18 Worst Horror Films of All Time, In accordance with Roger Ebert

In a style the place it is arguably simpler to earn a nasty evaluation, horror motion pictures face a special stage of criticism, particularly from revered critic Roger Ebert. A fan of the style, Ebert appreciated good horror motion pictures, saying, “They’ll exorcise our demons.” Nevertheless, Ebert was a vocal opponent of horror motion pictures that inflicted violence and gore with out cause, typically writing in regards to the reactions of fellow viewers members and what it stated about their relationship to the acts carried out onscreen. In his prolonged checklist “Ebert’s Most Hated,” a lot of these movies embody horror motion pictures that earned greater than a one-star ranking.

A lot of Ebert’s low-rated or worst horror picks like Hellraiser, Resident Evil, I Know What You Did Last Summer, and Lake Placid have turn out to be cult classics and beloved among the many style’s fanbase. Even spooky season picks like Hocus Pocus earned a one-star ranking however at the moment are staples within the Halloween streaming season. The worst horror motion pictures in keeping with Roger Ebert are a mixture of remakes, sequels, and originals that lack inventive originality, execution, and simply plain objective to deserve a ranking greater than Ebert awarded, with one movie getting no stars and even the dismal thumbs down.

18

‘Halloween III: Season of the Witch’ (1982)

Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace

For incomes a spot on Ebert’s most hated film lists, Halloween III: Season of the Witch earned a 1.5-star evaluation from Ebert; nonetheless, it nonetheless landed as one of many worst horror motion pictures. The “low-rent thriller from the primary body” picks up proper the place the second film ended as Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins) and a younger daughter or a homicide sufferer, Ellie (Stacey Nelkin) uncover the murderous scheme of a masks maker who seeks to invoke a Celtic ritual to mass homicide tens of millions of kids by convincing them to purchase and put on a Halloween masks.

“There are quite a lot of issues with ‘Halloween III,’ however essentially the most primary one is that I might by no means determine what the villain needed to perform if he acquired his manner.”

Halloween III continues the fall from the greatness of the unique John Carpenter movie, this time a fair additional departure, forgetting the film monster that made it so iconic. Ebert decides the movie is “assembled out of acquainted elements from different, higher motion pictures” that embody compulsory photographs and scenes commonplace and anticipated with dangerous horror motion pictures. The seemingly solely silver lining of the third franchise installment for Ebert was Nelkin, “She has a type of wealthy voices that makes you would like she had extra to say and in a greater function.”

17

‘Constantine’ (2005)

Directed by Francis Lawrence

Ebert by no means shied away from outwardly disliking a film audiences beloved. Constantine earned a one-and-a-half-star evaluation from the critic whereas additionally winding up on his most hated checklist. Keanu Reeves stars because the titular character, John Constantine, a demon hunter destined for hell who’s attempting to raised his probabilities of moving into heaven by serving to a policewoman examine her sister’s alleged suicide. The pair are sucked into the world of the supernatural and a conflict between heaven and hell. Constantine co-stars Rachel Weisz, Tilda Swinton, Peter Stormare, Djimon Hounsou, Shia LaBeouf, and Max Baker.

“You marvel what sort of an L.A. cop would permit herself to be experimentally drowned in a tub by a man who lives over a bowling alley.”

Unwilling to provide the movie a cross for its technical struggles just like the depiction of hell he known as a “post-nuclear Los Angeles created by animators with a hangover,” Ebert was skeptical of the rough-around-the-edges premise primarily based on the favored DC Comics character. His divisive, sarcastic evaluation made it clear this R-rated horror movie was solely a winner with the style followers in a position to settle for the unusual logic of the smattering of fantastical components produced onscreen.

16

‘Jeepers Creepers 2’ (2003)

Directed by Victor Salva

A sequel that does not stand as much as the scare issue of the unique, Jeepers Creepers 2 effectively earned a one-star ranking from Ebert. The film takes place someday after the primary movie, because the titular creature terrorizes a college bus stuffed with high-school athletes, feeding on the final day of its 23-day frenzy earlier than returning to hibernation. It is a film the place, for Ebert, he anticipated to not be scared and spent extra time evaluating the craftsmanship of the manufacturing as an alternative.

“Victor Salva’s ‘Jeepers Creepers 2’ provides us with a first-class creature, a fourth-rate story, and dialogue presumably created by feeding the screenplay right into a pasta maker.”

