Lots of people don't like anime. I think Roeper's role on the show is to be an "everyman" who tries to represent the person who likes to go to the movies but is not a movie buff. He obviously doesn't know as much about film as Ebert does, but there have been many times I've agreed with him more than Ebert.



And Ebert has his own blind spots. He loves spectacle, and often he lets the fact that a film is visually stunning distract him from its other flaws. A film has to be really, really dumb (like "13 Ghosts") before he deigns to give it a thumbs down despite its cinematography or special effects. I can often predict how he's going to react to a film just from seeing the previews.

By the way, Dan, did you know people can't post comments here with Opera 6? At least, I can't.

Opera 6 don't work here? Bleh. I'll investigate.



As for Roeper being an everyman, his opinions are braindead and reactionary, with no sense of culture or breadth of interest. While non-film-buff moviegoers probably have enough disinterest to have opinions of the same caliber-- and they're entitled, I don't expect everyone to be a film buff-- that doesn't mean the average moviegoer's opinions are worth televising. The role of the TV film critic is to communicate a sense of what a movie is like to a broad audience of varying tastes and interests. While it is understood that such criticism is veiled in the critic's personal opinions and tastes, a stupid or uncultured critic is far less capable of communicating through that veil to a wide audience.



Don't get me wrong, Ebert's no genius. But I know how to read Ebert, and I can get a better sense of what a movie is like from his reviews. I can usually predict both Ebert and Roeper, but I don't get any extra information from Roeper. To be fair, Ebert's Sun-Times reviews usually take a few moments to consider other possible viewpoints and present a more well-rounded opinion, which there's almost no time to do on television. Roeper doesn't get a second chance at demonstrating he's capable of seeing how others might enjoy a movie he didn't.



The role of TV critics aside, I mostly take fun in bashing Roeper. IIRC, Roeper's review of The House of Mirth (based on an Edith Wharton novel) said Gillian Anderson's character was hung up on the idea of finding a husband, and she should just quit her complaining and get a job. OTOH, Ebert gave thumbs down to Stuart Little because the main character is a mouse that wears clothes.

I don't think it matters much what a critic's opinions are, as long as he's articulate. The problem with your average couple of guys sitting on a park bench is that they usually don't say much. They say the movie was good or that they didn't like it, and they may disagree, but there's not much to go on, normally. Ebert and Roeper talk a lot and express themselves and that gives information about the movie and also ongoing, cumulative information about the critic; if you're reasonably thoughtful, you bundle this information along with sufficient charity, skepticism, and self-knowledge and take your chances risking discretionary income.



But it's not just a question of information; there are also questions about evaluation. If you're enthusiastic about something and someone you respect says it's boring, you've got three choices: you can change your mind about: (1) the thing; (2) the other person; (3) yourself. You get information and then you have to decide what its value is.

Well, I'm not much of a film buff, and I don't even watch Ebert & Roeper that much. But hubby does, and I've caught a few minutes of it from time to time, and every time I see it, I end up thinking that Roeper is a moron. As someone else pointed out, he doesn't really add anything, and it doesn't seem like he has any breadth of experience or cultural or historical (related to film) knowledge to draw on. Oh well.