I think that is the right attitude. For a wide variety of reasons, I am not surprised that the news today of the show's cancellation was a sad one, especially for you, Chaz, and a whole host of other hosts the show had over the years. It made me sad, too.

But, the future is bright. The show, as they say, will go on. And it will evolve. For such a huge fan of Darwin as you, that can only be a good thing.

Good luck!

On a day when a notable filmmaker's words regarding film criticism filled me with anger and disdain, this blog entry soothed me and brought me back down to earth. Looking forward to "At the Movies," no matter what incarnation it may assume.

My vote is for Kim Morgan to be a host on this upcoming project! The "severed heads are beautiful" episode was just great.

Also, thanks for sharing your passion for movies! I grew up watching At The Movies and I'm glad you're blogging.

Heartening news to hear! I've grown up with your show, since it was on PBS and followed it and you throughout the decades since. You have consistently delivered quality criticism mixed with entertainment and never disappointed. That you have not only moved along with the times but in fact have evolved and thrived as well makes me happy, despite the dual dismays of Gene's passing and your health problems. Yes, there is always room for quality and your past, current and future fans will continue to be hungry for it. Thanks for being there.

I hope the end of At the Movies doesn't signal that there is no room for a serious movie review show on TV. I wish your new show, Mr. Ebert, all the luck. You can count me in as a viewer.

Will Richard Roeper be apart of the new show?

I look forward to the return of the thumbs!

the scorsese one where he picks his fav films from the 90s is my favorite. at the movies influenced me so much it was just a pleasure hearing two people speak about films passionately with grace and intelligence. still to this day i wish i had the ability to express myself the way you always could. sad day indeed but it was a great run. ps, it IS ben lyons' fault...grr

I look forward to "Roger Ebert Presents..."!

See you at the movies!

While I can understand some of the reasons behind this event, and while the show has never been the same without you, I feel very sad about this. The show was an important part of my movie education and it came in at just the right time for me - when I was old enough to start getting myself into trouble with ill-formed and poorly articulated opinions about movies, and needed some intelligent mentoring. (I went on to pursue a PhD in film studies.)

There certainly is space for the kind of "At the Movies" show/new media thing you describe, and you can sign me up as a fan already. But I also find myself hoping that it won't detract you from your writing, which as I have gotten older and more educated (jaded? intelligent? cynical? sophisticated? degenerate?) has been my touchstone for intelligent comment on movies. While there are now a few other sensible, sensitive and articulate film critics - Anthony Lane at The New Yorker, a couple of writers for The New York Times, Mark Kermode in England and the Sight & Sound crowd - you stand out for the depth of your knowledge and the effortless intelligence of your writing.

Keep it up.

Roger, if you tell us the TV show is good, we'll be watching.

Very excited to see what's been come up with, and even more excited to see that you're embracing the "new media". As someone who has probably seen 90 percent of films I've watched through Netflix, it's great to see an appreciation for that program and the opportunities it's created.

I'm saddened by the death of At the Movies, but, to be honest, not entirely surprised. Networks are obsessed with making everything "new" and "fresh", so I figured it was only a matter of time before it was canceled.

There is definitely still a market. Here in the UK we still get the weekly film show on BBC currently hosted by Jonathan Ross, but it’s been running since 1971 and people still watch it despite its late night time slot. If people didn’t watch it the BBC would have ended it a long time ago.

I look forward to watching the new show hopefully through net streaming when it comes about.

You really are an inspiration, and I'm glad that you're one of the newspapermen who was able to grok and survive the transition to the "new media." I can't wait to see what this new thing of yours will be.

Good luck with the new program, whoever may be hosting it. I've been a follower of yours (and the show's) for a while, and while I'm sad that it's going, you still have your own outlet for reviews.

I love the idea that you will be educating viewers on non-major cinema. I really hope, that no matter who you have as hosts, that you get quality guests, such as Dargis, to show up and help inform people. I know I'd watch the show every week if it was something beyond 'I like this movie...' but actually educated and informed me. I'd love segments on avant-garde films (which Dargis would probably be one of the best out there to do a discussion on), because honestly, I know so little about it.

Be very neat if you also brought in some of the 'web critics' that have proven themselves. It will make for good TV and for good Web publicity.

I know that even if this doesn't get a TV spot, it will still end up on the Web (and honestly, what's the difference?). Best wishes.

p.s. It won't be long before you won't have to type to 'speak', just a little microchip placed in the brain will be all that is necessary, if one is willing.

Netflix is the best thing to happen to movielovers who live in markets whose idea of diversity is having Transformers 2 on ten screens instead of two. Since subscribing several years ago, I've been able to finally "discover" Herzog, Sturges, Ford, and many, many other filmmakers whose work I'd never seen.

While I do enjoy some aspects of the Rotten Tomatoes show, in the end it is mostly just people with a web cam pretending to be critics. Good film criticism, as At the Movies proved, is so much more than an opinion and that's one reason why I really hope your new show happens. The other reason is I grew up in a rural area and, outside of major releases, we didn't get independent movies or art house movies or (shock!) foreign movies. At the Movies introduced me to a larger cinematic world. I remember vividly seeing a review of "The Long Good Friday" as a kid and saying "I have to see that." Of course, it took me years to finally getting around to seeing it but that's how it was in small towns, pre-internet.

Best of luck on this show.

John

Roger, I'm starting to smell a screenplay about Siskel and Ebert, the TV show, Siskels death, your losing your speech and your "rebirth" etc ?

Sounds like a fascinating movie to see !

Or do you already have it in the works ?

"I can also say that we held video tests with several potential hosts two weeks ago in Los Angeles, and know who we will use."

One man, one woman?

First of all let me say I am eagerly awaiting the new show. And next let me say your video of the openings of your shows brought back such memories. But to me your show about Citizen Kane brought back the most memories. I remember watching that show when it was first broadcast and it started my lifelong love of the movie Citizen Kane. Thanks for the great memories.

Seeing the Sneak Previews intro takes me back. You guys reviewed movies that never had a prayer of coming to my little Texas town, but knowing they were out there gave me a real curiosity about films--and the world. Thanks!

I share your excitement Roger! I have to consult so many sources these days for good movie info- Rotten Tomatoes, local show times, new to Netflix, new streaming on Netflix, your great movie list, upcoming Criterion releases, etc... and I still miss a ton of great stuff.

For instance, at the end of this blog I thought you were going to post Ramin Bahrani's Plastic Bag, narrated by Herzog. Perfect example of something I never would have seen if it was made ten years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDBtCb61Sd4

Some of my friends playfully criticize me for watching too much TV. I counter that I hardly watch any TV, I watch movies on TV. Everybody knows what I'm talking about when I say that. Movies are hearty, TV is tripe. If this catches on, it could revolutionize what people are willing to accept for entertainment.

Those intros were really wonderful. Sounds like you're well on your way to catching lightening in a bottle again.

This is a shame, but you're right. I won't blame anyone but the changing times and cheer you on in this new endeavor.

Perhaps you can go the Cleveland Browns' route. The current Browns are an expansion team that was able to import its history, records, etc. from its predecessor, which spares us the indignity of seeing Jim Brown retroactively become a Baltimore Raven.

So in that spirit, let's not say "At the Movies" is dead. Let's just say it's going to be reborn as a new entity with a glorious history.

Wow! I was not aware that "At The Movies" had been cancelled. I have been watching this show, in its various incarnations, since 1980. My youngest son, currently nine years old, has developed a love for the movies and he and I faithfully watch this show every week together. It has been a good opportunity to discuss the different genres of film with him and to hear what his opinions are of the reviews and the films. He has also been able to develop his own criticisms of movies that we watch and to be able to discuss the films on different levels. He has been able to apply these same abilities to the books that he reads as well. He also loves to write, and I have been encouraging him to write his own reviews because maybe he could be a movie critic as well.

The program went beyond "entertainment" that was meant to fill a half-hour time slot on television. This show helped all of us who watched it to be able to look at the movies with a better perspective. I really hope that you are able to get your show on the air, Roger, because I am not only going to miss my favorite show, but quality time with my son as well.

"It's time to smarten up." I couldn't agree more. What I love about your blog, reviews and this idea is the premise that their is an audience that wants to be challenged. It seems so many other places I turn now there is a contiual dumbing down and certain people wear their refusal to think like a badge. I can't wait for the new show!

I am truly sad to hear about the cancellation of a show that I've been a fan of for over 20 years. I will miss it. But I'm excited to hear about your plan for a new program, I really look forward to it.

Just to echo your observation, Netflix, especially with a fast growing list of movies on Instant Watch, has really made it easier than ever to watch movies. I live in a small town where there is only one small multiplex which shows only the most mainstream movies. So I have to rely on something like Netflix. In fact, my goal is to watch and blog 365 films this year (wish me luck!). This would have been impossible in the not too distant past, not to mention prohibitively expensive.

All in all, I'd like to thank you for At the Movies. The show certainly made a huge impression on me during my college years, and not only led me to eventually study film and screenwriting in graduate school, but has also made me a lifelong movie fan. :)

Roger,

Good luck and welcome back, if you need a Military Movie Advisor I'm your man. Love the picture of you and Gene Siskel, I had forgotten about his sweet "Porn 'Stache".

What a sad day. I feel like I'm losing a best friend. Do you know if the online archive will still exist after the show ends?

Best of luck with the new program. The market for a movie review show most definitely exists with this viewer.

I remember the first episode of "At the Movies" I ever watched. It was July of 1997 and Siskel & Ebert were reviewing "Air Force One" and "Good Burger".

Ebert: I can remember Gene chanting, "Welcome to Good Burger! How may I help you?"

"At the Movies" with you and Gene was one of my favorite programs growing up. No offense to later hosts, but there was never such comaraderie as between you two, and never a finer range of opinions about the art. I'm sad to see the show go as well (and lamenting the current state of television programming) but I'm so excited to see what's next. Bring on the New Media, and thank you for widening the net film-wise. Best of luck!

Oh..my...goodness. Growing up in the south suburbs in the late 70's and early 80's, I watched that show on WTTW. I had forgotten that great opening music! The woozy horns, the goofy circus music, the names on the candy boxes. Best of all, the coin-op "non-carbonated grape", which I only now notice changed to "grape" the second time (continuity was less important in those days, I guess).

What would a young, intelligent lad in the suburbs have done without good local TV like "Sneak Previews" and "Son Of Svengoolie"?

Roger, I am deeply sorry for the cancelation of the show. I started watching it on Sunday afternoons when I was in 8th grade. I am now almost 22 and though I have not been able to watch on Sunday afternoons as much, I still try to catch the show on the web. I read your reviews and blogs weekly as well. Your show is what really made me realize that I love movies. I would see all of these movies that my friends didn't get or said they hated because it made them think, and that really made me wonder if I was crazy for liking them. But I knew I could always tune into your show and see that at least one of the hosts felt the same way as I did about a particular movie. I will continue to follow you on the web and watch what ever program you decide to put on TV next. You truly are my inspiration when it comes to watching and loving film. Thank you.

Very exciting project from the sounds of it Roger. I can't wait to see it. Best of luck!

BTW I've had 500 in my Netflix Queue regularly since 2001... :)

Good luck with the new venture, Roger. I believe that there is indeed a market for the type of show you describe. I am probably not a typical viewer though I'm sure I'll watch your new show -- I obsessively read film reviews, even for films I know I'll never see. I'm more likely tuned to TCM than any of the networks.

We're lucky in Boston to still have a few art house venues and even the occasional DVD rental store (I cherish the one in my neighborhood for its deep selection -- it allows for serendipitous rentals that aren't as possible with Netflix until its full catalog is available for streaming).

Informed, opinionated critical voices are essential as our viewing options multiply. Thanks for continuing to move forward!

If "At the Movies" is cancelled, what will happen to their wonderful website? Will they maintain all the reviews with videos from episodes past? If not, will they let a certain venerable movie critic with a great website and blog have them?

Dear Roger;

If anyone can pull it off it's you. I certainly would watch a review program such as the one you describe.

In my area "At the Movies" airs after midnight on Saturday or Sunday afternoon too late to matter for the weekend. I hope you find a way to deliver the program on Thursdays.

The only thing I would add is reviewing significant TV productions. I would love to hear your take on Spielberg/Hanks "The Pacific", that new Spartacus series or "Life" for example.

As for your new voice program I'll bet there is a way of phonetically spelling words that will fine tune the pronunciation for a smoother more life like reading.

Bonne chance.

Will the online version of "At the Movies" still be available? It is a joy to watch all of those old reviews and I would hope that they will still be online despite the show being off the air.

Boy, you publish these late at night. I'm happy you are working on a show that will branch out beyond theaters. My growing disdain for theaters has forced me to seek movies elsewhere. You have found a viewer in me, and not just because I'm your fan, but because it fits me perfectly.

Also, if the somebodies you are speaking with about the show doubt the internet's relevance to tv, Nielson Company found that the Internet and all it's content has caused tv viewership to increase. I'd provide a link if I had it.

I'll be looking forward to your new endeavor. Where on television do you envision it, since syndication doesn't seem like a good model anymore?

Just wondering, but is the set for the new show going to resemble the old "At The Movies" set with the railings, etc.?

Hurry up, Roger.
I've been watching you/your show/the later incarnation(s) of your show since the beginning--1975.
The first thing I thought when I read the news this morning is: now where am I going to go?
Where, to get cogent reviews from reliable people.
This has been such a constant in many people's lives (like mine) that I don't want to panic at its loss. Even Ben & Ben weren't great, but at least they were there.
How about by September?

Good luck with the new project. I admit I am intrigued to hear your voice again.

And I know who I would like as one of the hosts of the new program. I can't recall her name, but she sort of came of in 'third' when the show was looking for someone after the loss of Gene. You used to do split-screen triples with her (which was very ugly on the eyes, sorry), but then she disappeared. She was great: had smarts, sass and yes, looks. Two white guys with glasses (speaking as one) doesn't cut it anymore.

Ebert: The wonderful MIchaela Pereira co-anchors the Morning Show on KTLA- Los Angeles. I spotted her hosting on the cable channel TechTV, where she ad libbed effortlessly about some fairly complicated high tech stuff. She is so good.

First, thanks for all the amazing content from a new member of the Club.

Second, this post makes me think of an idea that's been bugging me for a while now. Rotten Tomatoes provides links to 100+ movie reviews, many written by insightful critics with loads to say about the movies. That means there are dozens and dozens if not hundreds of essays published each week about each movie that comes out, none of which allow themselves to address any major plot points or spoilers.

Clearly there is value in that sort of essay, but I often find myself wanting to read a critical essay about a movie AFTER seeing it, where the entire plot of the movie can be discussed in as much detail as required to draw insight from it. Think of the difference between your Dark City commentary track as opposed to your Dark City review. Sure, I can get some of that in the occasional blog post or whatnot, but the ratio of spoiler-free reviews to movie criticism has to be 25:1. Further, the rare plot-informed essays are not easily found ala Rotten Tomatoes for the spoiler-free kind.

Is there a source for the kind of criticism I'm seeking? I understand that a newspaper or TV program like the original At the Movies doesn't want to turn off half the audience by giving spoilers, but perhaps your new show (particularly the web component) could do some of that. On the web of course, interested viewers could watch whenever they wanted- i.e., after they had seen the movie if that was the sort of piece in question.

OK, thanks for letting me get that off my chest, and thanks for all the blog posts and tweets!

You're right that Netflix and Redbox are a blessing. My local library also has free "classic" DVDs available--it took them many years to finally crack and not charge $2.50 to take them out. It interests me that their list of "classic" movies includes items like THE JERK.

Re your quote:

When the New York Times put an interactive Netflix map online, allowing me to search by zip code and see what my neighbors were renting...

Could you provide a link? I'm dying to know what my neighbors watch, and I couldn't find the map on the Times website.

Eagerly awaiting any critical film show you produce!

"We go to the movies for many reasons: to think, or not to think," wrote Timothy Corrigan in "A Short Guide to Writing about Film." Glad to get your reasons to see, or not to see, those two sorts of movies and more.

Go Roger and Chaz!! I will definitely watch this.

Roger, I'm planning to buy a Roku Internet streaming device as soon as my fourth-grade-teacher wife is done with the year and our day-care expenses come out of the stratosphere.

I know the Roku allows a person to stream more than Netflix. Would your show be available there or is it too soon to know?

Current Netflix obsession: The films of Jean Pierre Melville.

Dave

What you write about Rich Frank showing clips of you and Gene trashing some of the studio's movies is remarkable. I can't fathom that would happen nowadays. It seems to me that studios have significant contempt for critics and would love if the whole industry would simply go away.

I have written this here before, but for my entire life, At the Movies has been one of my favorite shows - something I looked forward to every week, even when I was very young. It made the idea of movies more exciting. That they were to be taken seriously, but also to be enjoyed. I can still recall the old intro signaling to me that I was parked in front of the TV for the next half-hour.

Now with the internet, the concept of movie reviewing is completely fragmented. Everyone can have a movie review website, and all opinions are valid. On my blog, I started a series of back-and-forth e-mail reviews with a friend, and it has quickly become one of the more popular features. At a high level, we're just copying you and Gene, but of course with our own (somewhat goofy) approach.

My main point is that intelligent criticism is necessary. Perhaps it is less crucial for the film industry than for, say, politics (though that ship has already sailed, I'm afraid). I am sure that the movie industry would love to keep all the bloggers and critics as small fish in the big pond. But if you can give At the Movies a reboot and create something successful, anyone who loves great movies is going to benefit.

In sum, I wish you all the luck you may need for this endeavor, for totally selfish reasons.

I'm really excited to see your new show- I'll probably watch via whatever internet streaming mechanism you use.

I look forward to many thoughtful reviews. And if you happen to make the occasional guest appearance... even better!

Living in Iowa, your show was a window to the other possibilities, the other worlds we couldn't see in our local chain theaters. The list of things I want to see is extensive, thanks to you.

And thanks to Netflix, that world is opening up.