Jeepers Creepers 2 is a film that “is futile to deliver logic to,” like why the winged creature is named Creeper or why the acclaimed Francis Ford Coppola invested cash to supply it. For horror followers, it is adore it for the camp or hate it for its questionable execution. It was no secret which aspect Ebert fell onto.

15

‘The Hills Have Eyes’ (2006)

Directed by Alexandre Aja

A formulaic horror film for all of the improper causes, The Hills Have Eyes remake is unreachable to plain horror audiences, like Ebert, who search a terrifying plot, not a geek-show. The film depicts a household highway journey that takes a horrible flip right into a desert of cannibalistic, incestuous mutants. Ebert gave the remake one-and-a-half stars for its obnoxiously predictable do-the-opposite-of-logic.

“It isn’t defective logic that derails “The Hills Have Eyes,” nonetheless, however defective drama. The film is a one-trick pony. We now have the eaters and the eatees, and they’ll observe their destinies till some form of determined denouement, presumably adopted by a ultimate shot exhibiting that It’s Not Actually Over…”

Ebert in contrast The Hills Have Eyes with 2005’s The Devil’s Rejects, which adopted comparable narratives of desolate government-built cities with violent killers. He praised the success of The Satan’s Rejects for its dedication to entertain as an alternative of nauseate, and provides its villains motives and backstories. None of which this remake does, making it one of many worst horror motion pictures and remakes.

14

‘The Grudge’ (2004)

Directed by Takashi Shimizu

In director Takashi Shimizu’s attempt to remake his acclaimed Japanese film right into a full-fledged American model, Ebert “misplaced all endurance.” The film stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as she battles a supernatural curse stemming from a malevolent house in Tokoyo that terrorizes anybody who is available in contact with it. The Grudge is a formulaic haunted home horror movie that managed to safe a one-star ranking from Ebert.

“The film could have some subterranean stage on which the story strands join and make sense, however it eluded me. The fragmented time construction is a nuisance, not a mode.”

Its dependency on commonplace horror purposes, like investigating eerie sounds that result in soar scares revealing it is solely a cat, did not do a lot to raise the movie or indulge audiences in one thing they hadn’t seen earlier than. Including to his disappointment, Ebert factors out a missed alternative by making the movie totally English-speaking as an alternative of emphasizing dynamic cultural variations set towards a horror film. Regardless of being one of many worst horror motion pictures in keeping with Ebert, The Grudge turned a franchise that retains getting consideration from horror followers.

13

‘Thir13en Ghosts’ (2001)

Directed by Steve Beck

A movie that earned a spot on Ebert’s most hated motion pictures checklist, Thir13en Ghosts was “actually painful” for him to look at. It is a remake of a traditional horror movie that follows the supernatural experiences of a household as they inherit their rich uncle’s outdated home haunted by vengeful spirits. It stars Tony Shalhoub, Shannon Elizabeth, Embeth Davidtz, scream king Matthew Lillard, and F. Murray Abraham. Within the small moments of reward, Ebert acknowledges the movie’s well-constructed set, particular results, costumes and make-up, and the movie’s general artwork route, incomes the movie a one-star ranking.

“The bodily look of the image is splendid. The screenplay is useless on arrival. The noise stage is torture.”

For Ebert, the screenplay and post-production are the place theThir13een Ghosts failed. The inescapable sound design was an assault on the ears whereas the fumbling dialogue and poor enhancing focused weary eyes. In comparison with a few of Ebert’s different worst-rated horror flicks, this remake lacks the violence and scare techniques of its counterparts, incomes it a better ranking than most.

12

‘Phantoms’ (1998)

Directed by Joe Chapelle

Crossing two genres value of Ebert’s worst film picks, Phantoms is additionally a one-star sci-fi movie written by the supply materials’s writer, Dean R. Koontz. The story takes place in a Colorado resort city the place a demonic presence devours its human victims and learns the whole lot the particular person is aware of. A bunch of locals band collectively to eradicate the creatures and restore their house. Led by Ben Affleck and Rose McGowan, Phantoms co-stars Peter O’Toole, Liev Schreiber, Nicky Katt, and Joanna Going.

“Peter O’Toole is knowledgeable and performs his character effectively. It takes years of coaching and follow to have the ability to utter traces like, ‘It comes from the deep and secret realms of our Earth’ with out guffawing.”

