“A waste of good electricity”: why Roger Ebert berated ‘One Woman or Two’
Roger Ebert‘s position as the greatest movie critic of all time is rarely up for debate. The writer, who found fame lambasting feature films for the Chicago Sun Times, has become such a stalwart among movie lovers that his word is often taken as gospel, forgoing any need to actually watch the film.
For all intents and purposes, Ebert is the archetypal critic. Born with a light-up pen in his hand, spectacles on his face and an affable smile at the very thought of going to his local cinema, the writer has been the man behind droves of audiences heading into or steering clear of the latest viewing of the summer blockbuster at their theatre.
Some critics can get lost in the art of critiquing. Enjoying the sound of one’s own voice is always the writer’s biggest obstacle to overcome. However, while Ebert was able to craft sentences capable of putting tears in the corner of his eyes or having cornflakes and milk splash up the wall in a morning guffaw, he was rarely preoccupied with the sanctity of film as an art. He believed that, first and foremost, the cinema should be a house of entertainment.
This may seem superficial, but it meant that Ebert’s reviews were rarely tainted by the necessity of appearing intellectual or somehow in fashion with the current thinking of the cinematic elite. Ebert believed good movies were only considered if they delivered enjoyment for their audiences. With this notion at heart, Ebert was able to share his appreciation for a lot of major blockbusters, however it also meant that if he took a swipe at a picture it was for all the right reasons.
One such movie that got a real pummelling was 1985’s One Woman or Two, starring Sigourney Weaver and Gerard Depardieu. The picture shows Weaver pretending to be a wealthy American woman in a bid to cajole the scientist, played by Depardieu, into letting her use the discovery of the first-ever French woman for commercial gains. And if that sounds wildly tenuous for a Hollywood movie plot, you’d be right.
The film is genuinely awful, and Ebert was quick to take shots at One Woman or Two, calling it “the most exhausting movie in many a moon.”
Ebert continues to unload his weapon on the film, calling it “lame-brained” for having some of the most nonsensical plot points in the history of cinema. “Add it all up, and what you’ve got here is a waste of good electricity. I’m not talking about the electricity between the actors. I’m talking about the current to the projector,” he asserts.
Perhaps the most notable point of this devastating review is that, for a true lover of cinema like Ebert was, the movie has no redeeming factors. “Anything at all that makes it worth seeing?” he ponders, “Maybe some nice scenery, or a small, funny moment, or a flash of charm. Let me think. I’m sitting here. I’m thinking. I’m looking at the list of cast members, to see if anything jogs my memory. Nothing.”
Roger Ebert was as titanous a member of cinema as Cary Grant and Lauren Bacall combined, and he reached that mantle by genuinely loving the art form. For him to find not a single thing worthy of complimenting on a single movie means it may well be the worst picture ever made.
