Sound Off: Who's Watching the New 'At The Movies'?
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Home Entertainment
Truth be told, I sort of skimmed through one episode of the new youth-skewed At The Movies, featuring Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz -- and since there wasn't a segment in which viewers were allowed to throw hard, pointy objects at NY Post critic Lou Lumenick, I turned my attention elsewhere. In her blog today, Variety's Anne Thompson points out a fact we all saw coming from two thumbs away: That, well, no one seems to like the new show. Thompson looks to the many evil emails she's received since this new version of At The Movies aired, and she's not alone. In our post announcing the critic switch, Cinematical readers have been rather harsh. Here are a few comments:
Debbie: "Two thumbs down for the new replacements, they have much to learn and very large shoes to fill"
Orlando: "Horrible! The quality and style one could expect from the crap you see in a supermarket checkstand line."
Johnny: "And the new guys are basically pathetic imitations of what actual critics are."
Yikes! [He says as he scrambles to cancel the new Cinematical video podcast featuring Rocchi and Weinberg discussing movies whilst drinking Coors Light with their shirts off.]
On my end, I guess it's worth giving another shot ... even though the younger Lyons feels like a cross between Ryan Reynolds and the kid who stole your girlfriend in high school and then spammed your Facebook page with pictures of them in bed together, naked. But what about you? Have you watched the new show? Does it need to change? What would you like to see happen?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-16-2008 @ 4:14PM
William Goss said...
I've yet to catch this incarnation; I trust that it's on during the same wee hours locally that I would stumble upon Ebert & Roeper, so it's not that I make a point to catch it or would start now... though, in all fairness, Ben Lyons does seem to have a lot of credibility in terms of film knowledge and good sense -- after all, don't you see just how many celebrities he has snapped pictures with on their site?
Reply
9-16-2008 @ 4:35PM
Peter Hall said...
Less than Weinberg with celebs on this site? :P
But seriously, who watched the old 'At The Moves'? I only ever came across it at random in the twilit hours, where it appeared inexplicably like the room of requirement.
9-16-2008 @ 4:39PM
William Goss said...
Yeah, actually. He did it once for Comic-Con. Lyons puts something up for each and every Toronto junket, with only the best to say about everyone.
9-16-2008 @ 5:22PM
Peter Hall said...
Damn it, Goss, you foil my loving jabs at Scott once again.
*Shakes fist harder, boy*
9-16-2008 @ 4:34PM
Dave said...
It felt incredibly dumbed-down and (as I sort of expected) lacking any kind of respectable, knowledgeable gravity to it. Rather than having two critics who actually have some depth or analytical ability, they instead ape E! Network circle-jerk-style "panel" discussions and have not only the hosts weigh in on the films, but a gaggle of other vapid talking head fashion-bots as well. Blecch. I grew up watching "Siskel & Ebert At The Movies" in the 70s and 80s, and even tried to hold on post-Roger for the past year...what's worked, and what made the show feel fresh again was the rotating co-host spot that filled the seat adjacent to Roeper. It's a shame they couldn't get a smart, informed actual film critic to host with some historical perspective and then have on various film people and directors in the guest seat, as they did with Kevin Smith, for example. Either that, or just give Ben Squared the boot and have Stacie Ponder (from Final Girl) and Kim Morgan (of Sunset Gun) be the hosts instead, which you know would be just too damn cool....
Reply
9-16-2008 @ 5:25PM
knoxhall07 said...
I value Ben Lyons' reviews in that whatever he says, I can with great accuracy do the opposite as his advice and see a great film or avoid a bad one altogether, as per his excellent review of "I Am Legend" and apparent loathing of "Towel Head" on this week's episode.
Reply
9-17-2008 @ 9:34AM
Kevin said...
Agreed. I haven't seen Towelhead, but when he said that he didn't think it was a good movie because it was so "uncomfortable" I immediately realized that he was an idiot. Since when does "comfort" define "quality"? Was anyone comfortable watching Schindlers List? Hotel Rwanda? Give me a break. Sometime instilling a sense of unease and disgust towards whats presented is the very definition of quality. We're supposed to be challenged by art, and great movies are art forms. I'm not sure this shows going to last too long.
9-16-2008 @ 5:53PM
Chuck said...
I tried to watch the first 5 minutes or so and found myself squinting from all the bright orange and yellow....horrible. That did it right there, on top of the new guys I had no idea who they were. I watched the old show because I knew the guys and it scratched my itch of intelligent people talking about movies. Roeper staying on and bringing guests was a nice twist while Ebert was away. It was nice to get to know AO Scott when he was on as well. I am hearing that Roper will be back in some form or another and thats where I will be going..
