What do you think?
Rate this book
Roger Ebert's Movies that Suck
A Horrible Experience of Unbearable Length: More Movies That Suck
Roger Ebert's I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie and Your Movie Sucks, which gathered some of his most scathing reviews, were best-sellers. This new collection continues the tradition, reviewing not only movies that were at the bottom of the barrel, but also movies that he found underneath the barrel.
A Horrible Experience of Unbearable Length collects more than 200 of his reviews since 2006 in which he gave movies two stars or fewer. Known for his fair-minded and well-written film reviews, Roger is at his razor-sharp humorous best when skewering bad movies. Consider this opener for the one-star Your Highness:
Your Highness is a juvenile excrescence that feels like the work of 11-year-old boys in love with dungeons, dragons, warrior women, pot, boobs, and four-letter words. That this is the work of David Gordon Green beggars the imagination. One of its heroes wears the penis of a minotaur on a string around his neck. I hate it when that happens.
And finally, the inspiration for the title of this book, the one-star Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen:
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a doglike robot humping the leg of the heroine. If you want to save yourself the ticket price go, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.
Movie buffs and humor lovers alike will relish this treasury of movies so bad that you may just want to see them for a good laugh!
386 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 7, 2012
70 people are currently reading
367 people want to read
About the author
Roger Ebert
91 books405 followersRoger Joseph Ebert was a Pulitzer Prize-winning American film critic and screenwriter.
He was known for his weekly review column (appearing in the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967, and later online) and for the television program Siskel & Ebert at the Movies, which he co-hosted for 23 years with Gene Siskel. After Siskel's death in 1999, he auditioned several potential replacements, ultimately choosing Richard Roeper to fill the open chair. The program was retitled Ebert & Roeper and the Movies in 2000.
Ebert's movie reviews were syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and abroad. He wrote more than 15 books, including his annual movie yearbook. In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. His television programs have also been widely syndicated, and have been nominated for Emmy awards. In February 1995, a section of Chicago's Erie Street near the CBS Studios was given the honorary name Siskel & Ebert Way. Ebert was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in June 2005, the first professional film critic to receive one. Roger Ebert was named as the most influential pundit in America by Forbes Magazine, beating the likes of Bill Maher, Lou Dobbs, and Bill O'Reilly.[2] He has honorary degrees from the University of Colorado, the American Film Institute, and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
From 1994 until his death in 2013, he wrote a Great Movies series of individual reviews of what he deemed to be the most important films of all time. He also hosted the annual Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival in Champaign, Illinois from 1999 until his death.
He was known for his weekly review column (appearing in the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967, and later online) and for the television program Siskel & Ebert at the Movies, which he co-hosted for 23 years with Gene Siskel. After Siskel's death in 1999, he auditioned several potential replacements, ultimately choosing Richard Roeper to fill the open chair. The program was retitled Ebert & Roeper and the Movies in 2000.
Ebert's movie reviews were syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and abroad. He wrote more than 15 books, including his annual movie yearbook. In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. His television programs have also been widely syndicated, and have been nominated for Emmy awards. In February 1995, a section of Chicago's Erie Street near the CBS Studios was given the honorary name Siskel & Ebert Way. Ebert was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in June 2005, the first professional film critic to receive one. Roger Ebert was named as the most influential pundit in America by Forbes Magazine, beating the likes of Bill Maher, Lou Dobbs, and Bill O'Reilly.[2] He has honorary degrees from the University of Colorado, the American Film Institute, and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
From 1994 until his death in 2013, he wrote a Great Movies series of individual reviews of what he deemed to be the most important films of all time. He also hosted the annual Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival in Champaign, Illinois from 1999 until his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
July 15, 2012
Roger Ebert’s third collection of zero-star to two-star movie reviews. Delightful.
“All About Steve . . . is billed as a comedy but more resembles a perplexing public display of irrational behavior.”
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1: “The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investor’s Business Daily.”
Battle: Los Angeles: “Here’s a science-fiction film that’s an insult to the words ‘science’ and ‘fiction,’ and the hyphen in between them.”
Burlesque: “Other people age. Cher has become a logo.”
“Dear John tells the heartbreaking story of two lovely young people who fail to find happiness together because they're trapped in an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel.”
