Cool News
The latest version of AT THE MOVIES premiered this weekend. Did anybody notice? Capone did!!
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here. You know, I wasn't even going to bring this up, but just having watched the premiere episode of the retooled (emphasis on "tool") "At the Movies" syndicated show, I felt compelled to voice my thoughts.
In case you weren't even aware that the show was, in fact, debuting this weekend, join the club. I found out by accident. I've seen zero promotion for this thing, and perhaps the show owners Disney ABC Domestic Television are looking at these first few episodes as a probationary period--a chance to tweak the format to make certain every last remaining morsel of soul and originality has been drained from the hollowed-out corpse of what was the humble but important and inspirational work that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert created more than 30 years ago on PBS.
As a kid growing up in Washington, D.C., I watched the old "Sneak Previews" show on PBS with a religious-like fervor. What I remember liking about the format and style (or lack there of) was that there was actually nothing pretentious about the presentation. These were two guys--competitors who truly did not like each other for the first 20 years or so of the show--on a dark set made to look not like a luxury balcony, but a ragged theater where any of us were watching movies at the time. These were two of the least photogenic men on TV, offering us a combination of balding, pudgy, glasses, sweater vests, corduroy jackets (probably with patches on the elbows). Siskel and Ebert were the anti-movie stars who loved films both big and small, and often gave more weight to smaller films because they often needed the help to get audiences.
And get audiences these two did. Studios quickly realized the impact a Thumbs Up (or Down) could have on box office. But just as important, Siskel and Ebert inspired a generation or two of new film critics who wanted to care and write about movies as much and as well as they did. I didn't move to Chicago to be closer to these two (at least, I'm pretty sure I didn't). But moving here for college afforded me the opportunity to read their print reviews for the first time (this was pre-internet, folks), and my fate was pretty much sealed from that time forward.
When Siskel died, I was crushed because I'd never gotten to meet him, to tell him what I'm sure dozens of younger critics have told him over the years--that he was an inspiration, not just to see good movies, but to think about them and influence others to care about them as much as I did. After a string of guest hosts (including our own Harry Knowles a couple of times), Ebert settled on Richard Roeper as his new permanent co-host. I thought this was a mistake, not because I had anything against Roeper (I was actually a very big fan of his work as a columnist and commentator on all things pop culture), but for the simple reason that the two men worked for the same newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times. No, that didn't mean that they couldn't disagree, but there was always that feeling that even when they argued, they ultimately were on the same team. And the potential for true bitterness between the hosts was lost. The smartest thing Roeper ever did for the show was bring in the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips as a permanent co-host; at least the potential for a real rivalry was in place. Alas we'll never know.
Maybe I missed it, but I'm pretty sure Disney did not offer up a farewell episode of the "Ebert & Roeper" show. After a couple weeks of recent repeats following the completely-without-fanfare final show of last season, we get "At the Movies" (a show title actually recycled from "Siskel & Ebert at the Movies") with new hosts Ben Lyons (formerly of MTV and currently with the bastion of cinematic integrity, E! Entertainment) and Ben Mankiewicz (of Turner Classic Movies). The first thing you notice are the suits. Both men are wearing suits and ties, jackets buttoned, sporting nice haircuts, and fairly photo-friendly faces. Very corporate. The two men open up the show talking about how honored and privileged they are to be hosting a show that was begun 33 years ago by Siskel and Ebert, and what a great responsibility it is to have such a gig.
And they honored that tradition by giving us absolutely nothing that resembles that original format or any of depth that that original show offered to the films they were there to discuss. As if to set the tone, Ben Lyons uses the word "amazing" in the first minute of the show. "Amazing" is currently the most overused word in the English language, and people have taken to using it because they can't be bothered to take two seconds to think of a better (and probably more appropriate) word. I think pretty much the same thing about the word "absolutely" (a word Lyons uses twice in the first five minutes of the show). Is something wrong with the word "Yes"? People use the word "absolutely" instead of "yes" to sound smarter as this four-syllable word comes spilling from their lips. But all of this is nit-picky, I'll admit. I'll also admit that I'm pre-destined to hate "At the Movies" on principle, but I did try to watch it with as open a mind as possible.
Gone also is the balcony set. I'd expected this. Instead, we get two very comfortable-looking leather (hopefully faux leather; PETA better check into that) chairs in a bland set. Later in the show, we shift to a desk, but I'll get to that in a minute.
The first review was of the Coen Brothers' BURN AFTER READING, which was touted as an early review. Since most of you are aware of the embargo structure of Hollywood, you might also notice that this show (and some print critics) are given a pass to review movies before opening day. Here's a little secret that maybe you haven't figured out already: if a studio lets any critic review a film early, it's only because the critic has already told the studio they like the movie. If you see an early review by a name critic, and the review is bad, some publicist is getting fired the next business day and some critic is probably getting banned from screenings by that studio. Lyons and Mankiewicz both told me to "See It." The first problem with the "review" portion of the show is that there are too many clips. The bigger problem is that there is too much time spent on plot summary and not enough discussion of the actual pros and cons are the film.
