roger ebert horror movie reviews

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• 82% Alien: Romulus Link to Alien: Romulus
• 100% Daughters Link to Daughters
• 78% Cuckoo Link to Cuckoo

New TV Tonight

• 100% Pachinko: Season 2
• -- OceanXplorers: Season 1
• 89% Chimp Crazy: Season 1
• -- Classified: Season 1
• -- Reasonable Doubt: Season 2
• -- The Anonymous: Season 1
• -- Face to Face With Scott Peterson: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 91% Bad Monkey: Season 1
• 53% The Umbrella Academy: Season 4
• 96% Industry: Season 3
• 77% Lady in the Lake: Season 1
• -- Troppo: Season 2
• 58% Emily in Paris: Season 4
• 100% Supacell: Season 1
• 78% Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• 82% A Good Girl's Guide to Murder: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• 91% Bad Monkey: Season 1 Link to Bad Monkey: Season 1
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

300 Best Movies of All Time

Box Office 2024: Top 10 Movies of the Year

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Weekend Box Office: Alien: Romulus Dethrones Deadpool & Wolverine

James Wan’s Teacup : Premiere Date, Trailer, Cast & More

• Trending on RT
• Best Movies of 2024
• Renewed and Cancelled TV
• Popular TV Shows
• Re-Release Calendar

Roger Ebert

Chicago, IL

http://rogerebert.com/

Movies reviews only

Screen Rant

10 underrated horror movies that roger ebert loved.

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

15 Best Horror Movies Of All Time, Ranked

10 comic book movies rogert ebert loved, every movie roger ebert walked out on.

• Ebert has high praise for Park Chan-wook’s “Thirst” calling it a blood-drenched vampire film about a surprising Roman Catholic priest.
• Werner Herzog’s “Nosferatu the Vampyre” is a beautifully shot and emotional dracula movie Ebert gives a full 4 stars.
• Ebert gave 3.5 stars to “Red Dragon”, notable for its strong cast and suspenseful atmosphere despite some shortcomings.

Roger Ebert is one of the most credible and influential film critics ever, and he gave excellent scores to many underrated horror movies. After his passing, Ebert's work is still maintained by critics via his website , reviewing new film releases. Specifically regarding films that Ebert reviewed himself, there are several gems that he rated higher than other critics, relative to his four-star scale. There are many subgenres of horror movies, and the ones he reviewed ranged from psychological thrillers and gothic horror to adaptations of beloved novels.

Between under-seen gems and films that had received mixed reviews elsewhere, Ebert gave over three stars to some must-watch horror films. Ebert was known as one of the most thoughtful and knowledgeable film critics, establishing himself as an authoritative voice in the field. While there were movies that Roger Ebert didn't like that have aged well , there were other cases where he caught on to a masterpiece far earlier than anyone else.

What are the best horror movies of all time? Every fan has their opinion, but these movies have stood the test of time to become certifiable icons.

10 Thirst (2009)

Directed by park chan-wook, given 3/4 stars by roger ebert..

Park Chan-wook is one of South Korea's most prolific filmmakers, with unbelievable works like Oldboy and The Handmaiden . Ebert describes Thirst as "a blood-drenched vampire film about, unexpectedly, a Roman Catholic priest" and also notably states that the filmmaker's work transcends the horror genre, "probing alarming depths of human nature." Park Chan-wook's films are particularly brutal and violent and pull no punches in their exploration of morally complex human characters.

While Thirst generally received decent critical acclaim, it deserves more recognition from international audiences. Parasite, winning the Academy Award for Best Picture, opened the eyes of audiences worldwide to the jaw-dropping films being made in South Korea, and Thirst is a must-see for lovers of psychological thrillers, horror, and vampire movies . While Roger Ebert refers to Let the Right One In as the best modern vampire movie, he has high praise for Park Chan-wook and Thirst .

Roger Ebert remains one of the most respected film critics of all time, and he actually held a special appreciation for certain comic book movies.

9 Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

Directed by werner herzog, given 4/4 stars by roger ebert..

Another beautiful, underrated vampire film is Werner Herzog's rendition of Nosferatu . Decades after the 1922 silent film and decades before Robert Eggers' highly anticipated modern remake, German filmmaker Werner Herzog explored the vampire character through a sensitive, aesthetically gorgeous lens . Nosferatu the Vampyre is one of the best Dracula movies to date, and Roger Ebert gave it his seal of approval with a whopping 4/4 stars.

Ebert quickly acknowledges the visual artistry of Herzog's masterpiece, which establishes its European setting with painting-like excellence. Ebert explains that "Herzog's pictorial eye is not often enough credited. His films always upstage it with their themes." He's entirely correct in that Nosferatu the Vampyre is an astonishingly gorgeous film, yet Herzog's emotional exploration of Dracula is the film's highlight. The 1979 version is a far cry from Christopher Lee's campy vampire Count, as the film hones in on the inherent loneliness and dread of being a vampire.

8 From Hell (2001)

Directed by albert and allen hughes, given 3/4 stars by roger ebert..

Not available

Admittedly, From Hell isn't for everyone, as it scored a 6.7 on IMDb and a 57% on Rotten Tomatoes. However, Roger Ebert gave the Jack the Ripper-centric, Victorian-era horror thriller 3/4 stars, and the film has some feats to merit his praise. The exploration of one of the most notorious unsolved serial killings in history is inherently fascinating material, and it pays off with an exciting mystery ride. Ebert describes the experience as "dark, clammy, and exhilarating," which is undoubtedly true for the underrated Johnny Depp flick. From Hell is a ton of fun for gothic horror fans.

The critic Roger Ebert from has walked out of a handful of films despite his convictions about finishing them - here's what they are and why he left.

7 Red Dragon (2002)

Directed by brett ratner, given 3.5/4 stars by roger ebert..

While Brett Ratner's Red Dragon isn't the best Hannibal Lecter movie , it's certainly not the worst. With stars like Ed Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Watson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and more rounding out the cast, it'd be challenging to make that terrible of a movie. Roger Ebert sang his praise for the Silence of the Lambs prequel, admitting that it didn't have the same level of action as Ridley Scott's Hannibal but that the subtlety worked to its benefit. He adds, "A movie like "Red Dragon" is all atmosphere and apprehension," complimenting the film's natural state of unease.

6 Identity (2003)

Directed by james mangold, given 3/4 stars by roger ebert..

The 2000s had many fantastic psychological thrillers, from renowned films like Mulholland Drive and The Prestige to underrated gems like Identity . A solid edition to James Mangold's filmography , the film received mixed reviews from critics, including a 63% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Still, Roger Ebert praised the mystery thriller for subverting classic "whodunit" movies and leaning more into its horror elements. He praises the film's ending, referring to it as "a third act that causes us to rethink everything that has gone before."

5 Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

Directed by e. elias merhige, given 3.5/4 stars by roger ebert..

Not to be confused with Nosferatu , 2000's Shadow of the Vampire is a fantastical biographical drama about the shooting of the classic 1922 silent film, which imagines Max Shreck, the actor who originally portrayed Nosferatu, as a vampire himself. Shreck is played by Willem Dafoe, who's in his niche in layers of makeup and prosthetics, with Ebert describing his performance, saying, "He embodies the Schreck of "Nosferatu" so uncannily that when real scenes from the silent classic are slipped into the frame, we don't notice a difference." Dafoe's performance is the standout of the film, which otherwise received mediocre reviews.

4 Cronos (1993)

Directed by guillermo del toro, given 3/4 stars by roger ebert..

