Fashion Features Other Lists Worst Roger Ebert Movie Reviews

The 10 Worst Roger Ebert Movie Reviews « Taste of Cinema

The 10 Worst Roger Ebert Movie Reviews « Taste of Cinema

I feel Roger Ebert is the perfect film reviewer that we now have ever had. There have been another nice ones however to me Roger stands out above the remaining. I grew up watching Sneak Previews and would hunt down the films that Roger and his companion, Gene Siskel touted. As soon as Roger’s critiques turned out there on-line, I might all the time learn them. Roger was keen about films and he was an awesome author. I beloved studying his evaluations.

However, like all human beings, Roger needed to make errors typically. It’s not straightforward to observe a film after which have to right away determine whether it is dangerous, mediocre or good. It’s a lot simpler to have the ability to mirror upon it, learn what others have stated after which determine whether or not you thought a film was good or not. I do know I’ve modified my thoughts on many, many films after studying about them, seeing them once more or discussing them with others.

In an interview with Dave Davies of NPR Roger stated “You must understand you’re not writing for the filmmakers. You’re writing for the potential movie viewers. And I might a lot fairly harm anyone’s emotions who made the image than ship someone to see a film and spend two hours of their life seeing a film that I don’t assume is value seeing.”

And if we take what Roger stated as a information then we must say that he noticed his position as guiding individuals in the direction of watching films that they might take pleasure in. That is clearly a very exhausting activity given that everybody brings various things to the desk. However Roger appeared to have the power to advocate films that the majority of his audience, the film going public, would appear to take pleasure in.

To aim to objectively price a movie could be very troublesome, and in addition opens somebody up for assault. However I do assume there’s some room for objectivity in discussing movie. Vertigo, Citizen Kane and The Guidelines of the Recreation are all nice films. Some will disagree, however typically I feel we will discover settlement on these. I feel the Sight & Sound, AFI and Metacritics lists are fairly good goal makes an attempt at classifying films nearly as good or nice.

In measuring whether or not Roger’s critiques met his objective of guiding individuals in the direction of films “value seeing” I’ll use the critics score on Rotten Tomatoes and the consumer scores on IMDb. I feel the 2 of those collectively give us a reasonably good view as as to if a movie has been each a crucial and a business success.

I do know that I’m opening myself up for criticism by critiquing a few of Roger’s critiques. Roger was a terrific author who gained a Pulitzer prize and our biggest film critic. However when Roger learn a weblog I had written reviewing what I assumed have been a few of his worst evaluations, he generously wrote on Twitter “He lists my 75 worst critiques and says why they’re dangerous.

A few of the time, he’s proper. However Unforgiven and Godfather 2 ultimately made my Nice Films Assortment, displaying I’m able to studying. I truly take this as a complement. It took lots of work.”

Solely a terrific man, very assured in his craft, might write one thing like that.


1. Unforgiven (1992)

Roger was distracted when he initially reviewed this film. His spouse Chaz stated in an interview with Leisure Weekly stated:

“The one factor he actually truly modified from a thumbs right down to a thumbs up evaluation, and I feel it went from a two star to a 4 star was the Clint Eastwood film Unforgiven. That’s as a result of it was simply earlier than our wedding ceremony and we have been going by way of all this. He was sitting within the screening room and it’s the primary time he was ever that distracted. He was going by way of all of the stuff we needed to do for our wedding ceremony in his head the day he watched that film. He didn’t prefer it. Then when he noticed what different individuals have been [saying]he was like, “Oh my God, did I miss the ball on that?” He went again and watched it once more after we received married, I feel, and stated, “I really like this film” and altered his assessment to a 4 star film.” Roger later stated in a 1996 interview he stated “I modified my thoughts on Unforgiven; I gave it solely two-and-a-half stars. I wasn’t considering very properly once I reviewed that.”

In his since deleted evaluate Roger wrote: “It’s story, nevertheless, doesn’t construct up a lot momentum or have a robust sweep that carries us from starting to finish. It’s a type of meandering image that creates a world that provides us sharply etched moments in it surrounded by a considerably shapeless environment. On the entire I did take pleasure in it, however I assumed it had a couple of too many characters and it was much less organized then it may need been.” Roger gave it a really tentative thumb up.

Roger later added the film to his record of Nice Films. In his Nice Film evaluate Roger wrote: “Eastwood selected this era for “Unforgiven,” I think, as a result of it mirrored his personal stage in life. He started as a younger gunslinger on TV and within the early Sergio Leone movies “A Fistful of Dollars” and “For a Few Dollars Extra,” and he matured in “Coogan’s Bluff” and “Two Mules for Sister Sara,” underneath the steerage of Don Siegel, the director he typically cited as his mentor. Now Eastwood was in his 60s, and had lengthy been a director himself. Leone had died in 1989 and Siegel in 1991; he devoted “Unforgiven” to them. If the Western was not lifeless, it was dying; audiences most popular science fiction and particular results. It was time for an elegy.”

