(Credits: Far Out / YouTube Still)
Tue 6 January 2026 17:15, UK
Nobody should take a movie critic’s word as gospel, not even Roger Ebert. Sure, he was the most famous and respected voice of his era, and one of the two most notable critics in modern history, alongside Pauline Kael, but he hated some classic films and adored some downright stinkers.
All art is subjective, but some movies remain indefensible. While there are inevitably going to be people who think The Godfather and Citizen Kane are overrated, there hopefully can’t be too many individuals out there who’d die on the hill that Rob Schneider is one of his generation’s most unsung comic geniuses, or that Uwe Boll has ever made anything that exists above the very bottom of the barrel.
Ebert wasn’t a fan of Peter Weir’s Dead Poets Society, David Lynch’s The Elephant Man, Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, David Fincher’s Fight Club, or John Waters’ Pink Flamingos, all of which are classics in one way or another. He watched the movies, and he wrote the reviews, so he was entitled to like what he liked and abhor what he abhorred, but sometimes he veered bizarrely far in the other direction.
Take, for example, a blockbuster-sized comedy that won a Razzie for ‘Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-Off, or Sequel’ and scored further nominations for ‘Worst Picture’, ‘Worst Director’, ‘Worst Screenplay’, ‘Worst Actor’, ‘Worst Supporting Actor’, and ‘Worst Screen Couple’, which aren’t the hallmarks of onscreen excellence.
Factor in that the $100 million production lost a fortune at the box office after failing to reach $70 million in ticket sales, and it shows that audiences weren’t willing to pay to see it. For the unlucky few who did, they weren’t enraptured by what they saw, since it ranked as one of the worst releases of 2009.
Beyond that, the creators of the TV series on which the movie was based hated it more than anyone, calling it “one of the worst films ever made.” Even the studio that made it couldn’t find a kind word to say, with Universal’s then-president, Ron Meyer, saying it was “just crap” and “there was no excuse for it.” And yet, for reasons only he could explain, Ebert was enthralled by Will Ferrell’s Land of the Lost.
“Land of the Lost is a seriously deranged movie,” he began an inexplicable 3.5-star review. “That’s not to say it’s bad, although some of its early critics consider it a hanging offense (‘a pot of ersatz dinosaur piss’ says Peter Keough of the Boston Phoenix). Land of the Lost inspires fervent hatred, which, with the right kind of movie, can be a good thing. Amid widespread disdain, I raise my voice in a bleat of lonely, if moderate, admiration.”
He enjoyed the “gloriously preposterous premise,” which finds Ferrell’s scientist, Anna Friel’s assistant, and Danny McBride’s survivalist transported to a world of dinosaurs and various other creatures, sending them on a journey to find their way home. He was one of the very few he did, since most sane people would agree that it’s a woeful excuse for a family-friendly adventure.
“I guess you have to be in the mood for a goofball picture like this,” Ebert theorised. “I guess I was.”
Would he have felt the same way if he watched it for a second time in a less goofball mood? Who knows, because if there’s any justice in the world, there’s not a soul that watched Land of the Lost more than once.
Related Topics