You should take great pride in what you offered all of your faithful viewers.

Does anything on television match that service today?

Re the third photo down. I never knew you reviewed movies with Groucho Marx. That must have been a helluva show.

I always enjoyed ATM and its various incarnations. Even the Ben's era(more for Mankiewicz) But most of my viewing was done via the net. It was always on too late. Still good luck with the new show I will certainly be watching one way or another.

Oh and regarding the point of more people renting Milk instead of Transformers 2. Something tells me that people who liked Transformers 2 likely bought it.

I don't know if your new format will allow it, but could you please find a place for reviewing movies from the silent era? I think more exploration of this part of movie history is worth while. A fair number of these movies were remarkable and not at all what the public thinks these movies are about - stiff acting, grand hokey gestures, ect. D.W.Griffith's "Broken Blossoms" blew me away with its depiction of child abuse, then there is King Vidor's "The Crowd" and a stunning film (my personal favorite), "The Goddess" (Shennu)staring the great Chinesse actress Ruan Ling-Yu. I don't know why it was made as a silent since it came out in 1934, but its well worth a look. Good luck with the new venture.

Michael Phillips & A.O Scott were the perfect replacement hosts. If its not too late, they really should be the people to lead the new show.

As part of your going "full-tilt New Media," I hope you look into making "Roger Ebert presents At the Movies" available on the Roku Digital Video Player, either as its own channel or as a title available on an existing channel.

This is fantastic news, and I am very much looking forward to it. Best wishes with this exciting new project from one of your (lurking) fans!

This is both sad news and great news.

All good things must come to an end, yet sad events can empower us to embark in new directions.

Roger, my thanks to you and all of your co-hosts & production colleagues for keeping this kind of film discussion alive.

---Ryan, Illinois native

With a steno machine and the proper training, a person can type in excess of 200 wpm and currently a computer can translate steno into text as quickly as the operator types it, at least at rough draft quality.

Given that steno is typing by sound, I would think a program could be written (if it hasn't already been) that would translate steno into voice quite easily (I know software exists that translates voice into steno). Perhaps it would be possible to have real-time conversations.

Is anyone working on this?

I wish you good luck on this new venture. I think an iPhone/iPad app could be big if done properly. All your reviews, essays and Answer Man questions plus some video could make a tempting package. Price it around $2-$5 and it is in the impulse buying range.

Thank you Roger. Your reviews, tweets and blog are truly daily highlights. I have been listening to and reading your words since the early 80's. Now at 46 years old, I realize how essential and, well, familiar you are to me. I greatly respect and admire you. Here's wishing you much health and continued success. The thought of experiencing a new At The Movies just brightened my day.

I was saddened when I heard about the cancellation yesterday, but I am incredibly excited for the new project. I'll be watching as Michael and Tony finish up their run. They have done a wonderful job, giving the show the dignity and intelligence that it deserves and has always had.

What a sad day indeed. I began watching your show on PBS when I was about eight years old, and have followed it through all it permutations. (I still miss the dog of the week!) I thank you and Siskel for helping me develop into an informed movie watcher and film lover. I have also followed you on the web for nearly two decades (has it really been that long???!!!!). I wish you luck in your new venture, and look forward to hearing your new/old voice commenting on films once again.

Roger should partner with Redbox to do mini-reviews of movies that we can watch right at the Kiosk. I know I would be more likely to rent or not rent a movie based on his recommendation.

Roger, I go all the way back to the 70s with you! Looking forward to this next step. I was sad this morning when I read the news, but seeing those old show intros and hearing your news has certainly turned things around.

I used to love watching that show every weekend with my parents.

As soon as this new show goes on the air, you can count on my committed viewership. I am so excited!

RIP a fantastic show. I wish I'd been able to watch it more frequently but such things can't be helped with limited TV access during school afar from home. I'll always remember "At the Movies" as the show that perked my passion for discussion and debate about movies, how as a kid my brothers and I remembered you and Gene Siskel parodied in the show "Animaniacs" and giggled at your respective caricatures.

Though you've stated not to blame Lyons or the Disney executive who hired him, part of me can't fully forgive the decision that was a direct insult against the general intelligence of the younger generation I am apart of – then again, it's reflective of how one executive felt, not everyone of them. I wonder when this Hollywood junk food of 3D will cease and when studios will realize that in the end, people would rather have good films. I predict the 3D obsession and wider distribution of indies/foreign films will trademark the upcoming 2010 to 2019 decade.

I say this only from personal experience: from what I remember, the '90s were marked by the Disney renaissance and increasing CGI as demonstrated by "The Matrix,"; the '00s were dominated by an influx of computer-animated films and blockbusters inspired by comic books, toys even.

I'd suppose after a decade or X number of years people will eventually realize how much crap Hollywood has fed them. In the meantime, thanks to the Internet and distributors like Netflix, people unfazed by the 3D craze will be able to view indies and foreign films much more easily regardless of what their local multiplex is showing.

That's why I also share the same hope and faith that your show will do well and that regardless of the current Hollywood junk being dished out, true cinephiles will continue to thrive while trends will extinguish and become extinct soon after their shiny ball syndrome becomes dull.

Thank you for all the years of wonderful syndication. You, Gene Siskel and all alike have inspired to maintain my independent thought and strong stance for my love of movies.

Unfortunately I can't watch you any more, but I still listen to you.


Thanks for watching all those bad movies so I didn't have to.

Go Roger Go! (That's a blessing I've given a mere 4 or 5 friends in life, who got on a very significant roll.) The sheer energy of your thoughts convinces me you're exactly right, even if I didn't know what "a movie" was. Can't wait to see who you've put in the chairs. So, this:

There has been a fragmentation of movie watching. Theatrical distribution is now dominated by the big-budget, heavily marketed 3-D of the Week. Such films have a success utterly independent of critics. Like junk food, they're consumed by habit and may be filling but are high in cinematic sugar and fat. The consumers of that product don't think of a movie as an investment of two hours of their lives.

Yeah, huh? I'm happy with a big fat Twinkie movie now and then -- Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was that for me (Catt and I agreed, it didn't need 3D at all). We now watch the more impression-making -- or nourishing -- ones in bed.

So the closer into the home you get, literally and figuratively, the more it's going to work.

I miss SNEAK PREVIEWS! sigh

I can't wait to see your new show, and I think you're right that tying the show with new media (which is how people are now used to seeking out reviews) is the key. Good luck!

I'm honestly shocked "At the Movies" lasted as long as it did. Two middle-aged white guys sitting around, talking about obscure movies, doesn't scream big audiences.

And don't get me wrong. I loved the show and watched it every week for decades - I'm just surprised it was on the air for so long. It survived Siskel's untimely passing, and your debilitating ailment. It survived all competition (including "Hot Ticket" and "Reel Talk"), and the online revolution.

I'm sad to see it go.

Also, Redbox and Blockbuster Express are great because they're cheap, convenient, and have most of the new releases. But their selections are necessarily horrid. Dozens of options - at best - none in black and white, and none in a language other than English.

And finally, and this is totally unrelated, have you read that new book about John Hughes and the Brat Pack films yet? It's called "You Couldn't Ignore Me If You Tried", and I enjoyed it thoroughly. But more importantly, reading it made me nostalgic for the Chicago of the 1980s. It was a time when Hughes, Ditka, Washington, a young Oprah, and yes, you and Gene Siskel really put Chicago on the map. Reading that book made me nostalgic for that bygone era. Hughes, Washington, and Siskel are gone, Oprah's ending her show, and Ditka's no longer coaching. I'm so glad that even though the show you created has been cancelled, your career continues, and you've become more vital than ever.

I plan to watch every episode, and when the first season of your show comes out on DVD, I'll definitely be adding it to my Netflix que. I haven't been this excited about television progamming in some time. I have no doubt that there still exists a massive audience for intellectual cinematic discourse.

And only one more journal entry before Glenn Beck gets shoved off your landing page. That's progress!

I hope there are retrospective film discussions for people who have already seen a movie. Analytic television episode recaps have been very successful on the Internet, but there's nothing like that for movies yet really. If you had critics discussing films without having to worry about spoilers, that could make for some interesting and informative TV.

You should be proud of this legacy, Roger (not Mr. Ebert, per your recent tweet), as you turned on many young lovers of film to the power of criticism (including myself). I'm pretty sure I got my taste for debate from you and Siskel - even as a child, my favorite moments of the show were when you disagreed, finding a balance between making your case passionately and respectfully. You guys invented the format, and nobody ever did it better.

The show will be missed. It's not like we can pay attention to the critics on E! or any other show.

Good luck on the new show. I guess the audience is more fragmented, but hopefully there are still people out there who can appreciate both Citizen Kane and 2012 ...
As for the cancellation, don't underestimate the power of personality. Scott and Phillips are very smart reviewers, but they ain't "the fat guy and the bald guy."

I hope this project succeeds. I rarely have time to catch a televised review show due to schedule conflicts, but I'd love to see more intelligent film criticism in a web-friendly format. I think you're right. Netflix has been a huge boon to movie viewers by providing not just a fantastically broad selection but also a buffet-style business model that removes the mental calculus one performs at the video store, judging a movie's box to decide whether this film looks $6 good. The advent of Instant Watch has removed an additional barrier, the one where one must consider that 2-3 days will pass between "this looks interesting" and "ok, let's watch this" while the film is in transit. Watching an obscure film on a whim has been realized, and everybody wins with that reality.

Dear Mr Ebert,

I am a film student, recently turned film journalist based in the UK, and I have a huge amount of respect for you, the late and great Mr Gene Siskel and Mr Richard Roeper. It is sad thing to see the television show go, I always wait with giddy excitement on a Monday morning for the reviews to appear on the website, I go onto youtube to watch all of your past reviews and compare them to mine, it is because of you that I have a love for film criticism and how important it is to the public. I especially love the "Worst Films Of 1993" in which both yourself and Mr Siskel had a go at each other about your worst films of the year, "Cop And A Half" and "Carnosour", it still makes me laugh to this day, along with your appearances on "The Critic". It is because of you and your colleagues I want to have my own film review show in the UK.

I hope that you get a review show up soon, as I will hopefully be one of the first people to tune in where ever I can. I wish good luck for both yourself and your lovely wife to get a film review show up and running as soon as possible.

Many Thanks

Ben McCarthy

I checked the Netflix map for my zip code. I live in a lower-income area of the Bronx, which sadly has produced a much less encouraging list of rentals:

1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
2. Twilight
3. Paul Blart: Mall Cop
4. Changeling
5. Eagle Eye
6. Body of Lies
7. Transformers 2
8. Seven Pounds
9. Obsessed
10. Lakeview Terrace

But hey, at least "Transformers 2" is only in 7th place, and the top spot goes to an interesting film by a real filmmaker. I'd like to bump some more interesting titles up onto my neighborhood list; among my most recent rentals are "Ponyo," "Moon," "Bright Star," "A Serious Man," and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox," the last of which is in transit to me now.

But it's surely because of "At the Movies," which I discovered for the first time about thirteen years ago, that my taste has so improved. The 2000s were a great decade for me as a moviegoer, no matter how much some people grumble about the decline of the quality of movies. I minored in Film Studies, discovered the likes of Bergman, Lynch, and Woody Allen, and have been on Netflix for almost four years.

I'm looking forward to your new show. We need a program for serious movie-lovers, especially one that incorporates new media; the French film "Summer Hours" did well at the National Society of Film Critics Awards, and that night I streamed it instantly on Netflix. It felt like magic to have it so readily at my fingertips.

The way I see it, it wouldn't take much of a production budget at all. Sit down two critics in a living room and set up a couple of cameras, and I'd watch. Throw in a few spotlights of streaming films (which might be a good way to gain sponsorship from Netflix and other online services), festival coverage, and other things we actually care about, and you've got a winner. The difference between you and the yahoos who hired Ben Lyons is that you know your audience.

Growing up "At the Movies" was my first introduction to real film criticism. I remember both the show itself and the numerous pop culture references that established Mr. Siskel and yourself as the definition of the word "critic" in my mind.

When I was a teenager my memories of your show one day led me to your website and eventually I stumbled across the Great Movies feature and I was never the same as a moviegoer or as a person. Your writing has influenced what I watch and how I watch it and I am certainly grateful that you made me into a discerning lover of film, but there was a deeper impact on my life than even that. You taught me what humanism really means and through learning to watch movies with empathy and understanding I have also learned how to live my life with empathy and understanding. That is something that I could never pay back and never expected to receive from movie reviews.

All of that is to say that I am very excited about the new show and hope that it is very successful, of course for you but also for my own continued education and for the younger generations who can discover your work and become better because of it.

As a filmmaker, and lifelong movie buff first and foremost, I grew up watching "At the Movies." Through watching you and Gene debate the movies, I learned so much and continued to fall deeper in love with movies as I continued watching. I absolutely agree with you that there is an audience out there for a show about film criticism and I would be right there every week. Your idea of embracing the world of new media is also a very cool idea. Any idea when the show is expected to air?

That's disappointing. I didn't really have an affinity for the 2 Bens or Scott/Phillips, but I still watched it because it was still At the Movies. That was where my curiosity of film had started, and how it's grown into appreciation and fascination. Watching Siskel & Ebert helped spark learning, and the latter years of At the Movies was a comparison of opinions between myself and the hosts. It was always fun to watch, and, although this ends, the new show will provide just as much entertainment.

Define 'virtually all movies' please. I know of hundreds of films I can't see right now unless I have a print of it in my house. Jack Chambers' Hart of London for example. John Ford's Seven Women for another... Perhaps your new show could work to dispel this horrifying myth that 'everything is on DVD!'

Ebert: Picky, picky.

I've been a long-time watcher, ever since the days of "Sneak Previews" on PBS. What I liked best about "Ebert and Siskel" (see how I just unflipped that coin for you) was that I always felt like I understood the underlying criteria that you both brought to the cinema. If either of you liked or didn't like a particular movie, I always felt like I understood why, and I could use that understanding to decide whether I wanted to spend my money on seeing it. (And, FWIW, I usually sided with you.)

For me, those were the best years. Richard was never an adequate replacement for Gene. I felt like he was more of a "fan" than a true critic; he never seemed to me to have the depth of knowledge of cinema or the philosophical underpinnings to replace Gene. But, to his credit, I thought he did a wonderful job of hosting the show with all the guest critics during your absence.

The dueling Bens era was painfully bad, but I still kept watching. I could never figure out what Ben Lyons was doing there (trying to appeal to a younger audience makes sense, I guess), but Mankiewicz' comments were interesting enough to keep me tuning in.

When I heard that Phillips and Scott were going to be taking over the show, I got very excited! The two of them, along with Christy Lemire and Kevin Smith, had been among my favorites during the "guest critic" era, so I had hopes that the show was finally turning the corner.

I am so sorry to hear the show has been cancelled. This is so typical of American television: gut a program, removing any real soul or intelligence or controversy, try to make it "entertaining" and safe in an attempt to broaden its appeal to a younger audience, and then cancel it when people stop watching. It's too bad they couldn't have given it another season to see if ratings picked up.

I sincerely hope that your new show will be a success. In the meantime I'll keep reading your blog, your newsletter, and your online reviews.

And let me finish by sending you my best wishes for your continued recovery, and expressing my gratitude and admiration for the courage and grace you've shown the world in your struggles with cancer and your surgeries!

Good luck on your new project. I, too, feel there is an audience for a movie review show featuring two movie critics discussing films. I've started my own online version with my daughter. I'm almost 45 years old, she's only 15. I'm a father of two, she's a teen with her own perspectives. We're not professional movie critics, but she does aspire to be an author someday, so this gives her an outlet to practice. I aspired to be a movie critic when I was younger, but things didn't work out that way. You've always been my favorite movie critic, and should I get a chance to watch your new show, I will. If you'd like to check out our movie reviews, they're at www.daddydaughtermovieproject.blogspot.com.

Roger,

This news leaves me sad. I am looking forward to your upcoming show, but the hole that this will leave in the meantime will touch me in quite an emotional way. I remember as a youngster (about 12 or so) eagerly hiding away in my parents' bedroom on Sunday afternoons, right after church, to watch Siskel & Ebert At the Movies. Since Sunday was yardwork day, the joy of At the Movies was always a very important reprieve, and I gobbled it up each week. The show was an eye-opener each week, not just reviewing the Friday night openings but also older films, foreign films, new to video, things I had never seen or heard of. Through this gateway I found your print reviews, and have stayed entranced ever since. Your program taught me to be a better film watcher, and to value the experience more highly. It taught me to like new things, and to love the fact that I like them, and to hold something that I love close to me. It gave birth to my passion (I went to school for film). I may sound like a cliche when I say that you and Gene were the best film professors I never had. I'm sure you get that a lot. I hope you understand.

In any event, I look forward to the new program. In the meantime, I think about the past and how fortunate I was to find your show at just the right formative age. I hope kids today are as lucky.

Roger,

Thank-you so much for writing this. I spent my childhood falling in love with movies, in large part, due to watching you and Gene's enthusiastic reviews on "At The Movies" every Sunday night at 7pm (where it aired in syndication where I grew up).

Please keep us posted on your new project. Thanks so much for everything.

- Martin

I just feel so sad. I know the things I cherish from my childhood can not possibly continue on forever, but it doesn't lessen the disappointment I feel.
At least I can still read you here and on Twitter. And I will await your new show and watch that when it comes as well.
You just make the world a little bit better somedays.

I wonder about your not being able to have a decent back&forth repartee. Let's Think Outside of the Voice Box, haha, and put the other person's voice to text-recognitive software too, and give her or him the laptop to use it. With a level vocal playing field, and lag time edit-excision similar to that of the interview with theEarth guy in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, I wonder if it would play. Might be worth testing and playing around with. The only thing you'd definitely lose is the ability to interrupt your partner in midsentence--but wouldn't that make the banter a little more civilized?

