Between the late 1960s and his death in 2013, Roger Ebert was one of America’s most respected film critics, including Psychology And Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back among his favorites. While some critics were often too harsh on horror, Ebert received praise from many in the genre for championing it when he found a film he liked. At the same time, he was never one to mince words about films he didn’t like, using words like “depraved” and “cruel” for those he hated.
As a man who let readers know that he preferred the scary side of horror to blood and violence, it’s no surprise that the most extreme horror films alienated him the most. Even though many of these films were a hit with fans of slashers, monster movies and everything in between, that didn’t spare them the scathing words of critics at the Chicago Sun-Times. Twelve years after his death, Ebert’s criticisms still contain a lot of truth, and his criticism of these horror films will certainly resonate with many people.
Roger Ebert found Hellraiser “dreary”
Hellraiser begins when Larry Cotton moves his daughter Kirsty and his wife Julia into his brother’s house, unaware that a sinister entity has claimed Frank’s life months before. While moving furniture, Larry is cut and his blood summons the decomposing body of Frank, who hides in an empty room until finding Julia, with whom he had an affair. Still in love, he convinces her to bring strangers to him, allowing him to feed on their life force and return to his full form. However, when Kirsty finds the puzzle box that originally summoned the sadistic demons, she finds herself in danger, with the Cenobites and Frank on her tail.
Throughout his career, Roger Ebert made clear his disdain for gore and sadism, two things that combine to form the basis of the entire Hellraiser franchise. It’s only natural that Clive Barker’s story alienates him, although it’s disappointing that he didn’t find something to like in the film’s mastery of doom and dread. While it would be understandable to hate the sequels, the original brilliantly carves out its own niche. Still, that didn’t spare the film a mere half-star review and Ebert’s “dreary” label.
Ebert was not impressed by Constantine
Loosely based on DCs Hellblazer comics, Constantine focuses on a cynical occult investigator, John Constantine. Believing his soul is condemned to hell for a past suicide attempt, he strives to save as many souls as possible from demons and other supernatural entities. When a detective asks for his help after the death of his sister, the mage uncovers a horrific plan to bring about the Antichrist.
Although Ebert was often a champion of cult classics, he simply failed to appreciate in him Constantinealthough it is a fun mix of dark fantasy and horror. He was kinder to this film than most of the films he didn’t like, giving it a 1.5/4, but still praised Keanu Reeves’ performance as the DC Exorcist, calling it “gloomy”. Although the film found new love with modern audiences, it’s a shame that Ebert didn’t appreciate it at the time of its release.
Ebert found Halloween 3 half-baked
After John Carpenter told the world the chilling story of Michael Myers in Halloween I And IIthe franchise took an unexpected detour for its third entry. In a separate continuity, the film instead focuses on a doctor, Daniel Challis, as he becomes paranoid about a Halloween mask maker following the murder of a man in his hospital. Accompanied by the victim’s daughter, he goes to the isolated town where the company is located and finds himself involved in a murderous plot.
Although this was John Carpenter’s plan for the franchise all along, the dropping of Michael Myers alienated virtually every fan of the original film. Given Roger Ebert’s love of the first film, it’s no surprise that he was among the reviews of the third film, who said the villain’s plan made no sense to him, describing the plot as a “half-baked scheme” in his 1.5/4 star review. Even if the film has fans, its detractors far outnumber them.
Phantoms is a predictable Lovecraftian horror
Ghosts begins when sisters Lisa and Jenny Pailey visit the small mountainside town of Snowfield, Colorado. Upon arrival, they are surprised to find the town almost completely deserted and are soon petrified to find dead bodies during their search. During their investigation, they encounter a small group of cops who are also trying to figure out what happened. Their questions are soon answered when an ancient malevolent entity makes its presence known.
A mix of Lovecraftian horror and modern science fiction, Ghosts received a measly 1/4 star rating. In his review, Ebert criticized the reliance on action over suspense, dismissing it as some sort of predictable ’90s film in the vein of Tremors. Throughout his writings, the author made it clear that his biggest complaint was having to see an actor with the talents of Peter O’Toole reduced to a stereotypical monster movie.
Ebert found thirteen “painful” ghosts
Thirteen ghosts follows a widower, Ben Moss, who learns that he inherited the estate of his wealthy occultist uncle, Cyrus Kriticos, after his death. In financial difficulty, he decides to move his two children, Kathy and Bobby, and their nanny Maggie into the mansion. However, after arriving, they learn through a paranormal investigator that the house is a large prison for twelve ghosts, each more malicious than the last.
