At the Movies Dies, is Reborn

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Rob Helmerichs, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. inaka

    inaka Well-Known Member

    Nov 26, 2001


    Wow, I saw the first episode and I couldn't believe how bad it was.

    That young guy was a complete joke. Count how many times in the first episode alone that he calmly said "I disagree completely", and then nothing. Zzzzzz. Probably about 20 times. In the days of Siskel/Ebert, Gene would have finally given up and made some playful attacks at Roger to at least keep things entertaining. Heck, even Roeper, would have finally said, "Ok, now you're just off your rocker"...something! The two reviewers they selected are honestly worse than ANY of the previous incarnations, and there were plenty.

    The entire show didn't connect with anything really. The flow didn't work, the banter was stale, they insert a review of The Third Man...why? It's the very first episode and you'd think they can at least cover more about Roger, etc. (I was fully expecting to at least see Roger or hear his advanced computerized voice that he's his real voice, but it never happened. Again, why?) Seems like such a simple show to screw up, and wow, did they ever.
  2. DeDondeEs

    DeDondeEs Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2004
    Las Vegas, NV
    I just happened to catch this show by mistake because it took the time-slot of America's Test Kitchen. I wasn't too impressed with what I saw. There are way too many people on the cast, keep it simple, if there aren't enough new movies to review, look at some DVD's etc.

    I like the Rotten Tomatoes Show on the Current channel slightly better, although for movie reviews I primarily just go to the Rotten Tomatoes website. With the availability of internet reviews, perhaps the days of the movie review TV show are over?
  3. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I thought it was ok, but it definitely needs some polishing up. I hope this isn't a pattern, the young guy LIKING everything and the young gal HATING everything. I got the feeling that she liked some of these movies more than she let on, but had to show how "tough" she was by giving them a thumbs down.

    A couple of points:

    Why did they have to keep saying "coming up on At the Movies"? This is PBS, there's no commercials. It killed the flow of the show. Just go from one segment to the next.

    While I like the personality of the gal who was doing the classic movies, I think it would be better to do that segment more like how they did it on the old incarnation, where they took a classic movie JUST coming out on DVD/BD and reviewing it then. Just pulling a classic movie out of their butt to review seemed kind of pointless.

    I thought that was Ebert's "voice" on the review for the animated movie. But it was kind of strange to have a computer generated English voice with a "french" accent. Maybe it was someone else...not sure.

    I think this could get better once the chemistry develops between the two main reviewers, so I'll watch a bit more. It's certainly better than the two Bens.
  4. sieglinde

    sieglinde Active Member

    Aug 11, 2002
    Sebastopol, CA
    The show is syndicated meaning it could have been on ABC as the old one was in my area so they have spaces for commercials. I think the voice was someone doing Orson Wells or something and just reading statements that Ebert had written. It was OK. Not great, I will watch it. I don't get a channel called Current so I don't have that option.
  5. zalusky

    zalusky Well-Known Member TCF Club

    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA


    I thought they had the ability to recreate Roger's voice by computer. Why use somebody else's. I found that distracting.
  6. LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    That was Werner Herzog speaking as the voice of Roger Ebert.
    It was syndicated, but through American Public Television, not through a typical syndicator, and was produced by a Public Television station. You will be highly unlikely to find it on a commercial television station.

    Edit: scratch "highly unlikely to," replace with "won't." APT is only offering it to public television and non-com cable.
  7. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I hadn't heard it was syndicated. I didn't know PBS developed shows (new ones anyway) are syndicated. Makes sense then.

    EDIT: Didn't read the next post. My point still stands then. No need for "coming up"
  8. trainman

    trainman Nice to see you

    Jan 29, 2001
    This is not a "PBS-developed show." "PBS" is not synonymous with "public television" -- the vast majority of public television stations are PBS member stations, but that doesn't mean everything they broadcast was distributed through PBS; conversely, it also doesn't mean they have to distribute everything they produce through PBS.
  9. mattack

    mattack Well-Known Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    You *liked* it better, the Rotten Tomatoes Show hasn't been on for many months.. so I haven't watched/recorded anything on Current since then.

    I do think a movie review TV show is useful/entertaining, even if I don't disagree with the hosts..