Guillermo del Toro is one of the most beloved filmmakers of the past three decades, and he managed to impress Roger Ebert with his feature film debut in Cronos . The directorial debut showed off del Toro's signature visual prowess and narratively offered an inventive blend of horror, fantasy, and mythology. The film was well-received critically, though it's never had the popularity of del Toro's more recent works, like Pan's Labyrinth and The Shape of Water , which explore similar ideas. Ebert described Cronos , saying, "This is the stuff of classic horror films."

3 Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Directed by francis ford coppola, given 3/4 stars by roger ebert..

Out of Francis Ford Coppola's movies , his Dracula rendition is one of the most underrated. The film has its issues, with Keanu Reeves' performance being a consistent target of criticism. However, Gary Oldman's portrayal of the Count is exceptional and easily the most multi-faceted depiction on screen. Bram Stoker's Dracula excels in its visuals, with Ebert describing the aesthetic as a "Gothic extravaganza intercut with the Victorian London of gaslights and fogbound streets." Love it or hate it, Coppola's vampire epic is worth trying at least once.

2 The Hidden (1987)

Directed by jack sholder, given 3/4 stars by roger ebert..

Kyle MacLachlan is best known for his role as Dale Cooper in Twin Peaks , but it wasn't the only project where the beloved actor played an FBI Special Agent. 1987's The Hidden sees MacLachlan suit up for a riveting sci-fi/horror journey that's fast-paced and wildly entertaining. Ebert gave the cult classic 3/4 stars, complimenting MacLachlan's performance and adding that The Hidden "has more brains than the average thriller." It's a unique and fascinating cinematic experience and a must-watch for horror fans and Twin Peaks fans alike.

1 Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)

Directed by jack clayton, given 3.5/4 stars by roger ebert..

Based on the celebrated novel by Ray Bradbury, 1983's Something Wicked This Way Comes received mixed reviews from critics upon its release. The story offers something similar to classic 1980s coming-of-age adventures like E.T. or Stand By Me , though it never earned the same acclaim. Roger Ebert offered nothing but praise in his 3.5-star review, declaring it "a horror movie with elegance."

• Roger Ebert
• Horror Movies

The Horror Movie Roger Ebert Couldn’t Review

“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.”

The late film critic Roger Ebert loved movies. He also hated quite a few of them , enough to fill up a book of reviews titled I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie . Some received just fraction of a star (out of a possible four), including Spice World (1997), Mr. Magoo (1997), and Charlie’s Angels (2000). Even consensus critical and audience favorites like Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) and The Usual Suspects (1995) couldn’t muster anything over 1.5 stars.

But one film drove Ebert to the virtually unprecedented step of declaring it was simply not possible to evaluate it. It was not that he awarded it zero stars—though he did—but that he felt it defied the spectrum of starred ratings entirely.

The movie: The Human Centipede .

For those unfamiliar, that 2009 horror film directed by Tom Six imagines a world in which psychotic surgeon Dr. Heiter (Dieter Laser) performs a highly experimental procedure in which he conjoins the mouths and anuses of victims to form a horrifying human food chain.

Ebert often espoused that he evaluated a film not on an overall scale of quality but what it was trying to accomplish in its genre; he wrote that “ 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.”

Ebert goes on to laud a few of Six’s shot compositions. But then he drops the hammer. “I am required to award stars to movies I review,” he wrote. “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.”

The Human Centipede was not universally reviled. It holds a 49 percent “rotten” score on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning some critics found its audaciousness worthy of respect. (“It scales the heights of yuckiness,” wrote Guardian reviewer Peter Bradshaw.)

Nor was it the first time Ebert abandoned his star system. In 1997, he reiterated his distaste for the John Waters film Pink Flamingos , for which he determined “stars simply seem not to apply” and something he regarded “not as a film but as a fact, or perhaps as an object.” He also passed on awarding any stars to 1996’s Mad Dog Time (“like waiting for the bus in a city where you’re not sure they have a bus line”) and 1987’s Jaws: The Revenge (“the scariest creature in the film is an eel”) along with several others, though The Human Centipede seems to be the rare case where a star rating was withheld more out of cold logic than sheer contempt.

Whether Ebert or his cohorts influenced filmgoers to stay away from The Human Centipede is hard to evaluate. The first film made less than $200,000 at the domestic box office, though Vulture later reported it sold 55,000 DVDs in its first week of release.

Having suffered enough, Ebert was no doubt displeased to be confronted with 2011’s The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) , which repeats the morbid beats of the first but with more victims along the way. Whether he found it as distressing as the first is hard to gauge, as the review forgoes stars for a thumbs-down emoji, which seems to correlate with a zero-stars rating. (Ebert passed in 2013, thus being spared the experience of 2015’s third and final Human Centipede film.)

Subjecting himself to the sequel does bring up an interesting question. If the original Human Centipede was so grueling, why bother with another? A reader once wrote to Ebert posing the question. His answer: “That’s what I get paid for. I’d have a perfect job if I only went to movies I thought might be good.”

Ebert at the Horror Movies: The Late Critic’s Thoughts On Horror Classics

A couple of weeks ago, in the comments section for my retrospective piece on John Carpenter’s  The Fog  where I highlighted Roger Ebert’s negative review of the film, a commenter asked a simple question: “Has Roger Ebert ever given a positive review to a horror film?” The answer is “Yes.” For instance, Ebert was an early champion of Carpenter’s  Halloween , long before the rest of the critical masses started praising Carpenter as the next coming of Hitchcock. However, the  Chicago Sun-Times  film critic has a tumultuous relationship with the slasher films that followed in  Halloween’s  wake.

Famously, the outrage started by a Milwaukee association (made up mostly of overprotective mothers) surrounding the release of the killer-santa classic  Silent Night, Deadly Night , was backed by Ebert himself. On his massively popular review program, “Siskel and Ebert at the Movies,” Ebert and fellow critic Gene Siskel tore into the holiday slasher. After Siskel calls out the filmmakers by name for making such a “contemptible” product, Ebert chimes in to say, “I would like to hear them explain to their children and their grandchildren that it’s only a movie.” Ultimately, the duo viewed the film as a genuine cause for concern with the potential to damage the minds of impressionable youths.

They even devoted an entire episode to trashing “women in danger films” (read:  slashers ) by honing in on what they felt was rampant misogyny aimed squarely at titillating perverse male audience members. Surely, there is truth to their analysis in regards to some of the seedier crash-grabs of the time. Of course, this completely disregards the power of the final girl trope. Even, as an example for their argument, they spotlight one of the most tame films of the era,  When a Stranger Calls . The episode is available in its entirety on YouTube (I’ll include at the end of this article), and it’s well worth a watch for those interested in the critical temperament of the slasher Golden Age.

“I think a lot of people have the wrong idea. They identify these films with earlier thrillers like  Psycho or even a more recent film like  Halloween,  which we both liked. These films aren’t in the same category. These films hate women, and, unfortunately, the audiences that go to them, don’t seem to like women much either…To sit there [in the theater] surrounded by people who are identifying, not with the victim but with the attacker, the killer – cheering these killers on, it’s a very scary experience.” – Roger Ebert, “Siskel and Ebert at the Movies”

Let’s get this straight, this is in no way an article meant to bash Ebert. As a kid, before the major boom of the internet and the flurry of film related websites, I looked to the local paper every Friday for the critics’ reviews. I watched “At the Movies” often in hopes of hearing about the smaller indie films that may have flown under my radar. I trusted Ebert’s opinion, even if I didn’t always agree. That’s the power of film criticism, it is alway going to simply be  one person’s opinion. It’s up to you as the reader to decide if the points the critic makes hit a chord in line with your personal taste.

