Comments on: Rich gets richer: Roeper to review movies again

By: P. Poulsen

P. Poulsen — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:00:24 +0000

Nash is harsh, but accurate. It’s clear that Feder was using his column to spread dishonest nonsense in an odd and transparent effort to make Roeper appear to be more than he is. Nothing Feder puts out there could actually succeed in creating the perception that Richard Roeper is in any kind of public demand. So why in the world would Feder toss his credibility out the window for a lightweight like Roeper? Very odd. I don’t mean to be cruel, but I have never been able to identify a single skill or talent possessed by Richard Roeper. I understand that he is not a serious journalist and is not writing for the NY Times but, still, his writing is of such poor quality and is so often fraught with desperate self-promotion that it is uncomfortable to read. I don’t know him personally, but judging from his writing, he is apparently the most insecure man in town. Anyway, I don’t blame the guy for taking a crack at the movie review thing despite having no film or academic background but, come on Feder and Roeper, its very over.

By: Nash

Nash — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:30:41 +0000

“Rich Get Richer”??? HAHAHA! Isn’t this the same delusional guy that was recently hit with a foreclosure lawsuit for defaulting on his home loan?? Feder is a joke for being willing to prop this guy up for so long. How long have Feder and Roeper been dating?

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:55:30 +0000

What’s with all the Roeper bashing? I liked him on At the Movies. So what if he wasn’t as knowledgeable as Ebert – how many more years has Ebert been writing reviews, and how many more years had he been doing television? You can tell that Roeper genuinely loves movies and loves to talk about them, the same as Ebert, and to me that is what distinguishes a mediocre reviewer from a good one.

And I love how so many people are harping on his salary cut. Yeah, that’s just hilarious. It’s just so funny when others suffer misfortune. But you know what’s funnier, posters? If Roeper is “only” making a hundred grand a year, that means he’s probably making at least fifty grand more a year than you are.

My only criticism for Roeper: some of your recent comments about your new show have hurt poor Roger’s feeling. Do the right thing and get in touch with him, to let him know you didn’t mean any offense. :)

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:59:36 +0000

To Unindicted Co-Conspirator:

I never said Kehr would be good on TV, and Wilmington proved he wasn’t on CLTV. As to your other comments:

“His print reviews were unreadable.” — Not to people who read intelligent film criticism regulalrly.
” 2/3 of each “review” was about other movies, movies that less than 100 people had ever seen or would ever see. He was always comparing those movies to the one he was reviewing” — That’s what I want a critic to do…illuminate something about the movie and how it compares to other films it might share qualities with, especially ones that are not widely known.

To Amy:

You are quite right and I stand corrected. But if Siskel was really interested in writing full-length reviews again, he could have agreed to a contract buy-out to go to another paper. And I know he wrote for TV Guide at some point, and that work was on par with the low quality of his capsule reviews. He was a great TV personality…I enjoyed watching him fight with Roger. But his critical insights into the medium were minimal. He helped dumb down the field.

By: John Olsen

John Olsen — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:45:23 +0000

Richard Roper is the poster boy for mediocrity. It is too bad that Ebert didn’t want to continue doing his show with a movie critic after Siskel died.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:56:19 +0000

Interesting that Feder was somehow able to know what the salary “reportedly” looked like, etc. Gee, any chance Roeper is the one who supplied that info?? Doubting Feder has many moles at Starz.

Hate to get too personal but I’ve seen him out with alleged twenty-something ladies on a regular basis. The guy seems to be the insecure daddy type. Also was on Stern a few years back and it got out about his 3-some w/girlfriend, etc.

All I know is getting movie reviews is about as easy as checking email. Internet killed the movie review shows.

By: Michael B. Tipton

Michael B. Tipton — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:31:25 +0000

I think it’s finally time for some hard-hitting journalism, Mr. Feder, and you may be the only one who can answer this question once and for all: is Richard Roeper wearing a wig? I mean, that hair can’t be real, can it? Just curious.

BTW, I like that you can say “shit” on this blog. It’s so real!

By: Maya

Maya — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:59:17 +0000

I don’t know why so many people are hating on someone who is making an honest living doing an honest job. I’ve loved watching Richard since I was in high school (which wasn’t too long ago…eh) and I’ve always found him very charismatic and engaging. I would definitely tune in. I didn’t grow up watching Ebert or Siskel and as much as I admire the guys, a new generation needs someone new to look up to in this field. The man is not creating some dangerous, controversial new treatment to brain cancer. He’s doing what he loves to do, reviewing movies. What’s wrong with that?

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:48:50 +0000

@ Joel

Siskel didn’t walk away from his full column in the Tribune. He was demoted and replaced by Michael Wilmington when he and Ebert took the show to Disney and Syndication instead of renewing with the Tribune Company.

By: Sammy

Sammy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:07:19 +0000

Congrats to Richard. Glad you will be back on TV.