the Your Movie Sucks™ files

I'll be honest, the last bad movie that I saw was "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". This was is one of the most confounding pieces of screenwriting that I have ever experienced. Here is a movie built on the idea of a man who has the most phenomenal affliction in human history and he is surrounded by characters who treat his condition as if it were a new haircut. I was also put off by the film's pacing, David Fincher (a director who's work I usually admire) drives this movie so slowly that I felt as if I were experiencing Benjamin's life in real time. I think my wife had the best observation: "Would Benjamin have been of any interest if he didn't have his unusual condition?"

Here's an alternative: "Zodiac", this is an unfairly overlooked 2007 film from David Fincher that follows the hunt for the illusive Zodiac killer from 1969 through 1982. What Fincher does so beautifully is that he tracks the passage of time through the police detectives and the media as they try and fail to zero in on the killer. After several frustrating years, when most of the detectives have given up out of frustration, the story falls on a cartoonist (Jake Gyllenhaal) who becomes obsessive about the case and comes closer than anyone to finding the killer.

Ebert: It's like "Jack Frost." The kid's dead father comes back as the snowman on his lawn, and all he can think about are bullies at school. Think about it, kid! Your dead father is inside that snowman!

Beyond The Valley of the Dolls (NC-17, 109 minutes). A movie that is a reflection of the times when something lacking sexuality or explicitness is rated NC-17, disappointing many hoping for titilation. 3 female friends travel to Hollywood with the dreams of making it big, but nothing they do to achieve that goal is interesting. Film reviewer Roger Ebert has a great understanding of what makes a movie good or bad, but the complete lack of experience as a filmmaker shows with a promising premise hamstrung by poor execution. Drive right through this valley.

Ebert: Nothing interesting? Not the wild party? Not the orgy? Not the drugs? Not the quadruple murder? Not the attempted suicide on live TV? Not the secret transsexuality? Not the Strawberry Alarm Clock? Not even the triple wedding, and Harris regaining the ability to walk?

I recently caught up with "Irreversible" which I did not like. I had a hard time sitting through this film and not as a knee-jerk reaction, but I just felt that the images of rape and murder were there for a purpose that I couldn't subscribe to.

I've seen violence and degradation on screen in hundreds of films and I understand why Gaspar Noé wants to show these images - he is forcing us to deal with the reality of rape and murder rather than the glamorized manner in which it is usually dealt with on film - but I am of two minds with this film, on one hand I admire it's artistry and but on the other hand, why would anyone really want to sit through such disgusting imagery?

One of my friends and I have started our own little two-person movie club. He's going to show me one movie he's really fond of each month and I'll show him one I'm fond of, the only condition being the person we are showing it to can't have already seen it (well, and he refuses to watch Valkyrie cause he can't stand Tom Cruise).

We started a couple weeks ago with him screening Burglar with Whoppi Goldberg, and me screening The Third Man. My next choice will likely be M. His next choice is possibly going to be Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

Something tells me he's getting the better end of this deal...

I'm so glad to see this page up and running so soon.

I'm stunned anybody could pan a Russ Meyer flick.

Ebert: Thanks for the idea.

Let this also be the place, then, where you reconsider "Dead Man" and "Blue Velvet"--both unfairly cast into this category. "Dead Man" especially.

Hi Roger

This has nothing to do about zero to one star pictures but about your website. After reading a movie review I wanted to give it a star rating since you have your rating and there is the users rating, but when I try nothing happens. I clear my cookies and everything--then I noticed all the other movies I rated before is now all gone so I have to start from square one. Why does this always happen?

Ebert: The website seems to be losing a limb at a time, like the victim in "Scream and Scream Again." Forget about the search function. I have added a site-specific Google search engine which you will find on the blog headings.

While I agree with many of your choices...The Spirit was a disaster...I must say that The Bucket List is not getting its fair shake. It is a modern fable not about realism, but instead about two men who need to get away from their lives, wives, and condition to realize just how important the things they have negelected are. One reason the film works is because it doesn't jump into the "fun" but instead has the patience to show the sickness and the bond develope between the two men. The second half of the film explores the world and even dabbles in theology and faith and what it means to be a father.

The film's premise, while unlikely, is really about different iconic perspectives of humanity...the saint and sinner if you would...the helper and the heathen...but each can teach the other...while not always original, the story is an exercise in patient acting and storytelling along with the bravery to tell a story about older men reflecting on life.

"Would Benjamin have been of any interest if he didn't have his unusual condition?"

Someone else who saw the movie said much the same thing: it's about the single most incurious protagonist imaginable. I liked how in a movie like "Mask" (no, seriously) there was the sense that the kid's condition MATTERED, that it was not just a gimmick used to tell a story that otherwise wouldn't have been worth the electrons used to e-mail the pitch to the agent.

Hey Roger,

First thing I have to say is you're my hero. I adore movies and journalism and my eventual goal in life is to become a movie reviewer, something I already do on a small scale. Your reviews are always insightful and witty, a joy to read. However, one thing I have since stopped doing is adding a value to the movies I rate. I find numbers are useless without context. If someone wants to know what I thought, read my thoughts -- not the easy scapegoat that is the number of stars I give.

Anyway, the real reason I am posting this comment is to ask you if you've ever seen the movie: Repo! The Genetic Opera. It came out last year in a few sold-out theatres but never got a wide release. It's basically a rock opera, which equals: a melodramatic plot and lots of singing. It's set up in this futuristic, decrepit world where organ failure is the norm (why, exactly, I don't think we ever know). A company named GeneCo emerges which provides organs at a price. Fail to pony up the cash after the time is up, and the repo man comes to viciously collect.

Despite the occasional glaring the problem, Paris Hilton and the fact the evil studio behind it never released it in its full-cut, I think it's one of a kind. I'd be delighted to know what you thought of it.

Ebert: Udner that name IMDb only knows about a 10-minute short.

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, a bad movie? Them's fightin' words! One of my favorite lines in films is "This is my happening and it freaks me out!" It's a film that's given joy and inspiration to millions (or at least thousands). Anyone who says this is a bad film has obviously not sat through Death Curse of Tartu, Song of Norway, or Being Human with Robin Williams.

Ebert: Millions.

In response to Steve and for Mr. Ebert's benefit, Repo! The Genetic Opera is currently available on DVD. It was released January 20th by Lionsgate, the same week they released Saw V. It was also directed by the Director of Saw II.

I have not seen this film yet but thourh what I have observed through my video store, the film is destined to be a cult classic.

As for the films mentioned here, I liked the Bucket list. Also someone mentioned that Dead Man and Blue Velvet should have gotten one star or less. I liked Dead Man and it is one of my favorite Johnny Depp performances. Blue Velvet depends on my mood. The first time I hated it and the second time it was not too bad but I was in different moods.

Aeon Flux, and any of Woody Allen's last movies.

I need to comment to say that I think that you, Mr. Ebert, need to re-watch Blue Velvet as many years have passed since its release and your perspective on it might have changed - especially since your discovery of David Lynch's talent in Mulholland Drive and in Inland Empire. I request this because of my recent interest in Lynch. Also I was wondering if you have watched his series Twin Peaks? There are many similarities between the show and Blue Velvet, and I'm interested in your take of the two compared.

My god, why is everybody hating Benjamin Button? I loved it! Of course it's not the best movie of all time, but I found it to be more moving than this Slumdog stuff.

Great list. I agree with just about every review. And I like the snark.

I am wondering however, if your mood on any given day might influence the way you perceive a film? In other words, if you have a bad day, might you be harder on a movie than you would be on the same film on a good day?

Keep writing. This is absolutely the best blog on the internet. Thanks for it all.

The worst movie I've ever seen? That's easy! "Clifford" with Martin Short as a ten year-old boy who tries to make his uncle's life a living nightmare. Well, he certainly made 90 minutes of MY life a living nightmare. That was one of the creepiest, most ill-conceived movies I've ever seen. Who thought that was a good idea?

I always wondered if you ever reconsidered your rating for Kiarostami's Taste Of Cherry? That review immediately seemed off-the-mark to me in terms of what Kiarostami was trying to achieve. I found it to be very philosophical and moving. I even wrote a review about it myself several years ago. If I may, I'd like to print a portion of it here to try to persuade you otherwise. (It's the least I can do, right? After all, it was from reading many of your reviews that I discovered so many of the films I cherish today.)

"The film almost never leaves Mr. Badii and his car, and he’s always interrogating his passengers with hundreds of questions. And even though that may seem like a boring premise for a film, Taste of Cherry is absolutely riveting. Kiarostami makes it a point never to explain why Mr. Badii wants to kill himself, and after considering Ershadi’s performance as Badii, I think I know why. To mention any one event as an excuse for suicide would be in effect to provide an explanation for his decision. It would particularize the event to the point where the audience could either choose to pardon his decision or blame him, yet not much more than that. But Badii’s grief does seem much more than that to me. It seems more spiritual, even metaphysical in nature, which brings up the fundamental question of the entire film- why do we even choose to live at all? What irrational drive in us causes us to carry on with the daily frustrations and unfulfilled wants that constitute everyday existence for everybody who ever has to put up with living? He seems weighted down not only by whatever events life has given him, but also by the more fundamental issues such as how little life can truly offer anybody, and whether or not it would be better never to have been born at all. Life, and its preciousness, is what the film is really about."

YES!!! Nothing I love more than reading really good critics ripping into really bad movies. AS Dave Barry once said, you make these movies sound so bad that I now want to see them.

A confession: When The Spirit came out on video, we were finishing up our year at school and my friends and I were exhausted, so we figured, "Let's get drunk and rent some really crap movies and just have a ball." We rented The Spirit and I think we made it to the scene where the kitten melted when we said "Screw it, this is too much."

I like that you now issue your caveat of "so bad they're good" movies usually ending up in the two star range, because while I occasionally enjoy the films you give gutter reviews to (I like Armageddon. Step Brothers, and heck, even Year One to some extent) it's too big a risk to go to the theater for films that inspire such vitriol. At the RedBox when it's a dollar, maybe.

And to continue with the trend, the worst movie I've ever seen might be The Master Of Disguise. It's the only film I can recall (and I've seen plenty of bad movies in my time) that did not have a single redeemable element to it. Nothing about it was even remotely amusing. But the best bad movie I've seen is "Xanadu" a film so over the top that I can't believe it was Gene Kelly's last movie.

Kiarostami's Taste Of Cherry? That review immediately seemed off-the-mark to me in terms of what Kiarostami was trying to achieve. I found it to be very philosophical and moving. I even wrote a review about it myself several years ago. If I may, I'd like to print a portion of it here to try to persuade you otherwise. (It's the least I can do, right? After all, it was from reading many of your reviews that I discovered so many of the films I cherish today.)

"The film almost never leaves Mr. Badii and his car, and he’s always interrogating his passengers with hundreds of questions. And even though that may seem like a boring premise for a film, Taste of Cherry is absolutely riveting. Kiarostami makes it a point never to explain why Mr. Badii wants to kill himself, and after considering Ershadi’s performance as Badii, I think I know why. To mention any one event as an excuse for suicide would be in effect to provide an explanation for his decision. It would particularize the event to the point where the audience could either choose to pardon his decision or blame him, yet not much more than that. But Badii’s grief does seem much more than that to me. It seems more spiritual, even metaphysical in nature, which brings up the fundamental question of the entire film- why do we even choose to live at all? What irrational drive in us causes us to carry on with the daily frustrations and unfulfilled wants that constitute everyday existence for everybody who ever has to put up with living? He seems weighted down not only by whatever events life has given him, but also by the more fundamental issues such as how little life can truly offer anybody, and whether or not it would be better never to have been born at all. Life, and its preciousness, is what the film is really about."

I'm sure you already know that Soderburgs Moneyball got the plug pulled. I alredy posted this on the Rotten Tomatoes web site, it's a breif summary of how to save the film. false modesty aside it's pretty brilliant.
First fire Soderburg and replace him w/ Michael Bay; fire Zaillion and bring in Orci and Kurtzman to "tune up" the script. Embellish it a little as Moneyball is (yawn) the story of Billy Beane and his Oakland A's experiance. Also throw another 150 million at the budget.
Synopsis:
Billy Beane is a retired Navy SEAL and is the only to have survived and prevailed in a past brutal confrontation w/ Arab terrorist mastermind. So of course through various mechanations terrorist guy plants an atomic bomb at the Oakland ballpark and Beane must fight his way through various terrorist henchmen while simultaineously coaching the A's to a penant.
Fianl scene Beane craters the masterminds head w/ a rocket like fast ball and utters "still got it" before cutting the green wire while the A's smash a grand slam over the fence to win the penant.
Wait, I know what your thinking. You see he broke "ole Louie" over the head of bodyguard/cheif enforcer in the previous scene. Which he used a lot useing catchphrases like "that's a single..double .. home run "depending on the intensity of the fight.
Throughout various fans and players will be the victoms of comedic pratfalls or heinous violence.
Of course the players will represent various ethnic/racial stereotypes.
May I have 10 million dollars now please!

I went for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" expecting something along the lines of 'Forrest Gump' as it was written by Eric Roth. And what struck me as odd was that it was similar to 'Gump' in a lot of ways- it was autobiographical, main character was in the war, there's a Bubba-ish character, etc. and yet it didn't have the heart and soul of 'Gump', but rather the cold unreasoning characterizations of 'Jack Frost'.

Anyways, so you highly recommend 3.5 and 4 stars films, and you say Zero Stars, One-half Star, One Star, and One-and-a-half Stars film are to be avoided. So what happens to those in between, that is the 2, 2.5 and 3 stars films? Please excuse me in case you've already answered this question in another blog entry or article...

P.S. Big fan here. Happy Birthday (belated--I know I'm 10 days late). I also realise you got your Star on the Walk of Fame five days ago in 2005. Nice going, Mr Ebert.

Two Thumbs up to you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963194/

"My god, why is everybody hating Benjamin Button? I loved it! Of course it's not the best movie of all time, but I found it to be more moving than this Slumdog stuff."

"Benjamin Button" was a movie felt like it went on for three days. It was a great looking film but didn't contain one single character that I cared anything about, least of all Benjamin who is nice but kind of a dullard. Plus, as I said before, he is stricken with the most incredible affliction in human history and everyone seems to regard it with a polite smile.

As for "Slumdog", I was moved by the love story, about how Jamal falls in love with his childhood friend Latika and keeps her in his heart even through their years apart. Yet, the logic center of my brain had problems accepting that Jamal would be given questions on the game show that just happen to correspond with the red letter events in his life. I realize that this isn't the point of the movie but it was an illogical element that I couldn't overlook.

Shyamalan's last three films. The Village was doomed by bad acting and a twist that no matter what was going to make me mad. Lady in the Water was the most painful movie experience I've ever sat through. Between the laughable plot plot, cheesy special effects, and all around bad actng, I wanted to walk out halfway through. The Happening was one of those so-bad-it's-good movies. The suicides were not scaring or disturbing, they were just funny. The lawnmower thing had everybody in the theater laughing.
It's kind of sad though that the man who five years ago was the heir to Hitchcock is trying to cash in on the Saw and Hostel stuff.

I couldn't have thought of a better word myself for the biting qualifications that make up these reviews - snark.
My father used snarky in a Scrabble game a decade ago. This was at our cabin and there was no dictionary to be found in the entire house except for one with push-button birdcalls and fur samples peppered throughout its cardboard pages. It goes without saying that a war of collective knowledge bases began, ending only, three days later, when the word was properly identified in a Merriam-Webster and Randy was given his 26 points (double word!). I can't seem to shake it.

Benjamin Button is flawed conceptually. Any moral/theme attempted from the reverse aging backwards is lost b/c the main character is aging chronologically. It's pretty to look at but it's entirely too long.

It's funny someone would raise Clifford as - you can sense that someone was thinking that they'd play the deadpan comic sensibility of Grodin with the exaggerated Short...and it just falls completely off with Grodin projecting as whiny & annoying and Short as downright creepy. Being Human is also pretty awful.

It's tempting to raise the specter of the legions of pretty terrible action or fantasy films from the 80's here (just watch a few minutes of Megaforce), but I still say Empire Records tops my list. It seems that this film has somewhat of a following but it's horrid across the board. For whatever reason, I also really despise House of Cards. For some reason, it was nearly making me laugh.

Benjamin Button is flawed conceptually. Any moral/theme attempted from the reverse aging backwards is lost b/c the main character is aging chronologically. It's pretty to look at but it's entirely too long.

It's funny someone would raise Clifford as - you can sense that someone was thinking that they'd play the deadpan comic sensibility of Grodin with the exaggerated Short...and it just falls completely off with Grodin projecting as whiny & annoying and Short as downright creepy. Being Human is also pretty awful.

It's tempting to raise the specter of the legions of pretty terrible action or fantasy films from the 80's here (just watch a few minutes of Megaforce), but I still say Empire Records tops my list. It seems that this film has somewhat of a following but it's horrid across the board. For whatever reason, I also really despise House of Cards. For some reason, it was nearly making me laugh.

I'm what you call a huge fan of Bad Movies. I think there is a lot of grey area. Interestingly enough the Two Star movies in I Hated,Hated,Hated this movie, are two of my prized artifacts in my DVD collection, mainly Starship Troopers and Universal Soldier. Also Roger's hilarious review of Cyborg (Which itself is hilarious) causes one to realize that bad movies aren't always in black and white. Personally I've noticed that Hollywood has slacked off a bit in delivering truly great bad movies. I think most of it has to do with that now a lot of B.movies are sent to video and only professionally made work with a general competence surfaces in theaters. Take those post-nuclear holocaust flicks that ripped off Mad Max and stunk to high heaven, they were godawful but they were made with so much never say die energy that they managed to buck the odds and become truly inspired unintentional comedy. Part of the problem is that in the bigger is better field of filmmaking is that bad movies are often just loud, jarring and excruciating to watch. For example Godzilla Vs The Smog Monster is in my DVD collection but the 98 Godzilla from Roland Emmerich is not. It's like Ebert said in one of his reviews, the filmmakers know how to play the notes but they don't know the music. What makes a bad movie watchable is ambitious and serious its convictions are. Universal Soldier and Starship Troopers were made by filmmakers and actors who believed that the movies were gonna be great, there was a trust that made their failure almost endearing. Other movies like Gymkata, American Kickboxer 2,Future War and Troll 2 truly thought that the vision from the director would see it through no matter the limitations. In this retrospect everything now can't come to terms with what it wants to be, it has to be self parodying and winking at the audience when in reality, the movie should let us do the parodying and winking.

For instance take the you tube phenomenon that was Undefeatable (which was released on DVD a couple monthes after it became a cult thing) You can see right away from this fight sequence and it's music and directing that serious intentions were intended, and the true genius in such a film is that it somehow bypasses its unsavory material (serial killer who rips out people's eyeballs, incest, rape and so on) by being so blatantly over the top, ludicrious and well having everyone in the film a martial arts expert, which includes female shrinks.

In this clip you see what makes a bad movie priceless, it's hard to explain, but easy to see for you own eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxkr4wS7XqY

Like I said, I'm a critic (a word I use possibly irresponsibly) or trash, and if by miracle I inspire someone to see this movie, and others like it, I feel like I've accomplished something.

in terms of movies i downright didn't like im gonna have
to put frank darabont's the mist in here.
the green mile and the shawshank redemption are two of the most
powerful movie experiences I've had.
why he would choose to ruin those with something like that. i don't
know.
the only movie i ever really liked that you hated would probably
be "death to smoochy"
if you take it as a absurdest fantasy and not as a real movie
then it works just fine.
Brazil might grow on me.
but i doubt it.
and i have to thank you roger. if it wasn't for your review i
never would've seen Kurosawa's "ikiru" or Altman's "short cuts"
both are excellent films.
also. do you know if they're going to release citizen Kane
on blu-ray?
i think it would look awesome.

p.s i thought i would print these lyrics for you.
i think you would get a kick out of them.

It can't be love
for there is no true love
It can't be love
for there is no true love

Sure I'm C.F.K.
but you gotta love me
the cost no man can say
but you gotta love me

Well I'm sorry but I'm not
interested in gold mines, oil wells, shipping or real estate
what would I liked to have been?
everything you hate

cause It can't be love
for there is no true love
It can't be love
for there is no true love

There is a man
a certain man
and for the poor you may be sure
that he'll do all he can
who is this one?
who's favourite son?
just by his action has the traction
magnets on the run
who likes to smoke
enjoys a joke
and wouldn't get a bit
upset if he were really broke
with wealth and fame
he's still the same
I'll bet you five you're not alive
If you don't know his name

You said the union forever
You said the union forever
You cried the union forever
but that was untrue girl

cause It can't be love
for there is no true love
It can't be love
for there is no true love

[b]Serdar said: "Someone else who saw [Benjamin Button] said much the same thing: it's about the single most incurious protagonist imaginable. I liked how in a movie like "Mask" (no, seriously) there was the sense that the kid's condition MATTERED, that it was not just a gimmick used to tell a story that otherwise wouldn't have been worth the electrons used to e-mail the pitch to the agent."[/b]

I agree. The difference is that Rocky Dennis' personality undercut our knee-jerk reaction to his condition. He was an interesting person underneath so that what we saw on the outside was not as potent. That's the chief difference between "Mask" and "The Elephant Man". We got the sense that in Rocky Dennis' case there was a reason to tell his story beyond his condition but in the case of John Merrick, we never sensed that there was much of a personality beyond the affliction.

However, I've heard Benjamin Button's journey compared most often with that of Forrest Gump in the sense that we are following the destiny of a man born under unusual circumstances. The difference here is that Forrest's journey is full of interesting stops and interesting personalities along the way. In Benjamin's case, no one that we meet is at all interesting and his journey is slow-going push to the inevitable conclusion that he will die in infancy.

[b]Wes Lawson said: "We rented The Spirit and I think we made it to the scene where the kitten melted when we said "Screw it, this is too much."[/b]

You've given me another reason not to see this picture. You've saved two hours out of my life and I am in your debt. Thank you.

Thankfully, out of Roger's list, the only film that I have seen is "Clone Wars". I didn't hate it as much as Roger - I thought some of the exchanges between the battle droids were funny - but what put me off was the animation. I swear it felt like the movie wasn't finished. The animation looked like rough-cuts. To say nothing of the fact that this whole enterprise feels like an anticlimax. Having seen the events unfold in "Episode III", what is the point of telling this part of the story?

[b]Wes Lawson said: "The best bad movie I've seen is "Xanadu" a film so over the top that I can't believe it was Gene Kelly's last movie.[/b]

I treasure a quote from Michael Beck, the star of that movie: "'The Warriors' opened a lot of doors in film, for me, which 'Xanadu' then closed."

Not being a movie critic nor a connoisseur, but simply a movie lover, I won't go deep into a discussion with one of the world's most capable reviewers, but I sincerely hope that someday you'll see through some of the superficial contrivances of THE VILLAGE and maybe (re)value its thematic musings and elegant aesthetic texture.

Benjamin Button was a terrific and an intelligent film. It's too bad that so many people don't understand what they are talking.

From my review of The Da Vinci Code:

"[The movie] doesn’t require the audience to think. It only requires us to be passive observers to a series of haphazardly connected dots that could be rearranged in any other order to form another, equally plausible (or implausible) explanation than the one they finally come up with. There are lots of details in the movie, but they never come together in a cogent narrative. In fact, they serve to obfuscate just how vacuous the story is — an agonizingly empty 149 minutes of cinematic garbage. It’s as if Goldsman and Howard attended the Bowfinger Academy of Filmmaking — “What difference does it make what he says? It’s an action movie. All he’s gotta do is run. He runs away from the aliens, he runs toward the aliens, he runs away from the aliens, he runs…” Replace aliens with Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion and you get the picture, entirely."

I'm not sure if everybody knows the story behind

"Star Wars: The Clone Wars."

LucasFilm is a relatively small, or medium-sized company, and they had just made three huge movies. "The Phantom Menace" with Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor was a huge risk. Nobody knew if the audience would accept a "Star Wars" without Han Solo and the Millennium Falcon.

George Lucas decided he wanted to take a long break from the mega-picture business. He earned a cool billion dollars from "The Phantom Menace" and invested (some)(most) of it in a new home for LucasFilm, (the Presidio overlooking the Bay Bridge) equipment, salaries, a couple of Lamborghinis, etc.

His advisors (not sure which one or ones) suggested taking "Star Wars" into television. George decided to start with animation. He assumed that CBS, NBC and Fox would bid against each other for the right to show a genuine, authentic "Star Wars" animated show on Saturday mornings. Unfortunately, the networks had rented out their entire Saturday morning time slot to companies that produced their own cartoons and sold their own advertisting, and paying top-dollar for "The Clone Wars" would have required too much re-structuring.

The only TV outlet willing to pay big for "The Clone Wars" animated series was Warner Bros. And their condition was, "We want a "Star Wars" movie released in theaters with a WB logo instead of Twentieth-Century Fox." No one at LucasFilm thought the cartoon show would work on the big screen, but "The WB" said, "That's the ONLY way we'll buy Clone Wars for The Cartoon Network."

The characters were designed for Saturday morning TV. They met a budget. The theatrical release was an up-front investment with the hope of selling ten years of series and DVDs. If Fox had shown any interest in "Star Wars," it would have gone there.

I think George would have thanked you not to review it.

Ebert: This is very useful. Thanks for it. You seem to be informed about everything.

This is great! On the count of three, everybody boooooooo.

For me, "The Hangover" was a one-star picture - pure junk. So was "Pineapple Express". This is comedy? No, this is ten year old writing. So was "Hellboy II," "Fallen", "Quantum of Solace" and just last night "Adoration" (even great directors can make terrible films). I don't understand how critics can embrace so much garbage. "Star Trek" gets one and a half - a happy meal product made by committee, dumbed down and sexed-up for the even stupider ADD generation (same thing with Bond). "Iron Man" gets two - also crap (the terrorism section was stereotypical, unforgivable shmaltz). "Slumdog Millionare" gets two for selling out a culture: 'I want to make a movie about poverty in India... but not really.' Will it inspire people to help India? The film is not socially conscious or heart felt. Really offensive when you think about it. Just because it's made in Indian and shot on digital with unknown actors doesn't mean it's an independant film: Hollywood just moved it's crap to India and made it on the cheap. It's called outsourcing. "Passion of the Christ" gets one for being heavy-handed, disgusting, completely literal-minded, racist, dangerous and hurtful: technically it may not be the worst, but it's the only film that made me want to vomit because it's so 'off', so misguided, so wrong in it's entire conception. It's one of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure of experiencing. Worst of the decade so far:

1. The Passion of the Christ
2. Hostel
3. Tideland
4. Lady in the Water
5. The Happening
6. Battlefield Earth
7. The Wicker Man
8. Alexander
9. Vanilla Sky
10. Hannibal

On a positive note::::: "Up" gets four. What a wonderful movie. I go to the movies once a week, at least, and this is the best film, animated or otherwise, I've seen this year. I don't anticipate they'll be much better, though I really want to see Michael Haneke's new film, Almodovar's new one, Tarantino's, Scorsese's.

[b]Nick Said: Shyamalan's last three films.[/b]

I agree and I am really worried about Shyamalan because here is a talented director who's first three films were superb but after that just seem to get worse and worse and worse. I pray that he will have a return to form because if he doesn't, his reputation is going to prevent him from getting the chance to direct.

