As a long-time film critic and Pulitzer Prize winner, I have seen my fair share of cinematic disasters. Yet, none have left me as bewildered and disappointed as the infamous motion picture known as “North.
There’s no doubt that film critics are important. Their reviews have become an important tool for audiences, a go-to resource that helps viewers discern which films are worth their time and money. And one of cinema’s most iconic and important critics was Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times. Most people associate him with his “thumbs up, thumbs down” critique. But for movie buffs and filmmakers, Ebert was better known for his honest and impassioned evaluation of movies, intermingling his opinions with legitimate film history and knowledge. He supported many up-and-coming filmmakers before they hit the big time, like Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee, and his reviews often filled theater seats for the movies that he championed.
Roger Ebert gained as much fame for his scathing, humorous negative reviews as he did for his positive ones. His biting critiques, which mercilessly dismantled films with witty jokes and sarcastic remarks, were so entertaining that they often outshone the movies themselves. In fact, Ebert’s bad reviews became so popular that he published collections of them, such as “I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie” in 2000 and “Your Movie Sucks” in 2007. Let’s dive into his illustrious 46-year career and chuckle at some of his most amusing negative reviews.
10 ‘Charlie’s Angels’ (2000)
The film “Charlie’s Angels” from the 2000’s marked the beginning of a trilogy, adapting the popular 1970s TV show for the big screen. Similar to the series, it centers around three female detective protagonists who are tough, take down crimes, and work undercover for an unseen boss, Charlie Townsend. Many male viewers couldn’t help but be captivated by its leading ladies. However, Roger Ebert was not among them.
What Ebert Had to Say
In his critique, Ebert stated that “‘Charlie’s Angels'” is visually appealing even for the visually impaired. However, he pointed out that it lacks intellectual depth as the characters portrayed by Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu seem to have no brains. He described this movie as an uninspiring period in their careers and his own viewing experience.
In addition to the main cast, the renowned actor Bill Murray decided to go incognito: he frequently chooses not to be credited in many of his films, but this time, he opted for anonymity in a film where it proved problematic.
Even the style of clothing worn by the angels in the movie “Charlie’s Angels” was not spared from Ebert’s critical eye, with him commenting that they seemed to have picked their outfits from a thrift shop next to Coyote Ugly. Despite giving it only half a star, Ebert didn’t pan the film entirely, but it remains unclear what aspects of it he found redeeming.
9 ‘Armageddon’ (1998)
In a scenario that seems implausible yet captivating, a group composed of unlikely heroes – Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, and Steve Buscemi – are dispatched on a mission to blast a colossal asteroid hurtling towards Earth in the film named “Armageddon.” Despite its outlandish premise, it appears this could be a viable solution in reality. Viewers enjoyed the thrilling action, sprinkled humor, and emotional scenes that made “Armageddon” an exciting journey to watch.
What Ebert Had to Say
Similar to numerous other critics, Roger Ebert tore apart this film, much as one might anticipate the impact of an asteroid barreling towards our planet. I dare say it won’t be easy to get through the opening passage of his review without a chuckle.
Here it is – the first 150-minute trailer of ‘Armageddon.’ This movie has been edited like its own compilation of best moments. Pick any 30 seconds at random, and you’d have a commercial for television. The film is overwhelming for the eyes, ears, mind, logic, and human need for entertainment. No matter what price they are asking for admission, it’s worth more to walk away with your sanity.
In a humorous final remark, Ebert expresses his dislike for the movie “Armageddon” and subtly criticizes critics who gave it positive reviews. As I exited the theater after enduring the experience, I came across a new poster adorned with praises from journalists. David Gillin, one of them, declared, ‘It will overwhelm your senses!’, a statement that seems to be more about himself. Diane Kaminsky promised, ‘It will steal the breath from your body!’. If it does, let’s consider it a compassionate act.
Burn.
8 ‘Freddy Got Fingered’ (2001)
During the early 2000s, Tom Green was a prominent figure in comedy. He penned and headlined a small comedy piece titled “Freddy Got Fingered“, which marked his only directorial attempt. This film, with semi-autobiographical undertones, portrays the life of an immature layabout as he navigates his abusive father and yearns to become a professional cartoonist. “Freddy Got Fingered ” is arguably Tom Green’s most notable film – but also considered one of his poorest. Several critics labeled it as one of the worst movies ever made, with Roger Ebert among them.
What Ebert Had to Say
Ebert drops many funny lines in his zero-star review of Freddy Got Fingered.