What is there in terms of critique is very sound bite and quote friendly; there is no discussion. When they agree, it's a series of superlatives. When they disagree, it's two guys who really didn't listen to the other guy's surface review. We particularly notice this when Lyons summarizes Mankiewicz's "Rent It" review of TRAITOR: "I guess you don't like political thrillers that make you think." [I'm paraphrasing, but not much.] But it's the first show, so presumably these two will actually start listening to each other and develop a rapport. Lyons also seems to enjoy name checking other recent movies that actors have been in. I don't need a history lesson, dude. I'd rather hear you actually review the movie. More disturbing to me is that, while Mankiewicz offers up a sense that he is a critic who's spent some time studying up on his film history, Lyons doesn't give me the sense that he's seen too many movies that were made before the 1990s. And no, Ben, making a reference to the egg-eating scene in Cool Hand Luke during a review of that film's current Special Edition DVD release doesn't count; we've all seen that scene.
The show maintains the post-Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down format that was adopted when Disney decided it didn't want to pay Ebert for use of the trademarked phrase, and I guess that's okay. I resent the "Rent It" mentality, but that's the world we live in. If a movie is good enough to see on any level, it's good enough to see on a big screen. That's just me. What's more annoying about "At the Movies" is the Critics Roundup. Holy sweet mother of Jesus, is this idea bad. Instead of just having two relatively unknown, photogenic critics going head to head, we get five. Via some sort of satellite we get three additional heads on the screen, all shouting over each other, each trying to spew out one or two clever phrases. I'm not here to discuss the validity of their actual views on any of the films; everybody has their own opinion and they're entitled to that. But there's no room in this format for anything beyond quips and material ripe for quote whoring.
Perhaps the most annoying thing about the Critics Roundup is that it's done at a desk set that actually forces its hosts to face the camera and not each other, eliminating any semblance of actual conversation. Lyons poses the question to his panel of talking heads: Is Steve Coogan the next big comedic star? First of all, who the fuck cares? Why waste time on this question in lieu of an actual discussion of, oh, I don't know, movies? An actor's worth as a star shouldn't mean anything on a show like this. Save that shit for "Showbiz Tonight," boneheads.
The show wraps up with DVD recommendations and the Three To See segments carried over from the Roeper-Phillips days. My assessment of the actual hosts is fairly simple. Mankeiewicz at least seems to have an informed opinion and something resembling a vocabulary. He would have seemed like a suitable guest host for Ebert or Roeper, when the two were rotating guest hosts at various points in the show's history. Lyons, on the other hand, brings absolutely nothing to the table beyond his youth appeal. He's the equivalent of bringing in Carson Daly (well, Carson Daly 10 years ago, maybe), and while I'm sure he knows how to handle himself talking to celebrities and giving sample-friendly reviews, he does not yet have what it takes to really talk at length and in depth about these movies.
Now excuse me. I need to throw up. You may not have felt it, but a couple weeks ago, an era in televised film criticism ended. Today, a new, shallower one took its place.
-- Capone
capone@aintitcoolmail.com
-
+ Expand All
-
But not holding out any real hope.
-
..Lyons looks like he's 12 years old and it looks like they're going for an E! network vibe. Shudder! Siskel, come back to life and save us! Ebert, get better!!!!
-
Ebert owns the rights to the thumbs up/ thumbs down. He's still friends with Roeper and Phillips. Why don't they just set up shop at another network? And if all else fails, do a downloadable iTunes show? I'd gladly pay $0.99 a week for the latest show.
-
"ridiculous", "unbelievable", "literally" and "blogosphere"
-
Sep 07, 2008 2:10:13 PM CDT
I can't believe we now think of the original as arty and high-fa
by destruit
Are you kidding? I really like Ebert, but it's a sad day when his version of that show is considered too intellectual. Thumbs up and and thumbs down was clever idea but a useless form of criticism. I have fond memories of Siskel from childhood, but his reviews were incredibly simplistic. For most of his time at the Tribune he did not write full-length reviews like Ebert. He wrote short captions that were basically glorified plot synopses. I still read Ebert's reviews, but that show was for the most part bland and superficial. I can't believe they've found a way to take away what little flavor was left.
-
When Ebert and Roeper disagreed they did it in a way that told us more about the movie. That end disagreement on Traitor had no insight. Was it convoluted? Why? Why does your partner agree or disagree with that statement? They only did it on a surface level. They dumbed it down.
-
I couldn't bring myself to watch the new show. I went to the website and while they still have the awesome archived reviews of Siskel, Ebert, and Roeper, they are nowhere to be found on the home page for the site. Pissed me off. Just tossed aside? Roeper said that he, and the thumbs would be coming back. Any idea of when and where? I miss it already. Would love to see Roeper and AO Scott do a show.
-
Here I am, waiting for the ball game to be over so I can watch "At The Movies", and what do I see? A bunch of jackasses in suits!!!!!!! It looked like an infomercial, for god's sake!!!!! I mean, does Ebert own the set design copyright, too?
-
This is the slow time of the movie year. There are no major releases or Oscar contenders out there right now. People aren't clammoring to see anything. This is a good shakedown time, and I hope they develop a chemistry. We need shows like this on the air to remind us that there is a legitimate conversation to be had about film. I hope it succeeds and we see the birth of a new generation of insightful critics (unlike many of the online ones that use *fuck* and *bullshit* so they seem hip and edgy. Seriously, some net writers have great insight but ruin it with childish metaphors and a desperation to be cool).
