The cult horror movie Roger Ebert simply refused to review: “A world where the stars don’t shine”
Trying to think of the archetypal movie critic, you would be hard-pressed to conjure an image of anyone other than Roger Ebert. Even if you have never witnessed a vision of perhaps the most famous film connoisseur, Ebert is precisely what you might assume a critic to look like. With a discerning gaze, an affable but, at times, scathing personality and a penchant for light-up pens, Ebert’s bronze statue in Illinois shows a man with his thumb up in the air, signifying just how much he loved his career.
Ebert started his career in 1967 when he was given a chance to write critical reviews of movie releases for the Chicago Sun-Times. He just happened to ascend to the position during one of America’s most pivotal cinematic cultural changes. During the 1970s, the merging of independent, intellectualised movies and mainstream cinema began in full force. It meant the words of a skilled technician like Ebert were now more valued than ever.
Ebert was, of course, very talented. His wit and wry humour was as welcomed as his most cynically powerful put-downs. Ebert delivered lines that were almost as good as the movies he reviewed, and that, for the large part, was a good reason for his success. However, he also triumphed because of his previously mentioned affability. Ebert did not approach movies from above, casting his nose down at the silly movies playing in the theatres for the stupid folk eating their popcorn. Instead, he was a critic born out of a true love for the pictures.
Across thousands of reviews, Ebert did not relegate himself to simply enjoying one style or one genre. He rarely provided directors or actors with a free pass based on their previous work or allowed the intelligence of a picture to get in the way of what he established as a movie’s core value: its entertainment factor. Instead, Ebert rallied around the movies that brought genuine emotion to his time in the cinema, the pictures that captured his soul and allowed him to escape into their worlds, if only for a short while.
With a critic so truly attached to the very notion of what cinema is, it is surprising to learn that, on a few occasions, Ebert has simply refused to review a movie. One notable moment is when he refused to review his own picture, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which he wrote with Russ Meyer, instead penning a retelling of how he came to be a part of the movie.
The movie Ebert refused to give his fabled stars to, despite running down a little of the review, was the 2009 shock horror movie The Human Centipede, which sees a maniacal doctor sew the mouths of victims to the rectums of others, creating a horrifying chain of events. For Ebert, it was all a little too much: “It is depraved and disgusting enough to satisfy the most demanding midnight movie fan. And it’s not simply an exploitation film,’ he notes when suggesting he tries to keep in mind what a movie can do within its specific genre paradigm.
After alluding to the uncomfortable nature of the director, Tom Six, Ebert is quickly final in his lasting assertion on the movie: “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.”
The picture flopped heavily at the box office, with only $200,000 recouped on the opening weekend. However, perhaps simply owing to the shocking premise, the movie would become a cult hit and apparently racked up thousands of DVD sales.
Funnily enough, it would seem as though the paper wasn’t particularly happy with that move, and Ebert would review the sequel to the disturbing horror flick, something his fans asked for answers on, to which he replied: “That’s what I get paid for. I’d have a perfect job if I only went to movies I thought might be good.”
It turns out that even if you’re the greatest critic in the world, everyone can phone it in on the odd day.
