comment #1

Admiral82 says ...

Ha! You think they'll just keep hitting the reset button until they find two hosts that compliment each other? Or, at least that the masses embrace as premiere minds in film criticism?

comment #2

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Scott is definitely the "Ebert" of the two (or probably fancies himself as such). Phillips is "regular guy" Siskel.

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

Siskel was always notoriously easy on films that had sex in them. Roger was a sucker for sci-fi. We'll see where these guys' sympathies lie.

comment #4

richlbii says ...

i'm worried that they won't have the "fireworks" between them that always made the Siskel/Ebert pairing work so well. they should have picked someone just a bit out of left field to pair with Scott - like Richard Corliss or Elvis Mitchell.

comment #5

poseidon72 says ...

I don't understand Ben Lyons wasn't a serious film critic!
Glad they are keeping the show going. Ive watched since it PBS beginings.

comment #6

Stringer Bell says ...

these guys are too vanilla. then again, anythings better than ben lyons.

comment #7

Mark says ...

I'll miss how Lyons used to introduce every movie by reading word-for-word the brief synopsis provided by the film's marketing company.

I wished they had gotten anti-liberal Steven Hunter for some balance. He would kill in this shown.

comment #8

Krillian says ...

Thrilled that it's these two on the show. I'll watch it every week.

comment #9

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Who introduces themselves in person using their initials? I understand a lot of writers use them on articles/books, etc. but it's a bit weird to introduce yourself as "A.O." Does he do that at dinner parties too?

comment #10

TL says ...

Scott, like Siskel, came to film reviewing later in life, rather than really being born with a film gene like Ebert. That being said, he's really taken to cinema in the past 9ish years he's been with the Times, and seems to have tastes that are similar to Eberts, albeit a bit more refined. I don't know anything, really, about Phillips to comment on what he'll be like.

comment #11

Stringer Bell says ...

I think A.O. is called 'Tony' (at least by the previous host of At The Movies).

comment #12

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

He should call himself Tony on screen. It's friendlier and makes him seem less aloof.

comment #13

Movie fan09 says ...

A.O. reminds me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd-AO

comment #14

Phatang! says ...

This is going to be SOOOO boring. Neither of them care enough about movies to argue. It'll be like watching Chris Dodd debate Max Baucus. When obviously what the show needs is Al Sharpton and Ron Paul.

comment #15

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

It looks a bit cosy and lovey-dovey. They should have got some raging fanboy nerd and some cerebral cineaste.

Imagine how much fun "At The Movies with Harry Knowles and Jeffrey Wells" would be.

comment #16

Brendan says ...

"serious Catholics, I mean" made me laugh out loud. You can take the kid out of Westfield, but you can't take the Westfield out of the kid.

I like these two and I will have the DVR ready. A massive upgrade.

comment #17

Stringer Bell says ...

Half the show would be Jeff giving Harry dirty looks for his girth.

Maybe they can combine elements of 'The Biggest Loser' (referring to Harry's fatness only! Dont ban me Jeff) & Movies.

comment #18

EnglishBob says ...

I second the Stephen Hunter pick. He's really a lot of fun to watch/read.

comment #19

lipranzer says ...

Phatang, whether they are good television is certainly open to debate, but I complete disagree with your saying they don't care about movies. Anyone who reads their reviews, and their occasional columns, knows they both care about movies.

I'm looking forward to this.

comment #20

Noah Cross says ...

One of the things that made the original show unique was Siskel and Ebert's visible loathing for one another (along with a grudging respect.)
It would be a good sign if we heard that Philips and Scott were arguing about who would get top billing.

comment #21

lazarus says ...

Stephen Hunter would at least give them the Pulitzer Prize credibility they lost when Ebert left.

And he's a great read, politics aside.

comment #22

Mark says ...

Ego is paramount for a show like this. And preferably at least one of them should be aligned w/ the movie gods. Poland v. Wells.

comment #23

Phatang! says ...

Okay, I'll admit, I don't really know Phillips. But Scott is hardly a visceral critic. He's very dispassionate (maybe that doesn't mean he doesn't care, but the effect is the same). When they disagree, they'll be amused by it, they won't really argue from the gut, which is what makes for good t.v. (and conversation).

comment #24

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Off-topic, but someone else has noticed what LexG's been saying about Streep: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/sep/01/meryl-streep-queen-of-camp

comment #25

Travis Crabtree says ...

Pulitzer, smulitzer. Roger still gave "thumbs up!" to "Speed 2:Cruise Control" and "Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps".

Give me the Genes.

comment #26

Josh Tate says ...

They should have kept Ben Lyons and replaced the other Ben with Armond White. Can you just imagine the palpable contempt? It would have made every show riveting.

comment #27

Floyd Thursby says ...

"a couple of real film guys."

Although film is a visual medium, Scott rarely addresses a film's cinematic qualities.

comment #28

ErrantElan says ...

