From ebert and roeper? anyone else think he comes off as a sort of, dick?

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.

I thought so at first, but it doesn't bother me anymore. I've been watching this show for years and still enjoy it every week.

I listen to the podcast all the time, and have no issues with either of them.

He's okay, but I prefer this one -->

same here.

He grew on me after a while. Especially after Ebert went insane and started consistently giving thumbs up to some really crappy movies.

Siskel was never the "lead." They were equals. Siskel got his name first from a coin flip.

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).

Did Roeper give thumbs up to Speed 2? If not, then he is better than Siskel or Ebert.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Roeper's okay as a film critic. His opinions are different enough from Ebert that it provides for some interesting banter.

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 suspect anybody who reviews as many films as he does would make similar mistakes. Hell, I hear people misquoting films they've seen hundreds of times. Its no big deal.

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.

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.

All I can say is I disagree. I don't think Siskel was any more "alpha" than Ebert. Perhaps it seemed that way because he looked leaner and meaner. Ebert was never a shrinking violet to Siskel.

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.

For the curious... Roeper's column
http://www.suntimes.com/index/roeper.html

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.

It was not the case that Gene Siskel (RIP) was the Top Dog.

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.

From what i've seen whenever I catch their show and on Leno....he likes himself quite a bit.