RE,

Watching your bravery and wit on display the past several months has been an inspiration -- and you were an idol of mine BEFORE. Would love to get back in touch, if you're able. Hard to believe it's been almost 30 years since I asked you to lunch when I was 14. Best, Carl Quintanilla, NBC News

Ebert: Carl, it cannot be 30 years since since we had that lunch on the Hill in Boulder. It cannot be. Cannot. You had it all together then. I'm not even slightly surprised at your success.

No matter what endeavors you take, I will always be a fan. Good luck, Roger & Chaz!

I'll jump to TCM when I know a new movie is going to start, if only to watch Robert Osborne or Alec Baldwin or somebody say a few nice/interesting things about a movie--without a snark in sight. So yes, we need Roger Ebert to present At the Movies, and how.

Best of luck--of which you'll need just a touch, after getting your Sixty Minutes of Oprah. All that's left now is the Colbert Bump, and you'll make it far in this town, kid!

This is joyous news, Roger! To hear your opinions on the new and old in your own "voice" will be a hell of an excitement. Could this potentially mean more DVD commentaries, I wonder?

And now that I've jumped on the Netflix wagon, I have a feeling that in ten years I won't be able to recall living without it. I've already started in on Fassbinder and Almodovar, and just this morning, I watched the last two Solondz films I missed and in a few short weeks I'll be able to see An Education and Herzog's Bad Lieutenant. Sorry to advertise, but I am seeing movies I never thought I'd get ahold of and I am in heaven! Looking forward to the new show, Roger!

Roger,
I cannot f***ing wait. I am 40 now, and my Saturday afternoons/early evenings have never been as fun as when I was between 8 and 14 years old.

My sister hated your show, or maybe just you, but she watched every one with my parents and me. It really is a phenomenon, why Siskel you were so popular and fun to watch. Perhaps because it was groundbreaking in a way, perhaps because you were both so disciplined in your speech, insightful in your analysis, I dunno. I could easily see such a program being as boring as an insurance seminar, but it wasn't. It was riveting...

Thanks,
Mitch

I wasn't surprised that the show was canceled. In many ways, I think that the producers or whomever made the decisions was out of touch with the world as it stands today, with the medium of the Internet and Twitter and iPhones.

I know there are a lot of people who do not watch TV on a television, but online and often, at work. I used to be one of those people.

Also, there was a matter of chemistry. There was something about the chemistry of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert that made it work. Yet that was a different time and TV is still struggling with some old questions.

Lately I've been covering ABC's "Dancing with the Stars" and MTV "America's Best Dance Crew" and I've read some troubling things about race, and voting and dissatisfaction with how ABC chooses certain contestants.

I'm looking forward to this new venture although I will probably watch in online.

This is sad.

I was one of those weird kids with no cable and TV that barely ever worked who mostly only watched PBS at my grandparent's house. 'Sneak Previews' loomed very large in my mind as a result. (Also: I, Claudius, but that's another story.)

I was an even weirder kid who would develop bizarre movie obsessions. My movie obsession in middle school was the movie 'Apocalypse Now.' I still remember that you once said it was one of those few movies that made you forget you were in a theater. (You did say that, right? My memory is not always up to snuff. But I remember this episode about movies that took you out of your sit rather distinctly.) This meant a lot to me, at 13. I was like: Someone gets me! I am vindicated!

I had a picture of Francis Ford Coppola in my locker. No adults around me really understood. Obviously, kids did not understand either. Or my home ec teacher, when I made an Apocalypse Now themed cake. But you did. As I recall (and my memory might be fuzzy), you also validated my weird adolescent attachment to a couple of other movies I had intense feelings about: Altered States and Cutter's Way. I'm pretty sure I saw Cutter's Way because you gave it a thumb's up. I remember taking the bus about 10 miles to see that movie and watching it twice in a row.

I couldn't agree with you more about the need for such a program. Growing up in the 1980s and 90s, the Siskel and Ebert program was the one television program I watched religiously throughout my youth. It was a weekly event, like church (Incidentally, the show appeared in southern Indiana either the early hours of Sunday morning or late Sunday night.). It was personal, for me. I knew, when I was 8 or 15, it was an interest that I didn't necessarily share with other 8-year-olds or 15-year-olds. That didn't matter; the passionate study and experience of the cinema was as essential to my life and growth as the enjoyment of cartoons, the collecting of baseball cards, and the riding of skateboards, may have been for my peers. I am not special. There are many, many youngsters out there exactly like the one I was. They too need to connect over the airwaves, cords and cables, and cell-phone signals, with a lively intellectual discussion of film. It is vital to life.

Looking forward to the new show and waiting to test it on all the delivery platforms you mentioned. Best wishes.

Hi Roger!

I look forward to the new show, especially if we get to see you once in a while. I trust you to pick good co-hosts, but it's not the same without getting your take too!

Any ideas on what's going to become of the archive of your old reviews on the current At The Movies site? I love going back and watching your and Gene's reviews from the old days.

i am sad for the passing of something that was in my life for a very long time. I started watching as a boy in the late 1970's and still watch with AO and Michael.

But I am excited about what may come next with your new project. Good luck Roger! I will be watching!

Roger is correct that a market exists of potential movie-goers who are jealous of their time. It was during the PBS days that I began to appreciate consistent reviews, but it took a while longer to really go beyond ratings expressed with thumbs or stars.

Roger does a very good job of knowing which movies I'll like, but it's reading the essay that accompanies the rating that helps me choose where I'll invest my time. Thanks to DVDs, my DVR and so many movie channels on TV, sooner or later, I get to see most of the good American movies and even a few others. But a well written review helps me set my movie priorities and appreciate what I see.

How sad, it is so hard to find a true movie reviewer on TV. CBC up here in Canada does a good job on their web site but more times than not the reviewers gets slammed if they dare write a review that is against a block buster. We will all miss At The Movies. Cheers Roger. From another fan living in Nova Scotia Canada.

Roger, I hope to see this new show online soon. I've been waiting for awhile since you and Richard left the old show for this to happen.

I've paid attention - see my "URL" attached to this, it's my own version of the story. Hope I got it right.

I would love to see a new show. I remember when I was much younger, watching At The Movies with You and Gene. I always thought you were too harsh with the kid movies. I would always ask my mother why you never liked the movies I liked. Now I have grown up, and I find your opinions to be some of the best that I read. I hope everything works out for the new show, and I hope the hosts work out too.

I'm asking in ignorance here, as a Canadian, but are there any TV shows "syndicated" to Netflix? That kind of deal could be an interesting way to target an audience that, for the most part, seems to appreciate less blockbuster fare.

I'm not surprised of the cancellation - I'm saddened by it, but not surprised at all.
Since internet, for better or worse, allows everyone's voice to be heard, no matter if that voice is competent or not, I'm afraid that now there's simply too many critics (or critic-wannabes) in the cauldron, and the art of criticism is getting ruined or at least tarnished.
I look forward for Mr. Ebert to reclaim his domain on a media that has been taken away from him, and to finally be once more entertain and educate these generations - especially the ones who sadly have stopped reading what's been printed.
Thank you, once again, Mr. Ebert.

Roger, I am very happy to hear that you are working on a new show, and I will be looking forward to it. When I heard the news of the cancellation, as a very long time fan of the show, I was saddened. Good luck, and keep us informed.

Roger, wherever, whenever you pop up, I'll be there.

I grew up watching "At the Movies" with Siskel and Ebert. The show not only brought new and exciting films to my attention at a young age, but more importantly, it educated me on how to properly articulate my like or dislike for a film early on. If my father took me to a film and asked me what I thought of it as we left the theater, I could not only say "I liked it", but I could expand on why I liked it. Often there are common elements involved in what makes a film work (or not work), and to a child "At the Movies" made that easier to grasp.

In full disclosure, I was always a Gene Siskel guy. I just found myself agreeing with Siskel more than I did Roger Ebert (a trend that continued with Richard Roeper, sorry Roger). Of course many times there are films that are so incredibly good, or so pathetically bad that the two hosts could only agree, and thus choosing one opinion over the other was less of a concern. To this day I scour youtube searching for classic reviews from Siskel and Ebert, they often illicit an ear-to-ear smile on my face.

Gene Siskel died on my 25th birthday. I remember waking up and hearing it announced on CNN and my heart sank. I knew he had been sick, but this was a total blow to me. It was the first time that a celebrity death really hit close to home. This was a man I had admired for most of my life, and now he was gone. That day, I was actually going to a screening of “Lawrence Of Arabia” in New York City, a film that I was turned on to by “Siskel and Ebert” in 1989 for the film’s first restoration. Needless to say, my thoughts were heavy during that screening. I still miss Gene Siskel, and to this day, whenever I see what I consider to be a great film, I often wonder “what would Siskel say about this film?”.

When “At the Movies” shifted to guest co-hosts filling in for the late Gene Siskel, I had mixed emotions as a longtime viewer. I was glad to see the show I love continue, but at the same time, I felt like I was watching my mother (sorry again Roger) dating a parade new men every weekend. I liked some suitors better than others of course, and then there were those that simply didn’t deserve to sit in father’s chair.

Eventually, I along with Roger and the audience finally found a worthy successor, Richard Roeper.
Richard Roeper brought a lot to the table, and most important was a passion for movies. He fit in the show almost immediately, not accepting his new position as a birthright, but as a privilege. The show was once again clicking with great debates on the latest movies. Roger’s departure in 2006 was another difficult transition as a viewer, but with the hope that he would soon return, it was made easier. As the months went on, it became clear the Roger’s return might never happen, and that was a devastating realization. However, Richard Roeper really shined as the temporary lead host with an interesting selection of co-hosts, my favorite being Michael Philips.

I frankly stopped viewing “At The Movies” after Richard Roeper left the show in 2008. The show was moving to a new direction that Roeper did not want to be a part of, and as a viewer that that valued his opinion, I didn’t choose to be a part of either. Although the show returned to its roots a year later, with new hosts Tony Scott and Michael Phillips, I didn’t find myself going back. Perhaps it was the fact that the classic balcony set was gone, or that neither Ebert nor Roeper were involved, or that the thumbs up/thumbs down was still missing… it just wasn’t the show I remembered and I had no connection to it.

“At The Movies” was the only show that I can honestly say that I never missed. It was the show that made me want to become a film critic, and as a journalist, it’s a goal that is still with me. I couldn’t imagine a better job. I would often watch the show with seething jealousy, as these two guys got paid to watch and talk about movies. It would be appointment viewing on weekends. Keeping up with the schedule was never easy, as it often shifted time slots without warning. Saturday evenings at six seemed logical for many years, but then moved to Sunday mornings, Saturday afternoons, Saturday mornings and even Sunday late night! Needless to say, the invention of the DVR came in handy for following the show. I can’t begin to list the number of films that I discovered because of the show over the years, films I would not have discovered on my own. The show was a valuable resource.

I want Roger’s new show to find a home, and an audience. I would like to see a return to the familiar balcony set. I hope the new show includes our friend, Richard Roeper, who is the only accessible voice to the show I once loved. If the death of “At the Movies” can give birth to a new show with Roger Ebert at the helm, then perhaps it’s not such a bad thing.

Who were your favorite critics growing up?

This good news. I've been an Ebert fan practically forever, and have had two Lettermanesque brushes with greatness: the first was as a 16-year-old usher in 1968 at the Riviera theater in Chicago (my first job) when I took your ticket at the door on a weekend afternoon. It was an Elvis movie, I think. The second came in 1979 when I was newly married, and trying to make the proverbial ends meet and delivering pizzas part-time. I delivered two to a WTTW "Sneak Previews" production meeting.

I'm still gonna blame cancer, on general principle.

I'm quite sad to hear about the cancellation, as I'm still a fan of "old media." But I look forward to the new project, because I think there's still a place for good, intelligent movie criticism out there. Keep us updated, please.

The big question is, will that invaluable archive of reviews remain on the "At the Movies" website?

As you say, the syndication market for original weekly shows is just about dead; in most cities the current At the Movies often aired at 3:30 AM on a weekend morning between infomercials for the Snuggle Blanket and Extenz.

I assume your new show will be on a cable network. Viewers would have an easier time finding such a show on Home & Garden Television (not that I expects it to land there) than they did on local tv. (I assume the program will land on a network with "full" distribution, such as TCM. (I'd be surprised if its destination isn't a channel with at least one of T, M, and A as an initial.)

Thanks, Roger. I have grown up as a movie lover with you and the benefit has been all mine. I watched you and Gene on WTTW and have continued watching the show through most of its incantations. I thought Michael and Mr. Scott were well on their way to carrying on the mantle of "At the Movies" more than adequately and am disappointed in its cancellation.

You, and elements of my education, helped me learn how to watch movies - critically and with an eye to the artists's more subtle intentions. One of the reasons I stayed with your show through all of my adult life was it afforded the opportunity to see two critics discuss an entire scene. No heavily edited trailers and rousing score. No 30 second commercial. But an actual scene from an upcoming movie analyzed by two people who had a pretty good eye.

Over time, I imagine movie executives have determined that slow-moving scenes don't sell a movie as much as mish-mash editing, for I see less and less of the former and more and more of the latter. You have been in the business a long time and no better then me, but as a viewer I want you to know that the subtle lessons in movie-watching by using a scene were among the main reasons I kept watching.

When the Oscars announced that the best song variety show was being eliminated from the telecast, I was elated, hopeful that when we got to the acting categories we could see fully realized scenes of the artists at work and come to an understanding of why they were nominated. Unfortunately, I doubt I will ever get that wish fulfilled from that venue. Time will not allow it and best picture trailers sell the movie better than best picture scenes.

I wish you luck in your new endeavors. I will be watching and I'd like to leave you with my favorite film-watching story...

It was the first class of my first film criticism course at the University of Chicago. Our professor was expressing the difficulty in deciding on a first movie to show for a first class. The problem was trying to come up with a movie he could be reasonably sure everyone in the class had seen. Citizen Kane was out. (As Gene pointed out in the video-segment - "greatest movie of all time" can be intimidating.) He had been using Gone with the Wind but had noticed, as the class got more international over time, even that movie was losing initial viewership. I have to say this devastated me as my six-year daughter at the time (I was late to finish my education) had GWTW pretty much memorized and was working on Fosse's "All that Jazz." (Okay perhaps not age-appropriate but I like to let minds wander where they will.)

To get back to the anecdote: Our professor settled on The Wizard of Oz. He showed the first part of the movie letting it run a little into the color segment and we began our discussion. We talked about the use of color, the story elements, some of the directorial decisions, and had a lot of fun with it and learned.

After two hours of discussion, as the class was coming to a close, a young mid-eastern gentlemen finally broke the silence he had held throughout the evening and said " I hate to admit it but I have never seen this film. I have to know, what happens to the dog?"

Perhaps you had to be there. Once again, thanks Roger. Good luck and now I must go do something I've been meaning to do for a week and join a club. There's a clubhouse around here somewhere...

TV just seems such a limited medium for criticism. I just watched your review of Citizen Kane; my memory of your written review formed a better review. The personal-ness that seems like the biggest advantage of TV over writing is, for me at least, not worth the elimination of relevant information and analysis. Might as well grow friends who are interested in discussing cinema.

By the way, have you seen this? I find it amazing.

By the way (2), there's a TV review program in India, called 'Chicks on Flicks', a two-woman show obviously a descendant of yours. I watch it as a demostration of how not to review.

This makes me strangely giddy. I think it's because everything I see or read seems to be getting dumbed down these days. It will be nice to have one more avenue to discover the fims that i truly don't want to miss.

Hey Roger, as a movie lover I found At the Movies to be an eesential tool for picking the best movies available; I'm sad that it's gone for good. Having said that, I'm pretty excited for your new TV show and the fact that you're being adamant in promoting art cinema in general. Our generation needs to purge themselves from the trash that arrives in multiplexes every week and the 3D hysteria (I've heard more positives than negatives about it, which is perplexing and sad). Anyway, thanks for the good news and I hope to listen to you again. Could you make another feature length commentary for a classic movie? that would be great. Cheers, good luck.

Thank you Roger. One word, Rosebud. http://bit.ly/aYzZRo

I'm saddened to hear of the cancellation of "At the Movies." I've been a faithful watcher for almost 30 years. I even watched Mank and Lyons. I thought Michael and A.O. revived the show, and put it back on its feet. I'll miss it, but am glad to hear that you are working on a replacement that will be net-savvy. Good luck!

I'd love to see Jonathan Rosenbaum on the new show. He's not as presentable as the current hosts, but his reviews are almost works of art on their own.

I'll watch! I'll watch! :)

Mr. Ebert, I love what you do for the people. I remember once seeing you in Ricobene's (on Lake Street, just off Michigan Ave, a few years back) and, despite my fan-of-yours-level, I decided to allow you the opportunity to finish your food in peace...but it was tough. :)

That said, in re: "At the Movies" cancellation, I think one of the problems (at least for me)--besides you no longer being on show--is that "reviews" are too detailed now. Maybe I'm just the one that changed over the years, and that I, now, prefer to go into a movie with only a vague understanding of what a film is about. I read your reviews AFTER I watch a movie. I guess I want to see the movie as you did when you watched it: unguided, untouched by possible scenarios, completely as if I'm living the scenes as they happen.

One of the best things I've seen is, on occasion, reading a critic who realizes saying too much will give away a movie; although, even then, just hinting at something is enough to "ruin" the "twist that you must see!" See, now I'm going into this movie looking for a twist, so that when the twist actually gets to me, it doesn't quite hit me from left field...more just from the spot between pitcher's mound and shortstop.

Now, all of that said, there's nothing I enjoy more than reading one of your reviews after I check out a flick. I love reading what you have to say, and, sometimes, you help me understand a film.

Roger, I think it's great you're producing a new show and adapting to the current technological advancements of mass communication. Twitter, Facebook, etc. are essential to stay on ground in the coming future.

I also love the New Cinema concept. Like you said more and more people are becoming interested in quality motion pictures be it foreign films or independant. I think it has something to do with more crappy films being released than ever before and of course the recent rise of the independant film (Slumdog Millionaire, Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, the list goes on)

I do hope both you and Chaz the best of luck, and although I won't be able to watch it here in Egypt, I will keep track of whatever is exposed online.

