Whatt? 0_0 the remake of Death at a Funeral got a thumbs up from both of them? That plus Christy Lemire said it was better than the original? The original was a hilarious dark british comedy and the remake has nothing on the original Death at a Funeral.
Even a PBS audience will only give Roger's affirmative action line up so much grace. Feel-good diversity is "nice," but you have to have critics people can take seriously if you want a show like this to prosper.
This is such a great show. I just watched an episode on wttw prime here in chicago. Hopefully they can find the financing to keep the show on tv. Commercials are the best bet. Viewers would understand.
I know, the original was a great dark British comedy, the remake is a piece of crap compared to the original, in fact calling the remake a piece of crap is a compliment. There's nothing worse than a lame comedy that tries to get cheap laughs.
Guys, there giving their OPINIONS on the movies, there's a difference between opinion and fact. If you liked the movie, that doesn't mean they have to
@Myytmovies Their opinions are shit though. Utter retarded shit. Ebert for all his faults was a decent enough critic and you would get some sense of if you liked a film based on what he said, these guys ... fuck them. Fuck them to death.
Why the hell would Ebert present this? Death at a Funeral was an improvement on the original? Is that bitch fucking insane? Those reviewers are a pair of retards who should be shot, even by the low low standards of film reviewers.
Hey, how about relaxing and just calling them MOVIES or FILMS? No one cares if it's by women or for women. Stop limiting yourselves with this polarizing PC crap.
Unlike jealous nerd fans of this cancerous tumor Ebert, I don't believe in trashing the dead. How brave! Ebert was a drunkard for a long time so he is in no position to judge, it was for cheap publicity. Cheap like the screen plays Ebert once wrote like "Beneath the Valley of the Vixens". We can see how Ebert abused his body and how ugly he is, we can imagine any fans who need his movie guidance.
@Dottiecurran he got cancer. he cant do anything about that. that bearded pisshead who's brains were splattered across the floor in that car he crashed was just everyday human justice. shows there is a god, when a person like him is wiped from planet earth. especially when you see how over the top his fans are after his death. its quite hilarious.
@ianhitman You are stupid. I don't care about Ryan Dunn but have no need to kick a corpse. It isn't brave but cowardly and the family deserves better. Roger Ebert abused his body with food and was a drunkard, too , so he and his ugly nerd fans are in no position to "talk" (pun intended. Too bad you can't take it when we critique this failed smut writer turned critic. he is over, Deal with it. Ta ta. Maybe you can suck his dick if it is still attached,
@Dottiecurran i dont even care for Ebert funnily enough. i just think hes completely right about that prick who died in a car crash. Who ironically was a drunkard. At least when Ebert got pissed off his face, he didnt harm anyone else.
this new show is awful, they don't even really talk about the movie it's just brief summary (oh wait they didn't even do that) then they give a rating without really discussing why they did or didn't like it.
this new show with christy and inagtye istaratoo or however you say his name is kinda lame hoping they bring back a.o. scott michael phillips and richard roeper this inagtye guy is a even bigger douchebag than ben lyons was! and the show is so hard to find on stations I don't get the show where I'm from! come on roger I love bro but bring back the old critics!
Critics don't even matter. Roger Ebert is just a big mouth with a big ego. He talked down to his old colleague Gene Siskel and bashes other critics. And for what? Because he thinks this movie or that movie is great and whoever disagrees with him is simply wrong. His job doesn't make a lick of difference in the world. He watches and writes his opinions on movies. Anybody can do that! It's not important.
@AthleticAtheist84 Well, they matter to me. I like reading what other people think so I know if they felt how I felt or it it is worth spending my money on or not.
So glad the actual show is much better. Once the two reviewers get to know each other and loosen up a bit I am pretty certain this show will be very good. To all the haters out there - look at the first episode with Ebert and Siskel, they both were stiff as hell. Give these guys some time, they'll definitely get better at it. oh, and ignatiy of Mark Kermode any day.
i agree. the original Death At A Funeral I loved. It thought it was fantastic, smart, laugh out loud funny. One of the best movies of that year. I was dumbfounded that it seems they simply remade the same movie but with an african american cast and so soon after the other.
I can't even imagine why I would watch it unless I was a reviewer and was being paid to see it.
Mark Kermode from radio 5 in the UK (go check out videos if name doesn't ring a bell). The best there is in terms of wittiness, spark, presence, charisma, and film nerd-ism.
He and Roeper duking it out (since obviously Roger can no more) would have been the S**t.
Scott & Philips were good, these guys aren't as much... Obviously, NO ONE can beat the spontaneity of Ebert, Siskel or Roeper. That, to me at least, is the main problem with all of these new people. Lemire and Ignatiy [insert correct pronunciation here] are fine, intelligent and cultivated individuals, but lack the chemistry and No-BS quality that the original presenters had...
Especially the russian guy. Too snotty. Too rigid. Too proud to dish out against a movie. And no screen presence.
after watching the 1st episode..........i want roeper, scott, and phillips back!!! lemire and the new guys a bit boring...srry to say this, but hopefully it gets better.
Thank god they replaced the black guy. We could have had another Armond White on our hands. Also, please replace that crazy bitch. Seriously? That stupid "Death at a Funeral" remake BETTER than "Iron Man 2"? Yeah, if there's any two people they should bring back, it's Michael Phillips and Richard Roeper (Scott can be the segment guy, and Ebert can still be the official third guy).
I'm afraid this is gonna be just bad. I mean replacing Siskel & Ebert is like trying to replace Abbot & Costello. There will never be anyone like them again. These new critics don't have the excitement, the intelligence, or the chemistry that Gene & Roger had.
At the Movies died with Gene Siskel. Roger, I love you man and I'm glad you're still able to do your column, but this isn't going to work.
