# About Ebert, of Ebert and Roeper. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 9, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770 "2004-11-09T02:17:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/1 "2004-11-09T02:17:27Z")
I used to watch _Siskel and Ebert_ sometimes as a source of opinion for movies. I don’t watch Ebert and Roeper nearly as much, but Ebert seems to have changed a _lot_ since his old partner died. He seems more emotional, and kinda ready to burst into tears on occasion. And when he does, Roeper backs off a little. Is it my imagination, or did Siskel’s death really shake him? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/2 "2004-11-09T02:24:52Z")
I’ve noticed the same thing. He tends to give thumbs up to crappier and crappier movies. He needed Siskel to keep him on track. Much like McCartney needed Lennon (not the best analogy, but you get my meaning). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/3 "2004-11-09T02:35:18Z")
Maybe he’s trying to soften his stance so he’ll have a better chance of selling _Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens II: Electric Boogaloo_. [sub]Wow, has it really been five years since Siskel went thumbs down?[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/4 "2004-11-09T02:43:18Z")
Sometimes it seems like Ebert gets his feelings hurt if Roeper pans a movie that Ebert likes. I don’t remember him being that way with Siskel. Aand yes, Ebert does seem to be over-praising mediocre movies lately. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/5 "2004-11-09T03:02:27Z")
The guy _has_ been through cancer recently, too - if he’s been more emotional it might be medication or the trauma of it all. I don’t catch him on TV, but I read his reviews at [rogerebert.com](http://rogerebert.com) and trust him pretty well still, although I ignore the star ratings. Whether he likes a movie or not, what he says about it is usually valid and I can tell if I’ll like it or not based on him. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/6 "2004-11-09T03:39:18Z")
Even in the Siskel days, Ebert was well known for giving high ratings to fairly crappy movies. For example, he gave a thumbs up to “Cop and a Half”. On the plus side, he is also well known for giving high ratings to great movies that other only think are crappy, like “Evil Dead II”. One thing I’ve noticed is that these days he’ll give a good review to a movie if it he is taken enough with the female lead. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/7 "2004-11-09T04:07:34Z")
Whether his thumbs up or down is justified, I usually find that by reading an Ebert review I can figure out if I’ll like a movie. That’s all I ask from a reviewer, enough detail and commentary to illustrate why the reviewer felt as he did. Ebert does that for me. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/8 "2004-11-09T04:14:16Z")
> [@Avumede](#): > > One thing I’ve noticed is that these days he’ll give a good review to a movie if it he is taken enough with the female lead. Or “leads”. He was so taken by both teenage female leads in _Bend It Like Beckham_ - and by the “offbeat”, “ethnic” approach - that he awarded 3 and a half stars to this piece of fluff. Pleasing fluff, but formulaic, cliche-ridden fluff, nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/9 "2004-11-09T04:39:25Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > The guy _has_ been through cancer recently, too - if he’s been more emotional it might be medication or the trauma of it all. I hadn’t watched his show in years, and was shocked to see in a recent episode how his illness has aged him: he seems to have difficulty speaking, and despite his weight looks quite frail. I wouldn’t be surprised if his struggles had made him less inclined to give scathing reviews (although a cursory glance at his recent reviews shows that he still, in fact, happily dishes out one-star-and-less reviews). ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/10 "2004-11-09T05:33:49Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Or “leads”. He was so taken by both teenage female leads in _Bend It Like Beckham_ - and by the “offbeat”, “ethnic” approach - that he awarded 3 and a half stars to this piece of fluff. Pleasing fluff, but formulaic, cliche-ridden fluff, nonetheless. Just so Ebert doesn’t sound too skeezy, although one of the “teenage” female leads (Knightley) was really 17, the other (Nagra) was a full decade older. And while **BiLb** wasn’t Best Picture fare, I think it merited at least three stars and don’t think three and a half was out of line. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/11 "2004-11-09T05:47:19Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Just so Ebert doesn’t sound too skeezy, although one of the “teenage” female leads (Knightley) was really 17, the other (Nagra) was a full decade older. And while **BiLb** wasn’t Best Picture fare, I think it merited at least three stars and don’t think three and a half was out of line. I stand corrected about the Indian girl ( I hope she’s actually Indian!). My gripe was that he was carried away by the fact that everyone at Sundance (or some such trendy place) just lurved it, when the film itself is so slight. Then he only gives 2 stars to _Gladiator_, which I saw for the first time on DVD the other day - largaey, it seems, because the sets and the colour were not to his liking. I thought _Gladiator_ - especially its message - was superior to the soccer flick. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/12 "2004-11-09T05:48:23Z")
