User reviews

If you expect ebert to be dominant in the show you are going to be disappointed, this is a continuation of his legacy, not a one man show.

The new hosts are pretty good, they have their chemistry and explain their views in an entertaining and insightful fashion, ebert appears from time to time to give his own separate review in his own segment where a voice actor reads his review. There are also segments that are of general film interest to fill spots in the show, in the end it is a good TV movie review show on its own merits. It doesn't have siskel and ebert, but how could it. On its own merits I think this show will fill nicely the hole that the disappearance of ebert and roepers show left us with.

The show consists of three regular critics, Roger Ebert, Christy Lemire, and Ignatiy Vishnevetsk. Ebert, of course, is always superb, providing the just right mix of information, background, and personal opinion on every show he reviews. Unfortunately, we don't get to see as much of him as we would wish. Unfortunate, but not catastrophic.

The other two critics who host the show are unique and superb in their own right. They only lack one small ingredient that Siskel and Ebert brought together naturally. Somehow, they were able to give voice to just about every person who might want to go to a movie: Ebert, representing the mainstream moviegoer; and, Siskel the esoteric highbrows. I believe that Christy and Ignaty have a little of both in each of them. Unfortunately, sometimes they both sound like hoi polloi and sometimes they both sound like aristocrats. Somehow, they need to make sure that every review speaks to everyone. Siskel and Ebert accomplished this organically, but it needs to happen regardless of how.

Ebert Presents at the Movies fails to live up to the Siskel and Ebert pedigree that is its main selling point. In a number of areas, ranging from the charisma of its hosts to Roger Ebert's level of involvement. Even the theme music falls flat.

The first and most damaging problems is the new hosts' lack of charisma. Neither brings much edge or appeal to their critiques, an issue exacerbated by the fact that they tend to agree. A LOT. What made the original Siskel and Ebert such a great show was that the two critics held at times very different views, and clashed to a certain degree. The new critics lack the frisson that made them great.

Furthermore, the segments involving Roger Ebert are rather weak. Often, they just feature him reiterating the column he wrote about the reviewed movie. Even making allowances for his disability, this seems a rather weak approach. A better tactic would be for him to react to the review of the two hosts. (At times, they seem to dislike movies that Ebert has given great reviews.)

Even the theme music falls flat. The original series had an energetic saxophone theme, whereas this just uses the theme from The Third Man.