Please help me convince PBS affiliate KCTS in Seattle to pick up this show! Email start@kcts9.org and tell them how much you enjoy it, and how silly it makes them look for not airing it. Thanks
If this is any indication, the new show will suck even more than previous copy versions post-Siskel. Just who is Christy Lemire. She doesn't have much of a reputation and there's very little reason why I should be expected to care what she thinks anymore than I cared about the two Bens. Ditto for her newly announced co-presenter. Has Ebert lost his mind?
Ebert just give it up. This show is fucking dead. Lermie is a fucking moron with the worst taste in movies, and has no way of expressing her shitty fucking opinion.
The women are the determent to the show. The one looks very odd, and they both have the combined charisma of an ice pick. Elvis is the only good one on this show.
OMG! This is just wrong. Seeing Roger like that is very upsetting and not pleasant to watch. I feel for him. It's so sad that he can't talk anymore and has to use a computer to speak.
Did she really say that "chick flicks" should be called "womens pictures"? Come on, my mom calls them chick flicks. Them saying that sounded soo pretentious.
@alexxxdamasta187 good point but get done with Roger Eberts voice programe so we can hear what he has to say with that familure and wonderful voice, (by the way it could give him back the ability to do DVD or Blu ray commentary)
@alexxxdamasta187 Forget the first two. Long before Ebert's cancer I figured he someday would retire or die (though I though it a decade off) and hoped that the show would then become 'Roeper and Somebody', moving forward in the same way forever. This is just not going to be the same, because I never saw these people interact with Roger or Roeper
I like Michael Phillips and Richard Roeper togther, even A O Scott was better. Richard Roper has his own website with short and sweet reviews watch that instead.
I can not believe Ebert actually choose Christy Lemire for this! Elvis Mitchel is smart and knowledgeable but Lemire really don't know anything about movies! Watch some of her video, she's like an idiot with a what-are-they-talking-about look on her face! Ok, you want a guy and a girl? They are many brilliant female critics!
@bigbrogiant4 And she isn't the most negative reviewer ever. Looking at her recent reviews on rotten tomatoes as I'm typing this, I can verify that the majority of them are positive reviews. Fair criticism does not equal hate for the sake of hate. You seem like a pretty negative person yourself though.
This sucked. The only part I found really interesting was Roger's part of the show, even if it is hard to see. The new hosts don't have the energy, the chemistry, or the closeness that Gene and Roger had. Siskel & Ebert died with Gene Siskel. I'll stick with Roger's column and skip this atrocity.
@mrblondnyc These people have no personality. Siskel and Ebert had it from the beginning. Yes the first shows were probably not as good as they became later. Here's the problem, Roger has been trying to keep the show alive since Gene's death. Roeper was okay, but even the years to follow, I just kept watching the show saying, "Where's Gene?"
Without Gene Siskel, and with only a limited amount of input from Roger Ebert, they can't recreate the chemistry of Siskel & Ebert.
@LordoftheJimmy Ebert appears to have moved on from Siskel's death so really its about time you did also. He's not trying to do to recreate Siskel & Ebert because that would be impossible. It's unfair to have the attitude that's it's Siskel & Ebert or nothing. Siskel's dead, Ebert can no longer speak. At least we still have him and he's keeping this type of show alive.
@mrblondnyc The format and way they review movies, even the set, is almost identical to Siskel & Ebert. The only difference is that Gene and Roger aren't there. I think Roger has always missed his friend and still does.
Yes I'm happy he's still with us, and can keep writing his column which I why I say stick to his column.
@LordoftheJimmy Of course he misses Siskel. You're not understanding what I'm saying which is why I'll end it with this. You said you were asking "Where's Gene?". There was only one Gene and Ebert will never find another that will take his place. And now he'll never find anyone to take his own place. He can only do his best to keep the show going tastefully and on his own terms. This show is will be for the people that never saw the old show while us older folks will be glad to see Ebert again.
@mrblondnyc "This show is will be for the people that never saw the old show"
Well that's one of the good things about the internet. A lot of the old shows are up now so you can watch Siskel and Ebert do their thing, arguing about "Benji the Hunted" or "Cop and a Half" or even seeing their outtakes where they go off on each other. That clip to me is the best thing on YouTube!
Even with Ebert's blessing, they will never again capture the magic of Siskel & Ebert (you can't think of one without automatically thinking of the other). This is a nice attempt to return to the old school format, but the hosts lack any kind of dynamic that compels you to watch. My gut feeling is that it'll be off the air within a year.
Granted we only shown snippets of the full reviews but Mitchell and Lamire both sound like lightweights, they're opinions sounds like what you might read in Entertainment Weekly, very disappointing. But on the other hand Morgan sounds like someone worth listening to, and anything on classic films is fine with me. As to Ebert, he's the king, doesn't matter if the words are being spoken by a machine. Glad to have him back on TV.
I am happy that this is coming back to TV, even more that it is coming back to PUBLIC TV. But the new hosts are disappointing. A good review (from one of them) to the remake for "Death at Funeral" and a bad review (from the other) to "Please Give"? YOU GUYS ARE NUTS!?
Personally, I'm not this impressed with the four hosts. I know this the one thing Roger Ebert wants to do before meeting Gene Siskel in the sky, to put this in layman's terms, but at this point, I'm happy that his mind is alert and he writes well, although his review style had gotten softer than ever before. I have to admit that I'm one of the more fainthearted viewers, but we do have to accept Ebert as who he is. His smart, loyal fans do.
First the good news. After 4 1/2 grueling years on and off the air, Roger Ebert gets his dying wish the return to TV as he always wanted to. Now the bad news. For fainthearted viewers, he will show his sadly disfigured face and communicate with a computer. We the smart Ebert fans should accept that this is what Roger Ebert always wanted to do and he says he is at peace with himself. Personally, I could not be so brave like he is.
