What was Roeper thinking?

Published 10 years ago by , Updated February 9th, 2012 at 9:06 pm,

Anyone who reads this site on a regular basis knows what Vic thinks of film critic Richard Roeper. (If you don’t, read all about it here.) I’ll admit, I’ve stood up for a few of Roeper’s reviews on occasion because I didn’t think he was totally out to lunch.

But this time, he has gone too far…

A thumbs down to the Wallace and Gromit movie?! What is this guy smoking? Filmmaking doesn’t get any better than Wallace and Gromit. It’s lighthearted entertainment at its finest. How many other movies out there can boast that they are entertaining for people of all ages? But nooooooo… Roeper didn’t like it. Roeper is not the only critic who gave Wallace and Gromit a negative review, but you should have seen Ebert’s reaction. He was very upset, and rightfully so.

How can Roeper decry the declining quality of movies (as many critics do), and then turn around and give a negative review to one of the few good movies that we have left? The guy is officially off his rocker.

An audio link to the review is here.

As Forrest Gump would say, that’s all I have to say about that.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:

4 Comments - Comments are closed.

  1. Thanks for writing about this. I read about Roeper’s review a couple of days ago and it just solidifies my opinion of the man’s lack of talent as a movie critic.

    I am continually amazed at the fact he continues to make a living as a movie critic… 😯


  2. I loved Wallace and Gromit. Every minute of it. That many reviewers have said it felt stretched and they grew bored not only makes bristle, it also completely confuses me. It was short film by today’s standards, fast-paced, with each shot brimming with little details. What more do they want?

    Ebert strikes me as one who really loves movies. I can imagine he really wants to enjoy every movie he goes to see. Roeper loves being a critic. I bet he walked in just ready to tear this movie apart.

    I also read another review where the guy said the Madagascar short was better. Was I the only person that found the jerky spastic animation jarring? I didn’t find it at all humorous.

  3. Never had any interest in seeing Madagascar and I haven’t had a chance to see W&G yet.

    Not having seen it, I have to be honest and say that my wife took my 9yo daughter, and my daughter didn’t like it as much as the original series of shorts (and she’s a BIG W&G fan), although my wife liked it.


  4. I suppose I don’t think it’s better than the shorts, either. I guess when I went in to see it I was comparing it more to other films (I hardly go to the movies because very little looks interesting), so I went in hoping that I’d have a good time at the cinema. Which I did. But with this new film Aardman Animation is trying to satisfy a very different market (as opposed to the…straight-to video claymation market..) so the movie is a little different. There were a few cheeky things in there and there are more characters, for example. Part of the charm of the shorts for me was that you see very few other people- but they had to up the scale of the feature film version.

    But, anyway, it certainly stacks up well compared to the other movies out right now.