The End of "At the Movies" (A Tribute)

This past weekend, the long-running television program At the Movies came to an end. For the past few decades this show graced the airwaves with (mostly) intelligent conversation about film, and it gave casual movie fans a chance to see what new releases were worth seeing, which movies were terrible, and in the case of a split, whose argument was more convincing. Even through the various hosting changes these past few years this was a program that provided a service to the American public. It is sad to see it go.

It all began with a local Chicago television program in 1975 by the name of Opening Soon at a Theater Near You, which aired on a monthly basis. It was hosted by two relatively unknown Chicago film critics. Their names were Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune (sporting a 70’s mustache if there ever was one), and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times. Eventually the show was re-named Sneak Previews, and the first television program devoted to film criticism was born.



Soon these two critics went on to Tribune Entertainment to form At the Movies, then finally settled in at Disney with the program Siskel and Ebert. Before you can say “the balcony is closed” these two critics were no longer just discussing film amongst themselves, but the entire nation was watching.



Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel at the height of their fame were no less than film critic rock stars. Everybody knew their names, and their “thumbs up/thumbs down” ratings were known nationwide. For many films the best marketing they could get was a “Two Thumbs Up” rating from Siskel and Ebert. Some, including myself, have cited the program as the cause of the Rotten Tomatoes culture we live in today, but one can’t blame the sun for making the Earth too hot when it clearly is doing a world of good. (I’m awaiting a verdict on that analogy, by the way.) Siskel and Ebert began a new culture of film criticism, one where debate was encouraged. Until that point one had to read reviews in newspapers and magazines, and all film criticism was essentially a monologue of a single person’s opinion. It was revolutionary to have somebody there to stop a critic and say “I disagree”.

Siskel and Ebert sometimes got the reputation of a quarrelling couple, an image they enjoyed keeping up in public, from various late night talk show appearances to their guest spots on the animated show The Critic:



Watching Siskel and Ebert argue was always a joy to watch, something one can still do on the At the Movies website, assuming it isn’t shut down in the wake of the show’s cancellation. I am too young to have been a faithful viewer in the show’s heyday, but then I knew exactly what this show was, and today the website is where I watch many of the old reviews the show has to offer.

Disagreement in film criticism is a great thing, for without it there would be no film criticism. If there was only consensus, then where’s the fun and mystery in watching a movie? At the Movies did not attempt to be the final verdict on the latest releases, but it was an epicenter. It started discussion for film fans around the world, and made film critics out of people who normally couldn’t care less. When provided with a film to disagree on, the pair provided some of the show’s best moments.






Having a show as popular and important as At the Movies provides a bully pulpit for the reviewers to inform the public about smaller movies they might not normally see, and Siskel and Ebert were always enthusiastic about films they knew the audience absolutely had to see. These include the documentary Hoop Dreams, which Roger Ebert eventually named the best film of the decade, and I’m not so sure they ever filmed a review as positive as their review of the Coen Brothers’ Fargo.




However, they were also able to tell audience when there was a film out there they had to avoid at all costs, and while they were never the last word, a pan from Siskel and Ebert could do some real damage, not to mention these negative reviews often lead to hilarious television.






Sadly, Gene Siskel passed away in February 1999, leaving the television program’s future in serious question. Could there ever be an era without the brilliant chemistry of Roger Ebert and Siskel? Many people doubted this, and Ebert would address this on an appearance with David Letterman, informing us all just how important it is that the show continue. Now these words continue to resonate, as we have lost the show for good, and it is no longer able to provide this important service.



For several months Ebert brought in many different critics, including celebrity guests such as one William Jefferson Clinton, as stand-ins for Siskel. Often there was a void left, as few were willing to stand up against Ebert, and even fewer seemed comfortable sitting in the chair. However, the show was finally able to find a comparable personality in Richard Roeper, a man who was not afraid to voice his own opinions and stand up against the seemingly impenetrable wall of Ebert. A special balance was hit with Roeper, and the two played off each other as if it was the olden days. For a few years, all was right with the film criticism world.





In 2006 Roger Ebert had to go through emergency surgery related to his thyroid cancer, and he was not able to return to the show again. After a while he was able to return to writing reviews, but the show was out of the question. In the time following Ebert’s departure, the show used various guest hosts once again to fill the empty seat. Of the celebrities who guest hosted the most notable are Kevin Smith, Jay Leno, John Mellancamp and Fred Willard.





However, there were some actual critics to share the balcony with Richard Roeper, including two names the “At the Movies” universe would soon become familiar with: A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune.




Eventually, Ebert and Roeper decided to cut ties with the show, but Disney wasn’t done with At the Movies. Seemingly quicker than humanly possible, the two new hosts for At the Movies were chosen. Their names? Ben Mankiewicz of Turner Classic Movies and (drumroll) Ben Freaking Lyons. This was all in an attempt to target a younger, hipper audience of film-savvy viewers.

What up, son? You see Ben's review of that new Spanish-language film? Dy-no-MITE!
(Yes, this is my idea of how cool people talk.)

I understand this mindset, but this was going to backfire from the get-go. Mankiewicz tries his hardest, but when it all boils down Ben Lyons is not a film critic. He had been trained to promote films, and he never approached them with a very analytical mind. That made it hard to watch the show during this era, knowing that we were not getting the smart film discussion that was so prevalent in the days of Gene Siskel. Despite no longer being involved with the show, Roger Ebert even devoted an entire blog post to Ben Lyons (without mentioning his name), trying to get him to step up his game. I have some sympathy for Lyons, because I think he tried, but the backlash was too strong to ignore, and Ben and Ben were forced out of their seats.



The good news is that the show was able to go out on a high note. In September 2009 the hosting duties were handed over to A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, two aforementioned critics who filled in often with Richard Roeper. They brought serious criticism back to the show the likes of which had not been seen since the Siskel and Ebert era, even though I at times would find myself disagreeing with them. In fact, if I had one argument with the Scott/Phillips era it’s that perhaps their tastes were a little TOO similar. They had terrific chemistry, don’t get me wrong, but the show often only provided a minority opinion, albeit a convincing one. Both Scott and Phillips told viewers to skip the likes of Shutter Island, Kick-Ass and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo while giving favorable reviews to The Twilight Saga: New Moon and Step Up 3-D. There’s nothing wrong with having these opinions, but I had a problem with those being the only opinions shown on the program.

Be that as it may, I will miss this show like you would not believe. There is nothing more exciting than watching two good critics go at it about the latest movies, no matter how big or how small. It’s important to have a show like this, and now for a while we will be going through an era without much debate, reviews coming from but one voice instead of two. However, something tells me all is not lost. Rumors about that Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert are attempting to develop a new show, perhaps bringing back the thumbs. Today we have the internet, various websites and blogs with millions of reviews, and without the show there will be no center. We’ll be just fine, and the movies will always be there, but it’s always important to note when an institution reaches its end. It’s a sad day, but it’s also a day to remember the greatness all movie fans have witnessed ever since 1975. But for now, as many a wise man once said: “The balcony is closed”.

Before we part, here is a video of Martin Scorsese going through his favorite films of the 90’s with Roger Ebert. If you read this blog, you might know I’m a fan of his.



And CLICK HERE to go to the At the Movies website, where you can search for video of when the show reviewed your favorite movies, and watch A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips pay tribute to the show.