I'm Sorry, Roger Ebert, But You're Wrong

Ebert's Consensus: 2 stars out of 4
Ebert's sole criticism is with Paul Gleason's role as the useless police chief, calling him an idiotic plot point which makes the movie a mess. But Ebert goes even further, saying that even without Gleason it would've just been a "passable" thriller.

Sorry, You're Wrong
Ebert just takes too big of an issue with Gleason, whose character arguably serves a purpose and by no means affects the film at all in my humble opinion. And saying that the film without Gleason would just be passable... I don't know which movie Ebert was watching.

Ebert's Consensus: 3.5 stars out of 4
Ebert quite simply loved the movie, calling it a great deal of fun which invoked his inner child.

Sorry, You're Wrong
Even the biggest Pixar fans agree that Cars 2 is a godawful mess. Never before have critics heaped endless hatred onto a Pixar production. Maybe Ebert got memories of playing with his toy cars as a young kid, but how's the actual movie? I didn't find Cars 2 fun at all, and Ebert's review is bewildering.

Ebert's Consensus: 3 stars out of 4
Ebert even admits that this is junk food cinema, but he says that it worked for him because he appreciates the craftsmanship that went into the production. He enjoyed himself and said that unfussy viewers should have a good time, too.

Sorry, You're Wrong
I've spoken to 13 year old kids, the movie's target audience, who gleaned no amount of fun from this underwhelming piece of crap. I understand that Ebert had fun, but that's too much of a subjective opinion. I didn't have much fun at all, it was mostly boring.

Ebert's Consensus: 3 stars out of 4
Ebert spends most of his review simply recapping and pointing things out in a very detached fashion, without much in the way of incisive analysis. Then in his final paragraph he explains that it's enjoyable, high-energy sci-fi with a few nice ideas that just never touched him emotionally. It just seems like Ebert didn't really care either way about the movie, and gave it a good rating simply because it had nice visuals.

Sorry, You're Wrong
Total Retard is terrible. Critics and audiences alike agree. Ebert probably gave it such a rating because he didn't want to be seen as a curmudgeon.

Ebert's Consensus: 1 star out of 4
Ebert has drawn a lot of criticism for this one, and even in interviews decades later, people asked him if he ever changed his opinion, and he's never quite given a concrete answer. His hatred of the film is drawn solely from the image of Isabella Rossellini naked and confused, as he thought it was degrading for the actress and the movie is not worthy of using her in such a way. There are a few other vague criticisms, but nothing much that was worth noting. Ebert probably realised he was wrong in later years, but just felt uneasy to admit it.

Sorry, You're Wrong
The movie is almost universally loved. I find it utterly fascinating and have watched it multiple times despite it being an "art house" affair the likes of which I don't find overly re-watchable. Methinks Dennis Hopper's performance is another reason why this movie fucking rules.

Ebert's Consensus: 1 star out of 4
Ebert's moral compass guided him to absolutely trash this movie. He spends his entire review taking issue with Chloe Moretz's Hit Girl, because she's 11 years old and kills multiple bad guys. That's literally his only issue with the movie.

Sorry, You're Wrong
Ebert is just not part of the target audience for this film, period. Kick-Ass is one of my favourite movies, and its wildly audacious nature is why I find it so funny. Seeing Moretz slaughter roomfuls of faceless goons is just hilarious, and it helps that such sequences were pulled off with genuine skill.

Ebert's Consensus: 4 stars out of 4
Ebert states that this is the best of the Mad Max trilogy....

Sorry, You're Wrong
I couldn't bear to beef up the previous segment anymore after that heretic statement. Beyond Thunderdome is utter gash, watered down PG-13 shite that panders to kids. Having Max team up with a bunch of little terrors is an abysmal idea, and it doesn't help that the film is so long in the tooth. The action scenes are decent thanks to George Miller's involvement, but everything else is terrible. They fucked this one up...badly.

Ebert's Consensus: 3 stars out of 4
Apparently Ebert prefers his movies to be gentler, as he calls Home Alone 3 the best in the franchise so far, saying it's charming and gentler than its predecessors.

Sorry, You're Wrong
The first Home Alone is untouchable, and even the so-so first sequel is better than this tosh. Toning down the content for the sake of the kids is no grounds for this being a superior movie; I much prefer the edgier first two movies.

Ebert's Consensus: 1 star out of 4
Another attack of moral conscience for Ebert, who says the movie is pure wall-to-wall violence. While he says he doesn't have a problem with violence in a well-made movie, apparently The Raid doesn't cut the mustard in this respect.

Sorry, You're Wrong
Funny how Ebert appreciates generic pap like the PG-13 Total Recall remake, or the universally loathed Clash of the Titans reboot, then goes on to trash one of the best pure action movies in years. He's just not part of the target audience, period, which is funny because he admits there's probably a large audience for this movie in his review.

Ebert's Consensus: 2 stars out of 4
Ebert's criticisms of Brazil are pretty vague. He spends the majority of his review discussing the movie in a pretty detached manner, only to say that he had trouble following it and found it pretty grim.

Sorry, You're Wrong
I'm not sure what movie Ebert was watching, or if he just didn't pay attention. I have watched Brazil a number of times, and have never had trouble following its narrative. And while it is a bit of a grim movie in terms of themes, I've always found that Gilliam's vision is lightened by dark comedy and imaginative production design. The movie is loved far and wide to this day, making Ebert's lukewarm thoughts about it all the more head-scratching.

Ebert's Consensus: 3 stars out of 4
Calling it the best of the Mummy series, Ebert quotes his review of the first movie which basically states that he was cheered by every minute of it. He goes on to call it dumb fun.

Sorry, You're Wrong
Again, I think this is a case of not wanting to be called a curmudgeon if he disliked it. I'm all for dumb fun, but this movie is just dumb. It's lifeless and tedious, and its poor nature is reflected in most every other critic absolutely hating it.

Ebert's Consensus: 4 stars out of 4
For whatever reason, Ebert was blown away by the movie, saying it was one of the best sci-fi flicks he'd ever seen; "frightening, suspenseful, intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome." He goes on to praise the cinematography and special effects, as well.

Sorry, You're Wrong
Knowing is not as bad as a lot of people have been saying, but it's not a masterpiece - not by any stretch. The final third devolves into silliness, and the ending is ultimately pretty unsatisfying. Glad it worked for Ebert, but it didn't work for me, or a lot of other people.