Tapping into the horror of worm-like creatures slaughtering townsfolk believing they’re the satan, Ebert’s evaluation known as the film “one other a type of Gotcha! thillers” the place the supporting characters are helpless, and the leads shoot relentlessly. His solely clarification for why and the way dangerous Phantoms is is as a result of all of the filmmakers did was “[grind] up different movies and feeding them to this one.”

11

‘The Guardian’ (1990)

Directed by William Friedkin

The Guardian is what Ebert known as “a frankly business exploitation movie” from the identical director that introduced viewers the Oscar-winning The Exorcist. Incomes solely a one-star ranking from Ebert, the film is a couple of couple in search of assist with their new child who unknowingly hires a druid nanny who sacrifices infants to an evil tree.

“Of the numerous threats to trendy man documented in horror movies – the slashers, the haunters, the physique snatchers – essentially the most harmless would appear to be the druids. What, in any case, can a druid actually do to you…That’s what I might have stated, anyway, till I noticed ‘The Guardian…'”

The roughly 92-minute runtime is full of one horror cliche after one other, missing any type of style originality till the tip the place a chainsaw is used on its meant goal, a tree, as an alternative of maiming a human sufferer. Viewers, together with Ebert, purchased a ticket for the movie’s potential below William Friedkin’s route, endured for the respectable visible results, and left dissatisfied having witnessed one of many style’s worst options.

Rent on Apple TV

10

‘Friday the thirteenth Half 2’ (1981)

Directed by Steve Miner

For Ebert, this dismal sequel felt private as he screened it in his hometown theater on a Friday evening surrounded by teenagers and faculty college students. His half-star evaluation particulars how the primary two minutes of the expertise made him nostalgic of his youth and the onscreen reminiscences of “youngsters who fell in love, made out with one another, custom-made their automobiles, listened to rock and roll, and had been rebels with out causes.” The short-lived sentimentality was crushed by the violent slasher deaths of a brand new set of terrorized camp counselors and the inevitable final girl in Friday the 13th Part 2.

“This film is a cross between the Mad Slasher and Lifeless teenager genres; about two dozen motion pictures a 12 months characteristic a mad killer going berserk, they usually’re all about as dangerous as this one.”

His curiosity within the sequel stopped as quickly because the surviving heroine from the primary movie was killed inside the first jiffy. Whereas his fellow moviegoers had been relatively vocal and located enjoyment within the slasher flick, Ebert took concern with the deeper which means motion pictures like this unconsciously portrayed, “the first operate of youngsters is to be hacked to demise.” It was a sentiment he declared was relevant and may very well be interchanged with any of the franchise movies, making Friday the thirteenth Half 2 one of many worst horror motion pictures in Ebert’s opinion.

9

‘Friday the thirteenth: The Last Chapter’ (1984)

Directed by Joseph Zito

In a heated review session with the iconic Gene Siskel, Ebert tears this franchise installment to shreds, calling it “senseless bloody violence.” Miraculously revived, the masked maniac Jason Voorhees escapes the morgue and returns to Crystal Lake to terrorize a bunch of teenagers renting a home. Making his disappointment with Paramount Footage recognized, Ebert calls out that Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter wouldn’t be the ultimate film, on condition that Paramount had “taken the bucket to the cesspool 4 occasions” and knew the title was a advertising ploy.

“‘Friday the thirteenth The Last Chapter’ is 90 minutes of youngsters being strangled, stabbed, impaled, chopped up, and mutilated. That is all this film is.”

Ebert departed from Siskel in his opinion that the fourth Friday the 13th installment despatched a bleak message to youngsters that the world is hopeless and can kill you it doesn’t matter what your hopes, desires, or aspirations could also be. Siskel disagreed, telling Ebert he was sounding “a bit of cleaning soap boxy,” arguing that the technology’s youth would not see the movie as a worldview. The pair had been in ultimate settlement on a sickening realization that with this franchise, audiences hunt down and are entertained by younger girls being stabbed again and again.

8

‘Hellraiser’ (1987)

Directed by Clive Barker

A sizzling take then and positively one that also irritates followers of the franchise, Ebert awarded Hellraiser a half-star ranking as one of many worst horror motion pictures, in his opinion, of all time. With a premise seemingly becoming for a what-did-I-just-watch type of movie, the film follows Frank (Sean Chapman) after he meets a violent finish by the hands of supernatural creatures known as Cenobites. When Frank’s brother and spouse, Julia (Clare Higgins), transfer into his former house, they unintentionally resurrect what’s left of Frank. He convinces Julia to kill for him so he can eat the sufferer’s flesh to revitalize his physique and escape the underworld.

