Did/do you tend to agree more with Siskel (R.I.P.), Ebert, or Roeper?

Question

Ebert for me.
Feel free to state why if you have a reason.

Answer 1

From the TV Show, Siskel. From the written reviews, Ebert.

Rarely, if ever with Roeper.

Ebert has become quite predictable and soft in his older age, but he is knowledgable and can pump out a good review on films that aren't directed towards the commerical crowd.

Answer 2

Siskel ... and even more so during the final years.

Ebert has given THUMBS UP to "The Honeymooners" (bernie mac), as well as other truly horrendous "comedies". I think he really has a lame sense of humor - he seems to laugh way too easily.

Siskel (you could tell) really enjoyed film. He would plead with hollywood to make more intelligent movies and to utilize actors and actresses that were GOOD and not simply "popular." He was a very bright guy.

No comment on Roeper ... his reviews are soooooo short and simplistic, not sure what his background is.

Answer 3

While Gene and Roger were teamed, I always enjoyed Gene's point of view, and his philosophy of what makes a movie work: if a movie takes you into its world and it becomes real while you watch it, the movie is doing its job.
After Gene's passing, I began reading more and more of Roger's print reviews, as well as his writings on classic movies, and really began to appreciate his talents as a reviewer, and his love of movies. Even when our opinions differ, he's still worth reading.
Roeper, sorry to say, seems neither to have the experience nor the talent to be a worthy partner. He may like movies, but he doesn't seem to be at all grounded in movies as an artform, or as a form of entertainment that has a now long and distinguished history. Too bad.

Answer 4

I dunno, Roeper always gave thmbs up to good teen comedies and Ebert gave good yet undeserving films thumbs up. I guess I agree with Ebert more.