who differs from him politically have made him positively insufferable. Why should I value his opinion when he views me with contempt?
Mrs. WWTW does not share my political views … yet I don’t view her or her beliefs with the animosity Ebert shares toward those who disagree with him. It’s a shame Ebert’s more recent reviews – and tweets – reveal a less tolerant side of him.
What Roger Ebert says about conservatives should be irrelevant. The man has major physical issues and is likely getting an endorphin high the only way he can now, by getting really really angry about politics and striking out at the people who disagree with him.
The only people taking him seriously at this point are the Olbermann extremists. It might be better if the right blogosphere just filed him under “off the deep end” and move on to consider the people who actually influence public opinion.
It’s not just conservatives or groups that hold to opposing political views who are on the receiving end of his vitrolic rants. Religionists, especially Creationists and some proponents of ID, have been the target of his intolerance as well.
Who really cares what that over-paid progressive thinks about anything important. He should just stick to whether a movie is well done or not. The political message is waaaaaay beyond him being “objective.” He needs to shut up with his political rhetoric and talk about Hollywood phonies, which is his specialty and he knows plenty about.
Anyone who thinks for a minute that Ebert will ever admit he was wrong about any Leftist subject (let alone print a retraction) should immediately put down the blunt. That much hate and vitriol will never allow him to be reasonable (or admit fault) again.
Wow, I forgot about his review of Inconvenient Truth. Shows that it isn’t the operation that made him insane, he’s been insane for well over a decade.
The funny thing is I always thought Siskel was the better of the two. Ebert got all the acclaim, but generally if Siskel liked a movie there was a better chance I’d enjoy it. Ebert’s all about picking movies with left-wing messages and boring foreign films.
WOW! It’s funny how ENTERTAINERS (and their fans) take themselves and their political and social opinions so seriously YET they try to discredit the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – two true modern American thinkers – by calling THEM entertainers… It’s kinda like:
‘No snow = Global Warming’ – NO WAIT – now ‘LOTS of snow = Global Warming’. OR…
‘We are SPENDING our way out of this recession, starting with GOVT spending, because we, your government are fiscally responsible’. Another doozy we ain’t buyin’ , Libs.
If the climate change/global warming was truly as bad and dangerous as Al Gore says, why isn’t he on all the news shows every week? The only answer is that he can’t back-up what he’s saying under scrutiny. Why not?
When I see Al Gore start going on CNN/FOX/ABC/CBS news and answering questions and making non-believers look like fools (which I don’t think he can), then I’ll truly believe in what Al Gore is saying.
And Roger Ebert has been washed-up for years….since Siskel passed-away, Roger has sadly become overly political and unwatchable.
Wow. That’s a great pull from the way-back machine, Christian. What an embarrassment.
But there will be no retraction or apology, in keeping with Ebert’s ungenerous professional character.
Ebert’s opinion is of no consequence. I assume that no one took it seriously at the time so no harm, no foul. Besides which if you’re looking for a retraction from the Pudgy Pundit, don’t.
Ted K — GREAT point. If a topic I held near and dear to my heart was under attack as the global warming movement currently is – I’d be on every talk show imaginable. Donde esta Al Gore? And are there any journalists out there who will ask him tough questions down the road? Let him defend himself … and do it with respect and dignity. He’s an ex VP. He deserves that. He doesn’t deserve to be treated as someone above tough questioning.
If these AGW believers are so concerned about the health of the planet you’d think they would be overjoyed that there really isn’t a problem. Why aren’t they all heaving a big sigh of relief?
I miss Sisskel!
Used to enjoy Roger’s reviews,but his MSNBC mentality is a real turn-off.
The now pudgy Gore should have to return his awards gained by perpetrating his hoax…..the Oscar and the Nobel.And what of all his ill-gained millions?
As Vito Corleone stated so aptly during the Godfather after meeting with the heads of the 5 crime syndicate families, he stated the following, “‘Tatalia is a Pimp!’”
Now let me be so bold as to state so aptly about the non-verbal be ever loquacious, Roger Ebert, “‘Ebert is a Pimp!’”
Thank you for the vine.
I know I’m missing the point of this, but come on . . . Win A Date With Tad Hamilton was good fun. It was no Big Lebowski, but it was pretty funny.
As an Oklahoman, I’m so proud of Sen. Inhofe.
I watched as much of An Inconvenient Truth as I could stand, which wasn’t a whole lot, but I thought it was fairly apparent even to someone without a science background that it was filled with dubious statements. In other words, even a liberal arts type like Ebert should have recognized that it was not a very rigorous film and not worthy of that sort of praise.
As far as Ebert wishing to retract that review, I bet not. I bet he would say that it’s all about the long term trends (think of the poor polar bears!), not a few snow storms on the east coast.
“Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – two true modern American thinkers”
If Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are considered “two true modern American thinkers” then I feel sorry for America. I really, really do.
I haven’t watched him since Siskel died. No loss. He’s talking to himself and Olbermann fans.
Being a Liberal means never having to say you are sorry, or admit you are wrong. Ebert is the quintessential Liberal.