Weak. Quite weak.

I thought that Mankiewicz did a pretty good job, but Lyons just lacks any sort of credibility or presence. He was as about as well-spoken and articulate as an average middle-school kid.

And they should dump the three talking heads with their phoned in reviews. Didn't work.

If they go back to a two man review show featuring Mankiewicz and some other critic who can speak and has some film knowledge, I'd become a regular viewer.

Roeper left the show because of this dumb new format. What was the point. Awful first episode. I see it being cancelled in 6 months to a year if they dont make changes. Lyons should go back to E.

This first episode started off weak, and just went downhill from there. The Critics Roundup thing did not work very well (we're not looking for 10 second opinions on these movies!), and did anyone else find the swirling lights above and below the widescreen film clips terribly distracting?

I'll probably watch the next episode or two just out of curiosity, but I'm amazed at how quickly they've ruined this show.

Just give us two articulate, interesting film critics talking about new movies, dammit! This simple premise worked well for many years and, while we all miss both Siskel and Ebert, can it really be that hard to find two decent critics with a nice mix of chemistry and different viewpoints?

I think it would be great if Roeper and someone else (Michael Philips was OK, and although Robert Wilonsky came off a little smarmy I think he has potential) started a new, simple show, and immediately surpassed the "New and Improved" At The Movies.

It would've been bad enough if they'd simply replaced Roeper and Philips with these two tools. But then they change everything else as well. I hate most entertainment news shows just because of the whole look and feel of them, and this revamp captures all the elements I hate about those shows.

Agreed.

Despite my earlier comment about avoiding this show from the start, I had to check out the new format.

Now, I'm happy in the knowledge I won't be missing anything by never watching it again.

And while they were "retooling" the show why didn't they take the opportunity to go to a widescreen format? (HiDef might too much to ask for)

I didn't think much of the "guest critic" shows. (Mellencamp, Leno, etc???) But lately I think a good chemistry was developing between Phillips and Roeper.

This is just a trainwreck of a show that belongs on a cableTV channel at 3 in the morning.

One less show for me to tape each week. I guess my recorder thanks you, but I will miss the show.

wow, that was horrible, there reviews were horrible, boring, ugly set, didnt like the guest critic idea. the dvds stuff. I really miss Phillips and Roeper.

I always look forward to watch this at 11:35 sunday night getting ready to go to bed. but this was awful, dont like the guys reviewing the flicks at all.

Bronkster's Review:

Mostly, this show was horrible, but the one moment of agreement I had was with Mankiewicz, when he compared TRAITOR's pandering to that of CRASH.

But then the whole thing fell apart.

Terrible.

Incredible! They made a second show and it STILL SUCKS!

(How long before they cancel it or gets better hosts? Hope they gave the current hosts a week to week contract.)

I didn't really see too much of a reason to HATE the new show. I don't see too much of a reason to LOVE the new show either. To me it's just...blah. If I catch it on some weeks I will watch it. If I miss an episode, I am not going out of my way to catch an episode on line.

Jeffrey Wells pretty much nails it:

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/...these_guys.php

"Skip These Guys"

by Jeffrey Wells

If you're looking for definitive proof of how our culture (and particularly our film culture) is steadily devolving and dumbing itself down, look no further than the new Ben Lyons-Ben Mankiewicz version of "At The Movies", which premiered a few days ago. This is not a TV show about the latest movies and how good or bad they are. It's a show about the End of Civilization as some of us have known it. If the Eloi of George Pal's The Time Machine were to produce their own movie-review show, this is how it would play.

The Two Bens' views on Burn After Reading pretty much say it all. The whole thing feels way too rushed -- the producers have apparently said to everyone involved, "Just keep your feet on the accelator with no detours." The show is obviously aimed at under-35 morons who just want to see clips and maybe absorb a couple quick lines so they can channel-surf onto the next distraction.

Lyons is the glib lightweight -- one of those empty but sociable motor-mouths for whom the expression "if I ever have an original thought it would die of loneliness" was originally coined. Mankiewicz is clearly the more thoughtful and reflective of the two, but he's been told by the producers to repress his natural instincts and to keep things fast and shallow.

