ABC’s At the Movies re-launched this weekend with two new hosts: The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott and the Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips. Wait, actual newspaper critics? On television? Has ABC gone nuts? The debut episode barely called attention to the fact that these weren’t the same guys we’d been stuck with for the past year. “Let’s get right to it,” Scott remarked, as if the The Two Bens Experiment was just a bad dream.
If only we were so lucky. A year ago, ABC hired hosts Ben Mankiewicz, a semi-knowledgeable and semi-articulate movie guru from Turner Classic Movies, and the baby-faced Ben Lyons, who, bless his heart, had notoriously called I Am Legend “one of the greatest movies ever made.” I said then that the revamped show didn’t work, although I must admit that The Two Bens got better as the season progressed. It didn’t matter, though, because the very people who’d watch a movie-review show — film lovers — were turned off by The Two Bens’ questionable credentials. Lyons, in particular, was targeted: Roger Ebert thinly disguised his disapproval of Lyons, and someone built a website, Stop Ben Lyons, solely to highlight young Ben’s offenses. Add the show’s dwindling ratings to the mix, and ABC decided it was time to return to the program’s original purpose — intelligent film criticism.
Does the new At the Movies deliver on that promise? Yup. In one swift episode, Scott and Phillips conveyed a depth of perception that would have made Lyons’ head spin. However, despite all their smarts, the two critics have a chemistry issue that may or may not sort itself out. When I initially learned that Scott and Phillips were picked as the show’s hosts, I worried that their personalities would be too similar, and this episode confirmed that premonition. The original pairing of Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel thrived because of the tension and palpable animosity that hovered in the air. When Ebert and Siskel disagreed, they leaped into battle determined to prove each other wrong. Yet, Scott and Phillips might as well be fishing buddies. They clearly admire one another, and there isn’t that energy that comes from the sense that a memorable verbal assault may be right around the corner.
Part of the problem is the show’s current verdict system: See It, Rent It, and Skip It. That “Rent It” option has to go. The beauty of Siskel & Ebert‘s thumbs system was that it answered the most basic question every moviegoer has: Should I see the movie — yes or no? The “Rent It” option, however, is a cop out. It allows Phillips and Scott to amiably disagree, as they did with the movie Big Fan (Phillips said “See It,” while Scott opted for “Rent It”). Nobody cares if a movie’s recommended for renting. No one is going to add a DVD to his or her Netflix queue because it received two “Rent It” ratings. Money’s tight and life is short, so please give us a straight answer.
Still, despite those shortcomings, this At the Movies remains a considerable improvement over last year’s incarnation. Scott’s review of The Burning Plain was particularly refreshing; the critic intentionally jumbled the sequence of his remarks to comically emulate the film’s haphazard narrative. The two reviewers will inevitably become more comfortable in their leather chairs, and hopefully some sparks will fly in the future. For now, serious film criticism has returned to the world of television, and that’s reason enough to celebrate.
PopWatchers, what did you make of the new At the Movies? Are you glad to see two distinguished film critics at the helm? Are any of you actually going to miss The Two Bens?
Completely disagree with your criticism of the “See It”, “Rent It”, “Skip It” ratings. I often tell folks a movie is worth a rental and NOT the $10 to see in the theatre.
I agree with the previous poster. Loved Siskel and Ebert, loved the banter back and forth with the opinions. There is still room for that type of criticism and we should see some disagreements. BUT, the paradigm has changed in the rating system, mainly because Ebert owns the “thumbs” system. I initially thought that was bad, but frankly I think the new system is better. There are degrees of movie watching and saying to someone, it’s worth a rental, is part of our culture now. As a consumer and movie watcher, I want to know if I am missing the theater experience or if this just a good story that would suffice at home. If I can avoid the theater and the wonderful people who attend there, let me know. If this movie is best seen in the theater, let me know that as well. Rent it is a valid rating.
Yup, I do the same thing. I think there are DEFINITELY 3 degrees to deciding on a movie. Is it good enough that I want to catch it in the theater, and talk about it now, and recommend it to people I know? Is it OK, and worth seeing? Not enough to go out of my way and maybe waste $10 on, but to throw in my Netflix queue and not really spend any more for than my monthly fee and a lazy Saturday afternoon? Or is it really so bad that it’s not worth anything? I probably shouldn’t be commenting, since I haven’t seen the new format, but it seems like a great idea to me.
I was perfectly content with watching old movies on TV until I saw His Girl Friday in a theater, and Cary Grant’s charisma jumped by about 3000% on a big screen as compared to TV. So sure, in an ideal world, you should see movies in the theater and only see them on DVD once you’ve had the full theatrical experience. However, I have to agree with the See It, Rent It, Skip It being OK in principle because it is just as much a part of people’s lives today to watch a movie on DVD as it is to watch it in a theater, and when I go to the movies, I make my decision mostly based on which movie I think will lose the most by being watched on a smaller screen, and then I go see that one in the theater. I wish I could see them all in the theater, but it’s just not practicable for most people.
I agree. By the way, this rating system has been in place on the show for several years, at least since Ebert went on medical leave, or thereabouts.
