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

Richard Roeper - Page 2

post #51 of 162
10/11/05 at 8:00pm
You're right, they don't. But most of the films people bitch him out over are held in really high regard within the "Internet community" who like to protect certain films for whatever reason.
Reply
post #52 of 162
10/11/05 at 8:12pm
Okay. So now he's unpopular with college students AND the internet community. So he's just really well-liked by people who don't know anything about movies and want to hear the opinions of a guy who has the personality of a day-old lunchables.
Reply
post #53 of 162
10/11/05 at 8:21pm
What exactly does "the internet communtiy" entail? That's pretty hard to pindown. Isn't that pretty much everybody nowadays, regardless of tastes & personal status?

I will add that pretty much everybody I know in the physical realm, who don't frequent the message boards, but have a general interest in cinema can't stand Roeper either.
Reply
post #54 of 162
10/11/05 at 8:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. pop
What exactly does "the internet communtiy" entail? That's pretty hard to pindown. Isn't that pretty much everybody nowadays, regardless of tastes & personal status?

I will add that pretty much everybody I know in the physical realm, who don't frequent the message boards, but have a general interest in cinema can't stand Roeper either.
By "Internet Community" in relation to film I mean people who regularly post their feelings on movies.

I'll admit that the topic of Richard Roeper hasn't come up much in the physical realm that I inhabit.
Reply
post #55 of 162
10/11/05 at 9:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
I'll admit that the topic of Richard Roeper hasn't come up much in the physical realm that I inhabit.
Other than "Why do you have this douchebag's book in your bathroom?"
Reply
post #56 of 162
10/11/05 at 10:23pm
People are usually more curious about the cameras in my restroom.
Reply
post #57 of 162
10/12/05 at 12:14pm
*off-topic*

I must be the only student with any film knowledge on campus right now.

But seriously, there ARE some students out there with tastes beyond Fight Club, etc.
Reply
post #58 of 162
10/12/05 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by detonathor
I must be the only student with any film knowledge on campus right now.
I guarantee you that every student on campus thinks the same. It's tough being unique.
Reply
post #59 of 162
10/12/05 at 12:29pm
I am a special butterfly!
Reply
post #60 of 162
10/12/05 at 4:27pm
Is it really that hard to believe that not everyone is entertained by British Claymation? Sounds really boring to me too, so let Roeper have his opinion.
Reply
post #61 of 162
10/12/05 at 4:32pm
I hope his tireless defense of one of the worst movie critics out there will finally expose Moltisanti to the deluded few who like him.
Reply
post #62 of 162
10/12/05 at 4:39pm
Considering this isn't the most asinine thing he's lobbied for, I'd guess probably not.
Reply
post #63 of 162
10/12/05 at 5:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
I hope his tireless defense of one of the worst movie critics out there will finally expose Moltisanti to the deluded few who like him.
The blinders have been stripped from my eyes and The Beast stands revealed! Stone him and drive him from the village!
Reply
post #64 of 162
10/12/05 at 5:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
I hope his tireless defense of one of the worst movie critics out there will finally expose Moltisanti to the deluded few who like him.
I don't recall ever defending you.
Reply
post #65 of 162
10/12/05 at 5:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Kinski
Is it really that hard to believe that not everyone is entertained by British Claymation? Sounds really boring to me too, so let Roeper have his opinion.
Does CHUD still have the "ignore list" feature?
Reply
post #66 of 162
10/12/05 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
I guarantee you that every student on campus thinks the same. It's tough being unique.
No kidding, Saw is being promoted by the students as an "event" for Halloween.
Reply
post #67 of 162
10/12/05 at 5:56pm
Oh I am loling so hard at the above post.
Reply
post #68 of 162
10/12/05 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by detonathor
No kidding, Saw is being promoted by the students as an "event" for Halloween.
That's sad. College kids today need to aquire some taste then. Back in my days we had quality stuff like Tank Girl to swoon over.
Reply
post #69 of 162
10/12/05 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man
Does CHUD still have the "ignore list" feature?
mmm, lemme guess... You love Oldboy and you can't wait for King Kong.

Everybody on the internet seems to gravitate to the same shit. Just because I lean towards Fulci and Herzog and am not interested in Wallace and Gromit doesn't mean my posts should be discredited. I'm sure it's a good movie (as far as British Claymation goes) and it doesn't make me movie illiterate to say it looks boring to me.

