Does anybody like roeper?
06-05-06, 05:58 AM
#2
They both do. Roeper no more or less than Ebert.
Do you remember Siskel? He was the lead of the show like Ebert is now. Siskel was a total prick. He used to make fun of Ebert all the time.
Do you remember Siskel? He was the lead of the show like Ebert is now. Siskel was a total prick. He used to make fun of Ebert all the time.
06-05-06, 07:34 AM
#8
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Ayre
They both do. Roeper no more or less than Ebert.
Do you remember Siskel? He was the lead of the show like Ebert is now. Siskel was a total prick. He used to make fun of Ebert all the time.
Do you remember Siskel? He was the lead of the show like Ebert is now. Siskel was a total prick. He used to make fun of Ebert all the time.
Justified or not I do think Ebert always considered himself the top dog because he started reviewing a year before Siskel and had won a Pulitzer Prize (the only movie critic ever to win one).
06-05-06, 07:53 AM
#10
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I prefer Ebert over Roeper, only because he seems to judge movies based on "what they meant to accomplish" vs "how it made me feel."
For instance, Ebert gave a thumbs-up to Curious George because he realized the creators wanted to create a colorful movie for young children. They weren't trying to compete with Over the Hedge (for instance) which is clearly geared to a slightly older crowd, plus adults. Roeper couldn't get over the fact that CG had no laughs for him.
For instance, Ebert gave a thumbs-up to Curious George because he realized the creators wanted to create a colorful movie for young children. They weren't trying to compete with Over the Hedge (for instance) which is clearly geared to a slightly older crowd, plus adults. Roeper couldn't get over the fact that CG had no laughs for him.
06-05-06, 07:58 AM
#11
Originally Posted by movielib
Siskel was never the "lead." They were equals. Siskel got his name first from a coin flip.
06-05-06, 08:01 AM
#12
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God I hate Roeper. He is nowhere in the same league as Siskel or Ebert. While Siskel always was my favorite, Ebert is the better writer. Despite his flaws, Ebert's written reviews are for the most part exceptionally well written and enjoyable to read. Plus he's a fellow Illini alumni and hosts a great film festival each year in Champaign. 
06-05-06, 08:03 AM
#13
DVD Talk Legend
I think its hard just because even though its been a while, I still see it as Siskel and Ebert. Its still hard getting used to the "new guy", but they are still the only 2 critics I ever listen to or really care about.
06-05-06, 08:28 AM
#14
DVD Talk Hero
I like Roeper, because he goes well with Ebert. Each of them has a different approach to watching and reviewing films, so if you pay attention to both of their analyses, you're likely to have a good idea whether you will like the film or not, which is the whole point of reviewing. I still miss Siskel, though. Roeper plays like a second fiddle on this show, but Siskel was always an equal and would never get caught kissing Ebert's ass.
das
das
06-05-06, 08:34 AM
#16
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sesame Street (the apt. next to Bob's)
Posts: 20,195
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
I don't Ebert's written reviews are all that well done. Many of his reviews contain one or more errors; whether it be attributing dialogue to the wrong character, or calling the action incorrectly, etc. Nothing earth-shattering, but still glaring errors that would never be made by someone who actually watched and paid attention to the movie.
I have no opinion on Roeper. Sometimes I agree with his review, sometimes I do not.
I have no opinion on Roeper. Sometimes I agree with his review, sometimes I do not.
06-05-06, 08:54 AM
#17
Moderator
Originally Posted by Charlie Goose
Nothing earth-shattering, but still glaring errors that would never be made by someone who actually watched and paid attention to the movie.
06-05-06, 09:05 AM
#18
DVD Talk Legend
Roeper is infuriating to me at times. I still can't get over how he dismissed the excellent "House of Mirth" as a 'hat movie'. Sometimes he would not know a good film if it smacked him in the ass.
And I hate the way he always seems to assert his sexuality in reviews. It sounds like he is over-compensating or insecure but it comes off as really awkward when he suddenly makes some comment about Phoebe Cates in Fast Times or not understanding why Mark Wahlberg would leave Diane Lane ashore in A Perfect Storm. Ok, Roeper we get it-- you're straight.
Ebert is so intelligent and so knowledgeable in film, but Roeper just seems like the kid off the street who started going to movies yesterday.
And I hate the way he always seems to assert his sexuality in reviews. It sounds like he is over-compensating or insecure but it comes off as really awkward when he suddenly makes some comment about Phoebe Cates in Fast Times or not understanding why Mark Wahlberg would leave Diane Lane ashore in A Perfect Storm. Ok, Roeper we get it-- you're straight.
Ebert is so intelligent and so knowledgeable in film, but Roeper just seems like the kid off the street who started going to movies yesterday.
06-05-06, 09:06 AM
#19
DVD Talk Legend
I actually like Roeper now that he isn't as much of a yes-man to Ebert anymore. Sure he doesn't get as ferocious as Siskel did at times, but he'll definitely call out Ebert on some questionable comments. He's more of a traditional critic than Ebert (sometimes read as being a snob), but that was Siskel's role in the equation as well.
06-05-06, 10:52 AM
#20
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Ayre
Siskel wasn't a credited lead, but he was clearly the "Alpha". Just like Ebert is now. The old show was much more aggressive, a lot of mean spirited banter. Most of which was aimed at Ebert by Siskel. The current show is much more tame and respectful in comparison.
06-05-06, 11:13 AM
#21
DVD Talk Legend
It may be important to keep in mind that Ebert's full time job is to be a movie critic (writing the newspaper reviews). Suiskel had the same role.
Roeper's full time job is a general coumnist... which 90% of the time has nothing to do with movies.
OF COURSE, Ebert's going to be better.
Roeper's full time job is a general coumnist... which 90% of the time has nothing to do with movies.
OF COURSE, Ebert's going to be better.
06-05-06, 12:12 PM
#23
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
In terms of film criticism, Ebert & Roeper offer nothing of interest to me. I haven't watched their television show in many a year. I read Ebert once in a blue moon, but only after seeing a particular film, not before.
Sometimes I'll curiously glance at a Roeper column. I don't know why. Nearly none of it has any substance I find interesting.
Sometimes I'll curiously glance at a Roeper column. I don't know why. Nearly none of it has any substance I find interesting.
06-05-06, 01:37 PM
#24
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Ayre
Siskel wasn't a credited lead, but he was clearly the "Alpha". Just like Ebert is now. The old show was much more aggressive, a lot of mean spirited banter. Most of which was aimed at Ebert by Siskel. The current show is much more tame and respectful in comparison.
It was the that Siskel and Ebert were equals --even if Ebert didn't think so, and Gene Siskel behaved that way.
Ebert has always been full of himself, and Siskel didn't hesitate to try and bring him down a few pegs.
The reason most of the jabs were aimed at Ebert from Siskel, is because Gene Siskel was quick-witted. If you ever saw them on a talk show together, it was Gene that came up with the clever comments on the spot. Ebert has always been more about repeating his previously formulated thoughts.
06-05-06, 01:42 PM
#25
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: Does anybody like roeper?
From what i've seen whenever I catch their show and on Leno....he likes himself quite a bit.