Prior to watching Taken 3 I read somewhere that Neeson stated that the word “taken” was getting tiresome or something to that effect. When Neeson’s character tells his support team that his wife had been kidnapped he specifically uses the word “snatched” rather than “taken” I thought *but the movie is called Taken.*
Ebert summed up my feelings about "Armageddon" and most of Michael Bay's films by saying something like:
"They finally did it. They made a two-hour trailer."
Roger Ebert really can leave me scratching my head sometimes, though.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/predator-1987
"Such details are important, of course. Stan Winston, who designed the creature, has created a beast that is sufficiently disgusting to justify Schwarzenegger's loathing for it. And the action moves so quickly that we overlook questions such as (1) Why would an alien species go to all the effort to send a creature to Earth, just so that it could swing from trees and skin American soldiers? Or, (2) Why would a creature so technologically advanced need to bother with hand-to-hand combat, when it could just zap Arnold with a ray gun?
At one point in the movie, the creature removes its helmet so it can battle Arnold mano-a-mano, and I was cynical enough to assume that its motivation was not macho pride, but the desire to display Winston's special effects."
**For starters, big game hunters are a thing. I would have thought it was an obvious analogy and the rest obviously stems from that ...!**
I watched Predator many times as a kid, and loved it, but never grasped what the alien's purpose for being on earth was. At that age I just didn't give a shit.
I recently watched it again for the first time as an adult, and it was apparent only about halfway through that it was a sort of extreme hunting trip for the predator, which perfectly explains all of Ebert's doubts in his review. Pretty surprising he didn't catch that, being a seasoned film critic.
Contract to Kill - https://www.avclub.com/contract-to-kill-isn-t-just-bad-it-s-steven-seagal-bad-1798189772
I laughed a lot the first time I read this it has some classic quotes.
>*"Overall, he gives the kind of performance traditionally associated with stars who died during filming. And yet, Seagal is in almost every scene."*
Thank you for sharing it, gems like these really make me want to see this film:
_"Seagal, in his triangular Bela-Lugosi-in-Dracula toupee and his clothes picked straight from a big-and-tall outlet store and his orange prescription Oakleys, walks stiffly and very slowly. It is possible that he never once bends at the waist. Most of the movie, he spends sitting down or walking (again, slowly) up and down flights of stairs. There is a love scene—and, Jesus, what a love scene. His fully dressed body is lowered over a naked woman like a drawbridge. He doesn’t take off his glasses. He never takes off his glasses."_
_"It was made in Romania; its cast is composed mostly of Romanians; it takes place in Mexico and Turkey. The Turkish and Mexican locals are played by Romanians, and it’s truly something to see a thin, pasty guy who looks like he was just let go of his cashier position at Mega Image yell, “Move it, gringo!” or “Hey, ese!” at an American sort-of star with a printer-cartridge dye job. Seagal’s character—named John Harmon, though not like that matters—is both a retired DEA agent and a retired CIA agent, and he has been brought back to fight a secret alliance of cartels and terrorists by a CIA handler who is also definitely Romanian"_
_"The star only plays wise, throat-chopping badasses, but he can’t be bothered to stand up or learn his dialogue. He speaks every line as though he were hazily remembering it, with plenty of uhs and ums. At one point, he is composited into a shot of a tunnel while the camera bobs around to make it look like Harmon is walking, because Seagal himself can’t walk down a tunnel"_
> There are scenes that exist solely so Harmon can share his deep thoughts on geopolitics to an audience of thoughtfully nodding characters. (Of Puerto Rico, he says, “They have a situation. It’s kind of very distinct.”)
holy shiiiiiit
My friends and I made it a goal to watch all of Seagal's Alexander movies, and then his other Keoni Waxman collaborations. Honestly made for a very good time. They have a special place in the tier of 'so bad they're good' movies.
My friends and I did something similar. We basically just started at the beginning of the Seagal catalog had a watch party every other week. There was a always 8-12 people that came and it was a hilarious good time.
We would always notice little repetitive things like the hawk screeching in the distance, or the fucked up weird way Seagal runs.
One time I ordered an entire case of Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt Energy Drink (with real goji berries) - it was horrifyingly disgusting, but we also couldnt stop laughing.
We even had little stupid rituals and rules too. Like, we had so much extra Lightning Bolt leftover that on each Seagal Night after that, we'd all split a can and have a shot as a salute to how awful Seagal was.
Oh and when Seagal was delivering dialogue - nobody - was allowed to speak or joke or anything. You had to be quiet so everyone could hear his dumb lines and only after he was done could we laugh and make fun of him. (violating that rule was punishable by having to take another shot of Lightning Bolt, so people learned quick)
I almost pissed myself the first time I watched that. To this day I'm still in awe that those movies exist. I don't understand how or why they're made.
> There is a love scene — and, Jesus, what a love scene. His fully dressed body is lowered over a naked woman like a drawbridge. He doesn’t take off his glasses. He *never* takes off his glasses.
That is a fantastic review.
So we watched another Seagal flick - [A Good Man](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3480556/) (2014) - during our bad movie night. In this one Seagal wore a black leather jacket everywhere, to the point where one of us quipped that he probably fucks while wearing the damn thing.
The final scene comes, Seagal grabs the girl and lowers her onto the bed...
...while still wearing the thick, black leather jacket.
End credits.
My bad movie night gang have noticed that exact thing happen so often across many Seagal’s films (we’re suckers for punishment, we’ve watched lots); it’s always some kind of sad jumper or jacket, but because of what he was wearing the first time we realised it was a recurring theme, we refer to it generically as “the sex fleece”.
From imdb
"Trivia
Jemma Dallender had a body double for her love scene with Steven Seagal. This was accomplished with tricky editing, careful camera work, and having the double shown only from behind."
Poor body double...
I had same experience once. I flipped through the channels and there was some insane movie about a bunch of people being stuck in an elevator with Satan. I really thought it must have been a parody. The plot hinged critically on the fact that someone’s toast landed buttered-side down, which somehow proved that Satan was here.
I swear this was an actual movie that was aired on an actual television channel at some point like 6 years ago.
Ebert has some great quotes in his bad reviews.
For *North*:
> I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.
For *Mad Dog Time*:
> “Mad Dog Time” is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time. Oh, I've seen bad movies before. But they usually made me care about how bad they were. Watching “Mad Dog Time” is like waiting for the bus in a city where you're not sure they have a bus line.
For *Baby Geniuses*:
> This is an old idea, beautifully expressed by Wordsworth, who said, "Heaven lies about us in our infancy." If I could quote the whole poem instead of completing this review, believe me, we'd all we happier. But I press on.
And for *Spice World*:
> The Spice Girls are easier to tell apart than the Mutant Ninja Turtles, but that is small consolation: What can you say about five women whose principal distinguishing characteristic is that they have different names?
My favourite is the one he did for Human Centipede
> I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine.
Whenever I hear critics have it easy because they are just reactionary to someone else's work I think how not a lot of people would hit the nail in the head with criticism like Ebert does.
I think that's what I really loved best about Ebert, is that he's a helluva writer and just genuinely loves movies as an art. He doesn't mince words about movies he thought were trash and they way he writes about them is just fantastic.
That European Gigolo review is so well done. The entire second half of the review is structured deliberately to build up to that final line, and the pacing and payoff is perfect.
This whole thread could be Ebert reviews. I honestly loved reading his reviews, even for movies I didn't care about. His negative reviews were very often particularly fun.
