Rating: 
Summary: Fair, unbiased critques
Review: Now, I always agreed with Siskel more, but I have always respected Ebert. In fact, he is one of the few film critics I don't want to hit with a two-by-four. Reason? For one, he's fair, and two, he's actually pretty intellegent in what he's talking about. Also, he's one of the few critics I know that DOESN'T point to an animated movie and says, "Its not computer animated! The animation's crap then!"His fairness is seen when he talks about the first Pokemon movie (believe it or not, its in this book) he talks about how before he even saw the movie he did research on Pokemon and actually played the video and card game with his nephew. How many film critics do you think did that before seeing the film? Granted, most of the films in this books are pretty bad any way, so there's little chance unless you're a fan of Disney Channel original movies that you'll get mad reading this book. In fact, there were some things Ebert mentioned that I was glad some one finally voiced along with me on - the sport movie cliches in "Little Giants" for example. So yes, its a decent read. I don't think I'm going to buy it any time soon, but its nice to look through just for a grin or a nod.
Rating: 
Summary: Hilarious Book!
Review: I loved this book! The reviews (especially the zero and one star ones)are incredibly funny and well-written. There's almost nothing funnier than reading a true movie lover's review of a really bad movie. Wonderful compilation.
Rating:
Summary: Where is BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, Rog?
Review: I have mixed feelings about Roger Ebert's I HATED HATED HATED THIS MOVIE. On the one hand, it is a surprisingly insightful and, at times, extremely amusing book---so amusing, in fact, that I was often convulsed with laughter. However, the book's charm may cause one to overlook its hypocrisy. There are, it seems, TWO Roger Eberts. One Roger Ebert praises THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT; the other condemns I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. One writes the screenplay for BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (one of the most shocking films ever made); the other spits bile all over BLUE VELVET. One Roger Ebert loves MAD LOVE and RIDING IN CARS WITH BOYS (because they both star Drew Barrymore, perhaps?); the other hates Roman Polanski's THE TENANT (!). One Roger Ebert thinks that NATURAL BORN KILLERS is a work of art; the other despises THE NIGHT PORTER. What is one to make of this? Moralism (NOT morality), generally speaking, is self-contradictory. Roger Ebert is a moralist who uses his position as a film critic to moralize about issues that have nothing to do with the films that he chooses to analyze. He eschews discussions of form and instead concentrates on the "moral content" of films; by doing so, he misunderstands the very medium upon which he has based his entire career.
Rating:
Summary: A good book but.....
Review: Everyone knows Roger Ebert as an appealing movie critic, whose reviews are intelligent and insightful. The only thing is, Amazon goofed by allowing the index to be shown. As far as I can tell, most of the reviews found in the book can be found in his Chicago Sun-Times archives. The book doesn't offer real incentive to buy it.
Rating:
Summary: Hit and miss
Review: This book, as the title makes clear, is a compilation of reviews for some really bad movies. The only problem is, Roger Ebert isn't the best man for this particular job. If anything, he's simply too "good" of a critic to really delve into the joy of trashing some of the worst movies of all time. He's like a distinguished restaurant critic who's been asked to review fast food. In short, Roger's too "Old School", too well trained in the art of "conventional" criticism and of seeking out true greatness in films to really appreciate that sometimes there is genius in garbage. That said, he does get in his shots, especially at movies he finds morally repugnant. I've never seen "I Spit On Your Grave", but to hear him relate how a certain middle aged pervert actually cheered on multiple rape scenes in the theater while he watched it is to get a grasp on the potential for movies to feed diseased and sick minds. His review of "Caligula" is almost perfect, it ends with a quote from a a woman who stated simply that it was "The worst piece of s*** I've ever seen". And finally, in his review of "The Doom Generation" he quite rightly attacks the whole "Detatched Irony" attitude of modern filmmakers who give us scenes of nihilistic violence then try to pretend they're "above" their sordid material. There are plenty of movies like this, movies like "Se7en" and "Fight Club" that, once you get past their pretentiousness, are little more than sadism and brutality artfully rendered. But ultimately, the problem is that Ebert is just the wrong person to undertake this enerprise. He just has too much respect for truly good movies to invest a whole lot of effort and thought in reviewing the bad ones. And most of these movies are eminently forgettable anyway. A project like this is more suited to the likes of Joe Bob Briggs, a man who revels in low budget trash with a heart, movies like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and who can reach an audience that loves "movies so bad, they're good". Ebert couldn't understand why a movie like "Death Race 2000" could become a cult favorite. It's sadistically violent, and stupid. Joe Bob (and millions of fans worldwide) would agree, but also see the movie as being the live action version of the old Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons. In short, it's so stupid it's brilliant. It's that very spirit that Ebert fails to grasp in his review of history's most notoriously bad movies.