“Death Race . . . is an assault on all the senses, including common.”
Drive Angry 3-D: “It offends every standard of taste except bad. But it is well made . . . Of course it stars Nicolas Cage. Is there another actor who could or would have dared to sign on? Cage is a good actor in good movies, and an almost indispensable actor in bad ones. He can go over the top so effortlessly he rests up and makes lemonade for everybody.”
Eagle Eye: “The word preposterous is too moderate to describe "Eagle Eye." This film contains not a single plausible moment after the opening sequence, and that's borderline. It's not an assault on intelligence. It's an assault on consciousness.”
Good Luck Chuck: “There is a word for this movie, and that word is ick.”
The Green Hornet “is an almost unendurable demonstration of a movie with nothing to be about.”
Hatchet II: “There are many good movies opening this weekend. "Hatchet II" is not one of them. Tickets are not cheap and time is fleeting. Why would you choose this one? That’s a good topic for a long, thoughtful talk with yourself in the mirror.”
I Am Number Four: “Many teenage girls have perhaps imagined themselves in love with a handsome hunk with tousled blond hair, a three-day stubble, incredible athletic abilities and hands that glow in the dark. That he is Not From Around Here makes him all the more attractive.”
“The writer of I Love You, Beth Cooper says the story is based on a dream. I believe him. This is one of the very few movies where I wanted the hero to wake up and discover it was only a dream.”
Larry Crowne: “I watched the movie with all the pleasure I bring to watching bread rise. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy watching bread rise, but it lacks a certain degree of interest. You look forward to it being finished.”
The Love Guru: “Myers is a nice man and has made some funny movies, but this film could have been written on toilet walls by callow adolescents.”
“Mad Money is astonishingly casual for a movie about three service workers who steal millions from a Federal Reserve Bank. There is little suspense, no true danger; their plan is simple, the complications are few, and they don't get excited much beyond some high-fives and hugs and giggles. If there was ever a movie where Diane Keaton would be justified in bringing back ‘la di da,’ this is that movie.”
Mercy: “When a man says, ‘You are the most beautiful woman I have ever seen,’ a woman should reply: ‘I know. But why would that make me want to sleep with you?’"
My Life in Ruins: “I didn’t hate it so much as feel sorry for it.”
“Let's say you like popcorn during a movie. Paranormal Activity 3 is like eating the cardboard box.”
The Perfect Sleep: “Here is a movie that goes about its business without regard for an audience.”
"Revolver is a frothing mad film that thrashes against its very sprocket holes in an attempt to bash its brains out against the projector. It seems designed to punish the audience for buying tickets. It is a ‘thriller’ without thrills, constructed in a meaningless jumble of flashbacks and flash-forwards and subtitles and mottos and messages and scenes that are deconstructed, reconstructed and self-destructed. I wanted to signal the projectionist to put a gun to it.”
Ricky: “Its last half seems to be building to a life lesson, and perhaps the lesson is: ‘Parents! If you have a baby with wings, don't be this calm about it!’”
Seven Days in Utopia: “I would rather eat a golf ball than see this movie again.”
The Spirit: “To call the characters cardboard is to insult a useful packing material.”
Thor: “The story might perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children, with Thor, Odin and the others played by piglets. In the arena of movies about comic book superheroes, it is a desolate vastation. Nothing exciting happens, nothing of interest is said, and the special effects evoke not a place or a time but simply special effects.”
Transformers: Dark of the Moon: “I, for one, will never care for Optimus Prime any more than for an engine block.”
“All About Steve . . . is billed as a comedy but more resembles a perplexing public display of irrational behavior.”
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1: “The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investor’s Business Daily.”
Battle: Los Angeles: “Here’s a science-fiction film that’s an insult to the words ‘science’ and ‘fiction,’ and the hyphen in between them.”
Burlesque: “Other people age. Cher has become a logo.”
“Dear John tells the heartbreaking story of two lovely young people who fail to find happiness together because they're trapped in an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel.”
“Death Race . . . is an assault on all the senses, including common.”