The movie gained 4 Academy Awards: Greatest Image and Greatest Director for Clint Eastwood, Greatest Supporting Actor for Gene Hackman, and Greatest Movie Modifying.

Unforgiven has a 96% Rotten Tomatoes rating with Critics and an eight.2 rating on IMDB.


2. Godfather : Half II (1974)

The Godfather Part II

Roger left his unique three star evaluation posted on-line. In it he says:

“The Godfather, Half II strikes each ahead and backward in time from the occasions in The Godfather, in an try and resolve our emotions concerning the Corleones. In doing so, it supplies for itself a structural weak spot from which the movie by no means recovers, however it does one thing much more disappointing: It reveals a sure simplicity in Coppola’s notions of motivation and characterization that wasn’t there within the elegant masterpiece of his earlier movie.”

“The flashbacks give Coppola the best problem in sustaining his tempo and narrative drive. The story of Michael, advised chronologically and with out the opposite materials, would have had actually substantial influence, however Coppola prevents our full involvement by breaking the strain. The flashbacks to New York within the early 1900s have a special, a nostalgic tone, and the viewers has to maintain shifting gears.”

“There’s additionally some proof within the movie that Coppola by no means utterly mastered the chaotic mass of fabric in his screenplay. Some scenes appear oddly pointless (why can we get virtually no sense of Michael’s precise dealings in Cuba, however a lot of costly footage concerning the night time of Castro’s takeover?), and others appear not utterly defined (I’m nonetheless not fairly positive who actually did order that tried garroting within the Brooklyn saloon).”

“What we’re left with, then, are loads of good scenes and good performances set within the midst of a mass of undisciplined materials and handicapped by plot development that forestalls the story from ever actually constructing.”

“However Coppola is unable to attract all this collectively and make it work on the extent of straightforward, absorbing narrative. The beautiful textual content of “The Godfather” is changed in “Half II” with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions.”

In his Nice Film assessment of the Godfather Half II, during which he provides it 4 stars, Roger wrote:

“Of all the critiques I’ve ever written, my three-star evaluate of ‘Half II’ has stirred probably the most disagreement. Typically it’s merely cited as proof of my worthlessness. I’ve been informed by many who ‘Half II’ is a uncommon sequel that’s higher than the unique. Have I modified my thoughts? No. I’ve learn my assessment of ‘Half II’ and wouldn’t change a phrase.”

“Then why is it a ‘nice film’? As a result of it have to be seen as a bit with the unqualified greatness of The Godfather. The 2 can hardly be thought-about aside (Half III” is one other matter). “

Roger appears to be saying that Half II is a superb film, however solely when it’s coupled with the unique film. Clearly, I feel this can be a mistake. Many critics and followers assume the second film is definitely superior to the primary.

To me, that is clearly one among Roger’s worst evaluations. He made a mistake after his first viewing calling elements of it chaotic, pointless and with structural weaknesses. He type of makes up for his poor evaluation by including it to his Nice Film canon, however then he wrote that he wouldn’t change a phrase of his unique assessment. Not certainly one of Roger’s finer moments.

The Godfather : Half Two has a 97% rating with the critics on Rotten Tomatoes and a rating on IMDB.


three. Gigli (2003)


Roger favored Jennifer Lopez. I feel his scores on her films mirror this.

Anaconda (1997) – IMDb four.7 – Roger three ½ Stars
The Cell (2000) – IMDb 6.three – Roger four Stars
Maid in Manhattan (2002) – IMDb 5.2 – Roger three Stars
Gigli (2003) – IMDb 2.four – Roger 2 ½ Stars
Shall We Dance (2004) – IMDb 6.1 – Roger three Stars
Angel Eyes (2001) – IMDb 5.6 – Roger three Stars

I might simply have added a few the above to the record of Roger’s Worst Evaluations. However Gigli is type of particular. It gained the Razzie for Worst Film, Worst Actor, Worst Actress, Worst Display Couple, Worst Director and Worst Screenplay. Gigli is often included in any itemizing of worst films of all time.

In his assessment Roger wrote:” The film tries to do one thing totally different, considerate, and a bit of daring with their relationship, and though it doesn’t fairly work, perhaps the film is value seeing for some scenes which are actually excellent.” He then went on to put in writing: “Contemplate the matching monologues. They’ve gotten into an argument over the need of the penis, which she, as a lesbian, feels is an inferior gadget for delivering sexual pleasure. He delivers an prolonged lecture on the use, necessity and excellent design of the appendage. It’s a fairly superb speech, the type of factor some moviegoers are in all probability going to need to memorize. Then she responds. She is backlit, wearing skintight exercise garments, doing yoga, and she or he continues to stretch and prolong and bend and pose as she responds together with her speech in reward of the vagina. When she is completed, Reader, the vagina has gained, arms down. It’s so uncommon to seek out dialogue of such originality and wit, so properly written, that although we all know the trade principally includes actors displaying off, they do it so nicely, we allow them to.”

For me, it was simply, one of many worst scenes I’ve ever seen. Painfully dangerous.

