Does 'At the Movies' work without Ebert & Roeper? Or Siskel & Ebert?

Hamletmiss Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 07:36 PM EST

Remember back in 1993, there was the six-week old talk show bomb "The Chevy Chase Show?" Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz, having the nerve to replace seasoned film critics Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, and not to mention the late Gene Siskel, on "At the Movies," the most successful movie review show program of all time, now being trashed by these guys who know very little about the art of good film criticism. Even worse, "At the Movies" passed the six-week litmus test and is still on. This really does make "The Chevy Chase Show" look like "Masterpiece Theater."

crispy critter Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:03 PM EST

The so called "new" program cannot be endured. yuck.

It's May 2009 and you'd think by now this terrible program would have been ditched, they would come to their senses and reinstate Roeper. But noooo!

Of course, I'm not watching. Ocassionally, I check in to see it is still there. Yep, it's Ground Hog day.

C'mon guys. Admit you were wrong and now, clean up!

gary Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 02:27 PM EST

I like Ebert & Rope much better. There is no comparison. I don't Mankowitz or the kid at all....

gary Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 02:27 PM EST

I like Ebert & Rope much better. There is no comparison. I don't Mankowitz or the kid at all....

David Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:45 AM EST

What I liked best about Siskel (RIP) and Ebert was the passion that they discussed film with. They really got into it back then. They were both so animated about their opinions that at some points it seemed as if they were going to come to blows. (And Ebert's face got so red!) It is pretty clear that the two new hosts do not have enough mutual respect or film knowledge to engage in an argument expressing their positions. Whenever they disagree the only comment that comes of it is, "well I really enjoyed that film, I guess we just disagree...etc." Blah. Let's hear from someone with some experience with film.

johnny Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 06:25 PM EST

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I still feel the shock of seeing the "new" At The Movies. Ugh. Where's the intelligence? I know someone wrote this in these responses, but I think it's true: those who write about film have been thinking about film. Needless to say, I don't watch this anymore (that's after about 15 minutes of it last fall).

James H. Demus Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 02:48 PM EST

Disappointing is putting it mildly. Boring may be more accurate. After months of attempting to get into Ben Lyons' and Ben Mankiewicz's style of reviews, I'm throwing in the towel. What used to be a weekly "must see" is now a once and a while viewing.

David Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:43 PM EST

At the Movies was literally one of the top two most successful shows of all time. That shows how ignorant Disney is and for those of you asking "why don't they bring Roeper back?" He quit the show just like Roger because of their stupidity so they couldn't get him back if they tried.

Connie Barnato Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 05:46 PM EST

Ben Lyons makes for a disastrous host! Not only is he not credible, he is terribly rude for continuously interrupting Ben mankiewicz. Please bring back Richard Roeper, who was truly a professional & made the show not only informative, but a delight to watch.

Jim Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 01:25 AM EST

How disappointing that Roeper and friends are no longer doing the movie reviews. I have been waiting all fall for them to be reinstated, but apparently that isn't going to happen. Meanwhile, I've stopped watching ABC when the program with the two Bens is airing. Do they really appeal to a younger audience?

Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:14 AM EST

Post Siskel/Ebert/Roeper/Phillips fans can cope by going to Rogerebert.com to get written reviews. They can also go to Roeper's written interviews at the Chicago Sun Times. Phillips actually does video reviews through the Chicago Tribune.

Stay as far away as possible from Disney's distratious new version of at the movies.

Laura Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:54 PM EST

The reason everyone watched the show to begin with was to hear intelligent and informed opinions from reliable sources who were familiar with different genres, actors, and directors as well as cinematography, scripts, and plots. I doubt if the two new "bens" could understand 3 words in my previous statement. Couldn't the powers that be have done any better?

dude Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 05:14 AM EST

women are critics? no way!

Grace Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 07:56 AM EST

Horrible choice, just awful. This show won't last more than a season, if that... and when are the powers that be going to recognize that WOMEN are critics as well. What is wrong with you people!!!!!