Rating:
Summary: Ebert at his best
Review: I don't often agree with Roger Ebert when he simply thumbs-down a movie, but these are reviews of some of the worst movies ever made -- not just silly or dull, but nasty, queasy, "what were they thinking" sorts of movies that even Mike and the Bots couldn't fix, like "North" and "Very Bad Things." Ebert shines when he is aghast. It is also interesting to watch his evolution as a critic, from shrill arch-conservative in the 1970's to the more mellow and expansive regular conservative he is today.
Rating: 
Summary: I hated (eleven times), this book!
Review: At first, I liked this book, but as I turned the pages, I begun to feel that I was wasting my time. I went on with the book. But I didn't like it for the following reason. It has some great comments, but the author critices some very well structured, acted, and produced movies, like "Dead Poets Society", that I ended thinking that this guy has some kind of personal hate against someone involved in the movies mentioned, because he is so incoherent, and inconsecuent in the comments, that becomes very suspicious. I used to respect his comments, but now, I understand he is one of those persons that can't be objective, and can't separate the reality of a movie, from his personal preferences. From my point of view, a good critic is someone who is capable of judging something, with independence of his own likes or dislikes. For me, the best love song of the 80's is "Can't fight this feeling", because of my taste, but if I were part of a jury, I probably would vote for "The Search is Over", because is better musically speaking. And I think, this book didn't comply with that objectivity, so I hated, hated, hated...(infinite) this book.
I think the author is a pseudo-intelectual, who pretends to make us believe that what he sees in the screen, is different from what we see. The best critics are all wrong, the whole world is all wrong, but he is right, because we, poor mortals, don't understand the "evident mediocrity" of certain movies, that he sees.
For me, his criticism is like vinegar to a great wine.
Rating: 
Summary: Guilty Pleasure
Review: What is it with the desire to read reviews of bad movies, some of them now thirty years out of date? It's the intellectual equivalent of craning your head out the car window to look at a roadside wreck. The only possible motive I can conceive of wanting to read this fairly hefty collection (almost 300 pages) of reviews panning movies is that the reader wants to gloat that, at least, if nothing else, I'm not in here, haw haw haw. And yet it's a fun read. Time and again many of us have read books that tell us which movies are worth seeing, but seldom have we read any that warn us away from turkeys. And rarely, if we have encountered lists of bad movies, have we encountered any with Roger Ebert's biting wit and insight. Many people dismiss Ebert because of his willful attempts to connect with the middle-brow audience rather than aiming either high or low, but remember, it's the middle who forks over the largest share of their hard-earned money to get an eyeful of these films. Personally, I like Ebert, and have found him the most consistently trustworthy critic out there to my personal taste. Generally, if he says a movie is great, I can be sure I'll agree; if he says a certain picture should go take a flying leap, I know it's one I should skip. Not everyone will agree with the opinions of this book. I certainly don't. For example, I thought "Patch Adams," though very imperfect, was at least humorous. Ebert panned it. Likewise, I thought the prints of "Titanic" should be recycled into toilet paper spindles and be put to some constructive use; in a side note, Ebert calls the film "brilliant." And one movie Ebert shreds in here, "The Last Movie," has appeared in another book I own as one of the 100 most-neglected movies you should run out and rent right now. Still, even when you think Ebert is wrong, there's little doubt that his gifts for sarcasm, subtle irony, and word play make this book a fun read. It's a worthy weigh-in to the ongoing debate over what's worth including in the motion picture canon. And it's entertaining for weekend film buffs who like to rubberneck at car wrecks.
Rating:
Summary: Uninspired Trifle
Review: Pulitzer prize winning author of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Roger Ebert won't be remembered much longer then his late cohort Gene Siskel when all that coagulated pasta around his midsection catches up with him. Franchise greedy distributors, who often have the same owners of the newspaper/TV. media who give critics their free tickets slather quotes from Ebert and his one liner reviews on their products as if they were apologizing for it. Least buyer resistance conscience studios find Ebert's politically correct social palliatives congenial to their profits.
Rating:
Summary: Fun reading for film buffs
Review: Ebert is at his best when writing about the truly great films and the truly horrible films. This collection of reviews of the latter is a textbook in how to write funny, wise, and interesting commentary on trash. Most of these films were as successful commercially as they were artistically so there are some very obscure pictures here. Reading about them is surely better than watching them.
|