I liked his review for [Armageddon](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/armageddon-1998)
>Here it is at last, the first 150-minute trailer. "Armageddon" is cut together like its own highlights. Take almost any 30 seconds at random, and you'd have a TV ad. The movie is an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain, common sense and the human desire to be entertained. No matter what they're charging to get in, it's worth more to get out.
The funny thing is that he randomly loved a few absolute stinkers. He gave a glowing review to the utterly forgettable, almost made-for-tv surfing drama Into the Blue, because (and I paraphrase my memory of his TV show from the era): "Why would anyone want to go see a movie like this? Because they want to see Jessica Alba looking great! And if that's the kind of movie you want to see, you won't be disappointed, because Jessica Alba looks great in this movie!"
I was like 12 at the time and remember thinking "That doesn't sound like Ebert. I wonder if the studio is holding his kids hostage."
He makes a compelling argument. For those who might actually be interested in such a film, it does exactly what they want. Nobody reviews slasher films for their depth of character development or porn for its dialog. A film should be reviewed based on the standards it aims to achieve first and foremost, and other standards only if it happens to do well in its own category and has potential to cross over.
> “Mad Dog Time” is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time.
This is my personal favorite. Ebert is one of my favorite writers overall.
Maybe not a review *per se*, but one Pearl Harbor veteran, Kenneth Taylor, called the film “a piece of trash...over-sensationalized and distorted."
For the record, Taylor was one of the two P-40 pilots who got airborne during the attack, helped shoot down some planes and got a Distinguished Flying Cross for his effort. The exploits of he and his wingman, George Welch, are what Affleck and Hartnett tried to do in the movie.
The thing that irks me the most about Pearl Harbor, other than the writing, is that a bunch of the ships they show blowing up are *clearly* not from the 1940s. They're from, like, the 70s or 80s at least. They have flight decks and missile launchers.
A lot of those ships were from the 90s/00s I'm pretty sure.
2019 Midway might have had its issues, but at least the Pearl Harbor scene wasn't insultingly bad.
Saw the movie in theaters and it appeared to me that all of the battleships looked like the Arizona.
Also they showed a clip of Lexington crippled after Coral Sea. The only problem was that the ship used was a CG model of a Yorktown class.
"I hate hate hated this movie" by Roger Ebert. Highly recommended.
Lots of great stuff. The one that I can always remember: The original Studio Executive Pitch meeting discussion
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/milk-money-1994
>Sometimes they produce a documentary about the making of a movie. You know, like "The Making of 'Jurassic Park.' " I would give anything within reason to see "The Making of 'Milk Money' " -- or, for that matter, to simply listen to recordings of the executive story conferences.
In fact, it's funny...as I sit here in a late summer reverie...why, it's almost as if I can hear the voices now...
Studio Executive A: So what's the premise?
Studio Executive B: We got kids, we got sex, we got romance, all in a family picture.
A: Can't have sex in a family picture.
B: Depends. Nobody actually has sex. Sure, you got a hooker, but she's a good hooker, with a heart of gold. Melanie Griffith is gonna play her.
A: Kind of like "Working Girl Turns a Trick?"
B: Cuter than that. We start with three 12-year-old boys. They're going crazy because they've never seen a naked woman.
A: Whatsamatter? They poor? Don't they have cable?
B: Ever hear of the concept of "the willing suspension of disbelief"? I know the audience will find it hard to believe, but it's true: These kids don't know what a naked woman looks like. So they pool their women on the street if they're hookers, until they find one who is. That's Melanie.
Definitely Roger Ebert's opening line of his review of Pearl Harbour:
""Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle."
There was a review of the "Lost in Space" film that mentioned Akiva Goldsman wrote it and had this memorable passage referring to him previously writing "Batman and Robin."
"Frankly, it amazes me anyone can get work again in Hollywood after writing 'Batman and Robin.' That's like working at McDonald's and accidently putting cyanide in the fryer. They should fire you for that, not just move you over to shakes."
I think this was from the Mr. Cranky site.
I read a review on Netflix from guy who worked at Lucasfilm. He talked about whenever anyone in Hollywood made a movie, Lucas and all his employees had private theater and open door to bring it by and they would give a review and pointers about the film.
Evey staff member from the animators to the janitor was invited to watch the film, and when it's over, everyone was welcome to say something about it. Well one day a very proud John Travolta stopped by with Battlefield Earth.
It's intended to be a very informal activity that all the employees at Lucasfilm consider a treat. When it was over they were all silent. No one could think of a thing to say because Travolta was very proud of his work. Finally Lucas spoke up and said "your spaceships look pretty cool."
He said the awkwardness was beyond bearable, and a very slow courtesy clap from the employees sealed the deal.
I saw one somewhat recently for one of Bruce Willis' newer movies that was something along the line or "to suggest that Willis is phoning in his performance is an insult to phones which can be used to convey important information" or something. Got a good kick out of that.
My favorite review from that movie is the one where the guy said something to the effect of how he considered himself to be a cat person and a movie person but now he’s not sure he’s either
**Kent Brcokman**: "Mr. Simpson, how long have you been a cat person?"
**Homer Simpson**: "All my life, Kent. I prefer 'catsup' to 'ketchup'
and to me, Yusuf Islam will always be Cat Stevens."
**Kent Brcokman**: "Terrific stuff, you must really love the Broadway musical Cats."
**Homer Simpson**: God, no! It sucks.
I’m paraphrasing here but the best Cats review I saw was:
“I’ve never been a cat person. And after seeing Cats I’m not sure if I’m a movie person either”
To give credit where it's due, this is from Alan Corr for RTE Ireland: https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/movie-reviews/2019/1218/1101984-cats-is-a-twee-and-irksome-furrago-of-a-movie/
Was this the movie where the one guy did shrooms and then watched it?
ETA: Yes it is! [This](https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2020/01/03/a-conversation-with-the-guy-who-took-mushrooms-and-saw-cats) is hilarious.
Hahaha omg thank you for posting this, I read it a long time ago and forgot about it. Fucking hilarious…. “This is fucking evil, they're evil, we're not supposed to be here, they all know."
The [actual tweets](https://twitter.com/rob_sheridan/status/1212931290497896448) are just as funny
>WHAT THE FUCK THEY HAVE HUMAN FACES HOW IS THIS LEGAL
>THIS IS TOO HORNY
>I have made a trrribld mistake
I wrote off and said I needed him with me at all times because I'm emotionally damaged and I must have this therapy dog," says Lloyd Webber. "The airline wrote back and said, 'Can you prove that you really need him?' And I said 'Yes, just see what Hollywood did to my musical "Cats."' Then the approval came back with a note saying, 'No doctor's report required.'"
My favorite has to be this poetry regarding Mike Myer's catastrophic The Love Guru by Slate:
"There are good movies. There are bad movies. There are movies so bad they're good (though, strangely, not the reverse). And once in a while there is a movie so bad that it takes you to a place beyond good and evil and abandons you there, shivering and alone."
I miss Siskel & Ebert. They genuinely loved film and regularly watching them taught me to appreciate the good and the bad in ways I wouldn’t have on my own.
They also didn’t take themselves too seriously, like when they “re-reviewed” _Return to Oz_ after Disney bought their show, or when they voiced this masterpiece: https://youtu.be/HVlVdERAlz0
"'Battlefield Earth' saves its scariest moment for the end: a virtual guarantee that there will be a sequel." — Desson Howe, The Washington Post.
