I’ve just finished watching Ebert and Roeper at the Movies. Before I go any farther I should reveal a prejudice of mine: I believe that doing what Ebert most certainly does and Roeper probably does—watching scores or hundreds of new movies per year on the big screen—almost completely disqualifies a person from saying anything meaningful about movies to someone who actually goes to the movies once or twice or a handful of times per year. They just don’t see the movies with the same eyes.
That having been said I’ve found Richard Roeper’s reviews completely unreliable predictors of whether I will or will not like a particular movie. He apparently doesn’t like some things I do like and does like some things that I don’t. So while his reviews may be interesting or entertaining, as consumer information they’re total failures. I used to find Roger Ebert’s reviews reliable predictors. I generally liked pictures he recommended. But I’ve found this less and less true over the years and I suspect that’s for the reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph: our eyes are too different.
Today I saw a new aspect of Ebert’s reviews. Is it possible for a movie reviewer to review both a movie and its prospective audience? “This is a good movie for people who would go to see a movie like this”? I found that just puzzling.
Very astute observation on not having ” the same eyes”.
I don’t find Roeper to be unreliable – just simply a bit of a jackass.
I have just began watching this show after a few years and am utterly disgusted at the “so called” reviews of an amateur such as Richard Roeper. Is this his name? He is totally unaware of his racist and discriminatory remarks. I am not at all impressed with him and how he undermines all movies with a culture flair to them. He cannot think that he represents a majority when he is unable to broaden his mind to the different eyes and minds of this world. He is not a good representation of a well informed judge of good and bad movies. I personally do not think he is the right business partner for Ebert. I used to like this show.
I completely agree with Celeste. I thought, perhaps, that I was the only one who spotted this tendency in Mr. Roeper. Then, how could I have been the only one? He is so blatant and more than obvious. He is either a racist or terriboy ignorant, and worse, his mind is closed to accepting, understanding, or even toleraing many other cultural and ethnic differences and experience. He is also woefully lacking in the history of a group of major players who reside in this Country. I can predict on a consistent basis that Mr. Roeper will give a full thumbs down on nearly any movies with blacks in starring of strong supporting roles. He didn’t even like Denazel Washington’s performance in Training Day. Look at the movies even more recent. He has consistently “thumbs down” 99% of them, if not all of them.
I know all critics bring a certain amount of baggage with them, but his trunk is fully overloaded. i THINK “TOO MUCH JUNK IN THE TRUNK” APTLY DESCRIBES HIM.
I personally like like Richard Roeper as a film reviewer and struggle to see at any point in any of his reviews where he could possibly be considered a racist. Roeper and Ebert are both clear Spike Lee fans, which is evident in the amount of time they spend in talking about his body of work, and no racist would ever be a Spike Lee fan. Roeper favorite films of the last few years have been “Inside Man” directed by Spike Lee and starring Denzel Washington, “Brokeback Mountain” which deals with a gay romance, “The Three Burials of Melquiadas Estrada” which deals with the plight of illegal aliens, and “THe New World” which illustrates the times of early Native Americans. To say he is racist or unappreciative of other cultures as displayed on film is utterly stupid and rediculous. Roeper and Ebert are clearly a couple of liberals, but they judge films as they are deserving of merit.
I have also noticed Roeper’s subtle racism. Look no further than his review of Wassup Rockers by Larry Flynt or his half-hearted condemnations of Michael Richards. It’s like watching Bill O’Riely review movies. He is an idiot. I miss Siskel.
“I’ve found Richard Roeper’s reviews completely unreliable predictors of whether I will or will not like a particular movie.” It sounds like Roeper has different tastes than you do–I know for a fact that his likes and dislikes are NOT the same as mine. I just like watching him banter with Ebert (and presently, the long line of guest critics) because I love discussions about movies even if the opinions expressed don’t mirror my own. (That, in fact, is what makes them interesting.) If you’re looking for a critic whose tastes are close to yours, check out Rottentomatoes.com — there’s a large of reviewers to choose from.
Amen to you, Alex. I’m with you about Roeper. I think he’s a great foil for Ebert and a pretty entertaining guy to watch.
WM — I miss Gene Siskel as well, but he was no saint. I believe it was in his introduction to the review for FREE WILLY that he said, “And our next film is about a boy and his whale … much like this show.” Ebert sat there and took the slur (if he had given any kind of response, then it was edited out of the broadcast), and I’m sure there were people who were sensitive about their weight who didn’t take kindly to a shot like that.
I think Roeper has sexual identity problems.