I would have to add "The Dark Knight" to this list as the most overrated, underachiever of last year. I didn't particularly like "Batman Begins", but I went to see this, mostly because of the raves I heard for Heath Ledger's performace as the Joker. I guess if talking through your nose and licking your lips a lot is what you need to win an Oscar, then he deserved it. But Christian Bayle's Donald Duck impression impressed me not at all. The guy only seems to have two expressions, dazed and confused. And what the HELL is Morgan Freeman doing in this movie? There already was an Alfred -- did we need another one?
Yeah, I can already feel the flames.
The two best movies I saw last year were "Iron Man" and "Let The Right One in". Two directors who loved their material so much they spent the time and effort to do it right, rather than rush it through with loud music and explosions to cover the lack of substance.

Like many people, I get a kick out of reacting opposite of the critics or public to movies. Mr. Ebert, your review of Transformers 2 made me smile with glee, I might hate it yet, but your points against the film showed me that it contains exactly what I want from it. Loud, long and incomprehensible.

Also, I recently watched "Breech" and "Phone Booth". The former a well regarded "smart film for adults" and the later a 30 year old B movie script made and shelved for years. Guess which one was melodramatic, poorly acted and completely uninspired?

Meanwhile, "Phone Booth" was glorious fun, directed at a pace that created tension and a nearly transcendent involvement for a willing audience.

Taking in mind to need to over praise and over critique movies that one feels opposite about, I still say "Breech" sucked and "Phone Booth" was awesome.

The worst of the worst must, without the slightest of doubt, be the films of German director Uli Lommel – I know I should feel bad for writing "films" when I have only watched one, Zodiac Killer, but that movie is so awfully bad expecting something better would be like asking an apple tree to grow pears – only one of his 30 movies has a rating above 6 on imdb and 14 of them have a rating below 2.

Lommel also has the bad habit of giving his movies titles similar to Hollywood productions, his Black Dahlia was released less than a month after the Harnett/Johansson version and he also released another Zodiac movie the same year Fincher's Zodiac premiered.

Here's the trailer for Zodiac Killer, which makes the movie look way better than it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U53_EWZtnA&feature=channel

The trailer to Lommel's Killer Nurse is much closer to the unpolished truth of Lommel's movies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoGgDZ0oCWY&feature=channel_page

I have two questions:
1. Why is it more fun to read a review of a terrible movie than of a great one?

2. Do you and Chaz disagree on many movies?

I ask from experience.
My wife and I saw "Beloved" together. I could not believe we had seen the same movie after we walked out. I thought it was one of the most depressing things ever put on screen. She thought it was great. The opposite happened when we watched "Seven." Her favorite movie is "The World According to Garp," which bores me. I love "Goodfellas" and "Casino," which she appreciates as good movies, but won't watch again because of excessive violence. We agree more than we disagree, I think. Sometimes it's frustrating, though.

By the way, "North" ranks up there as one of the worst movies I've ever endured. "The Last Action Hero" was godawful. "The Good Son" made me wonder if Child Protective Services should have be contacted about Macauly Culkin's parents' decision to put him in that movie.

Amanda S said: "Here's the trailer for Zodiac Killer, which makes the movie look way better than it is"

Please don't mistake "Zodiac Killer" with David Fincher's great "Zodiac" with Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. The latter is a great crime procedural that deals in characters and details. I seriously recommend it, it is a great lost treasure.

I loved BTVOTD. It used the word "Fealty." I love Sondheim for the same reason. "Perspicacity", "Ecdysiast" just to name a couple of words that I can sink my teeth into.
Roger, did you ever see Sondheim's "the Last of Sheila?" I really liked it.
Robert

I am a fan of the big summer movies, I enjoy a good explosion once in a while, BUT I want some idea of a plot. However, I had $6.00 burning in my pocket, so I went to see "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." The first hour alone was absolute garbage.....terrible acting, terrible writing, poorly staged action sequences. And I LOVED the orginal film and am a fan of the toy line. I understand that Michael Bay will never direct a drama, but still, there's got to be a point where something in his head says "ENOUGH!!!"...but I guess if you require things to be "Awesome"...well...and seriously...what is the deal with the "homages" to his past work in the film....The metero attack from "armageddon", the sinming ships of "Pearl Harbor", clearly a man in love with his own creations.

Joshua S said: "'Phone Booth' was glorious fun, directed at a pace that created tension and a nearly transcendent involvement for a willing audience."

I don't know, I found the movie to be a better concept than an actual story. The idea of a guy in the sniper scope while he's on a payphone is an interesting idea but I think that about midway through it runs out of ingenuity and the third act kind of drags.

I actually really enjoyed "Step Brothers." I'd grown weary of Will Ferrell's shtick recently, and have actually grown to prefer John C. Reilly's comic timing (I'd argue that "Dewey Cox" was better than most of the Apatow-produced comedies in the last couple years). I didn't like "Anchorman" or "Talladega Nights" very much, so I went into this one with low expectations.

Pairing them together in an R-rated film just worked quite well. They play off each other perfectly and are aided by a wonderful supporting cast. It isn't high art and it often relies upon obvious humour, but I thought the execution was perfect, and the rating gave them the ability to be a bit more open than in their other more calculated comedies. Something about seeing Ferrell and Reilly excitedly building bunk-beds and then crying when it falls apart cracked me up.

The rest of the films I agree with, or at least those that I have seen. I watched parts of "The Spirit" and it was almost deliberately disastrous. I can't imagine that it wasn't purposefully awful. The film encapsulated every bad aspect of Samuel L. Jackson acting. He can be great with the right material, but also hammy and repetitive with a lesser work.

"The Love Guru" was so hard to watch that I turned it off after 25 minutes and deleted it from my computer. "Fast & Furious" was just really boring -- I never cared much for any of the films, but have always sorta liked Vin Diesel, so I gave it a chance. And it just wasn't fun at all. I struggle to find frenetic car chases engaging or entertaining.

The worst movie I remember seeing part of was "The Class of '44" which was the sequel to "The Summer of '42." The only time our group ever walked out of a theater. It was so boring.

What discussion of bad movies would be complete without a nod to the collective filmography of prolific "spoof"-sters, Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Their careers is really something of a marvel. They've acted as writers/directors for four supposed comedies in the past three years (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie) and not once in any of those films is there anything approaching a joke. And three of them were huge box office hits. Rob Schineder's excruciating shtick in The Hot Chick or Duece Bigelow movies may be painful to sit through, but at least he threw himself into the ring and tried to be funny. It was crude in every sense of the word, but it was at least an attempt. Friedberg and Seltzer don't even do that much. They're of the opinion that if you want to spoof soomething, all you have to do is make a reference to it. Remind the audience of something recent that they are familiar with. Done.

Example: Early on in Disaster Movie the characters are celebrating a party. One of the party goers has already crashed out on the sofa. Another character is attempting to do the "putting the hand in warm water to make they sleeping guy wet himself" trick. In pops an Anton Chugurh-lookalike. He says, "call it, friendo" and flips a coin. He then pulls out the air-compressed cattle gun and pegs the guy square in the forehead. And then.....that's it. Next scene. No ironic twist. no exagerrated angle. No satirical edge. What Friedberg and Seltzer did was take a famous scene from a recent movie, and put it in theirs. Anton Chigurh plugs a guy in the head. Ha, ha, ha. Get it?

And when they're not passing off pop cultural references as parody, they're mercilessly padding out their movie with endless dance offs or cat fights. They like those because the choreographer can take over and buy the filmmakers a few minutes of screen time in which they don't have to bother filling with actual material. Which is why in a movie that purports to be a parody of the disaster genre do we have a three-minute scene where Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City (played by a man in drag) dukes it out with Juno (whose unborn fetus slips out of her uterus to deliver a roundhouse kick). Add to that another three minute cat fight between Carmen Electra and Kim Kardashian, an endless High School Musical number, an dance-off competition against the princess from Enchanted, a pathetic martial arts fight against Kung Fu Panda (high schools have dressed up their mascots in more convincing costumes). None of these have anything to do with parody or comedy. These scenes exist to help Friedberg and Seltzer creak their movies out to just past the hour mark. Then come the twenty minute end credits sequence. You read that right. The ending credits for their movies last twenty minutes. They slowly lumber along at a snail's pace, filled out with about ten minutes worth of outtakes, i.e. material that is worse that is in the actual movie. Personally, I call that a scam. Not much better than a fake rolex. Charging moviegoers full price and then only delivering a fraction of a movie.

Watching a Friedberg-Seltzer movie is a maddeningly surreal experience. It's like dividing by zero. There's no coherency or continuity. There is no consistency among the characters because there was no dialogue written for them. (The actors improvised their lines on the spot.) Nothing that happens has anything to do with what came before or will follow. I can imagine the entire production process consisting of the cast and crew scrambling around doing their jobs while these two hucksters sit back, take some bong hits and crack each other up with "remember that movie when such-and-such happens?"

Say what you will about Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, or even Ed Wood for that matter. They're bad storytellers, yes, but they put forth the efforts. They tried. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer represent Hollywood at its cynical worst. The "we don't care. You know we don't care. But we're trying to sucker you anwyway" Hollywood. There are thousands of struggling filmmakers who toil away years of their life for their love of the craft, and most of those will never get their big break. Any one of them could have done a better job with the millions that studios threw at these two for something a fourth-grader could have written.

The most gawd-awful, horrible movie ever was Starship Troopers. I still joke that my husband owes me after dragging me to this extravaganza of bad acting! I wasted 100 minutes on this drek. I think he owes me a Mama Mia viewing!

I also hated Benjamin Button. Boring, boring, boring!

Okay, now that I've gotten my Friedberg-Seltzer rant out of my system, here are a few more bad movies:

The Room - Indie drama by John Cassavetes wannabe, Tommy Wiseau. The trailer makes comparisons to Tennessee Williams, but really, the Strangers from Dark City had better insight into human nature. This film has been gaining in cult status and is receiving the Rocky Horror audience participation treatment in some theaters.

Dungeons and Dragons - One for my "so bad it's good" catalogue. As ridiculous as movies get. Marlon Wayns out-Jar Jar's Jar Jar Binks in a pathetic, simpering comic relief turn. Jeremy Irons' scene chewing reaches such orgasmic levels, I want to call whomever was caterer on that set to find out what he was having.

Pearl Harbor - Michael Bay's ADD filming style was the least of the movie's crimes. Turning a sorrowful national tragedy into a half-assed plot device is an insult. Those who complained that Titanic had the worst love triangle in movie history should be forced to watch this movie as punishment.

Patch Adams - Ye Gods, how I loathe this abomination. One of the most unbearably smug movie heroes in recent memory. (I was thrilled to read the real Patch Adams hated it.) I disliked him as much as I have some of Hollywood's most notorious screen villains. The movie even bought a modicum of good will when Phillip Seymour Hoffman calls him out on his inexcusable unprofessionalism, but then squanders it by having him need Patch to help him "win over" a stubborn patient in the very next scene. And that's what makes him so unbearble. His cloying persistance that pateints are to be "won over" not tended to. Give me Dr Kevorkian any day.

The English Patient - The movie that made me realize that the Oscars were a joke and no longer worth my time. Is there anybody on this planet who honestly thinks this movie was better than Fargo? But it's not fair to compare this empty shell of pretty pictures with that masterpiece, so discussing The English Patient on its own merits, whenever I think of that movie I gjnbguhjnbgyhjnbgyhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...uh...wha what? Oh, I'm sorry I nodded off. Sorry about that. Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. Thats right. The English Pathgftyjdfftyhgftyhglkjfyhggggggggggggggggggggg

RE: Benjamin Button. Perhaps ten minutes in, I was lamenting the fact that I do not wear a watch, and that I was too chicken-sh*t to turn on my cell phone. Roughly one hour later, I was staring at the ceiling, and off to the side of the screen to see if there were any rips in the curtains. Some time after that, I walked out. To my astonishment, I found that I had labored through a little over two hours, and laughed all the way home that I couldn't even manage to squeak out the last forty-five minutes.

Benjamin Button is, without a doubt, one of the most interminably boring movies ever made about one of cinema's dullest protagonists. It was a painful experience; still is, even think about it. Ouch.

Recently I have been watching a lot of documentaries and I came across This Film is Not Yet Rated. Noticing that a lot of commentary came from John Waters,I figured "Hey, I thought Hairspray was pretty good" so I decided to tap into his other films. Pink Flamingos was unbearable and deserved it's 0 star rating, however I can see how some might like it as a cult film. I figured that I should watch some more from him because it might be a fluke. Then there was a film by him called "Female Trouble" and it was so disgusting and volatile that I could not finish it. Some films are capable of making disgusting images cohesive with the film, but this was just filth.

1. i despise any movie in which we are introduced to an interesting character and then view that person's life to a point at which the writer no longer knew what to do, so that character must then die. ie: beaches, terms of endearment, the bucket list, love story, et al. i haven't seen, nor will i see marley and me, but that probably fits the bill, as well as my sister's keeper, but i'm only guessing. i sent this in for the movie glossary, but i don't think it passed the judge's/judges' approval.

B. the cover of your movie sucks is perfect!

how about White Noise(2005)? that movie really tanked, but my friend loves it for some reason. what's your opinion, if you have seen it

I am kind of alone in my dislike for "Wanted". I thought it was a loud, nihlistic, unpleasant picture that hardly even needed Angelina Jolie. She just stands around for most of the film looking dolled-up and hardly says a word. She is too intelligent an actress to be used like that.

The night that I saw this movie, I was catching up with the Oscar nominees and by chance I also saw "Changling". That movie proves what she can do as an actress. "Wanted" was a waste of her time and talent.

The worst movie I have paid money to see was "Eyes Wide Shut." A movie so bad that I vowed never to watch a Kubrick movie again, a vow I have kept including the movie "A.I." since it was associated with him.
I am always amused when someone will tell me that "I did not get the movie or I did not understand what so-and-so director was going for", to which I find the comment very offensive and elitist. Well with "Eyes Wide Shut" I tell people to read Nathaniel Hawthorne's "My Kinsman, Major Molineux" to get a true perspective of what Kubrick was trying to do and failing on every level.
If you want to use it for film students as an example for lighting then it works but as a movie, no. A much better example is Orson Welles "The Trial."

Fincher was the real star of Ben Button. He's reached the stature where the deft compositional hand he brings to his projects is the main attraction. By all accounts, Zodiac was a nondescript serial killer project that misrepresented the reality of the true-life events that transpired for the sake of cheap scares until he became attached and turned the police procedural on its head with scientific factual detail and classification-defying structuring.

As an exercise in soothing technical sumptuousness, CCBB succeeded remarkably. I think the main attraction for him with the project was succeeding where everybody else failed with the daunting technical difficulty posed by having a single actor emody a character throughout the entire sweep of an inverse life cycle.

It wasn't a perfect scipt but I'd argue it was presented as best as directorially possible. I don't get why the same people who in my opinion went over the top in trashing Button for coming up short narratively were totally onboard with Slumdog, which featured a romance that was much more half-baked and a story conceit of all the questions coinciding with the kid's miserable childhood that was much more contrived. Perhaps this was a situation of the former being victimized by unreasonable expectations as the Oscar bait release of the holiday season and the latter capitalizing on the fact that it totally flew under the radar until its first festival appearance when it knocked socks off and planted the seeds of the perception that you had to love it if you professed to be a movie buff.

Hello Roger,
I really try to agree with most of your reviews, but sometimes it seems as if you show a certain bias to some directors. For example, You rarely gave Tim Burton or David Lynch a fair shake. If I remember correctly, You said in your review of
Tim Burton's Batman that Pee Wee Herman is the most complex character in his films. Why? Edward Scissorhands, Batman, and Beetlejuice were ( in my opinion ) great and fun to watch. Also, I recently read your review of Wolf Creek, and although I do agree it wasn't a great movie, You said there was no need for this type of violence in film in other words. Yet Goodfellas and Casino had just as much ( if not more violence ) in them. Agreed that they are far and away better than Wolf Creek, if Scorcese had directed Wolf Creek would you have given it 4 stars? My opinion is that some movies need graphic violence in them to make them believable. Without it, Wolf Creek would be non-existant.

avoid any movie (but buy the poster) in which the trailer includes a slow-motion shot of a costumed female character falling from a great height and landing in a semi-split, one leg extended sideways and the other bent beneath her.

Jerry Roberts said: Please don't mistake "Zodiac Killer" with David Fincher's great "Zodiac" with Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr.

That's exactly the point – if you read on the imdb boards of Lommel's Zodiac movies you'll notice how many people who rented/bought them just because they confused them with Fincher's film. It's just a foul attempt to make a profit of somebody elses hard work by using a similar title on a god-awful, super cheap stinker. He did exactly the same thing with The Black Dahlia as well.

I have to agree with Jerry Roberts about "Benjamin Button." It was interminable and so badly written. As my husband said about the plot" "To what end?" Indeed. This film wasted almost three hours of my life I'll never get back.

Someone above mentioned Clifford and honestly as a kid watching, I thought he was some sort of man-child and not an actual 10 year old. Under that premise, I think the movie works, barely, but it works.
But Martin Short playing a 10 year old. That's just creepy.

The Room is a masterstroke of inept filmmaking. It's a finger painting of a drama and ever minute shows. It's loud, overdramatic, and poorly acted. It's a hoot.

Amanda S said: "That's exactly the point – if you read on the imdb boards of Lommel's Zodiac movies you'll notice how many people who rented/bought them just because they confused them with Fincher's film. It's just a foul attempt to make a profit of somebody elses hard work by using a similar title on a god-awful, super cheap stinker. He did exactly the same thing with The Black Dahlia as well."

I know, I just want to make sure that no one gets the two mixed up. One ("Zodiac") is an excellent crime procedural and the other is cheap Z-grade exploitation.

Wicker Man with Nicholas Cage was a great bad movie. Here's a couple comedies that got bad reviews that I watch regularly and love- Drowning Mona (great cast including Danny Devito and Bette Midler) and Step Brothers.

What is it about certain movies that the more you watch them the more it grows on you? Anchorman is probably the most obvious and also Cable Guy and Step Brothers.

Sue from Seattle wrote: "The most gawd-awful, horrible movie ever was Starship Troopers. I still joke that my husband owes me after dragging me to this extravaganza of bad acting! I wasted 100 minutes on this drek. I think he owes me a Mama Mia viewing!"

Here is a perfect example. I saw this movie as a teenager, but having seen Reifenstal (sorry spell check) movies and learned about the Nazi's I recognized what Verhovan (sorry again) was doing. To this day I still think it's one of the most biting and sly war satires of the last few decades. "Three Kings" and others get mentioned most, but for my money "Starship Troopers" and "Lord Of War" really nailed it.

And I still can not sit through "Saving Private Ryan". I can't even enjoy it as a rainy day cable action movie, some of it is so over the top rah rah. "Starship Troopers" destroys subtlety and still few get it, "Saving Private Ryan" assumes class, but really is full of cheap emotional thrills and people eat it up as brilliance.

Around the time that "Ghost Rider" came out, I had a horrendous day. To commiserate, one of my friends took me out for drinks, and I ended up getting extremely buzzed. Not wanting to go home, I insisted on going to the movies. It was late, and only a late night showing of that movie was available. So we went. I'm still not sure if it depressed me even more or cheered me up knowing that no matter how bad my day had been, I didn't make this movie.

Thankfully, no one else was in the theater so my friend and I could exclaim loudly. It is perhaps the worse movie I've ever seen: overblown, clumsy, laughable. I'm still not sure why we didn't leave. Morbid curiously? Stubbornness? Inability to look away from a train wreck?

Recently, I watched a Canadian movie named "Lilies" which is a travesty. None of the characters are developed or did things that made much sense. The end of the plot is known from the beginning, and it's so simple that it just doesn't hold up on its own and definitely not without strong characters. The artistry is gimmicky and overshadows the story. The entire production holds the audience at arm's length and sets itself up as a tale of passion and betrayal intellectually told, yet it collapses under it's own artistry and sense of self. It failed for the same reason as "The Painted Veil" which has no heart or soul despite it's technical beauty.

Also, "Clifford" is pretty bad. My family still makes fun of my brother for renting it.

Anonymous said: "Someone above mentioned Clifford and honestly as a kid watching, I thought he was some sort of man-child and not an actual 10 year old. Under that premise, I think the movie works, barely, but it works. But Martin Short playing a 10 year old. That's just creepy."

That was me. That movie was a complete mystery, how in the world anyone thought that Martin Short looked funny in that get-up or that this movie would work as a comedy is beyond me. I saw "Clifford" for free and I STILL wanted my money back!

i'm growing annoyed with movies that are glorifying violence and showing criminals as attractive and "cool" characters. i haven't seen public enemy, and likely i won't. too many movies have had an underlying message that says, "hey! want to be cool, get lots of women/girls, and have a pocket packed with cash? then join me in a life of crime!" even though most of the criminals in these types of movies will meet a violent and painful death, young people are not going to think that far ahead. they're going to focus on the 119 minutes of shooting, spending, laughing, womanizing, and just living it up. i can't tell you how many kids i see with t-shirts of tony montana or the underground slogan "get rich or die tryin'." that was a movie too, all about thug life, and the thug character is still going strong as a rapper and millionaire.

i realize you can have a good story and a good film about a criminal, but that doesn't mean it's a good way for young people at risk to spend two hours.

Amanda S said: "He did exactly the same thing with The Black Dahlia as well."

"The Black Dahlia" was an overwritten mess. Instead of dealing with the Elizabeth Short story and the investigation into her murder, Josh Friedman's screenplay is a mish-mash of tabloid nonsense that tries to delve into the personal problems of the two men conducting the investigation. The film played at a harried pace and moves away from the murder case so often that you almost forget the murder. The third act of the movie is a mess, as it tries to recall how the murder took place and the people involve it becomes a bizarre freakshow. What a waste.

Between Step-Brothers and Semi-Pro, I'm amazed Ferrell is still headlining movies. I think his Land of the Lost flopped, so maybe he'll be forced into supporting roles in comedies not tailored to his talents - such as they are. Either way, I don't have to see his movies, so it's really his business. But I think it would be good for the culture if he were Lohaned.

Also, and maybe this is movie snobbish, but there's a certain sort of thread common to movie messageboards, wherein the first poster will say, "What movie do you think is overrated?" and then people fall all over themselves in a race to prove who has the worst taste. Seeing someone bash Pineapple Express, or defend The Bucket List or Benjamin Button (the bucket movie especially - i mean it seems like something that, at most, you find it to be innocuous - i can't imagine feeling enough about it to take the step of sticking up for it), I knew - here is the same thing.

Seriously tho, avoid the Will Ferrell movies. Life is so precious and so short...

Roger,

Here's the first paragraph of my own review for last summer's The House Bunny. I don't know if you've seen it, but it definitely deserves to be on a bad movie list. I awarded it only one star.

The House Bunny is a giddy, girlish daydream that doesn't have two gray cells to rub together within its platinum blonde head. Pretty much as the ads promised. Of course, the fact that it's true to itself doesn't make it worth recommending. If that were all that mattered, I'd be giving out a lot more four-star ratings. There's nothing redeeming about an intentionally bubble-headed movie, especially when it's at pains to tell us (1) that it's a comedy, and (2) that the title character is dumb. We don't need wall-to-wall jokes about a young, sexy blonde not being able to pronounce "philanthropy" or thinking that the question, "Who are you voting for?" somehow relates to American Idol. And we certainly don't need to see her fail at trying to be smart. It's all so obvious and overplayed that it actually sidesteps being funny and stumbles into a sinkhole of monotony. It's not that this movie is offensive or vulgar—it's just plain boring.

I can't believe no one has mentioned Roger's review of "Jaws: The Revenge" as it is hands down the funniest and most devastating review of any movie I have ever seen. This is but a fraction of it:

Here are some things, however, that I do not believe: That Mrs. Brody could be haunted by flashbacks to events where she was not present and that, in some cases, no survivors witnessed. That the movie would give us one shark attack as a dream sequence, have the hero wake up in a sweat, then give us a second shark attack, and then cut to the hero awake in bed, giving us the only thing worse than the old "it's only a dream" routine, which is the old "is it a dream or not?" routine. That Mrs. Brody would commandeer a boat and sail out alone into the ocean to sacrifice herself to the shark, so that the killing could end. That Caine's character could or would crash-land his airplane at sea so that he and two other men could swim to Mrs. Brody's rescue. That after being trapped in a sinking airplane by the shark and disappearing under the water, Caine could survive the attack, swim to the boat, and climb on board - not only completely unhurt but also wearing a shirt and pants that are not even wet. That the shark would stand on its tail in the water long enough for the boat to ram it. That the director, Joseph Sargent, would film this final climactic scene so incompetently that there is not even an establishing shot, so we have to figure out what happened on the basis of empirical evidence.

Thanks for your work Roger, it makes me smile.

Also, agree with the guy who went after Saving Private Ryan above. Recently re-watched it, and it doesn't quite work. It's like Spielberg filmed every cliche he could think of - the New York wiseguy reminiscing about a hot girl - but it's only funny for a second, then it's very very poignant; the sensitive medic reminiscing about the times he pretended to be asleep, and missed seeing his mother - whose last words are then, "Momma, momma..." - I mean it's just bad. Besides being shameless propaganda, the whole thing is, moment by moment, insincere and inauthentic. Which is funny when you consider how lauded it was for the authenticity of its battle scenes. I think it actually just makes the movie work less well, that in between these great battle scenes (and even within the battle scenes, in the character moments) we have Spielberg and his screenwriters giving us these postcard personalities. I mean we're shown a half hour at Omaha Beach, we're into it, it's authentic-seeming, then someone hands Adam Goldberg a Hitler Youth knife they found and he breaks down crying because he's Jewish, and his fellow soldiers stand there watching him, feeling his pain. I mean are you kidding me? They just stormed the beach!

And so on.

There's also the lingering question of why Spielberg included two Playboy Bunny-looking girls in the opening and closing parts with the old man. Were we really meant to be lusting after girls in the background while this old man sat by a grave crying? You're better than that, Spielberg.

@Roger

Roger I dunno if you've ever seen it, but I recently saw and was just amazed by a William Wyler movie called Dodsworth. From the 30s, stars Walter Huston, plays with a maturity few films until the 70s would have again. If you saw it - or saw it again - I bet you'd Great Movie it. It really packs a wallop. Kind of a lost film, unfortunately.

The three really bad movies that I have in my collection that I will watch again are "Mommie Dearest", "Children of the Corn" and "Porky's".

"Mommie Dearest" was an absolute train wreck but I was entertained seeing this train wreck develop that it is facinating to me. The on-going storyline of Joan Crawford being an annoying loud bitch screaming about wire hangers, Christina cries and becomes stubborn at her mom and then Joan tries to out do Christina and then that repeats throughout. Watching Faye Dunaway overact in every scene is why this movie has a place in my heart as entertaining dreck. Then there's "Children of The Corn" it's so absolutely goof ball and corny that I'm laughing and it the entire time despite the horror elements. I'll pop this in late at night as I have to work all night for a deadline and I'll watch or listen to it as white noise to keep my brain occupied at the task at hand. Finally, there's Porky's where you can tell these guys look like they're almost ready to cash in on Social Security and some of the scenes where they are laughing in the scene to get the audience to laugh was tedious. It's so bad that it actually becomes funny to watch as I can lampoon every flaw in the movie, which in itself becomes stimulating entertainment.

