Roger Ebert's Greatest Scathing Reviews
Roger Ebert's Greatest Scathing Reviews
There will never be a film critic as celebrated and highly revered as the great Roger Ebert (1942-2013), the Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Sun-Times critic who made reviewing movies a whole lot of fun than it looks. Hosting notable movie review TV shows with the late great Gene Siskel (1946-1999) as Sneak Previews (1977-1982), At the Movies (1982-1986), and Siskel and Ebert (1986-1999). Ebert had created a lasting legacy as an icon of film criticism, with the "Two Thumbs Up" becoming an enduring phrase in the world of cinema and an example of the enduring legacy of its celebrated critics.
To celebrate the great critic, I compiled a list of Roger Ebert's best scathing reviews on films he immensely disliked. These movies were so awful that they unleashed unbridled anger from the critic and wrote some of the most scathing reviews I have ever seen since reading the reviews to Cats. These reviews will rank in terms of hostility, hilarity, and infamy that have made us say "Damn." Keep in mind that I will also include the rating Ebert gave them and quotes from said reviews and mention some from his list of "Most Hated" films, with only a select few being from the recent years before his passing in 2013. This list is meant to celebrate the great critic, an influence on me, and countless other critics as well, along with celebrating what would have been his 80th birthday. And now, let's take a journey through my personal selection of Roger Ebert's Greatest Scathing Reviews!
14) "an exercise in desperation..." - Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot (1992)
The 1990s were not a good decade for Sylvester Stallone. He appeared in critical failures like Rocky V, Oscar, The Specialist, Judge Dredd, and Assassins and was a magnet for countless Razzie awards. Yet out of all those films he starred in, the one where he arguably hit rock bottom was Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot, a painfully unfunny buddy cop "comedy" that paired him up with Estelle Getty from The Golden Girls. The film earned loads of negative reviews from critics and won 3 Golden Raspberry Awards for Worst Actor (Sylvester Stallone), Worst Actress (Estelle Getty), and Worst Screenplay (Blake Snyder, William Osbourne & William Davies). The film holds a 7% on Rotten Tomatoes, with the consensus reading:
"Thoroughly witless and thuddingly unfunny, Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot gives its mismatched stars very little to work with - and as a result, they really don't work."
Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel tore the film apart on Siskel & Ebert, awarding it the "two thumbs down" seal of disapproval, with Ebert proclaiming it to be "one of the worst movies I've ever seen." He wrote of the film:
"Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot is one of those movies so dimwitted, so utterly lacking in even the smallest morsel of redeeming value, that you stare at the screen in stunned disbelief."
"It is moronic beyond comprehension, an exercise in desperation during which even Sylvester Stallone, a repository of self-confidence, seems to be disheartened."
"There isn't a laugh in this movie. Not a single one, and believe me, I was looking. The situation isn't funny, the characters aren't funny, and the dialogue's idea of humor is lots of closeups of sweet little Estelle Getty using naughty words."
He concluded his review by saying:
"Here they seem trapped in every actor's nightmare, a movie that was filmed before it was written."
13) "Selling tickets to a dreary experience..." - The Love Guru (2008)
No list of career-ending films would be complete without The Love Guru, the 2008 ostensible romantic comedy starring Mike Myers as the titular guru. The plot focuses on the guru trying to help a hockey team player rescue his failing marriage from the brink of divorce and help his team through a failing season. The film failed spectacularly at the box office and earned overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics. It holds a 14% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 24 on Metacritic, and a low 3.8/10 on IMDb. The film got universally panned for its heavy reliance on sex jokes, toilet humor, racist stereotypes, and egregious use of product placement. It's no wonder it took home 3 Razzies for Worst Picture (Paramount), Worst Screenplay (Mike Myers and Graham Gordy), and Worst Actor (Mike Myers).
Roger Ebert gave the film one star out of four, saying the film:
"Myers has some funny moments, but this film could have been written on toilet walls by callow adolescents. Every reference to a human sex organ or process of defecation is not automatically funny simply because it is naughty, but Myers seems to labor under that delusion, He acts as if he's getting away with something, but in fact, all he's getting away with is selling tickets to a dreary experience."
