When I was a kid I watched Siskel and Ebert every single Sunday on TV. Back then that was the only way I knew what was out, that and the paper maybe or that phone line you could call to tell you what was in the theatre. VHS Blockbuster days.... Now all that is irrelevant.
I kind of disagree... sure, I could go look at the tomato rating, but its boring and just not the same as the interesting presentations of even bad films that Ebert and Siskel used to provide. The debate was entertaining and I ended up learning a lot about current movies.
@@bucksdiaryfan I guess I meant that every other person online reviews movies now. There's not just one or two sources anymore. I think that's what I meant.
On a personal level, living in Illinois, I’ve met him twice, and he totally brushed me off and acted like he was a hot shot. As someone that grew up on Siskel and Ebert and then Ebert and Roeper, it was very disappointing and showed his true colors and true ego. He was hosting an Oscar party at a local bar, and he was on the computer all night tweeting. Why host a party and meet and greet and ignore fans of your work? Your video was spot on.
Despite the internet critics, the twitter, or what not, I always thought "Ebert and Siskel" was the most reliable. Even if I disagreed with them. They will always be the high point of entertaining weekly criticism. God how I miss them.
I didn’t care for Roeper but I liked Ebert I can’t stand these modern film critics like Critical Drinker who just contemptuously review things as if they’ve ever made anything good themselves.
i respect Ebert's opinions so much. i wonder how he can be so much better than most other critics... it's not only that his personality is inscribed into our consciousness, he has a very balanced emotional state regarding the analyzation of films. he, of course, also has awesome insights, intellect, and is cultured. even when i didn't agree with him, i never regarded his opinion as a, "no way," situation. Siskel had many insights too and was good. But Ebert's reviews often created this intrinsic emotional expectation that some kind of standing ovation was warranted afterwards; as if he were performing. lol
The last time I saw a Roeper review, he recorded it on his phone, which is fine, but it came across like your parents listening to your music trying to be hip
Richard was fine with me. It took him awhile to build up with Roger Ebert, but he got better and better. And he held the show for two more years after Roger could no longer do it. I was sad when he left and Ben Lyons (that's his name) and Ben Manckiewicz took over. Stopped watching it then.
I always liked Ebert and Roeper back in the day, though I enjoyed Ebert's analysis a lot more. Anyway, it looks like the Chicago Sun-Times is letting Roeper off the hook, though they're canceling his new column and making him delete his twitter account. As of right now it's still up, though just by looking at it you can tell most of his followers are fake. He has quite a few tweets with less than 10 likes, that's crazy for someone with 200k "followers".
I am just reading that and sad to hear this on many reason. 1. Back in the day I enjoyed watching Siskel and Ebert, I did not always agree with their review but I respect the that fact they would discuss why a film work or did not. Roeper was very good at this. When he cam to the show At the movies I felt he did a good job with Ebert and I watch him on his youtube channel, so I am very shock to read he stoop to this level for twitter. Roeper is the last of his kind, I even like him on youtube, so this is sad to read. 2. There are to many people out there calling themselves critics when they are not. They feel that they binge watch movies for a day , they know about what makes a movie work, and yet alone can express why they like it or not. Roeper had a talent for that and should have had more faith in his skill than to pay people to follow him. 3. This is sad on many levels. I do agree the critic world is over crowed mostly with people who don't know what they hell they are talking about. I online crtics are not discussing movies just reviewing them in short words, not really telling why , or why not., and to me that is not good. direction we are going
There are legitimate points here about Roeper’s demise, including his desperation for a social media following that would equate to his television presence being avaricious and unnecessary. (His online reviews from 2015-2018 were incredibly cringeworthy.) Roeper would have been just fine having he kept working at what he was doing in journalism and podcasting. However, the argument that film critics in journalism are irrelevant due to RU-vid (and now TikTok) is inherently flawed. Film critics have always been relevant up to the present. Critics and academics that study the entertainment industry are continually cited in contemporary and retrospective reviews for most films released annually. Nine times out of ten, they are quoted by official sources and websites like Wikipedia over any content creator, fan forum, or comments section. (There are exceptions to this, including viral hashtags like OscarsSoWhite and ReleasetheSnyderCut.) Even popular content creator who serve as critics like RedLetterMedia, Jeremy Jahns, and Chris Stuckmann are usually RU-vid famous; they are not academically recognized nor considered relevant to what will make or break a film’s reception. It doesn’t necessarily help that many critics on RU-vid and TikTok cater to specific demographics of moviegoers by only reviewing high-profile releases or films that predominantly attract geek audiences. Some online critics like Jahns feed into the stigma surrounding “Oscar bait” cinema, which marginalizes prestigious and/or original movies in addition to diverse filmmakers.
