Roger Ebert's 50 Greatest Film Reviews
34. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) -
Director: Woody Allen Ebert called Woody Allens Hannah and Her Sisters the best movie he ever made. High praise in light of Allens masterpieces Annie Hall and Manhattan, two films made in his prime, both arguably his best work. Allen's writing and directing style is so strong and assured in this film that the actual filmmaking itself becomes a narrative voice, just as we sense Henry James behind all of his novels, or William Faulkner or Iris Murdoch behind theirs. Hannah was one of Allens more complex films, and Ebert praised its structure and the chapter breaks Allen employed to shift among the films many characters and situations. Ebert continues, It suggests that modern big-city lives are so busy, so distracted, so filled with ambition and complication, that there isn't time to stop and absorb the meaning of things. Neither tragedy nor comedy can find a place to stand; there are too many other guests at the party."
33. Joe Dirt (2001) - ½
Director: Dennie Gordon Roger Ebert begins his review of Joe Dirt as such: I wrote the words Joe Dirt at the top of my notepad, and settled back to watch the new David Spade movie. Here is the first note I took: Approx. 6 min. until first cow fart set afire. Joe Dirt doesn't waste any time letting you know where it stands. You get the rest.32. The Village (2004) -
Director: M. Night ShyamalanIn lieu of quoting from the review, we present merely a string of descriptive words and phrases Roger Ebert used in describing this film from director M. Night Shyamalan. Remarkably, what we have below, 882 words reduced to 16, is a fairly accurate representation of his entire review.
A colossal miscalculation, transparent, laughable, flimsy, one-dimensional, a shaggy dog story, dreary, shameless melodrama, anticlimax, crummy.31. The Jazz Singer (1980) -
Director: Richard FleischerRoger Ebert noted that The Jazz Singer, starring Neil Diamond, has so many things wrong with it that a review threatens to become a list.
Let me start with the most obvious: This movie is about a man who is at least 20 years too old for such things to be happening to him. The Jazz Singer looks ridiculous giving us Neil Diamond going through an adolescent crisis. Ebert was not kind to Diamond: It's strange about the Diamond performance: It's not just that he can't act. It's that he sends out creepy vibes. He seems self-absorbed, closed off, grandiose, out of touch with his immediate surroundings. His fans apparently think Neil Diamond songs celebrate worthy human qualities. I think they describe conditions suitable for treatment.