CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Richard Roeper
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Richard Roeper

post #1 of 162
10/10/05 at 8:56pm
Thread Starter 
This fucker needs to go back to They Might Be Giants and quit reviewing movies. Gave a thumbs down to fucking Wallace and Grommit!
Reply
post #2 of 162
10/10/05 at 11:31pm
He doesn't always watch films he reviews, or at least doesn't do a very good job remembering them. When he gave a thumb down to Shaun of the Dead, he identified Diane as Shaun's girlfriend.
Reply
post #3 of 162
10/10/05 at 11:39pm
Ahhh yes. Richard Roeper. Gave thumbs down to The Fellowship of the Ring. ("Harry Potter is still a better movie!")

Oh, and his first anime review, Metropolis, was pure balls. Sure, newbies may be a tad disturbed when viewing anime for the first time, but that review was just plain ridiculous.

Ebert may have some problems, but he is almost sane when compared to Grop..uh, Roeper.
Reply
post #4 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:05am
He doesn't have the film knowledge of Ebert (who does?) but Roeper is usually entertaining and brings up a lot of good observations on his show. His book "10 Sure Signs a Movie Character is Doomed" is great bathroom reading and I'll take his insight on a movie over the majority of hacks you see quoted on rotten tomatoes any day.
Reply
post #5 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:08am
Hasn't made much of an impression on me either way. I wouldn't have minded if Ebert had kept going with the rotating guest hosts after Gene Siskel died. It would've been quite a blast to see Nick, Devin, Russ, Steve, Dave, or any other Chewer reviewers up there with Ebert.
Reply
post #6 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
I'll take his insight on a movie over the majority of hacks you see quoted on rotten tomatoes any day.
So how long until someone quotes this and links to Devin's Rotten Tomatoes page?
Reply
post #7 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:22am
Because if anybody is qualified to judge good taste in film, it's Moltisanti.
Reply
post #8 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:31am
Am I the only person who likes Moltisanti?
Reply
post #9 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:35am
^Yup.
Reply
post #10 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:48am
Figures.
Reply
post #11 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
Because if anybody is qualified to judge good taste in film, it's Moltisanti.
When was the last time this hump saw a film that didn't involve a spaceship?
Reply
post #12 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:50am
I think owning Roeper's book pretty much qualifies as being a tasteless dipshit.
Reply
post #13 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:51am
I would have bought your book but you haven't written one.
Reply
post #14 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:56am
I will agree with Roeper about one thing for sure; Bring It On is definitely superior filmmaking in comparision to all the aforementioned titles.
Reply
post #15 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:03am
You can name any critic and find some crap movie they liked over a film that most people enjoyed. Ebert liked Rowdy Herrington's GLADIATOR way more than Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR.
Reply
post #16 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:36am
Wait, Roeper's a critic?
Reply
post #17 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:45am
Well, the back of his book says "film critic Richard Roeper" but he'd probably prefer to be called a columnist. I guess there isn't much need for Roeper to call himself a critic when there are already such true talents as Alex Sandell of "Juicy Cerebellum" and Dustin Putnam of Themovieboy.com filling those huge shoes.
Reply
post #18 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:54am
If the back of the book says it, then it makes his perspective on Bring It On that more legitimate.

Man, unless he’s with Ebert the best show he can get booked on by himself to promote his crap is the Best Damn Sports Show Period. I’ve never like this guy the moment they him put on as a guest host. They should have offered it to Janet Maslin after Siskel died.
Reply
post #19 of 162
10/11/05 at 2:10am
TV is a whole different animal from print. I've seen Maslin on Charlie Rose a bunch of times and she's like a yawn pie with snore sauce. Rose tries to get her out of her shell but it's always a losing effort.
Reply
post #20 of 162
10/11/05 at 2:13am
I don't catch Ebert and Roeper often, but I did last night. Giving the downward thumb to a Wallace and Gromit movie? The man has no soul. Shame on him.

On the other hand, he gave Good Night and Good Luck a thumb up.
Reply
post #21 of 162
10/11/05 at 2:57am
I always thought he was hired to make Ebert look even smarter. I think he got tired of being more evenly matched with Siskel, so he paired himself with a lunkhead. "In the end, LORD OF THE RINGS is just about some stupid ring." Mwah! Vintage Roeper.
Reply
post #22 of 162
10/11/05 at 3:19am
I think it's interesting that Moltisanti seems to value a critic's sense of humor over his taste or his knowledge of film. Which is, frankly, stupid.
Reply
post #23 of 162
10/11/05 at 3:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
Which is, frankly, stupid.
Wow, he even threw in the "frankly." Now I know he means business.
Reply
post #24 of 162
10/11/05 at 4:09am
Personally, I think Ebert & Roeper make a good pair. Ebert tends to gush too much over fun, "popcorn" flicks, especially if there's a hot chick involved (thumbs up to Into The Blue and both Tomb Raiders), while Roeper tends to disqualify films of "silly" genres like Kung Fu out of hand. It creates good discussion, which is what the show has really always been about.

