I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie

Rating:
Summary: Need a laugh? Buy this book!
Review: As soon as I heard about this book, I knew I had to buy it immediately. Roger Ebert is one of the best reviewers around, and I must admit that I'd rather read a savage review than a glowing one any day. This book contains some of the most hilarious writing on film I've ever had the pleasure of encountering -- check out his reviews of "Little Indian, Big City" or "Jack Frost." There are also reviews of films he was truly revolted by, such as "Caligula" and "I Spit On Your Grave." Sure, much of it is available on the Sun Times' web site, but I still find a lot of enjoyment in thumbing through a real book. Besides, this is the sort of volume you'll want to leave on your coffee table for all of your friends to enjoy!

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable reference, but....
Review: I couldn't help but think as I read through this book that most of its content is available for free on Ebert's own web site. (However -- The web site contains searchable reviews dating back to 1985, whereas the book contains a few 1970s clinkers). Ebert's site also contains the good reviews. Also, although this book contains reviews that received two stars or less -- Ebert seems to have left out a few less popular "zero star" reviews ("Sour Grapes") in favor of reminding us why he kind of disliked "Starship Troopers". This book has its moments, so I give it 3 stars (so it would stay out of Ebert's "bad" collection). But, if you have web access to Ebert's site, skip it.

Rating:
Summary: IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME FOR ROGER TO PUT THIS OUT!
Review: last winter, i emailed roger ebert if he was kind enough to mail me copies of 2 of my favorite zero star reviews he wrote: CALIGULA & I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE-both came out in the early '80s. i got no response from him. he answers 100s of emails daily. i let it go. it seems i DID get that response in the form of his spectacular new film book just out. lo and behold, both trashy pics are in there! hey! there's CANNONBALL RUN II, FRIDAY THE 13TH II & of course, NORTH for which the book's title came from. no MS .45? oh well. 200 savagely bad reviews are here to cherish and laugh about. roger ebert is indeed 1 of the great writers and great film critics of the 20th and 21st century. it's deservedly dedicated to his late partner, gene siskel. in 1 of his final reviews, gene said on his show, "I rather turn my head and cough than watch trash like PATCH ADAMS!" he is sorely missed. God Bless Him.

we'll have to wait for EBERT'S 1/2 star review of BATTLEFIELD EARTH in the next edition.

Rating:
Summary: A thing of beauty
Review: I look forward to really bad movies coming out because I know I'll be able to read a Roger Ebert Negative Review. I haven't seen the movie "Patch Adams" - I would hate to ruin the image of it that I received after reading Ebert's review. I gave this book 5 stars even though I haven't read it yet (well, I'm sure I've read some of it, since I follow his reviews weekly). Buy this book. I know that it will be hilarious and insightful.

Rating:
Summary: Pain shared hurts less
Review: One sentence (selected from many pithy observations) illustrates how enjoyable -- and cathartic -- this collection is: "The movie never ends, but if you wait long enough it gets to a point where it's over." Many movies have moved me to tap my watch, wondering if it had stopped. Ebert, too, has felt this pain. And shared it, for which I am grateful.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic collection of Ebert's harshest reviews.....
Review: It could be argued that Ebert is truly at his best when he is savagely attacking the worst films ever made. While his criticism is always sharp and insightful, his negative reviews are much more entertaining, employing sarcasm, bitterness, and outright hatred for the drivel he must endure. The book provides a diverse selection, ranging from the early 1970s to more recent disasters. Although he attacks small, obscure works, he is much more satisfied attacking the giants; the "sacred cows" of cinema that, by virtue of their budgets, are believed to be above criticism. Ebert is dedicated to his craft and would probably prefer to spend his time in the company of classics, but few individuals display such giddiness when given the "privilege" of witnessing true cinematic chaos. His humor is to our benefit.

Rating:
Summary: Introduction to the book
Review: Here is my introduction to I HATED, HATED, HATED THIS MOVIE!

