What do you think?
Rate this book
Roger Ebert's Movies that Suck
Your Movie Sucks
Roger Ebert's I Hated Hated Hated This Movie, which gathered some of his most scathing reviews, was a best-seller. 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.
From Roger's review of Deuce European Gigolo (0 stars): The movie created a spot of controversy in February 2005. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times listed this year's Best Picture nominees and wrote that they were 'ignored, unloved, and turned down flat by most of the same studios that . . . bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to Deuce Male Gigolo, a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic.'
Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider 'Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind. . . . Maybe you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers. . . .'
From Roger's review of Deuce European Gigolo (0 stars): The movie created a spot of controversy in February 2005. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times listed this year's Best Picture nominees and wrote that they were 'ignored, unloved, and turned down flat by most of the same studios that . . . bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to Deuce Male Gigolo, a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic.'
Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider 'Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind. . . . Maybe you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers. . . .'
Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks. But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed Deuce European Gigolo while passing on 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.
368 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2007
About the author
Roger Ebert
93 books410 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 162 reviews
August 26, 2022
We have all endured bad movies. How many of us have hunted for the perfect words to describe our agony? Not a problem for Roger Ebert. (After all, he is a professional!)
As a movie critic, Ebert, had to endure a host of films, from humdrum to really bad, to satisfy his newspaper. Now we get to review his descriptions of the worst. Ebert has ways of conveying his displeasure of which I am in awe. But the unrelenting stream of disappointment and frustration is both enervating and disheartening. A little goes a long way.
Not the book of Ebert’s reviews that I will want to retain.
PS: He is judicious in his mention of his Pulitzer prize and he does admit to an occasional mistake.
As a movie critic, Ebert, had to endure a host of films, from humdrum to really bad, to satisfy his newspaper. Now we get to review his descriptions of the worst. Ebert has ways of conveying his displeasure of which I am in awe. But the unrelenting stream of disappointment and frustration is both enervating and disheartening. A little goes a long way.
Not the book of Ebert’s reviews that I will want to retain.
PS: He is judicious in his mention of his Pulitzer prize and he does admit to an occasional mistake.
August 21, 2014
I have one-starred 57 novels out of 508 so far including some pretty big names (Underworld; Tropic of Cancer; Independence Day; White Teeth; the Slap; Story of O; White Noise; American Psycho; The Piano Teacher; Gone Girl; Valley of the Dolls; Vernon God Little; The Catcher in the Rye). In most cases I was dismayed to find out how much I hated them – you really want to like the stuff you’re reading, it goes without saying – but in few cases I actively sought out novels which I suspected I might despise – Topping from Below; Suffer the Flesh; Spare Key – you could call it research.
I guess I may have irked a few fellow Goodreaders who love the stuff I loathe, and I’m a little sorry about that, but not that sorry. I try to explain why this or that novel SUCKS (although the one line about Jerzy Kosinski’s Steps - “Yes, a single star, but a richly deserved one” - isn’t especially enlightening) just as Roger Ebert does in this amusing collection of reviews of hideous movies.
But it didn’t stop him getting in some public punch-ups with directors he’d slagged off. Vincent Gallo, auteur of The Brown Bunny, was quoted cursing Roger with colon cancer. Later, Vincent re-edited his movie, and met up with Roger, and explained – he never said the thing about colon cancer. He meant prostate cancer. Roger saw the recut Brown Bunny and changed his rating to three stars.
This sort of thing is not likely to happen to me but can you imagine?
Don DeLillo : I read your review and I rewrote Underworld. I made it tighter, I cut out 470 unnecessary pages – you were so right about that. Hope you like it better.
P Bryant : Well, okay, but don’t count on it.
Or
Bret Easton Ellis : I read your review and I did some hard thinking. You’re right, all American Psycho does is contribute, albeit unwittingly, to a culture of profound misogyny. So I rewrote it completely.
P Bryant : Oh yeah? Like how?
BEE : In the new version Patrick Bateman meets up with all these girls and praises them tediously for pages and pages, and when they go home he viciously chainsaws all his Whitney Houston and Peter Gabriel cds.
P Bryant : I like it. Now that’s what I call satire!
I have seen ten out of the 175 movies reviewed in this book and I pretty much agree with Roger, so I am for sure staying away from the other 165. But I would never have been tempted by some of them anyway, and nor would you – The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas anyone? Or perhaps Deuce Bigelow : European Gigolo ? No, I didn’t think so.
Roger on The Village (2004) :
It’s so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret [of the plot], we want to rewind the film so we don’t know the secret anymore. And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we’re back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theatre and go down the up escalator and watch money spring from the cash register into our pockets.
Roger on North (1994)
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.
Having spent most of today in the company of Mr Ebert’s bracing tirades I’m left thinking that I’ve been way too kind to some of the books I’ve read. I should learn from the master. No more Mr Nice Reviewer.
I guess I may have irked a few fellow Goodreaders who love the stuff I loathe, and I’m a little sorry about that, but not that sorry. I try to explain why this or that novel SUCKS (although the one line about Jerzy Kosinski’s Steps - “Yes, a single star, but a richly deserved one” - isn’t especially enlightening) just as Roger Ebert does in this amusing collection of reviews of hideous movies.
But it didn’t stop him getting in some public punch-ups with directors he’d slagged off. Vincent Gallo, auteur of The Brown Bunny, was quoted cursing Roger with colon cancer. Later, Vincent re-edited his movie, and met up with Roger, and explained – he never said the thing about colon cancer. He meant prostate cancer. Roger saw the recut Brown Bunny and changed his rating to three stars.
This sort of thing is not likely to happen to me but can you imagine?
Don DeLillo : I read your review and I rewrote Underworld. I made it tighter, I cut out 470 unnecessary pages – you were so right about that. Hope you like it better.
P Bryant : Well, okay, but don’t count on it.
Or
Bret Easton Ellis : I read your review and I did some hard thinking. You’re right, all American Psycho does is contribute, albeit unwittingly, to a culture of profound misogyny. So I rewrote it completely.
P Bryant : Oh yeah? Like how?
BEE : In the new version Patrick Bateman meets up with all these girls and praises them tediously for pages and pages, and when they go home he viciously chainsaws all his Whitney Houston and Peter Gabriel cds.
P Bryant : I like it. Now that’s what I call satire!
I have seen ten out of the 175 movies reviewed in this book and I pretty much agree with Roger, so I am for sure staying away from the other 165. But I would never have been tempted by some of them anyway, and nor would you – The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas anyone? Or perhaps Deuce Bigelow : European Gigolo ? No, I didn’t think so.
Roger on The Village (2004) :
It’s so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret [of the plot], we want to rewind the film so we don’t know the secret anymore. And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we’re back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theatre and go down the up escalator and watch money spring from the cash register into our pockets.
Roger on North (1994)
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.
Having spent most of today in the company of Mr Ebert’s bracing tirades I’m left thinking that I’ve been way too kind to some of the books I’ve read. I should learn from the master. No more Mr Nice Reviewer.
April 20, 2008
Roger Ebert sees crappy movies, so we don't have to.
For over 20 years, I've been a fan of Ebert, because - let's be honest - he has been the critic whose reviews most closely match my opinions. That's how we, as movie fans, tend to work. Ebert has written enthusiastically about movies I like, that none of my friends seem to (Dark City, Joe Vs. the Volcano), and he's been unimpressed with certain films that a non-critic supposedly was a dolt not to like (Pearl Harbor). However, and this is key to Ebert's abilities as a critic, he always plays fair with his evaluation of a movie's merits. He knows enough about film that he's able to compare the movie he sees to the one the filmmakers were trying to make. The distinction is important because too many critics' reviews, good or bad, are reactions to the film's comparison to the one the critic might have made instead. In this way, Ebert is uncommonly generous toward the simple, fun, stupid movies we all love -- and he's earned the right to get downright cutting with the movies that fall flat, and waste our time.
Watching a good film is fun and rewarding. Reading a critic's positive review for a film you already like gives one the chance to feel affirmed, maybe vindicated... or maybe like the only smart moviegoer in your group. Reading a bad review of a movie you hate can be all that, with the added bonus of prompting fits of evil cackling. Somehow, knowing a smart critic thought even less than you did of, say, a "Deuce Bigalow" movie makes the pain a little easier to work through.
Even aside from the quality of the criticism, Ebert is an excellent writer. And it's incredibly fun to see a good writer let loose, in the service of savaging a horrible film. Watching a good writer administer exactly the right dose of poison is a different sort of fun, and Ebert has the chance to do both here. Most of the time he's more surgical in his approach, calmly and evenly explaining why a movie does, indeed, suck. But now and then, he simply goes medieval, and kicks bad movies while they're down. Don't worry, though -- they all deserve it.
