UPDATE: Ugh. The retooled Ebert & Roeper show premiering September 6th will be co-hosted by Ben & Ben -- a Generation Why duo who only got the gig due to nepotism. Ben Lyons is the nobody son of Jeffrey Lyons, the film critic world's biggest hack and quote whore with zero credibility, while Ben Mankiewicz is the slacker host on Turner Classic Movies, whose only claim to fame is that he's a watered-down member of the famous film family. Now, there's a working definition of the death of film criticism for you.
It's not really a surprise that Disney-ABC Domestic Television finally decided to take At The Movies "in a new direction". Except for the old Siskel & Ebert show, there's never been a successful talk show about film on TV. 
Because people would rather watch movies than hear others yakking about them. Plus, the Internet provides so much more resource material to moviegoers that TV soundbites just don't cut it anymore. And now even amateur bloggers consider themselves qualified film critics, while the quality film reviewers find their print forums disappearing. It's also been a while since a "Thumbs Up" meant anything to the movie biz when studios can buy Web raves with a bribe or two. Ebert has fought various health challenges, Roeper plans to co-host another review show, and At The Movies as we knew it is kaput in mid-August. Sadly, I expect the next incarnation will involve more hairspray and toadying than criticism.
One of the many benefits of growing up in Chicago was having Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert as my guides to the film Universe. I will always miss those times. They LOVED film, celebrated the great possibilities and encouraged us all expect nothing less than wonder from the movies. I expect that Mr. Ebert will carry on the tradition of excellence with his new endeavor. We need the perspectives of thoughtful, well read critics who spur the filmmakers on to new heights.
Comment by Michael Sean Wright — July 21, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
I am in the same exact boat as Michael Sean Wright. I feel blessed that I grew up in Chicago and got to see all the glory days of the show. It was vital and despite Nikki’s claims, anything with Ebert talking about film is more relevant that anyone else. If he comes back, I will tune into the show with great regularity.
Comment by manny — July 22, 2008 @ 2:39 am
Oh please! Cry me a river. Do we really listen to him anymore? Maybe our grandads and granny.
Critics are nothing but a bunch of attention-grabbers. We can decide for ourselves what is good and not being put out there. We need not someone who gets free screening and media attention telling us what he thinks of the movies.
Here’s to his health and hope he will recover for the better but really, he should just retire and the same goes for crticis elsewhere
Comment by Armand — July 22, 2008 @ 4:15 am
Siskel & Ebert on PBS was one of those TV shows I made time each week in my schedule for. Without commercials, they had time to discuss and analyze the films. When it went commercial, about 10 minutes of discussion and analysis was hacked out for commercials and repetitious promos of upcoming reviews and previews. The show lost a lot, and then Siskel’s sickness hurt the show, and of course, Ebert’s health problems and the fact he hasn’t been on his own show for two years basically killed it. Roeper’s a pleasant enough personality and it sounds like he might have another deal somewhere else. Back in the day, the studios really liked having S&E’s “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” reviews to quote from, and I think they gave a spotlight to foreign and indie films that mainstream America might have otherwise missed.
Comment by Dan Zee — July 22, 2008 @ 7:22 am
If you weren’t watching the show when the soda dispenser delivered the cup upside down before adding the soda water and syrup, then you missed the OG.
Comment by ChiTownBoy — July 22, 2008 @ 9:07 am
Armand,
If it weren’t for people like Roger, Gene and Richard, a lot of great films would never have been seen– and more than a few likely wouldn’t have been made. “Critic” doesn’t mean a lot these days in the era of “Ain’t It Cool” blurbs on ads, but people like those three — and the likes of Elvis Mitchell and, in Los Angeles, Andy Klein — have much more to offer than just saying they liked or disliked something.
Then again, you’re probably a studio exec who is sick of his movies getting 0.0% on Rotten Tomatoes and afraid of anyone openly analyzing the dreck you put out. Please crawl under a rock, you jackass.
It’s sad day for old-school “Sneak Previews” fans like myself and the others who have posted here.
Comment by Jack Burton — July 22, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Honestly, folks, what would you have ABC/Disney do? It’s sad that Roger is apparently in a condition where he can no longer host his namesake show, and I wish him all the good health in the world, but Ebert’s co-ownership of the show tied their hands and something had to give. As for old-school movie review shows, “Reel Talk” from NBC Universal went syndie last fall and is poised to take over the market, at least for the time being. For the record, I think Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips have done a great job under some very trying circumstances this past year.