In regards to a film like When a Stranger Calls , it’s most likely the nerve hit by theses films in the eyes of Siskel and Ebert was exactly the endgame as set out by the filmmakers. Horror is confrontational and difficult to watch. It can also represent some of the lowest common denominator sleaze, as well. However, it’d be hard to say that Roger Ebert just “didn’t get it.” The man had a brilliant mind and was capable of bringing the world of highfalutin film criticism into the homes of everyday people. That said, I thought it would be fun to take a look at Ebert’s reviews for some unquestionably classic horror films. Did the great reviewer “get it right” in terms of general horror fandom’s appreciation of a certain picture, or was he far off the map in his despisal?

Re-Animator 

Review:  October 18, 1985  

“One of the pleasures of the movies, however, is to find a movie that chooses a disreputable genre and then tries with all its might to transcend the genre, to go over the top into some kind of artistic vision, however weird. Stuart Gordon’s Re-Animator is a pleasure like that, a frankly gory horror movie that finds a rhythm and a style that make it work in a cockeyed, offbeat sort of way.”

3 out of 4 Stars

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Review:  January 1, 1974  

“Horror and exploitation films almost always turn a profit if they’re brought in at the right price. So they provide a good starting place for ambitious would-be filmmakers who can’t get more conventional projects off the ground. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre belongs in a select company (with Night of the Living Dead and Last House on the Left ) of films that are really a lot better than the genre requires. Not, however, that you’d necessarily enjoy seeing it.”

2 out 4 Stars

A Nightmare on Elms Street 3: Dream Warriors

Review: February 27, 1987 

“All the characters seemed adrift in a machine-made script, a script devised as a series of pegs to hang the special effects on. The story involves the surviving ‘Elm Street children,’ whose parents, we learn, were vigilantes who cornered a child-killer down in the old junkyard and burned him alive.”

1 1/2 Stars out of 4

Review: December 20th, 1996

“In a way, this movie was inevitable. A lot of modern film criticism involves ‘deconstruction’ of movie plots. ‘Deconstruction’ is an academic word. It means saying what everybody knows about the movies in words nobody can understand. Scream is self-deconstructing; it’s like one of those cans that heats its own soup.” Remember that? Those were scary times, y’all.

“…As a film critic, I liked it. I liked the in-jokes and the self-aware characters. At the same time, I was aware of the incredible level of gore in this film. It is *really* violent. Is the violence defused by the ironic way the film uses it and comments on it? For me, it was. For some viewers, it will not be, and they will be horrified.”

Friday the 13th Part 2

Review:  January 1, 1981 

Ebert notoriously hated the  Friday the 13th   films. I couldn’t find a review for the first, but I’m sure it would have been equally negative. In fact, he ends this write-up with “*This review will suffice for the Friday the 13th film of your choice.”

“The pre-title sequence showed one of the heroines of the original Friday The 13th , alone at home. She has nightmares, wakes up, undresses, is stalked by the camera, hears a noise in the kitchen. She tiptoes into the kitchen. Through the open window, a cat springs into the room. The audience screamed loudly and happily: It’s fun to be scared. Then an unidentified man sunk an ice pick into the girl’s brain, and, for me, the fun stopped…This movie is a cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead teenager genres; about two dozen movies a year feature a mad killer going berserk, and they’re all about as bad as this one. Some have a little more plot, some have a little less. It doesn’t matter. “

1/2 Star Out of 4

Child’s Play

Review:  November 9, 1988

“ Child’s Play is a cheerfully energetic horror film of the slam-bang school, but slicker and more clever than most, about an evil doll named Charles Lee Ray, or ‘Chucky’.”

Ebert goes on to explain the “False Alarm,” such as the cat scare , and how such a moment is just a setup for the real terror. “ Child’s Play is better than the average False Alarm movie because it is well made, contains effective performances, and has succeeded in creating a truly malevolent doll. Chucky is one mean SOB.”

3 Out of 4 Stars

There you have it, folks. Despite his reputation as a hater of all things horror, it appears Ebert had no qualms on singling out quality pictures when he saw them. His voice in film criticism is one that will always be missed.

You may like

6 New Horror Movies Releasing This Week Including ‘Alien: Romulus’

‘Alien: Romulus’ Review – An Immersive, Visceral Salute to the Franchise’s Greatest Hits

‘Final Destination: Bloodlines’ Will Be a Theatrical (and IMAX) Release

‘burning bright’ – revisiting the tiger horror movie 14 years later.

Hurricanes are frightening all on on their own without having to involve a predatory animal. Yet Carlos Brooks ’ Burning Bright not only features a Category 3 hurricane, a ferocious tiger is thrown in for added effect. Back when this film was first announced, its plot was met with laughter and doubt; the idea was as intriguing as it was ridiculous. Over time though, this suspenseful story of a girl, a boy, and a tiger has become a shining example of how to follow through on a high concept.

Two distinct yet equally uncontrollable forces are on display at the beginning of Burning Bright . As Hurricane Isabel builds a sense of foreboding in the background, a young woman finally confronts her family situation. The collegebound Kelly ( Briana Evigan , Sorority Row ) is making the difficult decision of leaving behind her autistic brother Tom ( Charlie Tahan , Super Dark Times ) when life catches her off guard again. Kelly’s plans are dashed after her late mother’s husband Johnny ( Garret Dillahunt , Last House on the Left ) steals the money intended for Tom’s new care. And for what? A wildlife ranch with the centerpiece being, of course, a former circus tiger deemed more evil than scary by Meat Loaf . The musician’s fulsome cameo feels nearly out of place in this film, but the character is a forceful reminder not to take the tiger lightly, even when the plot comes across as absurd.

There is no organic way to have a tiger present in this story, seeing as these creatures are exotic to most people. They don’t belong in, much less originate in a place like Florida. So there needs to be a bridge of some kind that brings these disparate elements together. And after assuming Johnny’s latest purchase would simply escape his enclosure and enter Kelly’s house, Burning Bright thinks outside the box even further by revealing the tiger was released . This plot development is both so nutty and so fiendish it sounds like something drummed up by EC Comics.

Pictured: Kelly (Briana Evigan) and Tom (Charlie Tahan) confront Johnny.

The film neither has nor needs time to ponder the whys and whats of the characters’ sudden predicament; like Kelly and Tom, Burning Bright is in survival mode. The director is instead too busy finding efficient ways to keep the momentum up and the audience engaged. Those forty-something minutes of a (big) cat and mouse game could have quickly gone south in less capable hands, but Brooks manages to avoid the worst possible outcome in these kinds of conceptual stories. That is, boring the audience by either desensitizing them to the threat or animal, or just being too repetitive. 

Unlike Alexandre Aja’s somewhat similar natural-horror film Crawl — the ’80s snake thriller Fair Game is an even closer match —   Burning Bright doesn’t have the luxury of a dynamic venue (among other things). Kelly and Tom are very much sentenced to their home after it was sealed up with them inside. So there is a fair deal of the characters going around in circles here and revisiting the same parts of the house. In turn though, that story tightness becomes more and more intense as well as detectable on screen. The camera gets almost uncomfortably close and fixed on the actors’ faces, in particular when their rawest emotions are coming out in some form or another.

