How Bad is Roeper? (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Roeper has come under fire simply because he didn't like LOTR.

No, no, no, no, no. Maybe someone has done this, but I haven't seen it. I have not seen Roeper bashed because he didn't like LOTR (a perfectly valid opinion). I have seen him bashed because of the ignorant reasons he doesn't like it, and the unprofessionalness of his reviews.
Quite simply: To not like any movie is fine, and to not like it for any reason is fine, but if you are going to be a professional critic, then you'd best have good reasons for critiquing others works, or not be surprised when people critique you. My criticism of Roeper is due to his ignorance. He is entitled to his opinion, but I will not place any faith in his reviews given what I know about how little he knows about movies.
A critic's job is to review movies. A movie-goers 'job' is to decide which critics to listen to. As a matter of fact, even if the only reason you don't like critic X is because you always disagree with them, that is a perfectly valid reason not to listen to reviewer X. But with Roeper it goes deeper. I disagree with Pauline Kael almost all the time, but I have a lot of respect for her nonetheless. Roeper is just a joke.
And for what it's worth, the most ridiculous reason for not liking a movie is perfectly valid as an opinion, but not as a review. If you don't like LOTR because the title starts with the letter L, that's fine. As a review that's pretty weak, although it has more validity than some of the reasons Roeper gave.

 

[Terrell]

Well, I've seen him bashed because he gave a negative review of LOTR. However, he discredited his review when he began to criticize the story rather than the movie. But I have seen many hammer him because of his negative review of LOTR. Not saying anyone here has done it, but I've seen many fans of the movie do it.

 

[Carlo_M]

I hadn't seen his review of LoTR, adn I've stayed away from that thread so I'm coming in kind of fresh. I've never liked Roeper's opinions and his style of delivery (which someone said was whiny and with which I agree).
I think the most disturbing thing is what JohnS wrote: He liked Not Another Teen Movie and not Chicken Run? That puzzles me way more than anything about LoTR and the comments about silly rings and elves--maybe he's not a fantasy guy. My mom still thinks Dungeons and Dragons is devil-worshipping, so I couldn't drag her into a theater to see LoTR.
I have never agreed 100% with either Siskel or Ebert, but I respected both of them. I still respect Ebert. But Roeper really is, imo, a bad reviewer--not much consistency at all. At times he seems to want to be the only critic not to like something...just for the sake of not liking it. Kind of like the petulant boy in school who thinks he knows something more than anyone else by being the only one who doesn't like this movie...
Just my feelings on him.

 

[Terrell]

Yeah, some of Roeper's thumbs up have been out of whack. Some of his likes and dislikes puzzle me. I have no idea why he was chosen to replace Siskel.

 

[Iain Lambert]

For what its worth, I've spoken to several people who didn't like LOTR, all very capable of explaining why. Most common was the way that they didn't identify with the characters, or the way that, without the background of having read the books, it can seem that they are just running from one action scene to the next, with monsters wheeled on to become a threat without much explanation of why they are a threat, what they are or foreshadowing to let you even know they exist - Balrogs, Watchers and Trolls look rather big, but without any knowledge of their history before an attack it can seem that they are just being wheeled on to fuel the next episode of 'Frodo and Friends get attacked by something big'.

I, on the other hand, had read the books and I loved the film.

So its not that Roeper didn't like it per se, just that 'it sucks' isn't much of a critique; certainly no more than you could get by asking a random aquaintance who has already seen it if its any good.

 

[Terrell]

I think that's a fair assessment Iain. Although I liked the film, that's how I felt about some of the film.

 

[Chad R]

However, he discredited his review when he began to criticize the story rather than the movie.

I'm sorry, but what is a movie if not a story? Isn't he allowed to criticize the story, regardless if it's hatched solely in the mind of the screenwriter or adapted from a book?

I didn't see the review, and would only agree it was bad if he started off by saying he loved the book and then went on to criticize the story as that would be contradictory. And where I agree that saying 'silly little ring' is inflamatory and beneath a professional critic, it doesn't devalue his opinion that this particular story device didn't impress him. (It is after all just a MacGuffin i.e. something the characters care about more than the audience).

Now, before I'm attacked. I don't like Roeper much either because his reviews are usually inflamatory for the sake of disagreeing rather than seeming like a passioned opinion like Siskel's used to have. He seems to pick a fight instead of choosing a side.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Chad,

He stated that he never read the book!