12) "a desperate miscalculation..." - The Master of Disguise (2002)
This Dana Carvey vehicle ranks as the 18th worst-reviewed movie of the 2000s and 44th on the list of the worst-reviewed movies on Rotten Tomatoes. It should come as no surprise, considering this is the same company who brought us such cinematic "gems" as Jack and Jill, the Grown-Ups films, and That's My Boy. It holds a 1% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 12 on Metacritic. It was dead on arrival with critics and audiences alike. Reviews ranged from harsh ("an awful, stillborn comedy" - Entertainment Weekly) to borderline hostile ("If The Master of Disguise had been a free cable movie, I still wouldn't have recommended it" - Richard Roeper).
Ebert gave it just one star out of four, pointing out that the film was about 65 minutes long, with 15 minutes of credits juxtaposed over outtakes and deleted scenes. He wrote:
"The credits go on and on. The movie is like a party guest who thinks he is funny and is wrong. The end credits are like the same guest taking too long to leave."
"The movie is a desperate miscalculation. It gives poor Dana Carvey nothing to do that is really funny and then expects us to laugh because he acts so goofy all the time. But acting funny is not funny. Acting in a situation that's funny--that's funny."
11) "...supply the editing job it so desperately needs." - Bolero (1984)
As far as bad movies go, Bolero is a big nothing movie, a plotless erotic bore starring Bo Derek as a woman searching for the ideal man. Produced by the infamous Cannon Group, the movie barely saw a theatrical release, dumped into few theaters given it was released unrated. Since most theaters refused to show X-rated or even unrated films, the movie barely made a profit. It has the double-edged sword of a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and an "F" on CinemaScore (The first film to earn it). It was nominated for nine Razzies and took home six, Worst Picture (Cannon Films), Worst Director (John Derek), Worst Actress (Bo Derek), Worst New Star (Olivia d'Abo), Worst Screenplay (John Derek), and Worst Musical Score.
Roger Ebert gave the film a rare half-a-star out of four, who pointed out the film's half-assed, nonexistent plot as nothing more than being a porno in disguise. He said:
"Let's face it. Nobody is going to Bolero for the plot anyway. They're going for the good parts. There are two good parts, not counting her naked ride on horseback, which was the only scene in the movie that had me wondering how she did it."
"The real future of Bolero is in home cassette rentals, where you fast-forward and instant replay controls will supply the editing job the movie so desperately needs."
10) "To call it one of the year's worst would be a kindness." - Frozen Assets (1992)
If you have never heard of this movie, you're not alone because neither have I. This movie was a colossal bomb at the box office, only making $400K against an $8 million budget (It's pathetic knowing The Lonely Lady made more money than this). It holds a one-of-a-kind 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and is only notable for being featured on Siskel & Ebert. The movie got featured in Ebert's book of films he immensely disliked, but weirdly, it's not on his "Most Hated" list.
Gene Siskel called it one of the dumbest comedies he had ever seen, calling it a depressing viewing experience, and Ebert deemed it the worst comedy ever made. The pair gave the film the "Two Thumbs Down" seal of disapproval, with Ebert handing it a rare zero-stars out of four rating. He wrote in his review:
"I didn't feel like a viewer during Frozen Assets. I felt like an eyewitness to a disaster. If I were more of a hero, I would spend the next couple of weeks breaking into theaters where this movie is being shown and lead the audience to safety. And if i'd been an actor in the film, I would wonder why all the characters in Frozen Assets seem dumber than the average roadkill."
"The movie is seriously bad, but what puzzles me is its tone. This is essentially a children's movie with a dirty mind. No adult could possibly enjoy a single frame of the film -- it's pitched at a level of a knock-knock joke."
"Movies like Frozen Assets are small miracles. You look at them and wonder how, at any stage of production, anyone could have thought there was a watchable movie here. Here is a movie to watch in appalled silence. To call it one of the year's worst would be a kindness."
9) "A vile bag of garbage..." - I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
Finished in 1978 but not released until two years later, this low-budget shocker caused controversy when it got released in theaters. It received universal disdain from critics and got banned in several countries. The film centers around a writer named Jennifer Hills, who after being gang-raped by four men three times in a row, sets out to exact her vengeance on them by brutally killing them. The film consists of 25 minutes of gang rape scenes, which makes for an unpleasant viewing experience, coupled with lengthy scenes of said gang rape, along with some crappy acting and low production values.