“Who goes to see motion pictures like this? What do they get out of them? I like good horror motion pictures as a result of I take pleasure in being stunned (and generally even moved), however there aren’t any surprises in ‘Hellraiser,’ solely a dreary sequence of scenes that repeat one another. What enjoyable is it watching the film mark time till the characters uncover the apparent?”

Calling it “a film with out wit, fashion or cause,” Ebert chastised Stephen King for praising author and director Clive Barker. He expressed deep disappointment when he realized it was a full-length characteristic movie, saying it was a film “you sit via with mounting dread.” Whereas Ebert could not wrap his thoughts across the enchantment of Barker’s physique horror movie, viewers and critics are staunch defenders of Hellraiser for its distinctive and imaginative entry into the style that advanced right into a full-fledged franchise.

7

‘The Hitcher’ (1986)

Directed by Robert Harmon

Whereas it is a zero-star horror film for Ebert, The Hitcher earned a optimistic consensus from critics and audiences. The film stars C. Thomas Howell as a younger driver named Jim Halsey who unknowingly picks up a serial killer hitchhiker John Ryder (Rutger Hauer). After Jim makes a harrowing escape, he enlists the assistance of a waitress, Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh), to search out John after he frames Jim for a string of murders. To Ebert, The Hitcher touts a showdown of fine and evil, however with deeper inspection, it’s something however because it depicts an unhealthy bond.

“What is especially sick about ‘The Hitcher’ is that the killer will not be given a viewpoint, a grudge, or certainly even a motive.”

Ebert spends quite a lot of time assessing the cyclical style of the movie from its opening and shutting sequences to the character arc and the questionable shared bond between the heroic antihero and the villain. In his divisive evaluation, he calls The Hitcher “diseased and corrupt,” saying “It prefers to disguise itself as a violent thriller, and on that stage it’s reprehensible.” Whereas Ebert hated the horror flick, it earned middle-of-the-road reviews from his critical counterparts who praised the menacing efficiency of Rutger Hauer.

6

‘The Texas Chainsaw Bloodbath’ (2003)

Directed by Marcus Nispel

A remake sticking to the formulaic rules of choosing off victims one after the other, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is “vile, ugly, and brutal” in keeping with Ebert’s zero-star evaluation. The 2003 model follows a bunch of mates as they journey throughout the agricultural roads of Texas, occurring upon a seemingly deserted house. They quickly turn out to be the goal of a chainsaw-wielding deformed brute and his deranged household of killers. Considered one of its many faults, as Ebert factors out, is its lack of exposition and set-up, making it nearly essential to have seen or heard of the 1974 authentic to grasp what’s taking part in out onscreen.

“It isn’t a commentary on something, besides the wedding of slick expertise with the supplies of a geek present.”

Whereas formulaic, The Texas Chainsaw Bloodbath blandly reintroduces the identical horror tropes with out originality or skillful execution, a lot of which Ebert dutifully examples in his evaluation. It is a grim, gore-fueled 98 minutes that the acclaimed critic believed “was made by and for these with no consideration span.”

5

‘Wolf Creek’ (2005)

Directed by Greg McLean

A horror film that nearly drove Ebert from the theater, Wolf Creek is a violent, misogynistic show of torture and mutilation of its girls characters. The slasher flick follows a trio of stranded vacationers within the Australian outback who misplace their belief in a neighborhood man providing to repair their automotive. Their in a single day outback keep turns right into a nightmare when he kidnaps and brutalizes the group. The movie’s sadistic antagonist, Mick Taylor (John Jarratt), and his ugly acts are primarily based on these of real-life Australian serial killers.

“If anybody you already know says that is the one they wish to see, my recommendation is: Do not know that particular person no extra.”

In his evaluation (and plenty of others pertaining to horror motion pictures), Ebert prefaces together with his appreciation for horror movies whereas acknowledging that when achieved skillfully, they’re pushed by purposeful violence and scare techniques. With Wolf Creek, Ebert writes, “There’s a line and this film crosses it…There’s a function for violence in movie, however what the hell is the aim of this sadistic celebration of ache and cruelty?” Securing a zero-star evaluation and a thumbs down, Wolf Creek is among the worst horror motion pictures in keeping with Ebert.