I think it's great that At the Movies will be returning to TV, but I'm not really thrilled by the line up of hosts. I do like that they will continue to expand the focus of the show beyond just new movies. Hopefully the show will be a success and show Disney they made a big mistake.
@jayrobson88 Ebert and Roeper don't get along anymore. Roeper wrote some article claiming he was too "censored" during the show and Ebert responded on his blog, basically making Roeper look like a fool.
@AndrewMann552 i vaguely remember hearing bout that. But I also vaguely remember hearing that Ebert wrote another blog clearing up that he and Roeper had no beef and they were working on a new show together. Hence the reason why Im confused of the no-Roeper involvement here.
Happy the show is back but it's trying way too hard to be "progressive". Only women and black men host this show? Everything is trying to be so annoyingly "progressive" these days that it's beginning to come off as unrealistic and obnoxious.
@danman2424 I don't know about how "unrealistic" it is to have women or black male hosts - I work with some women and black males. The important thing for me is that the film reviews are thoughtful and critical when necessary, not just a commercial to promote new movies.
@ButtercupsTrueLove I didn't say it was unrealistic for women or black men to have jobs, I said it's unrealistic how they are represented on television in general both in volume and status. Particularly this show which is going to ONLY star women or blacks in a pretty obvious attempt at seeming "progressive".
@danman2424 You do realize that its 2010 and women and black people have been able to openly fraternize for over 40 years now? I get what you are saying, but it was only true years ago. Now interracial interivews happen unitnentionally. I'm curious, where do you live where this doesn't happen in real life?
i dunno phillips and scot were ok but were turning stale, and personaly i dont like roger anymore either, unless you waste youre life reviewing foreighn independant movies
Honestly, I'm pretty disappointed with this. I actually like Phillips and A.O. Scott or Roper and Phillips better. Hopefully it gets better. Let Roger get his review on all of the movies in, too
@mdwivedi so right! If they are "bringing it back" - why did they need to cancel? Phillips and Scott were great...... Talking Robo-Roger is a sorry sight.....
I like Christy Lemire from her time on What the flick, and I'm glad to see Roger Ebert getting back into it. I was also dissapointed to see Scott and Phillips leave, so this is great.
I have to say I am very interested in this new format. I have to agree, I like the Phillips & Scott pairing since they have the chemistry of film criticizing and the two new critics (Lemiere & Mitchell) do seem kind of flat, but I guess I can be wrong and they are a great pair for the show.
@TVgeinus90sSim i agree these two hosts r a bit flat....i think phillips and scott did better but i could be wrong. after all, they're ebert's decision.
@rorschachnite121 Yea true. He may know something that we dont. Now as for my opinion, Mitchell is a good thumbs up as host (but i hope he isnt too cheesy with the lines like IR2) yet I really disagree with Lemiere as the partner (shes cool and great in What the Flick! but i dont think shes too strong until the female filmakers segment which throws out everything else for her for a 30 minute segment.) My thinking is put Kim Morgan instead (she and Mitchell have the criticism magic we miss)
@TVgeinus90sSim And I have to say that it does seem kind of progressive with only white female hosts or black male hosts but I respect Mr. Ebert's decision bcuz he may have something going on that we dont know. Now i will say that I did like the Philllips & Scott pairing since it really mirrored that Siskel & Ebert magic that was lost, but I think both could have done just as well apart. Either way, I believe that the show will eventually expand even further and have them as contributors
@TVgeinus90sSim And, to end my subject and wait until 2011, I understand why Roeper can't be apart of the show at the present time but I believe that if he is revoked of his Starz show, he should be a contributor to the show as well and be a part with Ebert and Chaz as a producer/exec producer sice the show would have a good title as "Roger Ebert & Richard Roeper presents At the Movies" but it's still good. Idc how everybody would disagree about Roeper, but hes as good a critic as the last two.
Oh I get what people are saying, but this was a SAMPLE to give an idea of what the whole show will be like in 6 min. The actual show should run about a whole half hour with more I'm hoping in depth debate. I like the choices for critics nice to see Mitchell (he is very experienced and knows hi shit) on the show and curious about the new comers too. Can't wait till January.
They should also give thumbs up/down in Ebert's opinion as well, agree?
I'm not really digging this new style though, I mean I'm sure in the real show they will talk about the films unlike here but the hosts seem kind of weird. I enjoyed Phillips and A.O. Scott more, they were perfect.
Not sure what to make of this. I love Ebert’s writing (in spite of my vehement disagreement with many of his opinions) and I love the old show that rough around the edges and had Ebert and Siskel unapologetically butting heads. This new show, however, looks very slick and is hosted by attractive, polite, smiling people who continue to talk animatedly during the end credits. Only Ebert's short appearance sparked my interest.
Whatt? 0_0 the remake of Death at a Funeral got a thumbs up from both of them? That plus Christy Lemire said it was better than the original? The original was a hilarious dark british comedy and the remake has nothing on the original Death at a Funeral.
IrishEyedBlue 2 weeks ago
Even a PBS audience will only give Roger's affirmative action line up so much grace. Feel-good diversity is "nice," but you have to have critics people can take seriously if you want a show like this to prosper.
jeselm1 2 months ago
It's really a shame that he can't really talk
FelixTheory 3 months ago
This is such a great show. I just watched an episode on wttw prime here in chicago. Hopefully they can find the financing to keep the show on tv. Commercials are the best bet. Viewers would understand.