The purpose of a movie critic is to encourage good films and discourage bad ones. Of course there is much disagreement about which is which. The films in this book, however, have few defenders. The degree of their badness ranges from those that are deplorable to others that are merely hilariously misguided. Some of them are even fun, although not so much fun you would want to see them twice. For years I had a law that I would give the zero star rating only to films I believed were immoral in one way or another. Any other movie, however wretched, would get at least a half-star. In making this selection I find that I have not always adhered to that rule. While everyone would agree that "Jaws the Revenge" or "Little Indian, Big City" are very bad movies, for example, few would find them evil--unless it is evil to waste two hours in the lives of unsuspecting ticket-buyers, which it may well be. Other films are in the zero-star category as a sort of default; any star rating at all seems irrelevant to John Waters' "Pink Flamingos," which exists outside critical terms, like the weather. Some of the worst films in the book are so jaw-droppingly bad they achieve a kind of grandeur. With all of the "making of" documentaries available these days, why did no one record the making of "An Alan Smithee Film," or "Frozen Assets?" What values were expressed at the story conferences on "North," the movie that inspired my title? What was the thinking on the set the day they first saw Rosie O'Donnell as an undercover cop in s&m gear in "Exit to Eden?" Or when they did screen tests for the karate-chopping infants in "Baby Geniuses?" Or when they added a P.C. disclaimer to "Mr. Magoo" for fear of offending the nearsighted? The easiest movies to write about are always the ones at the extremes. Good and bad movies dictate their own reviews; those in the middle are more of a challenge. In writing strongly negative reviews, I am tempted to take cheap shots, and although I have fought that temptation on occasions, there are other times when I have simply caved in to it. I am not proud of all the smartass remarks in this book, but remember that the reviews were written soon after undergoing the experience of seeing the movies, and reflect that when a film insults your intelligence, your taste and your patience all at once, it brings out the worst in you. The movies made me do it. ROGER EBERT

Rating:
Summary: I Hated, Hated, Hated, Hated, Hated, Hated,...... This Book.
Review: Like every Roger Ebert's book, you can see his stupidity on every page. A perfect book for idiots who can't find anything better than this crap to read.

Rating:
Summary: What a Fun, Fun, Fun Book
Review: For a film critic widely known with such a simplistic method of rating movies ("Thumbs up!"), I found Roger Ebert's reviews of truly awful films very insightful and intelligent. And very funny. I realize not every bad review could fit in this book but I wondered where his review of "Godzilla Vs. The Smog Monster" was--especially since he referenced it a couple of times in the other reviews. The only serious omission is the heinous Dan Aykroyd abomination "Nothing But Trouble." Maybe we'll get a sequel from Mr. Ebert entitled, "I REALLY Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie"...?

Rating:
Summary: Roger Ebert's Movie Megacheese
Review: Roger Ebert, I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie (Andrews McMeel, 2000)

The question that kept going through my mind while I was reading this book was, "why did he choose these particular reviews?" I had assumed it was a complete listing of two-star-and-lower films until I re-read the back, which specifically says it's a selection. Why on earth didn't he bury some of these, or use this as a chance to apologize for some of the blunders here? He trashes some acknowledged classics here (Blue Velvet, for example, or Jarmusch's Dead Man), and his reiteration of those reviews, unchanged, seems to telegraph that he's standing his ground.

That said, the rest of them are great. Dave Barry blurbs on the back, "he makes some of these movies sound so bad that now I've got to see them." Indeed. Ebert takes no prisoners here, relentlessly exposing some of the worst films you are likely ever to see. (Oddly, from what I remember of Siskel and Ebert's show, though, there's not a single Dog of the Week in the book. I was quite looking forward to reading Ebert's print reviews of Motel Hell, Soup for One, and Pink Floyd: The Wall, all of which I greatly enjoyed, and all of which were Dogs of the Week.)

My main problem with the book (aside from not acknowledging the greatness of a few obvious films) is that there are some reviews where it seems obvious he wasn't paying much attention to the movie; the odd factual error here and there about what's going on, or not interpreting a piece of the film where the intended interpretation is so obvious a half-blind six-year-old could figure it out. After all, Hollywood is rarely known for its subtlety.

A good collection, though, and sure to add a few stinkers to Bad Movie Night. *** ½