For over 20 years, I've been a fan of Ebert, because - let's be honest - he has been the critic whose reviews most closely match my opinions. That's how we, as movie fans, tend to work. Ebert has written enthusiastically about movies I like, that none of my friends seem to (Dark City, Joe Vs. the Volcano), and he's been unimpressed with certain films that a non-critic supposedly was a dolt not to like (Pearl Harbor). However, and this is key to Ebert's abilities as a critic, he always plays fair with his evaluation of a movie's merits. He knows enough about film that he's able to compare the movie he sees to the one the filmmakers were trying to make. The distinction is important because too many critics' reviews, good or bad, are reactions to the film's comparison to the one the critic might have made instead. In this way, Ebert is uncommonly generous toward the simple, fun, stupid movies we all love -- and he's earned the right to get downright cutting with the movies that fall flat, and waste our time.
Watching a good film is fun and rewarding. Reading a critic's positive review for a film you already like gives one the chance to feel affirmed, maybe vindicated... or maybe like the only smart moviegoer in your group. Reading a bad review of a movie you hate can be all that, with the added bonus of prompting fits of evil cackling. Somehow, knowing a smart critic thought even less than you did of, say, a "Deuce Bigalow" movie makes the pain a little easier to work through.
Even aside from the quality of the criticism, Ebert is an excellent writer. And it's incredibly fun to see a good writer let loose, in the service of savaging a horrible film. Watching a good writer administer exactly the right dose of poison is a different sort of fun, and Ebert has the chance to do both here. Most of the time he's more surgical in his approach, calmly and evenly explaining why a movie does, indeed, suck. But now and then, he simply goes medieval, and kicks bad movies while they're down. Don't worry, though -- they all deserve it.
November 8, 2014
I have been a longtime fan of Mr. Ebert's reviews. He is funny, brutal and makes sure that we don't waste our money on drivel churned out by the Hollywood. And he did the same in this book. Read this book if you want to have a good laugh and meanwhile consider yourself lucky that you are not working in Hollywood or it could have been you getting your ass reviewed somewhere in this book.
March 13, 2021
In my ever-continuing journey to improve my writing from "shlock" to "palatable", I have continued reading the works of Roger Ebert. In the case of Your Movie Sucks, well, the pun is too good to refuse. Your book sucks.
Compendiums should never blur together, but here, it does. The argument could be made that these are reviews, and as such should be brief and not read in seventy-page pockets. But that problem never occurred to Hunter Thompson, Joan Didion, not even David Mitchell or Frankie Boyle. No, the issue here comes from the lack of variety.
Ebert often talks around the film, rather than about it. It is sometimes good practice to cobble together one-liners and jaded jabs at movies that do, indeed, suck, but it is equally good practice to explain why you are doing this, and what goes wrong. Ebert is on autopilot for many of the reviews in this collection, most of which offer nothing insightful, interesting or all that endearing.
With so many different films to review, it is startling to see Ebert rely on the same three cliches.
1. "This actor will offer better performances later, but..."
2. "X is my favourite, but here they are Y"
3. "X was R-Rated, but Y was rated PG-13" - perhaps the most mundane note to add to any review, and it happens often. It is his way of showcasing a sloppy moral justification, which is hard to do when half your reviews are swooning over actresses who are described as "beautiful" without another synonym in sight, and the other half dedicated to frustrating, half-baked anecdotes and analogies.
Still, his Team America: World Police review was alright, I suppose that's the silver lining. All in the name of research this was, at least I know how not to write now.
Compendiums should never blur together, but here, it does. The argument could be made that these are reviews, and as such should be brief and not read in seventy-page pockets. But that problem never occurred to Hunter Thompson, Joan Didion, not even David Mitchell or Frankie Boyle. No, the issue here comes from the lack of variety.
Ebert often talks around the film, rather than about it. It is sometimes good practice to cobble together one-liners and jaded jabs at movies that do, indeed, suck, but it is equally good practice to explain why you are doing this, and what goes wrong. Ebert is on autopilot for many of the reviews in this collection, most of which offer nothing insightful, interesting or all that endearing.
With so many different films to review, it is startling to see Ebert rely on the same three cliches.
1. "This actor will offer better performances later, but..."
2. "X is my favourite, but here they are Y"
3. "X was R-Rated, but Y was rated PG-13" - perhaps the most mundane note to add to any review, and it happens often. It is his way of showcasing a sloppy moral justification, which is hard to do when half your reviews are swooning over actresses who are described as "beautiful" without another synonym in sight, and the other half dedicated to frustrating, half-baked anecdotes and analogies.
Still, his Team America: World Police review was alright, I suppose that's the silver lining. All in the name of research this was, at least I know how not to write now.
August 30, 2007
This book is a sequel of sorts to Roger Ebert's earlier I Hated Hated Hated This Movie -- both collections of his reviews of movies he enjoyed the least. The earlier book covered a few decades of reviews and so it had the stringent requirement of one star or less; the new book covers just the 21st century and so, I assume to pad out the book a bit, includes 1.5 star movies. It does mean that some of the reviews are less vitriolic and more Ebert basically saying, "eh."
But when Ebert is on a tear, ripping into a terrible movie, it's quite a sight to behold. The book opens with an extended introduction detailing a few reviews that resulted in public exchanges with the director or stars, like Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (from which review comes the title of the book) and Vincent Gallo's Brown Bunny.
It should be noted that these books are, like so much these days, effectively free online -- just go to the Advanced Search on Ebert's site, set the "Star rating To" field to one or one-and-a-half stars, and click Submit. But it's harder to take your computer into the bathroom, which just might be the natural home for this sort of book. Of course, you might also want to use it as a sort of affirmational -- read one of these reviews right before you leave the house and there will be a certain spring in your step. No matter what you do or don't do during the day, at least you didn't make a terrible movie.
But when Ebert is on a tear, ripping into a terrible movie, it's quite a sight to behold. The book opens with an extended introduction detailing a few reviews that resulted in public exchanges with the director or stars, like Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (from which review comes the title of the book) and Vincent Gallo's Brown Bunny.
It should be noted that these books are, like so much these days, effectively free online -- just go to the Advanced Search on Ebert's site, set the "Star rating To" field to one or one-and-a-half stars, and click Submit. But it's harder to take your computer into the bathroom, which just might be the natural home for this sort of book. Of course, you might also want to use it as a sort of affirmational -- read one of these reviews right before you leave the house and there will be a certain spring in your step. No matter what you do or don't do during the day, at least you didn't make a terrible movie.
November 7, 2018
I needed some light reading while I was on vacation and I was missing Roger Ebert anyway (each time a terrible movie comes out my heart lets out a little pang that I'll never know how much he hated it) so I went back to this old standby. I enjoyed it less this time than I had in the past and I'm not exactly sure why. In some of the reviews he used some gimmicks I found annoying and even though he always prefaced a horror review by telling us that he was a horror fan, I never quite bought it. He was a fan of great horror movies, not of horror as a genre and there's a difference, especially when it comes to reviewing movies that are geared specifically towards fans of the genre. Still for my money he was one of the consistently great critics out there and I wish he was still around.
December 10, 2016
I got this book the other day as I accidentally bought it on my iPhone. (Thanks 1-Click). It is very entertaining when he full-on releases the venom, which is not often enough. The reviews for Deuce Bigalow (and most of Rob Schneider's movies) and Wet Hot American Summer are memorable. Even though I enjoyed a few movies in this book, (Constantine, High Tension, Resident Evil, and Silent HIll), I would not defend them as good.
January 17, 2021
Humorous and cathartic.
December 2, 2021
Hahaha hell yeah
August 17, 2011
I liked the first Ebert collection I read (while not agreeing with every review, I did enjoy the turn of phrase and the at times somewhat savage pen). So upon recommendation I got this one.
This one was just as humorous and none of the movies in it were among those I'd say I actually like. That made it even more easy to appreciate the reviews. Some of the movies in this book I enjoyed more than others of course, a few I'd say I found "not too bad"...BUT on the other hand some were so spectacularly bad that the skewering Ebert gives them not only seems natural, it seems deserved!
A great many of these movies you will recognize a lot of them are either remakes (as in Deeds [shudder]) or have a "2" in their title. Most of them are pathetic examples of cinema. In those cases if you actually paid to see them, you'll probably cheer their shredding.
However...whether or not you agree with his take on a given film, you'll find some chuckles, chortles and outright laughs here. Enjoy.
