Over the years, I’ve sat in as a guest critic working both sides of the “&” on the long-running cinephile TV show most recently known as At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper. So with all the power vested in me by the authority of having had my thumb photographed for publicity purposes, let me say this about the announcement that Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz, two younger, presumably groovier guys with no particular movie-critic cred, are being prepped to take the Disney-produced show in “a new direction”: That new direction should have been charted years ago. It may as well be now.
I don’t mean that younger, superficially groovier guys with no particular movie-critic cred should have been installed in a misbegotten attempt to woo younger, groovier, movie-loving viewers who, uh, don’t watch old-paradigm TV shows like this one. I’ll wait until the show’s on the road before forming an opinion. Maybe. (FYI, I’d like to think that there’s even more of an educated, desirable audience for a well-matched, lively, substantive pair or trio or quartet of knowledgeable movie critics discussing the latest releases, than there is for two superficially groovy, well-connected guys named Ben. Maybe one could even be other-than-male, or other-than-white!) What I mean is that when the brain tumor and death of Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel in 1999 left Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert without his original on-air sparring partner, the yang to his yin—well, back then, the thumbs should have been retired and the popcorn recipe reformulated.
Look, the thumbs were a Siskel & Ebert thing, no one else’s. (As it is, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel’s widow share copyright ownership of the thumb-as-critical-signature.) The two print journalists, with faces made for radio, were different in temperament, different in aesthetic taste, different in bulk—and matched in energy, passion, and, at the time, critical heft, too. But then, after Siskel’s death, and as Ebert’s own national stature grew substantially, for a while the show became Ebert-plus-guest-thumb. (That was me, once or twice.) The give-and-take was already unbalanced. And when Richard Roeper—a newspaper columnist and entertainment writer with smooth on-air skills but not, himself, an established movie critic—was selected as Siskel’s permanent successor, the show became about Ebert the influential critic, plus the guy in Siskel’s chair. In other words, the critical mismatch further distorted the format’s original intent.
Now, alas, for the past two years, Ebert’s own health problems have kept him mute and off screen. (Oh, he’s still vivacious, highly articulate, and writes up a storm; he just ain’t, as he puts it, “a pretty boy no more.”) But face it, minus its original energy source, for a long while now Ebert & Roeper At the Movies has become a marginal infotainment show starring the not-quite-critic-guy in Siskel’s chair, plus a guest guest-thumb. (One time that was me, too; most recently and most regularly, it was my colleagues A.O.Scott from The New York Times and Michael Phillips from The Chicago Tribune.)
So like I said, a plan to rest the thumbs is wise. The only question is, does handing off a venerable talking-heads show invented to encourage thoughtful national conversation about movies to these newbies count as giving grown-up movie-lovers the finger?
Comments (1-30) of 48 Add your comment
Lisa, I like your idea of a multi-critic panel talk show…like a half-hour “The View” or “Chelsea Lately”’s commentary portion, composed of a diverse and occasionally changing group of critics, discussing current and past movies.
Methinks you do not like Richard Roeper, Lisa…
I have watched Siskel and Ebert since it was on PBS and though it took me a (long)while to warm up to Roeper but will miss him. It’s the end of the show as we’ve known it but I feel fine!
When Siskel was on the show, it was must-watch TV for me. I stopped watching when he died, and it’s just become an increasingly irrelevant show since then. So, in regards the new development, I just don’t care.
wow – way to poop on Roeper. I grew up on “Sneak Previews” and its later incarnations, and Roeper is a skilled writer who grew into his position quite well. I also happen to prefer many of his positions regarding films to Lisa’s – but that’s just me.
Lisa’s subtle insinuation that somehow a film critic is born into the role and is not something that can be grown into is both insulting to Richard Roeper, and displays a mildly nauseating hubris towards her chosen occupation.
Lisa, I miss Gene and Roger but still enjoyed the show in its present form regardless of who owns the trademark on Thumbs Up(The Fonz). and I much prefer Roeper’s straightforward reviews to the pretentious claptrap you crank out every week. Disney’s shooting for the Miley Cyrus crowd? good for them…I can check Rotten Tomatoes every Thursday.
Unfortunately, I could not agree more. Gene’s illness and death were such a surprising blow, it’s as if the producers of the show have been in denial this entire time. All due respect to Richard, who deserves to remain on television in some capacity, but “Siskel and Ebert” passed away nine years ago.
I’m so afraid they’re going to muck with the format and turn it into a celebrity gossip show or what people were wearing on the red carpet or whatever. If they stick to reviews, I’m happy.
fwiw, I liked Roeper, as well as most of the guest guest-thumbs, especially Aisha Tyler. They really should have tapped her for the “new direction.”
If you have such a low opinion of Roeper, why did you go on the show with him?
Also, you apparently missed all the stories last week that made it very clear that not replacing Roeper–he quit, and he’s taking the show someplace else.
Disney also said they’re getting rid of the theme music and the balcony set, adding a roundtable panel of six people and introducing new features. It’s a whole new show!!
Thanks Lisa. I agree that this format should have been retired after Siskel died. The genius of the show with them was that their viewpoints were significantly different and if a movie managed to get 2 thumbs up (which didn’t happen every week) then you, the viewer, knew you really wanted to see it. It’s never been the same since.
I completely agree that the show shouldn’t have continued after Gene passed. I tried to continue watching but none of the guest hosts came close. I figure Roeper got the job because he was already in Chicago and because he was probably the only guest host who wasn’t painfully awkward in front of the camera. It certainly wasn’t because of his thoughtful and insightful reviews. Eventually the ratings dropped so low that my local station began airing it at 1am Monday mornings. I haven’t seen the show in years.
I’m not really thrilled about this change either. Who are these guys? And why should I care about their thumbs? I am fairly young (although not THAT young) and dream of being a (real) movie critic, and I watch this show religiously. I don’t know how it’s going to be the same without Ebert and now Roeper, but I’m sort of glad they’re not canceling it just yet. Although, I do wish they would have brought it more diverse critics (non-white guys see movies too!) because it adds another angle of critique to the mix. I absolutely loved when Aisha Tyler was a guest reviewer. I guess I’ll just have to wait and see what happens and hope the show is a contemporary update while respecting the format of the people who created the show, otherwise they should just cancel it.
themediacloset.blogspot.com
Gee, Lisa, did you want the job?
No way am I watching this show anymore, if Lyons is anything like his dad, he’ll be the worst critic in all media.
Until I heard this news last week, I didn’t even know this show was still on the air. RIP Gene and keep fighting Roger…you two were the only ones At The Movies, as far as I’m concerned.
Lisa, so what your saying is that because these guys are young, you and the rest of the ‘older’ crowd are not going to watch? What does their ages have to do with it? I’m not saying they are the best choices for the show. From what I know of Lyons, he is a quote-whore, much like his optimistic father, and dated one of the ‘Hills’ girls, if that says anything. As for the other guy, I will hold my opinion until I see him on air.
“For a long while now Ebert & Roeper At the Movies has become a marginal infotainment show starring the not-quite-critic-guy in Siskel’s chair…”
And, uh, it hit a new low when Lisa was the guest critic.
I liked this show. I liked hearing Roeper defend crap movies like 21 and the Number 23.
That Lyons dude is a tool who should stay on E.
I’m concerned indie movies and foreign films will get little coverage under the new regime. Disney isn’t interested in promoting that type of film. And, younger isn’t always better.
My fave part of this show was when they were nasty (Siskel and Ebert, that is) to each other…I never, ever enjoyed whiner Roeper in the seat, he was outclassed by Roger and never even close to his equal…I am glad to see that Roeper is gone, let a couple of n00bs take a crack at it, although I’m not holding my breath for anything wonderful…time to move on…
I’ve watched hundreds of episodes of this show from the glory days of Siskel to the current, post-Ebert era. I’ve also read dozens, if not hundreds, of Lisa’s reviews. I’ll take Roeper over Lisa any day.
I really enjoy Ben Mankiewicz; he’s the weekend host on TCM. He seems to know a lot about movies, or he has excellent researchers!
He does have a wry sense of humor and some movie/critic genes; his grandfather was Herman Mankiewicz, the first theater critic for The New Yorker, and his great uncle was Joseph Mankiewicz, who wrote and directed some of Hollywood’s legendary movies like All About Eve, Guys and Dolls and Julius Caesar. I haven’t seen the show for years, but might have to check out the new incarnation.
It would have been nice to see a woman added. Not because I think everything always needs to be equal, but because there are so many male reviewers out there, and almost none of them should have reviewed a movie like “Sex and the City.” Not all women (myself included) like “chick flicks” but I think it would be nice to get a female point of view.
I actually thought Roeper was a great match with Ebert. Sad to see him go.
This show has been a staple of mine since my first year of university. I look forward to the show every week, despite often having to find it at 1 am on a Sunday, or partially interrupted by a rerun of CSI:Miami. Even though I didn’t always agree with Siskel, Ebert, Roeper, AO Scott, or the the other cast of characters who have populated the show over the last couple of years, their discussion of movies helped me form my opinion about what I wanted to see. The format, including the thumbs, Lisa, is solid. I miss Ebert, but I will miss the opportunity to watch a sparring match between two witty movie lovers more.
This news is ironic, considering Roeper was brought in after Siskel’s death to BE that younger slightly hipper contradiction to Ebert’s tradional critiquing style. I guess this is a lesson to all of us, we’re all doomed to get old and die, which is TOTAL. BLEAKOSITY.
As a native of the Chicago area, I am pretty particular about my movie review programming. The death of Siskel and Ebert’s health problems have forced me to stop watching. If I can’t watch Roger and Gene, I’m not watching anyone! I never could stand that Roeper creep. Nothing hip about him.
As usual, I completely disagree with Lisa’s “review” of a show that isn’t even on yet and I disagree with her opinion of the past 8 yrs of “At The Movies.” I appreciate other people’s opinions of movies and enjoy Ben M. on TCM. I choose not to make snap-judgments and insult previous and current hosts/critics. It sounds like Lisa wishes she was superficially groovy and well-connected. Then maybe she could get her own show and EW could hire a better reviewer for their mag.
I’ve watched “At the Movies” regularly since the late 1970s (when I was 6 or 7 years old). While I agree that the “imbalanced” dynamic between Ebert and his weekly guest critics made for awkward viewing in the years after Siskel’s passing, I’ve actually found the most recent incarnation of show (i.e., in the last year or two) to be among the best in its long history—largely because of the emergence of A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips as Roeper’s regular sparring partners. As film critics with genuine intellectual depth, Scott and Phillips are perfect foils for Roeper’s more “populist” (and, to my mind, superficial) brand of criticism. While Roeper tends to coast on opinions like “It just didn’t work for me” or “[Actress X] looks hot,” Scott and Phillips can actually articulate WHY a film doesn’t work and convey HOW, exactly, a particular actress’s performance shapes the deeper meaning of a given movie. [cont. in next post]
Even with all of their analytical rigor, however, Scott and Phillips don’t take themselves too seriously; on the contrary, they use wit and self-deprecation to challenge Roeper’s more self-congratulatory, frat-boy pronouncements. On their best days, the dynamic between them actually feels authentically argumentative, but also friendly and warm. So even though the original duo of Siskel and Ebert is no longer on the air (and, just to clarify, I loved those guys, too), this newer, “lesser” version still manages to be informative and entertaining. Granted, for viewers who “haven’t watched the show in years,” as several comments here have claimed, these improvements probably won’t mean much. But, I, for one, will miss the chance to see A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips—and, yes, Roeper—on the air in this type of venue. [cont. in next post]
Ben Lyons is the worst choice ever!! He comes across as caring more about being cool and high-fiving everyone than giving a well, articulated film review. He is the Carson Daly of film critics: a massive tool!!