Roger, I think this is your swan song.

Always is some new way to go!

Who's the hot chick in the bikini at the beginning of your first video link (WTTW)? Hubba Hubba!

Kim Morgan please

Roger, I love the picture you included of you and Gene in front of the "At the Movies" marquee. As you know, that was shot at the Pickwick theater in Park Ridge, Illinois where I grew up. The Pickwick was my Cinema Paradiso. It was a second-run theater that gave me an opportunity to see movies every week in a grand theater on the big screen for only a buck at the time, and I feel lucky that it was around and is still around today. I was at the theater the night you filmed the opening for At the Movies, and I recall they had a showing of Star Wars afterward.

Rotten news. My wife and I have just gotten used to the grown-ups being back in charge of the show--our Saturday evening ritual, with martinis close at hand, back in order--and now the bean counters kill it. We're excited and hopeful, however, that your new show will refill the gaping hole that this cancellation creates. We also hope it does have a presence on broadcast TV. We don't get cable and, somehow, huddling in front of the iMac gripping martinis, squinting at low-rez imagery, doesn't seem quite right. It would be great if PBS is a venue that you're exploring, to put the new show at a far remove from the untender mercies of commercial broadcast TV. Best of luck with the venture!

Since I was kid - and I'm talking 6 or 7 years old - the meaning of "Siskel and Ebert give it two thumbs up!" on a film's trailer was insurmountable.

I remember at 12 being sad about Siskel's passing, and grew to accept Roeper as the cohost of the show. I even got over your unfortunate absence from the show, and started to develop great affection for Phillips and Scott. If you were going to be gone, I couldn't think of two other more critical minds from more important publications better to fill the seats.

It was your show and your reviews that helped to keep my critical view of movies as a teenager, and to even begin writing reviews when I was in high school. In January 2007, I began writing reviews for my college newspaper, The Lumberjack Student Press. Through hell and high water, I've been the film critic for that publication for 3 1/2 years, and I hope to continue until I graduate in May 2011.

I mention this because I am very sad to see the death of At The Movies. This, combined with the unfortunate dismissal of Todd McCarthy from Variety, only hammers home the unfortunate health of film criticism, and perhaps even the film industry (as both a business and an art form).

I'm only 22, but I yearn for the good old days where movies were seen in movie theaters because that's where people wanted to see them. But rising ticket prices, the death of theater etiquette, web piracy, and shortened theatrical windows make theaters a less important venue (unless we're talking 3D, which is a gimmick more out of desperation than artistic benefit is most cases). The films of substance are skipped over by companies and consumers who know explosions will get the butts in the seats. Even DVD development has gotten lazy; companies used to spend time filling them up with extras, and now even the Blu-Rays for "Where the Wild Things Are" and "No Country for Old Men" fail to provide anything of real substance in comparison to the innumerable extras of the first DVD releases.

Now, I'm not foolish enough to think that movies are the most important thing in our complicated world. For Christ's sake, I'm an economics major, despite my affinity for film writing and development. The reality is that many, if not most, could care less what they're watching so long as it's compelling on a basic level.

But I can't help but notice that the injection of fear into the social conscious has made artistic integrity of music and film to seem less important. People have so much to worry about that they don't have time for artistic evaluation. The people that cared before are fewer in number, because they can't get paid for seriously spending time on development. Similarly, everything is jumping online, the only place where I believe the "Film Critic's Last Stand" is taking place.

The Internet has become a fantastic platform for film viewing and critiquing, but the unfortunate truth is that there is no money in it. Perhaps the problem with the Internet in a capitalist society is that once people get something for free, it becomes very difficult to get them to pay for it again. Maybe that will be tested with the New York Times firewall next year. But websites like Rotten Tomatoes (which I love) have devalued the financial gains of film criticism. This is why McCarthy gets canned and At The Movies gets dismissed - it's all online. Advertisers are confused by the platform, and neither they or the consumers want to pony up any cash on something as expendable as a mouse-click.

Will academia be the only place for film to be critiqued as an art form? God, I hope not, because academic film conversation is usually handled by people too disconnected to see how some viewers won't be interested in "Casablanca" (not out of ignorance, but because they just don't care), while not understanding the potential artistic value of "Avatar."

The question of it all comes down to making money. In a capitalist world where the Internet exists, I hope film critics and independent filmmakers will find a way to make a good living. if not, then the movie studios (seeing value more in the big guns, big tits, big explosions, small minded projects) were right all along.

I hope that in a world of NetFlix, people can embrace a revamped version of At The Movies to guide them toward new and little-known flicks. Whether consumers realize or not, they still love movie reviews. They love them because they are entertaining, and they love them because, when offered an opinion on a movie, they see themselves as film critics too. As someone who plans to continue writing movie reviews, and is working adamantly to make them professionally (I've produced one, directed another, and have another one lensing this summer), I can only hope somebody will continue to root for the underdogs of cinema.

...Sorry for taking up all the space. I got a little carried away here. My bad.

@ben kreider

"Movies are hearty, TV is tripe."

I strongly recommend that 1) you read this article:

http://nymag.com/arts/all/aughts/62513/

and 2) rent the first season of the The Wire, and 3) prepare for enlightenment.

@Roger

I look forward to the new show. =)

NYT Netflix Map: http://nyti.ms/6cWUYF

You go Roger! Glad to see you back as we missed you old timer. I would like to see you do a movie channel like Robert Jolin Osborne does over at TCM. Possibly on WGN or local Chicago station. I have also suggested to Richard Roeper that he try to bring back Family Classics at WGN as the host. Chicago has always had the best film critics with Gene Siskell and Roger Ebert adding Richard Roeper to the fold, Roy Leonard, Dean Richardson and I just want to keep that greatness a Chicago thing.
Kilburn Hall
Chicago author

Can't wait for the new show. I've been reading and watching you for most of my life.

Also wanted to tell you that my acting class spent a good twenty minutes talking about you before getting into the work last night. You inspire us.

I'm really disappointed that ATM is going off the air. I thought Tony and Michael did a good job. But I'm really excited about your new show. I'm particularly intrigued by the idea of covering what's new in instant streaming, especially Netflix Instant--which is now the majority of my movie watching. There may be a limited selection of blockbusters there but who cares? I've found I could work my way through much of your "Best of 2009" lists in foreign and indie pictures. Just watched "Goodbye Solo" and "O'Horten" this weekend, for example, and really liked both (in very different ways!)

Roger, spot-on as usual
--to "At the Movies"--rest (timely) in peace

your and Chaz's idea for a new movie review program is cutting edge

can't wait to see it in action
Thanks for all you do

If there's anything to learn about the demise of AT THE MOVIES it may be that the sole presence of two well spoken, knowledgeable critics on today's T.V. may simply not be enough for a new show to succeed. I have zero complaints about Phillips and Scott and admire the fact they never tried to be anything they were not (either by forcing controversy or faking heated discussions), but they simply were too nice when put together. Chemistry is obviously the factor here and it is no mystery you and Siskel had tons of it together, I also don’t think much of it was lost when Roeper took Siskel’s place.
Who knows? Maybe a year of the Bens was too much for Phillips and Scott (or anybody) to overcome but if I had been Disney, I would have probably sent them to boot-camp together(or a deserted island) prior to taking over the balcony. That may have just given them the “edge” that the natural progression of time can provide.
I haven’t the slightest idea who it is you are interviewing but based on what you were discussing last year, I think Roeper and Phillips worked out very well on their stint together (and time would only improve their chemistry), Christy Lemire could also work fine with any of them (though I think the audience might have a little trouble overcoming her beauty).
Summing up, I believe your biggest challenge won't be the casting individuals on video or even how many of today's technologies your show will incorporate. Forecasting chemistry among individuals will be the key to success.
Best of luck, your name at the title all but guarantees a quality product. I'll be watching (at least on the internet).
Of great concern: what on earth is going to happen with that magnificent digital library Disney compiled of AT THE MOVIES from 1987-on ? Youtube only boasts a small percentage of them.

What is going to happen to all the old reviews on atthemovies.com? I really love going to that site and watching your old reviews with Gene, it's quite addictive. I can blow an hour or two there easily if I'm not careful.

A new show is, at least in my mind, the only way to make ATM relevant again. Nothing against the show, mind you, but over the years it seemed like the projector was noticeably dimmer in the theater, so to speak. Part of that had to do with your departure Rodger, and part of that had to do with the insufferable time slot (while I can't remember when it was on, I do remember never catching the beginning of it in the last 4 years of it's run).
There is, most assuredly, room in this world for a smart, witty, semi-verbose review show; in fact, I believe the masses are looking for such a thing far more than most people realize. We live in a world where any move, whether comedy, drama or other, are, as a matter of routine, sold to the public in easy to swallow five to ten word blurbs flashed across the screen at breakneck speed. Blurbs, it should be noted, that originate from either Peter Trevors' +5 Cursed Pen of Bullet Points, or a small town paper from a city that you may, or may not, have ever heard of. Give the people wizened, intelligent discourse on the subject of film, and the audience will find you, I am sure of it.
I would be honored to help bring such a show to life (not that I have much to offer, but still the offer stands) I've been working in the television field for a number of years, love movies, and have "Hearts on Fire" from Rocky 4 playing on Pandora as I type this, so clearly I am ready to take on the world. Consider this a slightly tongue-in-cheek offer for a cameraman, grip, floor director, master control operator or simply coffee gofer, it would be a privilege to help in any way I can.

Chris Mohr

Note: Wow, right after "Hearts on Fire" Pandora offered up "Playing With the Boys" by Kenny Loggins...I am really starting to wonder what song I liked to cause such a terrible string of montage songs...

It's a sad day for film lovers, but I'm glad there is hope for the future. At the Movies was an integral part of my film education. Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for your undying commitment to your craft. You are one of the most perceptive and engaging critics, and I'm so grateful that you continue to persevere.

Roger and Chaz:

This is great news. GREAT NEWS! I was in high school in the mid nineties. My small but devoted group of cinema freaks all watched your show, usually late on Sunday nights, and would seek out those movies. We were fortunate to have a movie theater that played forgien and independent films, and a very well stocked video store in town. Theatrical distribution is terrible now. I live in Manhattan and some films, like XXY, came and went in a week (I eventually saw it, and LOVED IT!) Thanks to netflix and their like, anyone can (eventually) see everything. They just need to know what's out there.

I've thought for many years that film appreciation should be taught in public high schools. We supposedly teach music appreciation, literature appreciation, art appreciation, exposing kids to such things even if they don't become artists themselves. Of course, with most scools barely able to afford text books, that's something of a pipe dream right now.

I loved the show from childhood and I quite liked A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips -- seeing them intelligently discuss/debate movies reminded me of my original fondness for the program and the format. Heartened to hear of the development of your new show. Thanks kindly for it all.

Also, I wonder what will become of the At the Movies archive? Did Disney say anything about maintaining it?

Hearing that goofy "Sneak Previews" theme music brought back pleasant memories. But just as cool were your comments regarding "Kane" and Gene's comment about the truly great acting. I've always enjoyed Everett Sloane's Mr. Bernstein, for example; the scene where he recalls the girl with the white dress and parasol always gets me. Only saw her for a second, he said, but a month never passed that he didn't think about her. The depth of feeling in that brief scene and others are amazing considering how young Welles and Mankiewicz were when it was written. To say nothing of how young Sloane was!

By the way, your audio commentary on "Kane" is priceless. Always wanted to tell you that. The information is terrific, of course, but I love listening to the sheer happiness in your voice.

Good luck with the new project!

I am glad you made the point about Lyons being the victim of a bad hiring decision. The public has spoken, and loudly, but who would have turned down the opportunity?

Siskel and Ebert will always remain the best movie critic duo of all time. They really defined the art if you will.

The hardest part of watching ATM was finding it, I swear it was never on the same channel or time slot for any period of time.

That being said, I'll keep my eye on your site for the future details.

Roger, this is fantastic news, and I'm very pleased to hear about how much you'll be discussing all types of films. I hope that there might be discussion of films that have yet to arrive on DVD, which studios need to get on the ball with releasing, and in good working prints, not shoddy DVDs like Strand usually gives us, or something like that (the works of Lav Diaz, Wang Bing, Edward Yang, much early Rivette, etc., have all seemingly been neglected). It would be very nice to hear of the new film by Gaspar Noe, or Hong Sang-soo, or Tsai Ming-liang, or Apichatpong Weerasethakul, because maybe these directors would actually have light shown on them by a highly influential program, rather than just being filmmakers only festival-goers might know about.

I will say that I am sad at the ending of At The Movies (Phillips and Scott were very good together on that show, I thought, and their online exclusives were very fantastic). That being said, I am very excited to see you continue on this venture, unafraid by the difficulties of the times! This is to be much admired! Thank you!

Savvy

Roger, I am very excited for this new show, but also fondly remembering "At The Movies" - my older brother and I would watch every Saturday afternoon, and my eyes were opened to wonderful films that I would not have otherwise seen.

It's funny - I've always been a bit bored of the beginning of the show, when the big blockbuster of the week was usually reviewed. My interest was in the 'unknown' films tucked away near the end of the show. I hope that your new show will have a greater focus on those 'tucked-away' films.

I had never heard of Harry Knowles or The Aint-it-Cool News before he was a guest host on "At The Movies" but he has since become one of my 'go-to' critics for off-beat films. I trust that the hosts of your new show will share the enthusiasm for film that yourself, Mr. Knowles, and the many other hosts and guest-hosts have.

Hi there!

It's always a pleasure to read your blog. I'm a big fan!

This is (really very) off topic, but what with all the Nicholas Sparks movies that keep coming out and doing dynamite at the box office, I wondered if you'd seen this? In it, Sparks defends his writing as 'drama', not melodrama, declaring his work to be a direct descendent of Greek Tragedy and Ernest Hemingway. You know, the Hemingway where everyone has really gentle autism in beautiful coastal Carolina homes.

Also, he thinks Cormac McCarthy's a terrible writer. And his favorite coming of age story is A Walk to Remember...which he wrote.

Here's the lin: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-03-11-lastsong11_CV_N.htm

Don't mean to be catty at all, just struck me as funny. And I always enjoy your reviews of Sparks movies! Have a good day!

You and Gene were "must see". You and Richard were "hope to see". Scott and Phillips are "don't really care if I see".

I tried to find the Saturday Night Live sketch in which Kevin Nealon and Phil Hartman, as you guys, reviewed gay porn films. I couldn't find it. But I did find Sneak Peak Previews!

Really, Roger, thumbs sideways?

http://www.youtube.com/v/RMlioyKsaQg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1

I tried to find the Saturday Night Live sketch in which Kevin Nealon and Phil Hartman, as you guys, reviewed gay porn films. I couldn't find it. But I did find Sneak Peak Previews!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMlioyKsaQg#watch-main-area

Really, Roger, thumbs sideways?

Ebert: Gene was clearly wrong.

Part of me has fallen ill and I'm not sure it will ever recover. Despite the promise Mr. Ebert has made of the show returning in another form , I cannot help but feel great remorse and sadness for the death of a show that truly has been part of my life.

I was not raised to love movies but I do. Growing up with strict parents, movies in our house consisted of the occasional Disney vehicle like 'The Great Panda Adventure' or 'Air Bud: World Pup' as well as those old TV show movies like 'Rescue From Gilligan's Island.' These were what I was reduced to watching at ages 12-13 when most other movie lovers were getting into the serious stuff. At 16 I "rebelled" by watching Casablanca and have never looked back. Thanks to my high school history teacher, I was introduced to Netflix and Akira Kurosawa. But it was this random website called At the Movies that became my new residence. Whenever I could, I logged onto the site and began watching reviews of movies I had heard of or wanted to see. It seemed I didn't have permission unless these two guys said thumbs up.

Yet, the two men I was first introduced to were not Siskel or Ebert. It was January 2007 and I first laid eyes on AO Scott and Richard Roeper as they counted down the best films of 2006. I was hooked. The years went on and by 2008 Roeper and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune had the reigns. I tuned in every Monday morning as I was unable to watch it on TV early Sunday morning (2 a.m.). As I caught up on the modern movies, I discovered a link to the Archive. This became my future home. I soon bookmarked the page and used it as a time portal to go back to 1986, 1993, 1996, even 2004 to see Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper argue, agree, lament, praise movies that rocked, sucked and everything in between.

When I found out Siskel died (7 years later), I was just as sad as if it had happened the day before. I didn't quite relate to him but he was the counterpart to my new favorite critic, Roger Ebert. I had never before and never since seen a man who was so passionate for films. I wanted to be him secretly. I soon found a link to all of his top 10 lists for each year since 1967, bookmarked it and now have reserved a place in my queue to watch each and every single film on that list whether it's through Netflix, public libraries, even Youtube. I am committed to see at least 400 movies in my future and that's after I get through my list of great directors given to me by watching At the Movies.

I continued to watch old reviews. Eventually a funny thing happened; I grew to admire these three men in such a way as I never knew I could. I had never met any of them (and probably never will) yet they spoke as if I was in the room and was an obscure third party eavesdropping. Soon I came to love Siskel, Ebert and Roeper as my older, more sophisticated movie buddies. It got so bad I would take their word on a whim. I especially succumbed to the relationship that was Siskel and Ebert. What a pair! Siskel the uptight somewhat arrogant Jew pitted against the more emotional and sensitive Catholic Ebert. No one could have matched it better.

Having watched almost all of their reviews up through 1998, I moved onto Ebert and Roeper, which I dare say I love just as much if not more than the original duo. It's not so much that it was better as it was different. I related to Roeper almost instantly; his enthusiasm and joy of seeing a great film was contagious through the computer screen. I have read many complaints that he wasn't up to par with Ebert or Siskel. I believe he was the only choice that could work. I can imagine no one else after Siskel. He didn't try to replace Siskel, only establish his own reputation. He succeeded brilliantly. It's amazing to see how Roeper's love for films injected new life into Ebert who began recommending films I'm think Siskel would appall (Dodgeball, Starsky and Hutch). These guys were by far the best film critics around and for awhile they seemed eternal.

