When it comes to movie critics, few had the flair of Roger Ebert, especially when he disliked a film. His review of ‘North’ has become almost as famous as the movie itself, coining a catchphrase of disdain that’s hard to forget.
The sheer volume of ‘hated’ in Ebert’s review of ‘North’ not only emphasized his distaste but also highlighted the impact a critic’s opinion can have on a film’s legacy. It’s a stark reminder that not all press is good press.
Ebert’s colorful critique of ‘North’ serves as a fascinating case study for movie critics and film enthusiasts alike. It shows how a well-phrased review can transcend the movie itself, becoming a piece of cultural commentary that endures for years.
Movie critics, especially the renowned ones like Roger Ebert, have a knack for spotting cinema disasters from a mile away. ‘Battlefield Earth,’ unfortunately, fell squarely into this category. Ebert’s dissection of its unconvincing acting and less-than-stellar cinematography paints a vivid picture of what not to do in film-making.
It’s not every day that a film gets flagged as a ‘perfect storm of no’s,’ but ‘Battlefield Earth’ managed to achieve this dubious honor, according to Ebert. His critique serves as a masterclass for filmmakers on the importance of coherence in storytelling and the undeniable impact of visual aesthetics.
For movie buffs and critics alike, Ebert’s review of ‘Battlefield Earth’ is a fascinating case study. It underlines the critical role movie critics play in guiding audiences. Their insights, grounded in years of cinematic experience, help sift through the cinematic chaff, guiding us towards more worthwhile viewing experiences.
When ‘Freddy Got Fingered’ hit the screens, it promptly found a place on many movie critics’ blacklist, including Roger Ebert’s. The film’s unique blend of bizarre and tasteless humor left audiences and critics alike bewildered, making it a peculiar artifact of early 2000s cinema.
Tom Green’s ‘Freddy Got Fingered’ is often cited in discussions about controversial movies, drawing a fine line between genius and insanity. Movie critics were polarized, with some seeing it as an avant-garde comedy, while others dismissed it as simply distasteful.
Despite its infamy, ‘Freddy Got Fingered’ has garnered a cult following, illustrating the unpredictable nature of movie critics’ influence. Its divisive humor became a topic of debate, proving that even the most criticized films can find a dedicated audience.
When Roger Ebert, one of the most legendary movie critics, reviewed ‘Mad Dog Time,’ his words were less than kind, famously stating it was the first movie that doesn’t improve on the sight of a blank screen. Imagine that!
Ebert’s scathing review of ‘Mad Dog Time’ serves as a testament to the power movie critics wield. His words not only entertained readers but also influenced the way audiences and even filmmakers perceive a film’s value and artistry.
The role of movie critics like Ebert is pivotal; they navigate us through the vast sea of cinema. While ‘Mad Dog Time’ might not have been a hit in Ebert’s eyes, his review is a reminder of the impactful dialogue between movies and their critics.
When ‘Spice World’ hit the screens, it was met with mixed feelings by movie critics, with Roger Ebert’s spice tolerance notably low. He branded it a ‘wannabe,’ hinting that the film missed the mark on delivering substance or depth.
Despite Ebert’s chilly reception, ‘Spice World’ found its audience, tapping into the nostalgia and pop culture zeitgeist of the time. It’s a reminder that movie critics, while influential, don’t always predict a film’s cult status or fan love.
Ebert’s critique of ‘Spice World’ as lacking substance is a fascinating snapshot of how movie critics’ opinions can vary widely from public sentiment. It’s a testament to the subjective nature of film appreciation and the unique spices each viewer brings to the table.
When movie critics like Ebert dismiss ‘A Sound of Thunder’ for its shoddy special effects and storytelling, it’s a reminder of how crucial these elements are to immersive cinema. It’s not just about the big names or the hype; the devil is in the details, and this movie, unfortunately, missed the memo.