Dex Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM EST

I wonder why they put someone so young in the position? Lyons resembles an overly waxed animatronic version of a young Roeper. Neither have good vocal control or range so it sounds like a couple of clueless customers overheard at Radio Shack. I don't get it. Terrible terrible voices. Perhaps the network needs to hire myself or any of the others posting here to make basic decisions to pass on such excrement. Someone should lose their job for such a blatant and failed attempt to reach an ever younger attention span deficit audience. I'm thoroughly disgusted and I pray the show tanks quickly and is replaced by an infomerical for the Flowbee robotic haircutting system. Watching "At the Movies" is like a watching a twenty-something strolling around on the community college campus with an alcohol-soaked Mannix. It's just not right.

We will never see a DVD cover with the quotes "Two See Its!"

Wayne Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:01 AM EST

The new show is utter crap. The "new direction" for me is to totally tune out of a program I have watched from its inception. I hope the people funding this junk are listening. If not, too bad. I'm history.

Rob Schmidt Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 08:57 AM EST

I loved Roeper and Phillips almost as much as Siskel and Ebert. I agree with y'all about the new direction. It's bad.

But I have to say a word in defense of Ben Lyons. I think he came across as more knowledgeable, and certainly likable, than Ben Mankiewicz. When Lyons pointed out that Mankiewicz preferred "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" to "Rachel Getting Married," I think that said it all. (FYI, "Rachel Getting Married" is getting great reviews from critics.)

Wilson Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:53 AM EST

Roger Ebert was a critic on the order of Pauline Kael. People are appreciating the fact the Roeper could keep up with Roger. Look at how long it took Ebert to find a replacement for Gene.
This new show is a mess.
Ben Lyons is too young for this show.

e Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 04:08 PM EST

I too am unhappy with the changes. Give your opinion where it counts @ bventertainment.go.com

Rene Diedrich Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 09:53 PM EST

Tonight's show was a dismal affair. Ben W. knows his way around film, but the Lyon boy is too affected and insincere. Why didn't they pair Roper with Ben W.? That makes sense and the potential for some viable verbal vollies is abundent.
Sad to see the old show sail off into the sunset--that format worked, especially with two grumpy, aging geeks who love film. . .

Jan Thyer Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 06:59 PM EST

These guys are terrible. Couldn't they at the very least have TRIED to find a woman???? I was enjoying Roeper with the guest hosts and especially liked the African American actress whose name I can't remember or A.O. Scott with his three nostrils better than Michael Phillips

GT Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 06:49 PM EST

Esta la basura. I'm sorry, but what where the producers thinking with this format change and these jokers. I agree totally with this article. This show is cut faster than sportscenter and that was all the charm of the old. The old show had a quaint dated set and felt like two people having a conversation about movies. This is mid-day cable news at best.

Alan Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 03:46 PM EST

I concure with most of the comments here detailign the failings of the new show. I also sent feedback directly to Buena Vista at the "At The Movies" website and suggest others do the same.

Alan

Suzi Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 09:18 PM EST

Sorry guys it's just not the same. I loved the debate and the chemistry. Roeper & Ebert were passionate about their reviews - the arguments - classic and such fun to watch. And losing the thumbs - that's a big thumbs down. I won't be watching any more.

Tiffani Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 06:35 PM EST

Simply put...horrific. Obviously talent does not run in the family as it pertains to Ben Lyons. How can a 26 year old call himself a film expert. I have watched the show since my early teens in the 80's and will miss my Sunday night ritual and absorbing smart yet sarcastic film guidance. Never again will I watch.

ap burke Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:08 AM EST

been busy so missed any notice-- after viewig the show tonight i googled-going to send a nasty note to my cable company .. it takes the presure off to watch or tape the show --no way going to watch that show again

Miguel Enguidanos Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:24 PM EST

I posted this on the At the Movies site:

It's bad enough I have to put up with the Oakland A's giving away their stars. Now I have to deal with the minor leagues for At the Movies. Bring back the pros.

tnakadai Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:05 AM EST

I never thought anything could make me miss Roeper.

I went to the show's web site to give them feedback, and at
least in Firefox 2.0 on a Mac, found the form apparently disabled.
(Hacked it old school by tabbing.) I told them this, in a 2nd post, after I told them how utterly unimpressed, dismayed, and saddened I was with the new format, hosts and review (SIC!!!) quality. I said I wish them well in their current jobs, but this was not working.

