Chicagoist: Roeper to Leave 'At The Movies'

mike_thoms

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:44:13 -0600

now that more of the story has come out I have to say that as much as I think Roeper is a bit of a bag, it sounds like Disney was trying to douche up "At the Movies" If the douchiest douche that ever douched (Roeper) wants no part of a brand new show that's going to be exactly like entertainment weekly and is instead going to "proceed elsewhere with my ninth year as the co-host of a movie review show that honors the standards established by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert more than 30 years ago. I will be free to share the details on that program in the near future" i have to give him some props

DNashty

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:24:58 -0600

News today on Ebert's website that Ebert's done with the show also. Disney owns the show and is "taking it in a new direction." Ebert owns the trademark for "two thumbs up" along with Siskel's widow, and says they're talking about maybe making some new show with it.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:36:09 -0600

He's an affable chad at best and insufferable at worst. This is a guy who writes columns about ads he sees on tv and tries to scry cultural meaning out of toothpaste jingles. He's Dave Barry without all that humor, wit and self-depreciation. His 'reviews' have been either broadsides or effusive heaps of praise. No nuance, no subtlety, no cleverness, that's Richard Roeper. Roger Ebert is an egalitarian critic. He judges films on what they hope to accomplish. The guy gave "Booty Call" three stars because it succeeded at being a good little raunchy comedy. I enjoy his take on movies, after I see them for myself. Roeper was likely hired on the tv show because unlike Harry Knowles or many other voices of commonplace criticism he doesn't have a face for radio.

Dig

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:53:39 -0600

Thank god. He is an insufferable, self-righteous tool on screen and in print. I never understood what qualified him to have this position in the first place, but I enjoyed watching his flimsy logic and shallowness dig unsucessfully for perspective.

Chris F

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:33:51 -0600

That last line should really read, "He has been with the show for eight years; he has been an utter waste of newsprint for several years longer." But, seriously, has it been eight years already since Gene Siskel passed?

dayofthedaleks

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:32:10 -0600

Thank god. Ever since he and Michael Phillips have been the steady lineup my SO and I have taken to referring to the show as "Douchebags on Film" Bring back A.O. Scott. I'd suggest Elvis Mitchell but he's got his own (amazine! watch the Bill Murray interview if you get a chance!) show on TCM these days. The reason Siskel and Ebert worked so well is that you had highbrow and middlebrow sensibilities playing off each other. Right now, it's strictly lowest common denominator film reviews. And how come they never tried Manohla Dargis when they were rotating folks through? She's maybe the best critic writing nowadays.

peteypants

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:31:28 -0600

thumbs down to this! i always agreed with roeper's reviews. at least he's not giving up his column. it makes my morning.

Slaphappy

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:49:24 -0600

First no Roger, then no thumbs. What's next, no show? (Though if they had to bring two totally new critics on board, my vote would be for Michael Phillips and A. O. Scott.)

mike_thoms

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:00:41 -0600

at the very least he'll bring on a newspaper columnist

ljpljpljp

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:45:41 -0600

Think Roger will bring on a film critic this time?

matty

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:53:42 -0600

that guy's a jackoff anyway. Dick Groeper? What kind of name is that?