2DJ1006742 3 months ago
I'm so glad they paired her with Ignati. She's cool and he is hot.
sammycut1 3 months ago
The new Death at a Funeral....Better than the original....NO WAY!
renues 3 months ago 2
@renues
I know, the original was a great dark British comedy, the remake is a piece of crap compared to the original, in fact calling the remake a piece of crap is a compliment. There's nothing worse than a lame comedy that tries to get cheap laughs.
IrishEyedBlue 2 weeks ago
Guys, there giving their OPINIONS on the movies, there's a difference between opinion and fact. If you liked the movie, that doesn't mean they have to
Myytmovies 4 months ago 2
@Myytmovies Their opinions are shit though. Utter retarded shit. Ebert for all his faults was a decent enough critic and you would get some sense of if you liked a film based on what he said, these guys ... fuck them. Fuck them to death.
LaParkanation 2 months ago
I like Ignatiy more than Elvis - personally.
Moviewhiz1 5 months ago
Why the hell would Ebert present this? Death at a Funeral was an improvement on the original? Is that bitch fucking insane? Those reviewers are a pair of retards who should be shot, even by the low low standards of film reviewers.
LaParkanation 5 months ago
Ebert always was a disgusting sleaze
kellygreen5556 6 months ago
other than the comments I enjoyed ebert.sure he doesn't have the same flair as he did with siskle,but I liked throughly
MrStubix 6 months ago
Wow that many people get that pissed for looking bad. you disgust me
MrStubix 6 months ago
Hey, how about relaxing and just calling them MOVIES or FILMS? No one cares if it's by women or for women. Stop limiting yourselves with this polarizing PC crap.
h0b0ch1c 6 months ago
u 2 hated iron man 2 yet loved death at a funeral? wtf is wrong with u?
Mrcool210 7 months ago
Please Give is a great film; I am so glad they went with Ignatiy
WaitingtoHit 7 months ago
they replaced the black guy with some queer
sixpointneuf 7 months ago
Golden Girls rules they can SUCK IT
wepmajoe 7 months ago 3
his mouth looks like a cunt
daveybaby131 7 months ago
The topic here is Ebert not Dunn. Ebert is a failed smut screenplay sleaze and ugly as hell fuck.
ZarahLean 7 months ago
Fuck you Roger Ebert. Karma is a bitch!
Dottiecurran 7 months ago
Unlike jealous nerd fans of this cancerous tumor Ebert, I don't believe in trashing the dead. How brave! Ebert was a drunkard for a long time so he is in no position to judge, it was for cheap publicity. Cheap like the screen plays Ebert once wrote like "Beneath the Valley of the Vixens". We can see how Ebert abused his body and how ugly he is, we can imagine any fans who need his movie guidance.
ZarahLean 7 months ago
FUCK YOU EBERT YA UGLY SHIT
TheBitchinbabs 8 months ago
Roger Ebert was a failed sleaze writer and lush.
Dottiecurran 8 months ago
CANCER! But you can be in JAWS you ugly fuck
Dottiecurran 8 months ago
@Dottiecurran he got cancer. he cant do anything about that. that bearded pisshead who's brains were splattered across the floor in that car he crashed was just everyday human justice. shows there is a god, when a person like him is wiped from planet earth. especially when you see how over the top his fans are after his death. its quite hilarious.
ianhitman 7 months ago
@ianhitman You are stupid. I don't care about Ryan Dunn but have no need to kick a corpse. It isn't brave but cowardly and the family deserves better. Roger Ebert abused his body with food and was a drunkard, too , so he and his ugly nerd fans are in no position to "talk" (pun intended. Too bad you can't take it when we critique this failed smut writer turned critic. he is over, Deal with it. Ta ta. Maybe you can suck his dick if it is still attached,
Dottiecurran 7 months ago
@Dottiecurran i dont even care for Ebert funnily enough. i just think hes completely right about that prick who died in a car crash. Who ironically was a drunkard. At least when Ebert got pissed off his face, he didnt harm anyone else.
ianhitman 7 months ago
Christy Lemire is HOT !
Reborn8303 8 months ago
HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT ABOUT RYAN DUNN YOU OLD CREEP?!?!?!?!?!
SUMOvids 8 months ago
that blonde has HUGE hands
uztoobz 8 months ago
This is terrible.
NOcomunismo92 8 months ago
I don't really like the dude's personality or his presentation skills.
Loomr 9 months ago
this new show is awful, they don't even really talk about the movie it's just brief summary (oh wait they didn't even do that) then they give a rating without really discussing why they did or didn't like it.
DARTHPIZZAROLL 9 months ago 3
This was horrible. Horrible. Just makes me realise how good the old show was.
MatthiusSama 10 months ago 2
poor roger. =(
dutchycooper 10 months ago
Christy Lemire is damn hot!
iambernig 10 months ago 16
christy lemire is a MILF
mrgraybutler 10 months ago 21
Roger Ebert will die simply to roll in his grave after seeing this.
hall9111 11 months ago
I'm sorry...WHY review The Third Man from 1949?
TheodorBjork 11 months ago
@TheodorBjork because i sucked your mom's tits
GoCowboys1889 11 months ago
@TheodorBjork Because their clearly lacking good modern film's to talk about ,so they look to the past.
TheWhiteKnight89 11 months ago
Welcome back Ebert, You sound great. Thumbs up.
keepmacin 1 year ago
this new show with christy and inagtye istaratoo or however you say his name is kinda lame hoping they bring back a.o. scott michael phillips and richard roeper this inagtye guy is a even bigger douchebag than ben lyons was! and the show is so hard to find on stations I don't get the show where I'm from! come on roger I love bro but bring back the old critics!
nativewizard 1 year ago
and they really do need to bring back Phillips, Roeper, and A.O. Scott because these new critics are pretty weak.