Roger Ebert gave the film zero stars, placing it on his "Most Hated" list and blasting it on Sneak Previews with Gene Siskel, who also deemed it the worst movie ever made. Ebert called the film:
"A vile bag of garbage..." "It is a movie so sick, reprehensible, and contemptible that I can hardly believe that it's playing in respectable theaters, such as Plitt's United Artists. But it is. Attending it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life."
"This is a film without a shred of artistic distinction. It lacks even simple craftsmanship. There is no possible motive for exhibiting it, other than the cynical hope that it might make money."
"This movie is an expression of the most diseased and perverted darker human natures because it is made artlessly," "There is no reason to see this movie except to be entertained by the sight of sadism and suffering."
8) "...utterly worthless, shameful trash." - Caligula (1980)
Largely financed by Penthouse magazine founder Bob Guccione, Caligula was to be a political satire written by commentator and author Gore Vidal and directed by Tinto Brass. Guccione, however, had other ideas as he lobotomized Vidal's script, which had been altered by Brass earlier. But the coup de grace was when Guccione took the film and shot hardcore sex scenes to fill the movie. The movie essentially devolved into an expensive porno with a surprisingly all-star cast: Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, Theresa Ann Savoy, and John Gielgud. Vidal ultimately disowned the film with director Tinto Brass, who got credited as a principal photographer in the finished film.
Plagued by release issues, lawsuits, and many other legal issues, Caligula was released into theaters on February 1st, 1980. The film received harsh reviews, with many critics calling it "a trough of rotten swill" (Rex Reed), "A moral holocaust" (Variety), and "an infinitely degraded version of Fellini's Satyricon." Roger Ebert hated it, giving the film zero stars and placing it on his "Most Hated" list. It was also one of the few films Ebert walked out of, leaving the theater after watching two hours of its 170-minute runtime. He called the film:
"...sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it's not the worst film I've seen, that makes it all the more shameful."
"People with talent have allowed themselves to participate in this travesty. Disgusted and unspeakably depressed, I walked out of the film after two hours of its 170-minute length."
"In the two hours of this film that I saw, there were no scenes of joy, natural pleasure, or good sensual cheer. There was, instead, a nauseating excursion into base and sad fantasies."
"...this film is not only garbage on an artistic level, but that it is also garbage on the crude and base level where it no doubt hopes to find its audience. Caligula is not good art, it is not good cinema, and it is not good porn."
7) "...unpleasant in a hostile way." - Battlefield Earth (2000)
If there is ever a film that's become the punchline for bad movies, Battlefield Earth reigns above them all. The John Travolta vehicle has been subject to endless ridicule and an overall laughing stock in the industry, with John Stewart describing the film as "A cross between Star Wars and the smell of ass." Other notable figures have torn the film apart, including such quotes as "The Showgirls of sci-fi shoot 'em ups!" (Daily Variety), "A bloated sci-fi monstrosity" (Toronto Star), and the most prophetic, "What was he thinking?" (The Los Angeles Times).
The movie became a record breaker at the Golden Raspberry awards, scoring an impressive seven wins against eight nominations. It won Worst Picture (Warner Bros.), Worst Director (Roger Christian), Worst Actor (John Travolta), Worst Supporting Actor (Barry Pepper), Worst Supporting Actress (Kelly Preston), Worst Screen Couple (John Travolta and anyone sharing the screen with him) and Worst Screenplay (Corey Mandell and J.D. Shapiro, based on the novel by L. Ron Hubbard). The film won Worst "Drama" of Our First 25 Years in 2005 and Worst Picture of the Decade in 2010. It held the record for the most Razzie wins by a single film until it was beaten by Jack and Jill a decade later with ten wins.
Roger Ebert handed the film half a star out of four, calling the film:
"Battlefield Earth is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. It's not merely bad; it's unpleasant in a hostile way. The visuals are grubby and drab. The characters are unkempt and have rotted teeth. Breathing tubes hang from their noses like ropes of snot. The soundtrack sounds like the boom mike is being slammed against the inside of a 55-gallon drum."