What I dislike about him is how often he goes off on a rant about a missed plot hole…usually when that part was covered in the movie at some point. Sometimes even flatly stated by the actors. I can only assume his mind sometimes wanders during the flim. Being a nitpicker myself I understand how it is to see some minor detail and harp on it but not when it’s suffiently explained in the movie. For instance in **The Ring** he started on a tangent about who made the tape to begin with. When it was stated in the movie that the first girl’s boyfriend was trying to record a sports show in the room and that’s what came out on the tape instead. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/13 "2004-11-09T06:14:15Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > I hadn’t watched his show in years, and was shocked to see in a recent episode how his illness has aged him: he seems to have difficulty speaking, and despite his weight looks quite frail. I wouldn’t be surprised if his struggles had made him less inclined to give scathing reviews (although a cursory glance at his recent reviews shows that he still, in fact, happily dishes out one-star-and-less reviews). I believe his cancer was of the salivary glands, which might explain his difficulty speaking. I haven’t actually seen him on TV since he got cancer, but the pictures I’ve seen of him show a _dramatic_ weight loss - not the healthy managed kind but the “awful disease” kind. He seems to be doing better, though. Certainly well enough to insult the hell out of Vincent Gallo, but happily eat crow over the reedited “final” version of _The Brown Bunny_ (which I still have no desire to see.) ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/14 "2004-11-09T06:32:09Z")
> [@Nonsuch](#): > > I wouldn’t be surprised if his struggles had made him less inclined to give scathing reviews (although a cursory glance at his recent reviews shows that he still, in fact, happily dishes out one-star-and-less reviews). Yeah, just let Tom Green wander near a movie camera again and Ebert will no doubt be very, very happy to set phasers on “KILL.” ---
**Author:** ![Agrippina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8797f3/32.png) [@Agrippina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agrippina)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/15 "2004-11-09T14:31:42Z")
> [@Avumede](#): > > One thing I’ve noticed is that these days he’ll give a good review to a movie if it he is taken enough with the female lead. Didn’t he give a good review to “Gigli” simply because Jennifer Lopez starred in it? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/16 "2004-11-09T14:51:03Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > I thought _Gladiator_ - especially its message - was superior to the soccer flick. You can’t compare Ebert’s star ratings to different genre-ed movies, which is how he (supposedly) comes up with his ratings. A 3-star comedy isn’t necessarily better than a 2 1/2 star drama isn’t necessarily better than a 2 star epic. It’s a bit counter-intuitive at first, but it does place a bit of responsibility on the viewer to know beforehand what s/he’s getting into, other than just an “Ebert gave this movie 3 1/2 stars”. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/17 "2004-11-09T14:54:08Z")
> [@Agrippina](#): > > Didn’t he give a good review to “Gigli” simply because Jennifer Lopez starred in it? No, he didn’t like it. But he didn’t loathe as much as other reviewers did. So he ended up being interviewed _defending_ the film as being merely bad, as opposed to the worst film ever made. Yeah, the guy hands out more stars than a kindergarten teacher. He scales way too much by genre. So a third-rate mindless action thriller gets a good rating simply because it’s better than most other mindless action thrillers. But he still refuses to acknowledge how this directly contradicts His Duty As A Critic, which he routine defends in his Answer Man columns, to inform the public as to what a truly good movie is supposed to be. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/18 "2004-11-09T16:56:15Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Yeah, the guy hands out more stars than a kindergarten teacher. He scales way too much by genre. So a third-rate mindless action thriller gets a good rating simply because it’s better than most other mindless action thrillers. But he still refuses to acknowledge how this directly contradicts His Duty As A Critic, which he routine defends in his Answer Man columns, to inform the public as to what a truly good movie is supposed to be. I’m not sure there’s a contradiction. He may have A Duty As A Critic to explain what makes a truly good movie, but he could also have a lesser duty as a critic to point people towards movies that are merely good at what they do. People considering spending their money on tickets to a particular flick often don’t really care whether it will stand the test of time or make the AFI lists. They may just want to know if it’s good at providing the laughs/thrills/chills they expect from a movie of that genre. ---
**Author:** ![MercyStreet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@MercyStreet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MercyStreet)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/19 "2004-11-09T16:56:50Z")
With the exception of obvious blockbusters (“Polar Express”) I avoid anything that Ebert adores. That wasn’t always the case. Mr. MercyStreet and I noticed that his standards started slipping about four or five years ago. We now put him in the same crowd as Gene Shalit and the infamous Ron Brewington. ---
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770/20 "2004-11-09T17:24:51Z")
Personally, I have found his show unwatchable since it moved from PBS to commercial TV. Having to cut the show down due to commercials has ruined it. It used to be that he and Siskel would review four movies per show, with no little add-ons like “Just released on DVD”. The two would spend a good portion of time, maybe 7-8 minutes, reviewing a long clip (or two!) from a movie, then discussing it like two movie fans. This additional time also allowed them to sink their teeth into each other over movies they really disagreed about. Now the show tries to fit 5 movies and an extra section into 22 minutes of time. The clips are maybe two lines of dialogue, followed by “I liked it! Did you?” “Yep, sure did!” And since Roeper doesn’t have a film background, he brings nothing to the table. He’s like Joel Siegel with normal hair. What’s funny is that I have since become a fan of Roger Ebert’s writing. He may or may not like what I like, but I always find his reviews enjoyable to read. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-ebert-of-ebert-and-roeper/273770.md?page=2)