This one was just as humorous and none of the movies in it were among those I'd say I actually like. That made it even more easy to appreciate the reviews. Some of the movies in this book I enjoyed more than others of course, a few I'd say I found "not too bad"...BUT on the other hand some were so spectacularly bad that the skewering Ebert gives them not only seems natural, it seems deserved!
A great many of these movies you will recognize a lot of them are either remakes (as in Deeds [shudder]) or have a "2" in their title. Most of them are pathetic examples of cinema. In those cases if you actually paid to see them, you'll probably cheer their shredding.
However...whether or not you agree with his take on a given film, you'll find some chuckles, chortles and outright laughs here. Enjoy.
August 26, 2021
First Reading, early 2010s.
Roger Ebert is the kind of highbrow, condescending prick who, at a cocktail party holding court at the bar, can and will outtalk anyone, even his host, in a debate on everything from movies to politics to child-rearing. But I digress. His reviews completely draw me in for the wit in which they are delivered, and for his delivery. He writes a review not for other critics to read, but that moviegoers can relate to. And he is never biased against a specific plot, genre, director or actor. Unless it's Rob Schneider, whom we all must thank for spurring Mr. Ebert to write this book. More, please!
Second Reading, August 2021
I have the exact same reaction. A bit sobering though, now that he's gone. I'll miss his writing.
Roger Ebert is the kind of highbrow, condescending prick who, at a cocktail party holding court at the bar, can and will outtalk anyone, even his host, in a debate on everything from movies to politics to child-rearing. But I digress. His reviews completely draw me in for the wit in which they are delivered, and for his delivery. He writes a review not for other critics to read, but that moviegoers can relate to. And he is never biased against a specific plot, genre, director or actor. Unless it's Rob Schneider, whom we all must thank for spurring Mr. Ebert to write this book. More, please!
Second Reading, August 2021
I have the exact same reaction. A bit sobering though, now that he's gone. I'll miss his writing.
September 28, 2024
Even though I disagree with Ebert on some of his write-ups (I will stick up for The Village anyday given the opportunity), reading his takedowns are always fun. Infamous reviews like Pearl Harbor and Freddy Got Fingered are here, along with sundry negative reviews that show Ebert’s pet hates. The man did not like brutal horror films or gross-out wacky comedies, and they are well represented here. What’s most surprising is the lack of dramas, suggesting these get at worst a casual pass from Ebert even when they are quite bad.
March 29, 2015
"The film opens with a narration informing us that there are parallel universes, and that “a force exists who seeks to destroy the balance so that he can become—The One!” Apparently every time one of your other selves dies, his power is distributed among the survivors. If Yulaw kills 123 selves, he has the power of 124. Follow this logic far enough, and retirement homes would be filled with elderly geezers who have outlived their others and now have the strength of 124, meaning they can bend canes with their bare hands and produce mighty bowel movements with scornful ease." ("The One," 243)
"Black-and-white is better suited to many kinds of comedy because it underlines the dialogue and movement while diminishing the importance of fashions and eliminating the emotional content of various colors. Billy Wilder fought for black-and-white on Some Like It Hot because he thought his drag queens would never be accepted by the audience in color, and he was right." ("All the Queen's Men," 31)
"The pun, it has been theorized, is the lowest form of humor. This movie proves that theory wrong. There is a lower form of humor: jokes about dinosaur farts. The pun is the second lowest form of humor. The third lowest form is laborious plays on words, as when we learn that the Rock Vegas headliners include Mick Jagged and the Stones." ("The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas," 134)
"They rigidly follow the age-old formula of horror movies, in which characters who hear alarming sounds go to investigate, unwisely sticking their heads/hands/body parts into places where they quickly become forensic evidence. Something attacks them in a shot so brief and murky it could be a fearsome beast, a savage ghost—or, of course, Only a Cat." ("The Grudge," 150)
"Faithful readers will know I’m an admirer of Jennifer Lopez, and older readers will recall my admiration for Jane Fonda, whom I first met on the set of Barbarella (1968), so it has been all uphill ever since. Watching Monster-in-Law, I tried to transfer into Fan Mode, enjoying their presence while ignoring the movie. I did not succeed. My reveries were interrupted by bulletins from my conscious mind, which hated the movie." ("Monster-in-Law," 229)
"It also has a truant officer, played by Eugene Levy in a performance that will be valuable to film historians, since it demonstrates what Eugene Levy’s irreducible essence is when he plays a character who is given absolutely nothing funny to say or do." ("New York Minute," 237)
"The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement offers the prudent critic with a choice. He can say what he really thinks about the movie, or he can play it safe by writing that it’s sure to be loved by lots of young girls. But I avoid saying that anything is sure to be loved by anybody. In this case, I am not a young girl, nor have I ever been, and so how would I know if one would like it? Of course, that’s exactly the objection I get in e-mails from young readers, who complain that no one like me can possibly like a movie like this. They are correct. I have spent a long time, starting at birth and continuing until this very moment, evolving into the kind of person who could not possibly like a movie like this, and I like to think the effort was not in vain." ("Princess Diaries 2," 260)
"One of the foundations of comedy is a character who must do what he doesn’t want to do because of the logic of the situation. As Auden pointed out about limericks, they’re funny not because they end with a dirty word, but because they have no choice but to end with the dirty word—by that point, it’s the only word that rhymes and makes sense. Lucille Ball made a career out of finding herself in embarrassing situations and doing the next logical thing, however ridiculous." ("Son of the Mask," 304)
"Tarantino’s film is made with grace and joy. This movie is made with venom and cynicism." ("Texas Chainsaw Massacre," 324)
"I went to the Rotten Tomatoes roundup of critics not for tips for my own review, but hoping that someone somewhere simply said, 'Made me want to vomit and cry at the same time.'" ("Wolf Creek," 362)
"Black-and-white is better suited to many kinds of comedy because it underlines the dialogue and movement while diminishing the importance of fashions and eliminating the emotional content of various colors. Billy Wilder fought for black-and-white on Some Like It Hot because he thought his drag queens would never be accepted by the audience in color, and he was right." ("All the Queen's Men," 31)
"The pun, it has been theorized, is the lowest form of humor. This movie proves that theory wrong. There is a lower form of humor: jokes about dinosaur farts. The pun is the second lowest form of humor. The third lowest form is laborious plays on words, as when we learn that the Rock Vegas headliners include Mick Jagged and the Stones." ("The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas," 134)
"They rigidly follow the age-old formula of horror movies, in which characters who hear alarming sounds go to investigate, unwisely sticking their heads/hands/body parts into places where they quickly become forensic evidence. Something attacks them in a shot so brief and murky it could be a fearsome beast, a savage ghost—or, of course, Only a Cat." ("The Grudge," 150)
"Faithful readers will know I’m an admirer of Jennifer Lopez, and older readers will recall my admiration for Jane Fonda, whom I first met on the set of Barbarella (1968), so it has been all uphill ever since. Watching Monster-in-Law, I tried to transfer into Fan Mode, enjoying their presence while ignoring the movie. I did not succeed. My reveries were interrupted by bulletins from my conscious mind, which hated the movie." ("Monster-in-Law," 229)
"It also has a truant officer, played by Eugene Levy in a performance that will be valuable to film historians, since it demonstrates what Eugene Levy’s irreducible essence is when he plays a character who is given absolutely nothing funny to say or do." ("New York Minute," 237)
"The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement offers the prudent critic with a choice. He can say what he really thinks about the movie, or he can play it safe by writing that it’s sure to be loved by lots of young girls. But I avoid saying that anything is sure to be loved by anybody. In this case, I am not a young girl, nor have I ever been, and so how would I know if one would like it? Of course, that’s exactly the objection I get in e-mails from young readers, who complain that no one like me can possibly like a movie like this. They are correct. I have spent a long time, starting at birth and continuing until this very moment, evolving into the kind of person who could not possibly like a movie like this, and I like to think the effort was not in vain." ("Princess Diaries 2," 260)
"One of the foundations of comedy is a character who must do what he doesn’t want to do because of the logic of the situation. As Auden pointed out about limericks, they’re funny not because they end with a dirty word, but because they have no choice but to end with the dirty word—by that point, it’s the only word that rhymes and makes sense. Lucille Ball made a career out of finding herself in embarrassing situations and doing the next logical thing, however ridiculous." ("Son of the Mask," 304)
"Tarantino’s film is made with grace and joy. This movie is made with venom and cynicism." ("Texas Chainsaw Massacre," 324)
"I went to the Rotten Tomatoes roundup of critics not for tips for my own review, but hoping that someone somewhere simply said, 'Made me want to vomit and cry at the same time.'" ("Wolf Creek," 362)
September 3, 2009
I was incredibly enthusiastic about this book as soon as I saw the title. Reading the back cover (taken from Ebert's review for "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo), had me even more pumped. As someone who has never read anything by Roger Ebert before, knowing him simply as the thumb guy, I was impressed with the review's self consciousness and outright snark. As I said, I was enthusiastic, but the feeling, while not entirely disappearing, certainly subsided.
