Comments on: ‘At the Movies’ reboot unbooted

By: Chris Swanson

Chris Swanson — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:51:45 +0000

My biggest problem with the retooled version of the show is that it was clear that Lyons was hired because of his father (Jeffery Lyons), and because he was really hot (no arguments there). He had no real credibility.

Also Disney clearly had no faith in the duo as their “Critics Roundup” embarrassment showed.

Thankfully Scott and Phillips work well together. I watched their first show the other night and let out a happy sigh of relief. Good to have real reviewers back on the case.

By: Jammer

Jammer — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:25:16 +0000

Daniel, you make some valid points, but I wonder why you posted this here rather than over on the Star Trek review thread. Really has nothing to do with the blog post at hand.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:51:02 +0000

Comment moved by Jammer to here, where it has greater relevance.

By: Daniel Lebovic

Daniel Lebovic — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:10:54 +0000

Roger Ebert, in the course of surgery, lost the use of his voice. He still cannot speak (that would require further heavy-duty surgery which he understandably does not wish to undergo at this time). Nevertheless, and in all serious, I would rather watch a series of notes constituting his reviews pass across the screen for half an hour than watch Lyons & Mankiewicz, one of whom called I Am Legend one of the greatest movies of recent years. Scott and Phillips have personalities and know something about movies. That means I’ll give their show half a year, at most.

By: who cares

who cares — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:19:51 +0000

Well Lyons and Menk were OK by themselves. I thought Menk was too smart and Lyons to stupid. Menk often goes out of his way to ‘prove’ a point that simply cannot be proven. I think Menk and Roeper would be really good. Scott and Roeper are too similiar.

By: TS

TS — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 05:29:24 +0000

Cool, but I personally can’t stand Scott. Shame they weren’t able to get Roeper back. Phillips and him made a great ‘team’. Oh well.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:54:36 +0000

I watched one episode of the “retooled” version and never returned to it. I didn’t think anything was all that bad, but something felt seriously off. You said it best with “artifice”. It all felt so fake. Honestly it made me appreciate the original show a lot more. Phillips and Scott should make a great team though, and I’m excited.

I think you’re right in saying that this is an instance where ratings truly reflected quality because the people watching “At the Movies” in the first place are all people who genuinely care about quality.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:22:25 +0000

The switch to Lyons and Mankwerksdfswhatever was jarring, but I actually quite like the duo now and I’m sad they got canned already. They really grew on me.

By: James

James — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:30:19 +0000

I’ve loved the show since it was Siskel & Ebert, and Roeper managed to hold it together and keep it engaging when Ebert’s illness forced him to debate with a revolving roster of guest critics.

But after they changed the format? Well, I bet your record… I watched two episodes. It was simply awful and completely missed why I had continued to tune in. Ebert still writes reviews online and I can read those.

I wish the new critics all the best, but I don’t see the point in ever looking back at that show.

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:51:20 +0000

It doesn’t seem like your average schmuck guffawing at Mike Myers’ latest shenanigans is likely to tune into a detailed debate about the merits of some Oscar nominee-to-be. You’d think the suits would have figured this out before they tried to “retool.” Anyway, I’d check out A.O. Scott. I always enjoy reading his critiques (although he’s no Jammer).