The “despicable” movie Roger Ebert refused to rate
Roger Ebert rarely entertained so-called average scores, usually preferring to go all-in on one or the other. When he liked a film, he really liked it. And when he hated it, he absolutely despised it, no matter any possible redeeming qualities.
Much of Ebert’s cinematic disdain was aimed at the horror or slasher genre, which, critic or not, is a fairly common occurrence. After all, it’s no secret that it’s one of the hardest genres to master, and even some of our more famous horror aficionados are prone to the odd bad review every now and then.
Take some of the more familiar names and entities, like James Wan, Jordan Peele, Ti West, Ari Aster, A24…even though they’re all fairly well-respected in their game, none are immune to the harsher reviews, especially when considering the typical tropes of horror films that ensure their success and longevity, including emotional intelligence, well-executed plot points, and all the factors that go into creating superficial fear.
When you think of everything that’s needed to pull off a good horror movie, it makes sense as to why they’re so often badly received. After all, along with those features, it also needs a good cast, a director who actually knows what they’re doing when it comes to atmosphere and tone, and someone who’s also well-versed in the convergence between filmic nuances and cultural contexts.
It’s also one of the toughest genres when it comes to originality and authenticity, and most fall flat because they rely too heavily on substance or storytelling, disregarding the value of balancing the two. These are all reasons why some of our more veteran filmmakers, like John Alfred Hitchcock, will forever be associated with horror/thriller excellence, because there’s a genuine understanding of human psychology present that runs deeper than cheap thrills and fleeting jump scares.
If there’s one thing that critics like Roger Ebert hate, it’s when a film is made to evoke a drastic reaction from the audience, no matter what it takes to get there. On top of that, it’s even worse when a film takes serious topics and trivialises them for entertainment or is inconsistent for no good reason. One film that ticked all boxes on that front, according to Ebert, was the 2010 remake of the 1978 revenge film I Spit on Your Grave.
Those familiar with the film will already know why it was so controversial, but beyond that, Ebert found issues with the way the remake seemingly oscillated between different tones for the various sections of the film without much consideration for the consequences of either. As he put it, the film was a “despicable” remake and that committed “yet another offense: a phony moral equivalency”.
He went on, “A couple of tortures here inspired groans from the audience, but this stuff isn’t a novelty for connoisseurs of horror movies. Consider Saw and anything with “chainsaw” in its title. No, it’s the first half of the movie that’s offensive. It implicitly assigns us the POV of the men as they taunt and terrorise Jennifer in plausible ways, which are different from her killing methods, which are implausible, probably impossible, and offered and received as entertainment.”
Ebert also found the audience response interesting, enhancing his hatred for a film that was both offensive and despicable in every way possible: “Now here’s an interesting thing. There were walkouts at the packed screening I attended. Not many, maybe eight or nine. Nobody walked out in the second half; they all left in the first half.”
Therefore, it wasn’t just that the movie was bad that irked Ebert. It was the fact that it also seemed to bring out the worst in some of its audience members, proving that, when broken down into the two sections, there was really no good takeaway from the film except for how it embodies everything that a horror film shouldn’t be.