Actually opening the book yielded a couple of introductory texts, including the complete review of "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" and an account of the Ebert/Gallo feud over the film "Brown Bunny." Again, I was impressed by Ebert's playful attitude and willingness to allow for the film's redemption. Once you get past this introduction however, the book is simply an alphabetized collection of Ebert's post-2000 less-than-two-star reviews.
While some of the reviews are not without charm, or even hilarious moments, the anthologizing of the opinions of a single person over such a relatively short period of time in his career lends itself to certain touches of repetitiveness. While I can certainly sympathize with the task of having to come up with original reviews for each and every movie, reading through them all at once can get to be something of a chore.
The apparently most important thing that I have learned from this book is that I should see "There's Something About Mary." Every single sex comedy in the book (and there are a lot of them... as many are, in fact, quite poor) is compared unfavourably to this Magnum Opus of semen humour. At least a half dozen times, Ebert makes reference to the "hair gel" scene, and how no other scene in recent history has been as funny.
Another fact that I took issue with is that 90% of most of the reviews are plot summary. While in some cases, the story being retold with a trace of acidic sarcasm is enough to explain why the film is bad, I generally felt disappointed by the lack of reasoning why the movies received the ratings they did. Granted, there are some exceptions, but more often than not, plot summary is the rule.
My third, and most vehement issue with the book is with the rating he gave "Death To Smoochy." This movie was awesome. I am the only one in the world who thinks so, but it pains me to be constantly reminded about how wrong-brained either I, or the rest of the world, is. This movie aside, Ebert and I were rarely far off in our opinions, particularly in regards to the unacceptable, irredeemable "Freddy Got Fingered."
Ebert makes gracious (not quite gratuitous) use of words and phrases from his own "Little Movie Glossary." In one case, he even suggests the reader to pick up a copy. Shameless? Yes. Forgivable? Maybe. In most situations, however, the phrases he uses are self-explaining, and, quite helpfully capitalized. After reading this book, I feel like I am more adept at picking out a Meet Cute than ever before.
The most important thing I will take from this book is a different way of watching movies. Ebert hates when things happen in movies because it is the way things happen in movies. While being willing to suspend disbelief, he admirably demands for the films he watches to make sense and be supportable by conceivable motivations or human behaviours. It wasn't until reading this book that I realized how much nonsense I have let wash over me for the sake of trying to enjoy a movie. It is very possible that Roger Ebert has single-handedly changed the way I watch movies. I don't know if I like it.
*I had one last thing to say but liked how my review ended, so I'll say it in a P.S.: The last few pages of the book are an index, directed a reader toward which page has which review. I'll give that minute to settle in. Yes, there is an alphabetical index in a book which has all of its reviews listed in alphabetical order, not unlike having a cheat sheet in a dictionary or a phone book.
Actually opening the book yielded a couple of introductory texts, including the complete review of "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" and an account of the Ebert/Gallo feud over the film "Brown Bunny." Again, I was impressed by Ebert's playful attitude and willingness to allow for the film's redemption. Once you get past this introduction however, the book is simply an alphabetized collection of Ebert's post-2000 less-than-two-star reviews.
While some of the reviews are not without charm, or even hilarious moments, the anthologizing of the opinions of a single person over such a relatively short period of time in his career lends itself to certain touches of repetitiveness. While I can certainly sympathize with the task of having to come up with original reviews for each and every movie, reading through them all at once can get to be something of a chore.
The apparently most important thing that I have learned from this book is that I should see "There's Something About Mary." Every single sex comedy in the book (and there are a lot of them... as many are, in fact, quite poor) is compared unfavourably to this Magnum Opus of semen humour. At least a half dozen times, Ebert makes reference to the "hair gel" scene, and how no other scene in recent history has been as funny.
Another fact that I took issue with is that 90% of most of the reviews are plot summary. While in some cases, the story being retold with a trace of acidic sarcasm is enough to explain why the film is bad, I generally felt disappointed by the lack of reasoning why the movies received the ratings they did. Granted, there are some exceptions, but more often than not, plot summary is the rule.
My third, and most vehement issue with the book is with the rating he gave "Death To Smoochy." This movie was awesome. I am the only one in the world who thinks so, but it pains me to be constantly reminded about how wrong-brained either I, or the rest of the world, is. This movie aside, Ebert and I were rarely far off in our opinions, particularly in regards to the unacceptable, irredeemable "Freddy Got Fingered."
Ebert makes gracious (not quite gratuitous) use of words and phrases from his own "Little Movie Glossary." In one case, he even suggests the reader to pick up a copy. Shameless? Yes. Forgivable? Maybe. In most situations, however, the phrases he uses are self-explaining, and, quite helpfully capitalized. After reading this book, I feel like I am more adept at picking out a Meet Cute than ever before.
The most important thing I will take from this book is a different way of watching movies. Ebert hates when things happen in movies because it is the way things happen in movies. While being willing to suspend disbelief, he admirably demands for the films he watches to make sense and be supportable by conceivable motivations or human behaviours. It wasn't until reading this book that I realized how much nonsense I have let wash over me for the sake of trying to enjoy a movie. It is very possible that Roger Ebert has single-handedly changed the way I watch movies. I don't know if I like it.
*I had one last thing to say but liked how my review ended, so I'll say it in a P.S.: The last few pages of the book are an index, directed a reader toward which page has which review. I'll give that minute to settle in. Yes, there is an alphabetical index in a book which has all of its reviews listed in alphabetical order, not unlike having a cheat sheet in a dictionary or a phone book.
September 4, 2022
A compilation of Ebert's 0-to-1.5 stars reviews from the first decade of this century, this was great fun. I'm proud to note that I have not seen a single movie reviewed here, either in its original release or since; do I win a prize? Though I attribute this more to not going to the movies since 2000 than to my good taste -- but to be fair, I don't think I would've gone to any of these when they first came out -- none of them really my bag. (If I'm being completely honest, I'd actually only heard of about half of these movies, maybe a bit more. But hey, I'm old!)
I didn't count the exact number, but boy howdy, did John Travolta and Matthew McConaughey star in a lot of these films! Also, two genres of movies seemed (again, I didn't count) to dominate the list: comedies and romantic comedies. Not surprising, really, because, as someone famously said, "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." There are so many ways for screenwriters, directors, and actors to screw up a comedy/romantic comedy -- and Ebert notes examples of almost all of them in one review or another.
Books like this give the lie to the notion that being a movie reviewer must be a pretty easy gig. In many of these essays, you get a sense of the emotional pain and suffering Ebert experienced in absorbing this much crap in a relatively short period of time. Makes you wonder if watching and writing about the "great" movies is just compensation!
I didn't count the exact number, but boy howdy, did John Travolta and Matthew McConaughey star in a lot of these films! Also, two genres of movies seemed (again, I didn't count) to dominate the list: comedies and romantic comedies. Not surprising, really, because, as someone famously said, "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." There are so many ways for screenwriters, directors, and actors to screw up a comedy/romantic comedy -- and Ebert notes examples of almost all of them in one review or another.
Books like this give the lie to the notion that being a movie reviewer must be a pretty easy gig. In many of these essays, you get a sense of the emotional pain and suffering Ebert experienced in absorbing this much crap in a relatively short period of time. Makes you wonder if watching and writing about the "great" movies is just compensation!
January 23, 2012
This was a gift, and I wouldn't normally have chosen to read a collection of Ebert's reviews; I've always considered him somewhat overrated. He has a vaguely conservative moral stance that sneaks into his writing, and it irritated me that when we disagreed about a film it was usually because he was rating it on its morality rather than its quality. An example: giving Team America: World Police one star not because he didn't find it funny, but because he disliked its nihilism.
Saying that, he has a genuine sardonic wit that frequently made me laugh, and ultimately won me over. There's also no doubt that he both loves and understands films. So if I didn't enjoy this as much as I'd hoped, I certainly enjoyed it far more than I expected.
Saying that, he has a genuine sardonic wit that frequently made me laugh, and ultimately won me over. There's also no doubt that he both loves and understands films. So if I didn't enjoy this as much as I'd hoped, I certainly enjoyed it far more than I expected.
November 2, 2011
I often enjoy Ebert's film reviews regardless of the quality of the film, but he is really damn good at completely eviscerating crappy movies. Even if you haven't seen the film(s) in question, his reviews are always thought-provoking and funny, and sometimes go in wholly unexpected but awesome directions (see his digression regarding Cronenberg's "Crash" contained in the review of John Waters's "A Dirty Shame"). This volume collects reviews of 0, 1 and 1 1/2 star ratings from 2000 to 2006; most of the reviews are so entertaining that I wish that he'd release another, more current book of reviews of horrible movies!
