A Critique on a Critic: An Evaluation on Richard Roeper Richard Roeper is a top reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times. Recently, on June 15, 2015, he reviewed a highly rated movie called Inside Out. Inside Out is directed by Pete Docter and Ronaldo Del Carmen. It has certain stars that include Phyllis Smith and Mindy Kaling from The Office, Amy Poehler and Bill Hader from Saturday Night Live, and Lewis Black from The Daily Show. Richard Roeper does a fantastic job at critiquing this because he told people about the plot, he goes into detail about the movie, and offers his opinion when needed; however, he could have lengthened the review by presenting a few ending details a bit better.
Roeper’s explanation of the plot is something that prompts …show more content…
Roeper uses opinions when needed to “talk up” the movie, for example he says: “The Pixar animation team outdoes itself with vast, intricate, amazingly detailed landscapes…” This is one example of how opinions can make or break the motivation to see the movie. Opinions are very important in a review because people look at these reviews to determine whether or not to see the movie. For example, Roeper rated Inside Out pretty high, awarding it with four stars, which is a fantastic rating, especially for a Disney Pixar movie. While having an opinion makes for a fantastic critique, one must not have too much of an opinion. If one has too much of an opinion it makes one uneasy and untrusting to read a reviewer’s work. One might think that a reviewer too opinionated may be biased or even payed to review the movie as a good movie. Roeper has the perfect amount of opinion, making him not only a great reviewer because of how well he goes into the plot or how well he details his reviews, but also because he can review a movie with the perfect amount of opinion to make readers want to see this …show more content…
This review was a little short in length but also lacked the parental ratings, the run time and the exact date that it opened in theatres. It did say these certain aspects after the review in small font, as seen here: “Disney-Pixar presents a film directed by Pete Docter and Ronaldo Del Carmen and written by Docter, Meg LeFauve and Josh Cooley. Running time: 93 minutes. Rated PG (for mild thematic elements and some action). Opens Friday at local t`heaters.”, however this information should be represented in the review itself. While details about the movie were great, Roeper could have gone into more details about the movie itself with information including the release date, direction, actors and actresses, screen play and other such details. These details could be an important factor in whether one wants to see a movie with their favorite director and actors/actresses in
Roeper’s explanation of the plot is something that prompts …show more content…
Roeper uses opinions when needed to “talk up” the movie, for example he says: “The Pixar animation team outdoes itself with vast, intricate, amazingly detailed landscapes…” This is one example of how opinions can make or break the motivation to see the movie. Opinions are very important in a review because people look at these reviews to determine whether or not to see the movie. For example, Roeper rated Inside Out pretty high, awarding it with four stars, which is a fantastic rating, especially for a Disney Pixar movie. While having an opinion makes for a fantastic critique, one must not have too much of an opinion. If one has too much of an opinion it makes one uneasy and untrusting to read a reviewer’s work. One might think that a reviewer too opinionated may be biased or even payed to review the movie as a good movie. Roeper has the perfect amount of opinion, making him not only a great reviewer because of how well he goes into the plot or how well he details his reviews, but also because he can review a movie with the perfect amount of opinion to make readers want to see this …show more content…
This review was a little short in length but also lacked the parental ratings, the run time and the exact date that it opened in theatres. It did say these certain aspects after the review in small font, as seen here: “Disney-Pixar presents a film directed by Pete Docter and Ronaldo Del Carmen and written by Docter, Meg LeFauve and Josh Cooley. Running time: 93 minutes. Rated PG (for mild thematic elements and some action). Opens Friday at local t`heaters.”, however this information should be represented in the review itself. While details about the movie were great, Roeper could have gone into more details about the movie itself with information including the release date, direction, actors and actresses, screen play and other such details. These details could be an important factor in whether one wants to see a movie with their favorite director and actors/actresses in