Don't even think of comparing this to the original Roger Ebert-Gene Siskel show of the '70s, which was primarily aimed at people who (a) read movie reviews on occasion, (b) had at least a couple of years of college under their belt, and (c) actually liked movies as experiences with all kinds of layers and echos and reflections contained within. The Two Bens show is aimed at the apes.

Ask yourself this -- if and when a subsequent "At The Movies" show is produced for the 2025 generation (i.e., 17 years hence), how can it be more dumbed-down than the current one? I'm going on the assumption that each generation henceforth is going to be less educated, less literate, less worldly, more ADD, more into video games, less cultured, less travelled, etc.

Variety's Anne Thompson hates the show also.

I just watched the premiere episode here, and--wow--I this review isn't so far off. I wouldn't consider myself "stuck up" or a "movie snob"--I just enjoy the movies. But this new format really dumbs the whole thing down and it feels more like a half hour ad for the movies than a review show. Watching Ebert and Roeper caused me to think, whether I agreed with them or not. This, I don't care for at all.

Because my DVR recorded it, I watched the second episode. The whole bit with the extra critics is so amazingly irritating that I just skipped over it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the heck out of Siskel and Ebert and Roeper, but I have no problem going back to reading reviews instead of watching this new "show".

I don't find the show quite as appalling as the general consensus, but I wouldn't mind if the show replaced these drones with critics of more consequence and returned to the stay-seated-and-discuss paradigm.

I can see what they are trying to do. An Entertainment Tonight. E! type movie review show. I can't say I hated it but I didn't enjoy it much as Ebert and Roper and whoever substituted.
Didn't quite understand how they graduated to a view screen with one standing in front of the desk and the other standing behind.
That left me puzzled.
I didnt hate Lyons like so many did. I actually thought he was kinda cute.

It was enough for me that one of their "three to see" was a movie that hadn't come out yet (Twilight) that the critic himself (Lyons) hadn't even seen. He recommended that people go on the internet and read about it. Talk about shilling.

So far I've watched three reviews online, and Ben Lyons has used the phrase "At the Movies" (which also happens to be the title of the show) in all three of them.

Maybe it evens out their height. Ben L seems tall and Ben M seems short.

... and for the record. I don't like the new format.

Miss the "fat thumb / skinny thumb" show.

Shouldn't the new show get it's own thread by now? Just wondering...I keep hoping to see this bumped with news of Richard's next move...perhaps a GREAT movie review show that will trump At the Movies.

All Roeper has to do to trump At the Movies is to create a new show where he and another host (preferably Michael Phillips) sit in opposing chairs in a movie-themed set, provide interesting reviews, and gain the rights to the "Thumbs Up" trademark. In short, it wasn't really broke, so it didn't need fixing (the way Disney has tried to "fix" At the Movies).

He can call the show whatever he wants (maybe even "Sneak Previews" ). It's the format and content that matter.

Not a fan of the new format (and as little as you think Lyons knows about film, having witnessed him behind the scenes it's even worse). I thought my buddy Matt Singer from IFC was pretty good though, doing the best he could in a weirdly truncated segment.

This show has become as bad as the Big Tease on Reelz channel, and the sad thing is that they have become almost the same even though one is supposed to be reviewing movies and the other is supposed to show trailers. Both shows made the same stupid decision of chainging hosts and format and they have become unwatchable. Its stupid watching 2 grown men and supposedly movie experts spew out things that are nowhere near a film discussion, specially the dumbass Lyon's, who was an idiot at E! and continues to be an idiot on the new show.

The rumor is that Ebert and Roeper are shopping around a new movie review show, and will probably take Michael Phillips along with them. They will be able to use the Thumbs Up, since Roger owns it and the format will almost be the same thing they did on the other show.

My problem with this new format is the same one I have with most "enterainment news" shows: they never say anything is bad. They never really talk poorly about anything because then they would lose sponsors!

It was really awkward when they brought on the three guest reviewers and they all panned Hamlet 2 and the two dummies on the show gave it extreme glowing reviews. It just made them look like shills. I may not have agreed with Siskel, Ebert or Roeper 100% of the time, but at least they had opinions.