Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

[dclary]

Re: Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

If you don't count Siskel, that's because Ebert still is one.

[roscoegino]

Re: Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

They gave 2 big thumbs up for The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

Yeah, Roeper esp. liked it alot. Def. check it out. Steve is funny.

[Adam Isaac]

Re: Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

Critics........just too damn lazy to put their great intellect into action.



Couple of my friends are journalists. Film critics if you will...good guys.....so long as 'movies' isn't a topic for discussion.

[Adam Isaac]

Re: Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

Would you call BROGDANOVICH, and the TCM 'critics' true critics? guess you'd have to, he writes a monthly column.

How much do you think these critics get served under the table by the studios?

[refriedwhiskey]

Re: Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

I doubt any major critic gets bribes from the studios -- and it wouldn't be worth the studios' time to bribe the minor critics.

I think when you see a critic express an opinion that greatly differs from your own, the simplest explanation is probably correct: he just has very different tastes from yours and had a very different reaction to the movie than you.

[AaronB]

Re: Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

That hasn't kept a publicist or two from inventing critics out of whole cloth, however. When you made up the name, you can give yourself whatever kind of quote you like. =]

[Jordan Rivers]

Re: Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

"I doubt any major critic gets bribes from the studios -- and it wouldn't be worth the studios' time to bribe the minor critics."

I doubt it also. Moviegoers don't read the critics anyway, although some will watch Ebert/Ropert. But those two critics are so arbitrary in their likes and dislikes, moviegoers take them with a grain of salt, and watch them mostly just to see what kinds of movies are being released. And to see if they get into one of those silly arguments. Siskel and Ebert did it much better.