I think all of the commenters are nailing it - "Siskel and Ebert "was never that entertaining because of their different intellectual styles, but simply because they were PASSIONATE about their opinions, and you could feel that come through the screen. Arguments, rants, but genuinely passionate ones, not just for show or effect.

That's why these two new ones just don't move me - they're far too white-bread, lily-livered, emasculated modern NYC types.

Why-oh-why didn't they leave Ben Lyons and replace the other guy with Jeffrey Wells? I'm dead serious.

comment #29

Mark says ...

i love that you can just youtube almost any Siskel and Ebert review. I've been watching them review Scorsese's cannon for the last 30 minutes.

Now I'm trying to compare how Lyons would review Last Temptation of Christ vs. how Siskel nailed it.

comment #30

KC says ...

Lyons is a good target but I'd go for a filmcrit Shaq Vs. with Armond batting off a different fly each week

comment #31

p.Vice says ...

Asshole, meet asshole. Boy you look familiar.

In other news, who gives a fuck?

comment #32

ErrantElan says ...

What's regrettable to me is that for the life of me, I cannot find online video of the moment when, in their annual "Worst of the Year" show (I think it was for 1995) Siskel named "Jade" as his worst film of the year, but "only because there was no Pauly Shore film this year". Cut to Ebert, who smiles and says "Well, Gene, I think you've forgotten, there was a Pauly Shore film this year, 'Jury Duty', and it IS my worst film of the year".

At that point, Gene wildly chastised himself for forgetting and said he wanted to change his vote. I swear that happened, but I can't find video proof of it. It was perfect TV.

comment #33

Phatang! says ...

Scott isn't a "real film guy." He was a book critic before coming to the Times.

comment #34

nemo says ...

"One of the things that made the original show unique was Siskel and Ebert's visible loathing for one another (along with a grudging respect.)"

"Loathing" may be too strong, but they sure could not go for 10 minutes without irritating the living shit out of each other. And man, was it fun when the sparks began flying, which always happened. "Passionate about their opinions" was certainly true of S&E.

comment #35

nemo says ...

"Siskel named "Jade" as his worst film of the year, but "only because there was no Pauly Shore film this year"."

Jade was certainly the worst movie I saw that year and possibly that decade, since you couldn't pay me enough to see Pauly Shore. I remember thinking, how bad could any film by William Friedkin really be? How wrong I was.

comment #36

sumo-pop says ...

Could the ad people with At The Movies have posiibly admitted to stepping in it more than this. Wow.

comment #37

mccool says ...

catholics, little c

comment #38

Dan V. says ...

I'm relishing how this spot is a big, fat apology to At The Movies' viewers by way of completely dumping on the previous hosts.

Is this going to be a revolving door, however? Philips mentions he's thrilled about being "this seasons" host. A little sand bagging going on?

comment #39

richlbii says ...

the arguments between ebert and siskel don't get any better than this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBJGdWrsoI

comment #40

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Ebert, the man who started out writing for Russ Myers, was the cerebral one???

Ebert continually gave B (and C) movies a pass because he far more hoi polloi than Siskel. As a film geek growing up in golden age of 70's and 80's fantasy films, I was always chagrined at Siskel being the "thumbs down" to the films that I loved. I was trying to confirm this, but I'm pretty sure they split on HIGHLANDER with Ebert going up on it.

Although there is no explaining him buying the SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE suit....

comment #41

Rich S. says ...

I recall another great Siskel and Ebert split over the French film Get Out Your Handkerchiefs. One of them said it was one of the best movies of the year, while the other one said - and I'll never forget this - the print should be melted down and made into ukulele picks. I thought they were going to come to blows.

comment #42

cwratliff says ...

I also think that they missed the boat in not pairing someone with Armond White.

Preferably not Ben Lyons, though-- a real mainstream critic who would be able to, week after week, combat White's ridiculousness... That would be a fun show to watch!

(White is one of the most reliable critics out there in that I find him to be an almost perfect reverse barometer-- on the handful of occasions where I've actually agreed with him, it has given me pause...)

comment #43

dinther says ...

please, please never suggest that Stephen Hunter have anything, whatsoever, to do with film criticism.

For Hunter, film reviews are simply conduits, and films obstacles, to his ability to wax and wane on and on and on about his favorite subject - himself and what he knows. For example, he took an interesting film (Hero) and made it simply unbearable by his musings on Asian history. He takes the fun out of talking about movies.

comment #44

frankbooth says ...

I'm surprised by that Crash review.

I remember Ebert as the squeamish one and Siskel as being hipper and more likely to "get" edgier stuff. He liked Carpenter's The Thing, while Roger thought it was too gross, and Ebert's Blue Velvet review lives on in infamy. I'm still waiting for him to admit he was wrong on that one and write a "great movies" essay on it.

comment #45

frankbooth says ...

"With serious reviews from serious journalists." Wow, is that a slam on the Bens or what?

Somebody must have realized that twenty-something Eloi don't care about reviews, period -- and that anybody who does couldn't stand those guys.

They appealed to roughly nobody.

comment #46

G.N.A. says ...