I'll close to a movie that opened my first experiences of adult life and to start my cyncial adolescence and made me realize to some extent that Howard Beale was right and it's balderdash. That movie was "North". I was 12-13 at the time when the movie came out and I had saved my money from good grade and chores to finally go out to the movies by myself and pick out something for myself. I heard about "North" and I had high hopes because it was done by the guy who did "The Princess Bride" damn, was I disappointed. I actually walked out of the theater befuddled and depressed as to what I just wasted my hard earned money to see. That the very first movie I saw by myself, proud to be a growing mature adolescence became the absolute worst movie I've ever seen in my life. Sure there will be some close runner-ups such as "Mission to Mars", "Snake Eyes" and "Crash" but "North" will be in my heart, scratch that in my salivary glands as a movie that I would want to spit on its grave.

Ebert: I love the way this thread is turning into a hit parade of readers' bad movies.

I actually enjoyed, "The Class of 1944." It had John Candy in it.
It was a bit funny and very nostalgical. I admit, it was not as good as, "The Summer of 42'." I liked Benji, Hermie and Oscy. I thout that they were cool people. And they were not Skanky! I did not see so many films, because I do not like people like Will Ferrell and Rob Schnieder and Adam Sandler. Can you say, annoying, boys and girls? That's good I knew that you could. I also love old Murder Mysteries, The Thin Man, Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan. Thank you,very much.

One of my favorite moments in bad movie history.

Wesley Snipes makes a pet project, about a black super hero, and it is a super success. Then he gets Mr. Del Toro to direct the sequel and it is even better. Then the studio takes over and "Blade 3" stars Ryan Reynolds and Jessica Beil and some other guy names Wesley. They hand the directors chair to a guy who has NEVER MADE A MOVIE!?!?!? and who shoots actions scenes like a tv show on fast forward.

Long story short, Wesley has a look on his face, nearly through the whole movie, that says "I might kill this smart ass white boy".

I felt the same way and to this day I can't stand Ryan Reynolds. He is like a plague on movies.

One of the stupidest films I've ever seen was a picture called "Rapa Nui", about the early natives of Easter Island and their tradition of having a bizarre footrace between the young island men to become the master of the tribe. I could deal with that but the movie presents the race like some bizarre Japanese game show, the contestants have to steal a bird's egg and then (and I am NOT making this up) have to run back with it tied to their forehead.

This is one of those movies in which the island scenery is not enough for the filmmakers, they have to pack the frame with more topless women than a nudist colony because it distracts you from the dialogue which sounds like it came from a bad cartoon.

Ebert: I'm fond of my review:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19940930/REVIEWS/409300301/1023

here is a poem (roughly made) I made about how much I disliked Transformers 2:

Revenge of Omegatron (PG-13)

by:Roman Marr-Clark

"let's watch a movie"

"oh, such fun"

"i think the good guys
have it won"

"omegatron,
is this the end?"

"now hold on boy
we must pretend
that this whole mess
was worth a watch"

(while micheal bay is
chugging scotch)

"now megan fox,
bend over more,
glance over like
a little -"

"War!!!
but micheal bay,
before we start,
how do we tell
ourselves apart?"

"hell, i dont know
just kick some ass!
i learned this all in
film class
now shia, try to
look confused
and megan, well,
i'll let you choose
now guys, i'll tell you,
i'm so proud
this movie is
so freaking loud!
and jar-jar aint
got jack on me:
the idiot twins
just made me pee-
but wait up there
it's way too short
i'll have to add
a new cohort -
The Fallen Turd
will be his name"

PG-13

(that's not insane)

"i know this isn't
oscar fluff
but entertaining,
awesome stuff"

and many watch it
with dismay
we owe it all
to Mr. Bay
for screwing up
our cinemas
what good has this
film done for us?
omegatron, you've
doomed us all
more stupid sequels,
not a stall

omegatron:

"I'ts not my fault
I shouted 'stop,
hold on and halt!'
They'll never learn
and this is why:
'newfilm in2012'
the end is nigh"

What happened to Brian Depalma? Black Dahlia was so bad it was embarrassing? Hilary Swank didnt look anything like the girl and Scarlett Johansan seems to be cast in anything that calls for someone attractive. What a terrible movie.

Some movies are almost purposely bad. "Meet Dave" made "Pluto Nash" seem interesting and funny. What happened to Eddie Murphy? Is it possible to not be funny after being the funniest man in the world?
"Untraceable" was the worst movie of last year. Halfway through the movie I wanted to call social services on Diane Lane. Your daughter lost her father...SHE NEEDS YOU HOME, NOT OUT CHASING INTERNET KILLERS!

Rapa Nui sounds like a shoe in for Great Movie status now that plenty consider your reputation tarnished based on Transformers 2, Obama, and Fox News.

Forgive me if you've already answered this question, but how do you distinguish between a one-star movie and a one-and-a-half-star movie?

Eddie Murphy must own the longest string of stupidest movies back to back to back ever! No one expected his edgy Buckwheat forever, and he did a fantastic turn in "Dreamgirls", but he really needs to surgically remove the elephant dung meter stuck in his head skewing his "star" projects.

2009 has really stunk so far for movies. I have seen some really awful films: My bloody Valentine 3D, Friday the 13th remake, Drag Me To Hell, Transformers 2. These are really bad! And now that I look at the films I just admitted I saw and in the theater, I think to myself, "Of course they are bad!" But you know it's a weak year when the best films I have seen all year are I Love You, Man and The Hangover.

The Room - Indie drama by John Cassavetes wannabe, Tommy Wiseau. The trailer makes comparisons to Tennessee Williams, but really, the Strangers from Dark City had better insight into human nature. This film has been gaining in cult status and is receiving the Rocky Horror audience participation treatment in some theaters.

Re-reading my ealier comment, I didn't even begin to do justice to what a mesmerizing trainwreck this movie is. Tommy Wiseau is either the most incompetent would-be auteur to try his luck with a camera, or he's a demented genius. The main character, Johnny (played by Wiseau under his own direction and screenplay), is the most unique creation: a whiny, neurotic mess with a shaggy mane and an unplaceable Eurotrash accent who regards human nature as if it was an alien concept. Imagine if a character from a David Lynch movie stumbled into bad dinner theater.

Experiencing this movie is like watching Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos: Hands of Fate for the first time. You can sense the good intentions of the filmmakers, but can only assume it's buried there somewhere underneath the many layers of failure. To his credit, Wiseau has a sense of humor about the whole thing and is now re-marketing his film as a black comedy. Was it intentional or not? If you dare enter The Room, you can see clips of it here and here.

"What happened to Brian Depalma? Black Dahlia was so bad it was embarrassing? Hilary Swank didnt look anything like the girl and Scarlett Johansan seems to be cast in anything that calls for someone attractive. What a terrible movie."

Hilary Swank didn't play Elizabeth Short, that was Mia Kirshner.

You are right though, I think DePalma has lost his touch. I haven't really enjoyed his work since "Wise Guys" back in '86. Though Haven't seen "Femme Fatale".

I really liked Jarmusch's "Limits of Control." He's absolutely uninterested in doing a movie in anything but his own way, zero compromises, and I think that makes him not only one of the more valuable filmmakers working today but also one of the most pure. Like Herzog, Lynch, Bresson, Mamet, Bergman, Jarmusch's style is wholly unique, sometimes confounding and almost always fascinating. His choices can be strange but they're also charged with feeling, emotion, subconscious meaning. "Limits" is like a spy thriller that takes place entirely within the collective human unconscious.

Could anyone watch "Even Dwarfs Started Small" once and feel so confident in their understanding of it that they wouldn't have to watch it again (…and again…and again…)? I don't think so, and I feel the same way about all of Jarmusch's work.

PS. Atom Egoyan was sitting a few rows in front of me when I saw "Limits." No relevancy, but I thought it was cool at the time.

I'm 13 years old and am a big movie fan. With a collection of over 400 dvd's, I know almost everything about every actor and director and how many awards that they have won. Roger Ebert is the best critic in this world and I just want him to know that I'm a very big fan and I hope you keep reviewing movies until you're one hundred years old.

Has no one mentioned "Congo"? There is not a single line of dialogue in this movie that is not a cliche. OK, I would watch it again (with the sound off) for Laura Linney. I'm glad that "Congo" didn't kill her career.

Ebert: You gotta love that martini-loving gorilla.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19950609/REVIEWS/506090301/1023

I forgot, movies I hate:

Sukiyaki Western Django (by far the worst theater-going experience I've ever had, such an incoherent, offensive mess)
You Got Served
Be Kind Rewind
Lost in Space
Predator 2 (except for the Danny Glover vs. Predator one-on-one at the end...that was pretty cool)
Midnight Express
Any movie that feels like it exists only to secure Oscar nominations (Frost/Nixon...Curious Case...The Reader...)

But the movies I hate most are movies like Body of Lies, that might be mature and adult in nature or appearance but are about so little they just become boring, impenetrable slogs.

Thanks, Mike L., for reminding me of the only time I ever HATED a movie that Mr. Ebert really liked (he gave it 3.5 stars) -- Eyes Wide Shut. I thought the movie was incredibly long and tedious. I also didn't buy the major premise of the movie: that the Tom Cruise character was made so jealous by his wife's story about a guy she had the hots for (but didn't do anything with), that he went into something of a tailspin. All of the hoopla when the movie came out was about the hot sex, and the sex wasn't even hot! The whole thing was a huge disappointment. I've watched the movie three times hoping that I would find the good in it, and I never do. Other than that, though, Ebert's never steered me wrong!

Ebert: Final warning:

Readers, this is your three-day warning to get those recipes in for the cookbook inspired by my entry "The Pot and How to Use It."

Here is your chance at gourmet immortality. Include your name and where you are. Just a first name or handle if you insist.

They can be amateur, seat-of-the-pants recipes. We will polish them up. You can just list the stuff that goes in and let me figure out how gto concert for the Pot.

I especially would like to hear from the many readers in India, South Korea, China, Japan, Chile, Argentina, Turkey, Germany, the UK, Ireland and Sweden. Also from Marie Haws.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/the_pot_and_how_to_use_it.html

Roger

Now someone is bashing Congo? Will the madness never cease?

Congo is a lotta fun. All I can really say in its defense is that I think it was supposed to be that way. I mean it's a movie about mythical killer gorillas, written by JP Shanley, and in the first scene, a mythical killer gorilla kills Bruce Campbell. By the time Tim Curry starts doing the accent, and Ernie Hudson helps the group survive a hippo attack, I think it should be evident we are not watching the most earnest attempt at filmmaking.

There, that is my 'defense of a bad movie.' Everyone gets one. I spent mine on Congo. Wise, unwise - who can say for sure.

Roger, I have sensitive hearing and a tendency to get severe migrains at loud clanking and rattling noises. I also have succumbed to vertigo during rapid movements on large movie screens. I enjoy movies that are thought provoking, thoughtful, subtle and plot proof. Should I go see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with my nephew this weekend?

Ebert: Only under a doctor's care.

I'm totally on board with Joshua S. above is his view of Starship Troopers. The film is a brilliant satire, and brimming with Verhoeven's typical bad taste and lack of concern over genuine characters (see Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Showgirls, Hollow Man, etc. etc. etc.). I found that in Black Book he tried to tone down his instincts too much and he missed the high bar of artful B-movies that he's achieved consistently through his career.

worst movie i ever saw would be. . . . . . . . . . you know what if it was that bad why would i remember it? eh maybe its because i see reruns of it on cable. anyway roger thank you so much for all those years of dedication to films. if i never read your reviews, i would have never discovered Raging Bull or Blackhawk Down. two films i hold very dearly in my memories. hey just a heads up, put street fighter legend of chung lee in this list. i'm sure you didn't see it but you just saved yourself alot of valuable time. my problems with those films is that they were based of videogames. you put it very clearly with terminator salvation on how it was made like one. honestly, i found more emotions when the first time i played E.T. the videogame. that made me cry because it was a piece of trash. my point is the two medias of entertainment almost never mix. they made the godfather 1 and 2 into a game. trust me buddy if you think that might make a game remotely interesting, you would be dead wrong. Steven spielberg has come into the game business and for now is doing some puzzle games which are more gamelike than movie. thats good, but if hes going to make an interactive,cinematic,story bound type game, he better see what happened to his indiana jones games. that is not how to use a liscense of an amazing movie franchise. whoops sorry i wrote to much on what i thought

Ebert: You gotta love that martini-loving gorilla.

I believe you mean....martini-loving gorilla with a voice modulator like the dogs from Up, so when the killer gorillas attack the heroes, he scolds them, "Bad Gorilla! Bad!

I've got another story, this time about the remake of The Wicker Man, a film I went into as a fan of Nicolas Cage and Neil Labute.

For those of you who haven't seen it, you absolutely must (or just YouTube the best moments, which someone was kind enough to compile into one video). It is a masterwork of so bad it's good cinema, but only in the last 45 minutes or so, when the film drops any pretense of being conventionally good and simply resorts to Nicolas Cage mugging furiously, wearing a bear suit, and drop kicking Leelee Sobieski into a wall. But I saw it opening night in theaters, and around the time that Cage's character punched a woman in the face, something happened. The entire audience started to laugh at the film. By the end, the audience was laughing, cheering, and yelling at the screen. I have never seen an audience at a film on opening night rebel so completely against a film while it was playing.
When the movie ended, the conversations were furious and heated. People were laughing and talking about how mad they were, that the trailers had led them to believe the film would be scary, and then they had been had. I was there with friends and we stood outside the theater having a cigarette with a few other people, and this woman who stopped and asked for a light told us "That was the biggest waste of money, but it was so much fun to see how everyone just started laughing at it." Sometimes movies can give us little joys like that, even if they suck.

For that matter, a critic down in Carbondale, IL, wrote a brilliant little piece on Nicolas Cage that could be summed up like this, as his reviews aren't online:
We should be thanking the gods for Nicolas Cage. He has two modes: good (Adaptation, Matchstick Men, Leaving Las Vegas) and astoundingly awful (Ghost Rider, Bangkok Dangerous, The Wicker Man), and in those two modes, he is one of the most compulsively watchable actors working today. When you critique film for a living, it's not the really bad movies that become hard to sit through, but the mediocrities: the girl who realizes her best guy friend is really the one she loves, the sports team overcoming all odds again, the seven millionth makeover montage set to a pop hit, etc. etc. Nicolas Cage doesn't do mediocre. And for that, we should thank him, and give him every dime we can so he can keep doing what he does.

Hi Roger,

Please do add the Pink Panther (2006, 1.5 Ebert Stars) to your list above. This movie was so bad I turned off the TV 30 minutes in and then tried to stand up. I didn't make it, and woke up 5 hours later with a stiff neck. That's the kind of slumber power this dog rocket is packing. Alonso Duralde referred to Shawn Levy as "the enemy of comedy", and I think Mr. Duralde was going easy on him.

The only film I would disagree with you on, is Fight club. It's not a disagreement based on your review, but more so just the fact that myself and my close circle of friends love it. We have been fans of it since we can remember. There's simply something about the insanity of it all that entertains myself, and I am sure thousands of other people as well. Other than that, 95% of the films I own you have given three to four stars. You're a fantastic critic, and I can only hope to be admiring your writing for years to come.

Ebert: I went through that with the shot-at-a-time routine for 10 hours during a week with hundreds of (mostly) its fans at Boulder, and still didn't think it worked. Ever notice how it contains an eerie pre-vision of 9/11?

Agree on most the rest, but FANBOYS? It's not that bad and they did poke quite a bit of fun at the characters at that.

Roger,

ROTF is definitely the worst movie I've seen in theaters in quite a while. My worst of all time, however, is a very short list:

1. THE MARRYING MAN...the fact that (I believe) Alec Baldwin turned down PATRIOT GAMES & the Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan franchise to do this movie is still mind-boggling to me. I almost walked out of the theater it was so awful, & afterward, wished I would have.

2. JERSEY GIRL...actually DID walk out of the theater. Man, was that bad.

3. LOVE SERENADE...*spoiler warning* When the character at the end finally sprouts gills, essentially turns into a fish & jumps into the water...I just laughed out loud & looked at my wife & said, "Did we really just waste that last chunk of our lives to watch this?!"

4. IT HAD TO BE YOU...a movie so bad, it didn't even use the song the film was named after within the film itself. Painfully bad.

And finally...

5. EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED...I actually happen to be a follower of Jesus, committed to the authority & relevance of scripture & a believer in God as the Author of Creation. That being said, I am not a fan of the "Intelligent Design" movement as I understand it & was mortified that so many of my fellow Christ-followers were sucked in by this propaganda piece made with tactics that - had they been employed by someone like Michael Moore - would have sent them over the edge. It was poorly written, poorly constructed, poorly executed & poorly argued. The fact that it was so heavily endorsed by leaders from my faith community is seriously disappointing...

I'm with Mr. Ebert on Fight Club. It has moments of absolute brilliance and is actually probably worth seeing but it's not a good movie.

Among its many problems and flaws is that the members of Fight Club are not empowered or fearsome and are actually as pathetic and creepy as skinheads and KKKers. That's the only thing they bring to mind.

Doesn't work.

Mr. Ebert has been grossly mistaken on several movies (good films he deemed bad and bad films her overrated) but he's correct about this one :P

I can certainly understand why you would think it didn't work, but did The narrator's relationship with Marla not intrigue you at least a little once discovering the, 'trickery' of the third act? That being said, it certainly does have an eerie pre-vision of 9/11. I've argued this with many, but with nothing more than looks of disagreement. I will admit reading a reply from you has made my week an enjoyable one. Thank you for your time, it's always appreciated.

My personal favorite in this category remains your review of Caligula. I still remember my original, laugh-out-loud response elicited from your closing line. You opened with both barrels blazing:"sickening, utterly worthless, shameless trash." And then you really got mad. Great stuff.
Has your opinion changed any over the years, or as I suspect,you'd prefer not to be reminded of the ordeal. If so, then my apologies,sir.

When I first read your review for Fanboys, I thought you had to have been unduly hard on it. But after seeing it, I agree. It's a mess and I was let down. I had such hopes for it.

If you want to see a film about sci-fi fandom done RIGHT, check out Free Enterprise with William Shatner and Eric McCormick. I noticed there's no review of it on your site. If you never saw it, please seek it out. It's hard to get these days since two DVD editions went out of print, but it is everything Fanboys wanted to be and wasn't.

Ben wrote "I am wondering however, if your mood on any given day might influence the way you perceive a film?"

Interesting concept. Mood must exert some influence, how does one deal with that? Do you review a film and after the first screening write your initial impression? Have you ever viewed a film multiple times before rendering an opinion?

My bad movie timeline:

Early 60's--"Kal-Tiki, The Immortal Monster" -- a grungified Blob, who had a guy up to the elbow, and when the Kal-Tiki shard was peeled back, only bones & sinews remained--& they were showing that on TV to little kids like me

Mid 60's--"Mary Poppins"--I'd read enough of the P.L. Travers books to know what Mary Poppins was REALLY like; sir, that was no Mary Poppins; heartbreak

Mid 70's--"Pink Flamingos"--my vote for Worst Movie of All Time--a distillation of disgustingness

"Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" and "Andy Warhol's Dracula"--amazed that "Andy Warhol" movies haven't shown up yet on this thread--bare-bones plotting and bids for (literally) visceral reactions

Late 70's--"And Justice For All . . ."--spoiler alert!--horrible LeaveItToBeaver-esque plot development; I say to myself, if the guy in drag dies, I'm walking out--ten minutes later, he dies--I walk out

To be continued, maybe--I can't take any more of this!

"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."

This is the funniest comment I've ever read in an Ebert review. It just happens to be included in the review of the worst film I (and perhaps even Ebert himself) have ever seen; "Freddy Got Fingered". From the sexually assaulting a horse at the beginning to sexually assaulting an elephant and his father at the same time near the end of the movie and every second in between, I kept thinking what idiot movie studio head actually greenlighted this piece of filth. It was like driving past a terrible car wreck and seeing the dead, mangled, and bloodied bodies of the victims still in plain view, afterwards you wished you had not looked because it will give you nightmares.

Another word on "Clone Wars": For those who might be curious, the animated series (now in reruns on the Cartoon Network) blossomed into a fantastic addition to the "Star Wars" franchise. The episodes are well written, offering just the right mix of character moments and swashbuckling action. The animation might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think it works, especially when it comes to visualizing the battle scenes and the often beautiful alien landscapes and vistas on display. If you were put off by the negative reviews of the movie (which, as noted earlier, really should never have been judged as a stand-alone film in the first place), I would recommend checking out a few episodes of the series.

Secondly, a question for Roger: What are some of your guilty pleasures, movies you know are bad, but can't resist watching?

I have to admit I enjoyed "Step Brothers". My ratings scale for comedy films are far less stringent as even one good laugh will produce a thumbs up from me. I love the gift of laughter and believe it is much harder to generate than it seems.

"Lady in the Water" on the other hand was so bad it actually angered me quite a bit.

The worst movie I ever saw, and luckily, I didn't waste money at the cinema for it, was The Final Alliance starring David Hasselhoff. It still makes me sick that I watched it but curiosity almost did me that night. David Hasselhoff must have studied everything that sucked in the filmographies of Chuck Norris and Van Damme and took such great notes on it that a court stenographer would have been proud. Those notes somehow turned into a script and using the endless supply of money that he always seems to have to finance his own projects, made this film.
I can only imagine that if God existed, he would make a movie like this just to torture Lucifer by being so perfectly bad a movie maker.

On another note, I have seen some people here ask you to reconsider Blue Velvet among other films. I'm a David Lynch fan, (Cronenberg too, another one not on your favorite list). However much I disagree with your criticism of Blue Velvet at least it gave me some things to think about. You felt sorry for Isabella when you were supposed to feel sorry for Dorthy. I guess he failed to get that across to you. But I would ask you not to reconsider the movie because I remember when you and Gene re-reviewed Independence Day and tore it to pieces even worse the second time. For that movie, I laughed. I shudder to think what might happen with an Ebert review II for Blue Velvet. ; )

"The Talented Mr. Ripley" almost forgot about this one. A big cast and script that turned into one big snooze fest. After 15 minutes into the movie you realize that you dont care about any of the people, never will and that absolutely nothing interesting will happen. Should of been retitled "Lifestyles of the Rich and Dull."

I can't understand how the many many paragraphs above didn't contain the word "Gummo." I had made a vow never to watch that movie. But I was part of a Bad Movie Wednesday group, and one member picked that one. Speaking as a native Mainer, it was worse than Diet Moxie.

I'm also no fan of She's the One, and Hamburger: The Motion Picture is a total waste of celluloid. But my go-to Worst Movie Ever is Preppies, about three college guys who have to pass the exam or lose their rights to the family fortune, and the bad guy who sends women to these guys to distract them and cause them to fail. It's an ugly movie - the story's ugly, the cinematography's ugly, the nausea I felt at the end was very ugly. I don't know how a movie could be worse.

On the other hand, I've never seen I Spit On Your Grave...

"Another word on "Clone Wars": For those who might be curious, the animated series (now in reruns on the Cartoon Network) blossomed into a fantastic addition to the "Star Wars" franchise."

I dunno, the dialogue is still just as still and lifeless as it was in the prequels. Plus, I still have a problem with this whole concept. Having seen the end of this story in Episode III, this series feels like an anticlimax. It is pretty bad when the most lively character on the show is Grievous' doctor.

I have to agree with the people who said that you should give Repo! the genetic opera a chance. It was one of the best movies of 2008. I listen to the soundtrack all the time.

Worst movie ever? Probably Sextette, in which an octogenarian Mae West is the object of lusts from men a third her age, giving her an excuse to trot out those double entendres one last time (only by now they're just disgusting instead of funny due to her age and zombie-like appearance). I've never seen a more repulsive movie (like I want to see Timothy Dalton, Dom de Luise, Ringo Starr and George Hamilton lusting after granny!), it's also made with the production values of a TV sitcom. Oh, and did I mention the disco soundtrack? Oi vey.

On the other end of the spectrum, I nominate Uwe Boll's House of the Dead as the best worst movie. It's an unmitigated disaster on every level, but to such a degree that it's hilarious. I feel like I'm going to pop a lung every time I watch it. Highlights: a FIFTEEN MINUTE fight sequence that is rendered incomprehensible by Boll's ADD editing, and another, brief fight that goes like this:

Step 1: show the hero, his girlfriend, and the villain in separate close-ups swinging swords and axes wildly at each other.

Step 2: Repeat close-ups a few hundred times

Step 3: Pull camera back to show all three at once, revealing that they were standing about three inches apart, and THEY ALL MISSED EACH OTHER.

Magic. Sheer, glorious magic. And there are countless other such terrifically awful moments throughout. Mark my words: House of the Dead will go down in history as the spiritual successor to Plan 9 from Outer Space, midnight screenings and all. It's that hilariously bad.

Well Roger, I agree with you on some of these like The Spirit, Hell Ride, and Star Wars Clone Wars (the worst movie of last year). But you should really bring down your review of the new Terminator movie. That movie sucked and is my most hated movie of the year so far, and yes, I saw the new Transformers!

Roger, huge fan and longtime reader. I would guess that about 95% of the time we share a pretty close opinion on movies, though there are some glaring differences: Dazed and Confused, Batman, and A Clockwork Orange immediately leap to mind; and on the flip side of that I will never forget your labeling of Christopher Columbus' painfully adapted first entry into the Harry Potter series as a successor to the Wizard of Oz. If it was possible to make a film adaption of those wonderfully imagined books uninspired, he certainly succeeded, but i digress...

There is one recent "Your Movie Sucks" review that I absolutely cannot agree with you on: Step Brothers. In which two of the funniest men alive are faced with the seemingly simple task of living with each other, and I quote "This leads to violence and language so extreme, it seems out of proportion to any comic purpose. I felt a little unclean." If their language seems out of proportion, well maybe so does their behavior, and that of everyone around them. Will Ferrel's older brother, whose introduction consists of a family car ride singalong of Guns n' Roses "Sweet Child of Mine". When the wife starts her part highly off key, her husband Derek instantly criticizes her with "flat, just so flat, you don't even look good when you do it". This is the same character who hasn't "had a carb in three years" and has to get home NOW because "Dane Cook, pay-per view, twenty minutes, lets GO". You may be irritated by these people, but if it's any consolation so is everyone else around them.

I knew I loved this movie twenty minutes in, and because the drum set ("The home was built in 1842 by General Custard, and there's only one rule, do not touch my drum set") was violated so early ("John Bonham is gonna play Moby Dick for real") I was prepared for anything to happen, and was continually surprised. By the end of the movie, when Will Ferrel is singing Por Ti Volare ("it's like your voice is the mixture of Fergie and Jesus") alongside John C. Reilly's steady drums and repeated mantra of "boats and hoes" I was on the verge of tears.

I've written here far too much about an idiotic comedy that I find endlessly hilarious, but I really do feel you should give it another chance. Roger, if you ever feel the need to see it again, notice a scene in the beginning, where the father character is looking at a map of his dreams and aspirations with a magnifying glass, zeroing in on "The Noise". And than the hole in the wall, caused by the fighting brothers, shoddily pasted over later in the film as a throwaway gag...like all good things, it's in the details. And yes, even Step Brothers, in all it's anarchic stupidity, revels in its details. They may just be harder to notice over all the screaming and broken dishes.