Escaping the tiger would be easier than this film’s symbolism. Perhaps taking a page out of The Descent and other films like it, Burning Bright uses a deadly creature — albeit a non-fantastical one — to contextualize a personal dilemma. What’s missing is nuance, on account of the straightforward approach. There is no mistaking what is being communicated here as Kelly fights for hers and Tom’s life. That level of simple storytelling could maybe minimize the film’s impact, however, the uncomplicated route works well in this case. An allegory being precise is preferable to a poor one.

Pictured: Garret Dillahunt’s character Johnny shows up to learn his scheme didn’t work.

Burning Bright would not be anywhere as effective without its leads. Charlie Tahan tends to be overlooked due to Tom being nonverbal, yet for his age, he turned in an impressive performance that is never ostentatious. Then there is Briana Evigan , a familiar face of 2000s horror, who is owed some credit for her character’s lasting impression. She requested the filmmakers give Kelly a personality touch-up so she would be more likable: “If you didn’t care about [her], why would you care if she survived?” And the work put into the protagonist pays off well. Yes, there is little delay before Burning Bright throws the brother and sister into the tiger pit that is now their home. However, it’s important to remember that Christine Coyle Johnson and Julie Prendiville Roux ’s script doesn’t sacrifice character for action once the tiger shows up; the sibling relationship is always being explored. Every scene — especially ones with the tiger — deepens the personal story at the heart of the film, and paves the way for a rewarding and cathartic ending.

This isn’t a subtle film. Far from it. No, Burning Bright lays it on rather thick with traps both literal and metaphorical, which, by virtue of solid direction and performances, culminate into a worthwhile story of resilience. Apropos of thematic complexity, the film is still a far ways off from its namesake — William Blake’s poem The Tyger — but there are poetic moments here and there.

Horror contemplates in great detail how young people handle inordinate situations and all of life’s unexpected challenges. While the genre forces characters of every age to face their fears, it is especially interested in how youths might fare in life-or-death scenarios.

The column   Young Blood  is dedicated to horror stories for and about teenagers, as well as other young folks on the brink of terror.

Bath & Body Works and Netflix’s “Stranger Things” Unveil Second Half of Limited Collection

‘Terrifier 3’ to World Premiere at Fantastic Fest on Opening Night!

Legendary Announces Trio of Upcoming Monsterverse Games

‘The Front Room’ – New Trailer for A24 Horror Movie from the Eggers Brothers

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Letterboxd — Your life in film

Forgotten username or password ?

• Start a new list…
• Add all films to a list…
• Add all films to watchlist

Add to your films…

Press Tab to complete, Enter to create

A moderator has locked this field.

Add to lists

List by 31nitesofhorror

Published 2013-04-06T05:23:50.871Z Updated 2013-05-12T17:50:54.953Z

• Remove filters
• Fade watched films
• Show custom posters
• Custom posters Any Theirs Yours None
• Show watched films
• Hide watched films
• Show liked films
• Hide liked films
• Show rated films
• Hide rated films
• Show logged films
• Hide logged films
• Show rewatched films
• Hide rewatched films
• Show reviewed films
• Hide reviewed films
• Show films in watchlist
• Hide films in watchlist
• Show films you own
• Hide films you own
• Show films with your custom posters
• Hide films with your custom posters
• Show films with your custom backdrops
• Hide films with your custom backdrops
• Show short films
• Hide short films
• Show TV shows
• Hide TV shows
• Hide documentaries
• Hide unreleased titles
• Show obscure films
• Hide obscure films
• Show films with backdrop
• Hide films with backdrop
• Show Nanocrowd films
• Hide Nanocrowd films
• Reverse Order
• Film Popularity
• Newest First
• Earliest First
• Highest First
• Lowest First
• Based on films you liked
• Related to films you liked
• Shortest First
• Longest First
• Amazon Video US
• Apple TV Plus RU
• Apple TV RU

Upgrade to a Letterboxd Pro account to add your favorite services to this list—including any service and country pair listed on JustWatch—and to enable one-click filtering by all your favorites.

• Powered by JustWatch
• Documentary
• Science Fiction

Horror Films That Roger Ebert Liked

From his Wikipedia page, "Ebert was accused by some horror movie fans of elitism in his dismissal of what he calls "Dead Teenager Movies". Ebert clarified that he did not disparage horror movies as a whole, but that he drew a distinction between films like Nosferatu and The Silence of the Lambs, which he regarded as "masterpieces", and films which he felt consisted of nothing more than groups of teenagers being killed off with the exception of one survivor to populate a sequel."

• Moderator dashboard
• Block this member This member is blocked
• Report this list

Select your preferred backdrop

Select your preferred poster.

Roger Ebert’s 20 Most Scathing Movie Reviews

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

If there's ever been a film critic who has achieved near-universal respect, it was Roger Ebert . The man loved movies like life itself and not once ever allowed his writing to become lazy or cliché. He wrote from the heart, and it was palpable.

But, the Chicago Sun-Times (from '67 to 2013) critic wasn't enamored with every film to come down the pipeline. After all, the more solid movies one watches, the more they're able to pick up on the flaws of the poor ones. Ebert saw an awful lot of movies, and he wrote an awful lot of words about them. It's just that not all of them were positive, even if, sometimes, the films weren't actually that bad .

20 Alligator (1980)

Roger's rating - 1/4 stars.

When a little girl's parents buy her a pet baby alligator, it's only so long before that thing gets flushed down a toilet. And, for the characters of John Sayles' (who went on to direct excellent indies such as Lone Star ) Alligator , that's far from a good thing. Jackie Brown 's Robert Forster plays the cop on its scaled tail, unless it gobbles him up first.

What Did He Want Out of Alligator?

Well, the man couldn't always be on the money. He gave Alligator just a single star, citing its supposedly poor special effects. He even mentions the alligator emerging from the sewer, which, to this day, actually looks pretty terrific. Plenty of creature features (including Anaconda ) earned outright adoration from Ebert, but what he saw in them, he didn't see in this 1980 film, even if it was very much present. Stream Alligator for free with ads on Tubi.

19 Baby Geniuses (1999)

Roger's rating - 1.5/4 stars.

Baby Geniuses isn't just one of Hollywood's most bizarre movies, it's outright Hollywood's most bizarre franchise . Yet, Kathleen Turner and Christopher Lloyd wisely bowed out of the one theatrical sequel, as they should have with this. The plot follows the test subjects of Babyco, a company which has just learned that, up until the age of two, babies can communicate with one another in extremely eloquent and detailed fashion.

He Described it as Horrifying

Ebert starts his review with, "Bad films are easy to make, but a film as unpleasant as Baby Geniuses achieves a kind of grandeur." Never has the word 'grandeur' carried more bizarre weight. But Baby Geniuses is nothing if not bizarre.

Or, as Ebert concludes the opening paragraph of his review, it's the type of movie where "there is something so fundamentally wrong that our human instincts cry out in protest." Ouch. Rent Baby Geniuses on Prime Video.

18 Bad Boys II (2003)

Everything that many people dislike about Michael Bay was brought to the forefront in his Bad Boys II . Infinitely more mean-spirited, unpleasant, and sometimes outright ignorant than his solid first film , many decisions in this (financially successful) film's construction are somewhat baffling. The plot, what little of it there is, follows Will Smith's Mike Lowrey and Martin Lawrence's Marcus Burnett as they take down a drug kingpin, often in slow motion.

