From Roger's review of
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (0 stars): "The movie created a spot of controversy in February 2005. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the
Los Angeles Times listed this year's Best Picture nominees and wrote that they were 'ignored, unloved, and turned down flat by most of the same studios that . . . bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to
Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic.'
"Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in
Daily Variety and the
Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: 'Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind. . . . Maybe you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers. . . .'
"Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks. But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo while passing on the opportunity to participate in
Million Dollar Baby, Ray, The Aviator, Sideways, and
Finding Neverland. As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."
Reader Reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
"I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie" has been a perennial favorite book of mine for years. "Your Movie Sucks" is in the same genre, and is as witty as Ebert has ever been. The book is essentially a collection of sub-two star reviews from the last few years, and is both enlightening and funny. I am a devoted fan of camp, and some of the films in this book sound as if they will definitely fall into that arena. For those of us who value movies so bad they're good, parts of this book read like a shopping list. I am embarrassed to admit that I have seen several of these features, and in each instance of encountering a film I had seen Ebert was both accurate and amusing: his edicts were unerring and frequently hilarious. Fortunately, Ebert not only displays wit, but also good judgment: some of the films in this book are so awful, despair laden, and dark (e.g. "Wolf Creek") as to inspire only genuine loathing. I appreciate that Ebert makes it clear that there some movies so bad as to not be enjoyable on any plane. These reviews are informative in another way: they inspire critical thinking about films and specifically about what makes a film bad or good. To be sure there are times in the past that I have disagreed with Ebert, and I'm sure if I sat through all the refuse that is this subject of this book, I would find something to disagree with him about here too. Having said all that, regarding the movies I have seen, including the utterly wretched "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" which serves as an introduction to the book in one of Ebert's strongest efforts, and "Corky Romano" which I saw in Iceland with Icelandic subtitles (the subtitles were by far more amusing than the movie) Ebert is squarely on target and more generous in his appraisal than I would have been. This is a great book, and I encourage anyone who loves movies (bad or good) to read it and cherish it. Thanks, Roger.
Back To Top
Search for books at