"This movie is awful in so many different ways. Even the opening titles are cheesy. Sci-fi epics usually begin with a stab at impressive titles, but this one just displays green letters on the screen in a type font that came with my Macintosh."
He then talked about the film's ludicrous plot, pointing out several plot holes along with the laughable script of the film. He continued his review with the following:
"Hiring Travolta and Whittaker was a waste of money, since we can't recognize them behind pounds of matted hair and gnarly makeup. Their costumes look like they were purchased from then Goodwill store on the planet Tatooine."
Ebert criticized the film's plot for being nonsensical and drab, having zero characters worth investing in. He later criticized director Roger Christian for his questionably excessive use of Dutch angles throughout the movie.
"The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why."
Ebert would end his review with a prophetic statement on the film's future reputation as an all-time worst film before finishing with a classic jab at the movie.
"I watched in mounting gloom, realizing I was witnessing something historic, a film that for decades to come will be the punch line of jokes about bad movies. There is a moment here where the Psychlos' entire planet (home office and all) is blown to smithereens, without the slightest impact on any member of the audience (or for that matter, the cast). If the film had been destroyed in a similar cataclysm, there might have been a standing ovation."
6) "...a horrible experience of unberable length." - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Michael Bay's movies aren't much in the way of the high standards of cinematic filmmaking, but even this was a career low for him. The first Transformers movie was pretty good, even if it's not a masterpiece. I can hardly say anything positive about the subsequent sequels, which are less revered than the first movie. No sequel has been less liked than the second film, Revenge of the Fallen, which has been subject to the ire of critics.
The movie fell victim to an arduous Writer's Guild strike in 2007-08, which affected other films like Quantum of Solace, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Terminator Salvation. These movies were either incomplete or were rushed to production to avoid the effects of the strike. Revenge of the Fallen had three screenwriters working on it, Ehren Kruger, Alex Kurtzman, and Roberto Orci. Bay himself would contribute to the screenplay by adding more action, characters, and jokes.
The result received negative reviews from critics, who panned the film for its juvenile humor, script, bloated runtime, uneven acting, and characters. However, the visual effects, action sequences, Steve Jablonsky's score, and Peter Cullen and Hugo Weaving's performances received praise. It earned a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes, down from the 58% score from the first film, with the critical consensus reading:
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a noisy, underplotted, and overlong special effects extravaganza that lacks a human touch."
The film's star, Shia LaBeouf, would voice his dissatisfaction with the finished product, stating:
"We got lost. We tried to get bigger. It's what happens with sequels. It's like, how do you top the first one? You got to go bigger. Michael Bay went so big that it became too big, and I think you lost the anchor of the movie... You lost a bit of the relationship. Unless you have those relationships, then the movie doesn't matter. Then it's just a bunch of robots fighting each other."
Even Michael Bay hated the final product, slamming the film in an interview with Empire in 2011. He admitted:
"We made some mistakes. The real fault of Transformers 2 is that it ran into a mystical world. When I look back at it, that was crap. The writers' strike was coming hard and fast. It was just terrible to do a movie where you've got to have a story in three weeks. I was prepping a movie for months when I only had 14 pages of some idea of what the movie was. It's a BS way to make a movie, do you know what I'm saying?"
The movie is the highest-grossing film to win big at the 30th Golden Raspberry Awards. Out of seven nominations, it took home three awards: Worst Picture (Paramount), Worst Director (Michael Bay), and Worst Screenplay (Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, based on the toy line by Hasbro).
Roger Ebert gave the sequel just a star, down from the three-star rating he gave to the first film. He used the first sentence of the review for his third book on movies he gave poor reviews. He called the movie:
"A horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated with three or four moments of amusement. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go to the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music from hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination."
"The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots, Decepticons and Otherbots is meaningless word-flap. Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up. They are dumb as a rock. They share the film with human characters who are much more interesting, and that is very faint praise indeed."
"This is the same man who directed The Rock in 1996. Now he has made Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Faust made a better deal. This isn't a film so much as a toy tie-in. Children holding a Transformer toy in their hand can invest it with wonder and magic, imagining it doing brave deeds and always remaining their friend. I knew a little boy who lost his blue toy truck at the movies and cried as if his heart would break. Such a child might regard Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with fear and dismay."