For me, the rent it option is getting to be the norm. I live by Netflix. I am such a huge movie buff and I love seeing movies as they were intended — on a big screen. The problem is, today’s audiences are all disrespectful aholes that constantly turn on their cell phones, check their email and even tweet during the movie. Not to mention the cretins that talk through the whole movie. It’s just not worth the money and effort to deal with folks that have no idea what it means to be in a public movie theater.
I’m getting to the point where my 52″ plasma TV with surround sound is preferable to the local multiplex.
If I could just find a gadget that disables all mobile devices in the theater for the two hours I’m there, I’d go to the movies a couple times a week!
As far as Phillips and Scott, I welcome them. I stopped watching after the two Bens were hired, after being a devoted fan for over 30 years. Glad to have the show back on my radar and Tivo season pass!
I almost stopped watching the two Bens. I am thrilled to see the two “new” familiar and very much respected faces. Finally, a worthy follow-up to Ebert and Siskel.
Best wishes to Roger, by the way.
What happened to Richard Roeper? I thought he was coming back with a new show after he left At The Movies.
YES … where is Richard Roeper? Still my favorite. I’d pair him with A. O. Scott.
I started watching Sneak Previews with Siskel & Ebert way back in the beginning and watched all its incarnations…until the Bens. So glad I can watch again with two critics whose opinion I respect. And I think Rent It is a perfectly acceptable recommendation these days.
I completely disagree that the show will only work if sparks fly. Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper often disagreed completely, but they were still able to be entertaining without being juvenile. The same occurred when Roeper and Phillips worked together. I think Scott and Phillips will rely on their sharp senses of humor and dry wit to keep the show compulsively watchable and fully credible for its viewers. I think their debut show was perfect!
I WANT ROEPER BACK! Where’s he at? Of course I want Ebert as well but Roeper was a really good film critic. I approved of his opinions. BRING ROEPER BACK!!!
I always liked when Roeper had Scott or Phillips as a guest critic. I haven’t seen them together yet (it’s on my DVR since last night). I do hope that when one of them can’t make it for an episode they’ll invite Roeper back.
Roeper and Phillips had the best chemistry. I think Roeper was developing his own show, but I would love to see him instead of A.O. Scott
If I could bring anyone back it would be Gene Siskel; he is still missed.
I agree with Chris — we’ve often decided to wait for a movie to come to cable instead of paying $$$ to see it at the theater. Just like I’ve often said some movies are worth seeing once (on cable, dvd, etc) – not necessarily something you’d want to buy, etc.
I agree with Kim and Chris — it’s not just paying full price for tickets, but also paying for a babysitter. We often use the phrase “babysitter worthy” meaning that the movie had better be awesome because we’re paying an extra $30 to the sitter. Most movies don’t live up to that standard, so we would “rent it”.
I agree with all of the above–whenever someone at work sees a movie the first question asked is always was it worth it or is it a rental?
Excellent assessment EW. I could not stand the 2 bens and the format of that show. The new show gets back to “right to it”, to quote AO. I too am concerned that the critics will be too similar in their sensibilities, and in their historic propensity to ‘poo poo’ films that may not be particulary different or ambitious ( citically) but have mass appeal.
That said, I am do happy the show is back and that we have two knowledgable well-spoken critics to listen to!
I agree mostly, except that A.O. Scott has always been one of my favorite critics because he rates movies on their intent, not on the fact that most movies must be cinematic masterpieces. I particularly remember when he gave Spiderman 2 a great review and much of his review focused on how much his son loved it. So, I guess I just think that Scott tends to understand mass appeal movies are just that, and rates them so!
Ben Mankiewicz is also a co-contributor to the online progressive radio show The Young Turks, which is awesome and informative for anyone seeking a news source outside of the out of touch 24-hour news channels. I thought he rocked on the show but he did get bogged down by Lyons, whose primary employment before the show was working for the E! Network. Really? Some guy from the channel that produced Living Lohan is supposed to fill Roger Ebert’s shoes? I’ll check out the new incarnation of the show but I’ll still go to Ebert online as my main source of film criticsm. The man does more writing now than before his operation, it’s inspiring.
I was just glad the vapid Ben Lyons was fired, and even more glad to find that I was not the only one who thought my parakeet could give more insightful (and mature) reviews…I love the stopbenlyons blog and wished I would have known about it a year ago. Farewell Ben Lyons; hey you still have E!
I find it ironic that EW.com of all places are criticizing other critics.
I for one will not miss the two Bens, but speaking of revamping the show, EW.com may want to take a page from their book. Just saying….
I never liked the thumbs up or down philosophy. There are many reasons why someone would want to watch a movie and a good critic should recognize that and recommend a movie for rental that might appeal to a particular audience.
I totally like the new rating system. For some people renting it may be the only way they see a movie nowadays. I often tell people who ask whether they should see it or wait for the DVD and I’ll tell them, “DVD it”.It’s just not worth wasting your money on ,when you can rent it for quite cheap a few months later.
Although I think Ben Mankiewicz is a good critic and will continue to watch him on Turner Classic Movies (he introduces movies shown on the afternoons Sat. and Sun.); I think the new show is very good. I miss Richard Roeper, but, there’s probably too much hostile feelings for him to return. I think the “rent it” option is valid, a fair movie that is okay, but, not worth $10 to see at the cinema. Good luck, and I hope the new show gets the positive ratings it deserves.