Ebert Presents At the Movies is a far cry from the original Siskel and Ebert production. This new incarnation features Christy Lemire, a film critic for The Associated Press, and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, a critic and essayist for MUBI.com, co-founder of the acclaimed Cine-File.info, and a contributor to The Chicago Reader. I enjoyed Christy and Ignatiy’s choices for “Worst Movies of 2011 (So Far)” which you can view here. I would add One Day to their lists.
Well, she’s cute, but they are both callow in the same way that Ebert’s reviews tend to be. They are fortunate (or unfortunate) in the easy choices for Really Bad items…the notion that THE HANGOVER the original was any good at all, which seems to be a predicate for their hostility toward the sequel/remake, is indicative of that callowness…and it’s good that Ebert still contributes to the effort, getting CBS news guy Bill Kurtis to read his reviews for him.
Movie reviewing has fallen off since Pauline Kael, Todd. Today, we only have Patti Abbott’s reviews to steer us away from bad films. Sadly, THE HANGOVER and its sequel made plenty of money so Hollywood will make more films of that ilk.
Perhaps this is indicative of my age, but the reviewers seem so young and I don’t get the sense (as I always got with Siskel & Ebert) that they have a deep and wide knowledge of film and film history. I suppose they must, particularly Vishnevetsky, given his work on Cine-File, I just don’t see much evidence of it on the show. On the other hand, I think it’s pretty wonderful that Roger, obviously very ill and without any voice at all, still manages to contribute a review every week (read in Bill Kurtis’s best “cold-case files” voice). I find that’s usually the best part of the show.
You’re right, Deb! I, too, love Bill Kurtis reading Roger’s reviews. There’s no replacing the classic Siskel & Ebert reviews. I learned to trust their judgements.
I miss Kael too although the NEW YORKER movie reviews are usually pretty pithy. The NYT has become very unreliable to me so I usually go with the top critics on Rotten Tomatoes as a guide. The consensus that is.
I like THE NEW YORKER reviews, too, Jeff. But THE NEW YORKER doesn’t review many movies. And, like you, I’ve found the NY TIMES reviews to be quirky. They’ve burned me a few times. I’m almost always in tune with Patti Abbott’s fine film reviews.
The last critic I really paid attention to (i.e. I agreed with him more often than not) was David Denby back when he wrote for New York.
I like Ebert a lot as a person (and blogger) but I’ve never found him particularly reliable as a movie barometer…for me. I generally read a few reviews and get the sense of whether or not it might interest me. There is no one critic I would say, “well, (so and so) and I have similar tastes so if s/he liked it I better see it.”
Not that that’s a bad thing, of course.
Hey, I used to read John Simon’s theater criticism in New York too, and he could be very wrong-headed. But when he got something right he could be insightful. Unfortunately, he had this obsession with female looks.
I like David Denby’s movie reviews, too, Jeff. I’m in tune with Ebert’s reviews about 90% of the time, but when we differ we really DIFFER. For example, Ebert loved TREE OF LIFE. I think it’s one of the most muddled-headed movies ever made!
Oh, and I agree – the first HANGOVER was weak. No way would I watch the sequel.
Any movie starring Katherine Heigl, Kate Hudson, or Jennifer Aniston is off my list too.
Katherine Heigl, Kate Hudson, and especially Jennifer Aniston need to fire their agents, Jeff. They’ve all been in a string of Bad Movies.
That’s just it, Deb, and everyone…Ebert’s (and Siskel’s) knowledge of film has been certainly wide, but their judgements have rarely been deep, a trait shared with the duo on the new show. Kael was never the equal of John Simon nor such relatively unsung folks as Patricia Aufderheide or the currently active Cynthia Fuchs, not to mention Harlan Ellison, or such progenitors of serious film critique as James Agee. And the TIMES folks such as Bosley Crowther were jokes…I’d suggest that their current in and out crop is on balance an improvement on their list in the ’60s and ’70s. And, again, it demonstrates little critical acumen to attempt to pretend that something as ham-handed and unoriginal as THE HANGOVER was a good movie, to attempt to damn (however deservedly) its regurgitation.
Well said, Todd! We’re going to have to look to you and Patti Abbott for serious film analysis. And, you’re right about Harlan Ellison. His TV and film criticism, written by an Insider, deserves wider recognition.
I so dislike John Simon’s elitist attempts at reviews that when I saw him once, signing books (of all things) at a Book Expo event, I wanted so much to go up to him and sneer but my ten year old daughter was with me at the time and I didn’t want to cause a scene.
“It is hard to refute a sneer.”
I’ll never forgive Simon for the many unkind things he said about Raoul Julia, a gifted actor who died far too young.
I like Roger Ebert’s reviews generally, though many times he’s gone in the opposite direction from my own. But, when we agree, we AGREE. I do like The New Yorker reviews as well.
I love when Charlie Rose has a table of reviewers in to discuss the best of the year. Those shows should be packaged and made available.
Well said, Yvette! You’re right about John Simon’s cruel reviews. Unkind remarks, like the ones about Raoul Julia, cross the line. I love those Charlie Rose episodes with the film critics. Intelligent conversation is so rare on TV these days!