Ebert Presents At the Movies: A Return to Normalcy

Ever since the A.O. Scott/Michael Phillips hosted At the Movies ended back in August, there has been a hole in the film criticism universe. I’m not saying that all was lost, for if you really wanted to know what a critic thought of a movie you could (God forbid) read their reviews, but a show like At the Movies provided an epicenter that all, even the illiterate, could revolve around. Back in the day, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert owned the criticism world because of their show’s success, but earlier this year this cultural institution that they created was forced to fade away. However, give Roger Ebert credit: he did not take this lying down, and just a handful of months later, he has brought a new incarnation of At the Movies back to the airwaves.

In my entire life, I don’t think I’ve ever watched public television at 1:30 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon, but I settled in this weekend to do just that. I’m not entirely sure what my expectations were of Ebert Presents At the Movies. The descriptions I had heard pitched it as more of a magazine show, taking the idea of a film criticism program in a new direction. Also, one of the critics was a complete unknown to me (as he was for most of America). Christy Lemire I knew of, as she is a film critic for the Associated Press, this meaning that she’s everywhere. However, her co-host, the Russian-born Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, was a different story.

When it was first announced that Vishnevetsky would be sitting in the balcony alongside Lemire, I decided to check his Rotten Tomatoes page. The lone article: a positive review of Saw 3D. So there’s that. Yet more substantial background research revealed that Vishnevetsky is something of a wunderkind. He’s just 24 years old, has worked at a movie theater and ended up writing on film for various websites and blogs. He has become a contributor to the Chicago Reader as well. Now he’s taken a seat on the balcony. He’s a man that all we wannabe bloggers can look up to.

The show began with Lemire and Vishnevetsky reviewing No Strings Attached, a movie I recently saw and despised, in that order. Lemire began, giving the film a negative review but not virulently so. Then Vishnevetsky came in and defended the film, and darn it all sounded intelligent in doing so. I’m not saying Lemire lost the argument (quite the contrary, I agree with her) but Vishnevetsky was able to stand tall and deliver a reasonable defense of a movie I found intolerable.

This is essentially how the rest of the show played out, with Lemire delivering negative review after negative review while Vishnevetsky stood up for each and every film. This dynamic was a neat one, despite the fact it could have played out in a similar fashion to the great Ben & Ben debacle of 2008. This is not a case of Lemire making legitimate points and Vishnevetsky simply shaking his head and saying “Oh, you silly! You just hate fun!” This is intelligent film conversation, all the more impressive because it’s about fare as brainless as No Strings Attached and The Green Hornet. However, I do need one positive review from Vishnevetsky clarified: that context-free “thumbs-up” given to Season of the Witch. (Turns out he is capable of enmity, however, as he made an offhand comment about detesting Zach Braff’s Garden State.)

If this picture does not make you smile, you have no soul.

All in all, the show keeps the basic format made famous by your Siskels and Eberts and Roepers, but it also adds a couple new features from correspondents and Ebert himself. These are mostly made possible by the show airing on public television, and as such there are no commercial breaks. The first episode featured a short clip (an homage to the trailer for Citizen Kane) which introduced the audience to the various critics and correspondents that will be contributing to Ebert Presents at the Movies, and their offerings promise to be very diverse and intriguing. This first episode gave us Kim Morgan, whose segment was about the brilliance of The Third Man. Calling The Third Man a great film is not necessarily a daring position to take, but for the first episode it’s probably the way to go. The average viewer might be turned off if Morgan threw some obscure French film from the ’50s at them right away.

Then came Ebert’s segment, which was narrated by filmmaker Werner Herzog, and if you’ve seen any of his documentaries you know he should narrate absolutely everything. Ebert’s endorsement was of the animated film My Dog Tulip, a little number that’s been bouncing around the film scene without ever being seen by a significant audience. It’s a movie that seems to be right in Ebert’s wheelhouse, and I’m glad he’s still able to get a segment that allows him to make some recommendations of his own.

Roger Ebert (and his executive producer wife Chaz Ebert) wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of getting this show on the air again if he didn’t believe it had to happen. When At the Movies was taken out of his hands, it was obvious he still believed in the importance of the show. When it ended, he moved immediately to try and get a new At the Movies show on the air, returning it to where he and Siskel started: public television. He even brought back the “thumbs up/thumbs down” rating system, indicating that he intends to make Ebert Presents At the Movies entirely his product. (Side note: Christy Lemire confirmed for me on Twitter that, indeed, the show features pictures of the critics’ actual thumbs. They've spared no expense!)

The first half hour of Ebert Presents At the Movies was not without the occasional bumps in the road, but all in all it was an intriguing and fun experience that I will no doubt check in with as the weeks go on. It’s an intriguing blend that mixes the best aspects of criticism past, present and future, introducing the viewer to new releases, classics such as The Third Man, and even modern obscurities like My Dog Tulip. But above all, Ebert Presents At the Movies provides one crucial service: it brings intelligent film criticism back to television.