Anyhow, I also said that a cynical conspiracy theorist could theorize
that the malfunctioning input form was a ploy to inhibit the negative
feedback they might get. So I thought I'd let others know -- the form
works -- tell the show runners how you feel. I have no intention of ever watching that show again.

Take care --

tnakadai

Scotty Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 03:40 AM EST

Let's see..."train wreck"? No, that's been used, how about "travesty"? Nope, that's been used, as well. What a horrific shock this has been. My local station has pushed the show to 12:30, AM, Sunday night. I stayed up to watch and regret wasting decent sleep hours on this vacuous 30 minute black hole. If Roeper and Phillips come back with their own new version of ATM, this hideous affront will be buried and forgotten. Only then will true universal balance be restored.

Sriram Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 06:58 PM EST

i think Ebert kept the show going because ... 1) well, it was profitable and 2) to him and Gene it was important, where else would anyone tell you a movie stunk. The chemistry with Roeper was not the same, but it grew. And Roeper was excellent with the guest hosts (and Ebert was still part of the behind the scenes). My advice, keep reading Ebert's reviews (still the best written) and check out rotten tomatoes.

gatty790 Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 05:26 PM EST

When I watched the new version of the show, I was horrified. The show is so flashy, it literally burns your eyes to watch. Whenever I would go to a movie, I would always wait and see what Siskel & Ebert or Ebert & Roeper would say. When Roger Ebert became ill, I thought the show did a real great job of bringing in guest reviewers that actually know something about movies. AO Scott and Micheal Phillips did an exceptional job when they were in the chair.

Gone are the days of intelligent conversations about movies on TV.

I hope that Ebert & Roeper can put something together quickly because this new incarnation is beyond horrible. The balcony closed unnecessarily and I can't wait for a new version with Roeper and a guest critic to hit the air waves. Then I will finally get intelligent advice as to whether or not to see a movie.

I will not watch At The Movies until it returns to the prior format. Keep it simple stupid!

FilmFest Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM EST

The new show is simply awful. The two new hosts have no real film credentials, they should at least be experienced newspaper film critics. Everything about new show is second rate: The graphics, the cloned format, the panels. The producers should just admit they blew it and make a 180 degree U-Turn. It will be painful for their egos but get Roeper and Phillips or AO Scott back. Until they fix this mess, my TIVO will be skipping this show.

Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:55 AM EST

At least we can watch the Siskel/Ebert/Roeper reruns-reviews through the web site.

George Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:15 PM EST

Ben Lyons taking the place of Roger Ebert or Gene Siskel is an absolute disgrace. He is a boy who's grand-daddy was in Bridge on the River Kwai; if not for that fact Ben Lyons would be working at a Starbucks.

"The other Ben" surely knows more about film than Lyons (which says almost nothing) but if he were a guest of Roeper's it would be a disappointing night for the old ATM.

Here's a soundbite for a new show:

"M. for Mediocre plus L. for Lackey equals 'Ben-ality' at The Movies."

R Kale Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:03 PM EST

I had know idea At The Movies was changing format and hosts. So, I was blind sided by this horrible attempt at a film critic show. ABC could not have done worse. I hope another network hires both Roeper and Phillips because the new "show" misses the point. Less glitz and more intellect. It will clear up needed space on my DVR however.

clark Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM EST

When I turned it on last weekend, I thought that my local station had purchased a cheap knock-off to replace a quality show. The current show is unwatchable. The hosts strike me as being unqualified for the job. It was like the flash and format of the show was more important then the reviewing of the movies.

Count me as a disgruntled former viewer.

Tom Hudak Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 05:21 PM EST

What were they thinking? Didn't anyone realize how At the Movies stood out by presenting a genuine, intelligent dialogue, leaving the viewer to choose sides, or as was more often the case, find truths on each side. But no, the corporate deadwood at ABC Television had to make At the Movies like every other talking head show and go from dialogue to a series of cliche ridden sound bites. What a waste! I hope the show sinks like a stone and all involved find themselves unemployed.

Jack Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 03:51 PM EST

What a travesty.

All the “Hippstering it up” and fresh young faces cannot disguise what this show has become: A soulless, shallow, empty-headed, pandering forum in which the performers try and out cute each other while kissing up to Hollywood.

Disgusting.

Pauline Kael must be rolling around in…well, you know.

Is this what is passing for film criticism these days? My God, how I miss Ebert & Roeper.