Drive Angry 3-D: “It offends every standard of taste except bad. But it is well made . . . Of course it stars Nicolas Cage. Is there another actor who could or would have dared to sign on? Cage is a good actor in good movies, and an almost indispensable actor in bad ones. He can go over the top so effortlessly he rests up and makes lemonade for everybody.”
Eagle Eye: “The word preposterous is too moderate to describe "Eagle Eye." This film contains not a single plausible moment after the opening sequence, and that's borderline. It's not an assault on intelligence. It's an assault on consciousness.”
Good Luck Chuck: “There is a word for this movie, and that word is ick.”
The Green Hornet “is an almost unendurable demonstration of a movie with nothing to be about.”
Hatchet II: “There are many good movies opening this weekend. "Hatchet II" is not one of them. Tickets are not cheap and time is fleeting. Why would you choose this one? That’s a good topic for a long, thoughtful talk with yourself in the mirror.”
I Am Number Four: “Many teenage girls have perhaps imagined themselves in love with a handsome hunk with tousled blond hair, a three-day stubble, incredible athletic abilities and hands that glow in the dark. That he is Not From Around Here makes him all the more attractive.”
“The writer of I Love You, Beth Cooper says the story is based on a dream. I believe him. This is one of the very few movies where I wanted the hero to wake up and discover it was only a dream.”
Larry Crowne: “I watched the movie with all the pleasure I bring to watching bread rise. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy watching bread rise, but it lacks a certain degree of interest. You look forward to it being finished.”
The Love Guru: “Myers is a nice man and has made some funny movies, but this film could have been written on toilet walls by callow adolescents.”
“Mad Money is astonishingly casual for a movie about three service workers who steal millions from a Federal Reserve Bank. There is little suspense, no true danger; their plan is simple, the complications are few, and they don't get excited much beyond some high-fives and hugs and giggles. If there was ever a movie where Diane Keaton would be justified in bringing back ‘la di da,’ this is that movie.”
Mercy: “When a man says, ‘You are the most beautiful woman I have ever seen,’ a woman should reply: ‘I know. But why would that make me want to sleep with you?’"
My Life in Ruins: “I didn’t hate it so much as feel sorry for it.”
“Let's say you like popcorn during a movie. Paranormal Activity 3 is like eating the cardboard box.”
The Perfect Sleep: “Here is a movie that goes about its business without regard for an audience.”
"Revolver is a frothing mad film that thrashes against its very sprocket holes in an attempt to bash its brains out against the projector. It seems designed to punish the audience for buying tickets. It is a ‘thriller’ without thrills, constructed in a meaningless jumble of flashbacks and flash-forwards and subtitles and mottos and messages and scenes that are deconstructed, reconstructed and self-destructed. I wanted to signal the projectionist to put a gun to it.”
Ricky: “Its last half seems to be building to a life lesson, and perhaps the lesson is: ‘Parents! If you have a baby with wings, don't be this calm about it!’”
Seven Days in Utopia: “I would rather eat a golf ball than see this movie again.”
The Spirit: “To call the characters cardboard is to insult a useful packing material.”
Thor: “The story might perhaps be adequate for an animated film for children, with Thor, Odin and the others played by piglets. In the arena of movies about comic book superheroes, it is a desolate vastation. Nothing exciting happens, nothing of interest is said, and the special effects evoke not a place or a time but simply special effects.”
Transformers: Dark of the Moon: “I, for one, will never care for Optimus Prime any more than for an engine block.”
March 21, 2012
I review this mainly to annouce to anyone who might not know but needs to: library patron Wayne Omura has written a book! It's called Movies and the meaning of life : the most profound films in cinematic history and I am tickled to death that he singled me out one night to let me know. It is not an option on Goodreads, but if you're a DPL person, you can put it on hold. Reading this concurrently with Ebert, it turns out that Mr. Omura is not as funny as he is, but he nonetheless has some excellent insights about film.
Also, this actual book, you know the one by Roger Ebert that I am supposed to be reviewing? Is hilarious. A wonderful way to get some laughs in on a weekend. You have to kind of feel sorry for him, what with all the movies he has to see. Did you even know there was something called The Human Centipede? And that is has a sequel? I think I'd be better off if I still was ignorant about that one.