-
But he sees them as a necessary evil to translate criticism into the language of television where people do want you to get to the heart of things quickly and consider the review later.
-
I seriously suggest you check out Mr. Ebert's blog. It's better than his newspaper writing recently. He's always been a good friend of the internet. As for a podcast, you don't have to have a great voice. If Ebert is ever able to talk again every single movie fan would forgive a raspy voice simply to hear him discuss movies.
-
It's probably been said a million times, but it's true. Even if you disagree with the guy, it's always an entertaining read, and his affection for film just shines through. I grew up with that show. I think he should have kept Harry on.
-
I didn't know you had a DC connection..... I used to watch Sneak Previews (WETA 26)not only for the reviews,,,, but pre internet days ,,, it was the place to see full trailers and promotional materials on TV. BTW,,,,I just moved away from DC,,,,, where did you live in DC? Amazing,,,, PBS even tried to revamp Sneak Previews after the duo left PBS,,, now Disney is trying to resurect the name "At the Movies"... thanks for the warning
-
Tried to pass-off his artificial intelligence as intellect; furthermore, he monopolized the conversation (had no tolerance for a dissenting opinion, "talking over" the tail end of a rival review). The rivalry between Siskel and Ebert was genuine, it was the catalyst for some conflict that I thought would conclude with a slugfest (did ytou see them on Letterman? EBERT: "What's the matter with you, I loved FREE WILLY." SISKEL: "That's because you can relate to the title character." The good 'ole days).
-
"Awesome" is the true overused word of all medias, but I'll give it you for "absolutely" and "Amazing", and "Great". Along with the F word, there doesn't see to be much else in modern english.
I though Siskle has always been overrated, and I do prefer the See it/Rent It/Pass rating system. I want to see a show with Roeper and Phillips, however, and all the time spent on the critique, and not clips, interviews, etc as they are threatening of doing. -
I remember when I first read of Roeper's contract dispute and the announcement that Disney would continue without Roeper and Phillips, I had read that Roeper's show would debut two weeks after At the Movies came back with new hosts.
-
Shalit: This is what the Coen Brothers follow their Oscar win with? Burn After Reading is more like Spurn After Viewing...Reed: Yes Gene, but didn't Brad look yummy?
-
There is no one out there who can replace Siskel and Ebert, not only for those of us who watched them religiously, but for anyone who gives a hoot in hell about film criticicm. The people who made the decision to dump Ebert and Roeper should be shot. It was a mistake that cannot be rectified. It's sad that Siskel is no longer with us, but thank the Gods above that Roger Ebert is still around. He is still as feisty as ever and it's still a joy to read his reviews.
-
I love it when critics use puns from the movies title to describe their feelings for the movie - for example "The Cat in the Hat is a Cat-astrophe." Brilliant! That's so wonderfully, magically, creative. I hope more critics point out how Disaster Movie is "aptly named" - you see because it is a bad movie, like a disaster, and it's called Disaster Movie (just in case you didn't get it). Just go to rotten tomatoes and you can read a slew of pun-filled reviews for any movie. You can even play along at home in advance. "Burn after reading" - more like "Burn after viewing" - haha get it? It's so funny and I'm not at all being sarcastic!!!
-
I love it when critics use puns from the movies title to describe their feelings for the movie - for example "The Cat in the Hat is a Cat-astrophe." Brilliant! That's so wonderfully, magically, creative. I hope more critics point out how Disaster Movie is "aptly named" - you see because it is a bad movie, like a disaster, and it's called Disaster Movie (just in case you didn't get it). Just go to rotten tomatoes and you can read a slew of pun-filled reviews for any movie. You can even play along at home in advance. "Burn after reading" - more like "Burn after viewing" - haha get it? It's so funny and I'm not at all being sarcastic!!!
-
And while there is no one who could have filled Gene Siskel's shoes, I came to enjoy watching Richard Roeper. The cool thing about him is that he never seemed to be trying to replace Siskel. He brought his own unique persona and views to the show, and it was fun watching him spar with Master Ebert. I wish him nothing but the best, and I'll be watching for his new show. But when it comes to AT THE MOVIES, as far as I'm concerned, it no longer exists. They are turning it into another meaningless piece of television trash that will have no impact other than to make viewers long for "the good old days" when the opinions presented on it were well thought out and entertaining, coming from folks who truly cared about films.
-
I'm gonna go watch that episode of "The Critic" where Sickel and Ebert sing to each other. "The moonlight in his hair ... the twinkle in his eye ... the way he said 'thumbs up' ... the way he said 'thumbs down' ... the way he said ... goodbye ..." *sniffle*
-
sorry - my finger slipped
-
so i could give this show 4 thumbs down
-
Somebody will show up and cut off the thumbs of the two clowns who now host this show. As far as I'm concerned, they are not worthy to use them.
-
Wouldn't it be great if Roger Ebert would pop up unannounced and kick those two in the junk!
-
i don't. i agree that films should always be made for the big screen, but that doesn't mean that every film deserves to be seen there (or rather, that every film deserves my £5 to see it at the cinema rather than on DVD).