I like Roeper, and haven't found anyone better at this point. I was hoping to see other reviewers suggested in the comment section, but it looks like most don't have a problem with him. RU-vid reviewers are pretty unimpressive.
Part of the problem with criticism of arts is a complete lack of ability to express oneself about what they had just seen. You'd be surprised how many people will be asked what they thought of the film they just saw and can only say, "I kinda liked it - but..." and be completely stuck giving the honest reasons why.
Well one of the first comments, I got news for u. Nobody had more knowledge of films than Roger Ebert! I could hear him listen to him talk about movies for hours
You have to watch out criticizing Stuckmann. He gets personally offended. He even got mad at RLM. It's ok, he just got his braces off. I said that to upset him should he see this comment somehow. Now I'm going to get Stuckmannized. Again...
I'm not sure why Roeper is so bad per your argument. I read your argument as "Roeper is old school so bad." Your criticism of the critic seems shallow. The Twitter deal is irrevelant.
most of this established critics dont pass the BvS, Ghostbusters or TLJ test, so its better they quit. such so called critics shouldnt get paid for nothing. Thanks to the internet its much harder for medioca guys to be taken serios outside their TV buble, and thats a good thing.
The only critic I take seriously on you tube is Stuckmann. I watch Jahns for shits and giggles. I gave up on the Schmoes along time ago. I watch RLM Half in the Bag also for laughs but man they are savage !
He should just review movies for a website. You would think that roger ebert's website would hire him in a second just on the connection to roger. He has been trying to do his own thing and has been actually for a while, but I think that is running out of gas. Someone else in the comments said it, and I know that is crappy but it is true..but he is just not looking good as he has aged. Yes, I know Ebert and Siskel were hardly male models, but they were on such a long time no one really cared and always looked they way they did. Roeper when he started was a young good looking guy and that was part of his brand. Roger Ebert was also an institution and when he passed, I think that hurt Roeper tremendously. Everyone respected Ebert, even stars and directors and everyone just cared what he opinion was, even as he aged. Other reviewers worshipped him, he was literally the guy who made them want to be reviewers. Roeper was "the other guy" and ebert was the draw so maybe people now do not see him as an institution like Ebert was and he just just another reviewer, and on youtube and online, that is hard to compete
Never much liked him BECAUSE he lacked depth and really didn’t seem like he belonged on the show Ebert. Didn’t like subsequent quest hosts for the same reason.
Your absolutely rite .... a lot of these media darlings think they can bring , they’re mainstream viewers online.. it’s not the same. You see this a lot with cnn, msnbc , Fox ... reporters
Richard roeper is still widely read, and yes everyone can be a critic however not everyone was a good one. R.R wasn't nearly as good as siskel, he had some snardy comments about some things but also was very smart
@@pleaserewind295 He also seemed like a dick towards Roger everytime he had an opinion that wasn’t aligned with his. Ebert always seemed personal with his views while Roeper seemed to only go for the one liners.
i like Roeper hes great. i do not agree w. your analysis. he has dropped on his tv reviews as they are too short his written reviews are better the absolute best is Kermode
I loved Richard Roeper back in his reviews with Roger Ebert and even when he did solo reviews with Reelz channel, and I still do. It sucks that he had to use fake followers though, and it taints my view of him. If the Chicago Sun Times didn't keep him, he'd be done for.