Also, this actual book, you know the one by Roger Ebert that I am supposed to be reviewing? Is hilarious. A wonderful way to get some laughs in on a weekend. You have to kind of feel sorry for him, what with all the movies he has to see. Did you even know there was something called The Human Centipede? And that is has a sequel? I think I'd be better off if I still was ignorant about that one.
August 11, 2012
No need to go into a plot summary here as this book is a straight-forward as it gets. Film critic Ebert has collected over 200 of his reviews dating back to 2006 and published them in this fun book. The title comes from his review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I don't know if he purposely used this phrase or not, but I was immediately reminded of a movie and a book title fused together to come up with the phrase: the wonderfully cinematic The Unbearable Lightness of Being and the book A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers. In any case, it is a great phrase, and as someone who has found it difficult to sit through movies lately, I completely understand what Ebert is talking about.
The movies run the gamut from the popular flicks of 2011 to lame comedies to foreign flops. Most movies get 2 stars, some 1 and a half, several only earn 1. The most interesting reviews are the no-star reviews, of which there are very few. Interestingly, one of the films that earned his harshest criticism is a remake of a movie I've actually seen, I Spit on Your Grave. I thought his take on the movie was spot on, at least for the remake, which I admit I haven't seen. The original is a very controversial movie due to its content, and if I hadn't read an extremely interesting book about women in horror movies, I probably would have never watched it myself. (And no, I can't remember the name of that book for all the tea in China, which saddens me, as I would highly recommend it to those interested in horror films and the issue of whether or not they exploit women). The original ISOYG is very difficult to watch and I think one of the biggest reasons why is the complete lack of a soundtrack; it gives the movie more of a documentary feel, not to mention that music often gives us clues as to how the director wants us to feel/respond to a scene. There are no such clues in the original version, so you're not sure if you're supposed to be upset at the woman's rape (although why you wouldn't be is beyond me), if you're supposed to feel sorry for her, or if you're supposed to cheer for her when she starts getting her revenge. As to the other no-star reviews, I haven't seen or heard of those movies, but two of them have been alluded to on a certain episode of South Park. Either that or the SP creators are just that sick-minded, which is entirely possible.
Ebert does an excellent job of pointing out why movies just aren't all the much fun anymore. Action movies are just that - ACTION. There are few directors out there trying to make sure that the audience has a plot to follow. Comedies have become incredibly syrupy or raunchy, and neither formula is overly successful. And finally, the 3-D invasion is really weighing on Ebert's nerves. One of the things that I did not know about 3-D filming is that when you take your 2-D movie and convert scenes into 3-D, you lose a lot of the "brightness" of said film. One of Ebert's biggest complaints is movies that are filmed in a "dark" way to start with that are also in 3-D; as he explains, it's adding insult to injury to make a dark movie even darker and harder to see (think all of the horror movies that have 3-D versions). Maybe it's why I don't enjoy the 3-D films myself. As he says in several reviews, "I dunno."
Overall, a fun look at some rather blah films. I'm do know I'm glad I spent my time reading these reviews rather than watching these movies!
The movies run the gamut from the popular flicks of 2011 to lame comedies to foreign flops. Most movies get 2 stars, some 1 and a half, several only earn 1. The most interesting reviews are the no-star reviews, of which there are very few. Interestingly, one of the films that earned his harshest criticism is a remake of a movie I've actually seen, I Spit on Your Grave. I thought his take on the movie was spot on, at least for the remake, which I admit I haven't seen. The original is a very controversial movie due to its content, and if I hadn't read an extremely interesting book about women in horror movies, I probably would have never watched it myself. (And no, I can't remember the name of that book for all the tea in China, which saddens me, as I would highly recommend it to those interested in horror films and the issue of whether or not they exploit women). The original ISOYG is very difficult to watch and I think one of the biggest reasons why is the complete lack of a soundtrack; it gives the movie more of a documentary feel, not to mention that music often gives us clues as to how the director wants us to feel/respond to a scene. There are no such clues in the original version, so you're not sure if you're supposed to be upset at the woman's rape (although why you wouldn't be is beyond me), if you're supposed to feel sorry for her, or if you're supposed to cheer for her when she starts getting her revenge. As to the other no-star reviews, I haven't seen or heard of those movies, but two of them have been alluded to on a certain episode of South Park. Either that or the SP creators are just that sick-minded, which is entirely possible.