You're breaking my heart, annie.
Reply
post #70 of 162
10/12/05 at 6:41pm
Seriously, I am loling all over these boards today.
Reply
post #71 of 162
10/12/05 at 9:13pm
So, is a member of They Might Be Giants Roger Eberts reviewing partner?
And he hated Wallace and Grommit?
America sucks!
Reply
post #72 of 162
10/13/05 at 1:32am
Yeah, Roeper seems to stand up for the lowest common denominator. Pretty dull stuff.

I'd rather see someone like Ted Koppel or Jon Stewart on there. So they're not film geeks (at least as far as I know), but it sure would be entertaining.
Reply
post #73 of 162
10/13/05 at 1:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
I guarantee you that every student on campus thinks the same. It's tough being unique.
Tell me about it! I may have to take up smoking.
Reply
post #74 of 162
10/13/05 at 1:55am
Not to throw this excellent discussion too far off the tracks... Maybe I was in a bad mood when I saw it, and I have to admit the enthusiasm for the film is damn contagious around here to the point I'm doubting my own judgment, but I was bored through Wallace and Grommit. The film was a clump of sight gags with the cohesion of, well, dry play-doh.

Damning a critic for one bad review (or one review you disagree with) is poor sportsmanship. He isn't Jeffrey Wells.
Reply
post #75 of 162
10/13/05 at 3:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sphinx
Not to throw this excellent discussion too far off the tracks... Maybe I was in a bad mood when I saw it, and I have to admit the enthusiasm for the film is damn contagious around here to the point I'm doubting my own judgment, but I was bored through Wallace and Grommit. The film was a clump of sight gags with the cohesion of, well, dry play-doh.

Damning a critic for one bad review (or one review you disagree with) is poor sportsmanship. He isn't Jeffrey Wells.
I think it's more a case that Roeper is usually a worthless idiot and his disparaging of Wallace and Grommit was just the latest annoying and mostly uninformed opinion of his. I peronsally don't mind him all that much, but do think the show could be much better without him, assuming they got anyone out of a large number of critics who are much more interesting than him. Michael Wilmington seems like we would have been a good choice, as he's much closer to Siskel than he is to Roeper and he's a Chicago critic.
Reply
post #76 of 162
10/13/05 at 4:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sphinx
Not to throw this excellent discussion too far off the tracks... Maybe I was in a bad mood when I saw it, and I have to admit the enthusiasm for the film is damn contagious around here to the point I'm doubting my own judgment, but I was bored through Wallace and Grommit. The film was a clump of sight gags with the cohesion of, well, dry play-doh.
Yes, but would you give it a thumbs down?

I've always hated the whole black and white thumbs up/down rating system, I think there should be angles of thumbtiltery...
Sure, their discussion makes up for it usually, but still.

And yes, I too hate Roeper.
Reply
post #77 of 162
10/13/05 at 12:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sphinx
Damning a critic for one bad review (or one review you disagree with) is poor sportsmanship. He isn't Jeffrey Wells.
It's not about one opinion, and it's not even about his cumulative opinions on specific movies. Not liking W&G was just the straw that broke the wererabbit's back for me. Like I said, I haven't seen it, but assuming it's at least half as good as The Wrong Trousers, I just don't see where there's any grey area. You can't call it too artsy, or too mainstream, and certainly you can't say it's poorly made. I can see how someone would dislike alot of the movies I like, but, from what I've seen, Wallace and Grommit are just great cinema (and I'll be happy to retract that if I see it and it doesn't live up for me).

But again, it's not about his up-or-down thumbs on films. It's about the way he talks about movies. He does not know his shit, he does not have any real appreciation for the art form, and he does not talk about films as works of art. I could come up with several examples, but I think the Oliver Twist thing sums it up perfectly. The idea that a filmmaker, even one of the calibur of Polanski, could have nothing to bring to a story if that story has already been adapted, shows a complete lack of understanding of the art of film.