Sadly, we were reminded no one is when Ebert succumbed to cancer and could no longer speak. A second death had hit the show and I was amazed it continued. My joy of the show was restored when Phillips took the chair with Roger. In many ways they remind of Siskel and Ebert in their older days. Both headstrong, passionate and willing to defend their choices, they had great chemistry together and it was obvious Roeper brought Phillips out of his TV-shyness as they worked together. What a sad day July 21, 2008 was when they announced they were brining in 2 new hosts to "go in a different direction." Worst idea ever as the two Bens (though I kind of admire Mankiewicz) destroyed most of the credibility of the show. Eventually Disney came to part of its senses and rehired Phillips and AO Scott of the New York Times. Good, not great, yet I took what I could.

Now Disney has severed the show completely. I cannot say I am surprised it happened so much as how it happened. Why cut off the show completely when they could just trim it? Why not make it an online show like Roeper's new venue? Indeed, I only can watch online now so the audience might be larger and they don't have to worry about TV ratings and other restrictions. Nevertheless, August 14 will be a 'wear black' day as the legacy Siskel and Ebert started 35 years ago will end.

I'm glad Ebert won't put the blame on anyone but I will point the finger at Disney. They could've kept Roeper and Phillips together, renamed the show and accepted the direction that went. I think it would have succeeded considering how wise and knowledgeable they were. Yet I can only wonder about 'what if.'

As I write this, my eyes well up slightly. I know movies aren't the most important thing in the world, but in the universe of the movies this show reigned supreme as the first and only choice for information and perspective. It makes me think back to the many days at school I have wasted in watching one At the Movies review after another. Favorites include: She's Gotta Have It, Listen to Me, Frozen Assets, Cop and 1/2, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Stargate, Highlander 2: The Quickening, The Hot Chick, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Connie and Carla, Sleepover, Miss Congeniality 2, and Basic Instinct 2. Bad movies are always more fun to watch being reviewed than good ones. Yet most of the films I watch are because of these guys telling me to.

Life goes on and most won't even blink an eye that this ground-breaking show has passed on. I can only pray the website is maintained. For I will never grow bored of visiting that time portal of Gene and Roger sitting next to each other glowing over Babe or Fargo. I will visit again and again that day when Roger and Richard voiced their praise of Minority Report and The Aviator. I will never forget Richard and Michael destroying Finding Amanda or disagreeing over Sex and Death 101. This show has been part of my daily routine for the last 3 years. It will continue to be for as long as I live. For even if they do shut down the site, I will always have those memories in my mind and heart; In my mind Gene, Roger and Richard are my movie buddies and I will take them and their words to every movie I see.

Roger, you are the man to take movie reviewing in multimedia new direction. I wish you all success!

On a similar sad note, I walked into my local Hollywood Video store this week to see "Store Closing" signs plastered all over. I thought of those clerks as my friends. Sad to see it close.

Everything was for sale. Fixtures and all. Most importantly the movies. New - 3 for $25. Core - 3 for $18. That's a test of your mettle. What 3 movies would you buy save from a rapidly diminishing stack?

I rescued their only copy of "The Fall". My gain.

Everything is changing. Change with it, and beat it.

It's great to hear that you're planning to use social networks and new internet technologies. I have a hunch the iPad in particular will be a great medium for you.

I think it's fair to say that you and Gene Siskel were already media innovators with your TV show. "At the Movies" awas popular in part because you found the right way to review movies on TV, by treating movies not simply as objects to be reviewed, but as topics of conversation and debate. The internet is a far more conversational medium than television, opening up all sorts of ways for "the people formerly known as the audience" to participate in the discussion. You've already found new ways to do that through your blog, and I'm looking forward to seeing you take the conversation further with your new show.

This is like a nail into my heart. I'm 34. This show grew up with me, and I grew up with it. This show inspired a lot of people to become jounalists, writers, and film makers.

If it wasn't for this show I would have never cared or known about such films as Slingblade, Party Girl, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Henry Poole is Here, and Let the Right One In just to name a few over the decades.

It's as if all the old magic is gone from when I was growing up. Sat. morning and weekday afternoon cartoons. Gone. Sat and Sun. pro wrestling all over cable and syndication. Gone. The local mom and pop video stores. Gone. Family owned drug stores in my area where you could get obscure/old school books, magazines, and snacks. Gone. Now as we know it, At the Movies.

I often wonder what the kids and teens look forward to now for fun and to inspire them. I doubt it will be as good as the stuff in my day.

TV is just terrible now. And the weekends are the worst. Informercials. Back to back reruns of shows out of season order and the same repeats. Studios want you to go out and buy a show's boxset or rent it.

I guess I'm old as I can't watch content over the internet or listen to it on my ITouch. It just isn't the same as TV!

Will you and the critics on the show still be reviewing Kevin Smith's movies? It seems he doesn't want you to: http://chud.com/articles/articles/23105/1/THE-DEVIN039S-ADVOCATE-KEVIN-SMITH-MAKES-BAD-MOVIES-HATES-CRITICS/Page1.html

Never mind he was a guest critic on At the Movies once. What's with this outburst? Especially since he admits he didn't really put much effort into Cop Out.

Roger, my friend, to be honest, I was not so crazy about the new "At the Movies" which bombed badly with Ben and Ben, and although A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips were well-meaning and more substantial, there wasn't so much spark or fire to make me yell at the screen. It was really you, Gene Siskel, and Richard Roeper who got me going. Many movie critics on TV have been dropping like flies, and without your presence on TV, the meaning of "TV movie critic" has become a dying breed. Today's movie critics are more featured online than on TV or even newspapers. From time to time, I volunteer to write movie reviews on IMBD. Naturally, I don't get paid for that.

Best of luck for you and your wonderful, devoted wife Chaz in your efforts to launch a movie review show for the 2010s, and maybe there could be a Siskel and Ebert of that generation. Here's to success, good health, and true love, in your case, it is the unconditional acceptance of what there is, what there was, and what there isn't anymore.

I've been watching the show in its various incarnations since practically the beginning, and have long felt nostalgia creeping up on me—most importantly for you (as a host) and Gene, but also the eternally-youthful Richard Roeper and his sometimes loopy parade of guest hosts, the horrible Ben along with the other one, and even Spot the Wonder Dog (Remember that raft of Kung Fu movies, where every chop sounded like a whap on a naugahyde couch?). But mostly I miss seeing the movies you recommended—usually a great experience, but how many times I blamed you for steering me toward what I thought was a dog! Much as I love being able to watch anything I feel like these days, there is nothing like seeing a well-projected film on a big screen. But then, I still miss watching classic movies on real film in revival houses, complete with threadbare upholstery and popcorn sold in a box. Last time I went to a revival, they projected a DVD—not the same!

The Siskel/Ebert episode of "The Critic" sums it up for me (worth the price of the DVD set!): the two of you on the balcony, in love/hate, forever.

Two thumbs up!!! (Both mine, but that's the best I can do.)

'at the movies' wasnt just movies to me. it was about two people agreeing to disagree. god, how we need that today.

You proceed under the notion that there are still smart people out there who aren't so misanthropic that they "don't care what some 'critic' on TV says" and don't believe whole-heartedly that "those guys are paid off anyway"... And I applaud this attitude! It may be a "if you build it, they will come" scenario... because all those smart grown-ups who want to see smart-grown up movies (and - gasp! - talk about them!) are out there somewhere, "lurking in bookstores or working for the public radio" (to again quote Randy Newman)

All that said, I must admit the chances of you guys finding someone with the Siskel-Ebert chemistry are slim. It was always a comfortable feeling with you two, because one got the sense that at least one of you was always right, or at least that one's own opinion was guaranteed to land somewhere in the space between your two balcony seats.

I end with a question that I hope you'll answer (I'll get those little bold black letters out of you again by hell of high water!):

I have a friend who is hoping for a career in film criticism. He believes that a critic has to alter his own view to match the public's, whereas I believe (and I'm sure everyone on this board agrees) that the best thing a critic can do is explain to us in compelling fashion his/her feelings about a movie (regardless of whether I share the opinion)... But did you ever second-guess yourself, early-on maybe? Was there ever a review you were about to write, only to have doubts that your reaction was too singular to have any value to the public?

Roger, I just want to say I love you and your passion for your craft and your passion for life. I have been watching you for years and it was your and Gene's show that made me realize there is more to movies and other art than just the visceral, outer layers.

Personally, I just wait for the DVD and watch it on my 60 inch with surround sound. I cant deal with dropping $50 to take me and the kid to a movie!

Lou
www.anonymous-proxy.us.tc

Very smart to deliver the show into "the whole enchilada" of new media. People at a restaurant who decide to see a movie can get a review at their dinner table, and so on. And I would especially appreciate the focus on New Cinema. Herzog and Almodovar, documentaries and indies are terrific, and I especially love the idea of Paramount's ten $100k movies. Might this force filmmakers to actually just TELL A STORY once again? Hopefully. Attention to these sort of films would be great. (Interesting how the poor economy seems to have increased budgets, and a reliance on carnival ride spectaculars and "sugar and fat" films, rather than lower budgets and return movie making to the art of simply filming good writing and acting in a story about being human.)

Dear Roger,
I very much admire your plans to establish a tv review show in times when most tv review shows also in Germany are cancelled. Since eight years I'm doing a weekly little 3-minutes review about the "movie release of the week" in a 45minutes life-style and music-programm on SWR (German TV under public-law), while real review shows (only about movies) get cancelled. I wonder how to do establish an own review show and how to get it financed. For the beginning I put my reviews online on enricobosten.blogspot.com (should be enricobosten.com, but doesn't work at the moment)- and also on www.dasding.de/kino (where you can see my latest review). For the future of film criticism on TV I wish you all the success that you have with your website.
Sincerely yours
Enrico Bosten

What I'm most excited about is that you'll be looking at all of cinema, not just the current blockbusters. You and Gene Siskel consistently made time for smaller independent movies, movies you loved, and you helped make the late 80s and 90s into a fertile ground for independent and foreign films. Strangely, even though high-quality camera and editing equipment are now within reach of regular joes, the new golden age of indies has yet to materialize, and I think that's due to a lack of exposure.

I remember you guys championing small and foreign movies, "My Dinner with Andre" and "Cinema Paradiso" were two I remember very clearly, but there were so many more. This gentle reminder that sometimes a great movie is sitting quietly, right under our noses, helped shape my whole definition of what a movie is, and what they can be.

Roger - since you'll have a new media presence on a web, I implore and beg you to please include closed or open captions on any video content that you produce and present. "New media" has essentially disenfranchised virtually all deaf and hard-of-hearing people, because there are no mandates or standards for captioning web or streaming content.

My wife is deaf and we watch all of programming with captioning. We can't watch streaming Netflix films together because they do not provide captioning.

You would set a wonderful example by including this in your video content.

Bring it on! I'll be watching on whatever media it is provided through. I stopped watching "At The Movies" shortly after Richard left and I have felt a gap in my movie knowledge ever since.
I might not always agree with all of your reviews, but I've always respected you and would love to see what you create in this re-birth.

Just let me know when and how to tune in.

I think another fun idea would be if you and chad visited theaters around America, so show us the theaters are still the best movie experience (most of the time). A little like Diner Drive-in and Dives but not commercial and over the top.

I am quite excited for this seeing as I have always loved At The Movies, but have grown tired of it more recently. The reviews were still good, but it felt stale even with new hosts. The idea of integrating new technology and new segments into the show is a really ingenious one that I think will be what this type of show needs.

Your show—in all incarnations—will be missed, but I'm intrigued by your new project with Chaz.

By the way...I grew up watching you and I've told my husband (who is not from Chicago) about the opening credits where either you or Gene brings a briefcase of candy into the theater. I've mentioned this to other people and think I'm nuts because I can't produce any proof. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder myself. Did I dream this up or was it one of your opening segments?

I'm so glad to hear the plans for your new show are coming along. I look forward to seeing it in whatever medium I can find it.

What you say about television stations is so true. I recently decided to give television a try. I remembered enjoying Drive-in-Classics and Scream from my teen years, so I subscribed to those. I'm not sure if you have those in the USA. They're supposed to air drive-in flicks and horror movies. They're supposed to. In the few months since I subscribed, Scream, a horror channel, transformed into "Dusk," a nebulous thriller channel. Corus Entertainment explained the motive was to expand the demographic from just young men to women. Gotta keep an eye on those demographics, after all. Drive-in-Classics then became the Sundance Channel, which I've been too indignant to watch. Before their conversions, neither channel was airing much in the way of movies. Throughout the mornings they had been showing infomercials. Throughout the day they showed cheap TV series: Xena, The Hulk, and Poltergeist: The Legacy. I'm fairly certain Xena never showed in a drive-in. On the weekends, Drive-in-Classics showed no movies at all. When I last saw these channels seven years ago they were airing movies almost constantly. Another channel to which I subscribed, Silver Screen Classics, shows infomercials all morning and actually condenses the classic movies!
I can't help but feel that your summation is correct. It is all going to hell in a hand basket. No more television for me.

Good luck with the show!

Roger:

Great news about the upcoming new show. I do hope it is on a basic cable station (I've been watching the current show on Reelz) and not one of the pay channels (my Direct TV bill is high enough already!).

Great to see those old show openings again, too. I always enjoyed that sly joke "Read Gene Siskel" (but) "Trust Roger Ebert". I'm guessing that one was your idea.

It was also great to see you introduced at the Spirit Awards. What a fun show compared to the stuffiness of the Oscars.

I'm sad to hear that At The Movies is going off the air, but hopeful for the new incarnation.

Even before my film studies degree, you and your show were formative in my appreciation of movies and played a large part in my desire to write them. Your ever-present love for the art form continues to be a great contribution.

I live for the day that Roger Ebert reviews something I wrote, positive or not.

Thank you for your continued inspiration and I hope to see you at the movies.

I remember the old PBS show back in the '70s. I've been watching ever since, and the show in its various incarnations has been an education and great company for me for many years. How sad it is to hear the show will be no more. It's really TV's loss, as the medium does more each day to make itself increasingly irrelevant.

I'm heartened to read you have a new venture in the works, Roger. I look forward to seeing -- and hearing! -- you again. This is exciting news!

While I am disappointed that "At the Movies" in going off the air, I am very excited about your upcoming show. I cannot remember a time where I did not watch the show. It is no hyperbole that the show helped begins and then nourished my early love of movies and was a very influential force in my life. While I liked Roeper, and Phillips and Scott were a marked improvements over the two Bens, I never felt the show was quite the same once Siskel passed. It's odd that I had such feeling about a man that I never met, but I still miss him and often wonder what he might have thought about a certain movie. I am very thankfull to have your website and now the Ebert Club. I can't wait for the new show.

"No one can type fast enough for conversational repartee."

That's what editing is for. No reason you couldn't back and forth with someone, and have the pauses removed.

If it seemed to not work well, with the one person having to wait and you, trying to catch up, then put both of you on an instant message client. You'll both be in the same boat, chatting but via typing, and when done video record one person speaking the transcript and you speaking through your computer, and editing handles the timing.

Ebert: How could I interrupt?

I'm watching whatever Roger Ebert is presenting!

All the great nostalgia, memories, and talk of past partners...but no Spot the Wonder Dog. How dare you!

And thinking of Spot, thanks for costing me 20 bucks. I bet my partner that you'd give Hot Tub Time Machine at least three and a half. This bromance thing with Cusack is really a bit silly. Yeah, he's been in some great movies, but seriously???

Roger, Thank you so very much for your forward thinking & for embracing the future! All of us insomniacs will appreciate your efforts (as before). This is a living will. Best wishes for you and Chaz.

great to see you and Gene reviewing CK - I notice that even here Gene takes you to task for making the movie sound like a punishment :)

Roger, this is very exciting news coming on rather a sad day. I have been watching some permutation of the show since the mid-70s. I admit I only watched two of the Ben & Ben shows, but found the experience painful. (Ben M. is a movie person, but the idea that an entertainment news host could sit the captain's chair... well, who came up with that?) I thought Scott and Phillips restored some of the show's luster, and I hope they will occasionally make an appearance on the new show...

I fondly remember those early shows when you guys performed such a valuable educational role, introducing to a general audience great artists like Fellini, Bergman, Scorcese, Truffaut, etc. A nation of film buffs owes you a great debt.

I can't wait to see - and hear - you talking movies again!

Reply to: Ebert: Theatrical distribution is now dominated by the big-budget, heavily marketed 3-D of the Week.

I think the failure of "At The Movies" can be traced to two factors:

(1) Previews and trailers are available all over the Internet. You don't have to wait until Sunday at 6:30 to check out the movies you might see on Friday... oh, wait, that's another reason. On my local ABC7 station, the show was on three days too late.

(2) (maybe 3) The movies weren't good enough. The Writer's Strike had a huge impact. Studios spread their normal schedule over several extra months. And they discovered that they weren't making enough money, so there was no incentive to produce more movies.

(4) Independent movies look better, thanks to new cameras and non-linear editing systems. Quality is poor in writing and acting.

Reply to: my neighbors were renting "Milk, The Wrestler" "Slumdog Millionaire," "Doubt" and "Rachel Getting Married." Think about that. Good movies.

I've posted my opinion of "Doubt." Complete trash for folks who want to live in an Imaginary World where pedophiles don't apply for jobs that put them in contact with kids.

The only business plan that makes sense to me is a Thursday night time slot, so the studios can buy time to show their commercials on a program devoted to movies. On Saturday morning, the box office from Friday night is all over the news, and that determines Saturday and Sunday. The only time people would care... would be on Thursday night. Wasn't like that when "Sneak Previews" started. This is a different market.

I wasn't invited to interview. Not sure how I feel about that. Audiences loved Gene because he told them the truth.

Another approach is Vertical Integration. Alfred Hitchcock told audiences, "Don't tell anyone what happens during Psycho". Yet he dropped hints during his TV show.