Ebert does an excellent job of pointing out why movies just aren't all the much fun anymore. Action movies are just that - ACTION. There are few directors out there trying to make sure that the audience has a plot to follow. Comedies have become incredibly syrupy or raunchy, and neither formula is overly successful. And finally, the 3-D invasion is really weighing on Ebert's nerves. One of the things that I did not know about 3-D filming is that when you take your 2-D movie and convert scenes into 3-D, you lose a lot of the "brightness" of said film. One of Ebert's biggest complaints is movies that are filmed in a "dark" way to start with that are also in 3-D; as he explains, it's adding insult to injury to make a dark movie even darker and harder to see (think all of the horror movies that have 3-D versions). Maybe it's why I don't enjoy the 3-D films myself. As he says in several reviews, "I dunno."
Overall, a fun look at some rather blah films. I'm do know I'm glad I spent my time reading these reviews rather than watching these movies!
July 18, 2022
I am one of those people who is like "If you don't have anything nice to say Come sit next to me" So I love ready scathing reviews of bad movies, or books, or musicals, or pretty much anything.
And this book delivers. Ebert is snarky and clever and biting.
there may have been one or two movies that I thought well it really wasn't that terrible but in general he's dead on.
And this book delivers. Ebert is snarky and clever and biting.
there may have been one or two movies that I thought well it really wasn't that terrible but in general he's dead on.
February 27, 2020
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amz...
Who doesn't like a great review of a bad movie?
I know I love the experience of watching an expert working close inside with a stiletto as they heap well-deserved scorn and equal helpings of wit on their flailing subject.
Weirdly, this is not that kind of book.
There are few zingers here, but for the most part, this book reviews a lot of movies that have two-star ratings, which means that these movies are mediocre and banal, but they are trying. In fact, it may be a result of Ebert's skill as a writer, but I found myself noting movies that I thought I might want to watch. These won't be great movies, but they might make decent time-wasters.
Of course, there are a number of one-star and half-star reviews that earn Ebert's contempt, and he offers that contempt up with wit and humor. Concerning Nicholas Cage's "Drive Angry 3-D," Ebert has this to say:
"A movie review should determine what a movie hoped to achieve and whether it succeeded. The ambition of Drive Angry 3-D is to make a grind house B movie so jaw-droppingly excessive that even Quentin Tarantino might send flowers. It succeeds. I can’t say I enjoyed it. But I can appreciate it. It offends every standard of taste except bad. But it is well made."
Here is Ebert's insights into "A Good Old Fashioned Orgy":
"To take off your clothing and engage randomly in sex with nine or ten other people reveals an appalling lack of self-respect. Is that all sex means to you, rummaging about in strange genitals? Masturbation seems healthier. It is performed with someone you admire. If a sexual orgy is as exciting as the people here pretend, why do they need to spice it up with costumes from fraternity toga parties, and sex toys from the remainder bins of adult stores across from truck stops on lonely interstate highways?"
Concerning the interminable Twilight saga, Ebert observes:
"Yes, Edward (Robert Pattinson) is back in school, repeating the twelfth grade for the eighty-fourth time. Bella sees him in the school parking lot, walking toward her in slow-motion, wearing one of those Edwardian Beatles jackets with a velvet collar, pregnant with his beauty. How white his skin, how red his lips. The decay of middle age may transform him into the Joker."
There is a lot of good stuff in this book, but, unfortunately, I found it to be a bit of a slog because there are a lot mediocre movies out there.
And that is sad.
Who doesn't like a great review of a bad movie?
I know I love the experience of watching an expert working close inside with a stiletto as they heap well-deserved scorn and equal helpings of wit on their flailing subject.
Weirdly, this is not that kind of book.
There are few zingers here, but for the most part, this book reviews a lot of movies that have two-star ratings, which means that these movies are mediocre and banal, but they are trying. In fact, it may be a result of Ebert's skill as a writer, but I found myself noting movies that I thought I might want to watch. These won't be great movies, but they might make decent time-wasters.