Comment by cat — July 22, 2008 @ 10:34 am
What I can’t believe are their replacements: Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz? Both draw on the prestige of their last names, but come on, who in the world would rate these two as authorities? I will cut Mankiewicz some slack because of his deep family tree and he does a decent job on Turner Classic Movies. But Lyons is a boring hack with no personality and depth of films. He thought “I am Legend” was the greatest movie ever!!!! He pretty much said the same about “Into the Wild”. This guy is lame. ABC/Disney Domestic made a bad call with him. I would’ve preferred Harry Knowles to Ben Lyons. At least Harry’s got some cred.
Comment by A WGA screenwriter — July 22, 2008 @ 10:37 am
The Ebert format of plots spoilers, a trailer, and a rating system has seen its day. But, moviegoers still put a premium on critics who share their ideas of what movies are good, great or garbage. The web/blog critics, e.g., recycledfilm.net, often have yet to acheive that credibility, but it’ll come.
Comment by Thomason — July 22, 2008 @ 10:56 am
I am always so despondent to read about trained and talented journalists being replaced by those who have never paid their dues.
Ebert is the only critic I trust wholeheartedly (he is the Anti-Denby and Medved - those two could have been like a Bizarro version).
Mankiewicz also rates higher for me, he seems to have grown up at the kid’s table of Hollywood history.
Lyons, on the other hand, is a media-whoring Daddy’s boy. You can often find him as an 8th wheel on TMZ, hanging with Lindsay Lohan, Sam Ronson and/or the Olsens. If those are his Industry Bona Fides, one has to question his taste on every level.
Roger should just go and enhance his website. I am sure a RogerEbert.com citation will still carry much more weight than one from “At the Movies.”
Harry Knowles would have been great, as would have Elvis Mitchell, and maybe even Nikki to round out a very interesting roundtable.
Comment by Dante L. Brown — July 22, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Ebert and Roeper are two of the most uninteresting (and stuffed) two-legged creatures on the planet today. Ebert only rode on the coattails of Siskel’s urbanity and intellect. Siskel was that rara avis the movie industry and public desperately needs again but who can replace him?
Perhaps Anthony Lane can be bribed to supplement his New Yorker income with a weekly episode in which he tears apart the usual dreck that clogs our theaters and minds.
Comment by Marcus L. — July 22, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
What, Nikki, you don’t like Ben M’s intros to Turner Classic Movies?
Personally, if At the Movies is going the nepotism route, I think the should’ve gone with the Clooney’s–Nick and George with an occasional special “ghost” appearance by Rosemary.
Comment by Hmmmmm...? — July 22, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Well, I happen to like Ben Mankiewicz, so good for him. He’s been a desperately needed breath of fresh air on TCM. Best of luck to him.
Comment by Reader — July 22, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Excellent post, particularly the evisceration of Lyons and Mankiewicz.
As somebody who studied film criticism and journalism in colleged and is currently toiling away reviewing films and television for several websites for no pay, it absolutely sickens me that these hack critics with nothing more than haircuts and last names will take the mantle from two of my absolute idols.
It’s certain that they’ll offer zero insight when they review films and will pander to 13-year-old-boys just like the studios. I’ll never watch this show again once they take over, but I look forward to watching Roeper and Phillips wherever they land.
Comment by Andrew — July 22, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
While Roger Ebert clearly has to move on from TV (given a medical condition that prevents him from talking) the Disney decision with respect to the Ebert & Roeper show is just another in a (recent) line of network decisions where form trumps substance at every self-defeating turn.
Cases-in-point:
–The Les Moonves decision to hire Katy Couric was show biz values trumping journalistic credentials. (And in the face of Couric’s awful performance the network got a double whammy: Long-time viewers fled in droves and the younger viewers Moonves thought he’d lure with “hot mom” Katy responded by not tuning in.) In the first month with the spectacle of Couric squeezing Sen. John McCain’s knee post-interview and enthusing: “Thank you for coming on the CBS Evening News!” like she was a Cotillion mom who’d just scored an audience with a soap star, it was clear that she and the news division built by Edward R. Murrow had jumped the journalism shark for good.
–The unspeakably bad dumbing down of “Nightline” post-Ted Koppel that has gutted a hard news show and replaced it with a magazine show straight out of Dayton. It’s hard to pick what makes it more un-watchable—the cotton candy line-ups, the forced logic of the lame “Sign of the Times” segment or the vapid, glassy eyed preciousness of the anchor troika’s “Goodnight America!” sign-off. As if “America” is watching.
