How Bad is Roeper?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Ryan Peter, Dec 27, 2001.

  1. Ryan Peter

    Ryan Peter Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 1999
    Messages:
    1,220
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is an offshoot from the Roeper bashing in the LOTR thread.
    I never liked the guy from the start, but he occasionally makes a good point. The thing that bugs me is there were plenty of better interim critics to choose from. Even "Aint it Cool" Harry Knowles was better!
    I guess what bugs me is he doesn't seem to know a lot about movies, and is more interested in Hollywood schmoltz. I loved the Ebert and Sisktel rapport, it was just like verbal jousting. Now it's like Ebert has a large axe, and Roeper has tiny stick [​IMG] . I'd like to see him replaced, and soon. He may represent the "everyguy" as a critic, but so many could do a much better job.
    Oh well, the show is still better than Leonard Maltin's anyway.
     
  2. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I agree with you in that I don't care for Roeper. But he had a lot of the same criticisms I did of LOTR. He gave it a thumbs down, but I liked it regardless of the criticisms I had with it. His review was alright until he made himself look stupid by saying "silly little ring" and making fun of elves. After that, he wasn't criticizing the movie, but the story. Siskel was my favorite critic.

    As for Knowles, can't stand him or his site.
     
  3. JohnS

    JohnS Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2001
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    143
    Real Name:
    John Steffens
    well, let's see...he liked
    Bones & Not Another Teen Movie
    and he HATED Chicken Run
    What does that tell you??
     
  4. Jason Harbaugh

    Jason Harbaugh Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    0
    The more I listen to this guy the less I respect his opinion, which wasn't much to begin with. He can not replace Siskel so I won't even go there.
    One thing I do like about Ebert is that one, he is very educated about film and it shows, and two, he does take movies for what they are. If a movie is purely a popcorn flick he reviews it as a popcorn flick on bases that it is to entertain. If it is a children's movie, he views it as a children's movie and doesn't give it thumbs down because it was aimed at kids. *cough* Roeper *cough*.
    I hope he gets replaced. There were way better co-hosts than him.
    Does anyone still go to their website via the url www.siskelandebert.com ? I still do and was just curious if others do as well.
     
  5. Ryan Peter

    Ryan Peter Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 1999
    Messages:
    1,220
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the old Eebs and Siskel show, I always felt Ebert was more the everyman critic while Gene was more the snooty film scholar. I liked Gene a lot because he went against the flow. His top picks of the year went against the grain.

    I still go to their site. I wish I could access Gene's written reviews, they were excellent.
     
  6. JasenP

    JasenP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 1999
    Messages:
    1,280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Real Name:
    Jasen
    I think Roeper is WAY too whiney. He wants SOOOO bad to sway your opinion that it comes off as desperate rather than a true film debate.
     
  7. george kaplan

    george kaplan Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,063
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have a book "He Rents, She Rents" written by Roeper and Laurie Viera. The idea is pretty good, and some of the writing is pretty funny. But right away I knew this guy had no balls. While trying to be funny about "chick flicks", he doesn't have even have the guts to use the term, he calls them "gal movies" instead. Geez, if you're going to make fun of chick flicks and you buy into an emasculated pc term for them, what's the point?
    As I said, there's some funny stuff in the book, but also a lot of weird choices: Rear Window and Dial M for Murder are listed as chick flicks and About Last Night(a chick flick if I ever saw one) is one of Roeper's guy movies. [​IMG]
     
  8. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    Tom G
    I find it rather silly that so many people admonish Ebert and Roeper when their opinions on movies don't concur with the opinions of the people admonishing them.
    A film critics job is not to give film reivews that you agree with. His/her job is to analyze films and critique. You most likely aren't going to agree with film critic each and every time just like you don't agree each and every time someone opines here on the HTF.
    Both Roeper and Ebert do a very good job in reviewing movies and they have a passion for their jobs, too. They both make salient points week in and week out. Sometimes, they don't make salient points. That's the nature of their job. Roeper has come under fire because of his comments about LOTR. If you don't like the way he reviews movies that's one thing, but disliking him simply because he didn't rave about a movie you liked is another thing.
     
  9. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    30,468
    Likes Received:
    5,751
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Tom G,

    Your comments are off base because his problems with many began long before his review of LOTR. Roeper has been constantly underfire here because he's a bad film critic, who's film analysis makes little confusing sense to many people. Besides that his smug personality doesn't win him any favors from his audience.

    Crawdaddy
     
  10. Kami

    Kami Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hated him since the first time I saw him on the show...and I can constantly see Ebert being annoyed with him. The guy comes off as a real abhorrent man. Basically someone you would never want to be associated with [​IMG]
     
  11. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,711
    Likes Received:
    175
    I gave up on Roeper many months ago (further evidence of the silliness of Tom G's remarks). Gene Siskel was filet mignon to Roeper's PC McDonald's hamburger.
     
  12. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    Tom G
     
  13. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,711
    Likes Received:
    175
     
  14. MickeS

    MickeS Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    5,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am in the minority, but I LIKE Roeper. He gives perfectly stated reasons for liking or disliking a movie, and often his opinions come across as more genuine and thought-through than Ebert's.

    The LOTR review was a good example of this, IMO, he stated his reasons for not liking the movie (and a lot of them I agree 100% with), and even IF you thought they were stupid reasons... they were his reasons and he said so. It's up to you to determine the validity of them.

    And about the whining, Ebert is just the same or worse when it's a movie they disagree on. I see this as a good thin though, it's what gives the show some life. There are more movies that they agree on, it seems, so it's nice to see them argue a bit...

    /Mike
     
  15. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    Tom G
    RobertR, the only thing I'm going to say is if you have visited any of the LOTR threads, you would see that Roeper has come under fire for his comments on LOTR (the very first sentence in this thread is evidence of that). I don't know if people here liked or disliked him before his review for LOTR. All I'm pointing out is that his enemies are growing in number since that review. Hell, I even criticized him for his "silly little ring" comment. That comment doesn't make him a bad reviewer.

    My remark is not "silly." You should apologize for that.
     
  16. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,711
    Likes Received:
    175
    Tom, your post clearly implied that Roeper is criticized only because of LOTR. You are either unaware of or choose to ignore the fact that he came under such criticism LONG before LOTR. That fact makes your "only because of LOTR" remark silly. As I said in my post, I gave up on him many months ago.
     
  17. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    Tom G
     
  18. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,711
    Likes Received:
    175
    Tom:

    In other words, you backed off from your original "simply because of LOTR" remark. Good.
     
  19. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Real Name:
    Tom G
    Robert, that was my position all along.
     
  20. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    30,468
    Likes Received:
    5,751
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Tom,

    If that was your original point then some of us including myself weren't clear about it. Just read your original post again and you should see why others would come to a different meaning.

    Crawdaddy
     

Share This Page