There's just something to be said for a film who's final line is "It's okay mines not movie quality" in response to a Chewbacca mask. I'm not sure what, but something.

I can't decide if the worst film I've ever seen is Freddie Got Fingered or Robo Vampire.

I think I prefer Robo Vampire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhsZOVepFJQ

One of the most depressing movies I ever saw was Blake Edwards' "S.O.B." Let's be delicate and not dwell on the underwhelming spectacle of Julie Andrews baring those from which infants suckle; I just hated every moment of the movie. This film's idea of humor was a running "gag" involving a man dropping dead on a beach and lying unnoticed on the sand while the beach gradually fills with sunbathers and his dog pines for him next to the body. Ho ho ho.

mr. ebert

you are a legend! im going to film school to become a director and i hope one day u will review my films good or bad. i hope you are recovering well. i have two of your book and read both of them. it's your volume 1 and 2 greatest movies.

RE: Your review of Step Brothers. Don't you think one and a half stars is a little high? I didn't find anything funny about it at all. I was with a group of people when I saw it, and we all agreed that the notorious film "Manos: The Hand of Fate" was funnier than Step Brothers.

Maybe it's a comment on the cinema of our times, but isn't it sad that there are more options and opinions about the worst movies of all time, than about the best.
I feel as if the whole movie business is just one big downward spiral. A studio can put out a terrible movie, but they make tons of money because people still pay money to see it. It makes a profit, so other studios follow. More crap gets watched by more people making studios more money. And on and on and on...
We need an event to occur like Pulp Fiction did in the mid-90s. A film that...
1) Requires you to use your brain during veiwing
2) Leaves audiences talking about it and wanting more
3) Makes the movie studio(s) a large profit
Can anyone come up with a film in the 2000s that has done all 3?

Ebert: How large?

I haven't seen any of the movies you listed, thank goodness! I think my worst movies are "Con Air", "Armageddon", "3000 Miles to Graceland", and "Signs". I could add many more, but those stand out. I was fortunate enough to have a half day off from work when "Signs" came out, so I decided to take myself to a movie. What a waste of my valuable time and a tidbit of money (matinee prices, gotta love 'em). I actually fell asleep for a few minutes at one point. Talk about boring!

Like most people, I do love my guilty pleasures. One of my all-time favorite movies is "My Chauffeur", and how many critics would have that one even in their Top 1000? I also can't get enough of "Pitch Black", "One Crazy Summer", "Stigmata" (which I know you hated), "Convoy", "Remo Williams", and dozens of other good 'bad' films from all genres.

Thanks so much for this blog, by the way. I enjoy popping in but haven't written here before. I did write an email to your readers' mail once, which you were kind enough to publish. I hope your lovely wife gets as big a kick out of these discussions as your readers do!

Thanks to Gary in Phoenix, Arizona's comments, I was reminded of another torturous movie: "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", starring Kenneth Branagh. I hated it so badly that I swore I'd never watch another of his movies again. Guess I haven't, as I didn't even remember to add it to my previous list. ;)

This list is incomplete without "The Blair Witch Project". Watch it now, without all the Internet hype propping it up, and marvel at the sight of three bad film students shooting footage of trees for two hours.

The worst film I have seen recently was easily "Wolverine". I enjoy the comic-to-screen genre and there have been some outstanding additions to the pantheon as of late ("Watchmen", "Iron Man" and "TDK" all spring to mind) , but this wasn't one of them. What we got was just more F/X laden celluloid overkill with a barebones plot. It's pretty damning when you realize that the titular character of the action movie you're watching is doing the same thing he did in a film (Singer's "X-Men") that hit theaters a decade earlier.

The worst films I have ever seen (and these are just plain bad, without redemption) are as follows:

- Mac and Me: At least when someone wanted to rip off "Gremlins", we got the fairly ingenious "Critters". Poor "E.T." got this Z-movie clone, where fake alien dolls -er- creatures bond with a wheelchair bound boy while teenagers burst into impromptu song and dance numbers in the lobby of the local McDonalds. My only consolation for having seen this is that I watched it as a cheap $2.00 rental, suggested to me by a video store owner who claimed it was actually "better than E.T." . Incidentaly, that particular video store has long since gone out of business. Just pointing that out.

- Transylvania 6-500: When the only thing even resembling a laugh in the entire movie occurs in the first ten minutes and it's Norman Fell standing in a newspaper editor's office, pointing at random copies of a tabloid and declaring all of them to be "crap", you're screwed. That's pretty much all I have to say about this movie.

- The Howling II: Your Sister is a Werewolf : An alternate title for this is "Howling II: Simba, Werewolf Bitch" which probably explains a lot about why this film is the worst horror sequel ever made. Not one aspect of this film works. The story is a mess, the effects make bargain basement productions look polished and the acting is at best theoretical. Not even the presence of Christopher Lee makes any difference.

King Kong Lives: A sequel so poorly conceived and underproduced that, afterwards, I was convinced the price of my movie ticket had been higher than the entire effects budget for the film. Thank God Peter Jackson came along with his take on Kong so that this shameful aberration wouldn't be the last cinematic image people had of "the Eigth Wonder of the World."

Dear Mr. Ebert,
Your review of the Transformers 2 "Revenge of the Fallen" movie was spot-on. I took my 9 year old son to see it, and even he fell asleep in the movie theater! If a sci-fi, Nintendo-Play Station bred "all American" boy falls asleep in a movie like this, well then we have a problem! Please keep up the good work (your reviews are the best!).

Lou

If you really want to see a bad movie Mr. Ebert, go see Crank 2: High Voltage. I garuntee that it will be your one and only zero star movie of 2009.

The days of action and adventure are upon us once again and the time is now, our time, our genre of movies. I speak of the superhero, cartoon, and video game based movies that are becoming the blockbusters of the new era. Movies like Transformers Revenge of the Fallen are reaching a whole new generation of viewers. Not only do these movies capture the attention of the wide-eyed child but of the adult who grew up on the origins of such comic or cartoon themes. They are the ones who gasp in awe at their childhood brought to life on the big screen and who are now sharing the very characters they loved with their own children.

Unfortunately this is where worlds collide and the bell is beginning to toll. Not for the viewers of today, but of the movie critics of yesterday. Critics like Ebert Roper of the Chicago Sun Times, David Edwards of Mirror.co.uk, Peter Bradshaw of Guardian, and Robert Dougherty of Associated Content. They were once heralds of the arts, grading movies with verbose reviews and strong opinions that captured the attention of their readers. But now they squabble and complain at the offerings of Hollywood like bickering old men. And that doesn’t mean they have to be aged into their fifties, but rather the mentality of their craft has transformed them and placed them outside the usefulness of today’s moviegoing class. They have shown us they are relics of the past by comparing our new generation of action films to their beloved classics.

With each thumbs down and one-star rating they vengefully toss forth, these popular movie critcs threaten the market and future of the genre we know and love. They have no business reviewing movies they do not understand and lack the intelligence and open mindedness to accept such films into the fray. This frame of mind is dangerous and impedes any sort of progress for the future of such films. True enough the critics of yesterday live to enjoy the classics, movies they claim have beautiful insight in to humanity and where a Patsy Cline score can be heard playing in the background. And that’s all well and good for that is their schoolyard playground where they can rule as king of the sandbox. But they fail terribly when they try to grasp the spectacular, or try and understand the love someone holds in their heart just to see their favorite giant robots walk across the screen for the first time. The movie critics will scream and yell, casting down upon the directors and producers of this abomination to Hollywood’s credit.

Yet the very movie they sneer at breaks records and outsells their ‘Casablanca classics’ drawing in millions upon millions of fans. This only serves to enrage the critic and fuel their hateful approach to the review, in many cases going so far as to mock the fans of such a genre. Well enough is enough. Movies like Transformers and Superhero types MUST succeed if they are ever to reach the levels of directing and plot brilliance these critics hold in such high regard. We have only begun to tinker with the tools that allow us to reshape a Camaro into a bipedal humanoid in a split second of screentime. But the movie critics of yesterday do not care about that, they do not care about new genres of movies and the child and his father that so desperately want to see their favorite robots battle it out regardless of how well the lighting was chosen.

The bell has tolled. New blood is needed and a new generation of movie critic must take the place of the aging, bitter ones that cling so desperately to their past films. And if these movie critics of yesterday cannot accept that, they must be replaced by ones who can. You cannot compare movies like Transformers to anything else for they are a new generation of films where the amazing action and intricate plots do not necessarily need to take place on the big screen….they take place in the heart of the fans who enjoy them.

Ebert: "We have only begun to shape the tools that allow us to reshape a Camaro into a bipedal humanoid in a split second of screentime."

Oh, I think the tools are pretty much perfected. Now if they only had the tools to reshape "Transformers" into a watchable film.

Regarding the comment on "Robo Vampire" I might be inclined to agree...however, I once read that the finished "film" is actually two different films that were edited together into one incomprehensible mess, so I'm not even sure that "Robo Vampire" could even be considered a film in and of itself. In any case, whatever it is, "Robo Vampire" is so unbelievably bad that it is funny.

The very worst movies we probably never see. For a movie to enter the public consciousness at all, the movie has to has SOME supporters - SOME fans somewhere. And here we see the heart of the debate about movies good and bad - it's all about justice. In addition to doing "justice to the material", we want the public verdict to visit (at least some level of) justice on a movie, good or bad, praiseworthy or damnable.

Injustice is something that comes in levels. The greater the disparity between what a movie "deserves" (a judicial term) and its perceived treatment (by the public and/or critics) adds lots of spice, ire, and spleen to the debate, not to mention great opportunities for humor.

The debate is also about human nature. Because, along with the concern for justice, there is a perpetual incredulity about "what kind of mental state could lead anyone to like this movie?" At some point one stops even wanting to understand how anyone could like a particular movie. Rather like not caring to understand how bestiality could possibily appeal to anyone - we don't see the value in expanding our minds very far in THAT direction, thank you very much.

These generalities are something of a guide for me in assessing what I call a good bad movie. A good bad movie is a complex thing, far beyond my ability to boil down to a pithy summary. But whatever it is, it doesn't violate our sense of justice or (overly) lower the bar on what we feel is an appropriate low end of the scale of (just barely) acceptable human response or feeling.

A little degradation is a sort of spice to a lot of reasonably otherwise ok people. But there's more to degradation than just that. It's just as important to draw a limiting line at the low end of things as it is to raise the ceiling at the high end. That is in fact the spirit of many, many movies since the late 60s - to take the audience into uncomfortably "low" places, then relieve their discomfort with a shot of recognizeable, sympathetic humanity.

A case in point - Fight Club. In that movie, we are taken by the arm and led rapidly down into what I'm sure the moviemakers have consciously concocted as a vile soup of testosterone, violence, filth, and odious clubbishness. And the remarkeable thing is that, at least for me and many (mostly male) people I've talked to about the film, is that they immediately connected with the basic idea of a Fight Club. There is a very specific mood experienced by (I assume) most males between 15 and 25 that can be defined by the phrase "nothing would be better at the moment than to go out and get into a good fight." In that bit of self-recognition afforded by the movie is the core of both the discomfort and the recognizeable humanity.

So what does the movie do, once we recognize the selves at which we laugh and guiltily admire and abhore all at the same time? The movie does the clever, unusual, and on retrospect, only reasonable thing - it turns to tragedy. Or comi-tragedy if you like those sorts of franken-words. The message - at least as I read it - was that the tendencies of testosterone and the male chromosome, unchecked and monomaniacal, follow a path starting with amusing, juvenile pranks and descends inevitably through catharsis, gangs, civil war, ending in destruction of the self and whatever else happens to be close enough to take collateral damage.

My recall of Roger's blistering review of Fight club was that it was an ingenuous critique of violence - "methinks the moviemaker doth enjoy the fighting too much." And so could not maintain any credibility as a critic of violence. That argument reminded me of the George C. Scott movie "Hardcore" in which, as a expose of the horrors of the porn trade, we are treated to a continuing subplot of "gee, what are they going to show NEXT? Have to keep watching to find out!"

But the tragedy at the end of Fight Club unites the requirements of justice and human sympathy and forges the moral of the story. I think it works brilliantly at the same time it satirizes the particular stupidities achievable by the male of the species.

PS - I also recommend expanding the use of "good" and "bad" as pertaining to movies to include "good-bad", "good-good", "bad-good", and "bad-bad". But maybe more on that later...or maybe not...

Mike L. wrote ""The Talented Mr. Ripley" almost forgot about this one."

That made me laugh, remembering my buddy punching a hole in the wall of our college household after that movie. He was made so angry by it and I've never found out why,we just never talked about it. I was so confused by everything about that movie, I most likely resembled a cartoon infant come to life. I don't think we ever fixed that hole either. Seriously, why did that movie exist?

I wanted to add that I would go to my grave defending the last "Rambo" movie as a masterpiece. It has become a minor crusade of mine to live long enough to see it respected.

Mr. Ebert, I request an entry about well received or award winning films that came out immediately before or after a much better movie by the same film maker. I would use Scorsese's honors for the just fine "The Aviator" and "The Departed" following the stunning "Gangs Of New York", a movie I love big big time, or P.T. Anderson's brilliant "Punch Drunk Love" preceding his big mess "There Will Be Blood". Thanks!

Some thoughts on some of the films listed above:

Plan 9 From Outer Space - It isn't just a bad movie but a movie so gloriously enraptured in it's badness that you wonder if there was ever a serious intent put into this project. Only Mr. Ed Wood could have made it so mesmerizingly awful.

Batman (1989) - I sort of stand alone in my peer group amid those who didn't think that this movie was all that great. It continues Tim Burton's obsession with giving more life to his weirdo characters than his heroes and sadly is also continues his habit of creating amazing worlds but providing no story. I preferred "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight". Those were stories, this is just hot air.

Eyes Wide Shut - Not the best film of Kubrick's career but certainly far from the worst. This was an examination of the nature marital infidelity, about a man so sure of the security of his own marriage that he is shattered with the notion that his wife would have fantasies about another man. This is a very deep film that actually gets better the more you study it. Note the continual use of masks.

Harry Potter - Until the fifth film I was happy with this series. The first four managed to create the world of Harry Potter, more or less as I had imagined it when I was reading the books. The last film, however "Order of the Phoenix", was a mess. The film took the longest book in the series and chopped it down into a meandering "Cliff Notes" version. I pity anyone who saw the film without reading the book first. Exception: The performance by Imelda Staunton, she was so deliciously evil.

Con Air - More forgettable than just plain bad. The action scenes are well done but they are provided for the service of an empty head. What disappointed me most was the performance by Nicholas Cage which displays none of his gifts as an actor. Maybe that's because this was the first of his films that I saw after "Leaving Las Vegas".

Armageddon - This is the worst film I've seen in probably a decade. It was noisy, it was nonsense, it looked like it was edited with a chainsaw and worst of all, any time I tried to see any other film in a multiplex that summer, I was subjected to the pounding of the stereo system from "Armageddon" playing in the theater next door. There's nothing worse than a bad movie that intrudes on my enjoyment of a good one.

Signs - The best film M. Night Shyamalan has directed so far, even better than "The Sixth Sense". This was a movie in which the terror and dread grew out of what we could not see. The characters were well developed so that we really cared what happened to them. This is a movie about dread, not about what pops out of the side of the screen and Shyamalan knows how to build the tension and not go for cheap thrills. Best scene: When Joaquin Phoenix is sitting in the closet watching the news report of the alien in Mexico - the way Shyamalan builds that scene is incredible. Great film.

Pitch Black - I hated this film because it gets everything wrong that "Signs" (see above) got right. This is a science fiction movie that presents a group of characters as fodder to have them killed off. The humans and aliens aren't curious about one another, the aliens are just green pop up targets to be mowed down. What a waste.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - This is a disappointment if you've seen "Dead Again" or "Hamlet" or "Henry V", which show Kenneth Branagh's passion as a director. He always knows how to connect with his audience but I found his version of "Frankenstein" to be a big headache. He creates this story with none of the passion or torment of Shelley's novel, just a lot of camera tricks and noise.

The Blair Witch Project - I liked this film, it was a movie that used what was in our minds to create a sense of dread. Honestly, I didn't need to see the witch to be afraid of it. I wasn't driven by hype to see it (I never am) but I simply let the film happen to me and it did indeed scare me. Very good film.

Mac and Me - Of all the "E.T." clones, this wasn't the worst but it was certainly the funniest. This wasn't a film produced by a studio, it was produced by it's fast food tie-in (dig the title) and I must say that I've gotta love any film that credits Ronald McDonald in it's main cast.

King Kong Lives - Adding a monster movie produced by Dino DeLaurentis to a list of the worst films ever made is kind of like whistling in the dark. He's produced some turds in his career and this was no exception but you've got to give props to the movie just for the scene where Kong has open heart surgery.

Fight Club - I've seen this movie twice and, to be honest, it didn't work for me either time. I like David Fincher as a director (I liked "Se7en", "Panic Room" and "Zodiac"). He doesn't always make great films but until "Benjamin Button", he had never made a boring one.

Another great theater experience: Battlefield Earth. I read the book when I was 11 and enjoyed it. It's one of my stepfather's favorite novels ever. WE went to the theater on opening night, not having read the reviews or anything. The theater was sold out. The energy was high.

Cut to two hours later as the credits begin to roll. The theater is half empty. My stepdad has walked out 40 minutes earlier, waiting for my mom and me in the lobby. The man behind us says "What a piece of shit." And for the first time in my moviegoing memory, a movie had disappointed me. Just as Anaconda is the movie that made me a hardcore movie fan, Battlefield Earth is the movie that showed me high expectations are made to be dashed.

Wes Lawson said: "Another great theater experience: Battlefield Earth."

Are you nuts? That movie was a cinematic hemorrhoid.

If you've seen this film, Roger, then you truly are a film critic that let's no movie go unreviewed.

The worst film I've ever seen -- even to this day -- is a black hole called Nine Deaths of the Ninja. How bad was it? It was so bad that even as a high school student, who in those days was eager to see anything that was released to the big screen, I sat in the theater in horror realizing that it was indescribably awful. Most of this experience I've tried to block from my mind, but what still stays with me is that it was a movie filled with characters so unsympathetic it made my skin crawl.

Jerry,
I meant great as in memorable, not great as in cinematic quality. The movie was atrocious, but I wouldn't trade that theater experience for anything. Just like my experience I mentioned earlier with The Wicker Man. Or the time that a woman cursed out a crying baby and her child during The Ring, effectively killing the tension of the film but causing thunderous applause in the audience. Or the time I saw The Eye on a second date and spent the whole movie making out in the back row.

Man, I've had some weird theater experiences in my day.

Mr Ebert, I completely agree with your review of Jaws: The Revenge, but the movie is one of my favourite bad flicks. And the moment near the end, when Michael Caine sees the shark rising out of the water and exclaims "Oh, s**t!" is one of the funniest moments in screen history.

Sometimes the most entertaining things come out of the worst movies.

Wes Lawson said: "Jerry, I meant great as in memorable, not great as in cinematic quality."

Well, if it makes you feel any better I typed it with a big smile on my face.

I still treasure a quote from Gene Siskel when he slapped his forehead and said: "OH! The movies I've seen!"

By Jerry Roberts on July 6, 2009 11:53 AM

Mac and Me - Of all the "E.T." clones, this wasn't the worst but it was certainly the funniest. This wasn't a film produced by a studio, it was produced by it's fast food tie-in (dig the title) and I must say that I've gotta love any film that credits Ronald McDonald in it's main cast.

Mac and Me was produced by both MacDonald's and by Columbia, which was owned by Coca-Cola at the time. So not only do we get a prolonged musical number set at MacDonald's, complete with breakdancers, ballerinas and toe-tapping football players, but the dying alien family is revived through the magical healing powers of Coca-Cola.

And who can forget that classic scene from Leonard Part 6, also produced by Columbia at that time, when Bill Cosby returns home and asks for something "cold and refreshing" to drink, and a Coke bottle is handed to him with the label facing the screen?

But the best product placement of all time has to be from Michael Bay's The Island, where clones are bred and harvested for spare parts in an underground bunker. That these poor souls will (in theory) never see the light of day does not deter X-Box, Pepsi, and Nike from marketing heavily to them.

Your comments on "I'm a proud brainiac" Really won me over, and the list of above movies seems to be well thought out. But why not make mention of other big budget turkeys that deserve a bout of critical thought? Spiderman 3 deserved no more than 1 star based on your review of Transformers 2, as does Ironman with its mind-numbing cliche ending that defied all logic.

I guess my statement is: How much should we let low grade, pop culture, made for the masses movies get away with in the reviewal process?

Jerry Roberts said this about two of the movies I commented on (I've edited his responses for length and added my two cents in brackets):

Signs - The best film M. Night Shyamalan has directed so far, even better than "The Sixth Sense". [HELLO?] This was a movie in which the terror and dread grew out of what we could not see. [Terror and dread? Excuse me while I yawn, again.] The characters were well developed so that we really cared what happened to them. [Really? Not! Could somebody please splash some water on the actors and not the aliens?]

Pitch Black - I hated this film because it gets everything wrong that "Signs" got right. This is a science fiction movie that presents a group of characters as fodder to have them killed off. The aliens are just green pop up targets to be mowed down. [All reasons for why I loved it! Blast 'em again, Riddick!]

And because I stopped in to have fun with Mr. Roberts' comments, I need to add more really horrible movies that occurred to me. It's amazing how much I've repressed the memory of these movies until this discussion got me to thinkin'.

- "Mars Attacks!" - My cousin and her husband hold it against me to this DAY that I dragged them to see that, and it came out in 1996! What were all those great actors doing in such garbage?
- "The Mask" - I like Jim Carrey, but ugh.
- "Snake Eyes" - Nicholas Cage and Gary Sinise are usually fantastic, but what a stunningly bad movie.
- "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" - Love Johnny Depp too, but yuck.

But the absolute winner of them all has got to be "Godzilla", with Matthew Broderick, a fine actor in the world's worst movie!

Troll 2: A rowdy bunch of vegan goblins force a family to turn into plants so the goblins can feast upon them. Too bad Harry Potter Jr. and Sr. from the first film don't make an appearance.

how can you hate transformers but enjoy the mummy and the dragon emperor or whatever???

your such a hypocrite, you loved casino royale but hated quantum of solace for the exact same reason you loved casino royale

your such a tool ebert.

Ebert: Your welcome.

Hi Roger,
The only film I have ever walked out on, is "Bringing Out The Dead". Scorcese is one of my favourite American directors,and I can honestly say I have loved(and bought)all of his films; until this mixed, confusing, and I'm sorry to say, boring film. I recently read your book on Scorcese, and hoped of gleaning some insight as to why he made it as he did, as well as why you liked it so much. I watched the film again, with the hope of being proved "wrong". Alas; it was not to be (although I did finish it this time!). The worst film I have ever seen though, was "Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003)" by the Chinese director Ming-liang Tsai. A truly, truly awful pretentious film. Go on Roger; I dare you!

In order to appreciate truly great art one must first learn to appreciate great trash. Thats is why my boxed sets of Waong Kar Wai,Jia Zhang Ke and Fassbinder sit snugly right next to my complete collections of the police academy movies.

Years of watching bollywood movies has desensitized me to the point where I can tolerate just about any ludicrous cinematic offering that there is. However, I do have my list of absolute shit movies. These are not just bad movies that failed to connect with me, but movies tat have next to nothing in terms of redeemable value.

topping the list is "Kung Pow: enter the fist". I actually watched it in the theatre with four other friends and we were the only ones in the theatre. The only thing that stopped me from walking out of the theatre was a) I didn't pay for the movie ticket (my friend did and since he sat through it I thought it would be rude of me to storm out) b) I was in the early stages of impressing my would be girlfriend and so I was trying to shake off the tag of "movie elitist" that was being liberally used by my friends to describe my obsession with quality cinema.
The following week I watched "Master of disguise" in the theatre and that was the second of the one -two punch of movie shitness that I had to endure. utter garbage.
Notable mention in the soo bad that its kinda good movies include: the island of Dr.Moreau, the postman, disco dancer (1982 bollywood film), and all the 80's ninja movies

I realize this movie is before your time, but, thinking about it, the worst movie I have ever seen is "The Rabbit Test". This claim is based on what I think is a very objective measuring stick: it's the only movie I've ever seen where people were yelling comments like "That movie sucked!" as they were leaving the theater. (Sorry, Mr Ebert, but I don't think you can make copyright claims on the "your movie sucks" phrase.) Seriously, I thought the whole theater was going to storm the manager's office and demand their money back. The next time you see Billy Crystal, you might ask him about that movie. It's sure to get an interesting reaction.

Ebert: I'm beginning to wonder what was before my time:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19780425/REVIEWS/906239998/1023

Damn, do I love this site. A few posts back a couple of readers have a misunderstanding, they work it out politely, and even get a laugh out of it. Then, when I've become convinced that this site is brimming with civility and intelligence, an imbecile like Thomas M. threatens to bring the whole thing toppling down. But no. You OWN him with your wit, and what's better is - he'll never know!

Oh yes - and "Troll," starring Sonny Bono. When I was in high school in the mid-eighties I thought I might like to be a film reviewer, but reviewing this piece of garbage convinced me I was not up to the task.

I still can't forgive your tepid response to Rushmore, and your panning of Fight Club - two of the pivotal movies of my generation. How could you, man?

RE: Jennifer M's comments on "Signs"

I could not disagree with you more. I prefer a film where the thrills come out of the material, not just cheap shocks. The movie built terror organically for those who could appreciate it rather than banging us over the head with cheap theatrics.

RE: Jennifer M's comments on "Pitch Black"

I guess I just don't come from the Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots school of action pictures. Science Fiction should be about ideas and this movie took it's characters half way across the universe and then had them run around in the dark shooting at each other. I can watch that in a cop buddy movie.

RE: Jerry Roberts on "Eyes Wide Shut"

Thank you for confirming that no matter how much detail you give about why someone dislikes this movie there is always someone who has to "explain" this movie right back. It amuses me that these people are offended that someone could have any criticism about Kubrick and that they have a personal interest in this movie or the man himself. I relate it to Andy Warhol and his paintings. On one side there are the people who say; "It's a painting of a Campbell soup label, that is not art" as opposed to those people who back him up and usually end the debate with "well I guess you just dont get it."

Fresh Horses is another truly horrible movie. So my list is: Eyes Wide Shut, Talented Mr. Ripley, and Fresh Horses. 3 fairly big budgets with big named stars and talented directors made by big studios that had no business being made.

By Douglas M. on July 8, 2009 9:26 AM

Oh yes - and "Troll," starring Sonny Bono. When I was in high school in the mid-eighties I thought I might like to be a film reviewer, but reviewing this piece of garbage convinced me I was not up to the task.

Wait'll you get a load of Troll 2 .

Matt Monks said: "I still can't forgive your tepid response to Rushmore, and your panning of Fight Club - two of the pivotal movies of my generation. How could you, man?"

I didn't like "Fight Club" because I thought it was style over substance with an ending that I found ridiculous. "Rushmore", I didn't like because Jason Schwarzman played a character that I didn't want to spend five minutes with.

Suggestion: See "Election", featuring one of Reese Witherspoon's greatest performances. That was one of my favorite films of 1999.