I think the main reason Internet fandom is so rabidly anti-Roeper is simply because he doesn't like their movies. Anybody who refers to a Lord of the Rings movie as anything less than a life-altering spiritual experience is automatically labelled the enemy. And by the way, I also think the first Harry Potter is a better movie than Fellowship of the Ring. Flame away, Merrill.
Reply
post #25 of 162
10/11/05 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayouradio
I always thought he was hired to make Ebert look even smarter. I think he got tired of being more evenly matched with Siskel, so he paired himself with a lunkhead.
I think it had more to do with Siskel being dead, and therefore not good television.
Reply
post #26 of 162
10/11/05 at 10:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
I think it had more to do with Siskel being dead, and therefore not good television.
Hey, I definitely would have tuned in religiously for Dead Siskel and Ebert.
Reply
post #27 of 162
10/11/05 at 10:58am
So, are you saying that zombie Siskel reviewing movies wouldn't be good television? Because, on that point, I must respectfully disagree.
Reply
post #28 of 162
10/11/05 at 11:06am
Roeper was a lousy columist before he got the job with Ebert, and he hasn't got any better as a "film critic." His reviews are relentlessly juvenile and uninformed, and I don't think that he and Ebert generate 10% of the interest that Siskel and Ebert did. Ebert would be better off to do his show alone. If it's too much for Ebert to carry the whole show, I'd rather that they just cut to dead air or a photo of Siskel whenever they need a reaction. Anything but Roeper.

It's a shame that they had to put a moron like Roeper on TV when there are so many more competent critics in Chicago. Michael Wilmington always brings his best game, and Jonathan Rosenbaum at the Reader is fantastic.
Reply
post #29 of 162
10/11/05 at 11:29am
Roeper is designed to be the semi-conservative, working class foil to Ebert's liberal faggot cinephile. This would be a good dichotomy if Roeper weren't such a boring hump with nothing of substance to offer the dialogue.
Reply
post #30 of 162
10/11/05 at 11:59am
He gave Alexander a thumbs up based on the cheesiness. A thumbs down to Sky Captain because the cinematography looked like a flashback...

I could go on.
Reply
post #31 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
Roeper is designed to be the semi-conservative, working class foil to Ebert's liberal faggot cinephile.
I so wish this was the blurb on the back of Roeper's book.
Reply
post #32 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:20pm
Thread Starter 
See, I could kinda understand hating on Fellowship. But Wererabbit...well, to be honest, I haven't seen it yet, so maybe I should leave that alone. But it's not just his opinions, it's that he has no knowledge of film, and his arguments never make sense. Like, he gave Oliver Twist thumbs down, based SOLELY on the idea that there have been enough Oliver Twist movies already. One scifi movie, maybe it was Ghosts of Mars?, Ebert was arguing that it reminded him of classic scifi films of the 50's and 60's, and Roeper was like, "Yeah, but those movies sucked." He just has no business reviewing films.

And, preemptively, I realize that it doesn't really matter, I just feel like bitching about him.
Reply
post #33 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:25pm
There's no hating WERE-RABBIT. It's not possible.
Reply
post #34 of 162
10/11/05 at 12:43pm
I think it's the possibility that Roeper may not be a geek that really gets people angry. "How dare he not cream himself over HELLBOY!"
Reply
post #35 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:01pm
No, that's not it, Molt.
To be a plain speaking representative of the mainstream would be fine. But he's just a bore who doesn't even seem to like movies at all.
Reply
post #36 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:03pm
Richard Roeper is no Gene Siskel. Shit, he ain't even Gene Shalit. (well maybe....)
Reply
post #37 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nid Hog
Roeper was a lousy columist before he got the job with Ebert, and he hasn't got any better as a "film critic."...

It's a shame that they had to put a moron like Roeper on TV when there are so many more competent critics in Chicago. Michael Wilmington always brings his best game, and Jonathan Rosenbaum at the Reader is fantastic.
I think they gave it to Roper over Wilmington because Roeper is a "pretty boy". Wilmington has a great knowledge of film and writes great reviews, but if you've ever seen him review a film on CLTV(Chicago's local cable all news network), he's not exactly camera friendly and can actually come off as more elitist film snob that Ebert, even though he's not. Now, I don't think that should matter, but when one half of the most popular film reviewing duo ever dies, the suits probably went with the lowest common denominator and hired Roper, who wasn't even a critic before they picked him. At least is wasn't Knowles.
Reply
post #38 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:17pm
Ebert and Roeper work for the same newspaper; there's your reason why he got the job.
Reply
post #39 of 162
10/11/05 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
No, that's not it, Molt.
To be a plain speaking representative of the mainstream would be fine. But he's just a bore who doesn't even seem to like movies at all.
I think his appreciation of film comes through on the program. He just doesn't dig a lot of the movies that college students hang posters of in their dorm rooms.

I also like how he calls Ebert out from time to time on his tendency to give "hot chick" movies a free pass.
Reply
post #40 of 162
10/11/05 at 3:42pm
Every time I watch, it just reminds of how much I miss Siskel, the sensible one. Seriously, Ebert's been clearly insane for at least fifteen years now. For the love of god, he liked Van Helsing.

And Siskel gave three stars to Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man. I remember his capsule review stating "I think I'm the only critic who liked this picture." He wasn't afraid to say if he liked a picture, not just state the standard industry line about whether it was good or not.
Reply
post #41 of 162
10/11/05 at 3:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balmudo
And Siskel gave three stars to Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man. I remember his capsule review stating "I think I'm the only critic who liked this picture." He wasn't afraid to say if he liked a picture, not just state the standard industry line about whether it was good or not.
I rememeber that about Siskel. May he always rest in everlasting peace because of that review.
Reply
post #42 of 162
10/11/05 at 3:58pm
As long as Rex Reed lives, Roeper is fine.
Reply
post #43 of 162
10/11/05 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
Roeper is designed to be the semi-conservative, working class foil to Ebert's liberal faggot cinephile.
Funny, I always thought Roeper to be a closet homosexual. He seems too preoccupied with mentioning how "hot & sexy" every young actress that's in a current movie like he's hiding something. Is mom watching the show Richard? You're early 40's & unmarried, what's up?
Reply
post #44 of 162
10/11/05 at 6:20pm
I'm pretty sure he's straight. He liked 3000 MILES TO GRACELAND and I don't know if any gay film critic would give that film a good review. I did read this quote from an article he did for "Esquire," you can read into it what you will.


Quote:
I’m 44 years old, comfortable in my heterosexuality, and perfectly content with my bachelor lifestyle. Like nearly every man my age on the planet, I’ve been known to date younger women, but I’d feel like an utter fool dating an 18- or 19-year-old. Yet because of my profession, I often find myself in a dark room with a lot of other men.. in my age group watching all these movies starring all these women of high school and college age, and rare is the story that does not position them as objects of desire.
Reply
post #45 of 162
10/11/05 at 6:39pm
Okay. Then he's just a well-dressed, lecherous middle-aged hetrosexual man with a wide vocabulary, and no taste in film. My mistake.
Reply
post #46 of 162
10/11/05 at 7:08pm
They should have given the second chair to Wesley Morris. But Ebert was definitely afraid of him...
Reply
post #47 of 162
10/11/05 at 7:14pm
I was stunned he didn't pick Knowles, who I felt he only had on to say to America "See folks, I'm not disgusting at all compared to this mess."
Reply
post #48 of 162
10/11/05 at 7:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
I think his appreciation of film comes through on the program. He just doesn't dig a lot of the movies that college students hang posters of in their dorm rooms.
Yeah, what a rebel. Besides, it's not like college students have any taste in film with their Fight Club and Pulp Fiction and Animal House posters hanging on the walls. What a bunch of dumbasses.

And after seeing Wallace & Gromit, it's clear that the guy has no appreciation for cinema. You can't be a fan of movies and dislike Wallace & Gromit. And I don't say that because Wallace & Gromit is great (although it is), but because it shows so much love to classic horror cinema.
Reply
post #49 of 162
10/11/05 at 7:44pm
I don't see how his taste can be called into question for not liking a handful of films that are very popular with the geek crowd. Is there a list of films that nobody should ever have a negative opinion of? Films like WALLACE AND GROMIT, HELLBOY, and some of the other ones he has caught heat for may be fine films, but they're hardly the groundbreaking moments of cinema.
Reply
post #50 of 162
10/11/05 at 7:51pm
WALLACE AND GROMIT isn't a geek film. And a film doesn't have to be "groundbreaking" to warrant appreciation.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Richard Roeper