He was a shill. Hardly a critic.
Roger Ebert: (Fahrenheit) ‘9/11’: Just the facts? (in defense of Michael Moore documentaries)
Chicago Sun Times ^ | June 18, 2004 | Roger Ebert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157177/posts
A reader writes:
“In your articles discussing Michael Moore’s film ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore’s films, I don’t think they fit the definition of a documentary.”
That’s where you’re wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker’s point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made “Fahrenheit 9/11” for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there’ll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore’s film is partisan. “He doesn’t tell both sides,” we’ll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.
The wise French director Godard once said, “The way to criticize a film is to make another film.” That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain...
He ducked out on reviewing The 2016 Obama film and others that played theaters in his town. Wrong timing. Overloaded. Excuses excuses. At least some libs are up front and say “NO, it offends me!”
Rog did get busted late in life for reviewing a movie that he watched for less than 15 minutes. May have been an isolated case. Or maybe just the only time he got caught.
In the 1970s and up until the mid 1990s or so he was a terrific critic. He introduced a lot of people to great films they never would have heard of.