–And now the “new direction” for the show began by Siskel & Ebert. If you read their print reviews from the past (and present) you quickly realize that not only do they both love movies they have (unlike most TV reviewers) a legerdemainic knowledge of film history. They were a perfect combination of populism and intellect. They never talked down to the audience. And they were frequently ahead of the curve. They were taking Clint Eastwood seriously as an auteur well before the cognoscenti of the New York Times. And the tension on the show was because they really didn’t like each other. Not some manufactured and scripted bickering you’ll see on pale imitations of the show. My prediction for the “new direction” show: Six months in syndication and then either cancellation or you’ll see it at 2 a.m. after re-runs of Byron Allen.
Comment by Christopher Grove — July 22, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
I did enjoy watching Roeper squirm as he tried to pretend he enjoyed watching Wall-E. LOL!
Comment by Yorick Hunt — July 22, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
As long as they are passionate about movies as the OGs they following (Siskel & Ebert…Not the other guy) then all’s well. If this is a rah-rah fest for the studios, then this is going to last as long as a fart in a cold breeze.
Comment by P. Lee — July 22, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Armand said:
“Critics are nothing but a bunch of attention-grabbers. We can decide for ourselves what is good and not being put out there.”
First you have to decide what to see and it’s only if critics make the effort to point out lesser known, quality films that you’d ever know to see them. It’s an important service to filmmakers and the whole medium. Despite being a big syndicated film critic and having a TV show, Roger Ebert always made an effort to champion the little films. Look up Ebert’s Overlooked Film Festival. I know a couple filmmakers who got wider attention for their tiny movies because Ebert wrote about them. Now bloggers have picked up the torch, in new media. TV is over for film criticism. Ebert started it all with Siskel and now it’s ending as the last of the two gentlemen departs.
Comment by Cilla — July 22, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
It’s interesting that Ben Lyons is the hack son of Jeffrey Lyons. I first heard of Jeffrey Lyons when he was on another version of S&E. Maybe he was one of the hacks who took over the PBS show when S&E went commercial?
In any case, it was immediately clear that J. Lyons was the hack of son of (slightly) before-my-time columnist Leonard Lyons.
I wonder if there’s anyone who remembers L. Lyons as somebody’s hack son.
Comment by floretbroccoli — July 22, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
Jeffrey Lyons has a son? His son also reviews movies? That’s just great! [end sarcasm]
Jeffrey Lyons is the biggest HACK of his profession. I saw him gush all over Mike Myers recently in an interview after he and his co-host gave “The Love Guru” glowing reviews. He has got to be in somebody’s pocket. He has NO credibility or integrity imo.
Comment by Rael — July 22, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
So Ben Lyons will be competing against his dad Jeffrey Lyons, who is the host of “Reel Talk with Lyons & Bailes”? These are the only two national movie review shows on TV (although KNBC in LA shows it on Sunday nights at 12:35am!). Do BOTH shows have to be hosted by a Lyons??
Comment by jumpcut — July 22, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
>>>Ben Lyons is the nobody son of Jeffrey Lyons, the film critic world’s biggest hack and quote whore with zero credibility
Hahahaha. Thanks for the laugh, Nikki!
– from someone who watched during the upside-down soda cup days.
Comment by Mike Cane — July 22, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
WOW. I usually just pass off Nikki’s column and comments as nothing more than the same old Hollywood Liberal scratch my back I will scratch your back glibs trying to get all the salsa you can and be able to stay alive in tinseltown barrel of marlarkey that one is inundated too daily but every once in a while she is just one of those “B” ladies that lets it all hang out. WOW, is all I can say.
Comment by netposter08 — July 22, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Siskel has a nephew–why not hire him? Makes as much sense as the Bens. Will one be Big Ben and the other, Baby Ben?
Comment by Rachel — July 22, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
I loved Gene Siskel and cried when he passed away.
The show was never the same with Richard Roeper.
Be well Roger Ebert, his website has excellent movie reviews weekly…
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
Comment by Debsa — July 22, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Not bestowing sainthood on him but disparaging Ebert is a telling indicator of ignorance about film. The gulf between Ebert and a dwindling number of his colleagues and the rest of what passes for film discussion, criticism and advocacy in the media is stupefying.
Nothing wrong with a changing of the guard but that’s not what this is.
Comment by Art — July 22, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
I thought Roeper did a fantastic job since he took over on the on air reponsibilities after Ebert took ill. He also had good chemistry with Michael Phillips and I really enjoyed watching them together. How do you market a 33 yr old Television institution to the Access Hollywood audience? The show that I loved watching every week will not be the same!
Comment by entertainmenttodayandbeyond — July 22, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Ben Lyons? A new chapter in the history of the joke has just been written.