One of the most underrated supernatural horrors of its time, Thirteen ghosts cultivated a fan base, but certainly couldn’t count Roger Ebert among them. He notably invoked his contempt for Armageddoncalling the ghost movie the loudest since Michael Bay’s disaster movie. If that wasn’t enough to make his feelings clear, the phrase “the experience of watching this movie is literally painful” should sum up his one-star opinion on it.
The Grudge deserved a better remake
The grudge opens with a brief exposition, explaining that The Grudge is a persistent spirit who kills everyone he encounters. The story is set in Japan and revolves around the events that haunt an American family living there, leaving behind a wife battling dementia. The film then focuses on Karen Davis, a caregiver assigned to care for the woman, as she begins to realize that something is haunting the apartment.
Based on the Japanese film of the same name, The grudge received a strong reception among horror fans for its haunting moments. Roger Ebert, however, was unimpressed, calling it a “formulaic” film in his one-star review. Although he praised the opening scene for genuinely shocking him, he found the overall experience disjointed and predictable, saying of its events “that they rigidly follow the age-old horror movie formula.” About its writing, he went so far as to say that its star, Sarah Michelle Gellar, could have written and directed a better film than the remake she got.
The Hills Have Eyes remake didn’t impress Ebert
In 2006, Alexandre Aja directed a remake of Wes Craven’s brutal exploitation horror film. The hills have eyesmodernizing the story for a new generation. The film focuses on a family road trip as they stop in the desert, where they are stalked and harassed by a hidden family of mutant cannibals. Distorted by nuclear testing, these killers soon attack the family, leaving behind a trail of blood, bodies and trauma.
Of all the horror films of the 2000s, The hills have eyes is one of the toughest R-rated out there, pulling out all the stops in an attempt to horrify audiences. Surprisingly, it wasn’t actually the blood and violence that Ebert disliked in the film, but rather its predictability and forced drama. Rating it 1.5/4 stars, he was far from impressed, criticizing the poor decisions within the plot and how it stuck to its formula.
The Hitcher received a 0 star rating
The Hitcher follows Jim Halsey as he drives a car from Chicago to San Diego, reluctantly giving a lift to a mysterious hitchhiker, John Ryder. After letting him in during a storm, Jim is forced to fight him when he pulls out a knife, telling him to stop him. Shaken, the driver manages to push Ryder out, only to be stalked on the highway as the killer preys on other unsuspecting drivers.
Although it became an ’80s classic, Ebert was not among the critics to give the film positive marks. In his 0/4 star review, he highlighted the famous death of Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character as “so grotesquely disproportionate to the main business of this film that it suggests a deep unease at the script stage.Of all things, he also rejected what he saw as cowardice on the part of the writers, who he believed downplayed the bond between hero and villain.
Ebert’s disdain for Wolf Creek is hardly surprising
In 2005, Greg McLean launched his Australian slasher franchise Wolf Creek. The film follows a group of tourists in the Outback, where their car breaks down and a seemingly friendly local, Mick Taylor, offers to help. However, after drinking its water, they wake up in captivity, where the killer brutally tortures them. Struggling to make their way, two friends attempt to stay one step ahead of the tourist-hunting slasher, leading to shocking moments of violence that raised the stakes for the genre.
While Wolf Creek found love among indie horror fans, Ebert certainly wasn’t one of them. If his 0/4 star rating doesn’t hint enough at his disdain for the film, the title “a quagmire of despair” certainly puts readers in his mindset on the film. McLean’s brand of horror was never suitable for mainstream audiences, so Ebert’s dislike of it is far from a surprise. A loose adaptation of the true story of Ivan Milat, the film has more than deserved its share of criticism over the years.
Ebert scorned Texas Chainsaw Massacre reboot
In 2003, Michael Bay directed a reboot of the famous Tobe Hooper film. Texas Chainsaw Massacremaking the franchise darker than ever. The film follows a group of friends, including Erin Hardesty and her boyfriend Kemper, as they stop in Texas to let a traumatized woman into their van. When she commits suicide, they seek help from the sheriff and the townspeople, only to encounter Leatherface and his chainsaw.
Although Ebert was not a fan of the original slasher, he was still able to find some redeeming qualities in Hooper’s 1974 classic. As for the remake, he openly despised it for its ugliness and cruelty, going so far as to call it despicable in a review that appears to be one of the angriest of his career. The film appealed to fans of dark gore, but proved too dark even for fans of the original, making it the darkest film. Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie to date.