Fortunately, things improved drastically with Bad Boys for Life , which lost Bay as director. Unfortunately, Ebert had already passed away at the time of release. So, his last adventure with the pair of humorous but competent cops was this, a film which he called "cruel" and "distasteful." He wasn't wrong. Stream Bad Boys II on Hulu.

17 Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002)

Roger's rating - .5/4 stars.

Ebert gave Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever just half of one star. So, there wasn't really much of anything about it he found merit in. This includes the mouthful of a title, which is not only difficult for ticket buyers to spout, but makes absolutely no sense.

Aren't We Cool

Ecks and Sever are allies in the film, the whole time, even before either one of them fully realizes it. There's no versus between them. The level of thought that went into the title went into the remainder of the film. As Ebert states , it's not so much a narrative as much as it's a series of explosions book ended by opening and closing credits.

16 Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Battle: Los Angeles

Not available

It's pretty easy to pinpoint what Battle: Los Angeles wanted to be, even if it's harder to pinpoint just why it fails in every regard. It wants to be Black Hawk Down with aliens, pure and simple. Just look at its whole boots-on-the-ground vibe.

What a Missed Opportunity

But, like audiences at large quickly realized, as did Ebert, not even Aaron Eckhart's main character is as believable or fleshed-out as the side players in Black Hawk Down. By act two, the audience realizes the human characters have as much personality as the unintentionally ugly CGI aliens. So, why would they feel invested in the greater conflict? Rent on AppleTV.

15 Battlefield Earth (2000)

The plot of Battlefield Earth is irrelevant in comparison to the mentality that fueled its construction. It's the Scientology movie, plain and simple. Equipped with Psychlos, horrid dialogue, and devout follower John Travolta (who really hams it up here), that's all it ever really wanted to be. But, instead of spreading whatever Scientology's core message is, it made it a bigger laughingstock than its detractors already found it to be.

Did Ebert See an Upside?

He starts his review with, " Battlefield Earth is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time." So, suffice it to say, he didn't find the viewing a pleasant experience. Which is fair, considering it seems every extra dollar funneled into this thing to make it look more impressive actually just served to make it hideous. Rent Battlefield Earth on Prime Video.

14 The Bucket List (2007)

The Bucket List

The Bucket List really hasn't gotten enough credit for being as rotten as it is. Not even Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, two of the most likable and talented performers ever to grace the silver screen, can elevate it from unpleasant to watchable. The narrative follows two twilight-aged men with very different lives who find themselves facing the same thing: The Big C. Now, it's adventure time before time's no more.

Hollow as Can be

But, unlike fellow Nicholson film Terms of Endearment , The Bucket List doesn't even seem to take cancer seriously. It certainly doesn't bother to make its characters seem like actual humans going through one of the toughest times imaginable. Instead, it wants to be pleasant diversionary fare, but it's hard to be pleasant when that factor is looming large. Rent on AppleTV.

13 Cop Out (2010)

Cop Out follows Bruce Willis' Detective Jimmy Monroe (and never had the actor looked more miserable throughout his storied career) and his partner, Paul (Tracy Morgan) as they try and locate a rare baseball card. The thing is, it's Monroe's card, which he hoped to sell to help pay for his daughter's wedding. They get an opportunity to receive the card, but first, they have to carry out a mission for a scummy gangster.

Insert Pun About the Title Here

Cop Out is the only film Kevin Smith has helmed that he himself did not write, and that shows. Even if someone doesn't find themselves on Smith's wavelength, a specific wavelength is preferable to a big bag of nothing. Like audiences in general, Ebert found Cop Out to be nothing more than a deeply unfunny series of poop jokes. For a film about two grown men trying to solve a crime, there are a ton of juvenile jokes. Rightly so, Ebert considered juvenile to be a decent adjective for the movie as a whole. Rent on AppleTV.

12 Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

Since the game was blowing up in the late '90s, why not craft a film for the early aughts? Too bad Dungeons & Dragons appealed to neither fans nor general audiences. Not everyone has the taste for ham...and the 2000 D&D film is a full pig roast.

It Seemed Like an Okay Idea at the Time

Ebert compared the movie to a junior high school play. When a studio funnels a ton of money into a film with the hopes it will succeed, that's basically the last thing higher-ups want to read from America's most famous film critic. That said, at least he notes that Jeremy Irons has a ton of fun hamming it up. Stream Dungeons & Dragons for free with ads on YouTube.

11 Freddy Got Fingered (2001)

Freddy Got Fingered

Roger's rating - 0/4 stars.

There isn't much of a plot in Freddy Got Fingered . Really, it's one of the hardest movies to explain, especially in terms of why someone would like it (they are out there, it's an understandable cult favorite oddity). Basically, the meat is that a ridiculously immature 28-year-old man has issues with his daddy ("Would you like some sausage? Daddy, would you like some sau-sa-ges?").

A Crass Culmination

Freddy Got Fingered made a profit, but Ebert certainly couldn't see how that might come to fruition. He saw the film as the crass culmination of other late '90s and early aughts' films such as See Spot Run (which might just get a mention soon), Monkeybone , Joe Dirt , and Tomcats . In other words, he thought less of it than he did those films, and he most certainly did not like those films. Rent on AppleTV.

10 Godzilla (1998)

Admittedly, and it may be a controversial take, but Roland Emmerich's Godzilla has aged extraordinarily well. If one looks at films like entities trying to accomplish a mission, Godzilla 's was simple: entertain . It does an amazing job of that, with underappreciated pacing, a terrific first attack on Manhattan, and a fun performance from Jean Reno.

Are there elements that still don't work? Absolutely. But, with the MonsterVerse in full swing, giving G-Fans the Big-G they're accustomed to, the sting of disappointment that surrounded Emmerich's film has all but disappeared, allowing it to serve on its own as both a rollercoaster ride and a late '90s timepiece.

Ebert's Thoughts?

Basically, he made a fair comparison to Jurassic Park . Godzilla (1998) isn't so much Godzilla as it is an attempt to replicate the success of that Steven Spielberg masterpiece. It doesn't quite succeed in that goal, and Ebert was quick to cite the film's special effects, especially how they're shrouded in darkness and rain and, far more often than not, Zilla rushes off the screen.

But, in fairness to the film, that helps seal the effect of a big lizard being able to conceal itself below ground in one of the most populated cities on Earth. Stream Godzilla on Max.

RELATED: Godzilla Minus One Director Reveals His Thoughts On Panned 1998 Godzilla Film

9 The Hot Chick (2002)

The Hot Chick (2002)

For a little while there, Hollywood was trying its best to make Rob Schneider a leading man. And, considering The Hot Chick is the best of his few leading man movies, it's not very surprising things didn't pan out. Yet, just because The Hot Chick is slightly more intelligent than Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo and the baffling The Animal doesn't mean it really possesses merit. That is, besides giving Anna Faris a major role outside Scary Movie and doing a little more to increase Rachel McAdams' exposure.

Switch-a-Ooh, This Is Forgettable

It wasn't a distaste for the body swap movie that turned Ebert off on The Hot Chick , it was this particular one's treatment of female characters. Basically, the women characters in The Hot Chick have very little to do other than openly fantasize about a phallus. In other words, he saw it as the nadir of an already pretty weak sub-genre. Stream on Hulu.

8 Jason X (2001)

If Ebert seemed to have a distaste for any one genre in particular, it was absolutely horror. More often than not, when writing about the genre, he was either harsh or dismissive. But, in the case of Friday the 13th , he made the irresponsible decision of posting performer Betsy Palmer's address just so they could harass her about staring in it. It wasn't a great look, and Ebert never warmed up to the franchise (which, with 12 movies combined, is less harmful than posting someone's, fortunately inaccurate, address).