-
Ebert is a pretentious snob who had no concept of film unless it was 2hrs of people drinking tea at a cafe and talking.
Siskel lost me the day he reviewed the Mortal Kombat movie and thought it was delightful entertainment and compelling.
From that moment on, I refused to trust movie critics at all.
In college, I took a film history class and a film appreciation class, and the teachers both said that most movie critics have little to no film education but pretend to be professional. -
bitter and cynical bile that passes for my blood, congealed into a overpowering sludge of smug. Which makes it impossible for me to even consider thinking of watching the new show.
-
Was at a screening in NYC a few years back and his daddy was seated afew rows behind me talking loudly before the movie began, running down a certain mid-wesern based critic. Guy was being a complete douche.
-
And talking about critics being snobs? Okay. Any person in their right mind can't take a listen or read to what Gene Siskel had to say and what Roger Ebert has said and continues to say and not see how film literate they are. I didn't and still don't always agree with them - I still find Ebert's tastes off the mark - but you can't say these guys didn't know what film was all about. And most of all, they brought it to the common man. Which apparently teachers of film history and film appreciation aren't.
-
thats what it would be if i ever EVER watch this show with these lyons and mankwhatever.
-
And he said a little goodbye at the end. They need to keep the "THUMBS", it's iconic. I'm surprised the media didn't jump on this story. I'm sure the new version of the show will fail. The reason the old show stayed alive was because of its simplicity, the disagreements and people just wanting to hear about movies.Siskel and Ebert practically created the "Talking Heads" form of television argument that has become so prevalent on the 24 hour news stations.
-
I kid. Well I was under the impression that Roeper and Ebert had something in the works. On another note, aintitcool has been really bad about keeping up with this story. First they thought that Ebert was leaving and Roeper was staying behind, and now they are implying that there will be no other incarnation of that show. Not true in either case.
-
loved anything--ANYTHING--that Spike Lee had ground out? Somehow, anyone critical of Lee's narcissism was racist. I still remember Ebert's condemnation of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (loathed the film, wrote a "Reader's Digest" article chastising Romero. The irony is that Romero would subsequently deny his DEAD films qualify as "horror", insisting they're political metaphors. LAND OF THE DEAD was locked into this '60s diatribe and, oy!, did it suck). I recall when he censored Kenner's ALIEN toy and actually tried to ban I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. But, next to Roeper, the fat guy is somehow a rebel.
-
...[with heavy sarcasm] at least they are employed.
I'll be honest, the market that I live in often kicked "Ebert & Roeper" from the broadcast schedule for local sports or worse, infomercials! It appears they are doing it with the new show and will have to wait until Tuesday when it is re-broadcast on Reelz Channel.
So in the meantime, I took a look at the new website and the best thing on there is that they maintained the Review Archives! Honestly if Disney only wanted studio douche bags to present this, they could do a short segment on "The Insider", "Extra", or "TMZ" because that where these corporate tools belong. This makes me so sick that instead of puking into the "porcelain goddess" ala Capone, I could fill a pig trough 2x over (again, this is just based of their website)!
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Mr. Ebert, Mr. Roeper, and Mr. Phillips, do a weekly web show now!!! It would be a total waste of time for your fans to protested Disney when it can be better spent encouraging you all to do a new show. -
I can't wait for these goons to crash and burn.
-
I loathe that pretty boy....like when he touted "Scoop" as a wonderful return to form for Woody Allen from his "Curse of the Jade Scorpion" days.....all of seven years ago....GOD!!! I HATE THAT D-BAG!!!!......however, I think Mankewicz is a groovy dude. If only he and Robert Osborne got the gig.....man......that'd be great....I wish Robert Osborne lived in my closet and was there to introduce every movie I started watching....man, TCM was created by God himself.....
-
said, "Through a stroke of good luck, the entire third reel of the film was missing the day I saw it. I went back to the screening room two days later, to view the missing reel. It was as bad as the rest, but nothing could have saved this film. As my colleague Gene Siskel observed, 'If the third reel had been the missing footage from Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons, this movie still would have sucked.'" - while reviewing "Big City, Little Indian", recounting the smackdown Siskel leveled at it. That earned a spit-take when I saw it. Awe-some.
-
Actually, he said "Night of the Living Dead" was a near-great movie (he explained he'd give it 3 and a half star out of four), but didnt feel it should be seen by small children....who were in the audience at the time he had seen it. He did, a decade later, give "Dawn of the Dead" a 4 star review and called it one of the greatest horror movies ever made. And "I Spit on Your Grave" is despicable, with a few neat vengeance sequences from Camille Keaton in the latter part of the movie. I don't care if this makes me unpopular to say I hate that movie (aside from the title, poster, and trailer), but it's disgusting.
-
Roeper would have Kevin Smith on or other people who actually work in the industry giving their reviews..that was the right idea to give more insight instead of just being a critic.
-
I love you when you're angry.
-
Why not just get Ryan Secrest to suck off the head of Sony Pictures and call it a day. This show sounds like a stinky fucking turd sandwich.