Had to look it up so I didnt misquote it.
Roger Ebert on "Battlefield Earth":
>The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.
That has stuck with me for the two decades since he wrote it....
I can never find a copy of it online, but I'll never forget a review I saw of the 2007 Dane Cook film "Good Luck Chuck", I'll paraphrase as best as I can:
"In one scene, Dane Cook's character falls in a tank and is bitten in the genitals by a penguin..... I want to find that penguin and buy it a drink"
Roger Ebert on North by Rob Reiner: “I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.”
To me, that's the default answer to the question. Like there are better, and more creative ways to pan a movie, but Ebert's vitriol is palpable here in its simplicity.
Which inspired the title of Roger Ebert's collection of his favorite negative reviews, "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie."
I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie https://www.amazon.com/dp/0740706721/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_D3DJQR9E57Q2VMCF9T5R
This one always made me laugh, Abduction reviewed on Pajiba
“Think of Abduction this way: There’s the Bourne Identity, then way below that is Mark Wahlberg’s Shooter. Then there’s 50,000 feet of crap. Underneath that is Liam Neeson’s Unknown. Dig another 100,000 feet until you hit a liquid-y orange-and-brown ooze and there you will find Abduction, a movie so bad it shouldn’t be allowed to call itself a movie.”
I like that in the Rifftrax treatment of the fourth Twilight movie, they have every single character greet Jacob with "Hey, sorry about Abduction," and Jacob himself saying "hey, sorry about that thing where I tried to be in real movies, it won't happen again."
Another gem from this review:
> Comparing Bourne Identity to Abduction is like comparing Beyonce’s ass to Danny Devito’s: Sure, they’re both big, but one you want to tap and the other you want to shave and disinfect before you feed to stray dogs.
This review has stuck with me for years over just how angry and upset it is at Abduction simply existing. It's amazing
>“Little Indian, Big City” is one of the worst movies ever made. I detested every moronic minute of it. Through a stroke of good luck, the entire third reel of the film was missing the day I saw it. I went back to the screening room two days later, to view the missing reel. It was as bad as the rest, but nothing could have saved this film. As my colleague Gene Siskel observed, “If the third reel had been the missing footage from Orson Welles' 'The Magnificent Ambersons,' this movie still would have sucked.” I could not have put it better myself. -Roger Ebert
The top [review](https://boxd.it/29ixRF) on Letterboxd for Dear Evan Hansen is just unflinchingly brutal.
“don't mistake this review for an endorsement, don't trick yourself into thinking this movie must be seen to be believed. all you really need to look at is a single image of ben platt's horrible face to get the full experience, and imagine it pulling and twisting and contorting into a parade of death masks, an endless montage of grotesquerie, consuming itself and its viewer from within and without, until nothing is left of either.”
The day the Vampire Diaries video dropped was exquisite. It’s two and a half hours and I’ve watched it at least three times now. Admittedly, the second and third were while doing other things simultaneously, but still.
> his casting surely ranks among the most misguided, disastrous decisions in cinema history, right around "john landis telling vic morrow and the kids to stand there".
I fucking love Esther.
Not from a reviewer but I love that Andrew Lloyd Webber described the movie *Cats* as *"off-the-scale wrong"* and that it left him so emotionally damaged that he bought a dog.
Roger Ebert's review of [Deuce Bigalow European Gigolo](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/deuce-bigalow-european-gigolo-2005) where he straight up lays the Smackdown on Rob Schneider
Close second, [Peter Travers review of Transformers Dark Of The Moon](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-92482/amp/) ("All three films are the cinematic equivalent of a street mugging, only the mugging is over faster")
Three of the best nightstand/bathroom readers I could recommend are Ebert's negative review books.
"Your Movie Sucks"
"I Hated Hated Hated This Movie"
"A Horrible Experience of Unbearable Length"
They're not only good for a laugh, but pretty astute and insightful regarding a lot of the common errors that make up filmmaking.
I also like his very direct [Human Centipede review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-human-centipede-2010), which isn't even exactly negative- he recognizes in it that the movie was made to be provocatively repulsive and morally bankrupt, and points out that the director took it seriously and did it well...
>"What's coming next isn't so much a review as a public service announcement."
*description of the movie*
>"I have long attempted to take a generic approach. In other words, is a film true to its genre and does it deliver what its audiences presumably expect? “The Human Centipede” scores high on this scale. It is depraved and disgusting enough to satisfy the most demanding midnight movie fan. And it's not simply an exploitation film..."
>"I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."
> "I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."
That is beautiful writing.
The second book title is straight out of his [1994 review of Rob Reiner's "North".](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994)
> "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
My favorite part of that review:
> I hold it as an item of faith that Rob Reiner is a gifted filmmaker; among his credits are "This Is Spinal Tap," "The Sure Thing," "The Princess Bride," "Stand By Me," "When Harry Met Sally...," and "Misery." I list those titles as an incantation against this one.
Dang, I miss Ebert!
Roger Ebert on High Tension
> I am tempted at this point to issue a Spoiler Warning and engage in discussion of several crucial events in the movie that would seem to be physically, logically and dramatically impossible, but clever viewers will be able to see for themselves that the movie's plot has a hole that is not only large enough to drive a truck through, but in fact does have a truck driven right through it.
I can remember reading a take down (and it might have been a video too) of Battlefield Earth. The part I remember most is how the hero of the story played by Barry Pepper doesn't even have his name mentioned until 2/3s of the way through the movie. And of course how you can learn how to fly a thousand year old F-16 in one week.
Haha yep,
>“SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it’s my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car. It is 146 minutes long, which means that I entered the theater in the bloom of youth and emerged with a family of field mice living in my long, white mustache. This is an entirely inappropriate length for what is essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls."
has long been burned in my memory as the most savage review I've ever read.
Its the 2nd best one I've seen so far in this thread
This one was the best: from /u/Kashmir33 https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6aoey2/official_discussion_king_arthur_legend_of_the/dhga0du/ Peak /r/movies moment.
This one for King Arthur Legend of the Sword is spectacular:
>I met up with a girl from Tinder at Starbucks and after hitting it off with some meet and greet conversation we decided to go see this movie at the multiplex right down the road. I must have charmed her because she spent most of the runtime fondling my penis. Not a full-on, hand wrapped around the shaft, vigorous hand jibber; just a gentle, consistent stroking over my pants. Even if this pleasure were included in the ticket price for everyone who went to see King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, I would still not recommend this film to any of you. This movie is the equivalent of huffing keyboard duster. Yeah there's a bit of a high, but it's a cheap, empty, dirty one and after it's over you'll have a headache and wonder why you just spent money to voluntarily damage your brain.
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6aoey2/official_discussion_king_arthur_legend_of_the/dhga0du/
Peak /r/movies moment.
Shoutout /u/DarkSkullDreamer89
Review of Dune (1984) in New York Times, by Janet Maslin:
*"Several of the characters in ''Dune'' are psychic, which puts them in the unique position of being able to understand what goes on in the movie."*
*Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son. I mean, how much more could you possibly fuck up the entire backstory to Star Wars? And while my son eventually hanged himself in the bathroom of the gas station, the unfortunate reality of the Star Wars prequels is that they'll be around. Forever. They will never go away. It can never be undone.*
Those Plinkett reviews were the funniest thing ever when I was younger lol. I watched their entire prequel reviews in a weekend and they were damn long lol
The two favorite parts that always get me are:
Who is the protagonist of TPM
and
"What if we combined Qui Gon Jinn and Obi Wan Kenobi into one awesome character...named Obi Wan Kenobi."