This film is far from being the worst; it’s not even close to being the lowest quality.
Later, he humorously elaborates by saying, “The movie is essentially an endless stream of 93 minutes filled with Tom Green performing stunts that even a carnival freak show reject would find unappealing.
7 ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ (2009)
The second film in the thrilling Transformers movie series is titled “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen”. This sequel carries on the epic struggle between the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons. It proved to be a massive hit at the box office, earning more than $836 million, even though it received harsh criticism from many film critics. One of these reviewers was Roger Ebert.
What Ebert Had to Say
The film historian kicked off his one-star critique with this hilarious opening:
“‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.”
6 ‘Little Indian, Big City’ (1994)
Have you by chance not encountered “Little Indian, Big City”? This could be because it is a French film with limited English screenings. You might be more acquainted with its 1997 American version titled “Jungle 2 Jungle”, starring Tim Allen, which shares the same plot: a businessman uncovers that he has a teenage son, who’s been brought up as an Indian.
What Ebert Had to Say
Roger Ebert leaves no doubt about his thoughts on “Little Indian, Big City” right from the start of his critique.
‘Little Indian, Big City’ is one of the most poorly made films I’ve ever seen. Every single minute of its stupidity was intolerable to me. Incredibly fortuitous, a third reel of the movie was missing when I watched it. Two days later, I returned to the theater to watch the missing reel. It was just as bad as the rest, and nothing could have salvaged this film.
Ebert repeatedly criticizes the film “Little Indian, Big City,” using humorous put-downs throughout his critique, even in the final segment. He strongly recommends the current movie “Fargo,” calling it a masterpiece and encouraging viewers to watch it. If anyone were to see “Little Indian, Big City” under any circumstance, Ebert warns that they will no longer be allowed to read one of his reviews again.
5 ‘The Village’ (2004)
In 19th-century times, M. Knight Shyamalan’s fourth movie, “The Village,” was set. Known for his intricate plot twists, this film portrayed a secluded village where the inhabitants lived in constant dread of the beasts lurking in the surrounding woods. However, as things may not always appear, it turned out that there might have been something more to fear within the village itself.
What Ebert Had to Say
Ebert had this to say about the plot twist in The Village:
The revelation is so obvious that once we uncover it, we wish to replay the movie in reverse, forgetting the secret again. We yearn to keep rewinding, reliving the same moments over and over, until we reach the starting point, allowing us to stand up from our seats, walk backwards out of the theater, descend the escalator that usually goes up, and magically find money pouring into our pockets.
4 ‘The Brown Bunny’ (2003)
The film ‘The Brown Bunny’ focuses on a motorcycle racer who is tormented by his past relationship with his ex-girlfriend during a long-distance journey across the country. This independent production was helmed by Vincent Gallo, who not only wrote and produced it but also played the lead role. The movie created quite a stir upon its debut at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival because of an explicit scene involving Chloë Sevigny performing oral sex on her co-star, which generated controversy.
During his critique of the 2003 Cannes Film Festival, Ebert described “The Brown Bunny” as “arguably the worst film ever shown at the festival…Despite not having watched every movie in the festival’s entire history, I am confident that my evaluation will hold true.
I find myself utterly amused by the witty remarks in this critique. For instance, about Vincent Gallo, it’s suggested that he must have been quite unconventional, even eccentric, to both (a) create this movie and (b) consent to its public screening.
The Ebert-Gallo Feud
The movie titled The Brown Bunny gained notoriety due to the public dispute between its director, Gallo, and film critic, Roger Ebert. Angered by Ebert’s negative reviews, Gallo instigated a verbal confrontation with the film historian, labeling him as a “heavyset individual resembling a slave trader.” In response, Ebert retorted, “Indeed, I am overweight, but someday I will lose it, and Gallo, director of The Brown Bunny, will still be the same.”
The dispute didn’t end there. Later on, Gallo asserted that he cast a spell on Ebert’s colon, causing him cancer (which, ironically, Ebert was diagnosed with in 2002, although it wasn’t located in his colon). Ebert retorted with one of his wittiest remarks: “I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch. It was more entertaining than ‘The Brown Bunny.'” Eventually, these film enthusiasts reconciled and developed a friendly relationship. Remarkably, Ebert even reviewed a reedited version of “The Brown Bunny” and withdrew his initial criticism, awarding this revised version three stars.
