RE: "The real dispute came because Medved warned people that the movie wasn't a feel good film that it was about euthanasia and left him feeling down, in his review. The producers jumped all over Medved, claiming that he gave away the ending and started panning Medved as a reviewer. Medved got angry because he had purposely avoided giving away the ending, unlike some other reviewers. Medved dug his feet in and the story has been escalating ever since."
Maybe the producers of MDB avoided giving away the ending because the movie is STILL IN THEATERS. Medved, as a supposedly professional film critic, should have known better than to ruin the movies' surprise developement for millions (the absolute WORST thing a film critic can do on the job) because he wanted to get on his damn soapbox and preach his politics to us. There was no excuse for what he did, and there never will be.
Michael Medved has lost all credibility with paying audiences, and he may not get a chance to earn it back.
Screw him.
What's your problem???
Critics give away the endings to movies all the time. Heck, most trailers tell all the good jokes when advertising a comedy. Ebert himself says that American audiences love to see what they expect to see, which is why most trailers give away the plot of a film before you pay money to see it.
Chris Reeves did in real life what the script wouldn't allow Maggie Fitzgerald to do in a movie: find a reason and a will to live.