Ebert would continue to lambast the film and the sequels in his blog until he died in 2013. But it was his opening statement in his article, aptly named The Fall of the Revengers, which best represented his final thoughts on the movie. He stated:
"The day will come when Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will be studied in film classes and shown at cult film festivals. It will be seen, in retrospect, as marking the end of an era. Of course, there will be more CGI-based action epics, but never again one this bloated, excessive, incomprehensible, long (149 minutes) or expensive (more than $200 million)."
5) "...should be cut into free ukulele picks for the poor" - Mad Dog Time (1996)
Another movie barely anyone remembers, Mad Dog Time is notable for being the subject of a scathing Roger Ebert review. An inexplicably all-star cast shoot gun at one another in this laugh-free crime comedy, which only made 107K against an $8 million budget (For crying out loud, Frozen Assets made more money than this). It got savaged by critics, with The New York Times calling it "a rat's nest of hip pretensions posing as a comedy," and Entertainment Weekly called it "jaw-droppingly incoherent."
Siskel and Ebert voted it as the worst film of 1996, with Ebert complaining about seeing the movie after losing a bet with Gene via coin toss (the pair went to see Little Indian, Big City after it, but that's another story). Siskel claimed that after six months of having seen the movie, he still didn't know what it was about. He also placed Richard Dreyfuss to blame for the film's failure, as he was the producer. Ebert gave the film zero stars, earning a place in his "Most Hated" list. He said of the film:
"Mad Dog Time is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen for the same amount of time. Oh, I've seen bad movies before. But they usually made me care about how bad they were. Watching Mad Dog Time is like waiting for the bus in a city where you're not sure they have a bus line."
He later explains the barebones plot of the movie, which consists of characters spewing dialogue before shooting at one another. He also expressed bewilderment at the film's inexplicable ensemble cast (Jeff Goldblum, Burt Reynolds, Diane Lane, Kyle MacLachlan, Richard Dreyfuss, etc. Jesus, were they forced to do this movie at gunpoint?). He also questioned Dreyfuss's judgment on the script before ending his review by saying:
"Mad Dog Time should be cut into free ukulele picks for the poor."
4) "...detested every moronic minute of it" - Little Indian, Big City (1996)
Little Indian, Big City should stand as a testament to bastardized English dubs of international films. Originally released in 1994, it was titled Un Indien Dans la Ville before Disney released it in the US. Rather than simply releasing it with English subtitles, the company hired cartoon voice actors to dub it in English. The result received hostile reviews, with James Bernadelli calling it one of the most tedious viewing experiences of the year. He would say of the film,
"I came as close to walking out of this movie as anything I have ever watched. No one, no matter how desperate they are for family entertainment, should be subjected to the indignity of sitting through this 90 minute excuse for a motion picture."
Roger Ebert detested the film, along with his colleague Gene Siskel, who declared it a strong candidate for the worst movie of the year (or any year for that matter). He also said if the film gained enough traction in the US, audiences would be "hoodwinked into paying to see a totally unprofessional movie." There's a funny story where the duo went to see the movie at a theater where the third reel was missing. An executive asked them to return next week to finish watching the film, to which they did. Gene would jab at the movie and the situation by saying, "If it were the legendary missing footage from The Magnificent Ambersons, this movie would still suck."
Both would deem it one of the worst movies they had ever seen, but it's not on Ebert's "Most Hated" list. Ebert gave the film zero stars, saying the film:
"Little Indian, Big City is one of the worst movies ever made. I detested every moronic minute of it."
He then talked about the aforementioned missing reel story, to which he responded to Gene's jab by saying:
"I could not have put it better myself."
He further added:
"[The movie] is a French film (I will not demean the word "comedy" by applying it here). It has been dubbed into English, a canny move since the movie is not likely to appeal to anyone who can read."
He panned the film's terrible humor and 70s-style kung fu movie dubbing. He finished the review by imploring readers to watch Fargo instead, but not before he finished with:
"If you, under any circumstances, see Little Indian, Big City, I will never let you read one of my reviews ever again."