4

‘Mom’s Day’ (1980)

Directed by Charles Kaufman

This brutal horror film is one Ebert could not perceive why anybody needed to see after enduring the runtime regardless of wanting to go away after the opening scene. A thumbs-down, zero-star film, Mother’s Day is a couple of demented outdated girl and her sons who reside within the woods, kidnapping campers and brutalizing them for the mom’s leisure.

“Up to now there appears to be no finish to the vogue for geek movies. And there appears to be no restrict to the inhuman imagery their makers are ready to painting in them. “

Dissimilar to different horror movies depicting the identical nature of violence, the moviegoers at Ebert’s screening of Mom’s Day stayed quiet, with a number of compelled laughs. He noticed that, like him, they remained largely uncomfortable and sickened by the unrated depravity paraded onscreen taped to “the flimsiest of tales.”

3

‘Jaws: The Revenge’ (1987)

Directed by Joseph Sargent

Calling the movie “a rip-off,” Jaws: The Revenge is certainly one of Ebert’s most notoriously hated motion pictures. The fourth installment within the iconic shark franchise options Ellen Brody (Lorraine Gary), the widow of Chief Brody, as she flees to the Bahamas to plead along with her now-only son, marine biologist Michael (Lance Visitor), to remain out of the water. As soon as there, she begins a relationship with the charming Hoagie (Michael Caine), however the shark who killed her son seems within the waters, inflicting a reign of terror. Jaws: The Revenge earned a zero-star ranking from the acclaimed reviewer and an overall 2% rotten critic consensus.

“Since we see a lot of the shark within the film, you’d assume they might have constructed some good ones.”

Altering gears from the franchise route of a creature characteristic the place the characters are lulled right into a false sense of safety till the shark strikes, Jaws: The Revenge turns itself into a slasher flick, stalking the continuity character till there is not any place to cover. With a number of unbelievable (and complicated) sequences and filming fumbles, Ebert would not mince phrases when describing it as “not merely a nasty film, but in addition a silly and incompetent one.”

2

‘I Spit on Your Grave’ (1978)

Directed by Meir Zarchai

After a surprisingly crammed exhibiting on a Monday morning in Chicago, Ebert “walked out of the theater rapidly, feeling unclean, ashamed and depressed,” giving the disturbing movie and its viewers zero stars. The unique I Spit on Your Grave contains a younger girl, Jennifer (Camille Keaton), who whereas on a distant solo getaway, is repeatedly brutalized by a bunch of native males. Weeks later, a considerably recovered Jennifer returns to precise her violent revenge. The 2010 remake that spawned a number of sequels additionally earned a zero-star evaluation from Ebert.

“There is no such thing as a cause to see this film besides to be entertained by the sight of sadism and struggling.”

I Spit on Your Grave is amongst Ebert’s worst-rated horror motion pictures of all time. The depiction of demented acts of violence towards girls was achieved so with out “a shred of inventive route” or “easy craftsmanship,” for which Ebert condemned the movie for its lack of objective for portrayal. For him, this film is essentially outlined by the movie-goers who recognized with and seemingly loved the sadistic acts onscreen.

Watch on Tubi

1

‘The Human Centipede’ (2010)

Directed by Tom Six

A film Ebert acknowledges solely caters to essentially the most particular horror audiences who deliberately select to direct their viewership towards such a graphic premise, The Human Centipede is a film that Ebert refused to rate. On this physique horror movie, a mad scientist by the identify of Dr. Heiter (Dieter Laser) kidnaps and mutilates three vacationers by conjoining them right into a creature with a single digestive tract. In his no-star (not zero-star, thoughts you) evaluation, Ebert insinuates that each the viewing expertise and the onscreen expertise in The Human Centipede are worse than demise.

“No horror movie I’ve seen inflicts extra horrible issues on its victims than ‘The Human Centipede.’ You would need to be very courageous to decide on this ordeal…”

The film is a nauseating 92-minute ordeal that Ebert factors out director, Tom Six fastidiously crafted, Ebert acknowledging Six’s remedy of the “materials with utter seriousness.” It is value noting Ebert wrote that he thought-about his evaluation of the notorious film a “public service announcement,” however it notably didn’t find yourself on his most hated motion pictures checklist.

Watch on AMC+

NEXT: Unexpected 2000s Movies That Roger Ebert Loved