"Roger Ebert Presents.... Mystery Theater."

I think you can address all these problems EXCEPT... most movie goers would rather check out a trailer on the Internet than two critics. Which is why "At The Movies" isn't around any more.

I'm glad you are going full-tilt into new media. From what I know, there are not true cross-media movie review shows. That's the way our generation lives. For example, I heard about this post via twitter. I read this entry lunch on my iPhone. I am posting my reply on my home computer.

I see some movies in the theater. I see classics and smaller films in our non-profit member supported theater (IF I may plug, the Avon in Stamford, CT. Wed, April 7th is The Third Man and if you haven't seen in on a movie screen you've missed most of the film). I stream and get mail order from Netflix. I stop by redbox. I've even downloaded a few from Amazon. In short, I'm saying I love getting my movies everywhere and I know I will like seeing reviews everywhere as well.

Will the amazing site where we can view your and Gene's "At the Movies" reviews be gone? The huge Balcony Archive, I mean.

I eagerly await your new venture, and don't even mind seeing web commercials should you decide to use those to help fund the net streaming of the new show. In particular I'd love to see you either partner or at least use Netflix as part of the show, as it's such a great way to dig into their vast collection and promote those movies in the corners of the library. Between family, work, and having a home theater in the basement, I've lost my appetite for the big-budget weekly dreck that shows up in theaters. I do however make an exception for the good dreck like "Hot Tub Time Machine" simply for Rob Corddry. I didn't realize you were an avid "The Daily Show" viewer...

Hi Roger.

"Goddamn it ...... how I love film criticism." That's all I can say.

I'm going to pretend this is even tangentially related and ask you, Roger, what you think of Tom Shales and his seeming inability to discuss women in the media in any terms other than whether or not he finds them sexually attractive. For instance, of Christiane Amanpour

"Neither you nor I has stooped to mentioning that hair of hers — yipe. What's the deal with that, as David Letterman might say," Shales told a WashingtonPost.com chatter Tuesday.

Then of Katie Couric

her blazer "was buttoned in such a way as to make her look chubby, bursting at the button, which we know she isn't".

The piece about Couric opened with "How about a big hand for the little lady?" Which, ew. Really?

I realize he's a critic and as such his opinions are his trade. But these opinions? The Washington Post pays him to say things that I'd ascribe to a spiteful and anonymous internet commenter if I didn't know better. He also fails to see the irony in someone who looks the way he does commenting on how ANYONE looks.

Roger, in the movie business John Cusack is second only to you in my heart. I couldn't find a place to comment on your review website so I'm writing here to just ask about your review of the Hot Tub movie and you said John never made a bad movie--didn't you see Must Love Dogs?

Hi Roger, I noticed that the site with MP3 audio clips of your reviews alongside Richard Roeper are no longer available.When I click on the page it goes to Miramax movie advertising.Do you have any idea why?.Can you do something to get it back?.I loved listening the show on my cell.
Cheers!

Roger, I was flooded with so many fond memories of the program as I read this today. I have grown up with S&E and watched it both evolve and devolve throughout its considerable run. I will miss it sorely, especially with Michael Phillips really coming into his own as of late. And the original line up will never be equaled or surpassed.

However, I wish to ask you a serious question without a trace of snark or insult intended, if you would indulge me. I have listened to you champion the art of serious film criticism and analysis quite eloquently and also astutely observe the dumbed down, gossip oriented entertainment programming that cheapens the medium today - an unfortunate transition to soundbites over substance. And your thinly veiled Ben Lyons critique blog last year was truthful and direct while some of those very same sentiments are echoed here today.

And yet, you inexplicably chose Richard Roeper to be your permanent co-host back in 2000. Even going so far as to advance promote a potential spin-off for Roeper and Christy Lemire (AP critic) back in 2008 as a means to continue on the legacy of Siskel & Ebert.

Respectfully, I don't see much difference between Richard Roeper and Ben Lyons. I find them both insubstantial seat fillers, overly preoccupied with mainstream fare and painfully ignorant of film history. You could find them quote-whoring for blockbusters on any given week. And while Roeper would shower faux praise on artists like Ingmar Bergman ("He's working in another medium") or hail some other random art film a masterpiece, these films were nowhere to be found in his top 10 come end of year. He'd much rather suggest that Matrix Reloaded is the best film of the year so far, revealing his true sensibility and appetite for crass commercialism. Not unlike Lyons, really.

And, while on the subject, Christy Lemire is certainly no Pauline Kael. Like Roeper, she's mostly a TV personality. We're talking lowbrow, superficial film discussion here, not much different than the Bens were offering or Access Hollywood on any given night.

So, I finally arrive at my two part question. Is it an issue of friendship in that you choose to ignore these elements in your preferred design of the show while lambasting Disney/Corporate for its own format changes,vapid hosts, and the show's ultimate demise? Or was it simply a matter of wanting to water down the content for mass consumption yourself and getting beaten to the punch by The House that Mickey Built? I ask this in all sincerity and hope that you will put diplomacy aside and answer candidly.

Thank you for the opportunity to express an unpopular view in your virtual home.

I saw a cartoon once in which a fellow was sitting on the couch watching TV, and the top of his head was open and his brain was out for a walk.

That's the deal. Most people are passive viewers. What was so great about At the Movies was that it created active viewers, people who were engaged. Film has its own literacy, and we need teachers and guides. You and Gene were the professors emeritus.

Hi Ebert, i am so amazed and support your cancer. you are amazing and should do more appearances for folks to take awareness. i had soft palate cancer in May 2008. i wnet over a year clean. then out of the blue, i found some tongue cancer. (i'm not smoking, just bad luck) BUT i don't have a personality to have a sounding board. you are so loved and adored. people will listen you you. folks need to be checked with an ENT yearly. i'm so so proud oof you. best of luck. i hope my outcome is as good as yours.

hang in there, we love your reviews, you are awesome! you are going to be fine/cured. until the new insurance laws come into being in 2014, i can keep going to md ANDERSON. AFTER THAT, i probaby will be forced out to local yokels. until then, my goal is to rid myself of it. prior to the new laws...

prayers for you and your family
julie penn

Roger,
This might be more appropriate to communicate in an email, but this journal is the only thing I know you read every entry. Not sure the same could be said about your emails.

Anyway, I had a reaction to what you said about not being able to argue on a show in real-time:

Stephen Hawking uses software that I think has word choices on a screen that he manually selects, and the voice software then speaks.

An analysis of your ample writing could design a similar interface. Additionally, the words presented on the screen, and the sequence of possible word choices could be designed in a sequence that is patterned after your writing style (where nouns, adverbs, adjectives, verbs, vocabulary are presented in a sequence that is based on your writing samples).

I'm thinking of combining that with another technology that reads mind waves that allows a user to manipulate movement of an icon.

If you could design the brain-wave interface to allow a user to select a word off the screen with their mind, you could choose words off a screen, and have the voice software read the selected word, to save you the time of typing it. A user could select a word off a screen based on thinking of the location of the screen where the word appears.

Just a thought, a rambling one, most likely. Love your work, best of luck.

It was cool to see the old opening credits again, but I was hoping to see the even earlier Sneak Previews theme, that was whistled instead of the more lush production created after SP became a hit. Ah, well. It's locked in my memory.

And it is long since overdue to thank Roger and wish him the fairest of fortune in his endeavors.

I was sad when I couldn't hear you defend "The Fall" or defend "Knowing" or "Synecdoche, New York" (also my favorite movie of 2000s) on at the movies.

So this makes me very, very happy, even if its not your real voice, it'll be great to have you back giving some sort of opinion (from time to time).

By the way are there any chances of leaking who will be featured on the show? It would be nice to see Scorsese helm the chair at some point again as guest critic.

Can't wait to see the new format with its web presence. What was the name of the little dog on Sneak Previews? Was it Squeak? Will one of his great-grandpups appear on the new show?

I can't even begin to think about the new show, I'm so shocked by the cancellation of the old one. With all the crap on television, there's not room for At the Movies?

While it's a shame to see it go, I can't wait to see what's next.

Dear Mr. Ebert:

I've always loved movies from a little child on.
When I was a Sr. in High School our English class went on a field trip to see Bonnie and Clyde and then write a reveiw on it. Right there my love of movies and reviewing movies really got huge.

I loved your program on WTTW with Gene Siskel.
...Sneak Previews. It was a pleasure to watch; you were both so witty and interesting. I always watched when possible. I got the chance to see and hear you speak at Morton College.
It was really great to see one of my heroes in person. Your talk was fantastic.

I was saddened at the death of Gene Siskel. It
was the year we moved to Nevada....1999. I still continued to follow your career. It was wonderful to see such an influential Chicago boy do so well.

I was saddened to hear of your tough illness, but glad to see you are continuuing to promote film. I look forward to any program you and your wife produce. You are and always were a class act.

Sincerely, Kathy Kotvan, Henderson, Nevada

Roger, it made me happy seeing and hearing you with your new voicebox. I hope your new program will allow us to see and hear you again. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.
I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'd rather see you today than not see you, and with technology being what it is, there's no reason why you couldn't co-host a program much the same as you always have. If Hawkings could do it, why can't you? Come back to television, Roger, we're all grown-ups here and we miss you.

I'll watch the series you and Chaz start up, Roger--or at least I'll give it a shot and check it out.

When you left the series I had no interest in watching it, but I never even saw one episode in way over a decade because I don't even know what channel it's on or what days and times its on. The Disney series probably failed due to the fact probably nobody even know when and where it was on.

Make sure you get good advertising all over the place if you want to get viewers :)

Looking forward to the new show Roger! I too, followed you and Gene from PBS to syndication. You're so right about the problems syndicated shows have. I never knew from week to week if my local affiliate still carried the show or if it would be bumped from its normal time slot to some bizzarro time. I love Netflix and its endless variety of films, all I need is time! Your great reviews and opinions on film will live on forever, and I'm glad your speech has been somewhat restored, your commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD was the first one I ever experienced, and it's still a favorite. Technology is definitely on your side Roger!

You bet your ass I'll be a loyal follower of a film review show like that! I love that it will include more than just the mainstream stuff we always hear about. You are taking this in the right direction and I really hope it works out for you as planned, Roger and Chaz.

I was wondering what you were going to say on here about At the Movies being axed. Personally, Disney finally realized it had made a mistake when it decided to replace you and Richard in 2008 and change the set. If they had left him and Michael Phillips and kept the balcony it would've still been good. You could have come back in a smaller role. I notice that after 2007, you weren't mentioned on the show anymore and your books weren't plugged. Did that have to do with the thumbs being pulled and deciding, "Okay, I'm not going to say anything on here until this mess is cleared up."? I'd also like to know if you, Richard, and the two Bens will make appearances on the last show as a send off. Can't wait to see the new show and I hope you can bring Richard Roeper aboard since he was a good link after Gene died. He was the right replacement.

Like all others here, I will deeply miss ATM. It was a safe harbor in a sea of bad movies pushed the public's way and helped me decide what was worth seeing in the theatres and what was best left for DVD or to skip altogether.

Thank you, Roger, for your efforts with the show, and best wishes for it's newest incarnatio. I'll be looking forward to it, no matter what media it's presented in.

Congratulations, Roger (and Chaz and the others who will birth this new project with you). I had a comment written and lost it - a hazard of watching March Madness and reading your blog at the same time.

You will find your slivers of many audiences. Of this I am certain. New ways and some old ways, but definitely new ways of targeting. Your blog and the blogs of your blog show that the hunger is legion.

A sliver of a fabulous pie is a tasty morsel. That made me think of Waitress and smile.

How the times have changed? I'm watching The Simpsons episode crossovered with The Critic and Marge remarks, "I'm looking for a film critic to judge our festival. Did you know there are over 600 critics on TV and Leonard Maltin is the best looking of them all?"

How's this for a "pitch", a quote by Mike Figgis?

"The discussion of a work of art is just as important as the work itself."

(correction in quote)

How's this for a "pitch", a quote by Mike Figgis?

"The discussion of a work of art is just as important as the art itself."

As a long-time admirer and fan, Roger, I'm happy to hear you may be launching a new movie review show soon. I hope you will be part of it in whatever way you can, because your film commentary has long been the best available, and the main one I read before deciding whether to see a movie or not. I'm truly sorry to hear that Tony & Michael's tenure on At The Movies will end soon, though. I welcomed them as a pleasant relief after the two Bens left the show, and faithfully watched their intelligent, mature commentary on the movies, including their respectful disagreements (much like yours and Gene's). We BADLY need a nationally-syndicated, mature movie review program, and yours should more than fill that need! Kudos and congratulations to you and whomever you're partnering with to get it up and running. And I want to add that I've admired your tenacity and courage during your ordeals over the last few years--once again, your dignity, wit and grace came shining through! Keep on commenting--you're the best!

Roger, it was funny to see you mention CompuServe. One of my fondest early memories of "the Internet" was writing you an e-mail on CompuServe and actually getting a personal response back from you. It totally blew me away! (Incidentally, I asked you what Gene thought of "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", which I named incorrectly. When you responded, you corrected my mistake and then told me that Gene was not the arbiter of good taste where your movie was concerned. :-) )

My wife and I were wondering if you know what will become of the vast film review archive currently online from all those years of Buena Vista "At the Movies" shows? Please don't tell me they will disappear when the show does.
Regards,
Matt Bovell
aka Rutherford Lawson, social commentary blogger

After reading your review of "Hot Tub Time Machine," I agree with your assessment of John Cusack's career, up to this point. Is it possible to rename the "M. Emmitt Walsh/Harry Dean Stanton Rule" to include Mr. Cusack? He's more than deserving, in my opinion. And he's never made a movie as bad as "Christmas with the Kranks." Just sayin'.

I really love the Scott and Philips At The Movies. I'm watching every week on the web because that's hard to find it on t.v. from my away French Canadian province. I’ve been watching it since I had 16 years old so... not so long ago. Since, I have been starting to write my own short movies review. If mr. Ebert, you are preparing a new show, be sure I will be a faithful viewer.

Sorry But I for one am EXTREMELY Happy to Finally see this Worthless Show Go OFF THE AIR...for Starter's Gene Siskel WAS an Arrogant JERK..and Neither Roger OR Gene...Knew what a Good or Great Film Was...EVER...they Always nit picked EVERY Good Film Made....And their Jeolocy over THEIR inablity to make their Own films..was always Glaringly Obvious...I Say Good Riddence...The World will be better off without talentless jerks spouting out "Wrong advice" to movie Goer's who only watched their show's for the film clips to make sure they didn't waste their money or time on a movie not worth they time.....and THAT'S The Honest Truth....

I started watching Roger and Gene with Sneak Previews and never stopped when it became "At the Movies" watching it through its various incarnations. Having huge respect for Scott and Phillips I hoped it would hang on a little longer as it had definitely returned to the standard that Roger and Gene and Roger and Richard had set. Roger, I am delighted with your new initiatives as everything you've done has been with class, exuded quality and shouted your love for great cinema. Thank you for keeping the dream alive.

I grew up with At the Movies. It was part of my regular weekend viewing. So glad that you and Chaz are working to keep movie reivew shows alive in this changing world.

Today, I saw a Blockbuster kiosk -- similar to the redbox ones popping up arund here like mushrooms -- my gas station. Movies for $1 a day. I'll have to check their service out as redbox has really disappointed me.

Roger:

Two Thumbs WAY UP for your decision to start a new show. And I've got a host suggestion for you:
A young critic name "Lights-Camera-Jackson" - he's a jr. you.
Check him out @ lights-camera-jackson.com

Ebert: The kid is good. Loved his box office report under "Now playing."

Two people talking about movies is 82% less interesting that reading what your reviews. Your opening paragraph of the Greenberg review destroyed me. Just perfect. There's subtext to feeling that way, and it's usually abuse.

Here's who I would watch talk about movies: the late Frank McCourt and Justin's Dad from ShitMyDadSays on Twitter.

My heart was saddened to read of the end of an incredible journey. You set the standards for the film critic industry and gave us many cinema paths to explore that might have gone unnoticed. Throughout the years, Siskel and Ebert reviews were trusted and respected. Your name has allowed us to encourage others to expand their movie horizons, sometimes with mixed reviews, but always with entertainment and lively conversation. Thank you for your dedication and determination to continue this much appreciated profession. Future generations of the movie industry and of the movie audience need your presence to help keep standards high and to provide quality material. Two thumbs up for your new production. As always, we are eagerly awaiting your next review and your list for 2010. Thanks for the memories - past, present, and future!
Your Texas Movie Fans

Congratulations on the progress you're making on your new program, Roger. I'm looking forward to it. Looking back on the At the Movies program, I think it shows just how amazing the chemistry between you and Gene was that no other debate pairings in film criticism have been able to earn anything close to the same iconic status.

The Siskel & Ebert program was a huge reason why I grew up caring about movies and appreciating them in a deeper, intellectual way than I might have otherwise. Without it, I think movies would have ended up just like food to me. Since I'm not a chef and never studied cooking, food is just something I use for enjoyment but never stop to think about how it's made, what goes into it or whether it could be better than it is. It would be sad to think that kids growing up today might not have access to the same kind of honest, insightful, intelligent and lively criticism in the conversational form that your program provided.

Unfortunately, so much of the video-format criticism on the web that I've seen is done by relatively uncharismatic characters who produce content that is more gimmick and personality-driven and less steeped in real insight or depth. Certainly no one has been able to capture that edgy chemistry of seeing two smart people engaged in honest, sometimes fierce debate when both are absolutely convinced they are right, especially when the other person doesn't think so. Also unfortunately, I don't think that same chemistry existed between you and Richard Roeper. I basically felt that there was an imbalance where he respected you as a critic too much, and you didn't always have the heart to go after him as hard as you might because he was still a newer guy in the process of getting his footing who you didn't want to cut the legs out under from.