Patrick Monaghan Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 01:38 PM EST

The set is from the 'SCTV Tacky, but well-done tacky' school of design. Unfortunately not nearly as well done. Graphics distracting. Ben M is fine for me; I enjoy his insight and commentary on TCM. As for Mr. Lyons... give it a rest already.

A mess. I watched 1.5 episodes and that's it for me.

So many great print film journalists around, and this is the best the senior producers at Disney could come up with?

I work in television, so I know what a grind it can be at times, but some of us in tv actually have a sense of fair play and some intuition. Bottom line is that this review program was and is to be *about* film, and the culture of film. Apparently a few people don't get that.

Shame.

ST Man Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:03 PM EST

This is now my favorite show. NOT!!!. Actually this kind of garbage seems to be taking over, such as the news on certain local stations, and other so called entertainment shows. You know the ones, where the hosts (or anchors) can't sit down or have an intelligent conversation or comment. Keep it on MTV (because I have that channel locked out). Did anyone actually care what these people's opinions were?

Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 09:49 PM EST

At The Movies with Roeper & Phillips would have been the next logical choice. Leave it to ABC corporate to think illogically.

Carbonlifeform Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 03:24 AM EST

Watched, the second outing of this thing, and no it didn't get any better from the first. Boy howdy, did this thing blow chunks. The hot shot who came up with this over at ABC should be given his/her job back as a parking valet. Maybe they should promote the janitor to executive producer and clean this mess up.

Nick Rassenti Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:49 AM EST

Seriously, who thought this format was a good idea? I've been a devoted "At the Movies" fan since I was a kid. I certainly missed seeing Rogert Ebert the last couple years, but Richard Roeper is great, and I enjoyed his chemistry with Michael Phillips and previous guest critics like Robert Wolanski. Now we get some lame ET-style MTV-edited parody of the show with two guys standing at a desk? And why are they standing on opposite sides of the desk? It makes no sense. They're not even "at the movies"! What a joke.

Raheman Daya Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:01 AM EST

This new version of At the Movies is truly awful! Yak, yak, yak. Those guys have no intellectual intelligence. Who the heck is running the show? (Whoever it is, they have really blown it big time). I will no longer watch after 30 years. I will go online and read Roger's reviews instead. Suggest everyone does that to show our displeasure.

Hobie Steele Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM EST

NO MORE!!! I have been recording At The Movies for YEARS and today 9/14-15 I removed my (formerly) permanent "record" admonition FOREVER!! Siskel and Ebert were wonderful and Ebert and Roeper have served me very well even with Mr. Ebert's illness. If Richard Roeper will get his comments on the air I will watch them WHEREVER and WHENEVER they are aired. Excuse me, I have to delete tonight's At The Movies trash from my DVR before it rots the entire contents!!

Sharminj Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:04 PM EST

YUK!!! I have to say watching Ebert & Roeper on Sundays was one of my favorite things to do, never missed an episode. This new show is crap and I won't watch it again. The two have no chemistry, aren't likeable and didn't really have anything interesting to say.

Polly Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:09 PM EST

What a waste of time. I certainly will never watch this show again.

ann Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:02 PM EST

This is so disappointiing. The pace is annoying...sit down, slow down, like it used to be! Have two people who really know film (a female would be good...but more important ...two thoughtful people who understand film past and present). I won't be watching unless it changes back.

Mary Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 06:56 PM EST

My husband and I have watched At the Movies every Sunday for as long as I can remember. No more. The show is inane. You've replaced two intelligent, insightful critics with a couple of actors. What a shame!

Jose jones Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 04:18 AM EST

I have been watching siskel and ebert since I was a child. I disagreed with some of the choices yet they were so knowledgeable and professional, it was like disagreeing with great painter about what type of blue to use. Then these two light wieghts try to do the same job, and you remember how important professionalism is. Lyons is the worse When I was a kid I use to disparage is father Jeffrey and antother vanilla critic. Now his son a youth with a big smile and vacant stare. Perfect to be a cocktail waitress but "television film Criticism". What happened to the old guys who knew films from the 30's, knew silent actors, new about the history of the genre. Instead we get MTV. It stinks, There is increasingly nothing left in our society of true value and debth. For old time sake I give it two big thumbs down!

Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 04:03 PM EST

So they finally decided to glitz-up the show with handsome new hosts . . . and suck out every bit of intelligent marrow that was at the core of the original concept pioneered by Siskel and Ebert. It is simply not worth having in this form. Now is the time to make a stand by going back to the tradition of reading witty and relevant reviews in print.

MplsMary Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 02:18 PM EST

There was only one positive aspect to the new version of the show: It only took me five minutes to watch it on my DVR. I watched the first three minutes and then fast-forwarded to the recap.

Egan Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM EST

After watching this show for 17 years, now is the time to stop. Why does everything have to be a soundbite? The new show was awful, dumbed down and insipid. I used to learn about film and life from watching the show, now it's watered-down scotch.

TheRealFatsquatch Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM EST

Way to go, ABC/Disney... You ran off Ebert & Roeper and destroyed what has been a weekly staple for many film fans over the last 30+ years.

This new version of "At the Movies" is absolutely dreadful; with weak commentary, a horrendous set, zero chemistry, and absolutely no compelling reason to watch past the initial episode.

Hopefully this abomination will find itself canceled within a couple of weeks.

DB Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 07:46 AM EST

Two very big thumbs down. Make that ten as I am all thumbs today.

Jet Graphics Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 04:33 AM EST

Inarticulate, wooden, contrived, unnatural, and devoid of substance. Sigh. And that's the "good part".
Willie Nelson would be a far better commentator, and his opinion would be more impressive. Add feisty Jamie Lee Curtis, and you'd have a fur fight for sure! Hey... what an idea...

Jet Graphics Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 04:15 AM EST

Just another example why audiences are being driven to other media. Mindless uncultured idiots are in control.

Dave Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 09:15 AM EST

It's my personal opinion that this new format of the show is completely anti-intellectual, and is following suit with Fox News type journalism as a method to make sure that nothing gets "faux pas'd" and the studio enterprises can still make good on their ticket sales without rational criticism. It's sad really, when all you see about movies on regular cable anymore is the "Hollywood Celebrity" garbage and nothing of any substantial intelligence. We live in dumb times.

Amy Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 05:54 AM EST

What I find hilarious about the "I Am Legends" quote is that because of the changes to the movie the title doesn't make any sense. The title was in reference to an epiphany that Robert Neville has in the original ending. With the new ending the movie makes even less sense, but I am sure such well versed critics already knew that.

Amy Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 05:44 AM EST

If this show is canceled I bet you anything the archives are going to go. Hopefully someone recorded them and the old episodes will turn up on Youtube or some other website. There is nothing good about the new format.

Brian J Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 03:37 AM EST

Wow, I really wanted to like this show. I've been faithfully watching "At the Movies" for years now, and I figured with Roeper and Ebert (or whoever) planning something else, now I'd have two shows to watch each week! I also figured this first episode with the new hosts would have rookie jitters, but it just felt awkward and stilted and cheesy and wannabe all wrapped up in one crappy package! I suspect this show will get tweaked and improved, but it's hard to imagine it will improve THAT much. I don't think this show will last more than a few months. Alas.

Devon McCabe Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 06:39 PM EST

Sean- I hear ya on the Ben Lyons thing. That "I am Legend" quote of his was the absolute worst. Actually, a lot of things he said even in the articles about the change made me cringe.

I do hope that will take another look at the old show and keep more of the set-up they had there. These guys would probably look more comfortable, and I am sure Ben Mank would do really well, with a more moderately paced show. With the critics round up thing it just felt they were so rushed and I wished they would let these two guys talk about the films without throwing so much at us. I didn't really hear any blurbs and like I said, I did like it. But it would feel better if I didn't think the producers were trying to keep my attention by making everything so...fast.

Sean Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 06:24 PM EST

The new show is awful. Ben Mankiewicz does an OK job, and I like him at TCM. But it just seems to me that Lyons knows nothing about film. Seriously, he said that I Am Legend was "one of the greatest films ever made." The Siskel/Ebert and Ebert/Roeper versions of the show let the critics actually talk about the movies, and have an interesting conversation. In this format, it's all sound bites, and not a real conversation. The dialogue sounds written and forced, and the Critic's roundup is silly. The old format needed no revision; this is a disaster.