3) "This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel." Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
"Comedy is subjective"; I doubt the phrase, even the word comedy, can hardly apply to Freddy Got Fingered. The Tom Green vehicle has widely gotten panned by critics for its offensive, tasteless gross-out humor. The movie essentially boils down to 93-minutes of Tom Green doing disgusting things disguised as jokes while he pursues a career as a cartoonist. It's hailed as one of the worst films ever made, with some critics suggesting Green should be flipping burgers somewhere. Golden Raspberry Awards founder John J.B. Wilson called it "A movie with zero redeeming qualities." It took home five Razzies at the 22nd Razzie Awards: Worst Picture (20th Century Fox), Worst Director (Tom Green), Worst Actor (Tom Green), Worst Screen Couple (Tom Green and any animal he abuses), and Worst Screenplay (Tom Green & Derek Harvie).
Roger Ebert awarded the movie a place in his "Most Hated" list with a rating of zero stars out of four. He stated the film had been tracking behind a trend of movies with similar vulgar, gross-out humor. From people getting buried in crap (Joe Dirt, Head Over Heels), human organs falling to the ground and getting eaten by dogs (Monkeybone), to David Arquette rolling around in dog crap and a gangster getting his balls chewed off (See Spot Run). He would start his review by saying:
"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as barrels."
He then summarized the plot of the movie in a nutshell:
"The film is a vomitorium consisting of 93 minutes of Tom Green doing things that a geek at a carnival sideshow would turn down."
He elaborates on the movie's definition of jokes in decent detail before recounting an anecdote on Luis Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou ("An Andalusian Dog"). The film was so shocking and offensive that Buñuel stuffed his pockets with stones if the audience decided to attack him. Ebert suggested Green use a similar tactic, given his film was on the same level of shock and offensiveness. Ebert would close his second paragraph with an oddly prophetic statement, which would define the movie as a whole.
"The day may come when Freddy Got Fingered is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny."
In the years since its release, Freddy Got Fingered has seen critical revaluation, with some labeling it a bizarre masterpiece of performance art. The film earned a dedicated cult following from fans, with comedian Chris Rock calling it one of his favorite movies. Ebert even pointed out how he still remembered the movie even after panning it. Perhaps I could delve further onto the film's subsequent reassessment, but that's a story for another day.
2) "Your movie sucks." - Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (2005)
It's common knowledge that Rob Schneider movies are comedic dead zones (even calling them comedies should be a criminal offense). But what makes this movie stand out from the crop of the sewer pond of horrible Rob Schneider vehicles? It comes down to the epic response from Roger Ebert, defending one of his colleagues, Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times. Goldstein had written a column on the 2005 Oscars preview, where he lamented that the year's Best Picture nominees got ignored by major studios. One of those studios was Columbia Pictures, which bankrolled millions into sequels, including a follow-up to Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo. He sarcastically stated that the film had been sadly overlooked by the Oscars because no one had the foresight to invent a category for "Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third Rate Comic."
In a fit of "I can't handle criticism so I'll make a fool out of myself by making a petty response," Schneider took a full-page ad in the LA Times in response to Goldstein. He claimed Goldstein was unqualified to criticize his movie, given he had never won a Pulitzer prize or any other journalistic awards. His reason? it was because, and I quote, "They haven't invented a category for Best Third Rate, Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged By His Peers."
In his review of the movie, Roger Ebert gave it a double whammy of zero stars and a place in his "Most Hated" list. He debunked Schneider's claims by pointing out Goldstein had won several journalistic awards. As he states in his review:
"Reading this, I was about to observe that Schneider can dish out, but he can't take it. Then I found out he's not good at dishing it out either. I went online and found that Patrick Goldstein has won a National Headliner Award, a Los Angeles Press Club Award, a RockCritics.com award, and the Publicists' Guild Award for lifetime achievement."
About the movie, he said:
"Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo makes a living cleaning fish tanks and prostituting himself. How much he charges? I'm not sure, but the price is worth it if it keeps him off the streets and out of another movie. Deuce Bigalow is aggressively bad, as if it wants to cause suffering to the audience. The best thing about this movie is that it runs for only 75 minutes."
