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?
Comments (1-30) of 113 Add your comment
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.
Just to let you know CC, Ben Mankiewicz appears on Turner Classic Movies, not American Movie Classic (which up until “Mad Men”, had become a shell of its past glory, airing movies that could not be defined as “Classic” by any stretch of the imagination, and to make matters worse removing whole scenes from movies b/c of potentially offensive material). I know that Ben M appears on TCM, not only because I watch TCM religiously, but also because he brought up that fact at least 3 times during “At the Movies”. What once was a critical discussion that brought to light small gems otherwise ignored, has now become nothing more than an advertisement for its hosts. I would take the overly polished Roeper any day of the week over the empty platitudes that comes from the two Bens.
I tried to watch this train wreck. It belongs on public access rather then ABC television.
If you don’t know your films and can not speak eloquently about them, why would anybody care. I know I don’t. It’s not that they are criticizing cinema, it is also the personalities that we tune in for.
As a less painful alternative to the new At The Movies I took a plastic knife to my eyeballs and poked then until they bleed a little. Next time I just won’t watch at all.
I stopped watching Ebert at the Movies when Ebert left and Roeper took over with rotating critics. I used to watch it religiously, but now I get my criticism from the internet (ew, rottentomatoes), and Poland and Jeff’s sites.
With Roger not in the seat, critics on TV have gone down the tube. They should go back to being a segment of the 10 o’clock news.
I can’t watch the show online, as in Canada and on tv always on to late. Typical screw over for other countries. The prior show was available to me online!
I was not impressed. It was just too sporadic for me.
Bring back Ebert & Roper or other qualified guest hosts. The new show is cutesy banter not film critiques from knowledgeable film historians. Very disappointing.
It felt like a public access show. The harder the show tried to come off as legit the more it came off as fake. The banter was terrible. It didn’t seem like two critics battling each other with ideas, or continuing the other’s thought. Instead the show came off as two random folks (at least compared to their subpar frame of reference) talking about films that doesn’t zone in on what makes these two guys special enough to have their own show, let alone continue a show that was working before. I felt like I got an idea where Michael Philips was coming from from day one. Right now I have a hard time remembering these two new guys names!
The production values, new format and new features are bad but that’s not the point. It is all about the hosts. Bland, unwatchable pretty boy talking heads with ZERO credibility (who they are related to seems to be their only calling card). Phillips and Roeper had better turn up elsewhere because sadly, it is the end of an era.
To paraphrase Ebert’s notorious review of the Elijah Wood film North, I HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE At the Movies with the Bens (AKA Shlubby and the Kid).
The only thing I feel good about with this “new direction” is at least they didn’t hire Billy Bush (I’m never gonna forgive that ***hat for defecating on the Golden Globes earlier this year, am I? Maybe I should see somebody about that…)
I hate to pile on but I watched it in awe of how terrible it was. The two reviewers are dull and passive aggressive with each other.
The roundtable is kind of a cool concept but came across very clunky in execution. I was wondering if all of the producers also left the show.
This was a complete travesty. I couldn’t even watch the whole thing, I turned it off right after they introduced the three “by satalite” critics for the second time in five minutes. The new hosts are awful, Roper wasn’t anything to write home about but at least I could stand listening to him. This is worse than that awful period when they had rotating hosts (feat. film experts such as John Mellancamp and Aisha Tyler!). I can’t believe this is the same show A.O. Scott used to appear on. Needless to say I’m done with this piece of garbage.
the new show is awful. let’s just admit that the old at the movies is gone. this is in the league of extra and entertainment tonight. let’s remember that most of the french new wave directors started as critics. how far we’ve come. au revoir at the movies. we will miss you, may you rest in peace!
The new “At the Movies” is awful. I’ve missed Ebert, but Roeper & guest was fun, too. I cared about their opinions even when I didn’t agree with them. The reviews on this new show are trivial & meaningless. I don’t care about this show or what these people have to say.
With the loss of both Ebert and Siskel, the show had been diminished in recent years, but it was still good. But this new show is awful. I didn’t feel I learned anything about any of the films they discussed. Hopefully, someone will produce a show with real film criticism again, but this is more Entertainment Tonight than At the Movies.
I thought the show was cheesy. I missed the balcony. The conversation was stilted and the hosts lacked all charisma. I was really disappointed and am now going to have to find something else to watch at 11:45p on Sunday nights.