Reply
9-16-2008 @ 5:42PM
Sam said...
The thing that made Siskel and Ebert and its later variants so special to me was that the show always gave the hosts enough time to converse and argue; in the end, it boiled down to two people talking passionately about movies, and you couldn't help but be engrossed by it.
For the life of me, I don't understand why a company would take a show, remove it of anything that made it worthwhile, and think it's some sort of an improvement.
Reply
9-16-2008 @ 5:48PM
Max said...
I'd like the movies to be talked about for more than 20 seconds, and actually have some in depth criticism tacked on for good measure.
I know, I'm asking for so much.
Reply
9-16-2008 @ 6:08PM
MCW said...
My problem is that they pick the movie everyone is going to say that they hate, ie: "That Babylon movie with Vin Unleaded" or "The Women with no Men in it", and then they send it to a roundtable of goons who talk over each other Fox News style and announce how much they hate it. They talk about said movie they hate more than any of the movies on the show they claim to like.
And by giving more time to certain movies rather than equal time to all, they give viewers a reason to fast forward.
I was right, I hate the hosts. They are morons. Roeper was right to not like the new format, and ABC is regretting now that they made the dumbest move of their company's history.
9-16-2008 @ 5:59PM
Douglass Abramson said...
I didn't know that the new show had started. It seams that the local ABC affiliate moved it from the time slot its had for years to the afternoon. They don't seem to have much faith in it, but I'll give it a try this week.
Reply
9-16-2008 @ 7:06PM
uforeader said...
I've watched both episodes - and I don't like it at all.
The new "critics" don't have any other way to describe movies other than "exciting," "good acting," and "boring."
Anyone can say if they like a movie or not - a TRUE critic turns their critique into a broader statement about the human characters, emotions, and behaviors.
BRIGHT BACK ROEPER!
Reply
9-16-2008 @ 7:24PM
akaglebe said...
I'm still willing to give it a shot, hoping they'll grow into it. I have a little bit of hope for Ben M.
If the hosts grow into it they just need to fix some of the style problems:
a) the yellow/orange color scheme
b) talking only in soundbites without any depth
c) Critics Round-up, which is terrible. It's like an Around the Horn for movies and ATH is just dreadful.
Reply
9-16-2008 @ 8:07PM
Tyler said...
Yes it absolutely needs to change, the new hosts don't seem to give you any helpful information. it seems to be they just like or didn't, with comments like, wow it was suspenseful, or it was funny, just doesn't fly. I would have loved to see AO scott and Michael Phillips, fill in for ebert and roeper but i guess thats not gonna happen. and even it gets better I might still not watch it just because neither one of them is a real critic.
Reply
9-17-2008 @ 3:30AM
Pecker said...
A.O. Scott, and Michael Phillips. That's exactly what i was saying when after i heard that they got these two bozo's(Lyons & Mankiewicz). The Team of Scott & Phillips would have worked perfectly, and the those guys who did the critics round up where a bit better then Ben & Ben(LOL Ben & Ben)
9-16-2008 @ 8:47PM
erik said...
Ben Mankowitz is all right but he seems more like a historian, which he was on TCM and did a great job with it. Ben Lyons is just eh ::shrugs:: I'll wait and see if Ebert and or Roeper will be back on tv soon
Reply
9-17-2008 @ 12:39AM
Mike said...
I haven't caught the new show yet, but I remember seeing Ben Lyons on E! and I recall that he wasn't at all insightful then. Can't imagine he's improved much since.
It seemed like he could've made the same comments without having even seen the movies he was referring to. Very generic, as I imagine the show probably is.
Reply
9-17-2008 @ 12:52AM
Vince said...
Sorry, this version stinks. I used to decide which movies to see by watching the original on PBS w/ Gene & Rodger. After Gene passed I got used to Roeper but never followed his advice.
These new guys seem like amateurs and too Entertainment TV for me. The panel is ridiculous.
Bring back the balcony and serious critics.
Reply
9-17-2008 @ 2:40AM
HoopersX said...
What an abomination. The phrase "Empty Suits" comes to mind. Ben M seems to have an ounce of talent and credibility but that is over powered by Ben L and his MTV style of all sizzle and no substance. I'd take Ebert and Roeper back with Ebert's opinion being close captioned before I will ever what these two again.
Reply