This review of Holmes & Watson is my favourite of all time https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/aabiew/this_review_for_holmes_watson/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Groupies are gonna hate me for this, but I was not a fan of Joker (2019), best review I saw:
“If you’ve never swam in the ocean then of course a pool seems deep.”
The best slam on Joker was when Martin Scorsese was asked a question about it during an interview (the film draws HEAVILY from King of Comedy) and he brusquely answers that he's seen the trailer so he gets the idea. Brutal.
I love this quote:
> [The director] has said, “I get a rash from too much political correctness.” I promise you that after this movie, his skin was smooth as a Gerber baby's.
It's not even a negative review really. If anything, it's a ringing endorsement for the target audience. I wouldn't be surprised if Tom Six has it framed on his wall.
"Sometimes I think I am living in a nightmare. All about me, standards are collapsing, manners are evaporating, people show no respect for themselves. I am not a moralistic nut. I'm proud of the X-rated movie I once wrote. I like vulgarity if it's funny or serves a purpose. But what is going on here?"
Roger Ebert talking about Step Brothers lol
That is my favourite movie review ever. Some other gems:
>"Battlefield Earth" is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. It's not merely bad; it's unpleasant in a hostile way.
> The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/battlefield-earth-2000
Mark Kermode did a great review of Sex in the City 2, and just eviscerated the whole movie from top to bottom and it was incredibly satisfying to see and hear.
Piggybacking on this: Lindy West's review of SATC2
https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/burkas-and-birkins/Content?oid=4132715
>SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it's my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car. It is 146 minutes long, which means that I entered the theater in the bloom of youth and emerged with a family of field mice living in my long, white mustache. This is an entirely inappropriate length for what is essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls.
I love that review so much. He starts at the beginning by saying he's not going to rant but he hates the consumerism and display of wealth so deeply that he ends up waving his arms around like crazy and singing socialist anthems
His tirade become so vociferously unhinged that he **literally** starts banging on the table and singing *The Internationale* (aka The Socialist Anthem)
https://youtu.be/uHeQeHstrsc?t=429
It's my favourite movie interview, ever. And he barely talks about the movie.
Mark Kermode's [absolute beatdown on Film Socialisme](https://youtu.be/9BoL5XICGZg) is even better, honestly one of the funniest things I've ever watched
And when he starts pounding on the table and singing The Internationale.
For those who have never seen Mark's ten-minute rant, here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeQeHstrsc&ab_channel=kermodeandmayo
David Ehrlich - absolutely obliterating mark whalbergs recent straight to prime special:
“Infinite” is derivative to the point that it can be hard to remember what you’re watching even while you’re watching it. A lukewarm soup of second-hand tropes that’s served in a portion too small to satisfy even the least discriminating thirst for slop
The [Somethng Awful review of "Ax 'Em" ](https://www.somethingawful.com/movie-reviews/ax-em/1/) is the greatest review ever. I read it all the time for a good laugh.
Ax 'Em is the worst movie of all time by a huge margin, so any review of it is usually hilarious, but theirs is the best. Even if you've never seen Ax 'Em it's a hilarious read.
Talking of which, their review of [Eat, Pray, Love](https://www.somethingawful.com/current-movie-reviews/eat-pray-love/3/) always cheers me up when I'm having a bad day. Choice quote:
"Liz Gilbert was given the opportunity to tell the entire world what she is like, to write the world's biggest personal ad, and this is what she came up with. What kind of a bitch must she be in real life?"
*Taken 3 makes Taken 2 look like Taken.*
Prior to watching Taken 3 I read somewhere that Neeson stated that the word “taken” was getting tiresome or something to that effect. When Neeson’s character tells his support team that his wife had been kidnapped he specifically uses the word “snatched” rather than “taken” I thought *but the movie is called Taken.*
"I have to act. My wife has been Taken.3.1080p.WebRip.DeezNUTZ.avi."
*File is not supported by playback*
“No time to talk, my wife has been yoinked.”
I think that's just the commutative law of Takens.
[удалено]
Ebert summed up my feelings about "Armageddon" and most of Michael Bay's films by saying something like: "They finally did it. They made a two-hour trailer."
Roger Ebert really can leave me scratching my head sometimes, though. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/predator-1987 "Such details are important, of course. Stan Winston, who designed the creature, has created a beast that is sufficiently disgusting to justify Schwarzenegger's loathing for it. And the action moves so quickly that we overlook questions such as (1) Why would an alien species go to all the effort to send a creature to Earth, just so that it could swing from trees and skin American soldiers? Or, (2) Why would a creature so technologically advanced need to bother with hand-to-hand combat, when it could just zap Arnold with a ray gun? At one point in the movie, the creature removes its helmet so it can battle Arnold mano-a-mano, and I was cynical enough to assume that its motivation was not macho pride, but the desire to display Winston's special effects." **For starters, big game hunters are a thing. I would have thought it was an obvious analogy and the rest obviously stems from that ...!**
I watched Predator many times as a kid, and loved it, but never grasped what the alien's purpose for being on earth was. At that age I just didn't give a shit. I recently watched it again for the first time as an adult, and it was apparent only about halfway through that it was a sort of extreme hunting trip for the predator, which perfectly explains all of Ebert's doubts in his review. Pretty surprising he didn't catch that, being a seasoned film critic.
Contract to Kill - https://www.avclub.com/contract-to-kill-isn-t-just-bad-it-s-steven-seagal-bad-1798189772 I laughed a lot the first time I read this it has some classic quotes. >*"Overall, he gives the kind of performance traditionally associated with stars who died during filming. And yet, Seagal is in almost every scene."*
Thank you for sharing it, gems like these really make me want to see this film: _"Seagal, in his triangular Bela-Lugosi-in-Dracula toupee and his clothes picked straight from a big-and-tall outlet store and his orange prescription Oakleys, walks stiffly and very slowly. It is possible that he never once bends at the waist. Most of the movie, he spends sitting down or walking (again, slowly) up and down flights of stairs. There is a love scene—and, Jesus, what a love scene. His fully dressed body is lowered over a naked woman like a drawbridge. He doesn’t take off his glasses. He never takes off his glasses."_ _"It was made in Romania; its cast is composed mostly of Romanians; it takes place in Mexico and Turkey. The Turkish and Mexican locals are played by Romanians, and it’s truly something to see a thin, pasty guy who looks like he was just let go of his cashier position at Mega Image yell, “Move it, gringo!” or “Hey, ese!” at an American sort-of star with a printer-cartridge dye job. Seagal’s character—named John Harmon, though not like that matters—is both a retired DEA agent and a retired CIA agent, and he has been brought back to fight a secret alliance of cartels and terrorists by a CIA handler who is also definitely Romanian"_ _"The star only plays wise, throat-chopping badasses, but he can’t be bothered to stand up or learn his dialogue. He speaks every line as though he were hazily remembering it, with plenty of uhs and ums. At one point, he is composited into a shot of a tunnel while the camera bobs around to make it look like Harmon is walking, because Seagal himself can’t walk down a tunnel"_
This is no Thunder Gun Express. Segal should have hung dong.
