So, you want to be a film critic? OK, but what will you do for a living?

I see the impact in my small corner of the world. Despite a storied history, film reviews no longer appear on the pages of The Philadelphia Inquirer or Daily News, where I work. The same goes for the Asbury Park Press and the Baltimore Sun. The Star-Ledger, once home to Pulitzer Prize-nominee Stephen Whitty, no longer has a printed newspaper.”

Rob Tornoe, digital editor and writer, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“A newspaper film critic is like a canary in a coal mine. When one croaks, get the hell out.”

Pulitzer Prize-winner Roger Ebert wrote those eerily prescient words in 2012, just a few months before his death. The famed film critic, who inspired a generation of aspiring writers with his quick wit and snappy prose, clearly saw the trends in motion that have since decimated the industry he helped popularize.  

As with many things, the decline of newspapers is mostly to blame. What was once viewed as a popular feature that could attract new readers to local papers across the country (thanks in no small part to 20th Century Fox’s overreaction to Judith Crist’s takedown of “Cleopatra” for the New York Herald-Tribune in 1963), film critics have become an unaffordable luxury to all but a handful of news outlets — threatening the future of a once-thriving art form. 

I see the impact in my small corner of the world. Despite a storied history, film reviews no longer appear on the pages of The Philadelphia Inquirer or Daily News, where I work. The same goes for the Asbury Park Press and the Baltimore Sun. The Star-Ledger, once home to Pulitzer Prize-nominee Stephen Whitty, no longer has a printed newspaper. 

“I haven’t lost faith in movies. I still love movies, I will still go to movies,” A.O. Scott said in 2022 after stepping down from his job as the top film critic at The New York Times. “I worry about my fellow critics and about the state of the artform we care so much about.” 

The latest victim of these brutal trends is Ebert’s successor at the Sun-Times, Richard Roeper, who was recently among 35 staffers — including his editor, Darel Jevens — who accepted a buyout. There were high hopes across the industry when the Sun-Times was purchased by local NPR affiliate WBEZ in 2022. However, according to Chicago Public Media CEO Melissa Bell, a dramatic budget shortfall of $3 million to $5 million necessitated immediate job cuts. 

Roeper’s departure from the paper was a quiet affair. Despite spending nearly four decades at the Sun-Times and on TV alongside Ebert as Gene Siskel’s successor, Roeper didn’t pen a farewell column, and his final review was of the forgettable live-action version of “Snow White.” Despite that, Roeper said he parted with the paper on good terms and took the buyout in part to prevent other journalists in the newsroom from losing their jobs. 

“I still have a TV gig; I still have a podcast. I still intend to write,” Roeper said. “But they’re focusing more on local news… It was pretty clear to me that sports and entertainment were no longer a priority.”

Roeper spoke to Editor & Publisher about his decision to take a buyout, the state of the film industry and the future of his chosen profession. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

What is the state of film criticism in the U.S. right now? 

It is a very interesting time for critics and for the industry. I think there are probably more smart, passionate, energetic, film-loving writers out there than ever before.

The problem for many local newspapers and TV stations that used to have an entertainment reporter or a critic is when they start making budget cuts, it’s often going to start with sports and entertainment. 

They were very honest with me at the Sun-Times. It had nothing to do with me; it had to do with the fact they were shifting focus in different directions. The job, as I knew it and as Roger knew it, wouldn’t exist anymore. 

So, your job would’ve shifted to writing about movies and other topics.

Exactly. I always took great pride in the fact that, since the mid-1960s, the Chicago Sun-Times had two film critics. Roger, of course, was the legend, and I did my best to honor him by taking over the job. But to see that just disappear in one day is … it’s a sad day.

What do newspapers lose when they don’t have film critics or local columnists on staff?

People grow up, and it becomes a generational thing. Here in Chicago, people were Tribune people or Sun-Times people. So, I think readers like a familiar voice. There are front-page headlines and local news. Now, I’ve got to see what Rick Telander says about the Chicago Bulls, or I want to read what Roger Ebert says about movies, because these are voices I know and trust. 

When you don’t have as many high-profile personalities and trusted figures, it diminishes the product's appeal to a broader mainstream audience. 

You used to be more of a general columnist at the Sun-Times before getting into films, right? 

I came up the old-fashioned way. I started answering phones and moved to editorial assistant, general assignment reporter and then news columns. Right around the early 2000s, I shifted to almost all pop culture in my columns and eventually started doing the show with Roger. But yeah, I started in hard news. 

And Snow White was really the last review you wrote for the paper?

[Laughter] Yes, yes! I actually didn’t mind it. All the other stuff around it was unfortunate on a lot of levels. 

I couldn’t tell you my first review, but I think it might have been Stephen King’s “Pet Cemetery,” the first version in like 1989 or something. Even when Roger was the film critic, sometimes when he’d go to Cannes or be doing stuff, he’d say, ‘Hey, Richard reviews stuff.’ That’s how I started reviewing movies way back then. 

Is there a review you wish you could take back? 

[Laughter] Oh, there are many. I’ve done literally thousands of reviews, probably 7,000 or 8,000. If you stuck by every opinion you ever had and never questioned yourself, that’d be insane. 

I wasn’t a huge “Lord of the Rings” fan, so I think I have one of those two and a half stars. But I’m also sometimes shocked. I’ll be watching a movie on TV and go, ‘This is horrible.’ Then, I look up my review, and I gave it three stars. 

I loved “Legally Blonde.” However, I gave “Legally Blonde 2” a positive review and may have been the only one. 

How have movies changed over the years? 

Well, Marvel changed everything. Since Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970s, the blockbuster has really dominated the way Hollywood thinks. But now, more than ever, it’s all about the big movies and, unfortunately, lots of remakes and sequels. 

Last year, out of the top 10 films at the box office, one or two were original stories. The rest were either reimaginings or reboots because the stakes are so high financially that executives don’t want to green-light anything. Even in the 1990s, you’d see so many more mid-budget movies. 

Streaming has also changed everything. If there’s only a 14-day window or 21 days between theatrical and home release, a lot of people are saying, ‘Well, I’ll just wait to watch it at home.’ Back in the late 90s, “Titanic” played in theaters for a year. 

Is there a future for the Roger Ebert model of film reviews? 

Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times will always have film critics — actual human beings on staff — not just A.I. [artificial intelligence] or syndicated reviews. 

But I would say this: If someone in college came to me and wanted to be a film critic, I would say, ‘It’s a great hobby. What do you want to do for a living?’

Rob Tornoe is a cartoonist and columnist for Editor and Publisher, where he writes about trends in digital media. He is also a digital editor and writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Reach him at robtornoe@gmail.com.