Rating: 
Summary: Fun, but not unique.
Review: Roger Ebert is one of the best film reviewers out there, but you'd do better to purchase his yearly film companion than to buy this book.The book consists solely of reviews of movies that Ebert has given a "thumbs-down" (in other words, two stars or less) rating to. Because Ebert is such a witty and informed reviewer, these reviews are often amusing to the point of being hilarious -- I found myself wanting to read several aloud to my boyfriend. That having been said, there's really no reason to buy this book. As I said before, Ebert comes out every year with a film companion that contains every review he's written over the past 18 months, plus a selection of interviews and essays he's written during that time period. The film companion is more complete and in my opinion, a better investment than this book, which I assume was produced with the idea that it would sell based on its funny title.
Rating:
Summary: A much-needed book
Review: Why don't more people write books like this? One of my few pleasures in life is opening the paper on Friday and reading the bad movie reviews. Good movie reviews are boring; bad ones are delicious! This book, while I haven't read the whole thing, had me giggling into my hand on the subway. A lot of fun. :)
Rating: 
Summary: I hated, hated, HATED this book
Review: With a title like that, how can I resist? I haven't actually read the book.
Rating:
Summary: He may have hated, hated, hated, but we laughed!
Review: This may sound like a one-joke book, but it's a lot better than that. Ebert has compiled here several hundred of the most negative reviews he could find in his archives. The strange thing about the book is that the more you read it, the more of a sense you get of what good movies are really about, and why bad movies don't work. For instance, Ebert hated "The Doom Generation" (a movie I also despised), but not because of its subject matter. He hated its approach, and dissects how the movie's morally inept stance doesn't hold up under scrutiny. He has similarly pithy things to say about "The Night Porter", or "I Spit On Your Grave". But the absolute bottom of the barrel isn't all that's here, actually. Ebert also has plenty to say about movies that simply miss the target and disappoint him. He comes up with ways that bad movies could be better made, or makes fun of how bad movies are unaware of their badness. Also, unlike the disappointing "Mike Nelson's Movie Megacheese", Ebert has a real love and fondness for movies as a whole; when he writes scathingly, you can see that he does it because he feels genuinely wounded that something this bad could get made. Nelson, in contrast, sees movies in general as a fair target, and is therefore less funny. It's like Spike Jones vs. Stan Freberg: where Jones genuinely loved the music he was sending up and simply wanted to point out its more pompous sides, Freberg was motivated out of contempt and a fair amount of deliberate ignorance. "Hated" is not an immortal book, but it's occupying a peculiarly special place on my shelf. Right next to "The Golden Turkey Awards", I suspect.
Rating: 
Summary: Boring
Review: This book isn't anywhere as interesting as the title suggests. And worse it just isn't much fun. And unlike some of Ebert's other books, there are no additional essays that discuss for example what makes a really hateful movie. I give it a solid two yawns for a title that doesn't deliver.
Rating:
Summary: For those who love to hate...
Review: Overall a very enjoyable read from a generally reliable reviewer.Theres nothing better than seeing a critic rip into such garbage as ARMAGEDDON, MR MAGOO and PATCH ADAMS...BUT...how could he include films such as DEEP RISING (a hugely enjoyable 50s style creature feature),VERY BAD THINGS (a VERY black comedy with a great performance from Cameron Diaz), DAY OF THE DEAD (a classic slice of grim horror), THE WEDDING SINGER (a very affectionate comedy), and PIRANHA ( a cracking horror comedy from the talented Joe Dante). Films that should have been in there instead? Howabout...NATIONAL LAMPOONS GOLF PUNKS, THE STUPIDS or THE COOL SURFACE.....