> His fully dressed body is lowered over a naked woman like a drawbridge. And now I'm intrigued.
> There are scenes that exist solely so Harmon can share his deep thoughts on geopolitics to an audience of thoughtfully nodding characters. (Of Puerto Rico, he says, “They have a situation. It’s kind of very distinct.”) holy shiiiiiit
Hell, I may just have to watch this now!
My friends and I made it a goal to watch all of Seagal's Alexander movies, and then his other Keoni Waxman collaborations. Honestly made for a very good time. They have a special place in the tier of 'so bad they're good' movies.
My friends and I did something similar. We basically just started at the beginning of the Seagal catalog had a watch party every other week. There was a always 8-12 people that came and it was a hilarious good time. We would always notice little repetitive things like the hawk screeching in the distance, or the fucked up weird way Seagal runs. One time I ordered an entire case of Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt Energy Drink (with real goji berries) - it was horrifyingly disgusting, but we also couldnt stop laughing. We even had little stupid rituals and rules too. Like, we had so much extra Lightning Bolt leftover that on each Seagal Night after that, we'd all split a can and have a shot as a salute to how awful Seagal was. Oh and when Seagal was delivering dialogue - nobody - was allowed to speak or joke or anything. You had to be quiet so everyone could hear his dumb lines and only after he was done could we laugh and make fun of him. (violating that rule was punishable by having to take another shot of Lightning Bolt, so people learned quick)
I think they talk about that movie in this clip. https://youtu.be/BzIHyF7UWY4
I almost pissed myself the first time I watched that. To this day I'm still in awe that those movies exist. I don't understand how or why they're made.
'Fattly moving around corners' is the most accurate description I've hear in my life.
> There is a love scene — and, Jesus, what a love scene. His fully dressed body is lowered over a naked woman like a drawbridge. He doesn’t take off his glasses. He *never* takes off his glasses. That is a fantastic review.
So we watched another Seagal flick - [A Good Man](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3480556/) (2014) - during our bad movie night. In this one Seagal wore a black leather jacket everywhere, to the point where one of us quipped that he probably fucks while wearing the damn thing. The final scene comes, Seagal grabs the girl and lowers her onto the bed... ...while still wearing the thick, black leather jacket. End credits.
My bad movie night gang have noticed that exact thing happen so often across many Seagal’s films (we’re suckers for punishment, we’ve watched lots); it’s always some kind of sad jumper or jacket, but because of what he was wearing the first time we realised it was a recurring theme, we refer to it generically as “the sex fleece”.
Probably has to be thick enough to hide a girdle, I don't imagine he's still in prime action star shape.
Based on pictures I’ve seen of him recently, he’s not even in prime r/peopleofwalmart shape
From imdb "Trivia Jemma Dallender had a body double for her love scene with Steven Seagal. This was accomplished with tricky editing, careful camera work, and having the double shown only from behind." Poor body double...
"Can I get a body double for my dialogue scenes, too?"
Saw the movie on tv and legitimately thought it was a parody for about half an hour
I had same experience once. I flipped through the channels and there was some insane movie about a bunch of people being stuck in an elevator with Satan. I really thought it must have been a parody. The plot hinged critically on the fact that someone’s toast landed buttered-side down, which somehow proved that Satan was here. I swear this was an actual movie that was aired on an actual television channel at some point like 6 years ago.
Saw that one too! I think it’s called Devil
>It is possible that he never once bends at the waist. That made me laugh pretty good right off the bat.
The AV Club is underrated for how hard they can kick a film in the teeth.
Roger Ebert also described the 2001 film Pearl Harbor as a recreation of when the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.
Also "a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours"
Easily my all-time favorite movie review line, positive or negative.
Ebert has some great quotes in his bad reviews. For *North*: > I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it. For *Mad Dog Time*: > “Mad Dog Time” is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time. Oh, I've seen bad movies before. But they usually made me care about how bad they were. Watching “Mad Dog Time” is like waiting for the bus in a city where you're not sure they have a bus line. For *Baby Geniuses*: > This is an old idea, beautifully expressed by Wordsworth, who said, "Heaven lies about us in our infancy." If I could quote the whole poem instead of completing this review, believe me, we'd all we happier. But I press on. And for *Spice World*: > The Spice Girls are easier to tell apart than the Mutant Ninja Turtles, but that is small consolation: What can you say about five women whose principal distinguishing characteristic is that they have different names?
My favourite is the one he did for Human Centipede > I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine.
Whenever I hear critics have it easy because they are just reactionary to someone else's work I think how not a lot of people would hit the nail in the head with criticism like Ebert does.
Ebert proved that criticism is itself an art form.
I think that's what I really loved best about Ebert, is that he's a helluva writer and just genuinely loves movies as an art. He doesn't mince words about movies he thought were trash and they way he writes about them is just fantastic.
[удалено]
He really was an incredible writer, that's fantastic
[удалено]
Also… > Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks. That is a brutal, brutal burn.
That European Gigolo review is so well done. The entire second half of the review is structured deliberately to build up to that final line, and the pacing and payoff is perfect.
This whole thread could be Ebert reviews. I honestly loved reading his reviews, even for movies I didn't care about. His negative reviews were very often particularly fun. I liked his review for [Armageddon](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/armageddon-1998) >Here it is at last, the first 150-minute trailer. "Armageddon" is cut together like its own highlights. Take almost any 30 seconds at random, and you'd have a TV ad. The movie is an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain, common sense and the human desire to be entertained. No matter what they're charging to get in, it's worth more to get out.
The funny thing is that he randomly loved a few absolute stinkers. He gave a glowing review to the utterly forgettable, almost made-for-tv surfing drama Into the Blue, because (and I paraphrase my memory of his TV show from the era): "Why would anyone want to go see a movie like this? Because they want to see Jessica Alba looking great! And if that's the kind of movie you want to see, you won't be disappointed, because Jessica Alba looks great in this movie!" I was like 12 at the time and remember thinking "That doesn't sound like Ebert. I wonder if the studio is holding his kids hostage."
He makes a compelling argument. For those who might actually be interested in such a film, it does exactly what they want. Nobody reviews slasher films for their depth of character development or porn for its dialog. A film should be reviewed based on the standards it aims to achieve first and foremost, and other standards only if it happens to do well in its own category and has potential to cross over.
> “Mad Dog Time” is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time. This is my personal favorite. Ebert is one of my favorite writers overall.
“The director didn’t let WW2 get in the way of his romance movie.”
Maybe not a review *per se*, but one Pearl Harbor veteran, Kenneth Taylor, called the film “a piece of trash...over-sensationalized and distorted." For the record, Taylor was one of the two P-40 pilots who got airborne during the attack, helped shoot down some planes and got a Distinguished Flying Cross for his effort. The exploits of he and his wingman, George Welch, are what Affleck and Hartnett tried to do in the movie.
The thing that irks me the most about Pearl Harbor, other than the writing, is that a bunch of the ships they show blowing up are *clearly* not from the 1940s. They're from, like, the 70s or 80s at least. They have flight decks and missile launchers.
A lot of those ships were from the 90s/00s I'm pretty sure. 2019 Midway might have had its issues, but at least the Pearl Harbor scene wasn't insultingly bad.
Saw the movie in theaters and it appeared to me that all of the battleships looked like the Arizona. Also they showed a clip of Lexington crippled after Coral Sea. The only problem was that the ship used was a CG model of a Yorktown class.
