Does Richard Roeper Wear A Hair Piece?
#2
Uber Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Overlooking Pearl Harbor
Posts: 16,232
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: Does Richard Roeper Wear A Hair Piece?
Originally posted by Rip
MY FIANCE, WHO IS A HAIRDRESSER, THINKS SO. WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
MY FIANCE, WHO IS A HAIRDRESSER, THINKS SO. WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
#3
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Re: Does Richard Roeper Wear A Hair Piece?
Originally posted by Blade
No opinion, just a friendly reminder that on the Internet, typing in all caps makes it look like you're shouting.
No opinion, just a friendly reminder that on the Internet, typing in all caps makes it look like you're shouting.
My virtual ears were hurting.
On topic, I have no idea, but I'm beginning to think Roeper doesn't know what he's talking about. I find myself agreeing with him less and less with each show, especially the one where he proclaimed Vanilla Sky the best film of the year. Oh well. Hair piece or not, it's still better than that horrifyingly bad show with Leonard Maltin, HOT Ticket.
das
#4
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His hair is a brown with bits of gray color, but lately he's had a bad dye job which gives him this dark paint brown pasty look.
I lost value in his opinon when he said PLANET OF THE APES (2001) is better than the original.
I lost value in his opinon when he said PLANET OF THE APES (2001) is better than the original.
#5
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by wm lopez
I lost value in his opinon when he said PLANET OF THE APES (2001) is better than the original.
I lost value in his opinon when he said PLANET OF THE APES (2001) is better than the original.
das
#8
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe he wanted to keep the Chicago connection. Now why not pick someone from the Chicago Tribune like Gene Siskel was from? Maybe there are things that were not made public but Gene Siskel in the 90's was not the main movie guy anymore at the Chicago Tribune. And maybe Ebert knowning why because Gene would have told him, didn't want to give the Tribune any more pub by having a Triune cohost. Remember the Tribune owns the Cubs and they wanted to trade Sammy Sosa, lucky Sammy gave in to a contract that paid him less than he would have gotten elsewhere.
#9
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Does Richard Roeper Wear A Hair Piece?
Originally posted by das Monkey
Oh well. Hair piece or not, it's still better than that horrifyingly bad show with Leonard Maltin, HOT Ticket.
Oh well. Hair piece or not, it's still better than that horrifyingly bad show with Leonard Maltin, HOT Ticket.
#10
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by wm lopez
I believe he wanted to keep the Chicago connection. Now why not pick someone from the Chicago Tribune like Gene Siskel was from? Maybe there are things that were not made public but Gene Siskel in the 90's was not the main movie guy anymore at the Chicago Tribune. And maybe Ebert knowning why because Gene would have told him, didn't want to give the Tribune any more pub by having a Triune cohost. Remember the Tribune owns the Cubs and they wanted to trade Sammy Sosa, lucky Sammy gave in to a contract that paid him less than he would have gotten elsewhere.
I believe he wanted to keep the Chicago connection. Now why not pick someone from the Chicago Tribune like Gene Siskel was from? Maybe there are things that were not made public but Gene Siskel in the 90's was not the main movie guy anymore at the Chicago Tribune. And maybe Ebert knowning why because Gene would have told him, didn't want to give the Tribune any more pub by having a Triune cohost. Remember the Tribune owns the Cubs and they wanted to trade Sammy Sosa, lucky Sammy gave in to a contract that paid him less than he would have gotten elsewhere.
Easy answer, Mike Willmington sucks ass and lacks any charisma. Have you seen his horrid reviews on CLTV, comes off like a bad community college professor.
#11
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that's what I ment. Why did the Chicago Tribune give M. Willington. full page on movie reviews and Siskel was reduced to a little collum. Tribune's been know to not keep good employees happy. Now the question who sux more M.W. or Roeper?
#12
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by wm lopez
And that's what I ment. Why did the Chicago Tribune give M. Willington. full page on movie reviews and Siskel was reduced to a little collum. Tribune's been know to not keep good employees happy. Now the question who sux more M.W. or Roeper?
And that's what I ment. Why did the Chicago Tribune give M. Willington. full page on movie reviews and Siskel was reduced to a little collum. Tribune's been know to not keep good employees happy. Now the question who sux more M.W. or Roeper?
I have seen almost none of his reviews since he left town but I find it hard to believe he's gotten so bad. Now, as clemente says, he may be no good on TV (I've never seen him) but he was a good writer when he was here.
Edited to add:
BTW, my understanding of why Siskel was "demoted" at the Tribune was that they were upset when S & E moved their show from the Tribune's syndication company to Disney's.
Last edited by movielib; 03-07-02 at 11:16 AM.