Crawdaddy

 

[Ryan Peter]

I didn't even see his LOTR review, he's just a hack. I guess they got him on there because the producers probably think "Viewers like to see Ebert fight so let's get this guy on there". Ebert and Siskel wasn't about fighting, though. It was about two intelligent film viewers going at it and trying to outsmart the other guy. Roeper seems to think if he can outshout Ebert, he can win the argument. Roeper is ruining the show, plain and simple. This has nothing to do with his opinions, but how he arrives at those opinions and how he expresses those opinions. The rapport between him and Ebert is terrible. It's obvious Ebert has no respect for the guy. I'd rather have a show with Ebert by himself talking about movies. It would be a much more enjoyable experience.

 

[Chad R]

He stated that he never read the book!

Than, although ineloquent, he has a right to criticize the story. Reading the book is not a prerequisite for seeing the movie.

He's still a terrible reviewer though, and I stopped watching which is why I didn't see his review. I just go to Ebert's suntimes site to read his reviews and I can censor Roeper that way.

 

[Terrell]

Well, he's certainly entitled to his opinion. However, it's quite obvious that if he thought the story was silly, then he wasn't going to think highly of the movie either.

 

[MickeS]

Speaking of this show, why have they changed the website? It's now almost completely useless; you can only listen to the reviews from the last show. They used to have an archive there. Actually, this week they have some technical difficulty, so you can't even listen to ANY reviews... :frowning:
/Mike

 

[Chad R]

if he thought the story was silly, then he wasn't going to think highly of the movie either.

These aren't mutually exclusive. A movie IS a story. If he thought the story was silly, that's a reason why he didn't like the movie. Roeper was not giving his judgment of the movie as an adaptation, he was judging the movie on its own merits. It failed to him. The only thing wrong with him is the way he expresses himself.

 

[Mike St.Louis]

I don't really mind Roeper. IMO he is not a great critic and there is no way in hell he could ever replace the great, dearly departed and sorely missed Gene Siskel.

I have always been under the impression that Roeper was chosen by Ebert because Roeper is not his equal and therefore Ebert can retain control of the show.

I really wish that Siskel's replacement would have been a real film critic that had a solid film background.

Like I said, I don't mind Roeper, but he is simply not in the same league as Ebert.

 

[todd stone]

roeper is a whiny fool. LOTR was an excellent movie in many eyes.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

roeper is a whiny fool. LOTR was an excellent movie in many eyes.

Agreed on both counts, although they are completely UNRELATED!

Take care,

Chuck

P.S. Regardless of Roeper's critiques, I don't like his attitude or pretentiousness. He is welcome to his opinion, however.

 

[Anthony_D]

How bad is roeper? VERY BAD. I can't stand watching him...he's arrogant and obnoxious....what are his credentials in movie reviews anyway??? I thought i read that he had never reviewed movies before being chosen to replace the late great gene siskel

his comments about LOTR really pissed me off...Lotr is one of the best movies i've ever seen IMHO

 

[george kaplan]

what are his credentials in movie reviews anyway??? I thought i read that he had never reviewed movies before being chosen to replace the late great gene siskel

Far be it from me to come to Roeper's defense, but from the back cover of a book in 1999:

"Richard Roeper's daily column for the Chicago Sun-Times is distributed by the New York Times syndicate. Roeper has also written for TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, Playboy, and other publications."

Of course, that doesn't mean any of what he wrote was any good, but he certainly reviewed films before he got the Siskel gig.

 

[Jack Briggs]

My problem with Reoper is that he doesn't have a background in scholarly film criticism, whereas Ebert does. He is a film reviewer, not a critic. Anyone can be a film reviewer--just like those talking-head clowns on the local news.

However, I do not dislike Reoper. As a reviewer, he will do. Just remember that he is not a true critic. He can't be. Not qualified.

 

[Stephen R]

One major trait I see in bad critics is major inconsistency. Roeper is a prime example of this. He'll bash one movie for a certain reason, then praise another movie he liked more for other reasons despite the fact that both could be said to have the same "flaws".
His glowing review of Harry Potter and his negative review of Lord of the Rings is a good example. If the One Ring was just a "silly little ring" and he couldn't understand why it held so much power, what of the Philosopher's Stone? Shouldn't it just be a "silly little stone"?
His suspension of disbelief bends to fit the mold of his taste, which is NOT objective criticism. I still remember his review of The Mexican in which he cited some extremely lame reason for not liking the movie. It went something like this: "If you're gonna have two of Hollywoods major stars in one movie, what's the point of keeping them apart for most of the movie? It's just stupid."
Indeed. We should all judge movies by how long the major stars share screen time, not by what the story calls for. :rolleyes