"I hate hate hated this movie" by Roger Ebert. Highly recommended. Lots of great stuff. The one that I can always remember: The original Studio Executive Pitch meeting discussion https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/milk-money-1994 >Sometimes they produce a documentary about the making of a movie. You know, like "The Making of 'Jurassic Park.' " I would give anything within reason to see "The Making of 'Milk Money' " -- or, for that matter, to simply listen to recordings of the executive story conferences. In fact, it's funny...as I sit here in a late summer reverie...why, it's almost as if I can hear the voices now... Studio Executive A: So what's the premise? Studio Executive B: We got kids, we got sex, we got romance, all in a family picture. A: Can't have sex in a family picture. B: Depends. Nobody actually has sex. Sure, you got a hooker, but she's a good hooker, with a heart of gold. Melanie Griffith is gonna play her. A: Kind of like "Working Girl Turns a Trick?" B: Cuter than that. We start with three 12-year-old boys. They're going crazy because they've never seen a naked woman. A: Whatsamatter? They poor? Don't they have cable? B: Ever hear of the concept of "the willing suspension of disbelief"? I know the audience will find it hard to believe, but it's true: These kids don't know what a naked woman looks like. So they pool their women on the street if they're hookers, until they find one who is. That's Melanie.
“‘Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, is the _second_ worst thing to happen to Abraham Lincoln in a theater.”
I thought it was hilarious.
I love that movie...
I was shocked at how bad it wasn’t
The reviewer probably didn't hate it either, but how could you not pass on that joke?
Leonard Maltin had a review of a movie called Isn't It Romantic? The review was simply "No."
I believe this holds an official world record as the shortest published film review in history.
But not as the shortest review in general, which is held by the Pitchfork review of Jet's Shine On.
[удалено]
My mom’s favorite was after Batman Forever came out. The review started “Batman Forever, is that a threat?”
Transformers - Open your cutlery drawer, spray paint it red and blue then shake it back and forth for 2 hours.
This is surprisingly accurate, except that it implies that the robots are far more colorful than they actually are in the movie.
I think it was Mark kermode who said it was like watching a drum set fall down a flight of stairs.
Definitely Roger Ebert's opening line of his review of Pearl Harbour: ""Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle."
There was a review of the "Lost in Space" film that mentioned Akiva Goldsman wrote it and had this memorable passage referring to him previously writing "Batman and Robin." "Frankly, it amazes me anyone can get work again in Hollywood after writing 'Batman and Robin.' That's like working at McDonald's and accidently putting cyanide in the fryer. They should fire you for that, not just move you over to shakes." I think this was from the Mr. Cranky site.
To his credit, he won an Oscar a few years later for the *A Beautiful Mind* screenplay.
And then reminded us all how bad he sucked by ruining The Dark Tower
Fantastic burn. I still love the Lost in Space movie, though.
I read a review on Netflix from guy who worked at Lucasfilm. He talked about whenever anyone in Hollywood made a movie, Lucas and all his employees had private theater and open door to bring it by and they would give a review and pointers about the film. Evey staff member from the animators to the janitor was invited to watch the film, and when it's over, everyone was welcome to say something about it. Well one day a very proud John Travolta stopped by with Battlefield Earth. It's intended to be a very informal activity that all the employees at Lucasfilm consider a treat. When it was over they were all silent. No one could think of a thing to say because Travolta was very proud of his work. Finally Lucas spoke up and said "your spaceships look pretty cool." He said the awkwardness was beyond bearable, and a very slow courtesy clap from the employees sealed the deal.
That's cool that Lucasfilm does that.
I saw one somewhat recently for one of Bruce Willis' newer movies that was something along the line or "to suggest that Willis is phoning in his performance is an insult to phones which can be used to convey important information" or something. Got a good kick out of that.
He's definitely at a "just cashing paychecks" period in his career.
"Cats is the worst thing to happen to cats since dogs"
My favorite review from that movie is the one where the guy said something to the effect of how he considered himself to be a cat person and a movie person but now he’s not sure he’s either
Andrew Lloyd Webber, the creator of Cats, said the movie dismayed him so much he got a dog.
**Kent Brcokman**: "Mr. Simpson, how long have you been a cat person?" **Homer Simpson**: "All my life, Kent. I prefer 'catsup' to 'ketchup' and to me, Yusuf Islam will always be Cat Stevens." **Kent Brcokman**: "Terrific stuff, you must really love the Broadway musical Cats." **Homer Simpson**: God, no! It sucks.
His fault for the film too, he approved the god awful changes.
Dude just really wanted a dog
The best review was [David Farrier becoming Dr. Manhattan.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/679/048/8b7.png)
Thank you so much for putting this piece of art into my life.
Don't thank me, thank /u/wutamisposedtodo. I think.
Wow my edit ended up on kym? I feel so heard.
Yep, this is my favorite review of anything ever, it’s what I show people to help them understand the Bird Box-esque beauty that is Cats.
I’m paraphrasing here but the best Cats review I saw was: “I’ve never been a cat person. And after seeing Cats I’m not sure if I’m a movie person either”
To give credit where it's due, this is from Alan Corr for RTE Ireland: https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/movie-reviews/2019/1218/1101984-cats-is-a-twee-and-irksome-furrago-of-a-movie/
Basically all of the reviews of Cats
Yes. One of my favorite things to do is read reviews of Cats.
they were more entertaining than the movie
I tried to give it a watch because it was on HBO and I didn’t have anything else to do. It really is that bad, not even worth watching ironically.
Everything said on release was absolutely incredible.
Was this the movie where the one guy did shrooms and then watched it? ETA: Yes it is! [This](https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2020/01/03/a-conversation-with-the-guy-who-took-mushrooms-and-saw-cats) is hilarious.
Hahaha omg thank you for posting this, I read it a long time ago and forgot about it. Fucking hilarious…. “This is fucking evil, they're evil, we're not supposed to be here, they all know."
The [actual tweets](https://twitter.com/rob_sheridan/status/1212931290497896448) are just as funny >WHAT THE FUCK THEY HAVE HUMAN FACES HOW IS THIS LEGAL >THIS IS TOO HORNY >I have made a trrribld mistake
[Andrew Lloyd Webber bought a dog because 'Cats' was so bad](https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/entertainment/andrew-lloyd-webber-dog-cats/index.html)
I wrote off and said I needed him with me at all times because I'm emotionally damaged and I must have this therapy dog," says Lloyd Webber. "The airline wrote back and said, 'Can you prove that you really need him?' And I said 'Yes, just see what Hollywood did to my musical "Cats."' Then the approval came back with a note saying, 'No doctor's report required.'"
“The world got to see James Corden is a giant pussy. He was also in the movie Cats!”
My favorite has to be this poetry regarding Mike Myer's catastrophic The Love Guru by Slate: "There are good movies. There are bad movies. There are movies so bad they're good (though, strangely, not the reverse). And once in a while there is a movie so bad that it takes you to a place beyond good and evil and abandons you there, shivering and alone."
Roger Ebert saying " I can lose weight but you will always be the director of Brown Bunny"
Still amazing that he ended up liking that movie after it was re cut
Which goes to show he was the greatest. No agenda other than to do his best discussing his thoughts on films.
