Roger Ebert gave Speed 2 three stars. The Razzies gave it Worst Sequel.

Three stars out of four. Let's process that number. Three. Out. Of. Four. For a movie with a 3% Rotten Tomatoes score, a Razzie for Worst Sequel, and a cruise-ship-into-a-coastal-village climax that the laws of physics personally filed a complaint about.

The man wrote a famously withering 0-star takedown of North in 1994 — 'I hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie' — and yet for Speed 2 he conjured a marginal recommendation out of pure goodwill toward Sandra Bullock. Sandra Bullock cannot save the math. Sandra Bullock is not in the equation. The equation is: cruise ship + autopilot + bad guy with leeches + zero tension = three stars, somehow.

Here is the breakdown nobody asked for: a thumbs-up from Ebert in 1997 correlated with a measurable bump in opening-weekend revenue. Speed 2 cost $160 million and grossed $164 million worldwide. That is a financial faceplant cushioned, in part, by every critic who waved through a generous review. The math says one famous thumbs-up was worth real money. The math also says he should have used both thumbs to point downward.

We are not roasting Ebert the man — Ebert the man wrote some of the best film criticism in American history. We are roasting Ebert the data point, who in a single review caused thousands of moviegoers to part with $7.50 to watch a boat go sicko mode at quarter-speed into a tropical village. The score: 3 stars. The outcome: Razzie. The math: not mathing. We give this review a 1/10. A number. Because numbers are what reviewing IS.