Yesterday, we learned that At the Movies was changing in a big way. Richard Roeper had decided to leave the show to pursue a new reviewing program, while Roger Ebert sent out a statement saying that he was out as well, that other projects were in the works, and that Disney was taking the show in a new direction.

Banking on the buzz whipped up by both of their exits, Variety reports that Disney has announced Roeper and Ebert's replacements -- the much younger Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. If you happen to follow any other on-screen critics, Lyons (on the right) has been a big part of E!, while also popping up in shows like MSNBC at the Movies and Access Hollywood, while Mankiewicz has been the host for Turner Classic Movies, and has an alt pop culture show on Sirius called "The Young Turks."

Of course, new, young blood also means an update to the format, and Disney says that the show will get a new look and new segments when the new incarnation kicks off on September 6. These changes will include a "Critics Round-Up" that will have the two Bens discussing films with other critics via satellite. I dig the simplicity of the past, so hopefully this whole deal won't get too flashy.

What say you, Cinematical readers? Can Ben and Ben fill the big shoes left by Siskel, Ebert, and Roeper, and do you want to see At the Movies get updated?

What do you do when you don't have the Ebert and you don't have the Roeper of At the Movies With Ebert and Roeper?

CNN reports that Richard Roeper, the Gene Siskel replacement who has been co-hosting the show since 2000, has declined an offer to renew his contract. After 8 seasons, he's heading on and his last stint on the show will air August 16-17. Roeper says that Disney offered to extend his contract, and he "opted to wait. Much transpired after that behind the scenes, but an agreement was never reached, and we are all moving on." For Richard, that means going to new reviewing pastures. He says that he will be co-hosting another reviewing show, and "will be free to share the details on that program in the near future."

With both of the hosts gone, what happens now? A show with recognizable celebs and guest hosts? Nothing? According to a statement from Roger Ebert, the era is over: "After 33 years on the air, 23 of them with Disney, the studio has decided to take the program named Siskel & Ebert and then Ebert & Roeper in a new direction. I will no longer be associated with it."

It's not entirely shocking news, but it does feel sad. That being said, Roeper isn't the only one with some future plans. Check out the statement after the jump and see for yourself.

Roger Ebert's January announcement that he was going in for another major surgery began a long and disquieting silence. As the reviews he had written in advance started to run out, with no updates on his health and more and more of the content on his website being contributed by its steadfast editor Jim Emerson, some people began to worry that something was very seriously wrong. March saw the announcement that Ebert would reappear for his annual Overlooked Film Festival in Urbana-Champaign, but there was still no word from the man himself.

Yesterday, much to my relief, a typically funny and self-deprecating message from Roger appeared on his site and in the Sun-Times. It confirms his planned appearance at Ebertfest in late April, and, better yet, announces that he will return to reviewing movies shortly afterward. The bad news is that the surgery didn't restore his ability to speak, which will for the moment preclude Ebert's return to his TV show where Richard Roeper has been valiantly trying to hold down the fort. (Is anyone still watching?) That aside, though, the dispatch is overwhelmingly good news.

I like Eli Roth. He's very entertaining in interviews, and his movies are a lot of fun -- although I didn't think Hostel: Part 2 was half the wonderfully disgusting blast that the original was. I also like Richard Roeper. I don't find him to be a particularly insightful or mind-blowing film critic, but he's a likable and funny man, and he's held up Not Siskel and Not Ebert a lot better than I expected him to in Ebert's unfortunate absence. My appreciation of both men makes it difficult for me to choose sides in today's "Minor Celebrity Feud of the Day." In a recent interview, Eli Roth expressed annoyance that critics won't admit to liking his movies. Sayeth Roth: "Someone told me in Chicago last night that they sat next to Richard Roeper during the screening of Cabin Fever, and he was jumping, screaming, squealing, and going crazy during the whole movie. He then trashed it in his review. I think that's just how it is with a lot of these critics. They almost feel guilty giving it a positive review."

Not so, sayeth Roeper, who was appalled at the suggestion, writing: "Dear Mr. Roth: Someone is lying to you. The only time I have ever jumped, screamed and squealed at a screening was when Dann Gire came in late and accidentally sat on my lap. But that's another story. Honestly, though, if Cabin Fever had me going crazy, I would have given it a thumbs up, or even the "severed thumbs up" I once gave to The Devil's Rejects. I would never finesse my reaction to a film out of some bull&!#@ concern that it wouldn't mirror the conventional critical wisdom or be politically correct." We're taking both men at their word here, but I've seen Roeper give positive reviews to some widely hated movies in the past. Like Ebert, he's not an elitist critic, so I'm tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt here. However, I do wonder how many (obviously weak) critics gush praise all over highly regarded films just because they don't want to seem out of touch. Or how many critics laugh their heads off at dumb comedies only to trash them in their reviews. I sat next to a pretty reputable critic at a screening for Memoirs of a Geisha, and he fell asleep at several points in the film, snoring loudly each time. His review of the film? Positive.