I agree with the above users who didn't like Benjamin Button. It felt fake from the first moment, and I have no idea why it got nominated for an oscar. Sure, if you've never seen something like it (ie. if you're still in high school) you may have enjoyed it, but to me it was an impossible situation just arranged to fit into the regular world, and no one thinking much about it despite the fact that it is an IMPOSSIBLE situation. That and the fact that the resolution of the film and its only plot twist (if you can call it that... the daughter revelation) are expected from 10 minutes into the film. It's not a terrible movie, but so incredibly overrated... it's a shame to put it along side Slumdog Millionaire, Gran Torino, or Frost/Nixon (which is a story that is obviously known, but the acting is just so good it makes that point moot). I would've been inclined to put The Dark Knight up there instead in this year's nominations (oh yeah, that's how pointless I thought it was).

That being said, to mention some actually terrible films, I'd say anything based on a video game is pretty much dead on to be considered the most horrible thing to ever be conceived in the mind of a corporate CEO seeking to squeeze some money out of ignorant fanboys. Street fighter, Super Mario, Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat... the unimaginable lack of creativity that it takes to put these films out... Oh, and now I hear that the only video game with an actual possibility of being made into a plausible plot driven film, Castlevania (you have a family sworn to fight the reincarnations of Dracula throughout generations... some one could make an entertaining film out of that) to be written by the same guy that did Resident Evil. Oh... there is no god... or at least, if there is, he probably doesn't like movies.

The movie "Heartbeeps," starring Andy Kaufman and Bernadette Peters, is the most unendurable film ever made.

Terry Owen said: "The movie "Heartbeeps," starring Andy Kaufman and Bernadette Peters, is the most unendurable film ever made."

I thought that movie was more baffling than terrible. I see where Kaufman had an original idea but it just didn't work.

Uriel Echavarria: "I would've been inclined to put The Dark Knight up there instead in this year's nominations (oh yeah, that's how pointless I thought it was)."

I wonder if the backlash over films like "The Dark Knight" and "Hoop Dreams" being passed over in the Best Picture category may have been one of the deciding factors in opening the nominees up to 10.

You have to take into account the target the moviemakers are aiming for. If the target is to excite small children and etch a new crease in their brain that screams for some product - and they succeed - well they get an "A" from one point of view. I'll leave such films alone.

Another film just wants to give you the creeps, induce some nightmares, give you a real big shock or two, and nudge a lot of girls closer to their dates. Well, ok - I don't criticize roller coasters for having that same goal.

Yet another wants to plumb the depths of existential angst, the human condition, moral amibiguities, social disfunction, etc. Maybe these issues hold no interest for most moviegoers. But the job of the critic is to score the film on it's hit-or-miss regarding it's particular target. Not to blabber on about how boring and pretensious they find such topics.

I think this distinction marks out the (good) critic from the public at large. Sure, there are exceptions. But the public discussions most typically just compare personal reactions, while the critic is attempting something a bit more objective.

Total objectivity is both impossible and undesirable in this context. But still, the critic is also subject to the rule of maintaining an important component of objectivity. If the critic gets lost in purely subjective gushing, or worse, just hides a purely personal response under a load of sophisticated language, then the critic should be criticized.

So it follows, I think, that the best critics not only criticize the artwork, but also their own reactions to the artwork.

Now you might think that it's an abuse of the movie artform itself to make a movie that is essentially a 2-hour long commercial. I don't think so. I simply think such movies are another genre of moviemaking, and have their own goals and techniques, masters and Ed Woods. I don't hold with "genre criticism", ie something is bad because it belongs to one genre or another.

Shoot, I won't even criticize porn or country music on that basis alone, however much I might like to. But at that point I have the glorious privilege of moving over to another basis of criticism such as ethics or social equity or whatnot. I just need to keep in mind that such criticisms are not about moviemaking anymore, but about something else.

I was scanning a few of your zero-star reviews and noticed "CSA: Confederate States of America" wasn't working. Could you please upload that review to your website? Thanks, love your work.

Ebert: I cannot find a review and don't believe I ever reviewed it. One person on the web says I gave it zero stars, but nowhere else on the web am I linked with it at all.

It seems there are two major complaints about Benjamin Button; it was boring and it was impossible.

I definitely understand how many find it boring. After all it is a 3 hour movie with relatively little action and little emotion displayed by many of the major characters. I won't attempt to explain it away. (Though I will say I never for a moment felt bored, and I didn't realize it was a three hour movie until I left the theater at 1 in the morning)

But as to the impossibility of the scenario and the fact that it was accepted by all involved, I am literally stunned that so many of you have no idea what magical realism is or that you reject it out of hand. The lack of explanation was not a plot hole, it was a plot device. It created the basic tension of the movie.

I am sort of flabbergasted that you all either fail to see that or unanimously reject the style.

(Have none of you enjoyed Borges or Rushdie)

"your such a tool ebert."

Ha! So apparently Ebert has such a tool. I wonder what kind of tool it is. Maybe like a hacksaw or something. Seriously though, some of the people posting here have to ease up. If Mr. Ebert doesn't like the same movies you do that's no cause to personally insult him. Besides everyone knows that "Dragon Emperor" was a glorious B-fest, and "Quantum of Solace" was short and unexciting.

That aside, I am just fascinated by bad movies. I'm not talking about movies such as "Revenge of the Fallen" or "My Bloody Valentine 3=D" where the obvious goal is just to make some crap that'll make money. I'm talking about the REAL bad movies; the cringing, face-palming, agonizing, what were they thinking kind of movies.

I just recently watched "Three O'clock High". This is a perfect example of what i'm talking about. With my limited knowledge of screenwriting etc. i could still pop out a better movie if you gave me a budget. It was horrendous. Nothing made me laugh or even want to smile. I do think that the movie started out well. I thought that there was going to be some sort of troubled bully premise, and thought that very mature for an 80's H.S. comedy. Then it degraded into a string of weird, scary, disgusting, and deviant behaviors. The only character i was even remotely interested in through the whole movie was the bully. I think the only film that was any less funny was "North".

So this brings me to my question. What are the filmmakers thinking when they make these films? Are they really supposed to pass as entertainment? And why can't i stop watching them :-)

No fanboy rants, remember it's all in fun.

T.M.

Dear Ebert,
You use to be one of my favorite critics because I could always relate to you, but your last couple of movie reviews have some that I really disagreed with. Transformers 2 was entertaining, fun, and action packed, everything that the first one had that you said you enjoyed. Plus, it's only 5 minutes longer so, you can't say it's unbearably long. Night at the Museum 2 was very funny with an all star cast. It even had more of a plot than the first one. I have not seen Step Brothers but all of my friends have said it is unbearably funny. The Love Guru didn't suck, it had some very funny parts, probably a C+ average. One movie that I can't believed that you disliked was Star Trek. Star Trek was the best movie of the summer. It had a very complicated plot that made you think and it was full of kick-ass action. Since they expanded the oscar nominations to 10 movies Star Trek will have to get nominated for best picture. I think you should give it another chance.

I hated "The Departed" because I saw "Infernal Affairs" a few days beforehand. Big mistake. The latter is a much superior movie. And I know Matt Damon isn't as bad an actor as he appeared in "Departed" so he must have been directed that way. Ugh. Before that, I hated "Revenge of the Sith" and "Matrix Revolutions" so I just skipped the third "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie when it came out, which turned out to be a wise choice. Should have skipped "Spiderman 3" as well. Saw "X-Men 3" on cable. Why is it so hard to make a third movie in a series that's worth watching?

I have to agree with the posts about Repo! The Genetic Opera. Since you can only find the 10 minute short on IMDB (searching for "repo" there gave me both), the link is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963194/ - It is the one role I've enjoyed Paris Hilton in - daughter of the richest and most corrupt man there is, and literally addicted equally to cosmetic surgery and painkillers. Whether it is your cup of tea or not, I don't know, but would like to find out in order to further understand you. In any case it was great to see Alexa Vega of "Spy Kids" have a starring role in a dark musical. I might also mention that Sarah Brightman plays an important role. I'd recommend the blu-Ray, while I HAVE seen better blu-Rays, this one is fine and a vast leap over the DVD in audio and video. Lots of dark scenes don't always transfer to DVD well. Don't let the "from the producers of Saw" throw you off, it is very different and has very little gore, especially in comparison to Saw movies (plus the goriest stuff is during great musical numbers).

Sarah Webber said: "Why is it so hard to make a third movie in a series that's worth watching?"

a second sequel is usually just an annuity in action. You're seeing a filmed deal, something that is born in committee out of the earlier success of better pictures. I can think of several second sequels that did work like "Return of the Jedi", "Star Trek III", "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome", "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", so they're out there. It usually around Part 5 that I start getting irritable.

I was wondering if these archives go back further? Because I see a lot of people complaining about Benjamin Button - which, by the way, was boring from what I saw - but I don't actually see it listed.

Ebert: It received 2.5 stars.

I love great movies, good movies and hate bad movies. I love Casablanca and Citizen Kane but I watched Transformers 2 and loved it, it was fun. It's a movie about robots that change into cars..HELLO!...of course, is it a great film? NO, but you want to have fun with a film sometimes. Yes, fact(not Oscar worthy), opinion(I had fun and could have fun with this type of film and have fun watching The Wrestler or Slumdog Millionaire also) Ebert gave 1 Star and called it horrible, which is fine, but I think that's an opinion, not fact. On a side note, I'll give an example, everyone was talking about Curious Case of Benji Button and people thought it had great special effects, great story. I love David Fincher(Seven, Zodiac, etc...) but I slept through Button. Fact:(Too Long and Boring). Also, awhile back, Michael Clayton, The Queen, etc..these are films that I thought were horrible but someone must have loved them to be nominated for awards and critics raving about them...majority are opinions, not fact about films.

I don't like bad movies, but I love Ebert's bad-movie reviews!

For those of you that did not like Benjamin Button (I personally have not seen it so I have no comment on it) but in regards to the reverse aging theme, I would suggest reading Dan Simmons "Hyperion" series. It is Sci-Fi but Dan has crossed many genres and done so successfully and "Hyperion" is a fun read.

Not that it's on this page yet, and not that it really matters, but the Dick Munsch character from I Love You Beth Cooper is actually Denis Cooverman's gay, movie loving best friend, unless they changed it and got rid of the book's endless references to the pair's collective nickname (Dick Munch and the Penis, haw haw).

If it wasn't for the fact that Bruno, Food Inc., Whatever Works, and Moon are all out in Cincinnati this weekend, I might have rushed out to see Beth Cooper. I even think Cheri is playing across town, though costume dramas aren't my thing.

Is there anything in the little rule book about supposedly cute animals turning out to be a vicious little bastard? A Killer Rabbit rule? I'm kind of tired of seeing people get attacked by raccoons.

Ebert: Dick Munsch is not apparently gay, although yiou never know with those macho dudes who travel with a posse of two clones.

I must say your bad-movie reviews are always entertaining, even when I don't agree with them (case in point: it's obvious that you didn't get Police Academy; the makers of it were NOT ripping off Airplane!, it was never intended to be a spoof, just a fun low-brow comedy about idiot cops). I think people need to be more respectful of other people's opinions. So what if you didn't like Blue Velvet. Blue Velvet is not Citizen Kane. Although there are some opinions that movie fans hold that I find ridiculous (i.e.: those who hated the ending to The Departed and yet find nothing wrong with the ending to Fight Club; those who call Titanic the worst movie of all-time, etc.), it's like they say, "Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one".

As for what I consider to be the worst movie ever, it has to be 1987's Flowers in the Attic, a movie which you didn't even review. I felt like blowing my brains out after watching that depressing, empty shell of a movie!

Roger, your review of Jack Frost is my favorite film review of all time and I'm excited that you reprised one of its keen observations, above.

I tend to be subjected to horrible movies at home. I able to go to the theater so infrequently, that when the opportunity arises, it is usually something that I am pretty positive I will love. So any awful film going experiences I have lately are brought to me by Netflix!

A couple of months ago I got in both the Spirit and the Day the Earth Stood Still (the Keanu blank stare version) in my mailbox. Never has one mailbox contained so much cinematic failure! The one two punch of awfulness I experienced was almost enough to make me question my love for film altogether. Can a movie be so bad that it brings on an existential crisis?

Luckily the following week Netflix sent me both Milk and Frost/Nixon. And with that, my faith in film was restored.

Since someone mentioned The Happening I had to check out what you thought of it, Roger, and I have to say I was shocked. Three stars? Really? I thought you'd have given it one or even a half. I found it to be the most deliriously stupid movie I had seen in ages. The premise was absurd, the acting was stilted and the dialog was awful. Shyamalan has never been able to write believable dialog. Nobody speaks the way his characters do. And the crazy old lady? And running from wind? And the ridiculous ways people killed themselves? Death by lion? Really? A human arm ripped off while the person is standing? Is the guy made out of clay? I watched it with a friend and we kept looking at each other in growing awe as the movie went on. By midway through we were bouncing back and forth between laughing and stunned silence at the movies ineptness. We couldn't figure out if Shyamalan directed his actors, normally capable actors, to be this bad or if it was an utter lack of direction. I didn't think Shyamalan could top the insane awfulness of Lady in the Water. I was wrong. Very, very wrong.

Dear Roger,
All the bad movies, and your best and brightest invective,close at hand 24/7. Lexapro sales should plummet. Thanks.
Penn and Teller Bullshit, much of the time, does Sacha Baron Cohen's kind of stuff way better than he does. They understand when to stop, and are paragons of the semiotics of female anatomy.

When I think of bad movies one name always seems to always seems to op-up. Will Ferrell. Has he ever made a movie that was watchable?

Also, he seems to make five or six a year, the new one always worse than the one before. I wish he would stop, I don't go to his movies, but I have to endure the constant promotions and they are bad enough.

OK Roger, we've all really enjoyed your posts and comments on the good movies and now the bad. How about a post on guilty pleasures? My nominations--Porky's and Beach Girls. Really bad, but what can I say, I saw them as an adolescent boy. We had one theater in town and we all went Friday night regardless of what movie was playing. Not sure I've seen much cheesier acting than Porky's, but I don't know that I've ever laughed harder in a theater than my friends and I did when the gym teacher proposed a line-up to identify the boy who...

Joe V said: "OK Roger, we've all really enjoyed your posts and comments on the good movies and now the bad. How about a post on guilty pleasures?"

Or how about a post on overlooked treasures. I've got plenty of those.

Unlike my other entries, I'll try to keep this short.

The only film I ever walked out on: A Little Romance (1979.) A cloying romantic comedy about two teens in Europe. I feel embarrassed for Lawrence Olivier for deciding to take a role in this.

So Bad It's Almost Good: Prophecy (1979.) It's not that I'm surprised that the screenplay by David Seltzer (The Omen series and the remake of the first film, plus other bombs) stunk up the screen, but it's sad that the great John Frankenheimer had to direct it. A pointless chainsaw fight, all the monster cliches, stupid behavior and risk-taking against all common sense, this is a movie you want to watch if your goal is to laugh yourself sick.

Most Hated Film: Freebie and the Bean (1974.) The title characters, two cops played by James Caan and Alan Arkin, make Dirty Harry look like a member of the ACLU. They terrorize one informer by threatened to tie up his girlfriend and have sex with her in front of him (even worse, she seems passively go along with the idea.) They later visit this same guy at his job and threaten to throw him off the high crane where he's working. Ethnic, homophobic and racial bigotry abound. By the time James caan is being kicked to death by the killer transvestite in a men's room, I was screaming, "Kill him! Kill him!": I was talking to, not about, the transvestite.

And finally, the film I think Roger should reassess: Ken Russell's The Devils (1971.) Sure, it has moments of silly comic relief; some scenes are explicitly brutal; some are explicitly orgiastic (especially if you've seen the version that has some of the wilder cuts that were made restored.) But I consider it second only to Kubrick's Paths of Glory in exposing how the powers that be can collude to destroy people's lives to further their political agenda, and the best argument for the separation of Church and State.

Hello there Mr. Ebert,

I've been reading your reviews for a couple of months now and I've been really impressed. I saw on your recomended movies "The Seven Samurai" and decided to watch it. Now it's one of my favorite movies. There was this one movie though that I wanted to see if you reviewed. It's technically the end of a television series so I don't know if you would watch it and understand whats going on, but if you're wondering what it is, it's called "End of Evangelion". I have absolutely no idea what it's actually rated (lazy people at MPAA never gave it there rating), but from some of the scenes make you think that it could be on the same graphic level as "Clockwork Orange" (no joke). Check the IMDB site for more information about the creepy things if you dare, but it would be interesting simply to see your response.

Sincerely,
A Movie Lover.

Ebert: Go to this link...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_fall_of_the_revengers.html

...search the page for "Evangelion," and you will learn more than you might have dreamed.

True I have to admit that I love reading your reviews. Although I wish you would spend time EXPLAINING why a movie is bad rather than just Snarling at the movie.

Me? I agree that the problem with Michael Bay is that he can Direct ACTION (Bad Boys 2) but his Character Development SUCKS!!!

One good thing about Ebert (For me) is that he is inspiring me to Try to watch more Quality Films (Like Singing in the rain)

But as for bad movies I love ... I have to say "Friday the 13th Jason Lives..." No seriously...

Serious.. its the Naked Gun of Slashes Movies... Really!!!

AN you are so Right about the following movies: "Death to Smoochy", "Duplex", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake, "Hills Have Eyes" remake (Of which after 15 Minutes .. the film changed to a SNUFF FILM), and, "Wolf Creek" (OF which I caught a glimpse of on cable). Gods I am so sick of Horror movies becoming "torture Entertainment". Horror Movies are no longer FUN they are so DEPRESSING ...

By Mike L said: "RE: Jerry Roberts on 'Eyes Wide Shut'

It amuses me that these people are offended that someone could have any criticism about Kubrick and that they have a personal interest in this movie or the man himself."

I'm not offended, I just disagree with you.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040719/REVIEWS/40719004/1023

Catwoman. Urgh...it pains me to even think about it.

"Movies that are "so bad they're good" should generally get Two Stars."

Yet you gave Spice World half a star? There is an example of an absolutely terrible movie with a ridiculous plot and not a single good performance (sorry, Alan Cumming) that still manages to entertain. While being a teenage girl may account for the fact that I have seen this movie four times, I still have a hard time believing that if you were to try Spice World a second time, you wouldn't find yourself chuckling pretty regularly. It helps that the Spice Girls are no longer a cultural omnipresence.

Another film you should try, though this would be the first time: Forgetting Sarah Marshall. You mentioned in your review of I Love You, Man that you hadn't seen Jason Segel's previous movie, and I think that's a shame. It may not be art, but Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. At the very least, please don't not see it because it was recommended by the "Spice World girl."

It makes me concerned for the future of movies every time our nation's screens are plagued with a movie like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", especially when such a horrible and pointless movie makes so much money.

I'll go along with Elizabeth Bass about Song of Norway. It's the only movie I ever walked out on--and I was only 15! An unfortunate recommendation from my piano teacher. For those of you who are not familiar with it--it has Florence Henderson....

From the review of The Rabbit Test - "it’s just not funny. And I know it’s not, because I would have laughed if it had been." Perfection.

Ain't nature wonderful? It makes use of everything. Bad art is valuable for that. "The covers of this book are too far apart" would not exist today but for a bad writer who will probably receive an award on Judgment Day for providing the inspiration.

Once in awhile something is too good, and that sort of makes it bad. It's most noticeable in rock and roll. Case in point -- have never yet watched "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," 'til now; there's this scene of... can't even remember the name of the band... they do a song. The soundtrack musicians are too professional, so it's very easy for them to play the licks being used. It'd have sounded much better if it was a stoned kid who'd stayed up for nights learning it for all he was worth.

I've been reading these posts and racking my mind for the worst movie I can think of. I've walked out of a good many, since the dawn of the cineplex, but I've never stayed long enough to see just how bad any were. One does not savor poo-poo unless forced to by virtue of making a living at it. Chuck Berry may disagree.

One exception: I kept track of how often I got up to leave Mel Gibson's Jesus movie. Five separate points. I should have left when the androgynous David Bowie devil stood there with a maggot peeking out his nostrils, gloating at Jesus in Gethsemane. I should have left when the Roman Soldier -- borrowed from some old Italian Hercules flick -- overdid it with his haw-hawing and the pool of too-fake blood whipping Jesus.

It was the only flick I've ever sat through to make sure it was as dumb as I thought it'd be. Science may have to clone someone and start training them from birth to write a straight script about that story and make it watchable. Maggots and haw-haws and the other added decorations of it just don't do it for me, not even in Aramaic.

Stopped watching Slumdog Millionaire a few minutes in. Yeah yeah, I got it, just a formula. I left my wife, who is tolerant, to tell me that what I guessed would happen happened. A correspondent in Hyderabad told me the real reasons Indians hated it. But even I would have appreciated a Bollywood dance number to break up the monotonous predictability. And not all Indians are as keen on imagining being rich is the key to one's inner gnawings as Americans can be.

I've walked out of a lot of movies I thought were just fine and wouldn't differ with a good critic's positive appraisal -- such as our fine host's. I just... got the picture, that was plenty.

Roger gave me a compliment in another post. I quote: "good gravy!" and will always remember that fondly, tho' he didn't mean it as I took it. I stopped watching TV ages ago and replaced it with flicks. I've apparently watched quite a few more movies than he has. Some-teen thousand, prob'ly more by now.

The thing is, I've enjoyed every one of them. Not one of them sat or laid through if it bored me. No patience for that. Domestic to obscure foreign, big kabooms to formula to subtle psychological, Gertie the Dinosaur to whatever's coming, it is astonishing to me how many good movies there are... since it's not my job to sit through bad ones, I've got no idea what the proportions are.

It's equally astonishing to realize how many highly recommended flicks I haven't yet seen. I've enjoyed 20,000 or so good ones so far -- "good ones" meaning recommended by worthwhile critics and friends.

Good gravy.

Ebert: Holy Toldeo! That's a lot of movies!

And now he tells me "Holy Toledo!" [internet protocol: never snipe at a misspelling] I'm honored again! Thanks, Rodge! Yup! and that's been since 1986.

Thanks to you all, I've got to watch at least a bit of "Valachi Papers" and these others mentioned. Just looked up Joan Rivers' "Rabbit Test," which I remember hearing about back then. Holy Toledo, is it ever bad. Or we will not be capable of understand its many levels until we have evolved a good deal.

But there's a good bad thing in it: there's a scene at that church where some jerk comes back from Viet Nam and talks about killin' gooks.

What's really good bad is he pronounces "gooks" like "looks" instead of "dukes." That's my favorite kind of bad thing. I still chortle about the actress in "The Glass Menagerie" who said "but still, water runs deep..."

Still, that dopey baptism scene with the two babies and pig latin sooks.

The only theater movie I ever walked out of was 'Napoleon Dynamite.' A friend who usually has decent taste in movies recommended it, saying, "Wait until you see the part where his Uncle throws a steak at him and knocks him off his bike."

I went to see it at my beloved Princess Theater here in Edmonton and sat in my favorite seat - aisle seat, last row on the balcony. I love sitting there because I can hear the projector flicker, and it soothes me into reverie. In that seat I've watched 'Nashville' 'Citizen Kane' 'The 400 Blows' a double feature of 'Hearts of Darkness' followed by 'Apocalypse Now' a double feature of'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kind' followed by 'Thelma and Louise' ... (the Princess used to be a full on rep cinema, and had a $2 double feature Tuesday. You could go see 'The Vanishing' original followed by 'The Vanishing' remake, walk out after the first feature and still have gotten your money's worth.) And in that seat I watched 'Napoleon Dynamite,' up until the scene where Napoleon is knocked of his bike by the steak.

The urge to leave hit me in the scene where the girl in the cafeteria doesn't notice she has a tater tot stuck to her face. I stayed for the steak scene as a nod to my friend, then, satisfied I had given the movie a fair chance, left and regretted my decision not even slightly.

When the movie's discussed, I always ask the same question - isn't it a little insulting for a director to assume he can make you laugh just by plunking a nerd on the screen and letting the camera roll?

Other bad ones: 'Gummo,' previously mentioned here. It suffers from what I call 'Five Easy Pieces Syndrome': a director wants to make a realistic movie about working-class people, but knows nothing about working-class people, so just presents them as impossibly vulgar and dumb. Also known as 'Michael Cimino Syndrome.'

Also, like Ed Wood, Harmony Korine seems to think a thing becomes art if he commits it to film. A scene where a woman brings her son a plate of spaghetti while he's bathing. She washes his hair, he eats spaghetti. Long unbroken shot: She washes his hair, he eats spaghetti. Deep.

Actual exchange between me and a friend during 'Gummo:'

"This is almost over, right?"
"No, it's been about twenty minutes."
(beat)
"Serious?"
(checks watch) "Yep."

'Dolemite' was awful, but dammit, they were *trying.*

'Twister' was a singular experience, insofar as a lot of people in the theater took the movie very seriously and I was ruining it for them. I didn't mean to and I felt bad, but I couldn't stop laughing every time the caravan of black SUVs rolled onto the screen. Identical black SUVs so no one could doubt this was a team of *evil* tornado chasers.

'Taking Lives.' If Angelina Jolie is topless and I'm still bored, something has gone horribly awry.

'Not Another Teen Movie,' for the reasons cited previously: The filmmakers don't want to put in the effort of making you laugh, so they try to flatter you: "I get the 'Breakfast Club' reference! That makes me hip!"

Oh, btw Mr. Ebert, I sometimes cite you as the one of the few critics who truly *gets* movies. When I'm asked to explain, I present your review of 'Rapa Nui.'

Ebert: I also didn't connect with "Napoleon Dynamite," for which I have been castigated.

Oh, and sorry to suck up so much space, but here's my review from years ago of the gloriously bad 'Silent Hill.':

I never talk in movies. I hate when other people do it, so I'd be hypocritical if I did. Too bad that, because some movies cry out for a good heckling.

Silent Hill is a loud, unintentionally funny movie where people behave stupidly while computer-generated things happen around them. It's the apotheosis of a Hollywood filmed deal - nothing is competent, except the special effects. The performances were... good? Bad? Impossible to judge, in a movie like this. In all fairness, anytime an actor delivers dialogue like "You cast yourselves into a fire of your own making when you lied to your own soul" without laughing, there's at least some discipline at work.

Radha Mitchell plays the adoptive mother of a vaguely creepy movie Generi-kid. Showing rock solid judgement and parenting skills, she decides to take her somnabulent and clearly disturbed young charge to an environmentally devastated, abandoned ghost town, in order to cure her recurrent nightmares. Good thinking. On the drive there, that same ghostly figure who causes accidents by walking in front of every car in every horror film ever made makes an obligitory appearence. The car skids, the mother's knocked unconcious and the child vanishes.

Upon awakening, Mom ventures into Silent Hill, and spends the next couple hours running, jogging, walking and bumping into things, while wearing an expression of mild concern. Not "my daughter's missing in a haunted town" concern, more a "I shouldn't have done this sudoku puzzle in pen" kind of concern. (Incidentally, Mom bumps into things so often, it becomes kind of a running gag, like in The Last of the Mohicans, where, as Mark Twain noted, anytime the plot required someone to step on a twig, they would immediately find it and step on it.) She also yells "Sharon" a lot. That's the kid's name. Sharon. You'll remember, because she yells it a lot. Like every ten seconds for the rest of the movie. And again, a credit to Ms Mitchell - she manages to keep it fresh, with a variety of tones and inflections. "Sharon! Sharon? Sha-RON! "Occasionally she mixes it up by tossing in a "baby," a "honey" or a "where are you?"

