Roger Ebert’s Brutal Takedown of a 1992 Comedy Flop
Roger Ebert’s infamous zero-star review of Breaking the Rules left no doubt about his feelings. Discover why this 1992 comedy, starring Jason Bateman, failed to impress one of cinema’s toughest critics.
When it comes to comedy, what gets one person giggling might leave another completely unmoved. There’s no magic recipe for making everyone in the cinema laugh, and some films miss the mark so badly that even the most generous critics can’t find a kind word. That was certainly the case for Roger Ebert when he sat through the 1992 flick Breaking the Rules. Ebert, never one to shy away from a blunt opinion, didn’t just pan the film—he refused to give it a single star.
He had a particular distaste for comedies that relied on crude or tasteless gags, preferring a bit of cleverness over cheap laughs. It wasn’t that he didn’t enjoy a good chuckle; he just wanted the jokes to have some substance. Films like The Bucket List, 50/50, Funny People, and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl managed to blend tragedy and humour with some success, proving it could be done. But for Ebert, Breaking the Rules was a different story altogether.
“A Long, Painful Lapse of Taste and Tone”
Directed by Neal Israel, the film stars a young Jason Bateman as Phil, a bloke who learns he’s only got a month left to live. Instead of quietly accepting his fate, he ropes his two best mates into a road trip so he can chase his dream of appearing on Jeopardy!. What follows is meant to be a wild adventure, full of mishaps, strained friendships, and a fair bit of romantic drama. But Ebert was having none of it.
He didn’t hold back in his review, writing,
“Breaking the Rules is a movie about a guy who finds out he has a month to live, and decides to spend it in the worst buddy movie ever made. The movie has to be seen to be believed. It is a long, painful lapse of taste, tone, and ordinary human feeling.”
The story wasn’t exactly original, but Ebert reckoned the execution was so poor it was almost otherworldly.
“Perhaps It Was Made by Beings from Another Planet”
He even joked,
“Perhaps it was made by beings from another planet, who were able to watch our television in order to absorb key concepts such as cars, sex, leukaemia, and casinos, but formed an imperfect view of how to fit them together.”
For Ebert, the film’s biggest crime was its inability to stir any real emotion. Scenes meant to tug at the heartstrings just left him wondering how much worse the dialogue could get.
He summed it up with,
“The kind of movie where a scene is intended to make you cry, but you’re not crying, you’re wondering just how bad the dialogue can possibly be.”
It was a damning assessment, and one that left little room for redemption.
Box Office Bomb and Critical Disaster
In the end, the film’s fate at the box office matched Ebert’s scathing review. It barely scraped back a fraction of its budget, sparing most punters from having to sit through what he considered a complete misfire. For Ebert, it was a rare case where he seemed almost pleased that so few people bothered to see it.