The Guardian, a leading British newspaper, has garnered attention for issuing zero-star reviews to just 15 products and performances in its 204-year history. These vitriolic denunciations, rather than being evidence of the publication’s consistent dedication to quality, illustrate its willingness to speak out against projects that fail to meet standards. Through the years, everything from potato chips to live lobsters have been subjected to this ignominy. These range from a bizarre machine to cure seasonal affective disorder to live musical productions from TV’s biggest talent competitions to actual music records.
From an ITV talent competition to a pair of deeply controversial films, The Guardian’s infamous zero-star reviews have come to symbolize some of the worst cultural blunders possible. The pushback from these reviews demonstrates the editorial team’s commitment to an uncompromising critical voice. It lays bare the impossible standards that creators are held to by audiences. The way we consume entertainment, whether it’s TV or movies, is changing all the time. Poor ratings are the biggest telltales of disasters to critics and consumers alike.
A History of Disdainful Ratings
In its long history, The Guardian has reserved its zero-star ratings for the most disappointing offerings in music, film, and live entertainment. One notable review came in 2003 when the newspaper critiqued the live performance of the first series of ITV’s “The X Factor.” This talent show was met with derision, as Helen Pidd noted the experience was akin to being among “10,000 free-willed citizens who have paid £23.50 to watch blood-draining, pulse-stopping karaoke.”
Another memorable zero-star review, this one for a country album starring Big Kenny and the bassist from Lonestar. The album featured singles with masturbatory and strumpet-ish titles like “Kick My Ass” and “Save a Horse (Ride a Cowboy).” Critics panned the music as bland and a sign of a sadder direction that the genre was headed.
The Guardian also stuck to its scathing critique style with a live concert format offshoot of a BBC talent show. Only six months after our first technology review in a favorable light, this event received a zero-star rating. This sustained observation on the part of The Guardian shows the newspaper’s commitment to pressuring creators to face consequences for their artistic choices.
Controversial Performances and Productions
“The best of these no-star reviews have come from projects that truly confused or horrified an audience. “Sex: Unzipped,” for instance, was criticized for its perceived reverence toward billionaires and poor taste. Guardian reporter Helen Pidd vented her disgust on the project, calling it so awful that it would cause Richard Curtis’s movie Notting Hill to look like a gritty documentary. Rebecca Nicholson was on the same wavelength, insisting that the show was boring and uninteresting — it just didn’t hook anyone.”
Another signal-zero-star one, eliciting a notable response, was Alexis Petridis’s pan of the RSC production of “All’s Fair.” He called it, “so unremittingly awful,” that the lowest rating should have been given. This culture shaming sense of disappointment is felt throughout most of The Guardian’s vitriolic review.
Further adding to this list of disparaging reviews is the American comedy horror film “The Greasy Strangler,” directed by Jim Hosking. Wendy Ide described it as “aggressively inane,” managing to cram “every disgusting, deviant activity you couldn’t begin to imagine,” yet still managing to be boring. Creatively speaking, Opera Critic Elisabeth Mahoney had plenty to say about this production, focusing on the technical failings that overwhelmed the experience itself.
Musical Missteps and Critiques
Music performance hasn’t been immune from The Guardian’s purview of aspersions. Martin Creed – the Turner Prize winning artist turned musician Martin Creed even got a zero-star review for his dreamy piano set. Critics of his musical debut deemed his leap into the medium empty on depth and substance.
Lucy Mangan attacked Saweetie for making her performance “awkward… self-conscious.” She observed that the delivery often came off unceasingly one-dimensional. This kind of critique underscores The Guardian’s commitment to evaluating performances on their artistic merits rather than merely their popularity.
In totality, these zero-star reviews serve as powerful reminders of The Guardian’s editorial standards and its role in shaping cultural discourse. As Samuel Gibbs pointed out, our little newspaper has only ever published 15 zero-star reviews in its nearly 50-year history. These few, precious reviews pack the most potential punch immediately in the field of critical practice.