I know this is a minority opinion, but I'd have loved to have seen Alison Bailes (the elder Lyons' co-host on the cancelled Reel Talk) get the gig. She always seemed smart and knowledgable and championed independant films like Wendy and Lucy and Goodbye Solo.

Plus she's beautiful, which Scott and Phillips are not.

comment #47

great scott says ...

Though I think he's an idiot sometimes, Dave Poland had the best line ever about Ben Lyons.
He called him "the quote whoring son of a quote whore". That was priceless.

BTW, who WOULDN'T seem smart while sitting across from Jeffrey Lyons? Ben Lyons, maybe.

comment #48

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I can't see it surviving beyond this incarnation. Who even wants to dedicate half an hour to sitting down at a specific weekly time to a show like this anymore when you can get bite-sized individual reviews for any film you want, whenever you want, from the internets? It's a relic of a bygone age, and no matter how well these two new guys do, it's destined to fail. No big deal. Times change.

comment #49

dinther says ...

I dunno BBWD - there's something very appealing about a lazy Saturday afternoon and watching previews about what's out there and maybe what's out on DVD to help you decide what to see that night. Usually it's the best show running (for those who don't get cable/satellite tv).

comment #50

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Also disagree BBWD - if your whole supposition is "sitting down at a specific weekly time" is the hindrance to the show's future, then that goes out the window because the show is available online.

Actually, there couldn't be a better time for a show like this, provided that the hosts bring different enough perspectives to it. The one lament that intelligent friends who aren't overt cinephiles tell me over and over is that they feel under-served by the film industry, both major and independent.

The studio films are too stupid to be even good dumb fun and the smaller ones uneven. And they always mention Siskel & Ebert as being a good gauge if they would like something.

comment #51

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

I still say "The Bob and Bob Show," starring Bob Strauss and Robert Koehler, would be amazing TV.

comment #52

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

What they should try doing is linking it to Fandango or something, so would-be ticket buyers can view the review for each specific movie right there and then as they peruse the listings.

comment #53

CasperMJ says ...

I found a great dating site~_____WealthySeeker.com____~The best dating club for seeking the rich singles, sexy beauties and even hot celebs..
what's the most important is that you dont have to be a millionaire.but you can meet one.
I think everyone need to meet some miracle after all the terrible stuff in the news and the economy .You should check it out!!!

comment #54

lipranzer says ...

ErrantElan, I remember that show! It used to be on YouTube, I thought - someone must have pulled it.

And I agree with Siskel about JADE - my least favorite movie of all time.

Also, that CRASH argument was somewhat intense, but I've seen worse - their reviews of BLUE VELVET, FULL METAL JACKET, COBB and especially THE DOORS come to mind.

comment #55

Flash Gordon says ...

Nothing was worse than watching S&E kiss the insufferable Spike Lee's ass movie after movie.
You could tell they both wanted to give thumbs down to Mo Better Blues but neither one could bring themselves to do it.

When they gave two thumbs down to Girl 6 I almost stood up from the couch and cheered.

comment #56

Hallick says ...

These guys are just too well-adjusted and grown up to get butt hurt enough or pissed off enough that somebody else is getting it all wrong. THAT was what made Siskel and Ebert a great partnership.

I understand that these guys "care" about movies, but they're also of the type that would shrug "umm, well, of course..." with an amused smile if somebody came along and told them that watching movies for a living is basically silly and meaningless. I want my critic to sit bolt upright and go off like Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" and say "I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK SILLY AND MEANINGLESS IS!!! FUCK YOU!!!". Rude, yes; but dammit, you'd know that they CARE about movies, period.

I'd also fault A.O. Scott because movies surely aren't his first love. You know he thinks books are better and more important; and that prioritizing, while giving his criticism a dimension of perspective, also robs it of belief. It has to be like a religion, and you need a bit of the zealot in your bloodstream.

comment #57

Yuval says ...

Read Scott's reviews of any Neil LaBute film if you think he isn't capabile of passionate contempt.

comment #58

Yuval says ...

And the best Siskel and Ebert bickering is their Barfly review, when after Siskel gives his overall negative review, Ebert pauses to compose the specific sentence he want to start with and comes up with "I think… this is the biggest mistake you've made since you didn't like Apocalypse Now." And then he stares at him and nods his head as if he hopes that line will shame Siskel to tears. Then he continues to needle him ("you either weren't paying attention to the movie or you don't know what Marlon Brando sounds like") and gets angrier and angrier as they continue. In the end he's jumping up on down on the chair, waves his hands frantically and imitates what Siskel is saying. Meanwhile Siskel is suppressing a chuckle.

comment #59

free online games says ...

hi website owner, I recently uncovered this web page from wikipedia and start reading many of your some other content. They are awesome. Pls keep it up!! Have a nice day,

comment #60

rifan says ...

free Ringback Tones
value city furniture
vitamin shoppe
Poptropica

comment #61

Natali Watson says ...

Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job! Thanks
Best regards, Natali, CEO of love songs
new songs