Of course, there are a number of one-star and half-star reviews that earn Ebert's contempt, and he offers that contempt up with wit and humor. Concerning Nicholas Cage's "Drive Angry 3-D," Ebert has this to say:
"A movie review should determine what a movie hoped to achieve and whether it succeeded. The ambition of Drive Angry 3-D is to make a grind house B movie so jaw-droppingly excessive that even Quentin Tarantino might send flowers. It succeeds. I can’t say I enjoyed it. But I can appreciate it. It offends every standard of taste except bad. But it is well made."
Here is Ebert's insights into "A Good Old Fashioned Orgy":
"To take off your clothing and engage randomly in sex with nine or ten other people reveals an appalling lack of self-respect. Is that all sex means to you, rummaging about in strange genitals? Masturbation seems healthier. It is performed with someone you admire. If a sexual orgy is as exciting as the people here pretend, why do they need to spice it up with costumes from fraternity toga parties, and sex toys from the remainder bins of adult stores across from truck stops on lonely interstate highways?"
Concerning the interminable Twilight saga, Ebert observes:
"Yes, Edward (Robert Pattinson) is back in school, repeating the twelfth grade for the eighty-fourth time. Bella sees him in the school parking lot, walking toward her in slow-motion, wearing one of those Edwardian Beatles jackets with a velvet collar, pregnant with his beauty. How white his skin, how red his lips. The decay of middle age may transform him into the Joker."
There is a lot of good stuff in this book, but, unfortunately, I found it to be a bit of a slog because there are a lot mediocre movies out there.
And that is sad.
October 26, 2023
Nobody writes bad reviews like Ebert did. This is a priceless, hilarious collection.
May 22, 2020
Ebert's heartbroken review of Your Highness is one of the saddest things I've ever read.
November 8, 2022
This is the lowest rating I've ever given a Roger Ebert book of movie reviews. Reading it actually induced me to sleep. Ebert's writing is still as witty as ever, he can shift from delightfully smarmy and acerbic to kind and encouraging in a heartbeat. Part of the problem lies with me. It seems I've only seen 5-6 of the movies reviewed here, so I could not relate as easily as I would have with a movie I was familiar with. Was I that busy in the years between 2006 and 2011? Or am I that partial to old films that I snubbed the new ones? Granted, these were pre-Netflix days. No matter. Another factor may be the proliferation of his lukewarm, two-star ratings--what qualifies as his highest, ratings in a book dedicated to panning movies. By Ebert's grading system, a two-star rating doesn't allow a lot of leg room to disparage a film as splendidly as he does with a half or no-star rating.
May 9, 2020
I had thorougly enjoyued Roger Ebert's series "The Great Movies", in which he can so elequently praise a film that it makes you put down the book, get on your bike and drive to the nearest video rental store, only to realise when you get there that those stores don't exist anymore. I was curious to see the same writing talent applied to movies that suck. I rushed through the book with satisfaction, picking out the films I had seen. Also read about a few other movies, which I want to see now just to conform how bad they are. Ebert makes nice comparisons, I'll leave you with one. "Saying that this movie contains cardboard characters, would be an insult to an otherwise useful packaging material."
February 17, 2025
his third and presumably final collection of bad reviews. more impatient and weirdly horny than the other two, but few really memorable takedowns. most everything seems to score two stars, and i believe with film critics that's only out of 4 anyway.
did Ebert become jaded? have i? i think more likely it's that there isn't the freedom financially and artistically to experiment that there used to be, so there aren't many "good" or "bad" films any more, just market-researched, focus-grouped, indifferent superhero IP franchise pabulum designed to be on in the background while you scroll through your phone, all mediocre in the exact same way, and the only thing left that makes any money. RIP Roger.
did Ebert become jaded? have i? i think more likely it's that there isn't the freedom financially and artistically to experiment that there used to be, so there aren't many "good" or "bad" films any more, just market-researched, focus-grouped, indifferent superhero IP franchise pabulum designed to be on in the background while you scroll through your phone, all mediocre in the exact same way, and the only thing left that makes any money. RIP Roger.
