I wish I could remember what review it was in, I'd quote it verbatim. But I've read hundreds upon hundreds of Ebert reviews, and I read this one a long time ago. What he said surprised me, though, and thus has stuck with me.

In one of Roger Ebert's movie reviews, a while ago, he was commenting on the fact that the filmmakers had said their film doesn't glorify what is shown on screen, it just presents it. But Ebert said that because something is blown up to the size of the big screen, and because it's being done by fashionably coiffed and dressed movie stars, it does promote it, so matter what the filmmakers think.

I was blown away, because it didn't sound like something Ebert would say.

What do you all think about this idea?

I think that is a good argument in cases where films are sloppy in their handling of material. In other words, they set out to make a film about something but end up saying something completley different because the emphasis is elsewhere. But I'd hesitate to adopt that as a general rule because that would mean any film-maker who tries edgy, sensative material is doomed to be seen as exploitative and manipulative. Which I profoundly disagree with.

Now I remember this was the accusation Ebert initially levelled at Fight Club. Indeed, digging up his original review we find the quite damning opening:

I wonder if Ebert ever has the luxury of revisting a film. For time purposes alone.