September 27, 2011
About halfway through the book I realized the chapter headings were letters of the alphabet and not roman numerals. I would like to pretend it was because I was so engrossed in the book that I couldn't pay attention, but I probably just missed it.
This book was entertaining, full of horrible movies, which reminded me that I have alot of these films in my library. Ebert is eloquent and has a singular wit in his reviews, the guy loves what works and can tell you what movie it worked in. Very entertaining sunday read.
This book was entertaining, full of horrible movies, which reminded me that I have alot of these films in my library. Ebert is eloquent and has a singular wit in his reviews, the guy loves what works and can tell you what movie it worked in. Very entertaining sunday read.
March 28, 2008
Another fabulous collection of Roger Ebert's reviews of terrible movies. For some movies the effort he spends on the review is probably more than the filmmakers spent on the script! Great stuff.
March 31, 2008
This was hysterical.
May 16, 2010
There’s something about an amalgamation of entirely negative reviews that seems to speak to the worst of film criticism in the Internet age. The strain of criticism that has emerged and festered under anonymity online is more about vitriol and ridicule than any real thoughtful analysis of film, and unfortunately professional film critics are no longer exempt from this phenomenon. A good number of reviews have become outlets for jaded critics to string together as many insults and attempts at snarky put-downs as possible. There’s a very gleeful undercurrent to this modern criticism – the tiniest speckle of blood and critics will descend upon a film, eager to not only tear it apart, but the creators and actors too. The current culture of film criticism seems to be less steeped in an appreciation of film and more in classic schoolyard bullying
However, I’d be being disingenuous if I didn’t admit these are often the most entertaining reviews to read and as long as one is indulging in this type of hate-filled criticism, who better to read than Pulitzer-Prize winner Roger Ebert. Your Movie Sucks is a compilation of Ebert’s one-and-a-half star reviews and below from the period of 2000-2005. Ebert has risen to prominence as one of the only film critics to become a house-hold name and with good reason. He has a genuine appreciation of film that seems to be a rarity with some critics, as exemplified by his “Great Movies” series, a collection of reviews and essays on what he considers the most important films of all time. Despite this, he still isn’t above zealously shredding apart a film if it’s bad enough – he admits as much in the brief foreword to this collection. While I’ve always found his online-editor and fellow-critic Jim Emerson to offer more thought-provoking film analysis, Ebert remains one of the more entertaining critics to read, and while he doesn’t always look at films from a very intellectual point of view (his review of Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo is essentially recounting an incident involving star Rob Schneider rather than actually discussing the film), he always looks at the films from a very individual perspective. He has a very distinct observational style, punctuated with clever witticisms and amusing anecdotes. No one can really eviscerate a film as well as Ebert and he has an uncanny ability to point out the absurdities abundant in many of the terrible films he reviews. This ability is showcased perfectly in the featured review for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, in which he points out the ridiculousness of choosing Venice of all places, perhaps the only city in the world that doesn’t have roads, to feature a car-chase.
Most of the reviews are wildly funny to read. However, the very nature of a negative-review compilation poses certain problems that haven’t been corrected for this volume. There are some movies renowned for their atrociousness and with redeeming qualities close to – if not – zilch. Say what you will about Battlefield Earth, Freddy Got Fingered and Master of Disguise (I actually enjoy two of those myself), they are almost universally recognized as abominations. These often inspire the most critical, vitriolic and – thus – entertaining reviews. Unfortunately, these only show up once every few letters of the alphabet (the reviews are organized alphabetically by film title). The majority of featured reviews are for banal films that have since been forgotten despite none of the films being over ten-years-old. Alex & Emma? All the Queen’s Men? Almost Salinas? The Amati Girls? Those are the first four films in the volume and I can’t say I even remember a single advert from one, let alone even recall hearing of one. It isn’t even an issue of independent or lesser-known films – there are a good number of John Travolta flicks and Happy Madison productions featured that have practically disappeared from memory, such as Basic and Saving Silverman (remember them? I don’t). It’s less interesting to read of a film which you have absolutely no context of and thus can’t compare with your own opinions, interpretations and feelings. However, even withstanding this, the big problem is that many of these films are – for the most part and by all indication – subduedly poor rather than offensively bad, and inspire reviews less vivacious, critical and interesting. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity, particularly with the more-muted one-star-and-a-half reviews; besides the clichés and the banality, there just isn’t much to be commented on within a Hillary Duff film – and there are three spread out throughout this volume.
It’s not that any of the reviews are uninteresting (note the four-star rating), only that a 300+ pages of reviews would be less tiring with the worst-of-the-worst films from Ebert’s career rather than all the relatively bad ones from a single five-year period. I’m assuming the predecessor “I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie” may have depleted the field of choosing for this volume significantly. As it stands, the volume is still entertaining, but difficult to sift through for more than three-reviews at a time. I found the most entertaining reviews are for the ones either generally considered good (High Tension, Wolf Creek) or which I personally enjoyed (Mr. Deeds, Pootie Tang, Team America: World Police). The least: both the aforementioned forgettable filmed formulas and the already criticized-to-death, although Ebert always manages to provide a unique take.
Perhaps worthy of noting is that quite frequently for a critic Ebert doesn’t discuss a film in depth, opting rather for humorous stories or relaying the plot with his own interpretations or a clever quip that really tells you nothing about the film (such as Ebert’s line that Freddy Got Fingered is not just the “bottom of the barrel”, but shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence as barrels). Some reviews you’ll come away from without a good idea of whether you would enjoy the film or not. Then again, I’m wondering if anyone would actually purchase a book entitled Your Movie Sucks looking for recommendations. It’s an entertaining collection for film-fans, perfect for five-to-ten-minute spurts at a time. Keep in mind all the reviews are available online, so if you don’t mind staring at a screen all-day, you might as well save the $20.
However, I’d be being disingenuous if I didn’t admit these are often the most entertaining reviews to read and as long as one is indulging in this type of hate-filled criticism, who better to read than Pulitzer-Prize winner Roger Ebert. Your Movie Sucks is a compilation of Ebert’s one-and-a-half star reviews and below from the period of 2000-2005. Ebert has risen to prominence as one of the only film critics to become a house-hold name and with good reason. He has a genuine appreciation of film that seems to be a rarity with some critics, as exemplified by his “Great Movies” series, a collection of reviews and essays on what he considers the most important films of all time. Despite this, he still isn’t above zealously shredding apart a film if it’s bad enough – he admits as much in the brief foreword to this collection. While I’ve always found his online-editor and fellow-critic Jim Emerson to offer more thought-provoking film analysis, Ebert remains one of the more entertaining critics to read, and while he doesn’t always look at films from a very intellectual point of view (his review of Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo is essentially recounting an incident involving star Rob Schneider rather than actually discussing the film), he always looks at the films from a very individual perspective. He has a very distinct observational style, punctuated with clever witticisms and amusing anecdotes. No one can really eviscerate a film as well as Ebert and he has an uncanny ability to point out the absurdities abundant in many of the terrible films he reviews. This ability is showcased perfectly in the featured review for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, in which he points out the ridiculousness of choosing Venice of all places, perhaps the only city in the world that doesn’t have roads, to feature a car-chase.
Most of the reviews are wildly funny to read. However, the very nature of a negative-review compilation poses certain problems that haven’t been corrected for this volume. There are some movies renowned for their atrociousness and with redeeming qualities close to – if not – zilch. Say what you will about Battlefield Earth, Freddy Got Fingered and Master of Disguise (I actually enjoy two of those myself), they are almost universally recognized as abominations. These often inspire the most critical, vitriolic and – thus – entertaining reviews. Unfortunately, these only show up once every few letters of the alphabet (the reviews are organized alphabetically by film title). The majority of featured reviews are for banal films that have since been forgotten despite none of the films being over ten-years-old. Alex & Emma? All the Queen’s Men? Almost Salinas? The Amati Girls? Those are the first four films in the volume and I can’t say I even remember a single advert from one, let alone even recall hearing of one. It isn’t even an issue of independent or lesser-known films – there are a good number of John Travolta flicks and Happy Madison productions featured that have practically disappeared from memory, such as Basic and Saving Silverman (remember them? I don’t). It’s less interesting to read of a film which you have absolutely no context of and thus can’t compare with your own opinions, interpretations and feelings. However, even withstanding this, the big problem is that many of these films are – for the most part and by all indication – subduedly poor rather than offensively bad, and inspire reviews less vivacious, critical and interesting. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity, particularly with the more-muted one-star-and-a-half reviews; besides the clichés and the banality, there just isn’t much to be commented on within a Hillary Duff film – and there are three spread out throughout this volume.