My favorite film critic is unquestionably Roger Ebert. When I was a kid, I used to get his "Yearbooks" for Christmas every year, and I've watched every incarnation of his television show. I loved Siskel and Ebert, I like Ebert and Roeper, and the show currently exists in a sort of limbo state I call Not Siskel and Not Ebert. Since Ebert's unfortunate illness, the show has tried a variety of "guest critics." Usually these are film journalists -- A.O. Scott of the New York Times does an excellent job and is the closest the show has to a regular. But they've made some very interesting non-critic choices too. Jay Leno, Fred Willard, and Harold Ramis (Egon!) are just a few of the less traditional names they've brought in for the gig. Kevin Smith did a particularly nice job of co-hosting, and has been invited back. But none of these guests could have prepared me for tonight. The show comes on at 1AM here in Los Angeles, and when I saw who was sitting in I actually jolted up in bed, horror-movie style. None other than John Mellencamp was filling in for Roger Ebert! That's right, the "Cougar!" And it hurt so good!

Mellencamp did the worst job I've seen yet on the show, but it's hard to make fun. The guy's clearly not trying to be a serious critic, he's got a pretty decent day job going. He and Roeper reviewed Vacancy, Lonely Hearts, In the Land of Women, and Fracture. Of that list, Roeper only gave a positive review to Women, but Mellencamp loved each and every one, using the word "fantastic" to describe just about everything. He picked the classic documentary Grey Gardens as his video pick of the week. I don't know how they booked him or how it happened, but Mellencamp did seem to be pretty clueless in the film department. Now I suppose I could get on my high horse and say "What business does a musician have criticizing movies? Does Gene Shalit play "guest guitar" for Green Day?" But I actually think it's kind of fun to hear from these unlikely sources. And hey, Mellencamp did direct and star in a movie called Falling From Grace. I haven't seen it, but before you mock, Grace is highly respected by Ebert, who gave it a four-star review back in 1992, and Roeper, who wrote a column then offering money back to anyone who didn't like it. Apparently the staff of NBC's The Office aren't as keen on his film work. On the episode two weeks ago, Kevin said "If someone gives you 10,000-to-1 odds on anything, you take it. If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I am going to be a very rich dude."

To watch the Mellencamp show in full, keep checking the Ebert and Roeper website. Get well soon, Roger! And hurry back! Please!

When Gene Siskel died, Roger Ebert was left without a co-host on their weekly movie review show. For awhile, it got a bit interesting, as Ebert welcomed other film critics to appear with him. On one great episode, Bill Clinton even sat in to talk cinema. And then, finally, it was decided that Richard Roeper would feature permanently as co-host, and the respectability of "two thumbs up" went away forever. Now, with Ebert in the hospital for awhile, the show is in need of guest co-hosts once again. But instead of getting primarily critics this time, the show is featuring a few people even less qualified than Roeper to stick out their thumbs. So far Jay Leno, Kevin Smith and screenwriter/novelist John Ridley have appeared, and in the next few weeks we will be seeing entertainment reporter Toni Senecal, actress Aisha Tyler (on two episodes) and actor Fred Willard.

As much as I find Willard to be funny in everything he's in (hmm, I should write a guilty pleasure post about Moving Violations), I don't really see how he fits here. He's not as bad a choice as Leno, who can't be too harsh a critic since his regular job is to kiss entertainers' asses, but really why should we be interested in his opinions of new films? At least one of the scheduled hosts is Michael Phillips, who reviews movies for Ebert's paper's rival (just as Siskel had), the Chicago Tribune. Be sure to check your local listings to see who is hosting when. You know, so you can avoid watching the show until Ebert returns.

Director Kevin Smith, guest hosting on Ebert and Roeper this week (he was sitting in for Roger Ebert, who is still recovering), waxed rhapsodic on Half Nelson, which opened today. How much did Smith love Half Nelson? Check out these quotes (courtesy of the PR firm repping the film):

"This pops. This pops in a big bad way. And also, when you look at it, it's the work of people who haven't made a lot of flicks. Like this dude, Fleck, this is, he took the short film he had, blew it up into this feature and it holds . . . You know, like it's an amazing piece to look at where, I sit there as a filmmaker and I'm like, this dude's way better than me. I've been doing this twelve years. This dude is phenomenal."

and ...

"There aren't enough thumbs in the world to do HALF NELSON half the justice it deserves. This is just simply an incredible film."

I have to agree with Smith that Half Nelson is great filmmaking. I'm curious to see how it does, box-office wise. It's opening against another indie flick, Conversations With Other Women, which stars the more well-known Aaron Eckhart and Helena Bonham-Carter, Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, family-flick Zoom, Pulse (which I haven't seen, but it doesn't seem to be the same demographic as Half Nelson anyhow) and dance extravaganza Step Up, which likewise caters to a different crowd. If Half Nelson can build up a little momentum in its release, star Ryan Gosling might very well be one to watch for come Oscar time. He certainly deserves a nod for this performance, but will he get enough notice to rate one?

By the by, no quotes from Ebert and Roeper co-host Richard Roeper were provided by the PR rep, which makes me wonder ... did Roeper not like the film? Or is his opinion just not considered as important as Smith's?