If they want to try to keep a movie review show on the air, they ought to do a TV version of rotten tomatoes, a la how TMZ works. I'd at least be interested to heard them reading the worst and best online reviews - it wouldn't feel so bought and paid for. -
That what it was. Pure and utter crap, and that crapped on everything that Siskel and Ebert and Roper held up for so long. It was hip, modern, and had no soul at all. I didn't even save the Tivo for my family to watch because I didn't want them to suffer like I did through this half a hour of verbal crap. I keep saying that Disney isn't as evil as the media and some fans make them out to be, and then they do something like this, and bam, I then have to agree with them.
-
This made me so sad to watch. To the guy who said AICN was a step behind on the story by making it sound like Roper was not coming back when he actually is starting another show, that's a different story. Important but different. Yes, it is good to know that, hopefully, the show we remember will be back, this is all about seeing a show many have watched for decades being turned into crap.
Capone is right about the feel of the show. Way too many smiling vacuous dopes throwing out sound bites. And the round table is terrible. Too many voices saying nothing. And they clearly chopped the round tables up for time making them even more herky jerky and pointless. And why are the hosts review chairs so close to each other. The critics are practically sitting in each other's laps.
Capone, you left off part of the horror though: the insipid theme music and intrusive sparkly graphics. They made me want to punch everyone involved.
Over the years there have been many shows that have been crappy copies of Siskel and Ebert. Now the show they created has been turned into something much worse than any of those crapfests. -
Fucking terrible. I really want to watch "Burn after Reading" though and am glad it got a good review. But that show was a piece of shit.
Their reviews were nowhere near as deep as the Siskel & Ebert/Ebert & Roeper/Roeper & Guest reviews. They definitely lost a viewer. -
Totally Awesome. To the Max.
-
That's the one I'm sick of. It's true that it comes naturally. I have to check myself from using it quite frequently. But I do check myself. Even Palin made me cringe by using it.
-
Watch our bosses movies! Double recommended if the woman he's banging is in it. I would rather have a show hosted by Vern and Moriarty. Actually, that would be sweet. They are the 2 hands down best reviewers here.
-
I stand corrected. The blistering "Reader's Digest" article actually acquainted me with the movie! Thanks for the info.
-
If Roger had stayed healthy and continued on the show, maybe it would've kept going. Then again, I don't know how popular it was at the end. I only saw it late night. I'm not a huge fan of Roeper, cuz he always seemed intent on making witty sarcatic insults, but he worked well with Ebert.I've come to really enjoy Ebert's writing. His reviews are often nothing what you'd expect. I like when he sometimes dislikes a movie so much, his entire review is off on a tangent. But some Fridays I'll got to the Yahoo movie site or RottenTomatoes and open up a number of review links. You notice that many of the other reviews are very similar. Same insults, same plot points commented on, similar sarcastic quips. Ebert is actually a WRITER, not just a reviewer. And I wish I hadn't learned that as late as I did. Incidentally, it doesn't mean I agree with him always. After all he gave Indy 4 3.5 out of 4...
-
Dumb everything down to make it easier to market.
-
I did hear a high pitched whine and a chilling, ear piercing scream that day. Turns out it was Siskel spinning in his grave. This is a travesty. Lyons shouldn't even be reviewing webcam videos on YouTube.
-
wtf are you talking about. it always pissed me off about that considering they are just watching movies. I dont know how you can criticize these guys for it
-
Every single person responsible for this should feel ashamed of themselves.
-
I hope at some point Roger Ebert will be well enough to carry on with Richard Roeper in a new version of the classic "At The Movies" The new format sucks.
-
... isn't Mankiewicz only around TCM and this show (which I'll never see, sticking instead to the Onion AV Club or something) is because of his famous grandfather (Herman, co-wrote Citizen Kane) and even more famous great-uncle (Joseph, director of All About Eve and Cleopatra)? Bleah... it's like GW Bushitis is filtering through.
-
We have the internet. Fuck Ben Lyons! I love how everyone in this country "inherits" jobs. Just like George W.Bush.
www.myspace.com/jerryhorror
Rest in Peace Gene... -
Was my favorite hands down. No gloss, no gimmicks and no commercials. That made for longer and more substantive commentaries. Needless to say, they were never perfect anyway. Both Gene and Roger made some seriously fucked up calls. "He fucking thumbs downed Field of dreams??? What kind of crack is he smoking?" and Roger recommended "infra-man" a total POS ripoff of ultraman. No, they had some very bad calls, but at least it was interesting on PBS. Commercial TV was a shorter form. Now again, it has devolved into two wanna be hipsters and vapid reviews. At least when Gene or Roger made a call one way or another, there was analysis, not dumbed-down babble.
-
Oh fuck no. It's a flawed go/no go rating system. A thumbs down, was the same as saying "Don't see this at all" There were no shades of gray. See it/Skip it/rent it is a far better way to encapsulate a review. Thumbs up/down was idiotic.
-
but then, I think, he loosened up and I found myself agreeing with him more often than not. Looking forward to his new show. What say you guys?
-
just pop culture critics. I had to groan when the Steve Coogan as next big comedic star question came up. Capone's dead on, that question has no relevance to movies whatsoever. Speculating about it is pointless, it can only be answered by the public. But that's the problem. To these clowns the most important part of the movie isn't the components of the movie itself, it's how the movie is received and what kind of cultural and social imprint it makes on the public.Thank goodness for Ebert's online reviews. It's always rewarding to read a critic who has film in his bones.
-
...these 2 bags of douche are going to invent an argumentative chemistry, after siskel & ebert.
i watched old siskel & ebert reviews the other day and was surprised how little credit they gave to "classic" movies. siskel tore "silence of the lambs" apart. i think he even used the word "trashy". and, neither recommended "edward scissorhands."
there isn't a real need for a movie critic TV show anymore. if you're interested in a movie, read the newspaper or log on. -
just kidding.
that dude only recommended a movie if christian babies could watch it.
quality schmality, free willy 3 is a delight. -
You wouldn't feel that way if it cost you $50 for you and your family to see a movie in a theater. You get to attend free screenings. Most of us don't.
-
that ebert started to suck in his later days. he started showing his age and coming off like a cranky old man. he pissed a lot of people off when he claimed that video games could never be art. many people sent in thoughtful replies explaining that, yeah pac-man might not be art, but games have changed and experiences like 'bioshock' are truly artistic. ebert's reply was nothing more than making fun of video game nerds.way to be old man..remember, older generations didnt understand film, or rock and roll when they first started gaining popularity also.
-
but the other guy sucked. But you should remember that it was ebert and roeper that started that "early review" stuff. Can't blame these guys for that, just all the other suff that sucked.
-
that they loved films above all else. And they were complete, unabashed Nerds about it. Who they met or interviewed, what people thought about them, being popular with the Hollywood A-list or even how they looked wasn't their top priority. The medium of film and it's merits are what they cared about. Which was why their arguments with each other and their reviews were so genuine. They weren't swayed one way or another for any reason then their own opinions. Like a group of (the knowledgeable and intelligent) nerds (and I use that word with the utmost respect) on AICN debating the merits of GL and "The Prequels" or the relevance of T3 in the Terminator franchise or bashing Kring and Heroes. Right or wrong, agree or disagree is really not the point. It's the intelligent and unadulterated passion that matters. Of course it helped that both Siskel and Ebert were smart and could stick a few quick zingers at each other with some skill. But put simply, they were both just nerds. Nerds that you could respect as critics for all the reasons I mentioned above and more. There are still legit critics out there but so many are too interested in the celebrity aspect or concerned about how they come across with their jargon and obscure references or are just plain biased because of their religion or family values or whatever. Some others though, just aren't good critics.
-
Sure, its snazzy and a bit flashiser, and I feel like I'm watching PTI sometimes, and the overload of gold is lame, but not good reasons to hate it entirely. It is still, at its core, a Tv movie review show, that ain't bad. Capone's lament at the end saying that he has to throw up is primadonna hyperbole. Wah-wah, shit changes, life goes on. Deal. "Have to go throw up." For fuck sake, you sound like a chick.
-
Ben Lyons especially is stiff and just sounds dumb, he's certainly no critic. And the panel concept... fail. I imagine their rapport will improve but it's not going to make any difference to the content, just the delivery.
-
Sep 08, 2008 12:41:42 AM CDT
So if they called and asked you to be on the show....
by thebearovingian
you would say...?
-
last review was the funniest...and that and the closing song by love were the only good things about the first epi of entourage
-
What's the point of comparing it to Ebert? If it sucks it sucks. End of story.
-
That is not an exact quote, but that pinhead Ben Lyons actually spouted that cliched overused phrased not once,but twice within just a few sentences after saying the first time. The second time it seemed as if he was looking for a clever put down to say about the movie (I think it as Babylon A.D.),couldn't think of anything and ended up just repeating himself. I think the only thing he's good for is kissing celebrity ass, which makes him a perfect fit for this new vamped up, slicked out souless format. Gee I wonder if a Disney movie will ever get a bad review from this suck up. 1 of the 3 satellite critics were even worse if thats possible. I'm not sure which movie it was (again I think it was Babylon A.D.) but the chick and the guy from Boston recommended seeing the movie even though they basically said it sucked. And when Mankiewicz called them on it, they both got meely-mouthed and couldn't provide a coherent explanation for their nonsensical recommendation. I couldn't believe the two goofballs were movie reviewers. Even if they were nervous on camera, it doesn't explain why their argument to see the movie was so incoherent. I mean don't reviewers prepare their arguments before they go on a show like that? I can't imagine either one of the reviewers writing an article that would persuade someone to go see or not go see a movie. They convinced me that to be successful as movie reviewer you don't have to be skilled at your craft as long as your really energetic and smile a lot. Dance monkey dance. I'm really pissed off. I've been a fan of the program since it was on PBS. At first it was because I was hoping Siskel and Ebert would kill each other on live television, but eventually I began to appreciate their reviews. I'm gonna miss the show.
-
or does someone else think Kevin Smith was a great cohost for the show? Whatever happens in the future I think Kevin Smith review movies, at least every once in awhile, he has interesting insights and opinions and is hilarious.
-
better than Siskel. But, the show was never the same after Siskel's premature death. The series never regained that ZING that you could feel ever time E & S got heated when they disagreed over the minutia of a film. A shame.