The critique from Ebert on ‘A Sound of Thunder’ serves as a valuable lesson for filmmakers and enthusiasts alike. In a world where technology and artistry intertwine, failing to nail the visual effects can disconnect the audience, leaving the narrative adrift in a sea of criticism from movie critics.
Interestingly, despite the scathing review from Ebert, ‘A Sound of Thunder’ has found a niche audience that appreciates its attempt, however flawed. This phenomenon highlights the subjective nature of movie critics and reviews, reminding us that one man’s cinematic blunder can be another’s cult classic.
In the world of movie critics, Roger Ebert’s words carry weight. So, when he initially labeled ‘The Brown Bunny’ as the worst film in the history of Cannes, it sent shockwaves. This biting critique became a notorious part of the film’s legacy.
However, Ebert’s harsh stance on ‘The Brown Bunny’ took a surprising turn. After viewing a revised version of the film, he softened his critique significantly. This change of heart is a fascinating chapter in the relationship between filmmakers and movie critics.
Ebert’s evolving opinion on ‘The Brown Bunny’ serves as a reminder that movie critics, like the films they review, can experience growth and change. His initial dismissal and subsequent reassessment highlight the dynamic nature of film critique and its impact on a movie’s reception.
When ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ hit the screens, it wasn’t just the graphic content that stirred the pot but the moral compass it seemingly trampled on, according to renowned movie critics like Roger Ebert. His disdain for the film wasn’t in isolation, reflecting a broader critical consensus of the era that found the movie not just distasteful, but morally reprehensible.
The controversy surrounding ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ didn’t end with its initial release. Over the years, it’s become something of a litmus test for movie critics and audiences alike, challenging perceptions of violence and revenge in cinema. It’s a film that, for better or worse, has sparked endless debates about where the line in movie-making should be drawn.
Despite the heavy criticism, ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ has managed to carve out a niche following, illustrating the complex relationship between movie critics, audiences, and controversial cinema. It’s a prime example of how a film can be reviled yet revered, sparking discussions that go beyond the screen and into the realm of ethics and morality in storytelling.
When it comes to movies that have sparked outrage and controversy, ‘Caligula’ definitely makes the list. Famous movie critics, including Roger Ebert, found it more appalling than appealing, citing its overt explicitness that lacked any meaningful substance. It’s a film that’s often discussed not for its artistic merit but for pushing the boundaries of acceptability.
The reception of ‘Caligula’ serves as a fascinating case study in the world of movie critics. Ebert’s scathing review is a reminder that not all publicity is good publicity. The film’s attempt to blend historical drama with unsavory content left many questioning its purpose, contributing to its infamous legacy in cinematic history.
Despite its controversial status, or perhaps because of it, ‘Caligula’ has carved out a niche following. It’s a testament to the wide range of tastes among moviegoers and the challenging role movie critics play in navigating the complex landscape of film appreciation. Their insights can often guide or dissuade audiences, shaping films’ reputations for years to come.
When Vanilla Ice decided to skate into the realm of acting with ‘Cool as Ice,’ he might not have anticipated the chilly reception from movie critics, especially Roger Ebert. Ebert, known for his sharp critiques, was far from warm, pinpointing the icy attempt at a plot and Vanilla Ice’s less-than-cool performance.
It’s fascinating how ‘Cool as Ice’ became a sort of cult classic despite its frosty reception. Movie critics, including Ebert, might have thrown shade, but the film has since melted some hearts, serving as a nostalgic trip back to early 90s pop culture. It’s a reminder that not all films need to be Oscar-worthy to be beloved.
In the world of movie critics, ‘Cool as Ice’ stands as a unique case study. It’s a film that showcases how a movie can freeze out at the box office yet ignite a flame of fondness over time. Whether it’s the catchy tunes or Vanilla Ice’s distinctive style, it’s a piece of pop history that’s undeniably cool to some.
