C

Critics should never be evaluated on the similarity of their opinions to one’s own. Instead, they should be judged on how they present themselves and how effective they are at grabbing a reader’s attention.

As opposed to his counterpart Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper prefers quick sound bites to grab the reader’s attention. This isn’t always a bad thing, but not every movie can be summed up in a brief sound clip. It’s with this lack of detail that Roeper often struggles.

Take “The Dukes of Hazzard,” dubbed the worst movie of 2005 by Roeper. According to Roeper’s sound bite, the movie fails mainly because it’s based on a television show. On the other hand, Ebert’s lengthy review makes mention of scenes which bored and even offended him.

Search Roger Ebert’s name on the Internet and you will find hundreds of his past reviews. Google Richard Roeper’s name and you will be lucky to find any written reviews, as Roeper is mainly heard on television as opposed to read in print.

Ultimately, Roeper is neither a bad critic nor a bland critic. He requires more textual detail to display his analysis of the films he reviews. This type of detail can’t be found in a one-minute sound clip, but seen in a one-page review.

Some of the blame might indeed rest with Roger Ebert himself. One of the revolutionary things about Siskel and Ebert was the two came from competing newspapers; Ebert from the Chicago Sun-Times and Siskel from the Chicago Tribune. Isn’t it a bit odd the person ultimately tapped was a columnist from Ebert’s own Sun-Times? This begs the question; is Roeper really there because he complements and contrasts Ebert’s style and ideas, or is he just there because his bravado makes Ebert look good?