Roger completed by writing:” Affleck and Lopez create pretty characters, even when they’re not those they’re allegedly enjoying, and the supporting performances and a whole lot of the dialogue is fantastic. It’s simply that there’s an excessive amount of time between the great scenes. An excessive amount of repetitive dialogue. Too many soulful appears. Conduct we will’t consider. I’m wondering what would occur in case you sweated 15 minutes out of this film. Perhaps it might work. The supplies are there.”

I can’t clarify this evaluation, besides that Roger appeared to actually take pleasure in seeing Jennifer Lopez on the display. The film appeared to need to have a comedic relationship between Larry and Brian, just like the one Raymond and Charlie had in Rain Man, however it didn’t work right here. It simply wasn’t humorous at any time. The romance didn’t work both. Each failures might be seen within the following glowing dialogue.

Ricki: It’s turkey time.
Larry Gigli: Huh?
Ricki: Gobble, gobble.

In the event you thought that dialogue was humorous or romantic, then you might respect the film like Roger did.

Gigli has a 6% rating with the critics on Rotten Tomatoes and a 2.four rating on IMDb.


four. Elevating Arizona (1987)

Raising Arizona (1987)

In his On the Films assessment Roger stated “I didn’t assume it labored for me and I’m the man that beloved Blood Easy. On this movie it appeared to me, that to start with the dialogue was too giant. Individuals are all the time speaking about ‘For those who look via yon window.’ They have been making an attempt to be humorous, thanks, however I didn’t assume they have been humorous to inform you the reality. And I additionally felt that the characters have been so weirdly drawn, that as an alternative of being humorous they have been simply behavioral reveals in order that the movie by no means developed a rhythm that was humorous for me that carried me together with it.”

In his one-and-a-half-star on-line evaluate, Roger stated that “The film can’t determine if it exists in the actual world of trailer parks and 7-Elevens and Pampers, or in a fantasy world of characters from one other dimension. It can’t determine whether it is about actual individuals, or comedian exaggerations. It strikes so uneasily from one degree of actuality to a different that lastly we’re simply baffled.” He went on to say: “If the identical story had been advised straight, as a comic book slice of life, it may need actually labored. I stored considering of Jonathan Demme’s Melvin and Howard, the movie concerning the fuel station proprietor and the billionaire, through which equally unlikely occasions occurred, however have been very humorous as a result of they have been allowed to be plausible.”

So, generally, Roger felt the film was too excessive, and strayed to removed from realism. I perceive what Roger was saying however to me the movie was a homage to the screwball comedies of Howard Hawks and Preston Sturges. One of many issues that makes them screwball comedies is that they do stray from realism into the farcical realm. I don’t assume screwball comedies are straightforward to do efficiently, however I feel this film did it very properly.

The movie ranks 31st on the American Movie Institute’s 100 Years…100 Laughs record, and 45th on Bravo’s 100 Funniest Films”record.

Elevating Arizona has a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes with the critics and a 7.four rating on IMDB.


5. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Child (1969)

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Roger was not an enormous fan of this very profitable movie. In his two and a half star Chicago Solar-Occasions evaluation he wrote: “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Child should have appeared like a pure on paper, however, alas, the finished movie is sluggish and disappointing. This although it accommodates a number of good laughs and three sound performances. The issues are two. First, the funding in celebrity Paul Newman apparently impressed a bloated manufacturing that destroys the pacing. Second, William Goldman’s script is consistently too cute and by no means will get up the nerve, by God, to confess it’s a Western.” Roger went on to write down: ”However sadly, this good film is buried beneath tens of millions of dollars that have been spent on “manufacturing values” that wreck the present. That is typically the destiny of flicks with actors within the million-dollar class, like Newman. Having invested all that money within the celebrity, the studio will get nervous and decides to spend a lot of cash to guard its funding.”

I feel what Roger missed was that the film was extra desirous about exploring the connection between its two dynamic stars than it was in being a standard Western. The “buddy” movie relationship was simply explored inside a Western wrapper.

I feel Roger ultimately got here round on this movie. In his 1979 evaluation of Butch and Sundance: The Early Years, Roger wrote:” The movie even has a number of the similar easygoing allure of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Child (1969), and if Berenger and Katt usually are not as electrifying as Newman and Redford – nicely, few appearing groups are.”

This movie was chosen to the Nationwide Movie Registry, listed in AFI’s Prime 100 Films, and in AFI’s Prime Heroes and Villains, ranked within the prime fifty field workplace attracts of all time and ranked quantity eleven by the Writers Guild of America on its listing of Biggest Screenplays ever written.

Butch Cassidy has a 90% rating with critics on Rotten Tomatoes and an eight.1 rating on IMDB.

Pages: 1 2

window.fbAsyncInit = perform()
appId : ‘443536529018037’,
xfbml : true,
model : ‘v2.three’

(perform(d, s, id)
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); = id;
js.src = “//join.fb.internet/en_US/sdk.js”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
(doc, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
(perform(d, s, id)
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); = id;
js.src = “//join.fb.internet/en_GB/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=216138545139987”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
(doc, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));