When it comes to sequels, few have sparked as much debate among movie critics as ‘Staying Alive’. Renowned critic Roger Ebert was particularly unimpressed, pointing out its lackluster attempt to recapture the magic of its predecessor. It’s a classic case of what not to do in a sequel.
The charm and heart of ‘Saturday Night Fever’ were seemingly lost in translation to ‘Staying Alive’, leaving audiences and critics, including Ebert, yearning for the originality and depth that made the first film a cultural phenomenon. It’s a stark reminder in the movie industry that sometimes, less is more.
Ebert’s critique of ‘Staying Alive’ serves as a valuable lesson for movie critics and filmmakers alike: sequels require a delicate balance of new content and original essence. Without it, you risk losing what made the first installment special, turning potential box office gold into a missed opportunity.
In the vast universe of cinema, ‘Howard the Duck’ is a peculiar asteroid that many movie critics wish they could sidestep. Notably, Roger Ebert, with his keen eye for cinematic treasures and blunders, found this 1986 film more quack than classic. His reviews serve as a cautionary tale, painting a vivid picture of when concept and execution don’t quite align.
The feathered protagonist of ‘Howard the Duck’ might have hoped to soar into the hearts of audiences, but instead, plummeted into the annals of film history as a curiosity. Movie critics like Ebert didn’t just critique; they questioned the very fabric of its creation, from its bewildering storyline to its peculiar choice of a leading character. It’s a testament to the unpredictable nature of film reception.
Despite the flak it received from movie critics, ‘Howard the Duck’ holds a unique spot in the cinematic universe. It’s a reminder that not all risks lead to rewards, yet it also showcases the boldness of filmmakers willing to push boundaries. Ebert’s candid critique is not just about one film’s missteps but a reflection on the unpredictable alchemy of movie-making.
In the world of cinema, not all sequels are created equal, a sentiment echoed by movie critics far and wide. ‘Jaws: The Revenge’, the fourth installment in the Jaws series, serves as a prime example. It famously made Roger Ebert wonder if the shark was out for revenge on the audience itself for daring to watch. Talk about biting commentary!
The idea of a shark holding a personal vendetta might sound like a stretch, but it didn’t stop ‘Jaws: The Revenge’ from making a splash. Despite its premise inviting skepticism among movie critics, the film has managed to carve out a niche for itself in the annals of so-bad-it’s-good cinema. It’s a testament to the movie’s peculiar charm that it remains a topic of discussion.
It’s not every day that a movie prompts a revered critic like Ebert to question its intentions towards its audience. This unique angle not only highlights the film’s audacious plot but also underscores the powerful role movie critics play in shaping public perception. ‘Jaws: The Revenge’ might not have been a critical darling, but it undeniably left its mark, proving that even sharks can stir up the waters of cinematic critique.
When movie critics first laid eyes on ‘Kazaam’, expectations were a mixed bag. What they found was a movie that tried to marry fantasy with basketball, an ambitious blend that, according to Ebert, barely hit the mark. It’s a fascinating case study in how star power, in this case, can only carry a film so far.
Despite its shortcomings, ‘Kazaam’ serves as a peculiar time capsule of the 90s, preserving a moment when filmmakers were eager to experiment with genre blends. Critics, including Ebert, noted that the film’s saving grace was its charismatic lead, a testament to the impact a single performance can have on the overall reception of a film.
In the realm of movie critics, ‘Kazaam’ stands as a reminder that not all experiments in cinema land as intended. However, it also underscores the unpredictable magic of movies – how a film, deemed uninspiring by critics, can still hold a special place in the hearts of its audience, thanks to a sprinkle of star charisma.
When ‘RoboCop 3’ rolled out, it seemed to stumble in a way that had movie critics scratching their heads. Famously, Ebert pointed out its mechanical nature, suggesting that in its rush to continue the saga, it left behind the gritty charm and moral quandaries that defined the earlier entries.