Not to be left out of the fun, both her husband and a butch female motorcycle cop go looking for the mom, calling "Rose! Rose? Ro-OOOSSSEEEE!" Zombies and show up. And Salem-style pilgrim witch-burning mobs. The motorcycle cop struts about in skin-tight leather. After a perfunctory search for his immediate family, Dad provides some unilluminating exposition and heads home. Effects happen. Screaming occurs. At one point some characters enter a charred and blackened room and one notes, helpfully, "It looks there was a fire here." That's a bit of a leitmotif of the movie: aside from long stretches of hilariously weird ghost-story boilerplate, the dialogue mainly consists of characters pointing out the obvious. Aside from the "looks like a fire" line, there are two keepers: motorcycle cop hears loud sounds of metal bending, and asks Mom "Did you hear that?" and after crashing her car, losing her kid and almost getting killed, Mom calls Dad and confesses, "I made a mistake!"

Interesting tidbit: the movie was written by Roger Avery, co-writer of Pulp Fiction. I'm going to just let that sit there.

I enjoyed the bad dialogue, though. I also liked the witch-burning mob, just because I kept expecting someone to pipe up "If she... weighs the same as a duck... then she's made of wood!" In fact, if you make your peace early with the movie's sheer badness, there's lots to enjoy. The scene where all the zombie nurses advance on Rose with a distinct "West Side Story" gang-fight strut. The scene where motorcycle cop fires her empty pistol, for no other reason than to make her enemies aware the pistol is, in fact, empty. The moment when you realize the dishevelled, crazy young religious fanatic is played by Canada's own Tanya Allen.

And no question, during her many running scenes, Radha Mitchell was pert and bouncy. Again however, her running was more in the nature of "I have to find those shoes before the store closes" than "Must save my daughter at all costs." Completely uninvested emotionally, I found myself wondering if she could perhaps get less wind-resistance and cover more ground in less time by disrobing and running around completely nude. Perhaps the cop could do the same, and they could occasionally take a breather to wipe the sweat from each other's bodies. See, now that would make me watch the director's cut. Do I digress? Kind of, yeah, but I still think I make a good point. (It's really a variation of my "needs more nudity" criticism, which I apply equally to all films.)

While I'm riffing here - I'd like to live in a Silent Hill-type universe, where, if you need to know something, all you have to do is enter a room and open a drawer, and the document or artifact you need is right there. As well, I do have a certain amount of gratitude toward the movie: on the way out of the theater, I said to my nephew, "Well, that movie made me believe in the paranormal. Because Ed Wood must have returned from the grave to write that f*****' dialogue," and the woman in front of us laughed. I like making people laugh. So am I recommending Silent Hill? Oh, god, no. Life is short. But I will say, if a group of friends were to get a little baked and decide to rent a bad movie and go all Mystery Science Theater on it, Silent Hill practically writes its own jokes. So it may be bad, but it's not without value.

I watched "Knowing" last night and I am happy to say that you didn't steer me wrong, Mr. Ebert! I was on the edge of my seat for most of the movie, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought the ending was a little hokey, but it was a logical conclusion to the events and I was willing to go along for the ride.

Like you, I was surprised by the vitriolic critical reviews. But today I started thinking about how you gave zero stars to "The Life of David Gale" based predominantly on the ending of the movie and how badly it offended you. Was it really fair of you to give zero stars to a movie that well made and well acted, but that had a plot twist you hated?

I guess the moral of this story is that "Knowing" made me think, and your reaction to "Knowing" made me think, and the other critics' reactions to "Knowing" made me think. The same is true of "The Life of David Gale." Here's to movies that make us think!

Jerry Roberts seems to have issues with those of us not sophisticated enough to appreciate every movie he does, in the way he does. Strange to take what was meant as a humorous discussion of opinions and become a tad insulting. As before, my comments are in brackets. I did not edit his comments this time.

Jerry wrote:

RE: Jennifer M's comments on "Signs"

I could not disagree with you more. I prefer a film where the thrills come out of the material, not just cheap shocks. [I can actually enjoy both, depending on the movie.] The movie built terror organically for those who could appreciate it rather than banging us over the head with cheap theatrics. [For those of you who can appreciate it? Must be difficult to go through life enduring the opinions of unedgicated hicks like myself, who also like to be banged over the head on occasion.]

RE: Jennifer M's comments on "Pitch Black"

I guess I just don't come from the Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots school of action pictures. [Where did that come from? Aha! Since I have a differing opinion, you must assume I've seen "Transformers" or the myriad of other action pics that I haven't. Oops! Isn't that false logic?] Science Fiction should be about ideas [Science Fiction only about ideas? Check!] and this movie took it's characters half way across the universe and then had them run around in the dark shooting at each other. I can watch that in a cop buddy movie. [So it is okay in a cop buddy movie? Check! I'll make sure I get it right next time.]

Jennifer M here: Sorry to digress, readers, but my feet got stuck in the oozing contempt, and I had to wipe off the organic matter before moving on. Think I'll go for the full cleanse now and run watch "Tremors" again! :p

Question for any celebrated movie critic who may be hosting this thread:

I just came back from "Bruno," umlaud. The audience was a mass of giggles rising to guffaws through every minute but the rather sweet scene of the 2 protagonists making up (I heard at least one "awww"), otherwise, they even roared at the Ron Paul scene (which I thought was staged). I and a lady to my left, about my age, smiled quietly through it... middle agers who'd seen the gags elsewhere at one time or another (such as the talking penis in "Groove Tube," 1972).

Say "Bruno" came out somewhere around the time "Rabbit Test" did -- say it were within the range of films considered reviewable for the public. (You reviewed "Last Tango in Paris," yes?)

Would it've made your "sucks" list? Or would you have given it the same rating as now?

Ebert: It certainly would have been more shocking to me then. But it's funny. That think would have carried the day.

"Jennifer M here: Sorry to digress, readers, but my feet got stuck in the oozing contempt, and I had to wipe off the organic matter before moving on. Think I'll go for the full cleanse now and run watch "Tremors" again!"

I liked "Tremors". The sequel was even better.

The problem with Benjamin Button is that Button, as a character, doesn't really DO anything. Everything happens to him. He's passive, and seems simply to stumble and fall into events and situations. The one exception, of course, is his decision to leave Blanchett's character towards the end.

Since this seems to be the place where others are doing it, I'd like to throw another reccomendation for "Repo! The Genetic Opera" your way. You gotta find Sarah Brightman with eyes that can project holograms of her thoughts while singing somewhat interesting, whether you like the whole or not. Just know that it isn't a comedy like so many unconventional musicals, it is dark and I found it very emotional. It isn't completely absent of comic relief, but we aren't talking "Rocky Horror" here by any means. I was also amazed to find it was made on only $8.5million, and the short cut that is released is barely over half of the original 150 minute cut. There are many petitions online for release of the full version.

Just looked up your review of "Rapa Nui," Rodge:

"Concern for my reputation prevents me from recommending this movie."

Best out loud laff I've had all day. If you'd erased all the rest of it, people would be quoting you as the shortest (civil) movie review a hundred years from now. Guess I'd better go see what those tanned bare breasts are all about, tho'.

Tom Dark, Re: "Rapa Nui"

Yeah the island foot race in the movie is hilariously absurd especially when the contestants have to carry back an egg on their forehead.

"The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny."- From your review.

Actually, at one point in my (still ongoing) film school experience, I considered writing a paper about how Freddy Got Fingered WAS a masterpiece of neo-surrealism. It's stuck with me more than any bad movie has in my entire life. I haven't seen it in almost four years, and yet I can still recall it with as much clarity as I can films that I've seen just a few days ago. It's like the gross-out genre was slowly building up, and then Tom Green released this...thing...on the masses, and Hollywood just hid in the corner, and it effectively killed the genre. There's gotta be something to that.

Tom Green actually is a funny guy. He still does a show in Canada which inspired laughter more often than not.

Does anyone else think that nicholas cage accepts any role that is offered to him? He's becoming one of the most annoying actors to me. Also, I nominate Independance Day as one of my favorite "worst" movies. It doesn't matter where and when it's on, I always have to hear the horrible speech given by Bill Paxton. It is hilarious!

Roger,
I've been wanting to ask a professional's opinion on this for awhile now, and you are probably the most qualified to answer it. Since George Lucas decided not to make the final three Star Wars movies, why can't he hand it off to someone who would be just as good? Say, someone like Spielberg? Is it ego?

Ebert: Wouldn't such director be reluctant to step into the "founding director's" place?

I can't say that this movie sucked, but last night I saw "The King of Comedy" for the first time. This has to be one of the weirdest most confounding movies I have ever seen. I have had this movie in my head all night and it is kind of disturbing.

Steven H said: "I've been wanting to ask a professional's opinion on this for awhile now, and you are probably the most qualified to answer it. Since George Lucas decided not to make the final three Star Wars movies, why can't he hand it off to someone who would be just as good? Say, someone like Spielberg? Is it ego?"

He is not a very good screenwriter, he's a better script doctor as he was on "Raiders of the Lost Ark". In my opinion, I think he would be better collaborator if he just tweeked someone else's screenplay rather than try to write something himself.

George Lucas has a wonderful imagination but he cannot canNOT write good dialogue. The dialogue in the Star Wars films is flat and lifeless and gets worse and worse and gets worse with each film.

Regarding "The Pink Panther" (2006): Roger: don't you think the movie would have been infinitely better if Kevin Kline had played Clouseau and Martin had been played Dreyfus?

I was really surprised to see you gave "The Bucket List" such a poor review. I saw the film, enjoyed it for what it was, and that was that. I work in a library, and the film set records for the number of people requesting it. Upon return of the film, viewers raved more positively about that film than any other film I've seen circulate. What got me the most is while you hated that film, a number of years back you gave "The Terminal" with Tom Hanks a glowing review. That is a film that I could not get into - from premise to acting, I felt it failed on almost every level. I do not have enough appendages to count the number of times Hanks' accent changes, and the relationship with Catherine Zeta-Jones character was unbearable. In a way the two films are similar in that they deal with silly stories that you have to leave your brain at the door to enjoy - but for me, the difference was the acting. Watching Freeman and Nicholson go head-to-head was very entertaining. Those are my two cents

From By Paul on July 1, 2009 1:22 AM:
"There's also the lingering question of why Spielberg included two Playboy Bunny-looking girls in the opening and closing parts with the old man. Were we really meant to be lusting after girls in the background while this old man sat by a grave crying? You're better than that, Spielberg."

I thought I was the only one to notice that. I have three distinct memories of SPR. One, the sound design during the beach landing scene. It was different -- more realistic as it turns out -- and heightened the reality of the moment. Two, the "I'm a schoolteacher" speech by Tom Hanks' character. Great movie moment. Three, lusting after the hotties in background of the final scene. I mean, I left the theatre feeling guilty like I cheated on my wife. Spielberg is better than that. I remember thinking, "Private Ryan, your life did have meaning! High five!" Then the shame kicks in.

That said, SPR does not does not belong among the likes of other films on this list. Including films I WOULD add: Donnie Darko, The Phantom Menace, The War of the Worlds (new).

Hey Roger, just wondering if you ever re-watched A Clockwork Orange? And if so, did it grow on you at all? It is said that Kubrick films take multiple viewings to be fully appreciated. I agree with roughly 90% of your reviews, and I was quite surprised to see that you only gave it two stars. Any regrets on that review, or are you still sticking to your guns?

I have a tradition of bad movie watching with one of my best friends. Back when we lived in the same town, we'd go to the budget cinema and see the worst movie they had to offer(usually after having a shot of whiskey at the bar next door). We prefer bad thrillers or something with music--think Can't Stop the Music with the Village People-- because bad dramas are boring and bad comedies are painful. My friend and I now live in separate cities but still get together one night a year for Bad Movie Night. Thanks to this thread, I now have one of next year's titles picked out: Rapa Nui.

Hey there Roger, I am curious if you still feel that The Dark Knight warrants a four star rating. Normally when I read your reviews, I am delighted that someone other than myself notices all the little plot holes and nuances that others seem to neglect, so why is that you where so generous with The Dark Knight?

The acting was phenomenal, and is the only thing, in my opinion which held it together. However, scene after scene, I find myself irritated at how often they try and ride the line between realism and Comicism(I made up a word, needed to assist in making my point) and fail in doing so. Batman/Bruce becomes a one dimensional character. The "cell-phone" Vision effect was idiotic, I felt confused while watching it, and Batman looked confused while using it.

Perhaps if this had not been the sequel to Batman Begins, which has the great caliber of acting, and excellent plot, and characters who could be cared about, then it could be considered great. Instead however, we have the uncompromising Batman, who makes decisions that are entirely unappropriated to the situation. The Joker, although portrayed excellently, was written into a role, where he was the villain for the sake of being a villain, and Harvey Dent who does a complete 180 at the end, blaming everyone for the death of his lover except the man who actually killed her.

And for the love of god why did the other bus drivers fail to question a rouge bus pulling out from a destroyed bank, why does a mafia bank teller suck on a grenade without complaint, and why do the civilians in the bank feel the need to not throw those grenades at their attackers?!

You know, the worst kinds of movies are the ones that disappoint. I remember how down I felt after seeing "Ghostbusters 2". Sequels make up the worst moviegoing experience because our expectations are so high.

You should see my copy of "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie." I've read it so many times it looks it got run over by a milk truck. Thus, I am extremely grateful you put up this post, Roger. Thanks.

Am I mistaken, or is Vardalos turning into the new age Barbara Streisand without the singing. A woman using cinema to express her need to be proclaimed the fairest of them all?

Peter Travers once said, about The Mirror has two Faces, that it`s not the fault of us, moviegoers, that Streisand`s parents never told her she was pretty as she was growing up, it seems to me Vardalos is going down the same path.

Jin Saotome,

I now feel sufficiently dumber having read your comment. I thank you readily for ridding me of those brain cells that I have apparently been misusing while watching movies throughout the course of my young life. Snark aside, I do have something to say for everybody.

Spectacles don't have to be devoid of humanity. Humanity is the core trait that draws us to the cinema. Without it we just have heaps of scrap metal groping one another. We see such sweeping displays of character, hardship, lightheartedness and humility that it fills us with wonder and a connection to something deeper. These human conflicts are represented to us in fantastic shapes, like a pale man with eyes in hands chasing after a lost girl or a billionaire destined to do good by his city, no matter the cost. Through the screen we are given a war of the real and the preternatural. They push each other back and forth across the battle line.

Some of the greatest stories can actually be told, I am looking at you Michael Bay, through a world verisimilitude, but that needn't always be the case. I would much rather the film of the year be an adaptation of a comic book, where it could be firmly seen by the public eye. I love quirky 'indie' films that stretch the perceptions of cinema and push the art forward, but I would rest much easier knowing the masses are being given films they deserve rather than products that will make the most revenue.

Benjamin Button was awful, and some of those who've defended it on this thread end their analysis with some sort of faux detective work meant to belittle those with differing opinions: "either you ___ (ie don't understand magical realism) or you ___ (even worse put-down, ie discount the style altogether)." Zoiks! Well, which one am I? The commenter's logic has thus painted those who do not like the movie into an existential corner, and we are now forced to decide which of the two idiots we are: 1)incapable of understanding the likes of Borges, or 2)deluded into thinking ourselves above classic literature. These marvels of deduction undermine some entertaining or even well-thought out preceding analysis that a person such as I would otherwise respect, despite disagreement.

I can see why people do like the firm - it is very pretty and some scenes in isolation are generally engaging. But I simply did not like the film. There are two reasons I can immediately think of why I didn't like Benjamin Button.

First, it is a rehash of Forrest Gump. The same mechanisms and plot devices are used, without an effort at concealing their origins, which indicates both lazy writing and uninspired story construction. These are, off the top of my head and in no way an exhaustive list: boy with physical ailments that impedes walking, Louisiana setting (not in itself bad), rusty boats and watery adventure, a Lieutenant Dan character, a love interest who is loose with men but comes around because of the good nature of the protagonist, a patient and loving protagonist, delayed romance consummated in the third act upon which the female lead passes away because of illness, a main character whose affliction seems to make him talk slowly and look off the camera to right, left, or center right-left, a cheerful black friend, travelling the land without purpose with episodic storylines. I'm sure somewhere on the internet, there are many more specific examples, as I was checking them off myself in the theater while watching this movie for the first time. Altogether, the picture seems to scream, "I am oscar worthy because I ripped my existence off of another oscar winner, with whom I share the same screenwriter!" It is hard to like a film that nearly demands us to take it as an important piece of cinema when it is the stitchwork of cliches and plot points. As a result, it gives the impression that nothing in this film is absolutely essential in telling this particular story. Delete a scene, or add another scene, or another character, and it is still the same movie. This is not a good thing - this film does not feel special.

Second, some scenes were just poorly conceived. As an example, I point out the scene where Benjamin is narrating the many actual and proximate causes of Daisy's car accident injury. The camera pulls back, splices with slow motion trackings of bit players, and the music slows to a heart skipping pace, for if only so and so didn't wake up so and so late, and this guy or that guy didn't cross this street or act in this way (I forget the exact reasons), then Daisy wouldn't have been injured. In Mr. Ebert's review of Jaws 2, he points out how one character had flashbacks of events he wasn't a part of. Similarly, Benjamin could tell us the myriad of remote reaons that contributed to Daisy's injury - something no police report could have figured out, let alone Benjamin, on his most intrepid and sleuthing days. So, why did this scene unveil like this? My guess is that someone in this mega-budget process probably said, "it will be dramatic if..." and that someone would be right, because when you pull the camera back, slow down the music, and have a narrator speak as an omniscient, almost pitying observer, the pace of the movie changes and there is setting for serious drama. We are hardwired like Pavlovian dogs to understand this (and it is effective, many a times). Only this technique is illogical in the internal rules that the movie has created for itself, because Benjamin is established as not having these powers, that he is normal like each of us except for this one affliction of aging backwards, thus implying that if he had the additional affliction of third person omniscient, this second affliction would have also been addressed front and center in this film.

No, this film was lazy. It was patch work. It did not grow organically from character, and it should not be allowed to hide behind excuses of "magical realism". Borges would not absolve this film, and neither should the general public. In my opinion.

I never really bothered dubbing a certain movie "the worst of all time," because I feel once I say one movie, another will come to mind. However, I don't remember having a reaction to any movie like the one I had with "Charlie Bartlett." God help us. If this is how anybody (filmmaker or not) sees the world, I fear they may be on the brink of personal breakdown.

Nothing about Charlie Bartlett ring true, or even comedically false. Charlie himself is annoying, but I'm sure some people liked him. The elements that got me literally cringing in my seat were as follows: Ever notice how these kids never go to class? I mean, they're in school, but no class. Then, when the boys AND girls go to the BOYS room to have their session with Charlie, the school principal doesn't seem to mind. Oh, yeah, high school boys and girls are definitely mature enough to be in the bathroom together. And finally, they actually made the suicidal kid turn out to be poetic. LIKE THAT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN ANY EMO-DRIVEN PREACHY INDIE FLICK.

Pretty much, this movie exists in a world that doesn't. Due to lack of spacemen or ingenious weaponry, it could not be dubbed "science-fiction," but that would have given it some slack in my book. All in all, skip this P.O.S. and if you have already suffered through it, understand that no actual humans behave like this.

I hate these threads cause I always end up ranting too much....

I think what really bothers me the most about some of the more recent movies is the Special Effects. I know how like Roger says Special Effects aren't what make the movie, the acting is usually what matters.

But if you were to watch some of the more recent movies like Transformers, Indiana Jones 4, Star Wars, Speed Racer and even really good movies like Iron Man and Live Free or Die Hard, the Computer Generated Interface looks so half-baked and so unrealistic, it actually distracts the viewers from even caring about the acting. I went back and looked at some of the older movies like The Thing and Clash of the Titans and for movies that are like nearly 30 years old, they actually look better and less distracting than seeing a bunch of odd deformed colors being splashed all over the silver screen.

"Star Trek" should be on this list. It was a waste of talent, energy, and a noble franchise. If Gene Roddenberry were still alive, and he saw the film before he got the check, he'd have died.

"Star Trek: Insurrection" was better than that. "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was better than that. The Star Wars prequel trilogy was better than that. You know, I think "Krull" may have been better, and that was really bad.

-Nighthawk

Monster's Ball. That was the worst movie ever.

Ebert: Nope.

I've seen all these moviesand hated. I hated them so much, I felt angry at the diretors for making me waste my time and money on these movies. Roger ebert was being too nice on these movies.

I hate, hate, hate ,hate, hate ,hate ,hate, hate ,hate ,hate, hate ,hate, hate these movies. I hate themso much, I feel that the word hate isnot enough to describe how I feel about them. If I could, I'd come up with a new word to describe much I disliked these movies.

Ebert: Despised is nice, and will suffice.

I'm 14 and read everyone of your new reviews. I have to admit, one time I did a search for any of your reviews with zero stars and thoroughly enjoyed them. This is a very good idea for a page.
Don't get me wrong, of course I still enjoy your five star reviews as well. :-)

Ebert: Hey, you're only human.

Hi Roger,

I disagree with your take on two recent Harry Potter (5&6) films. In your review of the fifth HP film, you say that the film lacked the whimsy and magic of the earlier films. A major theme of the HP books and certainly that of the films is how the characters mature and grow older, which in turn explains how each new installment grows darker, moodier, and edgier. The whimsy was appropriate in the first film, but come on, how many times is Harry and his friends supposed to marvel over the cute owls bringing their mail. Certainly for the audience that would grow quite dull. The excitement in each film is watching the characters grow a year older and facing more challenging encounters.

I don't feel that the films have lost the 'magic' as you say they do. The joy in watching these films comes from the 'magic' which includes venturing into the wizardry realm, fighting off dark villains, and dueling with spells and incantations. One aspect I find most magical is how each film finds ways of expanding the walls of Hogwarts and beyond; the magical rooms, enchanted classrooms, the always delightful dining hall, the dark forest, the lake etc. The magic, I feel, is growing in each new film.

As for the actual adaptation of the of the books to screen, I think the transition is done very well. The films have been very faithful to the original source, allowing the plot to continue without confusion.

Ebert: I may write a blog entry about this.

I wonder where Nigel Tomm's movies fit in with respect to bad movies. They can be seen for free on IMDb (sadly, discontinued on Amazon); e.g. his The Catcher in the Rye is 75 minutes of a blue screen, while his Qu'ran is 75 minutes of a yellow screen. I'm not sure if it's more dangerous to risk angering Salinger or fundamentalists.

I think you have probably saved me from many a bad movie experience at the theater! Worst movies I saw in a theater were Meet the Feebles, Natural Born Killers (I tried to like it; saw it twice on the big screen!), Very Bad Things, Orgazmo, The Avengers, and Cabin Fever, so really I have been spared a lot! However, I have seen many, many unspeakably bad movies on video.

Mr Ebert if you release these reviews in one place are you not harming potential sales of "Your Movie Sucks 2"?

Whilst your generosity will please the majority of your readers who now no longer have to search to find your witty and intelligent breakdown of film monstrocities. I feel I must protest. This free and easy exchange of your content will not financially benefit you in any way.

So please reconsider your decision... just give me 15 minutes to read them first.

Ebert: Of course, none of these are in the book. ;)

It's easy - sometimes far too easy - to take potshots at some of the more inane blockbuster fare Hollywood has sent our way recently, but I've never heard any in-depth discussion on exactly why there seems to be such a lack of concern with what can only be attributed to laziness when it comes to the way some of these films are assembled. Am I naive in thinking that the enormous budgets these films have would easily enable producers to put some effort into hiring the best of the best to, say, tidy up gaping holes in plotlines?

I recently watched "Terminator: Salvation" and it struck me that so many questions were left so blatantly unanswered that a conscious decision had to be made not to bother. If we assume that the production companies who make these monstrosities filter significant portions of their budgets towards making everything "work" for an audience, can we also assume that we've come to a point where clean, plausible plotlines have been removed from the list of significance, pushed aside for how many more big bangs we can cram in?

This all might seem obvious, but it should't be. I don't, for a minute, believe that there isn't a plethora of writing talent out there, hungry writers who would work inexpensively, and that most of the more ridiculous fare out there could have been salvaged to the point where we not only have the big bangs and the spectacle, but we also have literate, logical scripts which - naysayers be damned - would add to the enjoyment of such films.

Or is it just me?

Peter Vidjen said: "I disagree with your take on two recent Harry Potter (5&6) films."

From someone who has read the Harry Potter books several times over (I have read each book at least twice) the films always feel like Cliff Notes versions of the story. The films breeze through the high points but often miss the subtle details that make the books so special.

I never compare books to movies or vice versa. They are two totally different mediums with the capacity to express storytelling in vastly different ways. To compare one with the other is unfair. In the case of Harry Potter, the stories can be trimmed down to fit a two hour time frame and still tell a compelling story but with "Order of the Phoenix" I felt like the filmmakers were pushing us along at a rapid pace to get to the high points and special effects for fear that if the film ran over two hours we would start demanding a refund. "Half-Blood Prince" was a little better, it focused more on the personal relationships between Ron and Harry and Hermione, so much so that I found the darker side of the story far less interesting.

I am kind of alone in my dislike for "Gladiator", not the worst movie ever made but at least one of the worst films ever to win Best Picture (for me, it runs neck and neck with "The Great Ziegfeld"). I thought the production was sloppy, the special effects were muddy and the story was just a standard gladiator movie plot.

"I am kind of alone in my dislike for "Gladiator", not the worst movie ever made but at least one of the worst films ever to win Best Picture (for me, it runs neck and neck with "The Great Ziegfeld"). I thought the production was sloppy, the special effects were muddy and the story was just a standard gladiator movie plot."

You are not alone!
The Coliseum battles became less interesting and eventful as the movie progressed and the main villain was so weak that at the end I did not care if died so the ending climax was predictable, boring, and a non event. One of the few movies were I was excited watching it at the half-way point but at the end I was looking at my watch asking when does this end.

"If you really want to see a bad movie Mr. Ebert, go see Crank 2: High Voltage. I garuntee that it will be your one and only zero star movie of 2009."

OMG, I could not agree more!!! I sneaked into the theater just as it was beginning and I literally stayed for about 5 minutes or so--just long enough for the anal rape with the tar-encrusted shotgun and long enough to see "Dating-him-was-like-eating-a-dirt-sandwich"-according-to-Sharon Stone (who knew she was picky?)Dwight "Yokel-em" smacking the ass of an African-American woman (Where's her Oscar, by the way? Thought only Halle Barry was allowed to sell out like that). Unconscionably, purely racist, puerile, misogynistic dreck. Absolutely disgusting. Zero divided by zero. Shame on all involved.

My girlfriend and I just watched the movie "Wanted" last night on television. After agreeing it was one of the worst movies we'd ever seen, we tried coming up with other "Worst Movie Ever" contenders. Lots of the titles we nominated are here on this list, a few aren't.