Rating:
Summary: I may not always agree with him, but I always respect his
Review: opinions on movies. Roger Ebert is a very smart man who writes exceptionally well and has a great eye for movies. That he wrote some script or scripts that werent particularly good doesnt mean anything. I know plenty of great coaches who were terrible at playing the sports. Ebert is great at picking out movies. I have watched his and Gene Siskel's picks ever since they were on PBS. Whether they agreed on a movie or not, I would respect their picks. Today, Ebert is unquestionably the best movie critic. The one person below brought up an interesting point about Full Metal Jacket vs. Benji the Hunted. Ebert has the great knack for seeing a movie on its own terms. In other words, he realizes that the audience for Jacket is not the same as for Benji and they must be judged on that. They are totally different kinds of movies. Sure, Full Metal Jacket was a more powerful and shocking movie than Benji, but on its' own terms, Benji was to Ebert a better movie for what it is trying to do. That makes total sense. And another thing that the reviewer brought up was calling Roger Ebert a hack. I may not be a great judge of writing, but I do when I like writing. Ebert may not be Dickens, but he is an exceptional writer. I actually enjoy reading his reviews. Often times, they are better than the movies.
Rating:
Summary: Some great reviews - and some decent ones
Review: I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie is a great title, but it doesn't really sum up this book. It's a collection of reviews of movies rated between zero and two stars - and if you know Roger Ebert's ratings system, you'll know that two stars isn't by any means a total pan. And that's where the book gets weak. The zero to one star reviews are truly funny; it's quite amusing to read the distillation of bitterness and hatred that comes from forcing a movie lover to sit through a terrible movie. On another level, it's also quite amusing to try to imagine how these movies ever got made in the first place - some of them leave you wondering how it is that the producers did not notice they didn't have a script until after shooting started. Others leave you wondering why the actors and director didn't take the easy way out and simply kill themselves rather than complete the movie. Unfortunately, the book is padded with reviews of some movies that it appears Ebert only disliked. And mild dislike doesn't give rise to the same kind of humor as loathing does. Had these reviews been cut, the book would probably have been 50 pages shorter, and it would have been a riot from beginning to end, albeit one that left you with a serious disinclination to go to the movies. (Or, depending on the kind of person you are, with a strong *inclination* to head for the video rental store.) If the editor, author, or publisher truly felt the need to extend the book beyond the despised movies, it would have been much more gripping and entertaining to include a few four-star reviews - maybe one per chapter? - to show what the other end of the spectrum looked like. That would also have staved off the erroneous impression this book can leave - that either Ebert hates everything or every movie is terrible. My advice: read it, but not too quickly. There's a limit to how much badness the human constitution can stand. Remember, Ebert didn't see all these movies at one sitting, either.
Rating: 
Summary: I Was Disappointed,Disappointed, Disappointed With This Book
Review: I have always found Roger Ebert's video guides to be informative and accurate with their reviews. I find Ebert to be extremely knowledgable in the areas of film and film making. I also find him very funny when I have seen him interviewed. He has a dry wit and he is not afraid to say what he feels about a movie. When I heard that he would be coming out with a book about movies that he hated, I was extremely excited. It seemed like the perfect forum for Ebert to show off both his knowledge and his humor. Unfortunatley all this book offers is a reprinting of the reviews that Ebert originally wrote, arranged in alphabetical order. I wish Ebert had picked about a dozen of these movies and devoted a chapter to each and given an in depth account of each movie. Not only a description but an analysis of what went wrong in the making of each. Like a car wreck we can't help but be curious about these "accidents", and someone with as much knowledge as Ebert could have offered an "insiders" guide to how movies as bad as these get made. For a great book on this topic read The Devil's Candy by Julie Soloman. It is a great account of the making of the film version of Bonfire Of The Vanities(how Hollywood took a great book and turned it into an unbelievably bad movie). The reviews that are offered here are interesting and at times even hilarious. I just wish Ebert had put more effort into a great idea. Anyone could have given us this book, Ebert could have given us better.
Rating:
Summary: Lousy book by an overrated hack
Review: How Roger Ebert got to be the so-called dean of movie reviewers is beyond me.I've come to use him as a reliable barometer in one way-if he likes a movie,I'll hate it,and vice-versa.He lost me forever when he gave thumbs down to "Full Metal Jacket"and then thumbs up to "Benji the Hunted",on the same show!Don't forget-he wrote the screenplay for "Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens" and still has the nerve to criticize other people's work!
| 