It’s not that any of the reviews are uninteresting (note the four-star rating), only that a 300+ pages of reviews would be less tiring with the worst-of-the-worst films from Ebert’s career rather than all the relatively bad ones from a single five-year period. I’m assuming the predecessor “I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie” may have depleted the field of choosing for this volume significantly. As it stands, the volume is still entertaining, but difficult to sift through for more than three-reviews at a time. I found the most entertaining reviews are for the ones either generally considered good (High Tension, Wolf Creek) or which I personally enjoyed (Mr. Deeds, Pootie Tang, Team America: World Police). The least: both the aforementioned forgettable filmed formulas and the already criticized-to-death, although Ebert always manages to provide a unique take.
Perhaps worthy of noting is that quite frequently for a critic Ebert doesn’t discuss a film in depth, opting rather for humorous stories or relaying the plot with his own interpretations or a clever quip that really tells you nothing about the film (such as Ebert’s line that Freddy Got Fingered is not just the “bottom of the barrel”, but shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence as barrels). Some reviews you’ll come away from without a good idea of whether you would enjoy the film or not. Then again, I’m wondering if anyone would actually purchase a book entitled Your Movie Sucks looking for recommendations. It’s an entertaining collection for film-fans, perfect for five-to-ten-minute spurts at a time. Keep in mind all the reviews are available online, so if you don’t mind staring at a screen all-day, you might as well save the $20.
November 30, 2019
You might wonder why I would want to read a book about The WORST movies a critic has ever seen? Well have you read my reviews? I love bad reviews like a fat kid loves cake.
This book's time period roughly corresponds with a time in my life where I watched a LOT of movies. My son was a teen, my husband loved going to the movies, I loved going to the movies and I lived between 2 giant multiplexes.
So I have to admit I saw some of these 'Sucky' Movies. And while I may have enjoyed them, Scary Movie 3, or loathed them, Freddy Got Fingered, I can't disagree with the late Mr. Ebert's reviews.
I will admit I didn't read all of them because I don't watch foreign films and I don't know foreign directors or actors so there was nothing to interest me. Though a few I did skim did point out a weird mash up of French hard core porn / slasher films directed by women. Glad I skipped those.
This book's time period roughly corresponds with a time in my life where I watched a LOT of movies. My son was a teen, my husband loved going to the movies, I loved going to the movies and I lived between 2 giant multiplexes.
So I have to admit I saw some of these 'Sucky' Movies. And while I may have enjoyed them, Scary Movie 3, or loathed them, Freddy Got Fingered, I can't disagree with the late Mr. Ebert's reviews.
I will admit I didn't read all of them because I don't watch foreign films and I don't know foreign directors or actors so there was nothing to interest me. Though a few I did skim did point out a weird mash up of French hard core porn / slasher films directed by women. Glad I skipped those.
December 2, 2022
There’s a reason he was the king of film criticism. In this compilation of bad film reviews he is brilliant, hilarious, incisive, and insightful. Hearing his criticism of overused movie cliches is a delight that doesn’t expire, along with his clever one-liners: “in the movie, [the] father is played by Peter Falk. True, Falk is one of the first guys you’d think of for the role, but they should have kept thinking.”
The book points out that when we list out what we despise about a piece of art, it only speaks to what we actually enjoy and what we’re looking for in the art we observe. I did not agree with all of the reviews in this book. Yet with each review, I had a better understanding of what he wanted out of movies and, simultaneously, what I want to see from movies.
The book points out that when we list out what we despise about a piece of art, it only speaks to what we actually enjoy and what we’re looking for in the art we observe. I did not agree with all of the reviews in this book. Yet with each review, I had a better understanding of what he wanted out of movies and, simultaneously, what I want to see from movies.
May 31, 2024
I read it, forgot I read it, then read it again, remembering I'd read it while re-reading it. Ah well.
It's okay. It's not nearly as much fun as you'd want such a book to be, probably because it's a collection of reviews rather than a renewed consideration in book form. Compared to Bad Movies We Love (my high-water mark for books about mediocre films) or the even better Not Since Carrie (about Broadway flops, rather than films, but the best book ever on unsuccessful artistic endeavours), it's not much.
(Note: I'm a writer, so I suffer when I offer fewer than five stars. But these aren't ratings of quality, they're a subjective account of how much I liked the book: 5* = an unalloyed pleasure from start to finish, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = disappointing, and 1* = hated it.)
It's okay. It's not nearly as much fun as you'd want such a book to be, probably because it's a collection of reviews rather than a renewed consideration in book form. Compared to Bad Movies We Love (my high-water mark for books about mediocre films) or the even better Not Since Carrie (about Broadway flops, rather than films, but the best book ever on unsuccessful artistic endeavours), it's not much.
(Note: I'm a writer, so I suffer when I offer fewer than five stars. But these aren't ratings of quality, they're a subjective account of how much I liked the book: 5* = an unalloyed pleasure from start to finish, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = disappointing, and 1* = hated it.)
June 27, 2020
Ebert reviews some of his most hated films with humor and disdain. I laughed through a majority of the remarks and it made me miss him and his reviews. Not for everyone but if you are a film buff you might enjoy it!
October 1, 2017
Roger Ebert’s Your Movie Sucks is an interesting works. It is a sequel to his 2000 collection I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie, which I have not read, but from what I understand essentially compiles all of the one-star reviews he had written during his career up to that point. This book, published in 2007, obviously has less to cover, but movies seem to have gotten worse because, by bumping the minimum requirement up to 1.5 stars, he finds plenty of content to include in this volume.
Given its content, Ebert’s book is difficult to review in detail since, with a few exceptions for his famous bad reviews like Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (the controversy around which inspired the name of the book) that are placed at the beginning, the book simply presents the reviews in alphabetical order by film title, and there is no conclusion to wrap up the work. His introduction contains a few perfunctory, explanatory remarks and highlights three movies – Deuce Bigalow, Chaos, The Brown Bunny – for which his reviews received defensive responses from individuals involved in the production. The results of such interactions are mixed, but Ebert demonstrates class and thoughtfulness in every reply.
I am not certain if the intent of this book were for it to be read cover to cover, or for individuals to look up particular bad movies to get Ebert’s perspective (the former seems more likely for the entertainment value, but the reviews can get a bit repetitive during long read-throughs), but regardless, the primary reason to pick up this book is to enjoy the author’s style. I admit that when I see a review of a movie, or think about movie criticism in general, I usually to the conclusion that it is “just one person’s opinion.” This is not surprising, since this thought arises usually as a defensive action, when one sees a good review for a movie they thought was terrible, or a scathing take-down of a film they loved. Everyone has different tastes, and even the experience of watching a movie, particularly in one’s childhood, can alter their perception of that film forever. Ebert does not dispute this notion in his reviews; he never claims to have a superior perspective or experience that would give his opinion more weight or validity (the only exception is in his review for Deuce Bigalow, but his comments there are in response to Rob Schneider’s reply to a bad review wherein he implied that someone without a Pulitzer Prize for criticism was not qualified sufficiently to berate his film).
Nonetheless, Ebert is able to make the reader understand why it might be worth their time to take a look at his reviews. First and foremost, Ebert is an excellent and entertaining writer, a quality that may be difficult to detect in individual reviews read once every week, but one that comes out strongly in a collection such as this. Moreover, his reviews are valuable because his experience (in both watching and writing) is extensive and he is able to convey his thoughts in a manner that is not only effective, but also gives insight into what elements might be more objectively enjoyable or not. Most importantly, however, is contention that a good film critic does not tell the reader whether or not a movie is good, but gives enough information to let them decide whether or not they would enjoy the film. This is critical, because it transforms a review from one person’s opinion into a useful tool for making decisions with one’s hard-earned money.
Of course, given that this is a collection of bad reviews, this last element comes across more sardonically than anything, but it is presented very clearly. A basic movie review is not likely to change your opinion on a movie you have already seen, nor will it stop you from seeing a film you are determined to see or convince you to see something you are opposed to vehemently (I suspect we tend to seek out reviews that confirm our biases in any case). By lumping so many bad reviews in one place, however, Your Movie Sucks can help us realize that cases such as these are generally on the margin, and the having good information about a film beyond the hype of marketing can help us make better decisions about what we choose to support and how we choose to spend our time. There were more than a few reviews in this book that I disagreed with, but I never felt that I was being looked down upon for liking these movies, or that Ebert’s personal biases were being snuck in under my radar. This book is, ultimately, just someone’s opinion, but it is someone’s opinion worth reading.