"January Man" is one of them. I remember renting this years ago after looking at the cast (Kevin Kline, Harvey Keitel, Susan Sarandon, Rod Steiger) and thinking it would be almost impossible to mess up a movie with all that talent. I've never been more dead wrong in my life! What a complete mess of a film. I don't know who wrote the script, but I'm almost positive the culprit forgot to take their lithium during the process.

"Cursed," Wes Craven's worst film, is also one of the worst movies made by anyone. Thinking about it, I actually see parallels between it and "January Man." Neither film seems to know where it wants to go, or how to get there. Both are ships without captains, and the viewer inevitably feels lost at sea.

Wondering if Roger has reviewed either of these films? I'd be interested to hear his take.

No the worst movie ever was "The Draughtman's Contract". What made it the worst in my mind was that both you and the late Mr. Siskel gave it 4 stars. When you both agreed on a movie my wife and I would immediately go see it. What dreck. Plot figured out in oh, let's say 30 seconds. Bad acting, bad directing, even the actors were made unappealing. Oh and by the way I know that Greenaway guy (the director and pardon if I mispelled) actually did some OK movies (The Cook, The Wife etc. for example) but what garbage this was. I'd rather sit through "Ishtar" with large rodents at my feet than to subject myself to this crap. "Hardly Working" was actually a worse movie but at least you panned that. I may never have the chance of meeting you but just remember there is two people out there who want their $5.00 back and two hours of their life and blame you for it. By the way just for the record I liked "Freddie Got Fingered" and my son actually bought the DVD for me for my birthday so that should immediately give me instant creds for my movie review qualifications. Have a great Northern Wisconsin day.

Oooh, I love this!

For me, worst film ever--St. Elmo's Fire. EEEW! A bunch of self-absorbed, self-pitying, whiny, posturing 80s brats. And the girls I went with LOVED IT! (Well, what could I expect? Those girls were self-absorbed, self-pitying, whiny, posturing 80s brats--and I was a punk rocker. We soon parted company.)

Some runners up: Anything with Jean Claude Van Damme, Titanic, Ghost, all remakes of classic horror movies.

PLEASE NOTE: I must protest the remarks about Congo--one of my guilty pleasures! I watch it any time it's on! Don't ask why, I just LOVE it. And one correction--Amy the Gorilla doesn't scold and say "Bad . . Gorillas!" She says "Ugly . . . Gorillas!" I'm positive, because whenever I see myself in an unflattering photo, I tap it and say "Ugly. . . Gorilla!" to my husband, and it cracks him up hopelessly every time (he loves the movie, too.).

Roger, you are so much fun! I'm so glad I discovered your blog after watching you from day one on TV. Bless you! (And may the angels bless Gene Siskel.) However, I'm afraid it's making your fans too familiar--my hair stylist cracked up last week when we were talking movies and I said "well, my buddy Roger says . . . ".

jerryroberts2006@hotmail.com, you make a very good point about the comparison between a film and the book from which it is adapted from. They are two different mediums that serve their purposes in their own right. If a film is based on a book, I think that film has a responsibility to remain faithful to the original material. As for subtle details, if the film version of HP attempted to focus on each, the movie would certainly have a running time over three hours. Some trimming of the plot is required to make the leap from book to screen.

It is great to see that you still pan films. Some people are getting the impression that since your return from illness in 2006, you seem to be getting nicer in reviews and don't want to hate any films anymore. Well, not me. It isn't because of you they are making better films nowadays. Yeah, I know, that sounds weird. Anyway, one other comment. Have both your books on the bad films. Have to say that Your Movie Sucks I was a little disappointed in because it limited the bad reviews to 2000-2006, while I Hated.... went back over many years. In fact, What Planet are You From? appears in BOTH books. If you do a third one (and I sure hope you do), go back and see which films you gave negative reviews to from the early days that weren't in print before. I'm sure you can find some. And if you need help, just ask.

Petar Vidjen said: "jerryroberts2006@hotmail.com, you make a very good point about the comparison between a film and the book from which it is adapted from. They are two different mediums that serve their purposes in their own right. If a film is based on a book, I think that film has a responsibility to remain faithful to the original material. As for subtle details, if the film version of HP attempted to focus on each, the movie would certainly have a running time over three hours. Some trimming of the plot is required to make the leap from book to screen."

I think you're right. Respect for the author's original intend should be observed. Yet, in some cases, changes have to be made and sometimes they work.

The film version of "The Firm" for example. I hated the book's ending which indicated that the husband and wife would just keep on running. The ending of the film tied the story up a little better because, for a thriller film, you needed a tighter ending.

Another example was "Watchmen" which, in the graphic novel, dealt with a perceived alien threat as a conspiracy to unite the world against the heroes. In the film version there was an attempt to replicate Dr. Manhattan's powers and I think it gives the plot a smoother flow.

In both cases, I think the changes worked.

Highlander 2: The Quickening was probably the absolute worst movie I ever saw in a theater. It not only held its audience in contempt, but the mythology of the first film as well. The original Highlander was no masterpiece, but it was passably watchable, it's sequel was not. I've heard there is a "Renegade Edition" that makes this better. Color me skeptical.

Hi Roger.I´m from Brazil and I don´t know how much your work is appreciated here but I want you to know that I´m a faithfull reader of yours and I never watch a movie before checking you website first.
You sure have a list of the the greatest movies of all time.So would it be too much to ask one for the worst movies as well?.I know such task would require a full time job but that would be fun.
For me a bad movie is one that falls short of its own expectations.
A comedy without laughs. A action thriller without that Bruised Forarm experience(Terminator Salvation comes to mind) or a romantic comedy with no real insights into what it really means to be in love and the laughs of course.As simple as that.
Bye the way Siskel used to say "Is this movie more intereting than a documentary of the actors having lunch?".For which movie did he say that first.?.

Ebert: No particular movie. He said it all the time.

Bad movie? I have ordered the DVD of "Troma 2," voted worst movie of all time on IMDb. Hasn't arrived yet...

Roger said: "I have ordered the DVD of 'Troma 2', voted worst movie of all time on IMDb. Hasn't arrived yet..."

Maybe that is the fates at work.

Someone gave me a copy of "Bad Boys II" about two years ago asserting that I would absolutely love it. However, I suspect they were trying to get rid of it. When I put it in my machine the disc didn't work. I consider that a gift from above.

Can anyone possibly find anything good to say about Pathfinder? I LIKE Karl Urban but could only manage about 30 minutes. Or Alexander? Twenty minutes at most. I wanted to stuff a sock in Anthony Hopkins' mouth.

Troma 2? I can't find mention of such a movie, maybe you're goofing on Troma Entertainment? Or perhaps you mean Troll 2?

Right now Ulli Lommel's Daniel - Der Zauberer tops (or bottoms) IMDb's Bottom 100. Lommel, one wonders what happened to him. Decades ago he made some OK movies, lately he churns out unwatchable direct-to-garbage.

Roger, you help us avoid bad movies. Who helps you avoid bad movies?

Ebert: Freudian slip.

Me.

Thanks to your reviews, Mr. E, I haven't seen a bad movie in years! I seem to agree with your assessments about 99.44% of the time, so I stay away from anything in the sub-two star range. All in all, I estimate you've saved me roughly $2.7 million in box office ransom--er, I mean, reasonably-priced movie tickets. --PROF--

Just checked back in and found two wonderful comments since I last posted.

- I'd rather sit through "Ishtar" with large rodents at my feet than to subject myself to this crap. - Jim J, thanks for making me laugh out loud! I couldn't have held it in if I tried.

And I couldn't have said the following better than ArtDog. Definitely made me smile since I totally agree with her.

- However, I'm afraid [your blog is] making your fans too familiar--my hair stylist cracked up last week when we were talking movies and I said "well, my buddy Roger says . . . ".

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I've been reading and watching your reviews for years. I was disappointed when Richard Roeper ended your latest TV show, but I hope you're feeling better and are doing fine! There's no one who can review movies like you.

I'm 42 and live in NJ. I was acutely sore at your Webpage for bouncing my emails -- they were quite pleasant, actually -- but I was very sore that you were champing at the bit to spoil the ending of "The Village" some years ago. I liked it, but did kind of figure "it" out after your on-air review and -- to be fair -- the saturation ads. I go out of my way to never spoil a twist ending, however bad the movie. For shame! >:-(

OK! The reason I'm writing is I was surprised by how much you liked "Orphan." I thought you would've panned it as an "idiot plot" movie, or added it to your "I hated hated hated your movie!" I went out of my way to see it -- paying full price in fear someone would spoil the twist ending, and was more than disappointed. I will not spoil the ending. I will say that the movie took itself too seriously (not always a bad thing), but was widely unrealistic (the 2 kids didn't meet their adopted sister until she walked into the house??). Only 1 adult had any sense...it was very much like "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" some years ago. Then, just about everyone in the movie was kinda dopey to make the movie "work." (Audiences weren't any smarter, gasping as ludicrous plot elements were revealed. The best part of seeing "Cradle" in theaters was the two mouthy couples behind me who commented on all the foolishness. For "Orphan," it was just me, without the snarky commentary!)

"Orphan" is a blend of "The Bad Seed," as you said, and the very boring ca. 1979 "The Godsend," which, to my knowledge you and Gene Siskel never reviewed (don't bother!). I like horror movies, and am genuinely disappointed the "twist" didn't deliver. The story was really too weak (for me, anyway) with too many clueless adults, and I doubt the movie will last longer than one DVD issue. We'll see....

Ebert: This blog site shouldn't be bouncing your emails. I personally read and post everything except libel, obscenity, illiteracy, etc. Think maybe you linked to another site my spam filter disapproved of?

Roger DOES write like everybody's buddy. This is no small talent. I even passed his site on to a rawther prominent editor who publishes a Journal of Lugubrious Reflections on the side. Everybody needs to start writing like Roger Ebert. Well, a lot of people.

Catching up on recommendedly bad movies. Yup, "Masked and Anonymous" would've been much better directed by Joan Rivers, whose 1978 classic "Pregnant Male, Ha Ha Ha," showed an instinctive command of narcissism that could've placed this Dylan eye-feast second only to Neil Diamond's version of "The Jazz Singer."

Never mind the cute boobs, "Rapa Nui," har har har.

I liked Ishtar. It wasn't for the Transformers crowd. It was for somewhat better than average musicians for whom hearing really bad songwriting is a comfort.

It takes quite a talent to write an exactly bad song. For this I admired Paul Williams much more than I ever had. Previously, I hated having to play his syrupy schlock to make a living. Even so, that takes extraordinary skill, too.

Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty had the dumb-guy wannabe pop star down so tight, the only trouble with "Ishtar" is that there weren't enough somewhat better than average musicians to fill the theaters. Hell may be full of them, but they're usually broke up here.

It would have been like making their girlfriends pay to come to rehearsal.

Ebert: There are people who like "Ishtar." It had such a negative effect on me that just perhaps there was something there.

"The Muse" seems to be a movie that was made to be liked by certain film critics and no one else. It was the movie that convinced me that there is a hard and fast rule: if the film "drops in" on a group of people sharing a laugh to establish their sudden camaraderie without being willing to write the dialogue to give the reason for that laugh (and that camaraderie) then the viewer is watching a bad movie. In-jokes for the cinemaphile (oh, Scorcese is re-making Raging Bull, what a stitch) alternate with painfully out-of-place and predictable physical humor; in one scene the "Muse" apparently uses magical powers to make our protaganist forget, and in the end, oh wait, she doesn't have any powers at all (and forget about that scene, and all the Hollywood notables who seem to think otherwise, with no explanation.) Watching "The Muse" felt very much like watching a film whose script had no second editor, just a halo of glowing yes-men enamored of the author-director and premise.

I didn't begrudge your panning "Ishtar" one bit, Roger. Even I wondered why they'd spend so much money on a movie only a highly specialized -- and usually broke -- audience would think was funny. Honestly I thought it was decided on by cokeheads -- which was very common at the time.

Gonna go find your review of it now. One more good laff, then to bed.

By scruffy on July 22, 2009 10:42 AM
My girlfriend and I just watched the movie "Wanted" last night on television. After agreeing it was one of the worst movies we'd ever seen, we tried coming up with other "Worst Movie Ever" contenders. Lots of the titles we nominated are here on this list, a few aren't.

"January Man" is one of them. I remember renting this years ago after looking at the cast (Kevin Kline, Harvey Keitel, Susan Sarandon, Rod Steiger) and thinking it would be almost impossible to mess up a movie with all that talent. I've never been more dead wrong in my life! What a complete mess of a film. I don't know who wrote the script, but I'm almost positive the culprit forgot to take their lithium during the process.

That would be John Patrick Shanley, fresh off of his Oscar win for his screenplay for Moonstruck. He bounced back the following year with the wonderfully quirky Joe Versus the Volcano which, alas, flopped in theaters.

Roger, I'm so happy you'll soon be joining those of us who own "Troll 2" on purpose. I have a once-a-year screening for all my friends. It is truly delightful, a miracle of cinema.

You mentioned Troma, if accidentally. I'm a huge Troma fan, but only for those films that were made with heart (not to mention other organs). "Tromeo & Juliet," for example, or even "Toxic Avenger." But then, my theory is no movie can be ALL bad if the filmmakers are trying, in their own little ways, to make a good one, or at least one that speaks to them personally. You might end up with a bad movie, sure, but even while I find "Eyes Wide Shut" a ham-fisted bore, I can appreciate that Kubrick was trying to achieve something, to create something new. Same deal with "The 300."

The TRULY horrible movies are the ones constructed of pure cynicism, the ones concocted by studios with the sole intent of cashing in - and that's where "Transformers etc." surely falls. Same with so many post-"Something About Mary" comedies that trade random gross-outs for laughs ("The Sweetest Thing," "Tomcats"). Of course not all corporate creations are bad - some of them can be entertaining - but wouldn't you rather watch a horrible failure by an auteur than a mediocre piece of product-by-committee?

You forgot The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen! One of the worst films I have ever seen (and I'm 16, so by default I've seen some pretty terrible stuff).
Also, I thought I'd mention two others. Intolerable Cruelty and House of Games.
House of Games doesn't even get the lame but good award. It's 102 minutes of excruciating boredom, with a few awkward and emotionless shootings thrown in. Yeesh.
Intolerably Cruelty puzzles me though. It seems like it could've been okay, but just lacked any will to be. The film was full of big name actors, such as Clooney, Zeta Jones and Cedric the Entertainer, but it seemed to just meander through a bunch of different scenes and plots without much to tie them together. It was just odd.

I saw "Taken" the other night and, to be honest, I was a little disturbed by it. The movie mounts a Jason Bourne-type thriller onto some extremely dark subject matter - the selling of young girls into prostitution. The film is beyond belief with Liam Neeson as a one-man army trying to rescue his daughter. There's not a moment that is to be believed but there is a thread that is left hanging.

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

Liam Neeson finds his daughter's friend Amanda dead in a brothel but never mentions her again. I thought that, at least, he would mention that her body had been recovered and that her family would get some closure but the movie ends with Neeson finding his daughter and everyone smiling and happy.

I felt that it could have at least been brought up with a line of dialogue that she was recovered or he could have at least informed the daughter that her friend was dead, but no, we are left to wonder if the poor girl was simply disposed of. I know it is a small quibble but it just seemed kind of cruel to leave that element hanging out there.

I think all of you're picks were spot on.
But, you know, I skimmed some of the comments, but I did not see my votes for 'wrost movies ever' in them anywhere.

So, I figured I would mention the worst movies I've ever seen, as everyone else has. You've all jiumped off the bridge...

1. Dragonball- I went to laugh. Really, I grew up the cartoon
(which demostrates how very young I am)and I knew they were going to destroy it. If there was much to destroy about the rather plotless "Dragonball' and 'Dragonball Z' cartoons. However, it was so bad, it wasn't even funny. It seemed like they weren't even trying!

2. The Cave- Once upon a time, there was 'Alien' and it was brilliant. Unfortunately, once upon a time, someone also thought they could do better. Or at least make money on a rip off. Thus, we get The Cave, among the dumest movies hollywood has ever managed. You've seen this move before, even if you didn't watch it.

3. The Curiouse Case of Benjamin Button- About thirty minutes in, I really wanted to scream 'Make it stop!'
I lasted through the whole thing without gnawing off any of my own limds to stave off bordom. I can't quite figure how, though

4. Alien vs. Predator-I really really like Alien, if you haven't noticed, so I am perhaps a bit biased. No matter. I hated this movie. It had nothing good in the whole thing, the plot, writing, characters, all of it was just so dull. What was I suposed to care about?
Also, one does not do this to classics like Alien. Not at all. (Alien Resurection is only narrowlyu saved from this list. While it is awful, and the plot is incoherent, it DOES have Ripely prancing about say 'I;m the monster's mother.' So what this betrays her character, made me laugh!)

5. Beverly Hills Chihuahua- I actually had to see this movie. I did not want to. I was sitting for my sister. Oh, curse you, small impresionable children who'll like anyhting Disney tells them too. Curse you! This film is every bit as bad as it looks!

I could harp on, but I shan't. However, and please don't kill me for this, unofficial six: I hate The Princess Bride.
€
Now I run, as the pitchforks are ussualy forthcoming when one expresses any dislike of that movie...

Hey,
In your book SCORSESE, you have several reconsiderations that follow some of the original reviews.

Can we ever expext reconsiderations for some films like "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" or for instance "Reservoir Dogs", as a column like the "your movie sucks" or "first time online"?

Or would you say that you are secure in response towards films like those?

Those were the few times I must say I disagreed a with you and some other critics.

Hi, Roger.

Maybe this doesn't belong here.

I just read your review of the original Poseidon Adventure. So insightful, yet howlingly funny. I may have it framed.

Robert

A whole month of bad films how great! I spend sat. watching films at the theater I have four films to add; European Vacation ; Translyvanian 6500 And the worst film I have ever seen Observe And Report. Not a redeemable moment in that celluloid experiment I thought it would be bad I just did not know how bad. Crank 2 was the worst of the year until Observe and report.
Mr Ebert thank you for your list of gems and worthwile dvd's it helps with my collection.

For two years now, I have used my MySpace account to write my own movie reviews. Each year I try to write reviews for movies both new and old, as well as include recommendations as to whether an individual should see the movie on the big screen or wait until it arrives on DVD to check it out. So far this year, the absolute worst piece of garbage I have seen is easily "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". Michael Bay managed to do something I had previously thought was next to impossible: take a movie involving giant robots beating each other up and tearing buildings apart and make it totally and completely BORING!!! I kept glancing at my watch wondering when this lumbering junkyard mess would mercifully be over, and it just kept going and going. Everything that I enjoyed about the first film (and I actually like the first one alot) was missing from the second film, leaving me cringing at the thought of the inevitable third installment. The most unfortunate thing about a movie like this is that it's box office gross will simply reenforce Hollywood's idea that if they simply fill the screen with giant explosions and hot women, audiences will line up around the block to see it. Good dialogue and characters that are well written are already an endangered species in the movie world, and movies like "Transformers 2" will just perpetuate this cycle.

Observe and Report is the third best comedy of the year, right behind I Love You, Man and Adventureland, all three of which seem like they came out ages ago. I think a lot of people misread the flick as a celebration of the nihilistic, action hero fantasies of many Americans, simply because Ronnie Barnhardt winds up living happily ever after, but I thought the last 15 minutes, over the top though they were, drove the point home.

It also helps that my sister and I spent the bulk of the movie laughing our asses off, but to each his own.

Hello Mr. Ebert:

I've been wanting to ask you a question ever since I found out about something nearly a year ago. Actually, it has nothing to do with the your movie sucks file, but I don't know where else to go to ask you. I was amazed when I found out that "Birth of a Nation" and "The Third Man" had been removed from the AFI's top 100 movies list. I can understand objecting to the content of much of "Birth", but due to its status in the history of film, how could they possibly justify this move? And "The Third Man"? Do you have any insights or information into why these two monumental classics were removed?
Thanks a lot.

Ebert: As I understand it, the AFI list is "selected by a blue-ribbon panel of leaders from across the film community." No one persopn did it. Majority rules.

Gotta include the following in any worst list:
Howard The Duck
Short Cuts
Eyes Wide Shut
Bad Santa
Striptease
Battlefield Earth
Showgirls
Lady in the Water
Swept Away
Any of the recent parody movies ala Epic Movie. You name it, it sucks.

Some 25 years ago, I watched (gagged on?) "I spit on your grave" with a group of high school friends. If there is a film that can cause PTSD, it is this one. A couple days back, one of my sons asked me what the worst movie I ever saw was. This title leapt to mind instantly. Knowing that revealing the title would substantially increase the probability that my son would one day see the movie (...I had to just check--yup, it's available on DVD. sigh), I refused to answer. Zero stars is about 8 too many.

How could you have enjoyed Knowing? The movie had a good plot until about the last hour in to it. Don't get me wrong I abbsolutly hated Transformers II! But that got a 1 star out of 4? How could that be?

You can ask anyone of my family members of howmuch I read your reviews. I was a little upset about certain ones that you reviewed. But then again I am 15 years old trying to make a career in Journalism.

I honestly think you should reconsider some of your reviews that you have done in the past.

Aren't Richard Lester's films shot in a very strange way? I find him a very unique and interesting director (and I don't mean successful by that), but for some reason, save for esporadic and surprisingly bright moments, his choices for visual composition and shot scale usually seem awkward to me...

Thanks for reading and all the best.

Hello. When I was 16 or 17, some friends and I (all typical 16- or 17-year-old boys) went to see "Malibu Hot Summer". The movie was filled with naked women. But it was horrible. We all agreed. That's when I learned that it probably would be boring to be in a room with three naked chicks, so I've avoided that in the 25 years since.

According to IMDB, the movie got re-released a few years later after Kevin Costner got famous. I'm pretty sure it must have sucked then, too.

Roger,
Just wanted to thank you for your review of the new Transformers. Finally someone sees it for what it really is, overhyped garbage. Sure it has made 300+ Million dollars in the U.S., this proves that popular surly does not mean right.
Thanks again for your insight.

There's two movies that jump right to the front of the line when I think of your "This Movie Sucks..." series.

Battlefield Earth would have been my #1 pick for worst movie but it was so bad that it generated endless conversations with friends who also saw it. Those conversations were entertaining, so indirectly the movie entertained me.

Easily, the worst movie I've experienced was "Road To Wellville". I don't know if a movie ever wasted such a talented cast. Sir Anthony Hopkins, fake buck teeth and all, recalled Mickey Rooney's cringe-inducing role in Breakfast at Tiffany and trumped it by embarrassing the audience in nearly every scene. Half way through the movie, I realized I was watching crap...literally. When Dana Carvey, playing a mentally unstable heir, started chucking cereal boxes filled with excrement that's where I reached the breaking point. I almost cried when I realized I had wasted three days of rental fees because I kept putting off viewing this disaster.

There was a great movie putdown that I've loved for years, falsely attributed to Foster Brooks, or to Rich Little portraying Foster Brooks. It was first coined by Les Lye, a Canadian comedian and broadcaster who collaborated with Little earlier in his career. American audiences that knew him would most likely remember him from the Nickelodeon kids' comedy "You Can't Do That On Television". Last week, Mr. Lye passed away at the age of 84, and it made me recall the line, uttered by his character of Senator Prevert, a drunk politician: "I've seen better film on a wino's teeth".

Road to Wellvile deserves that line. In fact, compared to Hopkins' Dr. Kellogg, the wino had better teeth too.

My three least favorite movies (as in "truly awful," not "so bad it's entertaining") are "The Mist," "Edmond" and "Atonement."

"Atonement's" various accolades boggle my mind. For the most part, it's middling; not that bad, but not that great. It's mystifying that critics would love this movie, claiming it's some grand epic love story, when really it's an idiot plot in high-class clothing. The entire plot would not have happened had any of the three main characters not acted like morons at just the wrong times.

But then the ending came along and made me angry, literally angry. Upon the final revelation, I honestly felt like I had been conned. And it wasn't a fun con, like David Mamet seems to love writing; it was a malicious con, put on just to make me feel stupid.

"The Mist" has several problems. I didn't feel like the monsters attacking had any unification between them; it seemed like they said, "Let's have a spider-monster! Ooh! And a tentacle monster! And a wasp monster, etc., etc.," without thinking about how these creatures would coexist. Additionally, Marcia Gay Harden's character went beyond religious caricature into slander; she behaves like a monster, all for the purpose of a cheap insult to religious fundamentalism.

And then the ending came along. It was like a punch in the face for daring to care about these people in this tough situation. It was cruel, evil, cynical, and worst of all, it was pointless and out of character. These were the good guys, the people fighting to survive, and then they make this horrible mistake, all so the movie can have a big nihilistic message. Coming from Frank Darabont, the man who made movies like "The Majestic," "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile," all at the very least mildly hopeful, it was like a huge middle finger to the audience.

"Edmond" is one of the most unpleasant films I've ever seen. Astonishingly, it's based on a David Mamet play; between this and his book on Hollywood, it made me wonder if Mamet had lost his mind.

It's a journey through the night, but what purpose the journey has is unclear. It revels in being offensive, but unlike other Mamet films, where the vulgarity can be musical, it feels like an obscene joke told by someone with no comic timing. It is harsh and unpleasant, and to no purpose. It doesn't seem to have been reviewed by Ebert; I don't know if it was released during his medical downtime or what, but either way, it's lucky for him that he presumably hasn't seen it.

There have been bad movies I've loved ("The Apple," the best futuristic disco-themed Biblical allegory I'll ever see), and bad movies I've hated (I've sat through a Larry the Cable Guy movie), but those three movies are the ones that caught me off-guard with their awfulness.

PS: I seriously loved the "Crank" movies. They're offensive and stupid, but as Mel Brooks said, they rise below vulgarity; they're so offensive and over-the-top, they're hilarious. I wonder what the people who disliked "Crank 2" thought of "Shoot 'Em Up;" they're both of a similar breed.

On a related note, since you've previously mentioned several Bollywood clunkers that have often made me wonder who on earth recommended them - have you heard of the new Bollywood movie Love Aaj Kal?

The third movie of a young and very talented filmmaker called Imtiaz Ali, it's not as effervescent as his previous efforts like Jab We Met (When We Met - the DVD is a definite keeper) or Socha Na Tha (I Never Imagined - the sweetest debut movie I've seen in a long while) but it's a breath of fresh air in this day and age when rampant misogyny if not misanthropy masquerades as romcom.

I don't mean to come off as part of Imtiaz's PR team, but he's probably the only person I know of today, in Hollywood or Bollywood, who makes unabashedly romantic movies about modern day people without so much as a whiff of the dick jokes and shrew digs that seem to infuse the genre today.

And he does it with song and dance! What's not to like, really.

The Wicker Man by Nicholas Cage has got to be one of the worst--if not the absolute worst--movies I have ever seen. And I only saw a part of it. But in all fairness, it was just marketed in the wrong genre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_mW8mBzmHo

But, on another note. I've recently picked up Princess Mononoke after watching it multiple times as a child, and I'm taking it upon myself to--how do I aptly word this?--enlighten my friends and family on what a truly great movie is.

So I was wondering, why not make another list that counteracts this list? A "your movie is a masterpiece" kind of list.

I can't believe I wrote "by Nicholas Cage." I meant "with" clearly.

And I noticed that there are some lists of great movies, so I guess making another would be kind of redundant.