He isn't a film critic. His experience was writing some kind of fluff column for the Sun Times. There's no reason at all for him to be given what is essentially the most prominent forum for film criticism in the country.
Reply
post #78 of 162
10/13/05 at 12:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-6
I've always hated the whole black and white thumbs up/down rating system, I think there should be angles of thumbtiltery...
Sure, their discussion makes up for it usually, but still.
Ebert hates it too, and says so every chance he gets. In fact, he even hates the 1-5 stars he has to assign in his print reviews.
Reply
post #79 of 162
10/13/05 at 4:05pm
Sorry, I have to add one more thing:

Roeper thought that "The Real Cancun" was a good documentary. Documentary? It's a fucking reality movie.
Reply
post #80 of 162
10/13/05 at 4:38pm
I particularly hate the way he overuses the word "brilliant" while we're at it.
Reply
post #81 of 162
10/13/05 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man
He isn't a film critic. His experience was writing some kind of fluff column for the Sun Times. There's no reason at all for him to be given what is essentially the most prominent forum for film criticism in the country.
He doesn't write a gossip column, so I don't think you can classify his column as fluff. He writes about the routine stuff going on in the world, centering often on things going on in Chicago. I don't find that type of writing to be on a lower level than only writing about what's going on in the world of film. He reviews movies on a half hour TV program and if he'd have given maybe 5 particular films a positive review he wouldn't get half the crap that he does.
Reply
post #82 of 162
10/13/05 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
He doesn't write a gossip column, so I don't think you can classify his column as fluff. He writes about the routine stuff going on in the world, centering often on things going on in Chicago. I don't find that type of writing to be on a lower level than only writing about what's going on in the world of film. He reviews movies on a half hour TV program and if he'd have given maybe 5 particular films a positive review he wouldn't get half the crap that he does.
He gets crap because most folks, myself included, feel that he isn't very bright and shows little insight into the films he's reviewing. He's also annoying.
Reply
post #83 of 162
10/13/05 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Corkum
He gets crap because most folks, myself included, feel that he isn't very bright and shows little insight into the films he's reviewing. He's also annoying.
If you find the guy annoying then that's a valid claim because different public figures are gonna do that to various people. 10 years ago I might have agreed that he's not the most qualified person for his job on the show but with what has happened to film criticism since then he's become more than capable.
Reply
post #84 of 162
10/13/05 at 5:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Corkum
He gets crap because most folks, myself included, feel that he isn't very bright and shows little insight into the films he's reviewing.
At the risk of annoying, shouldn't the crap be given to the people that hired him then?
Reply
post #85 of 162
10/13/05 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Foster
At the risk of annoying, shouldn't the crap be given to the people that hired him then?
Well, we give him crap in the hope against hope that he will eventually gain good taste, although the folks who hired him deserve some of it too, but are much less easily identifiable.

Moltisanti: Just because there is a lot of bad criticism now doesn't mean that folks shouldn't make protests against it. I don't really hate Roeper, although I certainly don't like him, but there are certainly better and more entertaining critics for the job.
Reply
post #86 of 162
10/13/05 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Corkum
Moltisanti: Just because there is a lot of bad criticism now doesn't mean that folks shouldn't make protests against it. I don't really hate Roeper, although I certainly don't like him, but there are certainly better and more entertaining critics for the job.
There probably are better people for the job but I don't think he's anywhere close to the bottom rung of film critics. There was a show on AMC not too long ago with a bunch of young "slacker" critics who wrote for various publications or websites and thank God that show is gone. I believe if anyone had seen at least 2 episodes of that program they'd realize that Roeper knows his stuff more than people give him credit for.
Reply
post #87 of 162
10/13/05 at 6:15pm
Here's an example:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/roepe...ws-roep12.html

Thoughts?
Reply
post #88 of 162
10/13/05 at 6:33pm
Seems like the typical "regular guy talks about everyday stuff" column you'll find in almost every big city newspaper.
Reply
post #89 of 162
10/13/05 at 6:43pm
Quote:
If we're talking about the most frightening experience I've ever had at the movies, I might have to go with "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo."
WHAT A TIMELY AND BITING REFERENCE
Reply
post #90 of 162
10/13/05 at 6:46pm
Moltisanti: A guy who obviously doesn't read newspapers.
Reply
post #91 of 162
10/13/05 at 6:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
Moltisanti: A guy who obviously doesn't read newspapers.
Devin: A film critic who enjoyed GUESS WHO.
Reply
post #92 of 162
10/13/05 at 6:50pm
Quote:
And the lists just keep on coming. VH-1 has compiled a roster of the "50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs Ever," including "Heartbeat" by Don Johnson; "Jenny From the Block" by Jennifer Lopez; "Sussudio" by Phil Collins; "Rico Suave" by Gerardo; and "She Bangs" by Ricky Martin.