February 7, 2024
Current movies? Nope - 15 to 20 years old, and the kind of flicks one finds listed as "free" on streaming sites. With very few exceptions (Ebert hated the Transformers franchise with a passion), these reviews are generous whenever possible. A usually good actress given bad dialogue to recite, a generally good director who made a number of bad edits, a writer with other notable credits who somehow went astray, an instance of somebody clearly owing somebody else a favor. It's a reminder that one can be critical without being mean and that one can make a point without having to score points on everybody else.
November 19, 2023
The title a bit of a misnomer since while these are zero to two star reviews, they aren't all bad. There's a lot of "you'll like this movie if you like this sort of thing" which I appreciate. Sometimes I want something mindless or explodey. In a lot of bad reviews, Ebert tried to pick out something good. He even went out of the way to be nice to a first-time director despite the fact he really did think that film sucked. Even when I don't agree with him, I appreciate that Ebert tried to be fair and acknowledge that he was not the intended audience for some of these films.
I did chuckle about his pans of Tom Hiddleston as Loki and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine since time has been much kinder to those actors and roles.
I did chuckle about his pans of Tom Hiddleston as Loki and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine since time has been much kinder to those actors and roles.
February 8, 2018
It's a decent read. I think the major issue is that a book like this is best when talking about really bad films, and too many of the films he deals with in this book are just mediocre. Generally speaking, reviews of 2 star movies are not terribly interesting.
June 20, 2018
The reasons his picks for hating on a movie are often so arbitrary and based on his own idiosyncrasies that this really wasn't much fun to read really. He trashes some well known bad movies, but sometimes he trashes movies that people are pretty fond of but for his own petty reasons.
September 7, 2020
As always
Ebert's reviews give you great, concise reasons to see ( or in the case of this book) NOT see a movie. Though for those of us who treasure really bad movies here's your list of what to see next.
Ebert's reviews give you great, concise reasons to see ( or in the case of this book) NOT see a movie. Though for those of us who treasure really bad movies here's your list of what to see next.
June 12, 2017
Ebert was a genius and I am so grateful he was such a prolific writer so I can continue to discover and love his reviews
December 31, 2017
I just read parts of the book the author save me from a title or two I had wondered about he saved me. The man performs a public service.
September 6, 2017
What I love about Roger Ebert's reviews are that they are more like mini personal essays than straight-up reviews. Thy get you where you need to go, you will have a pretty good idea of the movie's content and quality by the end, but Ebert will take you on a meandering journey to reach that point (for instance, quoting former teachers). Read if you enjoy any of the following: Roger Ebert's writing; bad movies; learning about movies; and sarcasm.
September 4, 2017
This book was fun. Roger Ebert got it.
October 26, 2017
There's nothing better than a bad review
November 20, 2017
Great fun had at the expense of really bad movies. Lots of amusing, creative metaphors, and I even accidentally learned a few things about movie-making.
November 30, 2018
His “Human Centipede” review is amazing
October 6, 2023
Jesus Christ, why/
November 24, 2023
More well-written witty and scathing reviews from Mr. Ebert.
November 26, 2023
Even if you disagree with his ratings (fast and Furious doesn't NEED a plot, it's fast and it's furious dude) Ebert is hilarious.
March 9, 2024
Some definite gems here but because of the shorter time line of reviews and inclusion of 2 star ones (which are more meh) you don’t get as much vitriol as previous volumes. Not bad just meh.
May 17, 2024
TYPICALLY GREAT INSIGHTS
Gawd, do I miss Roger!
Back in the '70s, he made breakfast in Chicago tolerable.
Then I left, and he died. He had great spirit, right up to The End.
Gawd, do I miss Roger!
Back in the '70s, he made breakfast in Chicago tolerable.
Then I left, and he died. He had great spirit, right up to The End.
May 31, 2024
Ebert savagely brings in the funny, highlighting movie tropes, missed opportunities, and wasted time at the box office.
June 7, 2024
A good deal of these are forgettable reviews of doubtless forgettable movies, but it’s worth it because the ones that aren’t are generally screamingly funny or extremely accurate.
August 31, 2022
Not as good as the other two books of films he hated. Most of the titles I've never heard of, or assumed would be bad and never bothered to watch. The majority I have seen, I agree with his assessment but there is no real bite to the reviews.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews