Cool News
Capone sits down with the sexy new "At the Movies" hosts, A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips!!!
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
First of all, watch the video here. As far as I'm concerned (and the gentlemen that are the subject of the promo reel may disagree), this is one of the greatest attack ads in the history of television. Politics has nothing on what this piece is saying about the last year of the decades-old "At the Movies" television series: "Serious reviews from serious journalists." First of all, Amen. Second, this is a show admitting that going after a younger demographic with two hosts who are essentially TV personalities (and I use the word "personality" loosely with Ben Lyons) for the last 12 months was a catastrophic mistake. Again, Amen.
But I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. More specifically, I come to talk about the two new hosts of "At the Movies," a series founded by Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel some 30 years ago, carried on by Ebert and Richard Roeper after Siskel's passing, transferred to Roeper and Michael Phillips (after a long string of temporary guest hosts that did not include me, somehow), and finally got swept up into the Twilight Zone for a year with one fairly informed reviewer and one special needs child, who may not qualify to be a greeter at Wal-Mart.
Critics interviewing critics is the strangest form of self-gratification, especially when one of the two I spoke with I consider a friend. I've known the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips for a couple years and have learned a great deal from both his knowledge of film and his style as a writer. (He's also a bit of a fashion icon and sex symbol in the Windy City, as you probably gleaned from the promo reel.) He's also one of the great interviewers of filmmakers and actors (something he doesn't get to do nearly enough any more) working today, and any opportunity to shoot the shit with him about film is a welcome one.
This interview marked my first meeting with A.O. (Tony) Scott, head critic at the New York Times, and the first thing that struck me was how funny he was. Based on his reviews and some interviews I've read with him, he had always struck me as a fairly serious gentleman, whose reviews and other writings are second to none. I caught up with Phillips and Scott shortly after they had finished taping their first show (which airs this weekend; check your local syndicated listings), and they were still so filled with energy from what I'm guessing was a fairly successful premiere outing. I was brought into a small conference room that contained a board with dozens of index cards with movie titles (along with the studio, director of the film and lead actors' names) pinned to it, and I realized that I was looked at the movie lineup for the show for the coming two months or so.
I haven't seen their first show as of this writing, but just based on this conversation, they have some great ideas about how to change things up just enough to make it their own and something that the viewing faithful (of both the show and of movies) will get the most out of. I, for one, am very much looking forward to seeing the first show and how they tweak it from this point forward. But seriously, even if the format was changed to two guys on bar stools in front of a white background, at least the intellect and passion for films (all films, not just those made after 1990) would be obvious, gratifying, and a much needed change for the better. Please welcome, on the eve of their first show together, "At the Movies" hosts Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott…
Capone: You just got your first show in the can, and you’re already keeping me waiting 20 minutes in the lobby. What gives?
Michael Phillips: Hey, hey, the first, and he's already got these petty demands about wardrobe.
A.O. (Tony) Scott: It’s him. He is such a diva; he’s gotta have the Diet Coke at exactly the right temperature. He's impossible, impossible to work with.
MP: He drinks Evian, but not the Arrowhead [Mountain Spring Water] stuff.
TS: He gets in my shot all the time, trying to steal camera away from me. So, it’s already falling apart, you know, one show and…
MP: They’re announcing new hosts tomorrow.
Capone: Yeah, I was actually going to let you know about that.
MP: [Laughs] They’re talking about it online already.
TS: [To me] Congratulations!
Capone: So, the first obvious question is: What’s broke and how are you going to fix it?
TS: You know, I don’t know if anything’s broken. I don’t know if I’d put it that way. I feel like they hired us to be hosts on the show, because we’re film critics. They know what kind of film critics we are. We’ve been at it for awhile. I think that they want us to more or less be ourselves, maybe a little better dressed and with neater hair than at our other jobs. But, I think, we'll do what we do in print, more or less, on the air, which is approach films as critics with enthusiasm and also with skepticism, thoughtfully, intelligently, and in a way to let the show be driven by our ideas and our arguments.
MP: They took the show in a different direction last year, and they executed it as well as they felt they could under the circumstances. And then, they made this U-turn. It happened very quickly. We both got the calls rather late this summer, and it’s a pretty wonderful thing to hear people say, “Hey, we don’t want to try to change you guys,” because what are they going to do? First of all, they can’t handle the raw glamour we’ll bring into this thing…
Capone: No one can.
TS: Just because of Michael’s sex appeal, they had to move the show into some later time slots, when no kids are watching.
MP: No kidding, 3:05 a.m. in Birmingham.
Capone: That’s awesome.
TS: I think we’ll own that time slot.
MP: We are going to own it.
Capone: You mentioned how fast it happened. Can you kind of walk me through it? How fast did it happen, and what was the process? Did you even have to think about it?
TS: I got a message on my cell phone, I think it was in early August, from Ann Miller at Disney…
MP: No, it would have been late July.
TS: Late July, okay. Yeah, it was late July…introducing herself, saying “Give me a call. I’d like to talk to you about something.” I didn’t know what, but I figured it might be interesting. And, she said, “This is what we’re thinking about…We’re going to try to change direction for ‘At the Movies’, and would you consider being a cohost?” And, I said, “Yes!”
I’d done--as Michael had--guest stints on the show before, really enjoyed it, loved working with the people here in Chicago at WLS, just terrific people, and kind of missed it. It was okay, I love working at the New York Times, and I was sort of happily going through my life. But then, this came along. I thought, Hmm, this could really be something. And, the more I talked with her and with other people at Disney, the more it became clear that it was a show, you know…that they were approaching me for the right reasons and with some idea of who I was as a critic.
And then, they told me it was going to be Michael as co-host. By then, it was too late to get out of it. [everybody laughs] I threw a tantrum, called my lawyers, but the train had left the station. But, seriously, I thought, Well, that’s perfect. We used to fantasize about that when we were having beers in Toronto and Cannes: "Wouldn't it be be great. [mimics drunken slurred speech] We should have a show! They should give us a show!"
MP: Yeah, I know, it’s true, we did. I mean, everybody feels like they should have a show. I got the call when I was coming back from Traverse City, Michigan, from Michael Moore’s film festival. I went up there, so I had been sort out of touch for a couple of days, and checking e-mail was difficult up there. And then, I get this call from Ann Miller, and I was like "Wait, Ann Miller? I thought Ann Miller was dead." No, not that Ann Miller. And, this Ann Miller, who’s overseeing the show from Disney, loved the fact that I knew who Ann Miller was. So, it’s great to be appreciated by somebody who also likes Ann Miller musicals.
Capone: Yeah, someone who has seen one. I’ve this promo reel that’s going around on the circuit. And, clearly the language is very specific--I even wrote it down.
MP: Let's hear it.
Capone: “Serious reviews from serious journalists.”
MP: Damn serious.
TS: And, as you can see in this room, we’re trying to get as far away from that as we possibly can.
Capone: And the photo shoot aspect of the clip definitely adds to the serious nature of what you’re selling. But that language seems very deliberate--deliberate and almost antagonistic, maybe?
MP: Well, no, I wouldn’t say that. They wrote it the way they wrote it. But I’ve never looked tanner. And, Tony looks like George Hamilton in the promo. Very bronze. And, that’s a wonderful thing.
Capone: I love the shots with the chair turned around, and your straddling it, SCANDAL-style.
TS: It was great, I mean, you’re used to this kind of glamour and star treatment and stuff like that, but I thought it was a lot of fun. I also think that I find it very heartening, given the state of the world and the culture, that seriousness can be used as a selling point. You can get out there and not hide it, not be shy about it, not pretend that…I mean, sure, I wish that they had said, “Sexy reviews from sexy journalists.” [everybody laughs]
Capone: They tried it, man, they tried it.
TS: But then, they would have had to find me a different co-host. But, no, I think it’s great that what we do, and what we care about, and how we approach what we do is the thing that’s also the selling point.
Capone: It’s got to be heartening, too, that’s it back to two print journalists, print critics.
MP: Yeah, I guess. I mean, it’s almost just a matter of happenstance and the luck of the draw. I could just as easily never have been a print film critic and still be roughly the same…have come to the same sensibility that I’m at now.
So, the medium isn’t really…yes, yes, we are two print critics, God knows. But it’s a different dynamic than the old Siskel and Ebert dynamic, because that was really a very different, late-20th century, intense, two-person, two-paper rivalry from the same city. And, it’s not quite the same thing here. On the other hand, look, it’s been a terrific way to pursue what I love. And, I just felt lucky from the beginning to be writing for newspapers, but, right now, your online concerns are as much as in print, if you’re any kind of journalist. So, this is just another medium.
Capone: You mentioned that the should was born out of a rivalry, and, from what I can tell, you guys are both very nice gentlemen most of the time. Is there a place for true arguing here?
TS: Oh, yeah. I think so. I mean, obviously, the personal dynamic between us is not the same as it was between Gene and Roger. You can’t replicate that, and you can’t force that. That was who they were temperamentally and also who they were as stars at rival papers. Those were days of newspaper wars and great crosstown rivalries. We don’t quite have that.
But, I think what we do have, I think we get along well, and we have a good time together, and tease each other. But, I think that when the arguments happen and when they arise, they’ll go as far as they need to. I don’t think either of us shrinks from that. We certainly don’t in print.
TS: And, here’s the great thing that we’ve heard, another thing that I really took heart from, from the producers here: they do not want that manufactured combativeness that a lot of people seem to be tied to, because it was less manufactured with Gene and Roger.
But, what we can do, and what we want to do, and the kind of show I would watch is just somebody who says, “Wait a minute, why do you think that? Give me your evidence.” You know, backing up your opinion. The world is full of opinions on movies that are just floating with no evidence and no kind of good argumentation.
TS: And, television is full of people yelling at each other and producing very little in the way of insight or the advancement of thought. And, part of being serious, in a way, is taking ideas seriously and listening to what the other guy has to say, bringing your best argument. And, I think that is good for the viewers, too, and for people who care about movies, who have strong opinions about movies themselves, want to see people defending their own opinions, making their arguments, but also engaging in a real conversation, not just sort of talking past each other or shouting.
MP: They’ve done some very astute things--with our input, thank God [knocks wood table]--and, it will be evolving as we go, about changing the physical environment of the show, subtly, so that it isn’t like these two nerds air-dropped into a show where they don’t look comfortable. Again, they did a lot of good work in a hurry.
Capone: What are some of the specific format changes, and what have you kept?
MP: Are you writing this after you see the show, or are you going to write it before you see the show?
Capone: I was going to try to do it as promotion in advance of the show
MP: A weekly piece is really what we’re after [laughs].
Capone: Yeah, I’ll be back every week.
MP: A chronicle.
TS: I would say one thing--and this is not a specific answer to your question--but, I think that the rhythm and the pace and the flow of the show are going to be driven much more by the content, that is, by what we think the most interesting movies are, what we think [are] the most interesting discussions that we’re going to have. Already, in the first show, we’ve rearranged some things. We saw one movie that we both really liked and thought was really interesting to talk about, and we moved that to the central segment, and, stretched that one out. So, there’s a lot of flexibility with how long what we call the cross-talk is and where the movies are placed, based not on how big the movie is or how hyped the movie is, but about what we think the most interesting stuff to talk about is.
Also, the DVD segment is expandable and not always pegged to new releases on DVD. So, it’s not just, you know, Here’s the movie that we talked about six months ago that now you can rent or buy. But, a way of sort of opening it up and expanding it to other areas of film history.
MP: Yeah, as an example of that, for the first show, we’re doing something--I think we’ll probably come back to it--where we talk about movies that actually turned our heads around as kids, like, some of our earliest formative experiences with something that really got us thinking about movies seriously, or as serious as you can be at age eight, which is pretty serious, depending, because most eight-year-olds are pretty…They’re kind of in the bag for movies.
And then, we thought, Well, let’s expand that for the online thing, and we did another 10 minutes after we had finished the first show. “Let’s roll the cameras.” And, I think we’re going to do that every week. So, why not, you know, Web exclusives. Sounds good to Disney.
TS: And, using the Web to sort of expand. If there’s stuff that wants to go on longer, or sort of a more free-form, uninterrupted, less tightly constrained-by-commercial-breaks kind of conversation, using the Web or Web-video for that.
MP: Profanity, there’s just tons of it.
Capone: Well, that’s what it’s really for. Michael and I have talked this before, about the ‘Rent It’ option of the program. For my own reasons, I’m completely against that option.
TS: Why, why?
Capone: Many reasons. Mainly, it goes back to the fact that I think that home video has ruined the theater-going experience for a lot of people. And, I’ve thought that for, probably, half my life. Watching movies at home has encouraged types of behavior in theater-going that are chasing people away now.
MP: Well, not way down this year. I mean, if you look at the numbers, you’re down a little bit, but you’re not down a lot.
Capone: But, people keep complaining about the decline of the experience of going to the movies.
TS: And, it is appalling when people are texting and talking on the phone.
Capone: Yeah, and that all kind of goes along together. I mean, as Gene once put it, it set a trend of bad behavior, a decline in manners.
MP: No question. I do think--without naming any names--that designation is easy to misuse. You’ve got to be careful how often you use it and careful in what way you use it, because if you’re really just saying, “I didn’t like this movie, but my standards go in the toilet when I’m watching at home, so I say ‘Rent It’,” that’s not going to help anybody, because you’re just lying. It’s just two-faced. But, if you use it for something where you really have, fundamentally, a movie thatmay not work, but you have one performance or some aspect. It’s a more complicated reaction, and the movie refuses to be dismissed, and, you do it sparingly, then it makes sense to me.
TS: I was skeptical of it, and then, when we were doing rehearsals of the first taping and sort of going over what we were going to do, I came around to it because I think that it could sharpen the argument, that is, if, as Michael said, you don’t sort of abuse it or just use it as a way of being noncommittal, and if you say, “This movie had some real problems, and I can’t really recommend that you go out to the theater and spend $12.50 or whatever.”
Capone: And, I realize, in these financial times, it is about money sometimes.
MP: It is.
TS: But, I think sometimes if there’s a particular aspect of this movie that’s interesting, maybe not good enough as a whole, but there’s something worthwhile about it. And then, you have the other person who’s saying, “No, go see it,” you have, in a way, already a…
MP: …a split.
TS:…a clearer…a split and sort of more clearly articulated and defensible positions than if you were just saying, “Yeah, I liked this movie okay. See it.” And, the other guy is saying, “No, I really, really liked this movie. Really see it.” It sharpens it a little.
MP: I think it’s actually more true to life, when you think about it. I wish more of my movie-going year was spent in the heights of inspiration and then, maybe conversely, in the depths of disaster, just because those are easier to write. It is easier to write and to argue a rave or a pan, but 50 percent of…I would say…
TS: …at least.
MP: Many, many pictures you see in a year fall somewhere in between inspiration and disaster.
TS: Sure, I mean, it’s a bell curve. And, most things fall in the middle. The landscape of mediocrity is wide and vast--and crowded.
Capone: I didn’t realize I was against it until they started using it on the show last year--misusing it, as you put it. I felt like some people were using it to sort-of recommend films that they didn't understand.
MP: Maybe so, maybe so.
TS: I didn’t realize I was for it, until I started using it. [laughs]
Capone: The other thing I was curious about is whether you were going to address films that don’t get screened in time for taping, or for critics at all before opening.
MP: Oh yeah. We are.
Capone: That seems to be, like, this little segment of sometimes very popular films that don’t get addressed on the show.
MP: Well, just like there’s a lot of people who have been late to the idea of hitting movies at the right time that have been on VOD [video on demand] for three weeks, and then they get a theatrical release. Yeah, it’s all…This notion of time is sort of changing quickly, you know, time and platforms…
TS: And also, we come in late, in a way, anyway, because if you think about it, and there’s this obsession with being early and getting out in front of the opening weekend, but in most of the markets where the show airs, it’s on Saturday and Sunday, so a lot of people have already seen it or are in the middle of seeing it. So, we’re not right out front, giving people, “Hey, there’s this new BATMAN movie opening up!” By the time we go on, of course, most of them have already seen it or decided not to see it. So, I think that actually, rather than being a disadvantage or us being late, it means that we’re coming in right when people are talking about the movie, right when the discussion is happening. And so, sometimes, if something’s in platform release and going wide, we may not do it the first weekend it opens in New York and Los Angeles, but the next weekend, when it’s in the top ten markets where more people are out there seeing it. If it doesn’t screen for critics, you know, we can buy a ticket and go see it over the weekend, and then come back to it.
MP: Yeah, I think people give too…I’ve heard that argument, “Oh, well, the show is too late." What I was really excited to hear from Disney, truly, was when they said on the first phone call, they said, “Look, a lot of these people are seeing your show after they’ve seen the movie, so we can talk about these movies in a slightly different way than they may have five years ago.” To us, that’s, like, great, great, because then you feel like it’s…I mean, you can’t presume, but it’s no longer all prescriptive.
Capone: Okay. We sort of broached on serious journalism and serious criticism, as well as the role of the Internet. Tony, you’ve been pretty vocal--on both sides of the argument--about the role of the ruffians that rule the Internet and write reviews for the Internet…
TS: What have I said?
MP [to Tony]: Have you been huffy about that?
TS: No.
Capone: I read an article, I think it was in the Times actually, that you were quoted in. The story was about those review aggregation sites, where you seemed to in less-than-glowing terms about the role of the internet film reviews. But then, I read some quotes that you gave earlier this year, from a speech you gave at Ithaca College that were very pro.
TS: Wow. Yeah, yeah. Well, I’ve always been very…Look, my feeling has always been [that] whatever medium you’re writing for--whether you’re writing for your school newspaper or a blog or a specialized journal or a daily newspaper, or whatever--I’ve always found the whole thing about the blogosphere and the traditional media to be very overdone, on both sides, because it always seems to me that the question is, Do you have something interesting to say? Do you have an interesting way to say it? The imperative is always, if you’re a writer, to write as clearly and cogently and readably as you can.
I think that the Internet is a very noisy and contentious place. There’s a lot of opinion. It’s not always politely or well expressed, but I think it’s a fundamentally and wonderfully democratic milieu, which can be challenging to someone like me. I’m invested in…I think of myself as a professional and, you know, perhaps, think I’m deserving of respect that the people are not willing to grant.
MP: He's a very huffy boy. Harvard boy! [laughs]
TS: But, I think it’s great. It’s great that rather than writing something or doing a broadcast and wondering, All those people out there, what are they making of this? What are they thinking about it? I actually know. They write back to me, or they link, and so you see the argument. I mean, criticism has always been about argument, and the argument has always been happening out there, where people are reading and talking about critics, whoever those critics are. And now, you can see that argument, and you can hear that argument. And sometimes, yes, you want to tune it out, but there it is. And, I think, on balance, it’s a great thing.
Capone: Yeah. I know Michael thinks it’s a great thing, too. [Laughs]
MP: I do. I’ve always felt that it’s a privilege to be able to say what you want to say for a living. And, that’s a real privilege. I really feel like if you can’t put up with some opinions that don’t agree with yours, however they’re expressed, then you’re just too thin-skinned.
On the other hand, I do find it amusing that when somebody writes in to say, whether it’s responding to the online blog or whatever, just saying, "Ah, he’s a tool. You are this, you are that.” And, if you actually take a minute to respond and just say, “Hey, I’m sorry you think this, but…da, da, da, da,” nine times out of 10, you get this fascinating, kind of abject apology, right away--“I’m so sorry I wrote it that way!” And, I mean it, it’s like an amazing trend, that it’s more just like, Hey, there’s a human being back there somewhere.
And, I’m not trying to win…I don’t really care so much about what people think of me, because if you start worrying about that then…It’s hard enough to get your own opinion right for yourself in any form, and that’s really what this show is about, trying to get our opinions sharply argued in a very small amount of time in a way that we would personally watch. That’s hard enough.
Capone: Also, in that promo reel, you mentioned that this will be a show with three people at the helm--the two of you and then the audience. How are you getting the audience more involved?
MP: Well, I think online, we’re going to kind of roll that in. I hope we get some--this is the most retro thing in the world--reader mail, you know, and responding to that. A lot of it is just also the tone you’re setting on the air. Is it just some sort of insular chat between two people who aren’t really thinking things through, or is it something’s that kind of wide enough to bring people in?
TS: And, the audience is always…When you’re on television, you’re in somebody’s home, you’re in somebody’s living room, you’re talking to somebody where they live. And so, even without the extra dimension of interactivity that the Web could provide, there’s a kind of immediacy. It’s a little different than when you’re behind the columns of type in a newspaper. I mean, we’re hoping that people will find us bearable enough or sort of fascinatingly freakish enough to invite us into their home for half an hour at a time. [everybody laughs]
MP: And, they won’t be intimidated by the charisma levels they’re about to put up with.
Capone: No, not at all.
TS: "Not at all!" [laughs]
MP: Hey, wait a minute! Say!
TS: No danger of that!
Capone: Thank you both for all your time. I can't wait to see what you guys come up with.
And with that, Scott was on his way to the airport for the first in a long line of return flights to New York from Chicago. Good luck, fellas.
-- Capone
capone@aintitcoolmail.com
Follow Me On Twitter
-
+ Expand All
-
Capone is talking to some real grown up movie reviewers...
-
His thumbs are used for saving the world.
-
I'm sure it's big in Chicago.
-
Capone: "Hey, what did you guys think of Extract? I doubled over laughing!!!"
Scott and Phillips: silence
Capone: "Hey, AO Scott, how long did Harry make you give him nightly foot massages before he got you that job at the Times?" Scott: silence
Capone: "Hey, you guys want to see my action figure collection?" -
I tivo At The Movies. Half the time, it's scheduled and Tivo picks up an infomorcial that is replacing it. The shows tha I did see were completely off the mark because of the two yahoos that they had in there (Mankiewitz and the other pretty boy). Very glad they will have some more serious discussions this year. Can't wait. Good article Capone!
-
Haters gone Hate.
-
The key to this show, as it was with Siskel and Ebert (and some of it with Roeper) is intelligent film "argument". You need to have some friction and debate. Another component is get rid of the "rent it", "see it" crap. I'm sure they can't use the thumbs; but they need to go back to either recommend it or not. No middle ground, no grey area...this will lead to more heated discussion. Either way, glad the Ben's are gone.
-
They were the two best guest hosts in Ebert's absence, and I'm happy to see them paired up. The state of film criticism is so sad these days - it will be great to see intelligent discussion of film return to television. Maybe it can help reverse the trend.
-
is exciting.
-
Hello: A.O. Scott.....Michael PhillipsGoodbye: The Mank.........The WANK
-
Sep 04, 2009 6:32:45 PM CDT
AICN is really the home of funny yet creepy interviews
by lockesbrokenleg
-
These guys seemed okay when they were sitting in for Roger. They got to do something about that set. I'm thinking of a Dick Cavett Show type thing. I don't know about this interview though. I get the feeling there was a lot of tickling and hair-braiding that wasn't mentioned.
-
Curious what the deal is with that movie.
-
All the hate for a forgotten show and hosts that no one watched or cared about. All this jism spewed for the new hosts comes off like a little kid who got his teacher fired for claiming they were inappropriately touched. I didn't think Lyons and the other dude were any good, but who cares? It was a show about people who don't have enough talent to be in the industry that talk about the people in the business and their films. What does it make the idiots who criticize the people who criticize the people they all envy? What a joke.
-
Sep 04, 2009 7:13:09 PM CDT
"Capone is talking to some real grown up movie reviewers..."
by cheyne_stoking_dms
...That was awesome.
-
... Statler and Waldorf. Now THAT would be worth watching!
-
Some movies just aren't worth the $8+ plus a drive to see in the theater, but they are decent for a $3.50 rental or on tv. So I much prefer the see it/skip it/rent it (or wait for tv) than just thumbs up/down. Movies are too many shades of gray to simply gauge go/no go, there are alternatives.
-
It sucks. I saw it for free and I still feel like I got ripped off.
-
Instead of replacing legends Siskel and Ebert (and Roeper), they will be restoring order after the Ben & Ben debacle. I'm curious how Ebert and Roeper feel about this, after being unceremoniously dumped by Disney.
-
to redo their homo spoof. "Hated It!"
-
But, I'll have to go in non-sober to make sure I might enjoy it.
-
Wow - are you missing it. Long before you collected food stamps for a living, these two guys had a show on PBS. It was a little show with a micro budget but it managed to develop a massive following in a very short period of time. These two guys helped to cultivate an appreciation for great films and created the now widely accepted understanding that movies, when done properly, speak a universal language and can enhance our understanding of the human condition. No, not really, but it was a good show and original for the time. More importantly - they really pushed this idea that critics didn't need to be tools of the industry or, even worse, their own petty biases (either charge remind you of anyone you know?). They didn't engage in fawning, kiss ass interviews with the director of "Bloodsport 9" or the star of "Son of Cyborg 12". In short, they had some integrity. I don't know Phillips, but Scott is sharp and I hope the show succeeds. I enjoy the talkbacks on aicn, but the reviews make me "double over laughing".
-
I don't collect food stamps anymore, I found there was much more money in recycling cans and newspapers.
This was not the first article trashing The Bens. I have no problem with the Scott and Phillips. I have seen their stuff before and my criticism isn't with the them or the new show. It was with the venom for two nobodies on a show no one watched. When they were fired it was like AICN was Dorothy's house and the Bens were the Wicked Witch of The West. I just found it odd. I understand they sucked, but in the grand scheme of things, so what? The only way they were tools of the industry was if they loved everything. They might have been shitty, but they were what 50-50 like/hate on the films they reviewed. You'd think the Bens were the cause of Global warming, terrorism, and diarrhea. -
Sep 04, 2009 9:00:54 PM CDT
They both look like they got made fun of in high school.
by gibsonusa returns
...but no offense. We are all geeks talking here.
-
When Siskel and Ebert were on PBS with "Sneak Previews" it was, and still is IMO, the best Tv movie critic show. No commercials, so discussions and clips were longer. Agree or disagree with their findings, the show hasn't been the same since they left PBS.
-
Sep 04, 2009 9:39:03 PM CDT
My favorite host of this show in its history is dead.
by cheyne_stoking_dms
-
I know everyone hates him. I'm not a fan or anything I just think people hate him for the wrong shit. I've seen that Ben Lyons Sucks blog (it looks like a secretly I'm in love with him weird stalker thing though) and they harp on the dumbest shit. But getting all pissed at him because he liked Goldeneye the best out of all the Bonds because of the video, was just a dumb thing to get mad at. I totally agreed with him there, the movie and game combo like that just made that movie so much better, and being that it was the first Bond he ever saw in theater it was the first one I remember seeing. Its not like any of the old Bonds are some fucking amazing films, liking the old bond movies is just some thing everyone thinks you have to do. Hate Ben Lyons for being a pussy when it comes to horror movies and gore movie that is the sort of shit that would piss me off because he'd pretty much would write off any movie if it was icky.
-
Ebert at least has a website. Does he even have a job anymore?
-
I will gladly avoid it now.
-
That's an AT THE MOVIES that we'd all watch.
-
Michael Phillips is ok though. Id rather had him and Roeper. I really dont want to see a show with snotty film critics trying to prove how intelligent they are and how refined their tastes are. And I think this show, with AO Scott, moves in that direction a little bit too much. I'd prefer critics that relate with average moviegoers more, and are a little more... fun.
-
It must be recent. Some are saying that Siskel was too harsh on films depicting violence.
-
I had no idea Capone was a raging, shit-eating, butt-hungry faggot homosexual.
Oh well. I guess Harry likes to keep people around like himself... -
The Siskel/Ebert show will never be duplicated because their rapport was so unique. But this is light years ahead of the Lyons shit-fest.
-
along with herc...every week, a hell of a knock down drag out
-
Doesn't he?
-
Something about the backdrop's colour scheme turns me off.
-
Now with these guy we can get down to the real meat of film criticism.
-
Who else needs this show now anyway? It's obsolete thanks to the internets.
-
... but every once in a while, he'll give a glowing review to a turd like 'Benjamin Button'. Watching him defend that movie to David Denby on Charlie Rose really sort of soured me to him. I hated the movie that much. Denby can be a myopic douche a lot of the time, but he was on the right side of the Ben Button debate. That movie fucking SUCKED.
-
i will know the truth
-
AT THE MOVIES!!!
-
The internet doesn't make everything obsolete. Some may wanna watch 'At the Movies' on television rather than have to read reviews on the internet. That way they can steer clear from twats like you.
-
Roeper has a website.
http://www.richardroeper.com/ -
I've been a greeter at Wal-Mart.
-
Sep 05, 2009 5:08:54 AM CDT
Why call it "At The Movies"? That was Siskel And Ebert
by zombieheathledger
...and maybe Ebert and Roeper, but to still call it "At The Movies" without Gene or Roger is like when those old bands tour that don't have any original members. It's b.s. Is it really so difficult to come up with a new name for a movie review show? If these reviewers are any good they should be able to stand on their own without having to use the brand that was Siskel and Ebert.
-
Glad to see they're keeping it going! :)
-
Why not change the names of Saturday Night Live, The Tonight Show and Good Morning America everytime their lineup changes as well, then? Because even though the hosts may change, the purpose and format of the show remain pretty much the same. Retaining the name of the show lets longtime viewers know that and helps maintain continuity, as well as tradition.
-
Both Phillips and Scott are okay.
-
Interview was kinda interesting, but I got confused in the middle when you lost your colour scheme. Was nice though when you kept your queries in black.
-
I'll tune in. I always liked Michael Phillips with Roeper. As far as A.O. Scott, the Times reviews are way too serious, but let's see what he can do on the groove tube.
-
Their talent lies in journalism not making movies. You don't have to be a movie maker to level thoughtful criticism at a piece of art. Maybe it's a Chicago thing but I grew up watching Siskel and Ebert and I had enough of a hard time dealing with Roeper as it was. Those other two douche bags were more interested in celebrity than film and nearly killed a show that had been on the air for more than 20 years. This is a welcome return to form as far as I'm concerned.
-
Everything he said was puke stolen from this group of assholes.
-
over at the NYTimes. If you are curious about how his on screen persona differs from his written reviews then it might be a good preview. I've always enjoyed Scott's reviews and I'm glad he has received such a high profile gig.
-
It was good. Much better than the crap that preceded it. Just two intelligent, thoughtful reviewers discussing the movies...as it should be.
-
I think that it's a sad comment on society that we both had that thought. And I'm sure we weren't the only ones. At least I didn't say it out loud. ;)
-
They KINDA Remind me of early S&E, When I Watched in the 80s... Nothing Wrong with THAT.
-
Sep 05, 2009 5:52:44 PM CDT
After winning 8 golds in the Olympics, what can't Michael Philli
by mrmysteryguest
-
and you didn't come in strapped with explosives?
-
With you 100%. That would be great
-
Sep 05, 2009 8:45:38 PM CDT
There hasn't been a demand for this show for a DECADE
by anything but tangerines
Just take it out back and kill it with dignity!
-
Online, print, TV, radio, podcasts. I don't need 100 critics telling me T F 2 sucks when it makes over 400 mil at the Box Office. Tell me that Borat sucks.
-
Not Phillips.
-
I guess that makes me a "douche" with poor taste. I just watched the new format and I gotta say, A.O Scott is a huge bore. They should have paired Phelps with Mank.
-
Lyons was a boob but at least he was fun to watch. I betcha the ratings for this revamped show plummet. I have a lot of respect for Tony, but he doesn't translate well for television.
-
Thought it was Siskel's arsehole. True story. And fuck the hitting enter on accident and posting blank fucking nothing. Hell, it was your zen moment. Now your enlightened bitch!
-
The puss oozing off of Ebert's infected cancerous neck wound slowly dropping into his soup which he then has fed to him is the real Hideous Secretion.
-
Some from a website with vulgarity and profanity in the article headings and with an owner who it seems really loves to type "f#ck" making a comment about there being a lack of manners in the world today... priceless.
-
been dead for well over a decade. He was a hell of alot better than Ebert. What I'm trying to say is---eh, fuck it. Asking some asshole on AICN to show respect is like settling things between Sunis and Shiites. HideousSecretion, Fuck off die a firey death.
-
I'm through with ass-pounding the shit out of her.
-
Sep 06, 2009 9:48:00 AM CDT
The imperative is always, if you’re a writer, to write as clearl
by sutureself
Are you listening, Harry? One would think that after more than a decade of being a "writer," you would have made the effort to at the very least learn the difference between a sentence and a sentence fragment. A critic does not have to have the skills of the medium he is critiquing, i.e. a film critic does not himself have to be able to make a film, but he has to have the skills of his own medium. A writer has to know how to WRITE. Otherwise, he has no standing to call director "A" a hack or screenwriter "B" a no-talent, no matter how much "passion" for movies the ostensible critic may have.
-
get lucasarts to do it. or make it a 3D Siskel on an alien planet where he has to review movies for the aliens.
-
pwnd!
-
Dorothy's house fell on the Wicked Witch of the East, not West. Sheesh... What the hell are they teaching kids these days?
-
or six or eight or ten.
-
2 SCATHING BEN YLONS TRASH TALKS IN LESS THAN 3 MONTHS!! Capone, you sir, are rising in the ranks!
-
The guy wouldn't leave me alone 2 nights ago at the Olive Garden off us-1.The dude was holding a stale breadsteak,(eyes half closed anturally)and speaking into it, begging my g.f and i to listen to his rambling on about How the single greatest film is I AM LEGEND,while flecks of crud flew from his mouth.The dude even had a piece of lettuce on his head,(like a hate) and took it off when we walked away.
-
...especially when it's sunny out.
-
He's certainly a film fan and some of his written reviews are well worded, but his history with junk entertainment television hurt his credibility as a serious journalist. It's a shame because I've thought for some time (even though I'm the old, bitter demographic now) that there should be at least a couple of high profile younger critics that can speak to the mainstream movie demographic; Guys that can tell the difference between a good modern horror or sci-fi film and a bad one, and guys that know there is a level of difference even between "Friday the 13th" sequels. The old guys hate them all unless an old master is at the helm. Remember how the mainstream critics gave great reviews to "The Phantom Menace"? They had no clue if it was any good or not. They just took a stab at a good review because they'd been bombing sci-fi films all year and thought that if Lucas was the director, it must be better than those other films. I watched the new "At the Movies" yesterday, and can see that this is a return the more somber and serious Siskel/Ebert days. One of them even sited "Annie Hall" as one the greatest films ever made. This is where I groan. I've never liked Woody Allen. I never understood why the old guard loved his films when I was teenager, and I still have never grown to love them. I doubt there are many kids out there under 30 who LOVE Woody Allen films. This is why I think a younger voice would be nice, even though by default that voice would lack a vast ammount of knowledge and experience. For example, when I'm intersted in anything made before 1960, I default to Leonard Maltin, but his reviews become almost worthless for anything made after 1990.
-
He's got to be the most biased critic who ever was.
-
nothing gets past the big brain on brad!
-
Some of your quotes are in red, makes it look like a huge block of interviewee quotes, as if these guys are HUGE blowhards instead of just regular ones. Anyway, I was very disappointed when Ebert stepped down from the show, he was a true driving force, but once they brought in the last 2 guys it was instantly over. I have hopes that this new show will deliver where the previous one failed, and have plugged it into my DVR as it airs on Sundays here in LA. PS - compelling argument about why the theater-going experience is slipping. I don't know if I agree that home video is the cause, but it's got legs. I personally think people have just gotten more comfortable with themselves and around others, to the point of rudeness. I was at the John Williams concert at the Hollywood Bowl last night, you'd think some of these people were on the bus the way they were constantly making noise and trying to add their own spin on things. They don't understand what it means to be in a shared performance environment, they don't respect the performers or their fellow audience members because the notion of respect has broken down in our society. But maybe that's who we are, we're trying to find that balance. It wouldn't hurt if the studios respected the audience either though, these folks pay tons of money to go see absolute dreck, pandering shit that isn't worth the screen it's being projected upon but is jammed down their throats via overmarketing, so perhaps it's no wonder that audiences are losing respect for the theater, what they're seeing there has too often lost respect for its audience, and trained entire generations not to think about movies as an important medium, not to think at all really.
-
That's the most sense I've ever read a talkbacker make. I can't sit down in a theatre once without some ignorant shit hitting the surface. It's a sad state the movie-going experience is in. I couldn't have said it better myself.
-
It's about fucking time.
They totally Joel Schumacher'd this show last year - too irrelevant even to be called irrelevant. Showtime in Boston? 12:45 AM Sunday night. That's how desperately they did not want anyone to watch this steaming, fetid, runny turd. I think I was only able to sit through it twice- and I love movies.
I only hope I can get the odor out of my nose by the time the new show airs.
These 2 were the best of the many, many pairings they aired back in the day.
Roeper was beyond lame- not sorry to see his ass long gone either.
-
@ matthooper8 "All the hate for a forgotten show and hosts that no one watched or cared about. "
Matt, Matt.. That's the point! They took an iconic, must-watch show-- and raped it unmercifully- and forced us to watch! (Twice anyway, in my case.) Then they pried open our mouths and gave us a facial! (Schumacher'd). That's how little respect they had for their audience and their heritage.
Ebert revoked the rights to the "Thumbs" because he could, he had to, because he knew what they were going to do to his show.
@JT Kirk: Sorry, it's as much our fault as the studios- maybe all our fault. If we once, JUST ONCE exercised some self-control and DID NOT go to see fucking Transformers 2, they would create a better product.
As of now, they have zero incentive to do so- we will apparently gobble down any old shit they choose to feed us. -
Did you see AO Scott slam "The Burning Plain"? These two are already 10,00% better than the Bens.
-
remind me of Satan's Alley?
-
Sep 07, 2009 2:00:36 AM CDT
Capone comes off as psychotically petty towards the last hosts
by tall_boy66
My God, man, you haven't shut up about it for over a fucking year, let it go. As for these new hosts, I agree it's a step up, but I like Scott a lot better than Phillips, only because the latter comes off a bit too smug. Phillips can make with the funny, his review of that Charlize Theron flick was gold. But, yeah, Capone YOU WON! GET OVER IT! Seriously, man, your hatred for the previous hosts is completely irrational.
-
I love how this site slams shit, but kisses ass the next day. Ahh, journalism.
-
It's just that when it comes to his top 10 of the year list he generally tosses in a bunch of foreign films which can be a little distancing. But when a mainstream film is done well, he responds. (I totally back him on his statement that the two best Star Wars movies are Empire Strikes Back and Revenge of the Sith. Recognize!)
-
And they would have a different set.
-
I know what you think that most people that have opinions about films on the net are bozos.
-
And gave me quite the review on the the company's backround, and upon completion of my order (a strawberry smoothie for all you curious freaks)-he gave me a review on the cup, and how awesome it was that Haagen Daz had hired a guy to hold one of those spinning signs outside, and how he felt he was a "producer" becuase he handled the ice cream. When I asked his actual opinion of the smoothie-he had none.Then, he smiled hit big ole shit eating grin and i did what i had to.I slapped him with some extra Cheesy Bread(tm) from Pizza hut, and drenched him in some day-old marinara sauce.serve you right poser
-
That was so much better than Ben and Ben. A.O. Scott's review of "9" mentioned Eastern European animation. When was the last time you heard someone say that on this show? The Charlize Theron review was perfect. He called out the writer-director for being The M. Night of art-house films: same tricks with diminishing returns. I've locked the show in on my DVR for the weekend broadcast.-----later-----m
-
That was so much better than Ben and Ben. A.O. Scott's review of "9" mentioned Eastern European animation. When was the last time you heard someone say that on this show? The Charlize Theron review was perfect. He called out the writer-director for being The M. Night of art-house films: same tricks with diminishing returns. I've locked the show in on my DVR for the weekend broadcast.-----later-----m
-
My bad
-
I really enjoyed Roeper and the revolving guests, and I thought him and Michael Philips were just a natural extension of the S&E days.
I saw a few clips of the most previous version, I already knew it would be cancelled so I didn't invest any time in it. I was right.
But, come on. That young guy might have been in a little over his head, but he wasn't retarded.You don't need to say that about people who are just trying their best.
Still... can't imagine why they a)changed the format to begin with, and b) got rid of Roeper.
-
and make it "Matinee price". There's problems with that distinction also, but it's better than "Rent it"
-
Looks really bad, like cheesy bad. At least Ben and Mank had a better set. I like the set they had for Ebert and Roper with the fake balcony, what happened to that?
-
Lyons with the Ebert look a like from TCM. Then him and the other Ben. There needs to be more bickering on the show.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 151 total posts 140 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 128 total posts 94 posts
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 92 total posts 91 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 474 total posts 70 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 51 total posts 51 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 41 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 71 total posts 40 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 35 total posts 34 posts