The Top (Bottom?) Five:

5. "Ice Ice Baby" -- Vanilla Ice

4. "Rollin' (Urban Assault Vehicle) -- Limp Bizkit

3. "Everybody Have Fun Tonight" -- Wang Chung

2. "Achy Breaky Heart" -- Billy Ray Cyrus

1. "We Built This City" -- Starship

That's not the first time "We Built This City" has been named the worst song of all time. But that's just it -- there's nothing "awesomely bad" about "We Built This City." It's just bad-bad.

And I don't know you can put together a list of awesomely bad songs and not include "Safety Dance" by Men Without Hats.
That's from yesterday's column. Wasn't that VH1 show on months ago?
Reply
post #93 of 162
10/13/05 at 6:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
Seems like the typical "regular guy talks about everyday stuff" column you'll find in almost every big city newspaper.
And if we were arguing that Richard Roeper has no right to write his stupid column, that would be an appropriate response. I'm arguing that writing that stupid column in no way qualifies him as a film critic. I'd be happy to endorse him to be on VH1's I Love The 70's.
Reply
post #94 of 162
10/13/05 at 6:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man
And if we were arguing that Richard Roeper has no right to write his stupid column, that would be an appropriate response. I'm arguing that writing that stupid column in no way qualifies him as a film critic. I'd be happy to endorse him to be on VH1's I Love The 70's.
It seems that the article was linked because it's to show what type of average Joe column he does, that it's somehow different from a lot of columnists. Herb Caen spent 50 years writing that type of stuff for the San Francisco Chronicle, along with a lot of "local flavor" type stories.

The reason those type of columns look silly now is because every jackass with a blog writes the same type of stuff.
Reply
post #95 of 162
10/13/05 at 7:09pm
Herb Caen was awful. When I was a small child I realized that there was no talent to being Herb Caen... just slopping the words on the page and calling it a column. I do like ellipses though...

Roeper the columnist makes Roeper the film critic look like Pauline Kael. You might want to move on here Molti.
Reply
post #96 of 162
10/13/05 at 7:23pm
Sorry Burke, I think you're a Bay Area guy (maybe former) so I'll accept your gripes about Caen. I'm probably bias because he was the local columnist that I grew up reading and I guess that's like the baseball announcer you grow up hearing, you just don't see the flaws that others may find in the guy. He did like elipses though, as does Bruce Jenkins...
Reply
post #97 of 162
10/13/05 at 7:45pm
I think Bruce Jenkins has gotten whacked by too many 15 foot waves. His attacks on Billy Beanes new style of general mangering strike me as the pathetic graspings of an old man for the tradition he remembers but sees slipping away like the sands of time or the hairs on his head. Or something.

Back to Roeper... seems like a crony hire to me. I must admit I caught the Oliver Twist epsiode as well and found his comments strange becuase that was my first thought upon hearing that there was a new Oliver Twist movie. Why do we need this? However, if I had seen the movie I would have reviewed it on its merits, not pre-judged it based on my familiarity with the material.

Is Hot Ticket still on???
Reply
post #98 of 162
10/13/05 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Jessica Biel, who co-starred in the 2003 update of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," has been tabbed the "Sexiest Woman Alive" by Esquire Magazine.

No word on the Sexiest Dead Woman, but "The Corpse Bride" has to be a front-runner.

As for Ms. Biel: she's quite healthy and gorgeous, and she was utterly believable as a brilliant scientist/pilot in last summer's "Stealth," but she is NOT the Sexiest Woman Alive. She's not even the Sexiest Jessica Alive, not with Jessica Alba frolicking about.
Thanks Roeper. You’ve finally made me hate my own heterosexuality.

I say we fly to Chicago and pummel him with our LOTR Extended Edition DVD boxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
10 years ago I might have agreed that he's not the most qualified person for his job on the show but with what has happened to film criticism since then he's become more than capable.
So what you’re telling us is you’ll settle for above-average shitty film criticism? Why not go with Peter Travers’s opinion then?
Reply
post #99 of 162
10/13/05 at 11:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. pop
So what you’re telling us is you’ll settle for above-average shitty film criticism? Why not go with Peter Travers’s opinion then?
Oops, I like Travers also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke
Is Hot Ticket still on???
Don't I wish, I've really missed Maltin and that chick's ability to review 2 movies and then spend 20 minutes going over the film career of Jennifer Aniston.
Reply
post #100 of 162
10/14/05 at 1:49am
Roeper's no Siskel, and his writing is pretty hammy, but he has his moments. Last week he compared Ryan Reynolds to Chevy Chase-Lite, which made me laugh.
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