But sometimes that's going to be the only way that you relate to a movie.

After I saw Cold Mountain --and didn't like it, the biggest reason why was that Jude Law left Natalie Portman.

I really couldn't get over, or get my head around, the idea that he spurned Natalie Portman. (She's Natalie Portman, for chrissakes!!)

I think that you are talking about Closer, not Cold Mountain.

Speaking of Roeper being straight, did anyone else read his article in one of the men's magazines about the joys of being single? I think that this dude goes out of his way to make sure no one thinks he is gay. He is a thin white male in his 40's - just like Jerry said on Seinfeld.

Don't know if he is gay or not, but he has one hot gf...brought her to the Howard Stern Film Festival.

No, I'm not.

Yes.

Ding, ding, ding! I actually read an ebert review several years ago where he included a comment on a scene that was in the trailer but not the movie. It has been obvious to me for a while that he does not actually watch some/most of the movies he reviews and instead reviews based on the trailers/press.

What a completely ridiculous comment. And to say it's "obvious" to you is actually pathetic.

Of course Ebert sees all the movies he reviews.
He's the highest profile film critic in the world.
If he got caught doing what you accuse him of, his reputation would be ruined.

In the situation you describe, he reviewed the cut of the film that he saw at an early screening (or at a film festival) which was further edited before general release.
And before you say that he should have disclosed that in his review, there's no way for him to know that the cut he was shown isn't the same cut being released unless the producers inform him of that.

Ebert is about to undergo cancer surgery again, but he says he's going to keep reviewing.
If he were hospitalized for a significant period of time (like Siskel was) he would be reviewing screeners that the studios sent him.
If the cut of the movie on the screener differs from the cut released, there's no way he's going to know that, and we've all heard stories about films still being edited at the last possible minute before the general release prints are prepared.

I don't dislike Roeper - he comes off as a guy who knows he's smarter than you, and in most cases probably is. He doesn't seem very seasoned as a person (too much book learnin', perhaps?), so his reviews tend to come off as kind of shallow. I actually don't see what it was that made Ebert go "this is the guy", but like others have said, he's kinda grown on me. Has anyone ever caught any of his appearances on NPR's "wait,wait, dont tell me" quiz show? He's actually quite funny, and very witty - in a smarmy, smart guy sort of way.

Which is what I was trying to convey (rather poorly). That Siskel was much more agressive than Ebert. Ebert has that pompous indignitation. Siskel would rip him apart. These guys were at each others throats. It is no where near the same show now. That was their gimmick too. Parodies sprung up and commentaries about the two movie reviewers that fought all the time. It was a pattern and part of their persona as a team.

I do remember the the Carson shows with them on and Siskel was the aggressor there as well. He clearly had the quicker wit and was much more confident about being on TV. Ebert endup looking quite often the stuttering fool. While I couldn't help thinking what a prick, Siskel was.

I watched these guys faithfully for years and stopped watching when Siskel Passed and Roeper was brought on. The chemistry was not there. I have picked it back up in the last couple years and Roeper has a much more assertive tone than before, but you still get the idea he is playing off of a master.

So whether or not Siskel had top billing wasn't my point, but that Siskel was much more aggressive on the show. That was my personal opinion from being a dedicated viewer.

Richard Roeper had a column published in Maxim magazine about why it's so great being single, and it was such a kick ass article, I got a new respect for the man.

Here is an article about him I found online. It's pretty scathing, about how he isn't qualified for the job. Also an interesting commentary on why the new mix doesn't work as well as the old one.
http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=679

And I am surprised nobody posted this link yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRta0...&search=Siskel

See why Siskel and Ebert worked so well on TV.

It's like watching children:

"Yo' momma's so fat, she's really fat."
"Yeah, well you're a doodie-head!"

das

Even though both are vocal liberals, at least Roeper questioned the lack of debate in Al Gore's documentary. Ebert's reviews seem easily swayed by his politics... and he also seems easily swayed by his dick when it comes to Jennifer Lopez, Angelina Jolie and Neve Campbell.

Since he wasn't a critic back then, who knows if he liked it or not. He did, however, give thumbs up to Coyote Ugly.

Yes, I observed that too. Ebert sounded like an idiot who'd swallow anything put out by the environmentalists. Roeper, as well as questioning the one-sidedness also questioned whether Gore's "facts" were all so... factual.

At one time I prefered Ebert to most other critics. I found I was more likely to enjoy a film he recommended and not like one he gave a thumbs down to.

However, more recently I've found Ebert giving good reviews to too many not so good films. I'm all for a critic to have his reasons for liking or not liking a film, but if his personal preferences begin to differ too much from mine I stop listening to them.

As of late, Roeper's opinions of movies seem to reflect my own more often so I tend to listen more to him. As was the case with Curious George as was mentioned above, I appreciate the fact the Ebert gave it a thumbs up for children but I agreed with Roeper that it wasn't for me.

I haven't read any of Roeper's reviews but Ebert's have become several paragraphs of film summary and a one sentence review at the end...quite useless to me.

Neither do I. They are critics. Of course they are not going to be popular with everyone because they sometimes disagree with viewers opinions.

I've noticed this many times in the past too. While Ebert is one of my favorite professional film critics, he's not a very intelligent man (see any of his science fiction reviews), and he's very easily swayed by propaganda and J-Lo's booty. Until recently, he was also an ignorant anti-television elitist. I remember seeing him talking about how television was now starting to create some great stuff. No, you're just now getting your head out of your ass to realize it.

I do like that Roeper's a little more thoughtful when it comes to films that base their premise around some intellectual concept. I don't think he's as good at articulating his views as Ebert, but he's often more thoughtful about them. Until Roeper explained it to him, I honestly don't think Ebert understood the difference between someone thinking global warming wasn't happening and something disputing the claim that it's catastrophic and man-made. He really does come across as a man who spends 95% of his time in a screening room or in front of a typewriter and therefore missing out on a lot of the world around him.

das

Well, I didn't give thumbs up to Coyote Ugly...something else though ..

I liked Roeper from his column in the Chicago Sun-Times way before he
joined Ebert. I can see how some people may be put off by him but I
have no problems with him.

I still miss Siskel. The Ebert/Roeper teaming has never had quite the same appeal or chemistry. Ebert is the critic that most closely agrees with my tastes which is why I like him the most. That's kind of what I look for in a movie critic. Movie criticism is kind of subjective, so if I never agree with the critic then they can't really recommend movies to me, plain and simple.

I don't hate Roeper, but I don't love him either. I mostly like is differing viewpoint, but there is something lacking about him.

(He's certainly got a hot girlfriend.)

Roeper's straight?

He wrote an article in Maxim about the advantages of staying single and getting different women, so I'd say so.

I found that article to be so petty that it was impossible to take it seriously.

I like the mix of the two and I find my tastes and opinions (in movies) tend to be more in line with Roeper. Of course there are times when I side with Ebert and times when I think they are both way off base. I think that is a good thing.

The one thing I like about both of them is that they state their reasons for liking or not liking a movie in a way that tends to convey a decent amount of info (this is more true of Ebert's writing). I generally can get a pretty good read from their discussion about whether or not I will want to see a movie. This read does not always follow the "thumbs." Critics can inform my choices, but they do not decide for me. This is one of the reasons that I love Ebert. I can read his reviews or listen to him bash a movie, but I can pretty easily tell that what bothered him will not bother me. I can also tell when he likes a movie (this is generally a three-star movie that he praises for being what it was trying to be) I will probably not like. I think that says a lot about his skill as a critic. I also love to read his reviews and hear Roeper's reviews of movies they hated. Ebert is very clever and Roeper is so blunt it hurts.