The film, while ambitious in its scope and special effects, struggled to resonate with audiences in the same way its predecessors did. Critics, including Ebert, felt that ‘RoboCop 3’ lacked the nuanced storytelling and satirical edge, turning instead towards a more generic action-packed narrative that failed to captivate.
Despite its reception, the conversation around ‘RoboCop 3’ offers an interesting case study in how sequels are perceived by movie critics and audiences alike. It’s a reminder that sometimes, in the pursuit of expanding a franchise, the essence of what made it special can be diluted.
And there you have it, folks! A cinematic journey through the eyes of Roger Ebert and the 35 movies he wasn’t too fond of. It’s fascinating to see how a critic’s perspective can sometimes diverge wildly from popular opinion or even cult followings. Remember, the world of movies is vast and varied, and one critic’s trash can be another viewer’s treasure. So, whether you agree with Ebert or not, keep exploring the cinematic universe with an open mind. Who knows? You might find your next favorite film on someone else’s worst list!
Question: What is a common theme in Roger Ebert’s reviews mentioned in the text?
Answer: A common theme in Roger Ebert’s reviews is his candid and often scathing critique of movies he dislikes, highlighting the significant impact a critic’s opinion can have on a film’s legacy.
Question: Which movie did Roger Ebert famously dislike, coining a catchphrase of disdain?
Answer: Roger Ebert famously disliked the movie ‘North,’ coining a catchphrase of disdain in his review.
Question: How did Ebert’s review of ‘Battlefield Earth’ serve as a lesson to filmmakers?
Answer: Ebert’s review of ‘Battlefield Earth’ served as a masterclass on the importance of coherence in storytelling and visual aesthetics, highlighting what not to do in filmmaking.
Question: What was the public and critical reception of ‘Freddy Got Fingered’ according to the text?
Answer: According to the text, ‘Freddy Got Fingered’ received a mixed reception, being criticized for its bizarre and tasteless humor by critics including Ebert, yet it also garnered a cult following.
Question: How did Roger Ebert’s opinion on ‘The Brown Bunny’ change over time?
Answer: Roger Ebert’s opinion on ‘The Brown Bunny’ changed significantly after viewing a revised version of the film, leading him to soften his initial harsh critique.
Question: What impact do movie critics like Roger Ebert have on films and audiences according to the text?
Answer: Movie critics like Roger Ebert play a critical role in guiding audiences by providing insights grounded in years of cinematic experience, helping to sift through the cinematic chaff and influence the film’s reception.
Question: How is ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ perceived in terms of its controversial content?
Answer: ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ is perceived as a controversial movie that stirred debates about violence and revenge in cinema, critiqued for trampling on moral compasses, yet it has carved out a niche following.
Question: What does the text suggest about the subjective nature of movie criticism?
Answer: The text suggests that movie criticism is highly subjective, illustrated by the varying opinions of critics versus public sentiment, and how even critically panned movies can find dedicated audiences or cult status.
Question: How did ‘Cool as Ice’ manage to find an audience despite its reception from movie critics?
Answer: Despite its frosty reception from movie critics, ‘Cool as Ice’ managed to find an audience, serving as a nostalgic trip back to early 90s pop culture and becoming a sort of cult classic.
Question: What lesson is conveyed through the critique of ‘Staying Alive’?
Answer: The critique of ‘Staying Alive’ conveys the lesson that sequels require a delicate balance of new content and the original essence to be successful, a lesson highlighted by Ebert’s unimpressed review.
Sometimes, life feels like one big sitcom, and Vince the Sign Guy is here to…
Tattoos are meant to be forever, but what happens when “forever” comes with typos, bad…
Black Friday is here, and the holiday magic is in full swing! It's the perfect…
When celeb couples call it quits, it can feel like love is crumbling. But don’t…
Ever tried cutting food exactly in half… on national TV? In Germany, contestants are judged…
Imagine stepping back in time to your favorite fast-food spot—the sizzling aromas, the iconic flavors,…