Swingfinger 1 year ago
I loved Siskel and Ebert- a lot of chemisty, always interesting. Roeper was good as well-- but this... is incredibly boring and uninteresting.
johnnnyboyz100 1 year ago
Roger Ebert and Siskel were awesome together. I loved the relationship between them! :D
RockyBalboa211 1 year ago
Critics don't even matter. Roger Ebert is just a big mouth with a big ego. He talked down to his old colleague Gene Siskel and bashes other critics. And for what? Because he thinks this movie or that movie is great and whoever disagrees with him is simply wrong. His job doesn't make a lick of difference in the world. He watches and writes his opinions on movies. Anybody can do that! It's not important.
AthleticAtheist84 1 year ago
@AthleticAtheist84 Well, they matter to me. I like reading what other people think so I know if they felt how I felt or it it is worth spending my money on or not.
movietvlover 1 year ago
@AthleticAtheist84
what are you talking about? Ebert was always way more down to earth than Siskel.
Swingfinger 1 year ago
Nobody cares about movie critics anymore.
seikogoldwatch2009 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seikogoldwatch2009 @xaxie1 I do. I want to know if it is worth spending my hard earned money on a movie on or not.
movietvlover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seikogoldwatch2009 I do. I want to know if it is worth spending my hard earned money on a movie on or not.
movietvlover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seikogoldwatch2009 I do I like reading what other people so I know if it is worth my hard earned money on or not.
movietvlover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seikogoldwatch2009 I do. I like reading what other people so I know if it is worth my hard earned money on or not.
movietvlover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seikogoldwatch2009 I do. I like reading what other people so I know if it is worth my hard earned money on or not.
RandBreviews 1 year ago
The layout looks different to the old Ebert and Roeper/ Siskel and Ebert type layout, the camera is too zoomed in lol
xaxie1 1 year ago
Comment removed
movietvlover 1 year ago
So glad the actual show is much better. Once the two reviewers get to know each other and loosen up a bit I am pretty certain this show will be very good. To all the haters out there - look at the first episode with Ebert and Siskel, they both were stiff as hell. Give these guys some time, they'll definitely get better at it. oh, and ignatiy of Mark Kermode any day.
HalfLifeHalfDead 1 year ago
i agree. the original Death At A Funeral I loved. It thought it was fantastic, smart, laugh out loud funny. One of the best movies of that year. I was dumbfounded that it seems they simply remade the same movie but with an african american cast and so soon after the other.
I can't even imagine why I would watch it unless I was a reviewer and was being paid to see it.
milwaukeesloth 1 year ago
You know what this show would have needed ?
Mark Kermode from radio 5 in the UK (go check out videos if name doesn't ring a bell). The best there is in terms of wittiness, spark, presence, charisma, and film nerd-ism.
He and Roeper duking it out (since obviously Roger can no more) would have been the S**t.
julespec 1 year ago
Scott & Philips were good, these guys aren't as much... Obviously, NO ONE can beat the spontaneity of Ebert, Siskel or Roeper. That, to me at least, is the main problem with all of these new people. Lemire and Ignatiy [insert correct pronunciation here] are fine, intelligent and cultivated individuals, but lack the chemistry and No-BS quality that the original presenters had...
Especially the russian guy. Too snotty. Too rigid. Too proud to dish out against a movie. And no screen presence.
julespec 1 year ago
after watching the 1st episode..........i want roeper, scott, and phillips back!!! lemire and the new guys a bit boring...srry to say this, but hopefully it gets better.
rorschachnite121 1 year ago
how could they talk about great female directors but not mention Claire Denis
she is like the best filmaker out there requardless of gender, she's up there with Micahel Haneke and Abbas Kiastrmonisi
they have such mainstream taste.
Petey123123 1 year ago
the roger's office part seemed awkward and unnecessary
roma23rpm 1 year ago
Thank god they replaced the black guy. We could have had another Armond White on our hands. Also, please replace that crazy bitch. Seriously? That stupid "Death at a Funeral" remake BETTER than "Iron Man 2"? Yeah, if there's any two people they should bring back, it's Michael Phillips and Richard Roeper (Scott can be the segment guy, and Ebert can still be the official third guy).
OddOneOut665 1 year ago
These two reviewers are terrible.
btopishere 1 year ago
Roger Ebert is the Steven Hawking of movie critics.
1805movie 1 year ago 4
I never thought any computer voice could top Hawking's. Ebert is the man.
JokeBookEntertain 1 year ago
A half hour of just Ebert reviewing movies with a fellow reviewer would be a dream come true.
osbely 1 year ago
*Computer Voice* " I GIVE IT A BIG THUMBS UP!*
BrandonJay1983 1 year ago
I'm trying to pick the accent of the last guy talking about internet movies. Sounds like a bizarre combination of american and Australian.
Jabjabs 1 year ago
I'm afraid this is gonna be just bad. I mean replacing Siskel & Ebert is like trying to replace Abbot & Costello. There will never be anyone like them again. These new critics don't have the excitement, the intelligence, or the chemistry that Gene & Roger had.
At the Movies died with Gene Siskel. Roger, I love you man and I'm glad you're still able to do your column, but this isn't going to work.
LordoftheJimmy 1 year ago
Please help me convince PBS affiliate KCTS in Seattle to pick up this show! Email start@kcts9.org and tell them how much you enjoy it, and how silly it makes them look for not airing it. Thanks
charlyW34 1 year ago
I'm really hoping that Richard Roeper, MIchael Phillips and A.O. Scott make appearances on the show once in while.
nativewizard 1 year ago
these reviews seemed really rushed why??????
slye1991 1 year ago
@slye1991
Its a promotional demo. Not a whole episode.
Superfreaxx 1 year ago
I think Ebert is very brave to continue and I admire him for using the technology to communicate his reviews. Hats off!
peacemonger1967 1 year ago
Didn't Michell back out?? Or was he fired?? All I know is, he ain't on the show.
