It appears it's over from this news report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080722/people...ion_movies_dc_5

It's kind of sad, but I won't miss Roeper one bit. He was so cocky and if his guest critic (I though A.O. Scott was the best) didn't agree with his opinions, he really was somewhat immature in how he handled his co-host's alternate opinion. Is that good TV to confront? Yes. Of course. However, Siskel did it well. Roeper always came off to me as an obnoxious kid on the playground who, if he didn't like what you said, you were absolutely WRONG no matter what. It also became quite formula for me that if Roeper loved a film, I would probably hate it - and vice-versa. I never agreed 100% with any of these guys since first watching "Sneak Previews" way back in the late 70's on my local PBS channel, but Roeper really was quite pushy and condescending to any variant opinion to his and I will not miss him one bit. "Richard Roeper" - skip it!!!

From what I understand, AT THE MOVIES will continue on with two new hosts, while Ebert and Roeper will be starting a new show.

From Ain't It Cool News

Interesting - thanks.

Also, I want to correct that I actually preferred MICHAEL PHILLIPS as the co-host the most - and not A. O. Scott as I mentoined earlier. Scott was also a good and smart critic, but I prefer Phillips. Neither were as cocky and arrogant as Roeper, though, and the show became very irritating because of Roeper's holier-than-thou attitude. Roger really made a bad choice.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/07/th..._is_closed.html

Ebert's own piece is much more touching than I would have expected.

I suspect that Roeper was chosen, by whomever, because Ebert and the show's producers were looking for someone like Siskel in attitude. Someone who could be trusted to regularly get under Ebert's skin.