Given its content, Ebert’s book is difficult to review in detail since, with a few exceptions for his famous bad reviews like Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (the controversy around which inspired the name of the book) that are placed at the beginning, the book simply presents the reviews in alphabetical order by film title, and there is no conclusion to wrap up the work. His introduction contains a few perfunctory, explanatory remarks and highlights three movies – Deuce Bigalow, Chaos, The Brown Bunny – for which his reviews received defensive responses from individuals involved in the production. The results of such interactions are mixed, but Ebert demonstrates class and thoughtfulness in every reply.
I am not certain if the intent of this book were for it to be read cover to cover, or for individuals to look up particular bad movies to get Ebert’s perspective (the former seems more likely for the entertainment value, but the reviews can get a bit repetitive during long read-throughs), but regardless, the primary reason to pick up this book is to enjoy the author’s style. I admit that when I see a review of a movie, or think about movie criticism in general, I usually to the conclusion that it is “just one person’s opinion.” This is not surprising, since this thought arises usually as a defensive action, when one sees a good review for a movie they thought was terrible, or a scathing take-down of a film they loved. Everyone has different tastes, and even the experience of watching a movie, particularly in one’s childhood, can alter their perception of that film forever. Ebert does not dispute this notion in his reviews; he never claims to have a superior perspective or experience that would give his opinion more weight or validity (the only exception is in his review for Deuce Bigalow, but his comments there are in response to Rob Schneider’s reply to a bad review wherein he implied that someone without a Pulitzer Prize for criticism was not qualified sufficiently to berate his film).
Nonetheless, Ebert is able to make the reader understand why it might be worth their time to take a look at his reviews. First and foremost, Ebert is an excellent and entertaining writer, a quality that may be difficult to detect in individual reviews read once every week, but one that comes out strongly in a collection such as this. Moreover, his reviews are valuable because his experience (in both watching and writing) is extensive and he is able to convey his thoughts in a manner that is not only effective, but also gives insight into what elements might be more objectively enjoyable or not. Most importantly, however, is contention that a good film critic does not tell the reader whether or not a movie is good, but gives enough information to let them decide whether or not they would enjoy the film. This is critical, because it transforms a review from one person’s opinion into a useful tool for making decisions with one’s hard-earned money.
Of course, given that this is a collection of bad reviews, this last element comes across more sardonically than anything, but it is presented very clearly. A basic movie review is not likely to change your opinion on a movie you have already seen, nor will it stop you from seeing a film you are determined to see or convince you to see something you are opposed to vehemently (I suspect we tend to seek out reviews that confirm our biases in any case). By lumping so many bad reviews in one place, however, Your Movie Sucks can help us realize that cases such as these are generally on the margin, and the having good information about a film beyond the hype of marketing can help us make better decisions about what we choose to support and how we choose to spend our time. There were more than a few reviews in this book that I disagreed with, but I never felt that I was being looked down upon for liking these movies, or that Ebert’s personal biases were being snuck in under my radar. This book is, ultimately, just someone’s opinion, but it is someone’s opinion worth reading.
October 22, 2020
Criticism of any kind is never a pleasantry. It stings the heart and swells in there until the natural amnesia of time heals the wound. Then criticism is never an amusement, either. Abraham Lincoln defined a professional critic as one who has "a right to criticize, who has a heart to help." Therefore, being a critic is a daunting profession that can lose favor with the public and the criticized, and yet doing it good and right is even more challenging and requires a wealth of erudition and insight to observe all things and all beings in the world without supercilious prejudice. I can think of any such critic no other than the late Roger Ebert, whose brilliantly witty anthology of unfavorable movies Your Movie Sucks discerns constructive criticism from malicious cynicism that most of his peers love to delve.
It's a collection of movies that Ebert found distasteful to the taste and reason. Ebert opines that filmmakers and the performers tend to patronize with their selective elements, usually senseless violence, gratuitous nudity, and infantile comedy under the pretext of the screen reflection of the realities. But to miss Ebert as an ultra-conservative white curmudgeon movie critic does a great injustice to his bona fide intention and judicious reasoning of why he thinks the movies suck, most notably, 'Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo,' 'Chaos,' and 'the Pearl Harbor." The plots, characters, and narratives of these movies ignore the taste and reason universal in all human creatures regarding the principles of sense and judgment common to all humankind. They are either devoid of artistic sensibilities or willfully negligent of the humanity that refuses to cease even in the desolate wilderness of calamities, artificial or natural. Ebert seems to seek in movies a common thread that every one of us, regardless of class, race, and gender, can be bound together to understand what it means to live, ultimately.
Ebert's credo was arts of films, paintings, music, and books as a consolation to the hearts that need to relive the yokes of daily lives. Therefore, the artists are to look into people's realities from all walks of life and illustrate each life's values, however insignificant it might be, by elevating the ordinariness into arts of life as though to neutralize the vicissitudes of life that we all experience. In this regard, Ebert agreed with French painter Jean-Francoise Millet's timeless adage: "It is the treating of the commonplace with the feeling of the profound is what gives to art its power."
I always like Ebert's reviews of films because, despite his depth of knowledge on various subjects, they are easy to read and intelligently passionate and witty. There is no hint of malice in the guise of intellectual sarcasm. His views on the world are agreeable to mine, regarded as outdated forseysm in today's amazingly political world. Maybe we might belong to a previous era where our perspectives of the world would meet with more consensus and fewer disapprovals. In fact, I liken the person of Ebert to that of Samuel Johnson, the great English writer, thinker, and author of A Dictionary of the English Language for their similarities in appearance, weltanschauungs, and styles of writing that thrill the heart and pique the mind with a touch of humanity that is so rare to be found among the contemporary writers. So, if you are a like-minded appreciator of arts in general and curious about what movies someone like Ebert finds distasteful, take heart and read this book. The words leap from pages with wit and wisdom as the time entertains you like you never know. This book may also serve you as a textual trailer of a movie that you might have fallen into the mistake of paying it to watch.
It's a collection of movies that Ebert found distasteful to the taste and reason. Ebert opines that filmmakers and the performers tend to patronize with their selective elements, usually senseless violence, gratuitous nudity, and infantile comedy under the pretext of the screen reflection of the realities. But to miss Ebert as an ultra-conservative white curmudgeon movie critic does a great injustice to his bona fide intention and judicious reasoning of why he thinks the movies suck, most notably, 'Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo,' 'Chaos,' and 'the Pearl Harbor." The plots, characters, and narratives of these movies ignore the taste and reason universal in all human creatures regarding the principles of sense and judgment common to all humankind. They are either devoid of artistic sensibilities or willfully negligent of the humanity that refuses to cease even in the desolate wilderness of calamities, artificial or natural. Ebert seems to seek in movies a common thread that every one of us, regardless of class, race, and gender, can be bound together to understand what it means to live, ultimately.
Ebert's credo was arts of films, paintings, music, and books as a consolation to the hearts that need to relive the yokes of daily lives. Therefore, the artists are to look into people's realities from all walks of life and illustrate each life's values, however insignificant it might be, by elevating the ordinariness into arts of life as though to neutralize the vicissitudes of life that we all experience. In this regard, Ebert agreed with French painter Jean-Francoise Millet's timeless adage: "It is the treating of the commonplace with the feeling of the profound is what gives to art its power."
I always like Ebert's reviews of films because, despite his depth of knowledge on various subjects, they are easy to read and intelligently passionate and witty. There is no hint of malice in the guise of intellectual sarcasm. His views on the world are agreeable to mine, regarded as outdated forseysm in today's amazingly political world. Maybe we might belong to a previous era where our perspectives of the world would meet with more consensus and fewer disapprovals. In fact, I liken the person of Ebert to that of Samuel Johnson, the great English writer, thinker, and author of A Dictionary of the English Language for their similarities in appearance, weltanschauungs, and styles of writing that thrill the heart and pique the mind with a touch of humanity that is so rare to be found among the contemporary writers. So, if you are a like-minded appreciator of arts in general and curious about what movies someone like Ebert finds distasteful, take heart and read this book. The words leap from pages with wit and wisdom as the time entertains you like you never know. This book may also serve you as a textual trailer of a movie that you might have fallen into the mistake of paying it to watch.
August 24, 2011
This is Roger Ebert's analysis of the oeuvre of Ashton Kutcher. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but only just. Kutcher's films do pop up in this book at a rate exceeding even David Spade and Rob Schneider (derp-de-derp-de-derp!), though Schneider is the subject of Ebert's best review ever, the one from which this book derives its title. When Schneider through a hissy-fit about a critic panning one of his movies (I think it was, The Stapler) and complained that the guy had never won a Pulitzer or anything and was thus unqualified to state a position on Schneider's cinematic out-put, Ebert glided in and pointed out that he does have a Pulitzer, which makes him qualified to state an opinion on the film, and that film does, indeed, suck.