Devon McCabe Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 04:39 PM EST

Actually Mary, I don't work for them. I'm in non-profit. And I don't see how my opinion is any less valid- or deserves less respect- than yours. Do you believe that you- & the small number of people who take the time to post here- represent every.single.person. who saw the show? Well, I'm proof you don't. I see Ben Mank on TCM and he's great there and in the reviews he does in the "Now Playing" guide. I don't see how a long dead grandfather can get him a job & I also don't see why he can't be a talented guy with a genuine interest in movies. B/c that's what he seems to be to me. I get that people don't like change & I remember Roeper got the same kind of nastiness when he started. I would like to see less critics round up & the red they use is a little jarring. But I'm cool w/ hanging in to see them work out the kinks on this show. I'm from the Midwest & watched the original every Saturday when I was a kid and it was on WGN. There's a lot of good here & I think it'll work well in time.

Chad Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM EST

I knew something was happening before Roeper and the other guy left. They started saying see it or skip it, the thumbs were just abandoned like it was old news. I rather have the other guy and Roeper they knew movies, they went further back then 2000 in references to movies. The first show was like PTI just with no real points being made. I swear they were edited to just sound bites myself. It’s comes off like the new people handling the show just thought Siskel,Ebert and Roper were all about talking and disagreements. The show clearly never really even had you care for the opinions on the movie at all. It seemed like they crammed all they had to say in while the preview was showing. I hope they fix this problem fast or give the show proper good bye.

Mary Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:05 PM EST

There's a feedback form on their site:

Tell the producers how much you hate this new format and how you will write your local network tell them to cancel the show...

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/

Viewers rise up against this corporate "re-engineering" all to try to pander to a younger crowd.

Mary Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM EST

Well Devon .. you must work for the show.

Your the only person here who said they would keep watching the program.

Since you work for this program - you know exactly what your trying to pull off ... some hot shot fresh out of school kid has got the job to 'retool' the show.

So "Lets go hip", "Lets make the show more flashy", "Get more graphics", "Get the host fighting, ya fighting ... kids like fights"... "Hip Hip Hip".

Your show is all fluff.

Again someone should be fired over this. And mark my words ... this show will be off the air in a few months.

Corey M. Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 05:12 PM EST

The first episode was terrible, the critic's round-up destroys the point of the show. Two critics offering sound and reasonable critiques of movies. Not to mention Lyons and Mankiewicz only got their start from their parents. Lyons father, Jeffrey, the hack who has the just as empty Reel Talk. And Mankiewicz grandfather wrote like Citizen Kane, which does not mean that you become a good film critic. The At the Movies we knew is officially dead.

dave Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:46 PM EST

I can't stand the 'flash' of Entertainment Tonight, and the 'excitement' of Access Hollywood. I see both in this show. Go low-key for me, and dump the panel.

Devon McCabe Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM EST

Why so much rancor? I am familiar with Ben Mankiewicz as news anchor and host. In Miami he won best news anchor two years in a row. As much as I love Robert on TCM, I also like Ben. He's funny & knowledgeable & they make a great team for Turner. Also, his last name is not Spielberg. I don't buy the nepotism argument for a minute.

The nature of internet posting is to only write if you have something bad to say- if you think something is just fine, why post?- but a lot of these comments are just poorly informed and seem mean for mean's sake. For instance, the fact is that the thumbs have been gone for a few years now and it was Roeper and his rotating guests who pioneered the "See It, Rent It, Skip It" categories. So why are these guys responsible for that?

As everyone knows, shows evolve over time. Even Siskel & Ebert needed some tinkering after their debut and I suspect Ben and Ben will get even better over time. The show was better than I was led to expect & I will keep watching.

Ana Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:58 AM EST

I used to watch Siskel & Ebert and loved it. I also watched Ebert & Roeper, but didn't love them as much. The common thread was the show's format. Bring back that format, and get two hosts who are newspaper or magazine film critics. Given the current review of this new show, I won't even bother to watch.

Mufi Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM EST

I had 'At the Movies' bookmarked in my web browser. After a couple of weeks i went to check it out and this god awful show appeared. Needless to say I have deleted this bookmark and will resign my-self to no longer being able to watch Ebert and Roeper. Gene must be turning in his grave over this travesty.

