I am not giving a star rating to Pink Flamingos, because stars simply seem not to apply. It should be considered not as a film but as a fact, or perhaps as an object.
This shouldn't be rotten! It is neither rotten or fresh give it a N/R rating.
Mar 10 - 04:39 AM
No, that's The Human Centipede. Here, Roger Ebert is giving it zero stars out of four.
Jul 31 - 11:35 AM
When Ebert says he's not giving the film a star rating, he doesn't mean he refuses to rate it, like he did with The Human Centipede. He means he's giving it his lowest rating.
Aug 2 - 02:12 PM
Geez, did anybody actually read his human centipede review?! He has a rating titled "zero stars". He put "no star rating" because, as he explains, the film is instantly polarizing, with a premise that lets everyone know right away if they don't want to see it but also delivers what it promises with a penetrating seriousness. (He ungrudgingly praises several aspects of the film in the review.) It is essentially his review of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, except this time admitting that the film does have an audience and a purpose.
But yeah, the Pink Flamingos review is negative. He says in the review that he is giving it no praise (and the rating says "zero stars" not "no star rating"). I think the idea of this line is that the film does offer some things to consider, but none of it is appeal as a movie.
Apr 7 - 02:51 PM