The book also contains a recapitulation of The Brown Bunny controversy. When the film premiered at Cannes in a rough form, it was universally panned, but Ebert's review, comparing it to his colonoscopy, was the one most widely quoted. Vincent Gallo shot back and the two engaged in a very public war of words. Eventually Gallo released a trimmed-down version of the film, which Ebert admitted was a pretty good movie, and he penned a mea culpa. By then the damage was done, and even today more people associate the film with the colonoscopy comment than Ebert's revised review. Since this book will, in the long run, be read by more people than the original review, hopefully it will undo some of the damage to TBB's reputation.
The rest of the book contains Eberts greatest critical drubbings from c.2000-2006, including classic bad movies like Battlefield: Earth ("The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.") and The Lady's Man ("[Lorne Michaels'] average star rating for the last four titles is 1.125. Just to put things in perspective, the last three Pauly Shore movies I reviewed scored 1.5.") The amazing thing is that a book of this size can be culled from just his bad reviews from a small portion of his career. The lead critic at most newspapers only does one or two films per week, while Ebert watches almost every movie to come out -- at one point he says he watches 500 films per year.
While Ebert isn't an intellectual heavyweight like Sarris or Kael, he makes up for it with sarcasm and incisiveness. (One thing that became clear from reading this book is that he's the godfather of TV Tropes.) And while people often complain that Ebert is a stuck up snob and ordinary film-goers shouldn't listen to what he says, history has borne out 99% of the reviews in this book. There are only two movies here that I think he made a bad call on -- Team America: World Police and Josie and the Pussycats (Josie and the Pussycats is the best movie ever!), and even I'm willing to admit that I'm a voice in the wilderness on Josie. Every other film he pans, even the ones that were hits, is forgotten today.
The only flaw with the book is that it's weighted too heavily towards comedies (though "alleged comedies" might be more accurate). Ebert's critiques of them are very good intellectually -- the man is an expert on comedic structure and theory -- but they aren't very entertaining compared to his pans of serious movies, where he's able to let loose and skewer the film with his own wit.
The book also contains a recapitulation of The Brown Bunny controversy. When the film premiered at Cannes in a rough form, it was universally panned, but Ebert's review, comparing it to his colonoscopy, was the one most widely quoted. Vincent Gallo shot back and the two engaged in a very public war of words. Eventually Gallo released a trimmed-down version of the film, which Ebert admitted was a pretty good movie, and he penned a mea culpa. By then the damage was done, and even today more people associate the film with the colonoscopy comment than Ebert's revised review. Since this book will, in the long run, be read by more people than the original review, hopefully it will undo some of the damage to TBB's reputation.
The rest of the book contains Eberts greatest critical drubbings from c.2000-2006, including classic bad movies like Battlefield: Earth ("The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.") and The Lady's Man ("[Lorne Michaels'] average star rating for the last four titles is 1.125. Just to put things in perspective, the last three Pauly Shore movies I reviewed scored 1.5.") The amazing thing is that a book of this size can be culled from just his bad reviews from a small portion of his career. The lead critic at most newspapers only does one or two films per week, while Ebert watches almost every movie to come out -- at one point he says he watches 500 films per year.
While Ebert isn't an intellectual heavyweight like Sarris or Kael, he makes up for it with sarcasm and incisiveness. (One thing that became clear from reading this book is that he's the godfather of TV Tropes.) And while people often complain that Ebert is a stuck up snob and ordinary film-goers shouldn't listen to what he says, history has borne out 99% of the reviews in this book. There are only two movies here that I think he made a bad call on -- Team America: World Police and Josie and the Pussycats (Josie and the Pussycats is the best movie ever!), and even I'm willing to admit that I'm a voice in the wilderness on Josie. Every other film he pans, even the ones that were hits, is forgotten today.
The only flaw with the book is that it's weighted too heavily towards comedies (though "alleged comedies" might be more accurate). Ebert's critiques of them are very good intellectually -- the man is an expert on comedic structure and theory -- but they aren't very entertaining compared to his pans of serious movies, where he's able to let loose and skewer the film with his own wit.
July 27, 2014
"It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore. And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets."
This is how Roger Ebert described one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen, M Night Shyamalan's "The Village." Ebert's imaginary reality rewind is the perfect metaphor for my reaction to not only that movie but many others that we've all had to suffer through after paying big bucks for a ticket and even bigger bucks for theater food if we're foolish enough to do so.
Ebert was my very favorite movie critic for many decades. I checked his reviews not only to decide if I wanted to see a movie, but, having seen one, to find out if Ebert shared my opinion, and to enjoy his facility for putting my gut feelings about a movie into memorable words. I didn't always agree with him (Tobe Hooper's "The Last House on the Left" being a notable exception), but he always had solid arguments behind his opinions. Ironically, one of the most eloquent film critics of his time often had his review encapsulated into "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down" owing to the popularity of the television program he co-hosted first with Gene Siskel and then others over the years following Siskel's unfortunate and early death.
Let's look at a few examples of those so on the mark phrases Ebert used time and again to skewer some of the films reviewed in YOUR MOVIE SUCKS.
"Be Cool," the disappointing sequel to "Get Shorty" was "like a bureaucrat who keeps sending you to another office."
"Catwoman" was "a movie about Halle Berry...Everything else is second, except the plot, which is tertiary."
"The Fantastic Four": "a screenful of characters who, despite the most astonishing powers, have not been made fascinating or even interesting."
In his review of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" Ebert quoted another critic: "It is a curious attribute of camp that it can only be found, not made." True not only of that movie but of so much that is being produced for the SyFy channel Saturday night monsterfests these days.
Again, in his review of "Enough," Ebert described an entire genre of revenge/action movies as "an unlikely caricature of hard-breathing, sadistic testosterone."
And yet another genre, the teen slasher movie was described perfectly in his review of a recent version of "Texas Chainsaw" as "the marriage of slick technology with the materials of a geek show."
YOUR MOVIE SUCKS is an entertaining collection of reviews of some very bad movies. You won't always agree with Ebert (You're not supposed to.), but his sharp eye and sharper wit will provide you with more enjoyment for your dollar than most of the movies in this collection. Oh, and this book belies the expression "You can't tell a book by its cover." The expression on Ebert's face on the front cover photograph says it all.
This is how Roger Ebert described one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen, M Night Shyamalan's "The Village." Ebert's imaginary reality rewind is the perfect metaphor for my reaction to not only that movie but many others that we've all had to suffer through after paying big bucks for a ticket and even bigger bucks for theater food if we're foolish enough to do so.
Ebert was my very favorite movie critic for many decades. I checked his reviews not only to decide if I wanted to see a movie, but, having seen one, to find out if Ebert shared my opinion, and to enjoy his facility for putting my gut feelings about a movie into memorable words. I didn't always agree with him (Tobe Hooper's "The Last House on the Left" being a notable exception), but he always had solid arguments behind his opinions. Ironically, one of the most eloquent film critics of his time often had his review encapsulated into "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down" owing to the popularity of the television program he co-hosted first with Gene Siskel and then others over the years following Siskel's unfortunate and early death.
Let's look at a few examples of those so on the mark phrases Ebert used time and again to skewer some of the films reviewed in YOUR MOVIE SUCKS.
"Be Cool," the disappointing sequel to "Get Shorty" was "like a bureaucrat who keeps sending you to another office."
"Catwoman" was "a movie about Halle Berry...Everything else is second, except the plot, which is tertiary."
"The Fantastic Four": "a screenful of characters who, despite the most astonishing powers, have not been made fascinating or even interesting."
In his review of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" Ebert quoted another critic: "It is a curious attribute of camp that it can only be found, not made." True not only of that movie but of so much that is being produced for the SyFy channel Saturday night monsterfests these days.
Again, in his review of "Enough," Ebert described an entire genre of revenge/action movies as "an unlikely caricature of hard-breathing, sadistic testosterone."
And yet another genre, the teen slasher movie was described perfectly in his review of a recent version of "Texas Chainsaw" as "the marriage of slick technology with the materials of a geek show."
YOUR MOVIE SUCKS is an entertaining collection of reviews of some very bad movies. You won't always agree with Ebert (You're not supposed to.), but his sharp eye and sharper wit will provide you with more enjoyment for your dollar than most of the movies in this collection. Oh, and this book belies the expression "You can't tell a book by its cover." The expression on Ebert's face on the front cover photograph says it all.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews