Last weekend, ABC debuted At the Movies, the successor to At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper. The new show takes the basic concept that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert pioneered 33 years ago — two guys debate the week’s film releases — and tries to update it for a younger, hipper audience. And it doesn’t really work.
First is the matter of the hosts themselves: Ben Lyons, the 26-year-old "film expert" from E! Entertainment, and Ben Mankiewicz, the 41-year-old host for Turner Classic Movies. Unlike Siskel and Ebert, neither of these men are newspaper film critics. While Siskel and Ebert honed their criticism skills by writing about movies at great length, Lyons and Mankiewicz are more comfortable in the realm of the sound bite. As a result, the dialogue between the new hosts sounds more like a series of scripted quips than a real conversation.
And then there’s the show’s hasty editing. The program moves at a bam-bam-bam pace that feels artificially forced and awkward. This is especially apparent during the "Critics Roundup" segment, in which three additional critics provide their opinions via satellite. The segment could be a venue for a dynamic five-person discussion, a la ESPN’s Around the Horn. Instead, each guest critic has barely enough time to deliver a complete thought.
However, At the Movies‘ most baffling flaw might also be the easiest to fix: The show presents movie clips in a widescreen format, with bright orange bars on the top and bottom. Within the bars are animated shooting stars and other strange oscillating lines, and the effect is flat-out distracting. Instead of being able to focus on the clip, I couldn’t stop staring at those bizarre psychedelic bars.
Devotees of Siskel & Ebert and Ebert & Roeper, what do you think of the new At the Movies? Do you miss the old hosts, or enjoy this format better?
To put it simply -
This new format SUCKS!
I knew the show had big shoes to fill, so I tried to keep an open mind going in. That being said, I couldn’t even make it through the entire episode. The new hosts were borderline unwatchable, mostly for the first reason Young lists up top. It’s like they’re specifically trying to get their quotes put on the movie poster.
For producers to hire people who KNOW about movies to talk about movies. How about going through the PhDs at NYU or University of Chicago (two great Film Studies programs) or, dare I say, get someone who’s been in the business for more than 15 years and makes their living as a thinker/writer not a television presenter.
this show ceased to exist when Gene died…Roger tried to keep it going, but the dynamic, the fighting/bickering, the love of movies, the ‘I know best’ attitude was gone…it became tame and boring…too nice…I liked the candor, enthusiasm and fierceness with which the dudes would try to make their case…its not the same show, the producers should create a new one, not try to keep the 33 yr old one chugging along…
It is beyond horrible without Ebert or Roeper…. I miss Roeper…
I was not disappointed — only because I was sure it was goona stink. “At The Movies” wasn’t broke so there was no need for the sweeping changes. Take almost any 2 of the fill-in co-hosts that shared the balcony w/ Roeper over the past 2 years and I’d still be entertained and informed by this show. As it was I was confused and quickly uninterested. Thumbs down.
I hated it with a passion. This show had absolutely nothing in common with Siskel/Ebert or Ebert/Roeper. It was awful and in one painful half hour reminded me of why film critcs are obsolete.
I didn’t see the show but the other night I saw 3 movie commercials in a row that all had quotes from Ben Lyons. I thought “this guy must love every movie!”
I love the parantheses around “film expert”. Ben Lyons is about as much of an expert about films as Heidi Montag is about the art of sound.
It’s almost insulting. The producers want to beef up the ratings so they hire two youngish guys and stick some “neato” graphics around the screen and viola! Now the hipsters will come! -donner- said it best. It hasn’t been the same since Gene died. And Roger, God love him, has been doing his best, but the thrill’s been gone.
Hadn’t watched At the Movies for a long time, but this definitely isn’t going to make me want to watch it. I think a panel show could be fun, but I get my movie reviews from RottenTomatoes.com and EW.
This just makes me mad. I can’t stand Ben Mankiewicz. Not even on AMC. When will people start respecting critics again instead of handing putzes like these the reins?
I’ll never have an opinion because I’m never going to watch the show. I prefer to read the comments and reviews of Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips on the Internet.
As for “re-imagining” the format, that’s what the producers have done. Although I really didn’t think the old format was in need of fixing. If Roeper did have to go–and godspeed to him–then I would have liked to see a critic who had some history with the show. (What was Michael Phillips doing that he couldn’t continue?) The show worked best when informed, experienced, reviewers (yes, I think a background in newspaper or magazine reviewing might help!) gave their two cents, unhampered by concerns for sound-bite or entertainment value.
Still better than Lisa Shcwarzbaum!
I’m not going to waste my breath complaining about the new format. It’s not Siskel & Ebert, and it’s not supposed to be. I knew all about the changes and I prepared for the worst. But it’s just a movie review show, and all in all, it’s harmless.
I agree with John Young. Their “banter” seems scripted, and the orange graphics are really
distracting.
The Critic’s Round Up segment is actually a nice touch, and I wonder if the show would be better served if it just kept that format the whole way through- like watching CNN debates, but about movies.
But the lady, Tory Schulman is not a film critic. She’s a stand-up comedian.
I miss Michael Phillips. He is an incredibly insightful critic, and was proving to have a better sense of what makes good movies, more than even Richard Roeper.
They should get rid of the “Rent It” verdict. It’s a lazy way to judge a movie. Either see it or you don’t; this will force their reviews to be more focused.