3 ‘Battlefield Earth’ (2000)
The movie titled “Battlefield Earth” is well-known in the cinematic realm, and this notoriety can be attributed to several factors, one being its origin as a science fiction novel with the same title, authored by L. Ron Hubbard, who was also the founder of Scientology. Consequently, viewers may anticipate an unusual narrative. “Battlefield Earth” portrays a rebellion against extraterrestrial rulers who have governed Earth for a millennium. Notably, this film was produced and acted in by John Travolta, another adherent of Scientology. Unfortunately, “Battlefield Earth” was met with widespread criticism and commercial failure. It wasn’t merely a box office bomb; it led to the bankruptcy of Franchise Pictures, one of the studios responsible for its production.
What Ebert Had to Say
In simpler terms, among all aspects related to the movie “Battlefield Earth”, perhaps the most positive thing that can be mentioned is Roger Ebert’s hilarious review. He compared watching the movie to witnessing a train wreck in the film “The Fugitive”. His words were, “Some movies lose their way. This one is like the train crash in ‘The Fugitive.'” As he watched it, he felt that he was experiencing something significant – a film that would be used for years as an example of terrible cinema. Indeed, “Battlefield Earth” is often considered one of the worst movies ever produced.
2 ‘Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo’ (2005)
The comedy movie “Deuce Bigalow: European Escort” is a sequel to the original “Deuce Bigalow: A Male Escort.” As its name indicates, our protagonist Deuce Bigalow (played by Rob Schneider), a male escort, is expanding his services across Europe. He reunites with his old pimp in Amsterdam and finds himself embroiled in a murder mystery involving a serial killer targeting male escorts. Unfortunately, “Deuce Bigalow: European Escort” didn’t achieve the same success as its predecessor, earning significantly less money and receiving harsher criticism. Can you guess who the film’s main critic was? We’ll give you one hint: they were very vocal about it!
What Ebert Had to Say
In his scathing critique, Ebert expressed uncertainty about how much Deuce Bigalow charges, but he suggested that the cost was justified if it kept him from being homeless or making another movie. Ebert wrote that the film was intentionally terrible, seeming to want to inflict pain on viewers. Later, Ebert implied that Columbia Pictures and the producers should have serious, regretful discussions about this film with their own creative instincts.
Other movie critics, including Patrick Goldstein from the Los Angeles Times, weren’t kind to Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. Goldstein even went so far as to label Schneider as an inferior comedian. This remark upset Schneider, who argued that Goldstein wasn’t qualified to critique the film since he hadn’t won a Pulitzer Prize for journalism. However, this retort provided Ebert, a Pulitzer winner himself, with the perfect opportunity to deliver a decisive critique.
Indeed, Schneider is right, and Patrick Goldstein hasn’t received a Pulitzer yet…Coincidentally, I have won the Pulitzer Prize myself, which gives me the qualifications to speak on this matter. In my role as a Pulitzer Prize winner, I must say frankly that, Mr. Schneider, your movie leaves much to be desired.
Those last three words would later inspire Ebert’s 2007 book, Your Movie Sucks.
1 ‘North’ (1994)
The lesser-known but remarkable film “North” might not be familiar to you. A disenchanted young boy, tired of his parents’ indifference, embarks on a global journey in quest of ideal guardians. This movie boasts an extraordinary cast, including Elijah Wood as the lead character, as well as Jon Lovitz, Jason Alexander, Alan Arkin, Dan Aykroyd, Kathy Bates, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Bruce Willis, and a young Scarlett Johansson in her film debut.
The action-adventure comedy that Rob Reiner directed is known for producing many excellent comedies throughout his career. However, “North” doesn’t fall into that category. Over time, it has become infamous for being one of the poorest films ever created in cinematic history.
What Ebert Had to Say
Throughout his professional journey, Roger Ebert penned numerous biting critiques. One of his most humorous and scathing reviews was reserved for the movie titled “North“. If you’re still skeptical about the intensity of his disdain towards this film, allow me to share a sample of his harsh criticism towards “North“.
I strongly disliked this film. I couldn’t stand it, not one bit. I found every aspect that seemed intended to appeal to viewers to be irritating and poorly executed. I question the mindset that thought people would enjoy it, and I felt insulted by its assumption that someone might find it entertaining.
Speaking of the book we talked about earlier, titled “I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie“, did you know that it was named after Ebert’s review of the movie “North“? In his critique, Ebert stated, ” ‘North‘ is a terrible film – one of the worst ever made.” However, he added that it wasn’t made by a bad filmmaker and should be seen as a mistake from which Reiner would recover, hopefully before I do. That’s quite a sting!
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-11-15 04:02