Ayana Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:09 AM EST

I used to look forward every saturday to watch ebert and roper....what did they do to this show. Everything about the show now is a disaster. I am never going to watch that show again!

Tom Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:48 AM EST

... my god. I should have held back my comments till I watched the whole show... the panel debates every movie???

Is this ET meets Larry King?

All this show is missing the permininte "comming up" graphics on the side and a big gong.

All we need to hear is 5 people arguing about a movie.

Again someone should be FIRED over this show!

Bring back the old format.

See honesty will get you kicked of the Television and you get this dribble instead ... where you have no idea what anyone thought of anything.

Tom Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:41 AM EST

What CRAP.

Someone should be fired over this fiasco.

I have this on my PVR.. and I'm just watching it now. I found this posting because I was thinking "what the hell..."

I've seen better cable access shows.

Bad hosts, bad conversations, bad format. Right now 5 people are debating the freakin movie.

This show will be off the air in 6 months.

Bring back Roeper. Bring back the balcony.

I would say Skip It. (or in my case delete it).

Tammy Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:09 AM EST

I looked forward to seeing Roeper and Phillips (or anyone else!) every week. I couldn't even make it through the new show--and I won't watch them again. And the "panel"? Ugh. Thumbs down, skip it, etc.

Janie Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:36 PM EST

Thumbs down. want to see two opinionated guys arguing about movies. Guys who love movies the way we do. These two are just card board figures put up for shallow entertainment.

Kate Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 06:01 PM EST

I've watched the Siskel, Ebert, Roeper combo for years, and now this show is just ruined for me. The hosts were completely without personality, and every word/sentance/phrase they uttered sounded like a sound bite.

DyNama Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 05:47 PM EST

i was disappointed by the new hosts and the rapid fire pace. i will say that richard roeper grew on me after gene died, and ao scott and michael philips grew on me after roger left, and i did watch ben lyons' father with michael medved replace siskel & ebert on pbs, so it's possible the 2 ben's could grow on me too...but i doubt it. i am dubious about the very premise that everyone's a critic these days--maybe so, but not everyone is interesting to listen to. i have a news alert set to notify me the minute a new show with either ebert or roeper is announced!

P Lee Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 04:59 PM EST

Why not bring back re-runs of Siskel and Ebert? The movies they reviewed are showing on television, and the hosts were so much better than what they're giving us now.

Paul Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM EST

No point in repeating the obvious...The change is even illogical from a marketing standpoint though. The people the new show is trying to cater to will never be watching a film critic show and the built in audience they had was completely destroyed...I assure you all that the show as is, will not last long.

Sina Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:26 AM EST

They have to get Michael Phillips and Roeper and tv show together. They are the new Siskel and Ebert. I love their banter and Phillips is so funny. If Ebert were on the money he would try to shop around a show for those two and still get his money. I hated Roeper and the rotating guest until he got Phillips and it was a gold mine. I don't understand just because Lyons daddy is somebody who reviews movies doesn't mean he knows his movies. And wasn't Mankiewicz just working on TMZ? Just because his uncle was a great director doesn't mean he knows his stuff.

Andy Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 09:41 PM EST

How does Ben Lyons keep getting work? He seems like the type of movie "buff" who has Animal House placed next to Citizen Kane on his greatest films of all-time list.

mb Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 09:30 PM EST

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.

Maddog Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 08:44 PM EST

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.

Raven_Moon Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 07:09 PM EST

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.

totifilms Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 07:03 PM EST

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!

Roxy Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 06:33 PM EST

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.

Erin D. Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 05:25 PM EST

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.

Meier Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 05:22 PM EST

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...)

greg garlich Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 05:21 PM EST

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.

Joseph Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 05:14 PM EST

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!

smeegan Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 03:48 PM EST

Bring back Ebert & Roper or other qualified guest hosts. The new show is cutesy banter not film critiques from knowledgeable film historians. Very disappointing.

Ptk Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 03:31 PM EST

I was not impressed. It was just too sporadic for me.

davidsask Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 03:15 PM EST

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!

Chicago48 Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 03:01 PM EST

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.

Dirty Harry Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 02:58 PM EST

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.

sjh Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 02:10 PM EST

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.

Rob Grizzly Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 01:32 PM EST

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.

Mike C. Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:42 PM EST

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.