This DEMO is already history! Let's see the NEW demo!
cyberlarry7 1 year ago
Ugh, Scott and Phillips are clearly the best choice for a show like this and we're kind of used them as well.
Now we got this... "Onion" feeling presentation, doesn't feel right.
slugger1983 1 year ago
If this is any indication, the new show will suck even more than previous copy versions post-Siskel. Just who is Christy Lemire. She doesn't have much of a reputation and there's very little reason why I should be expected to care what she thinks anymore than I cared about the two Bens. Ditto for her newly announced co-presenter. Has Ebert lost his mind?
levanyzzuf 1 year ago
Why is Richard Roeper not one of the co-hosts?
Narpin 1 year ago
@Narpin >> He got his own show, which you can find on YouTube if you looks under Roeper and Reelzchannel.
83phatman 1 year ago
Your talking about great "women" directors ..... yet you don't mention Lisa Cholodenko? The Kids Are All Right, Laurel Canyon and High Art?
InDukeWeTrust 1 year ago
What they should do is get a person to read Roger Ebert's reviews.
thebestofsopherboys 1 year ago
@thebestofsopherboys Agreed!
TheEvilDead8 1 year ago
Does anybody know on why did they not like "Iron Man 2" for?
TheChrisminator19 1 year ago
Ebert just give it up. This show is fucking dead. Lermie is a fucking moron with the worst taste in movies, and has no way of expressing her shitty fucking opinion.
DMoneyHoney151 1 year ago
@DMoneyHoney151 I agree. Even Ebert's taste in movies have become "questionable" in the last few years. Just retire already.
junedeon 1 year ago
Why didn't they use Roger's voice for his segment? I know he has a machine that can emulate it. Using a different voice just does not seem right.
CJ076 1 year ago
@CJ076 It hasn't been perfected yet. Once they get things working better we should hear the emulated voice.
abehammy 1 year ago
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheStudyOfPedro 1 year ago
hes looking pretty good
LongJonBronze 1 year ago
"I hate "chick flicks", I prefer "Womens Pictures""
OMG, fuck offfff.
Thumper17 1 year ago 33
@Thumper17 Fuck the term "chick flicks".
PrezAlex 7 months ago
The women are the determent to the show. The one looks very odd, and they both have the combined charisma of an ice pick. Elvis is the only good one on this show.
TheFaustianMan 1 year ago
Why isn't Roeper on this?
IamConnorMacLeod 1 year ago 3
At the Movies needs more, you know, Roger Ebert.
TheEvilDead8 1 year ago
Wow, they spent only a few seconds on each film.
Whackooyzero 1 year ago 2
who is this clueless chick?
RAIDERS7009 1 year ago
OMG! This is just wrong. Seeing Roger like that is very upsetting and not pleasant to watch. I feel for him. It's so sad that he can't talk anymore and has to use a computer to speak.
66633 1 year ago
at least the thumbs are back. this might work out
MrRamirez787 1 year ago
Did she really say that "chick flicks" should be called "womens pictures"? Come on, my mom calls them chick flicks. Them saying that sounded soo pretentious.
SteezeWizard99 1 year ago
Bring back A.O. Scott, Michael Phillips, and Richard Roeper! Please!!!!!!!!!
alexxxdamasta187 1 year ago 50
It took a decade to get rid of them.
Let them get their own show.
That would be like asking for George Bush back.
atomiccow1 1 year ago
@alexxxdamasta187 good point but get done with Roger Eberts voice programe so we can hear what he has to say with that familure and wonderful voice, (by the way it could give him back the ability to do DVD or Blu ray commentary)
LongJonBronze 1 year ago
@alexxxdamasta187 Forget the first two. Long before Ebert's cancer I figured he someday would retire or die (though I though it a decade off) and hoped that the show would then become 'Roeper and Somebody', moving forward in the same way forever. This is just not going to be the same, because I never saw these people interact with Roger or Roeper
SG1Mitchell 1 year ago
@alexxxdamasta187
I like Michael Phillips and Richard Roeper togther, even A O Scott was better. Richard Roper has his own website with short and sweet reviews watch that instead.
ravenpicks 1 year ago
@alexxxdamasta187 A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips IMO were douches, now Christy Lemire and Richard Roeper sounds awesome!
TheeOneWhoTalks 1 year ago
@alexxxdamasta187 I prefer the new show. It's more interesting, and the critics are better.
toqtaqiya 8 months ago
@toqtaqiya WOW i'm peeing in my pants!
kellygreen5556 8 months ago
I can not believe Ebert actually choose Christy Lemire for this! Elvis Mitchel is smart and knowledgeable but Lemire really don't know anything about movies! Watch some of her video, she's like an idiot with a what-are-they-talking-about look on her face! Ok, you want a guy and a girl? They are many brilliant female critics!
ScorseseKubrick 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigbrogiant4 1 year ago
@bigbrogiant4 She's perfectly a perfectly knowledgeable replacement. Also, We Are Marshall stunk.
MrStalem8 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigbrogiant4 1 year ago
@bigbrogiant4 And she isn't the most negative reviewer ever. Looking at her recent reviews on rotten tomatoes as I'm typing this, I can verify that the majority of them are positive reviews. Fair criticism does not equal hate for the sake of hate. You seem like a pretty negative person yourself though.
MrStalem8 1 year ago
I dont know. Not too impressed. It seems like Ebert just has his name on it. Neither of these two I prefer.
Moviewhiz1 1 year ago
I pressed eject after the bathroom scene from the original. I have no intention of watching the remake.