When it comes to my favorite guest hosts on your program, I would have to give a shout out for Aisha Tyler. She was surprisingly detailed and thoughtful in her commentary for someone who I perceived as more of a shallow TV personality. On top of her background as a black woman, I think the perspective of someone coming from outside the movie critic or movie geek world brought more chemistry and unpredictability to the show. What I think made Siskel so right as a partner for you was that he wasn’t a natural movie critic. He was a career sportswriter. You could tell he didn’t live, eat and breathe movies all his life. Rather than the perspective of a serious movie buff and someone with filmmaking experience, like yourself, he offered more of the average Joe 6-pack perspective, albeit a well-informed and well-spoken one.

This is one reason I think he and you had such a genuine onscreen rivalry. You perhaps didn’t fundamentally respect each other’s position and perspective, especially in the beginning. It’s almost like you saw Siskel as a guy who’s not really qualified to give his opinions on movies and Siskel saw you as a geek who was a bit out-of-touch with regular moviegoers. That's why I think if that chemistry was going to be recaptured, one of the co-hosts should not be a professional movie critic. They would need to be an intelligent person, but by coming from a different field, they would bring a different kind of opinion that might catch the other critic off guard at times. And both critics could feel that they had a leg up on the other one because they could believe their unique perspective gave them more intellectual authority to be a movie critic.

I definitely think a male-female rivalry along these lines could add the freshest twist of all. Just imagine the kind of combative chemistry that Sam and Diane had on Cheers except recast as movie critics. Or, perhaps, an Odd Couple kind of pairing with someone from a blue collar background against someone more elite. To capture the magic the Siskel & Ebert program had, the audience has to feel, at times, that both critics not only have complete confidence in their own opinions but also genuinely disrespect if not despise the opinion of the other person. No matter how much you and Siskel grew to respect each other as people, you never lost that edge in your on-camera relationship. Just as much as the great criticism, that great chemistry made the program so popular, so successful, so iconic and something we all happily remember today.

I certainly hope that your new show can provide the same touchstone that enabled intellectual analysis of film to cross over into the mainstream of popular culture. We, as well as the movies, are all better off for having grown up with your original program.

I've seen many comments in blogworld about the cancellation of "At the Movies". Most of them say that Rotten Tomatoes & other metacritic made in-depth reviews unnecessary. Other articles lament the loss of in-depth, intelligent discussion that a quickie number-based system represents.

I think they're both right.

I started watching Roger & Gene back when I was in high school. Back then, I tended to agree with Gene 95% of the time. The problem for me is that when I'd watch a movie that he recommended, I'd see a lot of what he pointed out in his review. If a character wasn't well developed, or a scene dragged on too long, I would almost hear his criticisms as I was watching the movie. It was rather annoying - almost as if he was talking through the film from the seat behind me. It also put a damper on the suspension of reality that makes good movies so enjoyable. I love being absorbed into a good movie - I think it's that feeling of elevation that Roger wrote about back in January. I find it difficult to feel "elevated" when someone has told me "this is the part where you'll feel elevated."

This is not to say that reading a review necessarily spoils the enjoyment of watching a film. It's just that when you've heard someone else's criticism, it's hard not to have an internal monologue going about those issues. And having an internal monologue going can spoil a first viewing.

Although I really don't want to know much about a movie before I watch it, I still need to know what's good. I loved the simple "thumbs" system; if Gene and Roger both agreed on a movie, it was worth a shot. After watching a film, I was always interested in what Gene and Roger had to say. Of course, time-shifting was a lot more difficult back then, so it was a lot harder to catch the show after I had already seen the movie.

That problem is a lot easier to solve now. I fill up my Netflix queue with Roger's picks, usually a dozen or more at a time. By the time a film arrives, I can't even remember why I added it, or what the film is about. I can watch it fresh with no preconceptions. Then, when it's done, one of the first things I do is go back to my computer & read Roger's review. If it's really good, I'm more than happy to watch it again, this time allowing all the criticism to help me enjoy or understand the film in different ways.

So, I think a film review must be 1) a reliable predictor of whether I will like it or not, and 2) some intelligent criticism that will help me understand and appreciate what I just saw. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes fail on both counts. For one, they are not an accurate predictor of what I will like. If I really like a movie that scored a 40%, but I hated a movie that scored a 60%, what have I learned? How does this help me know what to watch next time? And once I've watched a movie, how does a simple percentage score help me further appreciate a good film?

I have been a big fan of yours since the 1970s. I watched you and Gene regularly for many years, and I continued to enjoy your shows with Richard. I haven't watched any movie review shows in the last four years. I do read your online reviews, as well as visit Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB a few days each week. I wish you and Chaz all the best.
By the way, do you ever read Cinema Retro?

I'm glad you will have another TV show back on the air, devoted to serious movie criticism. I also think you could do a lot of things with this format that you didn't do in the various incarnations of your old show, like have an episode devoted to the films of a particular director, or to a particular genre, or to silent films, or to classics (I'm looking forward to the Great Movies appearances). But hey, it's your show, so do whatever you want. :-)

Until I read this post, I didn't realize that At the Movies had been cancelled. Like someone else commented above, it's amazing that it lasted for as long as it did, over ten years after the death of Gene, several years after you and Richard left the show, a year (or two?) after the Bens. Especially nowadays, when TV producers seem to have ADD, and audiences seem to enjoy unwinding from their stressful days by watching garbage on the boob tube, it's amazing that At the Movies persevered (not that all shows are bad, but "Jersey Shore"? C'mon!).

I'm also glad you're using multimedia to your advantage. As this blog proves, there are many smart people on the Internet; you just have to find them.

In the meantime, I eagerly await the return of the thumbs. :-)

Absolutely loved Siskel and Ebert. Here's an uncensored clip that shows the sometimes tenuous, sometimes overwhelming compatriot relationship they shared.

I like both Scott and Phillips, but I have to admit I am eager to see a new program with Roger Ebert, at least on board if not manning the wheel. Like others, I would love to see Roeper make an occasional appearance, though I certainly don't expect him to be a host. But a cameo now and again would be quite nice, assuming, of course, that both of you are up for it.

Mr. Ebert, I am a fan. I have always been a fan. I was saddened when you weren't able to appear on the show any more (and devastated when Siskel left the Earth).

I will watch whatever you put out. Your opinions often are the deciding factor over whether I plunk down money or just wait until I can get it on Netflix. I am a fellow Chicagaoan and attended your alma mater, U of IL, and I hope you and Chaz are able to continue speaking out to all of us.

Bless.

Angie

"It's time to smarten up." - Roger Ebert

I watch television. But I also read and look at movies and surf online and do stuff outdoors and hang with friends; it's a varied list.

What I don't do, is waste time on stuff that insults my intelligence and most mainstream television does just that and for being aimed below it; has been for years, moreover.

And consequently why I watch "a La Carte" (pick and chose from a specialized list which includes stuff from across the pond, bless the BBC.)

The prospect therefore of the following:

"The disintegration of the old model creates an opening for us.... We'll also go New Cinema. Not just the One Weekend Wonders, although you gotta have 'em, but indie films, foreign films, documentaries, restored classics, the new Herzog, the new Bahrani, the new Almodovar. What's new on Instant Streaming. What great movies should everyone see? Hey, Paramount just announced $1 million for ten $100,000 movies. Those kinds of films. What kind of a real movie lover cares who has the "exclusive" first trailer in the newest extrusion of the "Transformer" franchise?.."

Well that was like smelling fresh air at long last in America. Like someone had finally thrown open a much needed window!

I love widescreen letterbox and B/W. I like new movies and old movies and about virtually anything, with big or tiny budgets, in English or no, just as long as they're done well.

Aka: smart.

For nothing is better than a good story told well. A good story transcends everything.

Finally, finally, finally... it sounds like someone is going to start pandering to people like me, for a change.

And we will tune in and watch.

For if you build it, we will come. :)

Do you think this will lead to more or less people telling you to stick to movies?

The second coming of At the Movies sounds great, especially since it'll be all webbed out. There's not only an audience, but a need for this. With Netflix (I'm w/Blockbuster b/c they came first), everyone does have 80+ movies in their queue - but nobody's telling us which and why we should put these movies in our queues. I don't like being guided by The Lists, and would like more substance and education about the films I'm watching - I've recently started to make notes in my copies of The Great Movies I & II. Can't wait for the show!

The Citizen Kane overview has cosmic timing. I'll be going to see it at the AFI in Silver Spring next week! I have it on DVD, so have seen it uninterrupted, but oooooo - seeing that mirror shot on a theater screen!! I'm excited

I didn't see anything tired about the show's format, it actually seemed to have evolved quite nicely over the years. It was a huge plus to have access to the reviews on the Internet. I don't live in the U.S. but when does ATM come on anyway? 2:00AM??!! That's not fair for a show that's "must see" T.V.

Thankfully however, Roger and Chaz will come to save the day..and thankfully without Disney. Who knows, we may have two fantastic movie review shows. Roger's new one and possibly Richard Roeper if he adds an opposing critic to his show. Please Rich, please.

I can't wait to see Roger At the Movies again!

I am a little sad that "At The Movies" is going away. I have been watching movie review shows for 25 years, starting with your(and Gene siskel's) version of ATM. It wasn't just your show, but it was "Sneak Previews" with Micheal Medved and Jeffery Lyons, "Reel Talk" with Lyons and Allison Bailles and ATM with Ben Lyons & Ben Mankiewicz. I even watched the cheesey but fun "Movie Mob" on Reelzchannel. All gone. And now "At The Movies" with A.O. Scott and Micheal Phillips is ending. Here's to hoping that your new show makes it to television soon. p.s. You hinted that Scott and Phillips may be the new hosts. Why not Richard Roeper(and another person)?

Hi Roger,
I just wanted to say that you have been a huge influence on my life. While I don't always agree with your reviews, I admire your honesty on what you like and don't like. I especially must give you credit for being one of the only reviewers to give Wes Craven's Last on the Left a good review. I can't lie to you: I hate the film, but must give you props for stating that you enjoyed the film. I know you got a lot of hate mail when you published that review.

I remembered when you and Gene Siskel discussed films that you had walked out on during your long career. I believe Siskel said that Million Dollar Duck and Black Sheep (you also wanted to) were the only films he had ever walked out on during his entire career. I don't recall which ones you mentioned, but would love you discuss them.

As I mentioned above - you have been a big influence on my life and have given me a lot of joy. I started a film review program a few years ago entitled "The CineFiles". It's a public access show (with no budget) with a group of guys who just love film and talk about it. We tried to recapture the fire that you and Gene had and I think we do a decent job with our limited resources. I know you are a busy person, but hope you'll check it out and let me know what you think. We're on You Tube and I would be honored to have you check out an episode.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read this and please continue to write reviews for years to come. You are amazing person; I wish I had your strength. I'm not just talking about all the operations you have been through; I'm talking about watching all those bad movies where you feel like you wasted two hours of your life that you can't get back, and then having to write a review to warn people to avoid the film in question.

ROGER: AS A LONG TIME TRIBUNE ENTERTAINMENT GUY
I WAS ALWAYS PROUD OF OF ''ATM''AS ''THE FRANCHISE''. WHEN YOU LEFT TRIBUNE FOR THOSE
HOLLYWOOD GUYS I WAS MAD. EBERT AND SISKEL
HAD A PRICE. OR WAS IT THAT THEY ''MADE YOU AN OFFER YOU COULDN'T REFUSE!'' BUT, I NEVER STOPPED WATCHING. WHEN YOU ARE GOOD YOU GET WATCHED. NOW THAT THE GATEKEEPERS OF MEDIA ARE DIMINISHED BY THE NEW MEDIA I AM NOT SURPRISED TO SEE THAT ROGER EBERT WILL BE MULTI-TASKING BEFORE OUR VERY EYES. WE WILL BE WATCHING! ROGER,SEE YOU AT THE MOVIES! MEL SMITH

Good to see you're keeping it alive. We've got a great review show in Australia that's been ploughing along for years, with government funding I think.

I've been watching the show (and still do) since it was on PBS. I'm glad to hear that you are embracing new media. One of the problems with the show has been *when* it was on in this market (Minneapolis): 6:30 on Saturday night. Now, if I'm going to a movie on Saturday, that is too late to still make a 7-ish showing, much less to organize a small group (another couple?) to see a film. Mostly, it got ignored for new releases because it needed to be shown earlier than Saturday evening. I ended up DVR'ing it and watching it on Sunday, to see what we should have seen.

I received free passes to see 'Repo Men'. Now, I would have like to have had a review of that, to save my wife from giving it zero stars.

I was never satisfied with the format of 'At the Movies'.

The program was too short. You offered up 4 or 5 reviews in every 22 minute episode, and that's not enough time for 2 intelligent people to say anything substantial about a film. The tension between yourself and Gene was occasionally interesting, but overall, the show felt more like a promotional tool than a film discussion program.

If you are going to develop a new format, consider turning the program into a genuine film round-table. Take more time to discuss fewer films; concentrate on the films that matter to you. Offer real insights instead of bite-sized reviews.

As a journalist, I'm sure you are aware of how our culture has let promotion become a surrogate for discourse: our once-great newspapers have become corporate shills. Lets reverse the trend. Forget about whether the movie is 'good' or 'bad' (buy this! don't buy that!), lets talk about 'why it exists'. Invite directors and writers to talk about their own work. Take a masterful scene from a great old movie and break it down shot-by-shot: why does it work? Television is the perfect medium to do this, yet nobody has ever bothered to do it.

As you say, television audiences have become fragmented. There's no point chasing 'the biggest audience share' in this age. Instead, concentrate on producing an intelligent film program for intelligent film audiences. They will come. Look to intelligent cable networks like Bravo or IFC. Or HBO.

I can remember watching the first run of all three of those clips; I was eleven years old when the first one, reviewing Blade Runner and Diner, aired. I saw Citizen Kane at the recommendation of you and Gene from the third clip when I was in my late teens. I remember my reaction was that this was an extremely well made and well acted film, but I found it a bit emotionally detached and didn't have much empathy for the characters - unlike Casablanca, which was one of my favorites then and now. I've seen Citizen Kane a few times since then, and am amazed how much the film and its characters have grown on me over the years, including Charles Foster Kane. No doubt it will continue to gain meaning and perspective as I get older.

Thanks so much for the memories, Roger and Gene.

When I read that "At the Movies" with Phillips and Scott was being cancelled by ABC, it saddened me. I never miss the show. But now that I know you are bringing it back, I'm delighted. I have been a fan of this show since it first aired years and years ago. There are real movies lovers out there who like to hear good reviewers analyze movies, performances, and style. Thanks for keeping this show and this idea alive!

Carol

@Spencer N

Point taken. I was referring to the best of movies and the worst of TV, which is unfair.

I just lent The Godfather to a friend in his early 20's. Guess what- he was nonplussed. He said it didn't come close to stacking up to the Sopranos. I'll be damned if he doesn't have a point! If I had the time, I'd watch the Sopranos each year... The Godfather, maybe every five. How does one compare three hours of a top-notch movie to eighty hours of top-notch TV? Is this the Keaton-Chaplin debate for the modern generation?

And Roger- I would definitely add a subscription to your new service to my Netflix payments. For a couple dollars I wouldn't blink. Just an FYI.

I think you're heading in the right direction in terms of using social media as a vehicle to reach where consumers are at these days with your content. It's tricky, though, and I've not seen too many projects that have effectively tapped into the enormous potential that everyone knows exists in social media. (I work in Internet Marketing for a Fortune 100 company, and we're looking at this all the time.)

But I think the main thing is to just keep trying new things and being innovative. And I know this might sound a little unorthodox or paradoxical, but I believe the vocal limitations you now have may potentially be an advantage in this space. Most of it, of course, doesn't require any vocalization. And on television you almost always have to be perfect, in new media you don't; in fact, being different from the crowd is the best way to differentiate yourself from all the noise that constitutes most of new media.

Good Luck! I'm really looking forward to seeing what you and Chaz come up with. If I can ever be of help, write me.

I can feel the stones being hurled at me already but here I go:
Do we really need the return of the "thumbs?" Is it strictly for the commercial viability of the new show? If so, then thumb away, because I want this show to succeed. But for me, critics discussing and debating a film's worth is enough. They'll get their points across just fine and recapping with a recommendation to see a film or avoid it is sufficient. How I loathed "see it," "skip it" and "rent it."

And here come the villagers with the torches, gotta go.
(I will watch the show no matter what because of my deep respect and affection for you, Mr. Ebert)

This is sad, for sure, but your lack of involvement in the most recent incarnation foretold its demise. I can't wait for your new project. My vote is for Drew McWeeny, formerly from Aintitcool.com and now at Hitfix.com. He has been one of the most consistently great film analysts anywhere, not just on the web. I'm sure whoever you pick will have that fiery film passion.

Hi, Roger. I worked at the Sun-Times many years ago -- 1973-78 -- alongside you. I had just graduated from the University of Illinois and the Daily Illini, lucky enough to get a job as a copy editor in Chicago. In 1978 I moved to New York to work for the NY Times and then began practicing law. I am still a lawyer in New York, though I keep in touch with many old newspaper friends -- some of whom are your friends as well.

I have always felt as though I know you better than I actually do. Maybe because it was at a party at your house in the 1970s that I learned I am allergic to cats. Perhaps because I was in the Sun-Times newsroom when you walked in and everyone started applauding because -- though you did not yet know it -- it had just been announced that you had won a Pulitzer Prize. Maybe it is the friends and experiences we have in common, including long-ago Friday nights at O'Rourke's. But most likely, it is because of the way you express yourself. You have always left your imprint on those around you, making us feel that you are like us and saying what we would like to say -- just so much better than we ever could. All these decades later, when I see you (now a rare occurrence) on TV or read something you have written, my reaction is: "I know him."

Barbara Roth

Ebert: Those were the days my friend! Did you ever see these two?

http://j.mp/8l70f1

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/09/orourkes_was_our_stage_and.html

Roger,

I loved, loved, loved the work A. O Scott and Michael Phillips were doing. Please find a way to bring them back together. Since their appearance, your show has returned to my weekly viewing habits. I will continue to enjoy the next few months of their work and eagerly look forward to the next incarnation of At the Movies.

