Roger Ebert's Zero-Star Disaster: The Comedy That Failed Completely

Comedy remains one of the trickiest genres in filmmaking, where success depends entirely on connecting with audiences through humor. What makes one person laugh might leave another completely cold, and legendary critic Roger Ebert encountered exactly this problem with a 1992 film that left him so unimpressed he refused to give it even a single star.

When Terminal Illness Meets Bad Comedy

Ebert had little patience for comedies that relied on crude humor without any underlying intelligence or wit. He preferred films that combined laughs with genuine storytelling, rather than cheap shock tactics designed purely to offend. While terminal illness might seem like an unlikely foundation for comedy, several movies have successfully blended tragedy with humor to create memorable experiences.

Films like Rob Reiner's The Bucket List, Jonathan Levine's 50/50, Judd Apatow's Funny People, and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl prove that serious subjects can work in comedy when handled with skill and sensitivity. The key lies in strong writing, talented performers, and thoughtful execution - elements that Ebert found completely absent in Neal Israel's Breaking the Rules.

A Scathing Assessment

Ebert wasted no time demolishing the entire premise of the movie in his review. "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," he wrote. "The movie has to be seen to be believed. It is a long, painful lapse of taste, tone, and ordinary human feeling."

The story follows Phil, played by a young Jason Bateman, who tricks his two closest friends into joining him on a cross-country journey. His supposed dying wish involves appearing as a contestant on the game show Jeopardy! The predictable road trip formula includes various mishaps, relationship drama, and encounters with women that create both positive and negative complications for the group.

An Otherworldly Failure

While the basic plot wasn't particularly original, Ebert found the execution so terrible that he questioned whether humans had actually created it. "Perhaps it was made by beings from another planet," he speculated. "Who were able to watch our television in order to absorb key concepts such as cars, sex, leukemia, and casinos, but formed an imperfect view of how to fit them together."

The critic expressed amazement at how the film failed to generate any genuine emotional response despite its dramatic premise. He described it as "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." This observation captured his frustration with a story that should have naturally evoked strong feelings but instead left viewers disconnected and confused.

The movie's commercial performance matched Ebert's harsh assessment, earning back less than 10% of its production budget at the box office. This financial disaster at least spared most moviegoers from experiencing what the critic considered a complete waste of time and talent.