The Nadir of His Least-Favorite Franchise

So, basically, Jason X was decidedly not the critic's favorite of the year. And, considering even die-hard Friday the 13th fans hate the thing, maybe it can't all be chalked up to franchise bias. That said, he did give some praise to the liquid nitrogen kill.

7 Kick-Ass (2010)

Roger Ebert wasn't alone in his repulse to Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass . Heck, there are some people out there, like those who went to see the midnight showing (because those were a thing at the time) during their senior year of high school, that left questioning the film's core ethical code. After all, hearing a little girl drop the "C Word" is... a lot.

What Didn't He Like?

Yet, unpleasant as it can be at first, it doesn't take long to gravitate to Kick-Ass ' level. Not to mention, with her immediate subsequent roles, Chloë Grace Moretz continued to show herself to be both an incredible talent and an old soul, so the sour taste of her language and actions in Kick-Ass is, or has become, diluted. But, even still, the character of Hit Girl rubbed Ebert the wrong way . Rent on AppleTV.

6 The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

The Twilight Saga never received Ebert's love, but there was only one he outright hated. And fair enough, because his main criticism was that it was stagnant more often than not. And, considering The Twilight Saga: New Moon is the only one that truly feels like a placeholder (okay, maybe Breaking Dawn Part 1 , as well), it's a criticism shared by many others. In Ebert's words, the characters in New Moon "should be arrested for loitering with intent to moan." A film without momentum is just money on a screen.

How Did He Feel About the Others?

Ebert gave the first film two-and-a-half stars out of four. His biggest gripe was that the acting wasn't always believable, but he seemed to admire the film's spirit. He was a little harsher on The Twilight Saga: Eclipse , which followed New Moon , but not as harsh as he was on that second film. He just felt that, while seeing Bella quiver and shiver in front of Edward has its appeal for fans, it was running out of steam (and there were two more flicks to go).

RELATED: New Moon Director Says Taylor Swift Tried to Get a Role in the Film

5 Pearl Harbor (2001)

War films tend to receive accolades. Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor , however, was seen as merely an excuse to put pretty people on a poster. Of course, Bay's film is a cinematic retelling of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But, even more than that (way more than that), it's desperately trying to be the love triangle version of Titanic (Rose wasn't exactly conflicted, so not a triangle).

At Least it Led to a Great Team America Joke

Ebert found Bay's film, like a few other Bay films, bloated as can be. He also figured it to be hackneyed, awkwardly-written, and "directed without grace."

In other words, he saw it as the intended moneymaker it is, not the accurate retelling of American history it should have been. What a waste of Josh Hartnett's considerable talent (and, frankly, this should have damaged Ben Affleck's career, not Hartnett's, but it absolutely did to the latter). Stream Pearl Harbor on Max.

4 See Spot Run (2001)

See Spot Run follows David Arquette's Gordon Smith, a mailman always going toe to toe with pups. When his cute neighbor's kid needs a babysitter, he leaps at the opportunity, but he's really babysitting two. The boy, and a constantly-pooping police pup who has just scurried from his witness protection situation (WITSEC for a dog? Alright).

See Ticket Buyers Run

In his one-and-a-half star review, Ebert called the unfunny comedy "desperate," "excruciating," and filled with farts. Well, fart jokes... if the term joke can actually be used for that kind of thing. Suffice it to say, Ebert felt he was too old for this, and he felt everyone else with their age in the double digits would feel much the same.

3 Thir13en Ghosts (2001)

Thirteen Ghosts

Thir13en Ghosts follows Arthur, the widowed nephew of a seemingly-deceased famous ghost hunter who is left the latter's massive mansion. A mansion that, in a way, functions as a clock...with moving pieces and all. But, not all is as it appears, and if the ghost-filled house doesn't kill Arthur Kriticos (Tony Shalhoub, looking absolutely miserable) and his family, his bloodline will.

There Are More Than Thir13en Reasons to Never Watch This

Okay, it's not that awful, it just takes a lot of big swings and doesn't really land them. But, without a doubt, there are at least two death scenes in this film that are legitimately well-crafted, unique, and memorable. But Ebert didn't even see merit in that brand of creativity, as he was more focused on just how loud and empty this ghost house actually is. To that point, he called Thir13en Ghosts "literally painful." Rent on AppleTV.

2 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

The issues Ebert had with Bad Boys II he had with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen . A film laced with so much bombast it's overwhelming by the end of the first act, Revenge of the Fallen is essentially a plotless film. It just wants to entertain and, frankly, it doesn't even do that.

A Soulless Endeavor

Really, the same thing, that it seeks to entertain, could be said of the first film. And, there, the mission was accomplished. But Revenge of the Fallen , when it isn't suffering from slow stretches, is steamrolled by some seriously ignorant characterizations (e.g. Mudflap). The vast majority of the film did nothing for Ebert, which couldn't have been more accurately summarized than with his calling it "of unbearable length."

1 Wild Wild West (1999)

Wild Wild West

Will Smith was on the top of the world when Wild Wild West was released. That much is obvious, even just looking at the fact this movie didn't kill his career . But, really, this is the exact type of movie that kills careers, to the letter. Bloated, poorly written, it makes Kenneth Branagh look like a weak actor, and it was clearly built by committee. After all, the whole mechanical spider thing was supposed to be in Tim Burton's Superman Lives . It's as if the studio needed a tent pole and hoped this would be it.

"A Comedy Dead Zone"

It's astonishing Smith passed on The Matrix in favor of Wild Wild West . Even if just analyzing the scripts, one works and one (even on the page) clearly does not. Ebert gave it ( Wild Wild West , not The Matrix ) a single star, citing in particular its ineffective comedic beats and the uncomfortable gelling of cyberpunk elements with the Western genre.

• Movie Lists
• Roger Ebert

20 of Roger Ebert's Most Hated Zero-Star Reviews

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Both a harsh critic at times, and a staunch defender of diversity and creative choices in filmmaking, Roger Ebert is arguably the most esteemed and well-known film critic of all time. Though he sadly passed away in 2013 after a long battle with cancer, his film reviews live on in the public memory as a testament to his perceptive view of cinema and eloquent way of talking about it.

One thing he was known for was not holding back when it came to his movie reviews. When Ebert thoroughly enjoyed and admired a film, he would say so enthusiastically. When he hated one, he would proclaim it loudly as he did for films like Pink Flamingos and Caligula . The critic wrote some of the worst movie reviews ever — not in terms of the quality of his writing, oh no, but in terms of how brutally he talked about the films he was reviewing. There are undeniably some films that he despised more than most, sometimes giving them his infamous lowest-possible rating: No stars and a thumbs down.

20 'The Hitcher' (1986)

Directed by robert harmon.

The '80s were an outstanding decade for thrillers , delivering movies of the caliber of Aliens and Die Hard . One of the decade's most tragically forgotten gems is Robert Harmon 's The Hitcher , a cat-and-mouse mystery where a young man who's escaped from the clutches of a murderous hitchhiker is stalked by the hitcher and framed for his crimes.

Though the film was (and still is) generally well-liked among critics and audiences alike, Ebert wrote a scathing review where he called the movie "diseased and corrupt" , scandalized by its "disgusting moments" and its sense of ethics (or lack thereof). If anything, this goes to show that the famed critic's opinion didn't always perfectly allign with the general consensus on a film.