Is poop humor truly needed?
yak6ex 1 year ago
This sucked. The only part I found really interesting was Roger's part of the show, even if it is hard to see. The new hosts don't have the energy, the chemistry, or the closeness that Gene and Roger had. Siskel & Ebert died with Gene Siskel. I'll stick with Roger's column and skip this atrocity.
LordoftheJimmy 1 year ago
@LordoftheJimmy I doubt Siskel and Ebert had that energy, chemistry or closeness on their FIRST EPISODE.
mrblondnyc 1 year ago
@mrblondnyc These people have no personality. Siskel and Ebert had it from the beginning. Yes the first shows were probably not as good as they became later. Here's the problem, Roger has been trying to keep the show alive since Gene's death. Roeper was okay, but even the years to follow, I just kept watching the show saying, "Where's Gene?"
Without Gene Siskel, and with only a limited amount of input from Roger Ebert, they can't recreate the chemistry of Siskel & Ebert.
LordoftheJimmy 1 year ago
@LordoftheJimmy Ebert appears to have moved on from Siskel's death so really its about time you did also. He's not trying to do to recreate Siskel & Ebert because that would be impossible. It's unfair to have the attitude that's it's Siskel & Ebert or nothing. Siskel's dead, Ebert can no longer speak. At least we still have him and he's keeping this type of show alive.
mrblondnyc 1 year ago
@mrblondnyc The format and way they review movies, even the set, is almost identical to Siskel & Ebert. The only difference is that Gene and Roger aren't there. I think Roger has always missed his friend and still does.
Yes I'm happy he's still with us, and can keep writing his column which I why I say stick to his column.
LordoftheJimmy 1 year ago
@LordoftheJimmy Of course he misses Siskel. You're not understanding what I'm saying which is why I'll end it with this. You said you were asking "Where's Gene?". There was only one Gene and Ebert will never find another that will take his place. And now he'll never find anyone to take his own place. He can only do his best to keep the show going tastefully and on his own terms. This show is will be for the people that never saw the old show while us older folks will be glad to see Ebert again.
mrblondnyc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrblondnyc "This show is will be for the people that never saw the old show"
Well that's one of the good things about the internet. A lot of the old shows are up now so you can watch Siskel and Ebert do their thing, arguing about "Benji the Hunted" or "Cop and a Half" or even seeing their outtakes where they go off on each other. That clip to me is the best thing on YouTube!
LordoftheJimmy 1 year ago
Is the intro for At the Movies will be the theme music for the new show?
stormguy101 1 year ago
Even with Ebert's blessing, they will never again capture the magic of Siskel & Ebert (you can't think of one without automatically thinking of the other). This is a nice attempt to return to the old school format, but the hosts lack any kind of dynamic that compels you to watch. My gut feeling is that it'll be off the air within a year.
Durwood71 1 year ago
I think I might like this & it definitly gives the classic "Siskel & Ebert" feeling
NY4Life 1 year ago
Granted we only shown snippets of the full reviews but Mitchell and Lamire both sound like lightweights, they're opinions sounds like what you might read in Entertainment Weekly, very disappointing. But on the other hand Morgan sounds like someone worth listening to, and anything on classic films is fine with me. As to Ebert, he's the king, doesn't matter if the words are being spoken by a machine. Glad to have him back on TV.
Zelomeisterdude 1 year ago
I am happy that this is coming back to TV, even more that it is coming back to PUBLIC TV. But the new hosts are disappointing. A good review (from one of them) to the remake for "Death at Funeral" and a bad review (from the other) to "Please Give"? YOU GUYS ARE NUTS!?
carlos1w 1 year ago
Personally, I'm not this impressed with the four hosts. I know this the one thing Roger Ebert wants to do before meeting Gene Siskel in the sky, to put this in layman's terms, but at this point, I'm happy that his mind is alert and he writes well, although his review style had gotten softer than ever before. I have to admit that I'm one of the more fainthearted viewers, but we do have to accept Ebert as who he is. His smart, loyal fans do.
hamletmiss 1 year ago
First the good news. After 4 1/2 grueling years on and off the air, Roger Ebert gets his dying wish the return to TV as he always wanted to. Now the bad news. For fainthearted viewers, he will show his sadly disfigured face and communicate with a computer. We the smart Ebert fans should accept that this is what Roger Ebert always wanted to do and he says he is at peace with himself. Personally, I could not be so brave like he is.
hamletmiss 1 year ago
I think it's great that At the Movies will be returning to TV, but I'm not really thrilled by the line up of hosts. I do like that they will continue to expand the focus of the show beyond just new movies. Hopefully the show will be a success and show Disney they made a big mistake.
jhamaker 1 year ago
Great concept, love all the side pieces on lesser known films, really teriffic! Ebert good luck man you rockl!
PalmliX 1 year ago
why no Roeper involvement?
jayrobson88 1 year ago
@jayrobson88 Ebert and Roeper don't get along anymore. Roeper wrote some article claiming he was too "censored" during the show and Ebert responded on his blog, basically making Roeper look like a fool.
AndrewMann552 1 year ago
@AndrewMann552 i vaguely remember hearing bout that. But I also vaguely remember hearing that Ebert wrote another blog clearing up that he and Roeper had no beef and they were working on a new show together. Hence the reason why Im confused of the no-Roeper involvement here.
jayrobson88 1 year ago
two broads and two black guys....this will be fun. *rolls eyes*
dontleademsomuch 1 year ago
I think Ebert could carry the show himself... the other reviewers seemed a little too scripted at times.
Lingxor 1 year ago
ill give it a chance, but please, PLEASE find a real old movie house, and not just a lame green screen background.