Comment by WAEL — July 22, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
I’m not so worried about Ben Mankiewicz. I figure that he must have picked up something hanging around with his assorted uncles and cousins who are all pretty big in the industry. And while I don’t entirely agree with his smarter than thou style on TCM on the weekends I realise that everything can’t be hosted by Robert Osborne. Where I have a real problem is with MTV boy Ben Lyons. It’s not just his links with MTV - which is what gives him some supposed degree of credibility. It is that his father Jeffrey was one of those who replaced Siskel and Ebert on the old Sneak Previews. The other: Michael Medved (hack spit). Yet again, a Lyons replaces an Ebert and the result is worse than mediocrity.
Comment by Brent — July 22, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
White men being replaced by more white men.
Comment by AC — July 22, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
The real value of a TV movie review show is the exposure it can give to films that would otherwise be overlooked: sleepers, indies, experimental, international, and other releases that don’t have $30M P+A behind them. Other than that, the pithy sound bite format of a TV review show is pretty worthless for generating anything other than quotes and thumbs. There was no comparison between what Siskel & Ebert were allowed to do on TV versus the thoughtful, consistently well-crafted, insightful pieces they devoted to their first love, print. As a former major city newspaper and TV film critic myself, I can attest to the difficulty of getting anything of value (read: non mainstream) past editors and producers. What most people don’t realize is that movie criticism is just about the most dangerous beat in journalism (other than war correspondent). Forget sports, editorials, political, investigative, or crime reporting. A movie critic is the ONLY journalist who regularly criticizes advertisers. So I wish Mankiewicz and Lyons best of luck dealing with The Mouse. Their power may pale before any 12-year-old texting his friends as the end credits roll on opening day, but if they truly love film they will find a way to celebrate the breadth of it.
Comment by Santayana — July 22, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Hey,
I could care less about the two of them. Let’s face it. Who listens to critics anymore or ever? I never did and anyone who does is a blow hard who can’t make decisions for themselves. I like going to a film, watching it for myself and then making my own mind on it. And with the fast paced world of the net, we have that at our fingertips, we dont need to wait for a dman show.
Mr.L
Comment by Mr.L — July 23, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Santayana said:
“The real value of a TV movie review show is the exposure it can give to films that would otherwise be overlooked: sleepers, indies, experimental, international, and other releases that don’t have $30M P+A behind them.”
But those reviews are not being done on TV. Online blogger critics are the ones spreading the word about those films and that’s the future of how to connect audiences to smaller films. And bigger films too.
Comment by Cilla — July 24, 2008 @ 8:14 am
It’s a very sad day for movie reviews, with the final ‘nail’ in the coffin (so to speak, no pun intended) and the other shoe dropping…so many years after Siskel’s untimely passing. The Two Bens will most likely, review ONLY the big studio films and ‘Sundance approved’ indies. Otherwise, the rest of film will be ignored.
Which is why I LOVED LOVED LOVED Siskel and Ebert (and then Ebert/Roeper and Phillips). All of them not only appreciated the big studio film, and the darling indy, but as a few have indicated, they also reviewed films that fell into neither category. Which is what made the program so invaluable to anyone who really cares about films (and great for those who might occasionally want to see something totally left field). I myself used the show not so much to validate or change my own opinions of films, unlike Mr. Armand who must think so HIGHLY of himself and his tastes that he doesn’t need ANYONE to SUGGEST ANYTHING least it upset his sensibilities, but to simply ‘know’ about what is being made and put out into the marketplace.
Sure, it’s easy to be aware of The Dark Knights and Harry Potters of the world. Ditto for the Little Miss Sunshines and No Country For Old Men; but what Gene/Roger/Richard & Michael did week in and week out…was tirelessly explore the wide range of films out there. From the very big to the very small and all points inbetween.
Dimwits like The Two Bens probably don’t even know that there are movies made that fall outside of the Big Studio Blockbuster and the Indie Darling (the latter they probably have to have the ‘adults’ tell them about so whatever ‘criticism’ they’ll be doing on those films won’t be worth the price of a postage stamp).
Only speaking for myself, I will NOT be watching the new version of a tried and tested classic — so I’m sure others who love film and love knowing about film (beyond the usual marketing tricks) will also use the power of their remotes to ensure that the new show doesn’t last a season. Sure, it’s all good and fine that there’s Netflix and online bloggers to help draw attention to smaller movies, but again, just because you know how to type, does not make you Hemingway.
Sadly, I suppose that finally, and unjustly I might add, the balcony is officially closed!
Comment by sammyglick — July 25, 2008 @ 4:20 pm