-
The show should be called, "Two Philandering Douchebags Smarmily Insult the History of Free Thought."
Corporate? Check. Poorly conceived? Check. Insulting to its predecessors? Check.
Hmm... what else?
Oh! Unwatchable but casually embraced by braindead non-film fans? Check.
I just love corporate non-values. -
...the review Siskel and Ebert gave for the original "Dawn of the Dead". It's one of those memories that sticks out like the first time I went to Disneyland.
The new show is shit, saw it saturday. -
Disney would rather shut down a show or try to restart it than pay what they deem 'too much' for the actual talent.
Ebert & Roeper should start they own show, even if Ebert isn't in front of the camera.
Oh, and Ebert, you ARE still a pretty boy. (and your wife is rather hot.)
-
and looked like G4's Attack Of The Show. What a useless mishmash. "We have 2 see-its, one rent-it, and 2 skip-its". Wha?? Bringing in more critical opinion just invalidates the whole procedure. If I want multiple takes of a single film, I'll check out Rotten Tomatoes.
-
WISHES it was as good as Attack of the Show. There isn't a single likable person on At the Movies. Ben Lyons is just fucking terrible in particular.
-
ABC Disney doesn't promote a show that will most likely let their viewers know how shitty their own films are? SHOCKING!!!
-
Your pathetic memories about Siskel and Ebert are sophomoric. The two Bens are more "corporate"? There's no fucking difference between them and their predecessors, except for effete nostalgia which neither I nor anyone else could give three shits about. You want to talk real criticism, let's talk Rosenbaum. But to cry and whine about the lineup change at the always-been-a-shitfest At the Movies is ridiculous. I will never take anything you write seriously again.
-
Completely loses what made it great even with Roeper. The show ran like some third rate E show. Dont listen to Dashing Roger. The show was great at one time.
-
Good one. My cable system zapped G4 and I am suffering from some serious Olivia Munn withdrawal.
-
The show is called "At The Movies", about films newly-released in theatres. It's supposed to be whether or not I should go "to the movies" to see it. They have a DVD section on their show. If they want to recommend you rent something, that is the place to do it. The ratings system sould be an absolute - See it or don't - as long as the reviewers give legitimate reasons why you should, or shouldn't, spend your money to see this movie. "Rent It" doesn't really help seeing as how you won't be able to rent the film for at least 3 months. "Rent It" is a cop out; a way to recommend a film the reveiwer more or less didn't like.
-
are, for the most part, failed actors and models who can't get work in their chosen profession so they fall back on entertainment reporting. Or they are star-struck sychophants, devoted members of the Cult of Celebrity. I don't know how many times I've heard a rundown of films opening where the reporter seems to know nothing about the films, other than the A-list star's name. They seem about as informed as someone who has only seen the film's poster. But, if Lindsey Lohan is spotted jaywalking, or Angelina Jolie blows her nose, they are able to give you every little detail and speculate what it means for the fate of mankind.I blame Entertainment Tonight. What was once a good source of information on the entertainment industry, it has become a glossy gossip show. When Stan Winston died they didn't say a word - they were too busy "reporting" on the fallout from the Miley Cyrus photo shoot, or asking Isaiah Washington what he thought of Katherine Heigl's Emmy recusal, or who has "the best bikini bod" according to some magazine.
-
That's really the only impression I got out of that show. Go figure.
-
I think you were reaching too far to find something to hate. The word 'yes' is how you respond to, "are you a native or naturalized citizen of the United States?" - its a response to an interrogation. The word "absolutely" implies conviction - and I dont see the problem using it if one is indeed trying to convey not simple agreement, but agreement with conviction.
I absolutely think you went a little over the top here, but other than that, this update was amazing. It gets a READ IT(tm) from me. -
So is that like Rolling Stone's Peter Travers reviewing The Dark Knight and Burn After Reading well before the screen dates, and reviews from other print media?
-
...this weekend was on Entourage.
-
Is a total fucking cop out. Elitist is right. How many times did Siskel and Ebert get a stick up their asses about popular movies and say "Don't see them?" It's as if they felt it cool to bash movies the rest of the planet would love to see. Many papers have gone to a series of ratings that are a billion times superior to thumbs up/down. They rate it: Diamond/must see Very good, fair, wait for DVD and turkey/don't see.
Lets point out that the following *classic* movies were thumbs down: (and a big go fuck yourself to those guys for doing so...how out of touch can you be???)
Spider man,
Gladiator (Multiple Oscars),
Field of dreams,
Superman returns,
And about 4 dozen more movies that went on to win Oscars, and make big box office and become beloved DVD's as well.
A big two thumbs up their asses for extremely elitist and absurd calls for thumbs down.
-
The fact that you actually believe there's a difference between the two Bens, on the one hand, and baldy and fatass on the other means you're a knuckle-dragging halfwit, so please don't waste my fucking time. All four of them are pieces of excrement floating in the same fetid cesspool as most TV/newspaper/online "critics" are - they in fact deserve no better than the title "reviewers", and probably something much worse, like "lobotomized, opninionated asshats". If you can't see that they are all the same then I weep for you and for the future. And, no, I don't work for Ben Lyons, don't know Ben Lyons, etc., etc. , you paranoid fuckstain.
