Richard Roeper

[El Bracamonti]

he's wrong lots of the time, but he's also right a lot of the times ebert's wrong. i'd say i like roeper for the most part. roeper, anyone?

[El Bracamonti]

woops...can someone move this thread to the celeb-o-meter?

[Scarface98.9]

What do you mean when you say he's right and wrong sometimes? Like he has some wrong opinions? Kinduva oxymoron, but anyways, I digress as I always do.

In Celeb-O-Meter fashion, he gets a YAY from me. He's made some questionable comments about movies I like, but is also dead on about others. He may never replace Siskel in many people's eyes, but he's a worthy replacement on the show, and writes some good columns in the Chicago Sun Times

[HeavyK]

Richard Roeper absolutly sucks. I can't stand him. Why the hell did Ebert have to choose him to be his secondary critic on the show. Gene Siskel must have been turning in his grave over this.

[syxxpac]

This guy used to annoy the hell out of me. It was just...something about his behavior that constantly irked me, like he drank five cups of espresso before each show.

But to be quite honest, I like the guy now. He and Ebert work well together and I always love to hear both of their thoughts on a movie each week. He's still a somewhat annoying with his "jumpy" schtick, but I just attribute that to his general enthusiasm in the world of film.

So yeah. Formerly - NAY, Now - YAY.

[Duke Nukem]

A lot of the time, I don't agree with some of the shit he as to say. However, he has been there to protect the truly obscure movies I surprisingly enjoy, like "Not Another Teen Movie."

So, I give him a YAY.

[zeppelin]

What do you mean he's "wrong?"

I'll give him a yay. I don't agree with him all the time, but then again, the only person I do agree with all the time is myself. So why would I hold that against him, or anyone else for that matter? I think he's quite funny.

[El Bracamonti]

sorry for all the confusion. i meant "wrong" meaning i don't agree with him. i usually say shit like that, but it just means i don't agree with him.

[RicochetShaw]

Yay.... often hilarious sidekick of Ebert. Sometimes he says things that I heavily disagree with (not just opinion-wise), but most of the time he's pretty funny.

[ilovemovies]

Yay! I really think he has come into his own. Cool film critic and seems like a cool guy too.

[Nate6]

Like most people, I would have called him a Nay a while ago but now he's a Yay. Why? Well, because instead of trying to be the new Siskel, he's adopted his own on-camera style and that makes all the difference. He's very funny and he and Ebert have good chemistry. And I agree with him more and more each week...

[Adam J. Hakari]

Ditto to Nate's words. I didn't really like him to start out with (yes, the entire LORD OF THE RINGS saga can be boiled down to a "bunch of fairies and elves" :rolleyes:), but he does explain his opinions and makes sense with his comments on films. I might not agree with him most of the time, but he's getting better at being Ebert's sidekick.

[Jon Lyrik]

He is terribly bland as a critic. Nay.

Why the fuck did Ebert choose him? Siskel's ghost is pissed.

[therealjohng]

I think he's funnier than shit.

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by therealjohng
I think he's funnier than shit.

And as Caddyshack has proven, shit can be very, very funny :p

[Boba Joe]

Originally posted by syxxpac
This guy used to annoy the hell out of me. It was just...something about his behavior that constantly irked me, like he drank five cups of espresso before each show.

But to be quite honest, I like the guy now. He and Ebert work well together and I always love to hear both of their thoughts on a movie each week. He's still a somewhat annoying with his "jumpy" schtick, but I just attribute that to his general enthusiasm in the world of film.

So yeah. Formerly - NAY, Now - YAY.

Couldn't have said it better.
Nothing will ever beat Siskel & Ebert.

[jeo4]

Hate em both. Ebert has lost his touch. Roeper never had it. Nay.