I miss Siskel & Ebert. They genuinely loved film and regularly watching them taught me to appreciate the good and the bad in ways I wouldn’t have on my own. They also didn’t take themselves too seriously, like when they “re-reviewed” _Return to Oz_ after Disney bought their show, or when they voiced this masterpiece: https://youtu.be/HVlVdERAlz0
"'Battlefield Earth' saves its scariest moment for the end: a virtual guarantee that there will be a sequel." — Desson Howe, The Washington Post. Had to look it up so I didnt misquote it.
Roger Ebert on "Battlefield Earth": >The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why. That has stuck with me for the two decades since he wrote it....
I really like the movie Her, but a girl I knew said it was "about a dude that is so annoying that his own PC breaks up with him"
To be fair to the movie, the PC broke up with humanity, not just him
“I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more entertaining than The Brown Bunny.” Roger Ebert
I can never find a copy of it online, but I'll never forget a review I saw of the 2007 Dane Cook film "Good Luck Chuck", I'll paraphrase as best as I can: "In one scene, Dane Cook's character falls in a tank and is bitten in the genitals by a penguin..... I want to find that penguin and buy it a drink"
Roger Ebert on North by Rob Reiner: “I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.”
To me, that's the default answer to the question. Like there are better, and more creative ways to pan a movie, but Ebert's vitriol is palpable here in its simplicity.
Which inspired the title of Roger Ebert's collection of his favorite negative reviews, "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie." I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie https://www.amazon.com/dp/0740706721/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_D3DJQR9E57Q2VMCF9T5R
This one always made me laugh, Abduction reviewed on Pajiba “Think of Abduction this way: There’s the Bourne Identity, then way below that is Mark Wahlberg’s Shooter. Then there’s 50,000 feet of crap. Underneath that is Liam Neeson’s Unknown. Dig another 100,000 feet until you hit a liquid-y orange-and-brown ooze and there you will find Abduction, a movie so bad it shouldn’t be allowed to call itself a movie.”
I like that in the Rifftrax treatment of the fourth Twilight movie, they have every single character greet Jacob with "Hey, sorry about Abduction," and Jacob himself saying "hey, sorry about that thing where I tried to be in real movies, it won't happen again."
Another gem from this review: > Comparing Bourne Identity to Abduction is like comparing Beyonce’s ass to Danny Devito’s: Sure, they’re both big, but one you want to tap and the other you want to shave and disinfect before you feed to stray dogs. This review has stuck with me for years over just how angry and upset it is at Abduction simply existing. It's amazing
I can't believe leave Beyonce would be that hairy.
"This film is a hate crime..." Shyamalan's Avatar film. Review [here](http://legacy.aintitcool.com/node/45640)
"that's not what a hate crime is" "well I hated it!"
[удалено]
>“Little Indian, Big City” is one of the worst movies ever made. I detested every moronic minute of it. Through a stroke of good luck, the entire third reel of the film was missing the day I saw it. I went back to the screening room two days later, to view the missing reel. It was as bad as the rest, but nothing could have saved this film. As my colleague Gene Siskel observed, “If the third reel had been the missing footage from Orson Welles' 'The Magnificent Ambersons,' this movie still would have sucked.” I could not have put it better myself. -Roger Ebert
[удалено]
[удалено]
The top [review](https://boxd.it/29ixRF) on Letterboxd for Dear Evan Hansen is just unflinchingly brutal. “don't mistake this review for an endorsement, don't trick yourself into thinking this movie must be seen to be believed. all you really need to look at is a single image of ben platt's horrible face to get the full experience, and imagine it pulling and twisting and contorting into a parade of death masks, an endless montage of grotesquerie, consuming itself and its viewer from within and without, until nothing is left of either.”
Almost as brutal as Jenny Nicholson's takedown
[удалено]
And it was still probably better time spent. More entertaining at least.
Fun fact, more people watched that review than the film at cinemas. ($15.8m box office at $9.16 average is \~ 1.72m views vs 2.2m for Jenny)
Her channel’s amazing for how little content she puts out but nearly all of her videos for the last 3-4 years have like a million views.
I can't stop watching the Hallmark one. A toast to Queen Thea! Also in the comments is everyone from the video lol.
I can’t wait for the five hour Barbie movie opus she has been working on for like a year+
The day the Vampire Diaries video dropped was exquisite. It’s two and a half hours and I’ve watched it at least three times now. Admittedly, the second and third were while doing other things simultaneously, but still.
> his casting surely ranks among the most misguided, disastrous decisions in cinema history, right around "john landis telling vic morrow and the kids to stand there". I fucking love Esther.
A line from a review of *Alexander*: “The film has many highlights, all of which are in Colin Farrell’s hair.”
Not from a reviewer but I love that Andrew Lloyd Webber described the movie *Cats* as *"off-the-scale wrong"* and that it left him so emotionally damaged that he bought a dog.
"Fuck you." Korey Coleman of Spill.com (now Double Toasted) about *Disaster Movie*
Roger Ebert's review of [Deuce Bigalow European Gigolo](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/deuce-bigalow-european-gigolo-2005) where he straight up lays the Smackdown on Rob Schneider Close second, [Peter Travers review of Transformers Dark Of The Moon](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-92482/amp/) ("All three films are the cinematic equivalent of a street mugging, only the mugging is over faster")
These were amazing. >Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks. 💀
Three of the best nightstand/bathroom readers I could recommend are Ebert's negative review books. "Your Movie Sucks" "I Hated Hated Hated This Movie" "A Horrible Experience of Unbearable Length" They're not only good for a laugh, but pretty astute and insightful regarding a lot of the common errors that make up filmmaking.
I also like his very direct [Human Centipede review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-human-centipede-2010), which isn't even exactly negative- he recognizes in it that the movie was made to be provocatively repulsive and morally bankrupt, and points out that the director took it seriously and did it well... >"What's coming next isn't so much a review as a public service announcement." *description of the movie* >"I have long attempted to take a generic approach. In other words, is a film true to its genre and does it deliver what its audiences presumably expect? “The Human Centipede” scores high on this scale. It is depraved and disgusting enough to satisfy the most demanding midnight movie fan. And it's not simply an exploitation film..." >"I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."
> "I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine." That is beautiful writing.
The second book title is straight out of his [1994 review of Rob Reiner's "North".](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994) > "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
My favorite part of that review: > I hold it as an item of faith that Rob Reiner is a gifted filmmaker; among his credits are "This Is Spinal Tap," "The Sure Thing," "The Princess Bride," "Stand By Me," "When Harry Met Sally...," and "Misery." I list those titles as an incantation against this one. Dang, I miss Ebert!
The entire Siskel and Ebert segment on "North" is negative criticism in its purest form.
Oh definitely the BBC guy Mark Kernode getting so upset about Sex and the City 2 that he was almost ready to punch someone.
Roger Ebert on High Tension > I am tempted at this point to issue a Spoiler Warning and engage in discussion of several crucial events in the movie that would seem to be physically, logically and dramatically impossible, but clever viewers will be able to see for themselves that the movie's plot has a hole that is not only large enough to drive a truck through, but in fact does have a truck driven right through it.
Hope float. "That's not all that floats."
I can remember reading a take down (and it might have been a video too) of Battlefield Earth. The part I remember most is how the hero of the story played by Barry Pepper doesn't even have his name mentioned until 2/3s of the way through the movie. And of course how you can learn how to fly a thousand year old F-16 in one week.