Ebert would end his review with a paragraph whose final sentence would become infamous and the title of the second book of movies he hated.
"But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed [the movie] while passing the opportunity to participate in Million Dollar Baby, Ray, The Aviator, Sideways, and Finding Neverland. As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."
1) " I hated, hated, hated, hated this movie." - North (1994)
Here it is. The number one spot is claimed by what is perhaps Roger Ebert's most defining negative review of a movie. This review has become synonymous with not only Roger Ebert as a whole but a defining footnote in the great critic's legacy. The name of his book, which bore the opening sentence of his review, brought me to the famed critic. I felt choosing this as the number one greatest scathing review from Roger Ebert was a no-brainer, given how infamous and iconic it is.
In 1994, director Rob Reiner released the scourge upon the Earth known as North, a film that horrified critics and singlehandedly murdered all the goodwill he earned with his previous films. You see, Reiner is the man behind several beloved films such as This is Spinal Tap (1984), Stand By Me (1986), The Princess Bride (1987), When Harry Met Sally (1989), Misery (1990), and A Few Good Men (1992). Given an impressive filmography, it's easy to see why so many critics were aghast at the film, coming from a director as acclaimed as Reiner. The film's plot concerns the titular character (Elijah Wood) leaving his home in search of new parents to replace his old ones. What was the thing his parents did to warrant such an outlandish act? They committed the crime of talking about their jobs and not talking to their son.
It holds a 14% on Rotten Tomatoes along with a 27% audience score, with the critical consensus reading,
"Laden with schmaltz and largely bereft of evident narrative purpose, North represents an early major disappointment from previously sure-handed director Rob Reiner."
North is one of the worst films of all time; the mere phrase is not enough to describe its sheer awfulness. But enough about the movie, let Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel speak for the film's awfulness. The movie earned the duo's ire, naming it the worst film in 1994 (And Siskel saw Mixed Nuts). Siskel called the film "deplorable" and "first-class junk," criticizing the jokes as being mean-spirited and appalling, suggesting that he couldn't write worse jokes if he told Ebert to do them. Roger Ebert described the film as being;
"One of the most thoroughly hateful movies of recent years. A movie that makes me cringe even when I'm sitting here thinking about it. I hated this movie as much as any movie we've ever reviewed in the 19 years we've been doing this show."
In the Worst of 1994 episode, he jokingly claimed during his talk with Siskel that as he was typing his review, a sinister inner force took over him and made him type;
"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
In his zero stars review of the movie, he wrote:
"North is one of the most unpleasant, contrived, artificial, cloying experiences I've had at the movies. To call it manipulative would be innacurate; it has ambition to manipulate but fails."
Ebert expressed bewilderment at how Rob Reiner was responsible for this cinematic abomination, lamenting the actors who wasted their talents on racist stereotypical portrayals of global ethnic cultures. The actors "victimized" include Elijah Wood, Alan Arkin, Bruce Willis, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander, Dan Aykroyd, Kathy Bates, and Abe Vigoda (Their agents must've gone home with a pink slip that day.) Ebert pointed out in his review;
"What is the point of the scenes with the auditioning parents? They are all seen as broad, desperate comic caricatures. They are not funny. They are not touching. There is no truth in them. They don't even work as parodies. There is an idiocy here that seems almost intentional, as if the filmmakers plotted to leave anything of interest or entertainment value out of these episodes."
He lamented the involvement of Rob Reiner and Elijah Wood in the film, indicating how both were talented individuals in their careers. Ebert suggested North was simply an aberration upon the careers of these individuals, one he hoped wouldn't detract them from making a great movie as they had before. This review lives on in Roger's book of films he gave less than a two-star score titled I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie, cementing Roger's status as the most iconic film critic to ever live. To this day, no review can outdo the seething hate, biting humor, and blunt, no holds barred truth of Roger Ebert's number one scathing review.
And that was my personal list of Roger Ebert's greatest scathing reviews. I hoped you enjoyed reading this list, as it was the most fun I've had doing a blog post in any other review since then. Stay tuned for more content on The Meaning of J, and I hope to see you in the next blog post, and at the movies as well.
Comments
Post a Comment