By Gil on March 25, 2010 11:30 PM: "Sorry But I for one am EXTREMELY Happy to Finally see this Worthless Show Go OFF THE AIR...for Starter's Gene Siskel WAS an Arrogant JERK..and Neither Roger OR Gene...Knew what a Good or Great Film Was...EVER...they Always nit picked EVERY Good Film Made....And their Jeolocy over THEIR inablity to make their Own films..was always Glaringly Obvious...I Say Good Riddence...The World will be better off without talentless jerks spouting out "Wrong advice" to movie Goer's who only watched their show's for the film clips to make sure they didn't waste their money or time on a movie not worth they time.....and THAT'S The Honest Truth...."

In the midst of all this lavish praise, Roger, it must have been a relief to hear from ol' Gil, the voice of The Honest Truth.

You have finally Arrived, Mr. Ebert: a Tea Party is rising against you. It fills me with Jeolocy.

Ben Kreider's got a good idea! For a few weeks Catt and I were watching movies nightly on Roger's Netflix recommendations. All good. Then we quit for some reason... too in the middle of separate things to watch something together, it was.

And now a confession: for nearly a week I've been spending about an hour a night browsing Netflix for (whinily) soooomething to waaaaaaaatch. It's the same hankering as not knowing whaaaaat to eeeeat.

Nor did I feeeeeeel like going over Roger's reviews, or anybody's: that's like somebody guessing, well, would you like a banana? No? Some ice cream? No? A trilobite sandwich? No? (Irritably: I don't want to THIIIIIIIINK! I want to be ENTERTAAAAAINED!)

So I've wound up watching nothing, slightly grumpier for it. That's the perfect time to watch Roger's new "At the Movies." The show itself may be as good as a movie.

One of my favorite memories of At The Movies was Gene's response to your giving a positive review to "Cop and a Half". That kind of back-and-forth added so much more to the show than any subsequent versions have brought. That given the moment, he could wield the knife, yet move on to business. That and your "custom made" McLean Deluxes.

It wasn't just the genre, it was the two people.

Greg Kot and Jim DeRogatis have taken the Siskel & Ebert approach to two-way criticism successfully to public radio with their program Sound Opinions. http://www.soundopinions.org/

The show is about rock music; but they even had Roger on the program once to talk about rock movies: http://audio.soundopinions.org/streams/2006/03/so_20060304.m3u

And most recently, Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott.

Could a public radio show about movies work? I think so. Elvis Mitchell hosts "The Treatment" out of KCRW, which is an interview program.... but I think a pubradio film review show would work. American Public Media, I have a pitch for you...

Roger, I'm elated to read you plan a return to the tube with a new show. I've been a fan for many years and rely on your recommendations (you recently spared me from exposure to Repo Men and The Bounty Hunter). I can't plow through all of the preceding responses, nor all past discussions, but have you considered sign language and a translator to permit you to engage in repartee. I, and I'm sure many, many others, would be more than willing to adjust to the pace or other nuances of such a setup to be able to hear your participation in real-time.
Yep, everthing seems to go to hell in a handbasket at an ever-increasing rate these days, but--with apologies to Timothy Leary--let's surf that wave!

Hi, Roger!

I thought that Scott and Phillips were just right and had gotten the show on the right footing again. I'm sorry to see it go, but your arguements are well made. The market has changed. It's good to know you have a plan and I look forward to the new show.

Commenters Scott Lange and James both expressed interest in discussions for people to watch after they've seen a movie. I know of one critic who supplies something like this: About once a month, Dana Stevens includes a "Spoiler Special" podcast with her movie review at www.slate.com. A suggestion: Maybe once or twice a year, Roger and Chaz's show could move to the "Spoiler Room," where recent films of note could be analyzed in greater detail.

Good luck, Roger, with the new program!

I say, "Roger, make appearances on the air with the new voice." Years from now people will remember that Roger Ebert appeared on television using a computerized voice that sounded like his voice. The future sneaks up on us slowly, and we need anchors that put things at an exact place and time. No on-air debate is necessary - just a few lines from the new speech synthesizer. Lead the way, Rog.

Wow, I can't believe ATM has been cancelled. Seriously, it's one of the few things I have to watch every week. We're in an era when everything is changing before our eyes, even our American Institutions like At the Movies.

I have to believe Disney is at fault here. I know, I know, I could be wrong but could they have done any more to destroy this show?

Before I go I have to ask one question: When was the last time an outstanding show like At the Movies got CANCELLED? I can't think of it ever happening. The only thing close is maybe when Mary Tyler Moore, Carol Burnett, and Bob Newhart QUIT, but they never got cancelled.

This is new territory folks.

I have watched "At The Movies" from day one and still plan my time to try and catch it every week. It's a great way to end the weekend for me (airs here after late Sunday news). I have enjoyed all the various hosting variations. The changing guest host format was different, but very informative and entertaining.

Thanks for many years of great vicarious friendships and insights into the passion of movies that all here obviously enjoy. I look forward to the next incarnation of your work.

Be waiting to watch.

I have ranked Roger and his work as seminal for going on 30 years now. I could easily go sycophantic on everyone's ass here for pages and pages. And as much as At The Movies has been a cornerstone of my intellectual nourishment, I'm going to throw this out there: maybe it's time to let it go.

My suggestion stems from the reality of the market rather than from any feelings about the merit of the work. You're at the top of your game, and you've reacted well to both your own personal challenges and to the shift in medium. The blog and your website are on fire. I just can't help but think that a foray back to television seems unlikely to be successful, thus diffusing your energy for what could amount to an anticlimactic post-script. It reminds me of late career decisions like Michael Jordan's baseball career, or Sylvester Stallone's resuscitation of Rambo and Rocky.

The cultural impact of At the Movies is real and substantial in the connection it has created between moviegoers and criticism. My own personal feeling - and that is all it is - is that people will not seek out content on television that is more easily accessible in other media at their convenience, no matter what the pedigree.

Just sayin'. Let the stoning being.

Roger--You are awesome, brave and my favorite movie reviewer of ALL time. The show was never the same without you--although I really like Richard. My husband and I watched "Citizen Kane" using your scene by scene description and I felt as though I had attended a fantastic film lecture--I learned so much about movie making. I look forward to your new venture in whatever form it takes!

I have to say.. I think film critics can continue on TV, but they might have to do things differently. When I used to watch Sneak Previews, I lived (and later was going to college) in the absolute middle of nowhere. I knew that most of the movies being discussed would never play near me, and I had almost zero chance of ever seeing them. This is before Netflix, before Blockbuster, certainly before the internet. I watched the show to get those little glimpses of film and to hear two smart people discussing them, so that I could understand what was happening in the wider film world. And on the very rare occasion where I got access to art/foreign/good films I would know what to seek out.

Now I can easily see any movie I want. Easily. And I find I don't watch tv shows like this anymore. Instead I read a review, where I can get so much more information on each movie. And I have a lot more access to those written reviews now, thanks to the internet. In the tv format, as it is up to now, there seems to have to be reviews of 5-6 movies and there could only be talk about each of them for a few minutes after the clips. Which isn't very satisfying in the internet age! What I think would entice people now, with so many other options available, is a deeper look at film, one where a single movie could be looked at more in-depth, with more of a background in film history. There would be more time and reason for debate and discussion besides "this is great vs. this sucks" which is what things have sunk to. You could even have REALLY epic takedowns of crap like Transformers, which would be great fun for everyone involved. Just don't even bother with the middling stuff. In a serious discussion about movies a lot of them don't really matter, and time wasted on them takes time away from the genuinely interesting or groundbreaking ones.

Anyway. Just my opinion.

One of the things that I really appreciated about "At the Movies" was the clips you showed of the films you were reviewing. The clips gave me a real feel for what I'd be seeing if I went to see the movie. Since movies consist of moving pictures with audio tracks, it seems reasonable that movie reviews should include actual clips of the work being reviewed, just as book reviews include quotes from the words of the author. I miss the fact that clips aren't part of the movie reviews that you post on your website, and I hope you'll be able to incorporate them into the smorgasbord of new media offerings that you're planning to accompany your new show.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you get clips on Ain't It Cool News or JoBlo or Movie City News. Just now out of curiosity I tried to find a clip online from "Hot Tub Time Machine." I found the trailer, of course, but it was actually hard to find a clip. The one clip I did find after a Google search was a standalone clip without an accompanying review. I checked out MSNBC's take on "Hot Tub Time Machine," and they had an interview with John Cusack plus a popup video player that forced me to sit through a commercial before showing the trailer, which meant that basically I watched two commercials.

Your formula on "At the Movies" was very straightforward. You would explain what the movie was about, you would show a clip, and then you'd discuss the film, often using the clip to illustrate some point that you wanted to make. Unlike a trailer, which is a compilation that only tells us what the studio wants us to think about the film, your clips were chosen by you. They showed something that you wanted us to notice and thereby enriched your reviews.

Don't get me wrong about trailers. I enjoy watching them. (At some movies I go to, watching the trailers is the best part of the experience.) But a trailer is a promotional piece, and what I want from a film critic like yourself is independent opinion and commentary from someone who is knowledgeable and passionate about the subject. That's one of the things that you did right on your old TV show, and I hope you'll get it right again on your new show.

So Roger, will your show air right after the cancellation of "At the Movies" this August? We don't really have to mourn the demise of movie review shows if your show is going to pick up right where "At the Movies" left off. Or will we have to wait much longer for your show to air?

Reply to: we held video tests with several potential hosts two weeks ago in Los Angeles, and know who we will use. We also know we will have a strong web presence....I can say that the working title was "Roger Ebert presents Fill in Words Here," and that it has now become "Roger Ebert presents At the Movies." Gene Siskel and I started using that title way back in 1980,

When the show started, you guys had a lot of personality.

Gene acted like you were one of the stage hands who sat down in the second chair to get a sound check and wouldn't leave. I kept expecting him to turn around and ask, "Has the lady from the Trib arrived yet?" And we could tell his attitude annoyed you.

I don't think that particular dynamic will work when "Roger Ebert presents...." is part of the title. But I'm pretty sure a little personality wouldn't hurt.

"Smallville" had an episode where Lois and Clark were co-hosts of a TV show "Good Morning Metropolis." One male and one female... came off like "Regis & Kelly". It works because Kelly Ripa was a known factor from soap operas and women wanted to find out about her family life. They already had questions about her romance with Mark, which happened during the show....

I think the model should be, Six inmates on Death Row get to sit in the lounge for movies on Saturday night, and each one of them has a deep psychological problem that led them to commit a hideous crime.... and they're kind of curious about each other's story. They want to make sure no one is hiding a shiv up their sleeve before they sit down. And there's one guy who obviously doesn't belong but won't leave.

I know I'd watched your show since I was very young, but the first time I remember watching it on my own (without my parents or grandparents having turned it on) was the end of the year show for 1995. I was 13 and I watched the re-run at 1:00am after SNL (which had just become unfunny). I think I'd seen only Babe, Apollo 13 and Toy Story from the films spanning both of your lists... but man was my dad surprised when I told him I wanted to watch Nixon when he rented it a few months later. At that point, getting me to watch an Oliver Stone movie was like getting a dog to stand still when riding in a truck. Now he's one of my favorites.

Thanks for all the memories, I'm excited for the new show.

Mr. Ebert,
I am so pleased to read that your 'voice' will continue to inspire movie goers!

I co-host a radio review show in a Maine market. We try to bring similar movie conversations to our show that you and Mr. Siskel engaged in - thinking of our audience as friends.

Yes, it is sad that the former format is going away, but how exciting to explore the new technology. Best wishes in your new adventure!

Just a note in hopes that Richard Roeper reconsiders being a part of this new venture. After Ebert's forced exit and then Roeper's unwillingness to go against Ebert and the "Thumbs Up" he deserves to be seen and heard again. We just couldn't get into any of the spin-off's that followed. See you BOTH "At The Movies"!

Bravo and thank you Roger! I 100% agree and support your. John Sexton speaks of a dangerous and growing "allergy to thought". We need more, not less, deep thinking and discussion about a cultural medium of this power and influence. I am going to go practice tuning in right now.

This saddens me very much. "At the Movies" is the ONLY show on television that I never miss. I've watched the show for almost 20 years, even though I'm only 33. I'm becoming more and more cynical about television every day; I watch less than 1 hour per week at this point. Most of it is asinine, insulting nonsense. Books and good movies have always been more worthwhile and life-enriching for me, but most of my family and friends watch a few hours of the idiot box every day, which depresses me. I suspect that it's causing the collective lobotomization of the Western world.

Anyways, thank you for the article, Mr. Ebert, and all of the wonderful years of the show.

Holy cow! I forgot all about when Gene Siskel had a mustache! Speaking of hot tub time machines...

I adored 'At The Movies' since I was a little kid, I remember watching it in the same time frame as when I was watching Sesame Street. You guys were an enormous part of my understanding and appreciation of all movies, good, bad and mediocre.

Thanks, thanks, thanks so very, very, very much.

Ebert: How could I interrupt?

Facial expressions, hand signals or a very annoying buzzing/honking/beeping sound. Harpo managed to find a way. Or you can try the bored student approach: A paper airplane?

I've seen plays at Deaf West where people interrupted each other. Isn't communication 60 percent non-verbal?

I know there was an annoying IM feature for Windows users only called Audibles. From what I recall the audibles included the faces of some people (like Jerry Yang because it was a Yahoo Audible), some caricatures of types of people (like a bored goth girl) and animals. I frequently used the purple devil to get people's attention, or the yodeling Yahoo smiling face or a cute animals. I used them in U.S. English, British English, German and Chinese. Now I do not have access to them since I own a Mac and it makes IMing sort of dull.

For Mr. Ebert wanting to interrupt someone I suspect you'd want something more personalized.

Just an FYA.

Ebert: Sounds exhausting. :)

"Blame the fact that everything seems to be going to hell in a hand basket."

From how you describe the set-up for this new movie review venture Chaz and you are working on, it sounds like it might turn out to be something even better than "At The Movies" was in any of its incarnations. At least it seems like it'll be a lot more in-depth about a lot more and more varied topics within the film industry, than anyone could expect out of a half-hour time slot.

Lisa with Entertainment Weekly wrote that her own impressions of "At The Movies" included an admission that, if it provided an outlet for more people to read more lengthy print (or online) criticism like yours, Andy Sarris' or Manny Farber's, that it'd be a good thing. That's more-or-less been my experience, that knowing about the "At The Movies" show and the thumbs and all that good stuff opened me up to the wider world of film criticism.

Even though I have seen a few episodes of you with Richard Roeper, I never was a regular watcher. But the fact that a movie did or did not get a thumbs up from your or Richard (or Gene, of course) was definitely omnipresent in my thinking about whether or not I should check out a movie. I guess the point where I *really* started taking in your opinion a lot more was after I had read your four-star review of "Oldboy" and decided I needed to see it....and loved it.

That review in particular, as well as me *not* following your advice to *not* see movies that you give two-stars to, namely "War of the Worlds," "Superman Returns" and "Steamboy," have left me ever since then valuing your insight on motion pictures and other various topics.

And on that note, it seems like your new venture will allow that insight to be channeled into several other outlets, in many different ways. So I am DEFINITELY looking forward to what may come next!

See ya!

My goodness this pleases me. To paraphrase a sentiment you've so frequently put out there: the real function of a movie critic isn't to keep bad movies from being made, but to steer people to good movies they may otherwise miss. It's what kept me tuning into the old show, and what I look forward to in your coming show. And, yes I will gladly subscribe if that's the business model you go with. It's worth it to me to discover a Tulpan, or In the Loop that might otherwise slip past my very rural existence.

A small observation, it's not just the easy availability of films, that drives this free flow of titles, but also the technological advances that allow a reasonably good viewing experience without, in my case, having to drive a 160 mile round trip to get to the preferred big(ger) screen.

Mr. Ebert, I’m sad to hear that the show I loved so much as a kid growing up in Chicago has been cancelled, but reading this blog entry I’m also very excited to see what you have up your sleeve in regards to your next project.

I’m imagining a television program that covers not just new and upcoming films but one that discusses other things like film history, famous actors/directors, what’s new on Netflix and maybe a movie of the week that everyone can watch and discuss the following week.

The show could be connected to a website, making them both parts of a single entity. I’d love to see your critic’s blogs, (and yours) film discussions, essays and so on in one easy to navigate location. There’s such a great community on your blog here and I could see the same thing happening on a site that’s devoted to people who just really, really love movies. People could have their own movie watching blogs, people could discuss film, watch movies together, talk about the TV show and so on.

I’m just dreaming here but whatever you have in mind I’m sure it’ll be great and I’m looking forward to it! Cheers and thanks for being there and sharing your love of the movies with everyone.

Dear Roger,

I'm very happy to read you'll be producing a movie review program. I watched the old Siskel & Ebert as a kid in the 80s and 90s (I'm still too much of a kid to remember you guys on PBS). You guys did have an impact on the way I looked at films (though I didn't always agree!) and many of the ones you pointed out over the years, both through your Sun Times website and the show, have found their way into my Netflix queue.

More than anything, it's just fun to watch people who are passionate and knowledgeable about cinema talk about it. I didn't stop watching "At the Movies" after Roeper left because Rotten Tomatoes or Facebook had replaced that. They haven't, in any way. While useful in their ways, they're short on substance and long on the superficial and random noise chatter. I stopped watching because it was harder to find it on my TV schedule and, most importantly, it just wasn't as good as it had been when I was a kid.

I'm glad some form of it will be coming back. I look forward to watching, either through broadcast or the Internet. And the thumbs will be back! It was never as much fun without the thumbs.

Roger, for many years your show was the only proof I had that other people in the world cared about movies as much as I did. I know that your movements in the virtual direction will continue to reach out to young movie nerds like the one I was. If I had access to twitter at the age of 12? Lord only knows where I'd be now.