Overall Positive


The good:

The hosts are pretty solid. The new guy seems very knowledgeable...really likes to talk, but not in an obnoxious way. Very knowledgeable, and seems like a good guy who loves movies.

Seemed to have a ton of content packed into one show because of less commercials. Crosstalk seemed noticeably longer than with Phillips and Scott.

I like the idea of the Kim Morgan segment but it seemed as though she basically just recited the plot of the film. I also reallyl liked hearing Ebert's thoughts.

The Bad:

Every single film they reviewed, he liked, she didn't. He liked the Green Hornet? I'm worried he will like everything. Get tough!

Overall, a very solid production. Here's hoping for more!!

reply

Yeah, I kinda disagree. Because it's PBS, I liked that there wasn't any commercial breaks, but that's pretty much all I liked. The reviews were OK, but I just wasn't feeling the critics. And as someone mentioned in another post, I don't think the male critic whose name is hard to pronounce will last long in the program. The introductions to the "cast" of the show was kinda corny. I liked Ebert's review but the voice sounded weird. I know he's using a computer to help him "talk", but I'm sure his voice didn't sound like that. I found it hard to figure out which voice was his and which was the narrator of the film. I'm sure in later episodes they'll change the voice to something that more closely resembles his. Kim's piece is OK, but her weird teeth distracted me. I know that PBS doesn't care much being visually appealing, but I honestly wouldn't mind seeing someone with better looking teeth.

Overall, it was nice to see At the Movies back on TV but I very much prefer A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips' version. Hopefully they'll do a similar show in the near future.

E.T.A.: Forget about what I just wrote about Ebert's "voice" sounding weird. I just found out through EW.com that it wasn't a computerized voice, but director Warner Herzog who narrated his piece. Makes much more sense to me. Here's the article. It's also a review of the premiere: http://watching-tv.ew.com/2011/01/21/roger-ebert-at-the-movies-lemire/
Tweet me:http://twitter.com/lexie1031

reply

I like the new male co-host. He is more mobile and not as stiff as Elvis Mitchell. But after awhile, I got tired of them splitting on movies and even though I have not seen all of them. It sounded like they liked or disliked a film for a dumb reason.

I was watching the first episode at my girlfriend's house and she kept saying Christy hates everything. I hope overtime, they can agree and disagree more. It will get tiresome if they keep splitting over all these films.

Since there are no commercial breaks, why not put a segment in between a couple of movie reviews?

reply

Oh, it wasn't a computerized voice? I thought it was. I'd rather have a computerized one. Haha!

--
Ant @ The Ant Farm (http://antfarm.ma.cx) and Ant's Quality Foraged Links (http://aqfl.net).

reply

I was excited to see this show back. Like that no ads mean more reviews and other segments.

Saw the pilot over the summer when Elvis Mitchell was involved. They did a segment with Kim Morgan on it. I swear I think it was the exact same review of The Third Man if I'm not mistaken. It was shot in black and white and she was sitting on top of that deal outside too. Didn't notice the teeth then and I thought she was hot. But I noticed the teeth last night. LOL. I wasn't being mean but thought, "Yikes! Vampire teeth!"

I disagree about PBS not caring about looks, at least to a point. I remember going into this that Roger said they had to market and test screen it. The powers that be were looking for new hosts as well as youth and looks. Not sure if PBS is ratings driven like the other networks but it seems they're like the rest of Hollywood wanting youth and looks on shows. Otherwise I guess Roger would do the whole show and he wouldn't need that new plastic jaw he had put in (that made headlines the last couple of days) for just his short time hidden in shadows on camera.

I found it odd and very sad that the Eberts would even have to market and test screen it after it had been on the air already for so many decades! By 2010, what TV exec. hadn't seen or at least heard of Siskel and Ebert aka At the Movies? They should have had enough "Hollywood hand" to go around and say "hey Disney canceled us, but we think the show can continue. what do you think?" Rather movie studios are happy with the reviews on this show or not, it's ALWAYS been free press to them! People may not care about the Thumbs Down if the plot is of interest to them or they may go see a movie just to see how bad it really is.

The Russian kid is very smart and articulate for his age. But at the same time I think he instantly lost credibility giving Thumbs Up to stuff like No Strings Attatched, The Green Hornet, and Season of the Witch. For sure on Season of the Witch, a total critical and box office bomb.

reply

[deleted]

I am not really impressed with the new hosts. I don't think we will ever see the old people's type of hosts again. Weird introduction/intro.'s music choice too! At least Ebert's synthesized voice scene was cool to talk about his new series and a review in his office.

The episode was 26.75 minutes long (no commercials/advertisements/spots). It was definitely different. http://www.ebertpresents.com/ has the first 33 seconds of it. I am not going to watch more either. I hope PBS or his company will post videos online like in the past (dang you Disney for taking it down!).
--
Ant @ The Ant Farm (http://antfarm.ma.cx) and Ant's Quality Foraged Links (http://aqfl.net).

reply

Hopefully we can all agree that watching these new versions of the show serves to remind us how great and irreplaceable Siskel and Ebert were together. I went back and watched some of my VHS episodes of their show last week-- they win hands down, its not even close.

However, I'm still glad the show is back in some form.

reply

Too bad we don't have access to all of these old episodes online. Blah to Disney.
--
Ant @ The Ant Farm (http://antfarm.ma.cx) and Ant's Quality Foraged Links (http://aqfl.net).

reply