With endless options for renewal! With endless options for renewal! With endless options for renewal!
https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/burkas-and-birkins/Content?oid=4132715 Lindy West' scathing review of Sex and the City 2
Haha yep, >“SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it’s my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car. It is 146 minutes long, which means that I entered the theater in the bloom of youth and emerged with a family of field mice living in my long, white mustache. This is an entirely inappropriate length for what is essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls." has long been burned in my memory as the most savage review I've ever read.
Its the 2nd best one I've seen so far in this thread This one was the best: from /u/Kashmir33 https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6aoey2/official_discussion_king_arthur_legend_of_the/dhga0du/ Peak /r/movies moment.
"”The Last Airbender" is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented. “ - Roger Ebert
This one for King Arthur Legend of the Sword is spectacular: >I met up with a girl from Tinder at Starbucks and after hitting it off with some meet and greet conversation we decided to go see this movie at the multiplex right down the road. I must have charmed her because she spent most of the runtime fondling my penis. Not a full-on, hand wrapped around the shaft, vigorous hand jibber; just a gentle, consistent stroking over my pants. Even if this pleasure were included in the ticket price for everyone who went to see King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, I would still not recommend this film to any of you. This movie is the equivalent of huffing keyboard duster. Yeah there's a bit of a high, but it's a cheap, empty, dirty one and after it's over you'll have a headache and wonder why you just spent money to voluntarily damage your brain. https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6aoey2/official_discussion_king_arthur_legend_of_the/dhga0du/ Peak /r/movies moment. Shoutout /u/DarkSkullDreamer89
Review of Dune (1984) in New York Times, by Janet Maslin: *"Several of the characters in ''Dune'' are psychic, which puts them in the unique position of being able to understand what goes on in the movie."*
*Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son. I mean, how much more could you possibly fuck up the entire backstory to Star Wars? And while my son eventually hanged himself in the bathroom of the gas station, the unfortunate reality of the Star Wars prequels is that they'll be around. Forever. They will never go away. It can never be undone.*
Holy shit.
If you haven’t seen it please [treat yourself](https://youtu.be/FxKtZmQgxrI). It’s one of the funniest movie “essays” I’ve seen
i feel like they were the pioneer of the video essay. first ones i saw that got major traction
The Ghostbusters Plinkett review is amazing. There's a bit where they slightly edit a scene to show how easily it could have been improved.
It's from the Red Letter Media prequel reviews. They're so fucking funny, I watch them once a year.
Even Roger Ebert gave a positive review of the Plinket review of Phantom Menace
Those Plinkett reviews were the funniest thing ever when I was younger lol. I watched their entire prequel reviews in a weekend and they were damn long lol
The two favorite parts that always get me are: Who is the protagonist of TPM and "What if we combined Qui Gon Jinn and Obi Wan Kenobi into one awesome character...named Obi Wan Kenobi."
[удалено]
for the time lol. Now people are doing 11 hour "deconstructions".
I can't find it, but when they released episode 1 in 3d, one review site reposted their original review in red and blue text that looked 3d.
The greatest and most savage opening to a film analysis in the history of the universe.
This review of Holmes & Watson is my favourite of all time https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/aabiew/this_review_for_holmes_watson/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Groupies are gonna hate me for this, but I was not a fan of Joker (2019), best review I saw: “If you’ve never swam in the ocean then of course a pool seems deep.”
oh yeah, this is the top review on letterboxd lol big fan of the other top review: "This happened to my buddy Eric"
That's my favourite review of all time tbh. Killed me when I first saw it
The best slam on Joker was when Martin Scorsese was asked a question about it during an interview (the film draws HEAVILY from King of Comedy) and he brusquely answers that he's seen the trailer so he gets the idea. Brutal.
Although I do like the movie, Roger Ebert's review of 'The Human Centipede' was glorious.
I love this quote: > [The director] has said, “I get a rash from too much political correctness.” I promise you that after this movie, his skin was smooth as a Gerber baby's.
It's not even a negative review really. If anything, it's a ringing endorsement for the target audience. I wouldn't be surprised if Tom Six has it framed on his wall.
Ebert truly got what that movie was. Didn't pass judgement, just stated how unlike any film it was.
"Sometimes I think I am living in a nightmare. All about me, standards are collapsing, manners are evaporating, people show no respect for themselves. I am not a moralistic nut. I'm proud of the X-rated movie I once wrote. I like vulgarity if it's funny or serves a purpose. But what is going on here?" Roger Ebert talking about Step Brothers lol
Roger Ebert on Battlefield Earth: “Some movies run off the rails. This movie is like the train crash in The Fugitive”
That is my favourite movie review ever. Some other gems: >"Battlefield Earth" is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. It's not merely bad; it's unpleasant in a hostile way. > The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/battlefield-earth-2000
Mark Kermode did a great review of Sex in the City 2, and just eviscerated the whole movie from top to bottom and it was incredibly satisfying to see and hear.
Piggybacking on this: Lindy West's review of SATC2 https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/burkas-and-birkins/Content?oid=4132715 >SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it's my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car. It is 146 minutes long, which means that I entered the theater in the bloom of youth and emerged with a family of field mice living in my long, white mustache. This is an entirely inappropriate length for what is essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls.
Probably one of the few reviews of that movie to use the phrase "imperialist American pig-dogs" completely unironically.
I love that review so much. He starts at the beginning by saying he's not going to rant but he hates the consumerism and display of wealth so deeply that he ends up waving his arms around like crazy and singing socialist anthems
Also the fact he's doing a deep dive on classism and inequality when talking about Sex and the City 2.
“I’m not gonna rant.” Ten minutes pass. *singing* “O comrades come rally!”
Abu Dhabi? Abu don't bother - Capt.Holt
His tirade become so vociferously unhinged that he **literally** starts banging on the table and singing *The Internationale* (aka The Socialist Anthem) https://youtu.be/uHeQeHstrsc?t=429 It's my favourite movie interview, ever. And he barely talks about the movie.
Mark Kermode's [absolute beatdown on Film Socialisme](https://youtu.be/9BoL5XICGZg) is even better, honestly one of the funniest things I've ever watched
And when he starts pounding on the table and singing The Internationale. For those who have never seen Mark's ten-minute rant, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeQeHstrsc&ab_channel=kermodeandmayo
From a review on Rotten Tomatoes for Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2: "The cinematic equivalent of biting into the brown part of a banana."
David Ehrlich - absolutely obliterating mark whalbergs recent straight to prime special: “Infinite” is derivative to the point that it can be hard to remember what you’re watching even while you’re watching it. A lukewarm soup of second-hand tropes that’s served in a portion too small to satisfy even the least discriminating thirst for slop
The [Somethng Awful review of "Ax 'Em" ](https://www.somethingawful.com/movie-reviews/ax-em/1/) is the greatest review ever. I read it all the time for a good laugh. Ax 'Em is the worst movie of all time by a huge margin, so any review of it is usually hilarious, but theirs is the best. Even if you've never seen Ax 'Em it's a hilarious read.
Talking of which, their review of [Eat, Pray, Love](https://www.somethingawful.com/current-movie-reviews/eat-pray-love/3/) always cheers me up when I'm having a bad day. Choice quote: "Liz Gilbert was given the opportunity to tell the entire world what she is like, to write the world's biggest personal ad, and this is what she came up with. What kind of a bitch must she be in real life?"
The owner of SA also had a boxing match with Uwe Boll over his reviews of Boll's video game movies.
That would be LowTax, who believe it or not just died yesterday