Here is a nice way to watch a Michael Bay Film. From one of my favorite blogger

http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2009/how-to-watch-michael-bay/

Thanks
Joson

Mr. Ebert,

Might I suggest that you let Alex from Madison, who harshed so elequently on your most recent peeve, "Transformers", be invited to be a guest reviewer? You've got to respect a teenage male who can stand up to six friends and speak truth about a truly terrible film. Plus, he's definitely got that acerbic tone and referential style we've come to associate with your reviews.....

I have always thought the greatest contenders for horrible, god-awful films, were ones that included Madonna. This is especially true for the worst film I have ever seen, "The Next Best Thing". I am pretty sure you would agree with me on this one. Not only was the film horribly acted, but I found the story so offensive and I consider myself a fairly open person. I think there was potential for the film to explore how complicated a relationship can be between a man and woman, but instead it treated its audience as only capable of mindless dribble.

Mr. Ebert I have two dvd questions not related to the topic but an answer would be greatly appreciated. In the movie Notting Hill is the inscription on the park bench where the two main actors mention a couple who have been together for many years based on a actual couple.
Secondly I saw the film Pulp Fiction on its second day in wide release and the scene where Mr. Jackson sees an alternate reality if he comes out of restroom firing his weapon was cut. Why was it cut after the first weekend. I have the sceenplay in paperback and it was written in and shot for the movie than deleted. Why?
Thank you for your help and your Website.

I agree wholeheartedly with Colin F. who writes that the accolades garnered by "Atonement" boggle his mind. Atonement was surely one of the most idiotically plotted movies ever produced, leaving baffled audiences everywhere wondering why they were cheated out of a real story. It would have been better if the script had ended with, "...and then everyone was run over by a truck."

Many very interesting comments.

A bad movie I've recently seen on cable was, "Swing Vote," but it's a mess. Simply, it didn't decide what it was about. And there's one scene that struck me as having been added after it was test-marketed, though I don't really know if that's true. It just seems like a scene meant to, "even," things out since the movie is so obviously biased in one political direction, even though that contradicts the intent (if that's the word) of the story. Another problem is that the press is so charmed by Kevin Costner's character, they never notice he's unfit to be a father.

I saw, "Public Enemies," and thought Johnny Depp did a fine job, but felt the characterization of everybody else was slight. The bank jobs and escapes were exciting, but the main conflict between the law and the outlaws was routine. I think the reviews gave the story more credit than it deserved. But let's face it, Michael Mann just isn't that interested in story. "Baby Face Nelson," was a disappointment in it, especially after, "O, Brother, Where Art Thou?". I was very interested in, "J. Edgar Hoover," though he has a very small part. I think a bio of him might make a good movie.

"The Dark Knight," was a fine superhero movie, but, for my money, like, "Spiderman 3," had too much story. I understand why they included, "Two-Face," thematically, but to me it was too much (forgive the word play).

I didn't think, "The Bucket List," was a bad movie, just a by-the-numbers one.

I didn't think much of, "The Happening," as not enough happens in it (yes, I'm very funny). Does every M. Night movie have at its center a disfunctional married couple?

I also tried watching, "Death Proof," but I didn't last past the first murder, which occurs after about an hour of girls partying. I've seen previews of, "Inglorious Bastards," and can't say I'm too excited about it. Maybe Tarantino is written out.

Good night, all.

Tyler Kent, I can't tell you how amused I was to see you agreeing with my judgment of "Atonement."

As for other bad movies, somebody above mentioned "CSA: The Confederate States of America." It's not an outright terrible movie, but it's not really worth the time to watch it, either. The following is based heavily on a NetFlix review I wrote for it.

One of the big concepts for the movie was that, as a faux television documentary on the US in an alternate history where the South won the Civil War (without explaining how, IIRC), there are commercial interruptions for over-the-top racist commercials. There are two problems with this. First, it gets monotonous after a while; do you really think that, had the South won, every single ad on TV would have a racial caricature? Second, the ending reveals that a lot of the commercials (if not all of them) are based on real ads from long ago. Unfortunately, they source the ads like the bibliography of a class report. It's like the filmmakers felt that the ads just weren't strong enough on their own, so they have to explain them.

So the movie goes on about the history of the Confederate States of America. At first, it kind of works in an interesting way; Abe Lincoln being blackfaced was an interesting concept, and I liked that they had a "Birth of a Nation"-style silent film. But eventually, it wears off, and history suddenly starts mirroring reality, only with racism added in. Why? Would JFK really have been a Presidential nominee in the alternate timeline? It's like they suddenly ran out of creativity halfway through.

Another problem is with the ending. (Yeah, I have a thing about endings.) For no apparent reason whatsoever, the historical-documentary style is dropped to incorporate a plot twist. I won't reveal what the plot twist is, but I will say that, given a little thought, it seems heavily implausible in both the likelihood of it occurring, and in the idea that a historical documentary would bother incorporating it.

But the biggest problem is that it's a feature-length movie based on a concept that doesn't stretch that long. Even at 89 minutes long, there are parts of it that could easily be thrown out without affecting it. It's short subject material, and at feature length, it wears out its welcome.

So that's "CSA: Confederate States of America." No need to go back and review it; it's probably best left forgotten.

The last film I saw was "Aliens in the Attic", and it was terrible. The story was inconsistent, contrived, and pointless. And I'm part of the target audience. It's sad how the studios underestimate children's intelligence so much. I wish you'd review that one, Roger, I feel it'd be interesting to hear your opinion on it.

Roger, will you grace us with a review of Troll 2 when you have the misfortune to see it?

I have not seen Troll or Troll 2, which I know only by reputation, but I have seen the also unrelated and trollless and bad Troll 3, which was about killer tree roots.

By Eric on June 28, 2009 8:46 PM

9. Vanilla Sky

Nope, Eric...FAIL! Any movie that includes a Radiohead song ("Everything in Its Right Place" in this case) does not -- can not -- suck!

I saw a large portion of Transformers Revenge of the Fallen.

The reason I saw this is because I was waiting to get a haircut at a Barber Shop here in Southern Cal that will remain nameless, and the proprietor happened to be playing a "bootleg" copy of it for his customers...

I am thankful that I didn’t go through the difficult ordeal of watching that on a big screen...I would have literally walked out...From the get go, when I saw this, I was like "Oh hell no...I am seriously seriously thankful I didn’t see this on a big screen..." I can’t even imagine how anyone endured this film. And I watched it on a small screen across the room.

The pacing was like- "uh...huh? What the #%^?"

Jumping -cutting- cutting-etc etc etc to where no one knows what is going on,..In what human capacity does Michael Bay think that what he did in this film equals any normal style of human thought when watching a "story" on screen?

As I always tell people, I am a huge fan of action movies...The opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark is, to me, probably one of the coolest 15 minutes in film history...

That scene, with Indy running from the darts, jumping over the chasm, and running from the boulder... it was FAST. FAST MOVING. And yet Spielberg made sense of it. Using spacing, using matching action cuts, having a good sense of using the cinema screen... Spielberg showed us all FAST ACTION in that 1981 film, but done in an excellent manner.

Michael Bay instead gives us this style where every cut lasts 2 seconds or less, and ALL CUTS are the same length...how in the name of God can he think an entire film pounding away like this is enjoyable? Is Michael Bay even human? Is he on drugs?

Seriously, I watched the scene where they flee from the female Decepticon, etc, then drive in the car, then the car is picked up by the helicopter, then dropped, etc etc etc

It’s this ridiculous non stop moving camera with this cut/cut/cut/cut/cut/cut so we hear "drive-vroom-No-go-Sam-ahh-bam" every 2 seconds... We don’t even get a chance to even know what the hell is going on...

Either Bay is on drugs or has ADD. No normal person would demand that a movie be paced like this.

What is wrong with Spielberg? Bay is the anti-thesis to the style of filmmaking Spielberg created. Spielberg can still direct "FAST" (Minority Report) but has a story ARC- has CHARACTERS- has a PLOT that we follow...and allows us a few seconds, or maybe even a minute, to MARVEL at what is on screen...why does Spielberg hang out with this guy? Why does he even put his name on this guy's "work"?

One irony, sadly, is that Bay, in his hyperactivity, doesn’t allow anyone to even get a chance to even ADMIRE what he has spent his millions on! The human mind doesn’t even get a chance to even SEE what is on the screen before Bay cuts again...terrible-

Audience abuse. All it was. This film could be banned from use through the Geneva Convention as torturing political prisoners it's so bad.

Seriously...Spielberg needs to find a REAL protégé. The REAL, ACTUAL director who will be "the next Spielberg" needs to step up to the plate, and QUICK.

We can’t suffer any more Michael Bay onslaughts on the medium of film.

Step Brothers is HIIILAAAAARIOUSSSSSS! I don't usually go for the dumb comedy, but this movie kills me every time. Ebert, you may have felt dirty, but I am rolling in the mud like a pig.

Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103336/) by Andreas Schnaas (who didn't make one good or even mediocre movie). Worse than every Boll or Wood movie I've seen. Just terrible.

Here's a clip of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy3XHdyGI40

The worst movies ever are Babel and The Mist.

By Paul on June 30, 2009 9:56 PM

Seriously tho, avoid the Will Ferrell movies. Life is so precious and so short...

Excepting Stranger Than Fiction, I pretty much agree.

I agree with the person who said that horror movies have turned into torture fests! where's the suspense?? As for bad movies, how about BUG w/ Ashley Judd(I can't believe I wasted money on that mess) or THE NUMBER 24, what was Jim Carrey thinking? I'd also like to add that a lot of recent animated movies that most people rave about I have been underwhelmed to the point of boredom by.
examples: WALL-E and CARS (toddlers were actually playing in the
aisles in the theater I watched this in, so I'm guessing they had also lost interest) I did however find the recent UP to be a delight.

Dead Ringers, Cruisin, Pet Semetary, Magnolia, White of the Eye. God awful start to finish

By Jennifer M on July 4, 2009 2:54 PM

Like most people, I do love my guilty pleasures. One of my all-time favorite movies is My Chauffeur,...

Deborah Foreman was great in that!

I just got back from "G. I. Joe" and I hated it. It was boring, with a bad plot.

Obviously taste in movies is highly dictated by a person's individual interests etc, but some films are so terribly awful that sitting through them is a chore unmatched by any other. (The Hulk, Atonement, remake of the Wicker man.)

I don't demand that every film I watch has to be a foreign arthouse movie, I'm as guilty as anyone else in liking trash- my secret secret pleasure is The Fast and the Furious, but it is impossible to avoid the fact that at the moment it is foreign movies who are cornering the market when it comes to extremes- extremes of horror (Let the Right one In), beauty (Sympathy for Lady Vengeance), compassion (Inside I'm Dancing), humour (Shaolin Soccer) etc.

Hollywood can do all of this genres. Sometimes it can do them well. But it can't take it to the logical conclusion. It can't let go and determine to push boundaries. And when it tries there is something lacking.

I blame the budget to some extent. Not to big up the Brits, but sometimes our smaller budgets result in more measured and paced cinema, because we don't have the money for star vehicles.

Also a word to Hollywood. Take your dirty mitts off the rest of the world's films and tv shows. Stop stealing our ideas and remaking them for your audience, and remaking twice as badly. Stay away from the hundreds of thousands of other shows that have been flops in the US because you strip everything that is good away from the original (acting/scripts) and instead throw money at it.

If you like it, but can't understand our horrible English accent, then subtitle it, and stop treating your audience like fools

Someone here mentioned the NUMBER of people that approve of certain KINDs of bad movies (trying to be polite), and how that validates their existence. When have NUMBERs ever mattered? A NUMBER of people fall ill and die every year, that doesn't mean that is the ideal condition to have? A NUMBER of people chose to kill themselves, does not mean that is the choice to make? A NUMBER of people...I can go on. My point is made.
.
.
Ohh I can't resist. "McDonalds!!" Sorry had to spit that out.

I could never be a film critic because I'm a little "Earl Dittmanesque" when it comes to what I like eg. Hudson Hawk, but when I hate a film I really hate a film Here's my bottom ten:

10. The Exorcist-Considered the scariest film ever made. I consider just silly and boring.

9. The Day the Earth Stood Still(2008)-The original is a masterpiece. This is a turd of a turd of turd.

8. Wild Wild West-I love Will Smith and I will defend Bad Boys 2 or Hancock(haven't seen Seven Pounds) but this is just an obnoxious film with an obnoxious Smith in the lead.

7. The films of Woody Allen-Take your pick. I don't get him. I don't get the whole neurotic New Yorker schtick which is surprising considering I loved Seinfeld which had similar characters. And the fact that Annie Hall won Best Picture over Star Wars angers me even more.

6. Diamonds are Forever-Connery's fifth turn as Bond. He looks as bored as we are watching it. And what's with the weird henchmen Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wynt???

5. Chicago-Musicals aren't my favorite genre but there are a few I like. This wasn't one of them.

4. AI-This one hurts because I love Spielberg. And it's one of his more ambitious films. But it's a failure nonetheless. I just hated everything about this movie. And it drags on and on and on and on and on and on and on. And then there's the ending which drags on and on and on and on and on........

3. Freddy Got Fingered-Makes angry at myself that I actually found Tom Green funny once.

2. Magnolia-I love Boogie Nights. I think it's a masterpiece. When I saw the previews for this film I thought this was going to be just as good. After seeing this film I walked out of the theater dazed, confused and angry. None of it makes sense and don't get me started about that ending. Now I will say that there a sequence where the entire cast sings along to Wise Up by Aimee Mann. I thought that was a good sequence the rest of the movie suuuucckkks.

1. I Heart Huckabees-Recommended by a former friend* because he told me it was high-larious. Went to Blockbuster one night and picked it up. Started to watch and within 10 seconds I was annoyed. As continued to watch for the next 20 minutes I was getting more annoyed. And I was starting to get angry. Finally I shut off the film. Placed it back into the case. Got in my car and drove back to Blockbuster. The clerk asked if I had just been there. I stated about an hour ago he looked what I had rented and stated yeah this one doesn't get a lot of love. I rented something else that night. Not sure what it was. But it was a hell of a lot better than this "film"

*He's not a former friend because of this movie it was other circumstances.

It seems that you went out of your way to see GI Joe, since it was reported everywhere that it wasn't being shown for critics. Was it because it was from Stephen Sommers, whose "The Mummy" and "Van Helsing" were both a bit of fun, or did you feel a duty to let people know about a bad movie that was most likely going to make some money again? I honestly had some curiosity about it based on the director, that is, until the past week or so. That's when I heard that it was being hid from critics, that a large amount of promotion was being switched to promoting it during the Kid Rock/Lynyrd Skynryd tour, and that the studio was trying to make it a "Nascar loving, flag waving American's patriotic duty to see this film". Being a fan of the the 80's cartoon (and having revisted it recently on DVD), I could tell that this was taking a lot of wrong steps from the preview but thought I would give it a chance as a re-imagination of it all. Then I heard that the creator of the 80's characters was used as a consultant, but had to pick his fights as they wouldn't listen to most of what he had to say. I started getting the feeling that Sommers is trying to copy the Bay formula of putting the money before the story, a feeling I never got from him before. The only cartoon-to-movie that I thought was just right was Speed Racer, although panned by critics, it was as visually original as Tron, and was exactly what the 60's cartoon would look like if it starred live actors. It was also family-friendly, with family values as blatant as those in a cartoon. I think the formula used for it, which also showed immense love of the source material, rather than a simple desire to cash in on it, would have been perfect for Transformers or GI Joe movies (I indeed felt like someone was misusing my childhood toys with these movies). Unfortunately box office and critics alike taught them not to make anything like that again.

I concur that it's time for a reassessment of Blue Velvet, a film that frequently makes top-ten lists for its decade. You had an emotional reaction the first time, but to dismiss it in high dudgeon is absurd. You found merit in Last House on the Left!

If you come to the same conclusion once again, we collectively promise never to bring it up again. (Everyone raise your hand if you agree. Okay, it's unanimous!)

Nice Shakespeare reference in the header of you "G. I. Joe" review.

Anyone ever seen Dr. Giggles? horrible horrible movie with some of the best one liners of all time. Larry Drake as a mental patient that believes he is a doctor spouting lines such as "Dont worry its ouch-less." after using a giant band-aid to suffocate a victim. I love to watch this horror movie and laugh.

Reply to: "G. I. Joe" and I hated it. It was boring, with a bad plot.

I think there's a lot to be learned here, in a screenwriting sense. I read the graphic novel and I thought the story worked, with a few asterisks.

(SPOILERS FOR GI JOE)

First, it's a story about soldiers. It's not about Hobbits, or Tom Hanks as a high school teacher putting in a few years so he can protect our way of life.

What is a professional soldier? A man who sleeps with a rifle and dreams about better ways to kill other people.

Most movies shy away from professional soldiers as anything except the villain's right-hand man. When asked if it bothered him to kill people, Bond replied, "I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did."

Hasbro has a line of action figures which represent ten or twelve different professional soldiers with names like Shipwreck, Gung Ho, Roadblock, Wild Bill, Major Blood and the Dreadnoughts. For the most part, it's difficult to write a "normal" script about plastic Action Figures.

In 2007. screenwriter Stuart Beattie was asked to write a new script. Several scripts had been turned in and reviewed, and the producers wanted a new approach.

Beattie says he spent three weeks working on the structure, and then three weeks writing.

IGN: Not long after being hired, Beattie found himself subject to forces beyond his control. The Writers Guild of America strike kept him from revising the script during the labor stoppage. Beattie furiously churned out a script before the strike deadline; once the strike was settled, Beattie worked on-set rewriting the script as the filming progressed. One thing the Aussie native was sure of was that it shouldn't be a gritty Black Hawk Down-style war film. That, Beattie said, was simply not what G.I. Joe is.

BEATTIE: The movie is the Rise of Cobra Commander, and how he came to be. I couldn’t just start the movie with those people, the way that we know them in G.I. Joe lore. I had to introduce them as real people, and how they became those iconic figures.

Cobra Commander starts off as someone who’s not at all Cobra Commander, and you see what makes him that way. The big thing for me was to create a story that was unique to the G.I. JOE world and that could only exist in a G.I. JOE movie and characters that could only exist in a G.I. JOE movie. Some of the big pitfalls were just making sure I didn’t create a plot that was generic in any way and that could work in any other action movie. I wanted it to be something that came from the unique world of G.I. JOE and immediately recognizable.

... for me, that means you find their emotional truth.

You find that core that makes them real people, first and foremost, and then you can get into the things they're good at.

Scarlett, for instance, if you read into Scarlett she has this long story with her father. So I took that and went, 'Here's a girl who is perhaps always trying to prove herself to her father.' I wrote every scene from that point-of-view of her so her dialogue makes her a real fully fleshed out, three-dimensional character.

(Duke) was a guy who'd lost a lot of his life and was slowly finding his way back, so starting from that kind of core emotional truth and building up from there. As far as what I was trying to do with the characters, it was making them human beings, first and foremost, and then applying that to what we know about these great iconic characters.

McCullen to me was a more acceptable kind of villain because he's someone that audiences can understand. He's an arms dealer who is screwing both sides. He's real, there's real stakes, he's really bad and we have to stop him. And that becomes the whole spine of the movie. .

IGN: The movie sets up the power struggle between Destro and Cobra Commander that we know from the comics.

BEATTIE: Exactly. This guy used to be on top and now he ain't anymore and he doesn't like that. So if we're lucky enough to do a second one that'll be a huge part of what's going on between the villains.

IGN: : Scarlett's Canadian now. Breaker is French-Moroccan. Heavy Duty is English. What about the controversial decision to make G.I. Joe a more international force rather than the "Real American Heroes"?

BEATTIE: Well, firstly it is primarily an American unit. We felt the need to ground this world in reality. Well, what would happen if G.I. Joe really did exist? You'd want to create the absolute best fighting unit that could combat any form of terrorism anywhere in the world, well, you think about for five seconds and obviously we'd need help. We live in this very connected world and you need your allies. If there's anything we've learned in the last 10, 15 years it's that you need your allies. So I think to update G.I. Joe and bring it into this modern day, you've got to go, 'America can't do it alone nor should it try to do it alone.' It should be out there seeking help from allies because everyone's got a lot of great operatives and a lot of great contacts and a lot of great abilities. G.I. Joe would be so much stronger and more capable because of that, you know?

IGN: How did Ripcord come to be chosen over more fan favorite ones such as Gung-Ho or Roadblock?

BEATTIE: It’s actually a two part process. The first part is, what are the core groups? What characters do you need to have to make it a G.I. Joe movie? Right off the bat, I knew I had to have Duke, Baroness, Destro, Cobra Commander, Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow, and Hawk. Without them it wouldn’t be G.I. Joe.

Then the second part was, who else do I need in order to tell this narrative? I need Duke to have a best friend. Well, who’s the best character out of the G.I. Joe cannon that can pull off these things? Well, that’s Ripcord. You kind of start looking at the narrative and let the narrative dictate the rest of the characters.(end)

Screenwriting author John Truby: In the Action genre, the hero has a clear goal and goes after it with great speed and relentless energy. But don’t be fooled by this. Action is much harder to execute well than it looks. Because the form has such a simple desire line, most action scripts lack plot. You need a complex opponent and as much information hidden from your hero as possible.

OK, there are three areas where the movie fails.

(SPOILERS)

(1) The main character doesn't grow and change into a better person. At the end, Duke is still a professional soldier without a girl friend waiting for him back home.

(2) Too much nano-technology.

(3) Too noisy.

My question is, how do you anticipate these problems and fix them while you're still writing the script?

The most obvious fix is, start with a protagonist that the audience can care about. Unless he decides to stop being a professional soldier and find a job that doesn't require him to kill people, Duke is the wrong protagonist. I think we need to see this unique world through the eyes of a member of the team who can't do it any more.

Someone who changes, grows, and turns into a different person as a result of the events in the story. Or else, it's a waste of our time.

There's one person who changes in that way... but it's NOT our protagonist, Duke. Big mistake.

(4) Discovering why Ana (the Baroness) works for Cobra... is pretty disgusting. Something that should have been avoided at all cost.

(SPOILERS)

What I liked about the story I read in the graphic novel... is that all of the nanotechnology is a smoke screen for the real plan. The real plan is to trick the President of the United States into hiding in a bunker designed and built by MARS. Everything else is misdirection. Once you know the ending, then the plot approaches brilliance.

By comparison, the plot twist for "A Perfect Getaway" left the audience stranded in the worst of all possible worlds.

Roger, I remember reading your review for The Bucket List and feeling a great sense of soldarity amidst all the oohs and aahs and warm fuzzies circling around me. Perhaps I'm jaded but having been diagnosed with stage 4 lymphoma at 13 followed by a double stem cell transplant at 16 and a radiation related renal transplant 18 yrs later (9 months ago), I left the theater thinking the film ludicrious, callous and a cheat. Love, humor and pure grit get cancer patients through the day (see Wit, read Erma Bombeck, talk to my family...or don't because they'll talk) but this movie was pure fantasy cancerland. Your review was dead on.

Benjamin Button was an meh...glad I saw it in theaters for the technical aspects. No need to see it again. I do remember thinking that Tilda Swinton looked more luminous and light than I'd seen her look in a while (thinking Burn After Reading, Michael Clayton, Narnia even).

I love movies--impressed that I actually was able to find the Netflix queue max. Disappointed that it was only 500, especially since I have notebook pages full of movies to add.

Enjoy your reviews, not so much for when we agree but just because I love the way you write them. My favorites are when we both like movies we never thought we would, recent examples being Orphan and The Proposal.

To your good health!

Ebert: Can't help but wonder who else has ever found the max...

Just because you have some award doesn't mean you know how to critique, I never took anything you ever said seriously, and half the stuff you look down upon the general public enjoys. You`re getting out of touch, you don't know whats right from wrong, you should retire in all honesty, but I guess they give you good money to give bad reviews.

Ebert: Jesus Christ, are you mistaken.

I'm shocked and confused that comments appear to have been disabled on the good movies portion of the site.

Am I missing something?

Why cut us off from talking about good movies but allow us to discuss bad ones?

Distressing.

-Nighthawk

Ebert: Settings error. Fixed.

[[Ebert: Settings error. Fixed.]]

Whew!

Thank you.

Now what's distressing is that I, who doesn't see anywhere near enough movies (good or bad), appears to have been the first one to notice.

But that ain't your fault.

Thank you. Now to go comment on "Moon!"

-Nighthawk

Ebert: Can't help but wonder who else has ever found the max...

Both times I've had Netflix accounts, I've hit this 500 max within a month of adding items to my queue. I have to replace bigger names I'm likely to remember with the stuff I've never heard of often, just so I'm sure to get to them at some point. The 500 limit has been something that many have wanted extended for years. There must be some reason for wanting to keep it at 500, as there is no doubt a demand for a bigger list on forums everywhere. I never know what will be at the top of my list, rearranging it as my moods change. It wouldn't take much to store these lists for sure, if Yahoo and Hotmail will hold onto years worth of emails, what's a couple thousand movie titles?

[[Just because you have some award doesn't mean you know how to critique, I never took anything you ever said seriously,]]

Seriously enough to post on his blog.

On an unrelated note....Regarding "G.I. Joe" all I have to say is that when an action film looked unappealing on the basis of its trailer, I take it as a bad sign. Action films usually at least have good trailers. I guess I don't want to dismiss the idea that a good movie could conceivably be based on the G.I. Joe cartoon but....If that's possible, they don't seem to have done it this time.

-Nighthawk

You should include your one-star "Fired Up" review. Funny stuff.

[[I never know what will be at the top of my list, rearranging it as my moods change. It wouldn't take much to store these lists for sure, if Yahoo and Hotmail will hold onto years worth of emails, what's a couple thousand movie titles?]]

I guess that's part of the surprise right now--I try to mix new with the old but am often caught unaware by something I added 2 years ago. Certainly not always a bad thing but I can get some unique back to back combinations. At least, it is much easier these days to identify what I might enjoy so I can avoid the really sucky movies (majority of Roger's list). Thankfully there's still the actual movie theater which is always my preference--especially when $5 tickets still exist outside of Seattle!

There could be another list of movies that suck but are regarded as classics. I know films like Doomsday or The Godfather 3 are really bad, but what about films that may not have been box office smashes but are well reviewed my film critics, recieve Oscars and even make it onto top 100 lists? Your article got me to thinking about what films I'd put on that list:

The Last Emperor. Last Tango in Paris felt like a long movie too, only it was good.

Repulsion. Very overrated, Rosemary's Baby is much better.

Magnolia. All of Anderson's movies have horrible endings.

Shortcuts. Only likeable character was Huey Lewis.

Leaving Las Vegas. I thought this was good when it came out, I can't believe Nicolas Cage won an Oscar. Unintentionally hilarious.

Gangs of New York

Encounters at the End of the World. Rent some old Cousteau films if you want to see better footage of the undersea Arctic. I'm a big Herzog fan but I might also include Resue Dawn too, he's capable of better.

The Ballad of Jack and Rose. (I'd rather watch "Walker").

What about films that you're supposed to hate but don't? I actually liked The Missouri Breaks and Gerry.

I think there's another approach to making better movies. Find the people who make the decisions and talk to them.

In particular, I'm thinking of Brian Goldner, who became CEO of Hasbro (Toys) Incorporated in May, 2008.

Imagine you've just become head of company that lost $144 million a few years back. How do you generate enthusiasm and sal