    Though I didn't really like these hosts. I would even say I liked the hated (by everybody but me) young guys from a few years ago on At the Movies were better. One liked everything, one hated everything.

    Roeper turned into a pretty good guy.. I had liked Elvis Mitchell on things in the past, he would've been good as a regular.
  10. smak

    smak TV MA SLV

    Feb 11, 2000
    NoHo, CA USA
    He reminded me of all the celebrity guests that Roeper had when Ebert was sick, and everybody liked everything.

    Dude, you're not John Mellencamp, you can offend somebody in Hollywood by not liking their movie.

  11. DeDondeEs

    DeDondeEs Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2004
    Las Vegas, NV
    Saw the second episode today. This time the two hosts agreed on every movie. The show seemed to flow a lot better this time around.
  12. Rob Helmerichs

    Rob Helmerichs I am Groot! TCF Club

    Oct 17, 2000
    But the two hosts are still pretty dreadful together. It was almost as if after last week somebody ordered them to have better chemistry.
  13. gossamer88

    gossamer88 UHDTV Snob

    Jul 26, 2005
    Da Bronx
    How cool that they never threw out the original 'At The Movies' chairs.
  14. LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    I think the two biggest problems I have with the show are:
    1) Ignatiy is way too overly expressive... kind of like a really bad actor, he thinks he has to over-annunciate and over-emote everything as he's saying it. It's completely unnatural.
    2) The segment of the reviews where they discuss the movie - they're not discussing. They're reciting facts and bullet points at each other. "This movie is directed by John Smith, who also directed This Film and That Film." "Yes, and you can tell that he brought a lot of that experience to the making of the film we're reviewing." That's not a discussion. We want to see you discuss with each other why you like the film. Don't just recite facts you know about the film, because those who care probably know already, and those who don't know won't care.

    Both of these can be seen in the intro to the show, when Christy told Ignatiy about the chairs - something they both clearly knew already. Yet, Ignatiy had to mug and pretend he was surprised at being told. It's insulting to the audience, looks fake, and immediately the audience begins to doubt your sincerity.

    Guys - relax and just review the darn movies already.

    Edit: I think I've seen problem 3:
    3) Christy has good on screen presence by herself... but everything about her positively screams "I don't give a s*** what anyone else thinks." If you have this episode recorded, just watch the interaction during the review of "Barney's Version." She smiles and fake laughs and all that, but her entire demeanor is positively caustic.
  15. atrac

    atrac New Member

    Feb 27, 2002
    Los Angeles
    Every time Ignatiy Vishnevetsky was onscreen, I kept thinking that he looks like someone. I think I figured it out -- Dana Carvey. Isn't that special??
  16. Hcour

    Hcour Well-Known Member

    Dec 24, 2007
    Watched it for the first time today. What a couple of morons. They sound like they both studied the "Movie Critic's Handy Book of Catch Phrases" before the show. And whatshername, when whatshisname agreed with her, kept saying "That's so sweet." (No, really, she did.) The guest critic was a friggin' blogger, for crimeny, who was going on about Freud, for crimeny.

    The only remotely interesting part of the show was Siskel's mustache and Ebert's hair in the clip at the end.
  17. kcarl75

    kcarl75 Active Member TCF Club

    Oct 23, 2002
    Southern NH
    SP deleted. Horrible choice in hosts. They have a format they know works. All they had to do was pick the right people. I'd rather they did the rotating hosts over these two.

  18. HellFish

    HellFish I can dress myself.

    Jan 28, 2007
    It was preceded by any airing of Rain Man in my area, so I missed the last 15 minutes. I guess Rain Man ran into extra innings.

    Did someone really give No Strings Attached a thumbs up last week?
  19. aintnosin

    aintnosin [Spoiler]

    Jun 25, 2003
    Lake Forest, CA
    Those are actually the original "Sneak Previews" chairs.
  20. Feb 1, 2011 #140 of 371

    deli99 Well-Known Member

    Nov 12, 2003
    That was Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, who so far has given 'thumbs up' to all but one movie (Biutiful, this week). I know it's a small sample size, but if he likes everything, it kind of defeats the purpose of the show for me.

Share This Page

spam firewall