ChuhKok 1 year ago 2
Happy the show is back but it's trying way too hard to be "progressive". Only women and black men host this show? Everything is trying to be so annoyingly "progressive" these days that it's beginning to come off as unrealistic and obnoxious.
danman2424 1 year ago
@danman2424 I don't know about how "unrealistic" it is to have women or black male hosts - I work with some women and black males. The important thing for me is that the film reviews are thoughtful and critical when necessary, not just a commercial to promote new movies.
ButtercupsTrueLove 1 year ago
@ButtercupsTrueLove I didn't say it was unrealistic for women or black men to have jobs, I said it's unrealistic how they are represented on television in general both in volume and status. Particularly this show which is going to ONLY star women or blacks in a pretty obvious attempt at seeming "progressive".
danman2424 1 year ago
@danman2424 You do realize that its 2010 and women and black people have been able to openly fraternize for over 40 years now? I get what you are saying, but it was only true years ago. Now interracial interivews happen unitnentionally. I'm curious, where do you live where this doesn't happen in real life?
MusikAndLuv 1 year ago
@MusikAndLuv I live in an area that is not solely comprised of females and black men. In other words, planet Earth.
danman2424 1 year ago
The remake of Death at a Funeral is an improvement on the original? IS SHE CRAZY?!?!?
peterfinnfilms 1 year ago 20
i dunno phillips and scot were ok but were turning stale, and personaly i dont like roger anymore either, unless you waste youre life reviewing foreighn independant movies
MRauTObt 1 year ago
Honestly, I'm pretty disappointed with this. I actually like Phillips and A.O. Scott or Roper and Phillips better. Hopefully it gets better. Let Roger get his review on all of the movies in, too
starman15317 1 year ago
Bring back Phillips and Scott please! This is going to be a disaster.
mdwivedi 1 year ago
@mdwivedi so right! If they are "bringing it back" - why did they need to cancel? Phillips and Scott were great...... Talking Robo-Roger is a sorry sight.....
hjgjaxson 1 year ago
Meh, soso. I hope it gets better. :( What happened to Roeper? He should had came back too.
antdude 1 year ago
"Ah, it's good to be back!"; Roger would certainly say the same...
PeterRhydon 1 year ago
2 thumbs up for 'death at a funeral'
?
wow. bad start.
jimmiescoffee 1 year ago 4
I wish Roger could talk again...I love Roger
ilovepanslabyrinth 1 year ago
@ilovepanslabyrinth And I wish Gene was still with us!
LordoftheJimmy 1 year ago
I like Christy Lemire from her time on What the flick, and I'm glad to see Roger Ebert getting back into it. I was also dissapointed to see Scott and Phillips leave, so this is great.
thefunkof30000years 1 year ago
What is Omar Moore's accent? It sounds like Australia meets New England.
redheadedgolem 1 year ago
I have to say I am very interested in this new format. I have to agree, I like the Phillips & Scott pairing since they have the chemistry of film criticizing and the two new critics (Lemiere & Mitchell) do seem kind of flat, but I guess I can be wrong and they are a great pair for the show.
TVgeinus90sSim 1 year ago
@TVgeinus90sSim i agree these two hosts r a bit flat....i think phillips and scott did better but i could be wrong. after all, they're ebert's decision.
rorschachnite121 1 year ago
@rorschachnite121 Yea true. He may know something that we dont. Now as for my opinion, Mitchell is a good thumbs up as host (but i hope he isnt too cheesy with the lines like IR2) yet I really disagree with Lemiere as the partner (shes cool and great in What the Flick! but i dont think shes too strong until the female filmakers segment which throws out everything else for her for a 30 minute segment.) My thinking is put Kim Morgan instead (she and Mitchell have the criticism magic we miss)
TVgeinus90sSim 1 year ago
@TVgeinus90sSim And I have to say that it does seem kind of progressive with only white female hosts or black male hosts but I respect Mr. Ebert's decision bcuz he may have something going on that we dont know. Now i will say that I did like the Philllips & Scott pairing since it really mirrored that Siskel & Ebert magic that was lost, but I think both could have done just as well apart. Either way, I believe that the show will eventually expand even further and have them as contributors
TVgeinus90sSim 1 year ago
@TVgeinus90sSim And, to end my subject and wait until 2011, I understand why Roeper can't be apart of the show at the present time but I believe that if he is revoked of his Starz show, he should be a contributor to the show as well and be a part with Ebert and Chaz as a producer/exec producer sice the show would have a good title as "Roger Ebert & Richard Roeper presents At the Movies" but it's still good. Idc how everybody would disagree about Roeper, but hes as good a critic as the last two.
TVgeinus90sSim 1 year ago
Oh I get what people are saying, but this was a SAMPLE to give an idea of what the whole show will be like in 6 min. The actual show should run about a whole half hour with more I'm hoping in depth debate. I like the choices for critics nice to see Mitchell (he is very experienced and knows hi shit) on the show and curious about the new comers too. Can't wait till January.
thechallenger9000 1 year ago
Where is the personality? This feels so fake. :(
ZombieZifiction 1 year ago
They should also give thumbs up/down in Ebert's opinion as well, agree?
I'm not really digging this new style though, I mean I'm sure in the real show they will talk about the films unlike here but the hosts seem kind of weird. I enjoyed Phillips and A.O. Scott more, they were perfect.
ZombieZifiction 1 year ago
Not sure what to make of this. I love Ebert’s writing (in spite of my vehement disagreement with many of his opinions) and I love the old show that rough around the edges and had Ebert and Siskel unapologetically butting heads. This new show, however, looks very slick and is hosted by attractive, polite, smiling people who continue to talk animatedly during the end credits. Only Ebert's short appearance sparked my interest.
Trademarc1977 1 year ago
THANK THE LORD!!!! :)
ZombieZifiction 1 year ago
Improvement on the ORIGINAL?
legorocks3 1 year ago
Must SEE TV is back.
buffalobill789 1 year ago