-
it wouldn't change a bad review of a movie. Telling someone to "Rent It" for Gladiator is the same thing as a "Thumbs Down".The thing about Siskel & Ebert, and Roeper and Scott, is they didn't just give an up or down thumb. They explained what is good and not good about the film. They explained the reason why they wouldn't pay to see it (and by extension, why you shouldn't either). Using a multi-layered system of ranking films takes the onus off the reviewer to explain why he rated the film the way he did. I don't want a wishy-washy half-hearted recommendation. I want the reviewer to stand by his review. Either it is worth paying to see in theatres or it isn't. See It or Skip It; Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down; Time-Worthy or Time-Waster.
-
That round robin style of critics at their "press room desks" yeah right, conjures up images of Jay Mariotti and his "ridiculous" hair piece arguing with Bill Plaschke and Jackie Mullen over whether LeBron is truly greater than Kobe. Its a worthless argument for a worthless show. So why adapt that style for this new Movie Review show? Could it be that the evil four letter network, "Ehsspin" is also owned by The Mouse House, and the suits think this is a young, hip, fresh way of arguing?
-
The second time they did it, which seemed less than 5 minutes later, they re-introduced us to the other 3 members. The introduction was the same as the first time, but by the other Ben. We had just met them only minutes earlier. And the whole time their names are up on the screen with them. Score one for the ADD generation.
-
And when he's pissed, you better back da fuck off, bitches. I'm serious....the guy is legit hardcore. For fun he walks around Stoney Island Ave, in the South Side of Chicago, exposing his junk to people, trying to start shit. Tread carefully, forumites. He's a bad man.
-
He was bad, really bad. Ben M. is OK, and if they pair him up with the guy from IFC, they have the best potential to continue the show with out Ebert.p>Why was the chick from ReelzChannel on this show? She was in the tank for the corporations. Rent "Babylon A.D.?"Big Jim you are right about the entertainment reporters being out of work actors. Jan Carl of ET did a commercial for Ovaltine in the early 1990's that ran for years AFTER she was hired by Paramount for ET.-----later-----m
-
Media = multiple. There is no such English word as "medias." Thank you.
As far as video games go - they're not art. They're craft, and sometimes high craft, but they're not art. Art is about expressing the feelings and thoughts of the creator. Unless you're counting special bits of rendering as art or consider something like Max Payne as somehow profound, they ain't art. Or, if they are, they're shallow, bad art. Just my opinion - but I think video games are about as big a waste of time as romance novels or most Image comics or typical sitcoms. -
Roeper booed? Come on!
-
the production sucks and the hosts are borrrrinnngg. I then went on their site and gave a nasty feedback. i'm sure i'm not the only one.Siskel is turning in his grave so that Disney can kiss his ass.I'll give the show 4 weeks before it's yanked off the air.
Bring back Roper and that other guy. -
This show will get what it deserves. A cancellation. Let's pray. Also, let's hope Roeper and Ebert come up with something soon. I used to watch them every week for years and this new "show" is an abomination.
-
The only thing I liked was when one of the fucks on the show said " Unfortunately I had a seat that faced the screen." That was a great line. Other then that the show was fucking void of any life. One of the most boring 20+ minutes of my life.
-
vomit! SKIP IT! I like Leah Rozen of People magazine. She's the best movie critic I've seen. Where's her show?
-
When this show gets cancelled in a few weeks and Disney finishes shitting on a 30 year legacy, I'm sure your mouth will be too full of cock to notice.
But please, come back then and spew some more horseshit. Stupid fuck. -
there is no way Ebert is going to be on TV anytime soon as he can no longer speak. Maybe they could partner him with Stephen Hawking.
-
i wanna see that wingnuts head explode
-
I guess this last weekend was the worst in years. Maybe review shows help the box office whether they are bad or good?
-
Go here for Roger Ebert's take:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/07/the_balcony_is_closed.html
(found on Mark Evanier's blog)
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- HOUSE 2004-2012 -- 141 total posts 127 posts
- Kurtzman And Boborci Producing An Adaptation Of Anne Rice's Lestat Novel TALE OF THE BODY THIEF?? -- 321 total posts 112 posts
- DOUGLAS TRUMBULL is going to destroy our minds and reveal awesome beyond our mortal imaginations! -- 108 total posts 108 posts
- OK. So Harrison Ford Isn't In Talks For The New BLADE RUNNER. But... -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- Thursday Is Sweeps Day Eight!! Yack Here About OFFICE, ROCK, UP, WIPEOUT, PERSON, FINDER, MENTALIST, IDOL, BANG, ROB, ANATOMY, JERSEY & More!! -- 96 total posts 96 posts
- Check out Colin Farrell in these new pics from SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS -- 82 total posts 82 posts
- Billy Connolly joins The Hobbit!?! Say whaaaaa....???? -- 79 total posts 79 posts
- Nice And Splattery MACHETE KILLS Promo Art!! -- 66 total posts 66 posts
- Mike Fleming confirms AICN scoop on Sly & Arnold teaming up in THE TOMB!!! -- 96 total posts 61 posts
- In That New 300 Movie Spin-Off Thingy, Xerxes And Artemisia Will Be Played By... -- 58 total posts 58 posts