The Hitcher

Not available

19 'Wolf Creek' (2005)

Directed by greg mclean.

Notoriously scary and underrated, Australian horror has delivered a variety of exceptional movies over the course of history. Sadly, Wolf Creek isn't typically considered to be among those gems. Even then, this horror thriller about a group of backpackers stranded in remote Australia falling prey to a murderous bushman isn't without its fair share of fans, both among audiences and (to a lesser extent) among critics .

Ebert was definitely not among the movie's defenders. On the contrary, in his review , he was very vocal about how he found director Greg McLean 's lopsided horrific treatment of female characters to be concerningly misogynistic at best. Debates about what kinds of lines horror films can cross are always interesting, and when the person leading such conversations is one of the most insightful film fans to ever live, it's all the more compelling.

18 'The Doom Generation' (1995)

Directed by gregg araki.

Gregg Araki 's dark satire The Doom Generation is about Jordan White and Amy Blue, two troubled teens who pick up an adolescent drifter and embark on a trip filled with sex and violence, journeying through an America full of strange people. With the passage of time, the film became a teen cult classic; but at the time it came out, it didn't exactly do so with a bang .

The film is certainly shocking and pretty to look at, but its shock and beauty are pretty surface-level. Roger Ebert evidently thought so, too, as his review is one long way of saying that he found the movie about as deep as a wading pool. He says that he does not "object to the content of [the] movie, but to the attitude," pointing to Araki's direction as in need of much maturing.

Watch on Criterion

17 'Jaws: The Revenge' (1987)

Directed by joseph sargent.

The fourth and final film in the Jaws franchise and one of the worst sequels of all time , Jaws: The Revenge focuses on the recently widowed Ellen Brody, who goes to visit her son Michael after her other son Sean dies from a shark attack while on the job. During her visit, she strikes up a new romance, but things go awry when the group is terrorized by a great white shark out for revenge. How a shark is able to hold a grudge and set out on a quest for revenge was a mystery for all, including Roger Ebert.

This film interestingly ignores the events of the movie Jaws 3-D , and was one that Roger Ebert found to be not only a “bad movie, but also a stupid and incompetent one.” He also went further and claimed that it wasn’t a good thriller either , which is a deep cut for a Jaws movie. According to Ebert, though, viewers are better off watching a movie that doesn't propose sharks are capable of thirsting for payback.

Jaws: The Revenge

16 'dirty love' (2005), directed by john asher.

In Dirty Love , Jenny McCarthy-Wahlberg plays a woman who finds out her boyfriend is cheating. After breaking up, she steps back onto the dating scene to get back at her ex, all the while ignoring the one guy who might be right for her: her nerdy friend John. Though it's supposed to be a comedy, some would call it one of the unfunniest films ever put on the silver screen.

This is a film that Roger Ebert particularly did not enjoy , having some very strong words for it in his review. He claimed that the film was so pitiful that “it [was] hopelessly incompetent” and said that he was unsure if anyone “involved [had] ever seen a movie, or [knew] what one is.” For anyone thinking about watching Dirty Love , it’s certain that Ebert would advise against it .

Watch on Tubi

15 'Police Academy' (1984)

Directed by hugh wilson.

Police Academy is a raunchy farce where a town's mayor declares that absolutely anyone can enroll in the police academy, regardless of their physical or mental condition. As a result, many misfits enter the academy, including a troublemaker who's forced to apply if he doesn't want to go to jail. Ask anyone who's seen the movie — including Roger Ebert — and they'll tell you that it's probably one of the worst comedies ever made for the silver screen.

Irrespective of its quality, the movie has garnered a bit of a cult following who enjoys its crude and childish humor over the decades. It was precisely because of that raunchy sense of humor that Ebert wrote a review condemning the film as "the least funny movie that could possibly have been inspired by [ Airplane! ] ." Ebert was certainly not the target audience for this kind of comedy, but those who do enjoy it are bound to have a good time with Police Academy .

Police Academy

14 'the human centipede ii (full sequence)' (2011), directed by tom six.

One of the most infamously grotesque and disturbing horror movie franchises ever, the Human Centipede trilogy is certainly an entertaining talking point. The second installment, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) , follows a disturbed loner who sets out to create a 12-person human centipede. No one asked for the first film, no one asked for a sequel, but Tom Six delivered anyway.

From the get-go, Ebert calls the film in his review "an ugly, artless affront to human decency." It's certainly not hard to see why the critic had such contempt for the movie, since it has everything he usually hated: No heart, nothing of any real value to say, and gratuitous shock value. It's certainly a cult classic that isn't without it fans, but Ebert would have never called himself one of them.

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)

13 'north' (1994), directed by rob reiner.

Based on a novel by Alan Zweibel , North stars Elijah Wood as the title character, a young boy who is bright but severely neglected by his parents. He meets a man who encourages him to legally separate from them and search the world for a much better replacement, but North soon realizes that the grass is not always greener on the other side.

Roger Ebert reviews could get quite poetic with his use of words, so when he was particularly concise when expressing his distaste for a movie, one knew that things were serious. Judging by his review of North , it might be safe to argue that it’s one of the films he despised most. Simply put, he “hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it.” He even said he was insulted by the very thought that some people might like it, which is an extremely low blow.

12 'Freddy Got Fingered' (2001)

Directed by tom green.

In the black comedy Freddy Got Fingered , a struggling cartoon artist decides to fabricate something life-changing about his father for attention when his pitch for a cartoon gets rejected in Hollywood. The devious lie is that his father is molesting his younger brother Freddy, and it sets off an insane chain of events for the family. The movie has its fans , but for the most part, it's usually considered one of the worst of all time.

Roger Ebert felt that the movie not only “doesn’t scrape the bottom of the barrel,” but that it doesn’t even “deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.” Needless to say, the esteemed film critic absolutely hated this film about how an egregious lie tears apart a normal family . He didn't find it funny, and general audiences tend to agree.

Watch on Plex

11 'B.A.P.S.' (1997)

Directed by robert townsend.

In B.A.P.S. , one of the campiest comedies of the '90s , Oscar winner Halle Berry plays Nisi alongside Natalie Desselle ’s Mickey, two stylish waitresses who dream of opening their own hair salon that doubles as a soul-food restaurant. To achieve these dreams, the two fly to L.A. for an audition but instead strike up a conveniently close friendship with an elderly millionaire.

Though it's a film that fans of Berry thoroughly enjoy without any irony or shame, Roger Ebert found it less than satisfactory . He is quoted as saying that the film "doesn’t work" but would "bring us all together... in paralyzing boredom." The general critical consensus aligns with his opinion, but with so many modern audiences still loving the movie for what it is, one can't help but wonder if a re-evaluation is in order.

10 'Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo' (2005)

Directed by mike bigelow.

In the somewhat-of-a-cult-classic comedy sequel Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo , Rob Schneider plays the titular gigolo who resumes his career of prostitution when his former pimp returns to his life and requires his assistance. While Deuce attempts to figure out who is framing his friend for multiple murders, he encounters many ladies and obstacles along the way.

Though many fans of Rob Schneider love this wacky movie for what it has to offer, Ebert reviewed the film and called it “aggressively bad, as if it wants to cause suffering to the audience” and he went on to personally address the star, saying: “Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.” There’s not much else one can add after a scathing review like that!

Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo

9 'last rites' (1988), directed by donald p. bellisario.

The film Last Rites is about a woman named Angela who turns to a priest for help after the brutal murder of her mobster lover at the hands of his furious wife, Zena. The priest becomes torn between his vows, Angela, and his sister, Zena. This may sound like an interesting and promising premise, but if critics like Ebert are to be believed, director Donald P. Bellisario couldn't have squandered the concept's potential more badly.

Last Rites received a scathing review from Roger Ebert , who proclaimed it “ the worst film of 1988 .” He also went on to imply that the people responsible for the movie were all “deficient in taste, judgment, reason, tact, morality and common sense” . He then made sure the masses knew that the film was overall “offensive to [his] intelligence."

8 'Caligula' (1979)

Directed by tinto brass.

Created by the founder of Penthouse magazine Bob Guccione , the erotic drama Caligula focuses on the infamous titular Roman Emperor, played by Malcolm McDowell . Also in the cast of this wild historical movie is the talented Helen Mirren , as well as the late Peter O’Toole . Some call this one of the most scandalous films ever made, others think that its infamy is blown a little out of proportion , but not many people think it's a genuinely great movie.

Unfortunately for everyone involved in the project, Roger Ebert had nothing nice to say about it . He is quoted as saying the film is simply “sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash” and that he was left feeling “disgusted and unspeakably depressed” after watching it. A noteworthy period drama this is definitely not, at least according to Ebert.

Buy on Amazon

7 'She’s Out of Control' (1989)

Directed by stan dragoti.

In She’s Out of Control , Katie, the good-girl teenage daughter of a radio station manager, uses his business trip as a chance to change up her life and appearance, learning how to do so from her dad's girlfriend, Janet. Despite a star-studded cast with the likes of Tony Danza and Matthew Perry , the movie was an all-around failure, and understandably so.

Roger Ebert called this film “bizzare,” “banal,” and many other negative things, particularly in relation to its depiction of young girls. He said the movie “sees adolescent girls as commodities to be protected from predatory males” but also notes that the predatory male in this film could very well be Katie's father, who keeps looking at her inappropriately.

Watch on Amazon Prime

6 'Mad Dog Time' (1996)

Directed by larry bishop.

In Mad Dog Time , a mob boss named Vic comes out of a stint in a mental hospital to find his business and affairs in a mess. As Vic tries to fix the issues, other mobsters are looking to remove him from the equation so that they can take over. Even a star-studded cast featuring the likes of Gabriel Byrne , Jeff Goldblum , and Kyle MacLachlan couldn't save the film from being obliterated by critics.

In the simplest of terms, Roger Ebert said that this movie “does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time.” In other words, Mad Dog Time isn’t even worth watching as viewers could watch paint dry without noticing any difference . This review from Ebert is a burn that cuts extra deep.

5 'The Devils' (1971)

Directed by ken russell.

Ken Russell 's blasphemous and infamous religious drama The Devils is a biopic set in 17th-century France, where Father Urbain Grandier 's protection of the city of Loudun from the corrupt Cardinal Richelieu is undermined by a sexually repressed nun who's accused of witchcraft. Due to its sacrilegious religious imagery, intense sexual content, and graphic violence, the film faced great backlash upon release, as well as heavy censorship .

It may not be quite as taboo nowadays as it was back in the '70s, but The Devils has lost none of the shock value that made Roger Ebert despise it . The critic was always a fan of using sarcasm to criticize movies he didn't like, but his review of The Devils is a special case. Entirely composed of abundantly sarcastic "praise" for Russell's film, it's a witty way of him saying that he found it unbearably pretentious and morally reprehensible.

4 'Pink Flamingos' (1972)

Directed by john waters.

Director John Waters is nothing if not an acquired taste — and one that not many cinephiles are able to tap into, at that. Perhaps his most famous (or infamous) film is Pink Flamingos , a comedy about a notorious criminal who has given herself the title of "the filthiest person alive," and has to defend it from a sleazy couple trying to humiliate her.

The comedy movie is so disturbing that it's arguably more shocking than it is funny . In one of Roger Ebert's worst reviews in terms of how harsh he was to a movie, the critic dismissively wrote that it was a film one is tempted to praise just to be able to say one was able to get through it. However, the critic said "it is a temptation [he could] resist." He refused to give the movie a star rating, saying that stars did not apply in this case. In a resounding conclusion, he argued that Waters's film "should be considered not as a film but as a fact, or perhaps as an object."

Pink Flamingos

3 'i spit on your grave' (2010), directed by steven r. monroe.

A better-known remake of the infamous horror thriller of the same name (which Ebert also gave a thumbs down), I Spit on Your Grave is about a writer who is brutalized during her cabin retreat. After her attackers leave her for dead, she comes back for brutal, gory revenge. It's pure revenge fantasy that never pretends to be anything more, but that was even more reason for critics to find it incredibly distasteful.

The movie is so raw and unfiltered in its depiction of violence that the vast majority of viewers simply can't take it – including Ebert. He hated the film's despicable sense of morality (or lack thereof, rather), and outright said to I Spit on Your Grave in his review "I spit on your violence toward women."

I Spit on Your Grave

2 'i spit on your grave' (1978), directed by meir zarchi.

Originally titled Day of the Woman , the original I Spit on Your Grave follows the same rape-and-revenge story of its remake, but in an arguably more vicious and exploitative way. It's faded into obscurity much more than its successor has, and that's probably for good reason . Its impact is limited to slight satisfaction after watching the third act, and that feeling (along with the memory of the movie) fades away surprisingly quickly.

Ebert thought so, too, writing a merciless review where he called Meir Zarchi 's film "a vile bag of garbage" and referred to the experience of watching it as "one of the most depressing experiences of [his] life." He thought that it was an overly simplistic film devoid of any artistic or technical merit, and if audiences' opinions on the movie nearly a half-century later are any indication, the critic was probably right.

I Spit On Your Grave (1978)

1 'the texas chainsaw massacre' (2003), directed by marcus nispel.

The original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a seminal entry in horror, an essential watch for fans of the genre which has aged like fine wine. The movie was remade in 2003 as Marcus Nispel 's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre , about five friends on the road who find themselves stalked and hunted by a terrifying family of killers.

Although some fans of gruesome slashers don't find this entry in the franchise to be all that bad , most critics and audience members thought it was abysmal in comparison to the original. Ebert didn't like the original, but he despised this one even more. He called 2003's Texas Chainsaw Massacre "vile, ugly and brutal" in his merciless review, emphasizing that he saw absolutely no reason to recommend that audiences check it out.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Rent on Amazon

NEXT: Critically Acclaimed Movies That Roger Ebert Disliked

• Roger Ebert

Get the Reddit app

R/HORROR, known as Dreadit by our subscribers is the premier horror entertainment community on Reddit. For more than a decade /R/HORROR has been reddit.com's gateway to all things Horror: from movies & TV, to books & games.

Anyone know why Roger Ebert hated horror movies so much?

Look I admired Ebert as much as the next guy, but horror films was always a huge blind spot for him(well that and video games) and I could never understand why he held such a grudge against them. His reviews of horror films for the most part were absolutely terrible because it was clear that he went into those films intent on hating them from the start(though weirdly enough he did give Devil's Rejects a positive review).

The most glaring example was Ebert and Siskel's video review for Silent Night Deadly Night where they actually encouraged people to go after the producers, like that was immature bullshit if I ever saw it.

So I was just wondering, did Ebert ever give a reason for his insane hatred for horror films or is it one of those things that will forever remain a mystery?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, chaz's journal, great movies, contributors, sergei prokofiev.

Find on IMDB

Find on Wikipedia