"Roger Ebert presents At the Movies"

Yay! No commercials! Just the occasional episode PVR'd incorrectly because of pledge drives!

This is fantastic news for filmgoers everywhere! Looking forward to the first of many seasons to come.

HOORAY!!!

Looking forward to this in January.

I am hoping this one will succeed after the others didn't. I guess the PBS tie-in will provide some immunity from the 2 a.m. syndicated time slots At the Movies was getting...

This show will fill a massive void in film review programming that's been around since you left television. For that, I thank you.

This is great news! I enjoyed watching "At the Movies" every week for years and look forward to its new incarnation.

I am so excited that you will be bringing this show back, Roger! "At the Movies" is my favorite show of all time. I grew up watching you and Gene discuss the movies, and have continued watching the show through Roeper, the two Ben's (unfortunately), and Phillips and Scott. I am not familiar with your other new critics on the show, but I LOVE Elvis Mitchell! I look forward to hearing your new team of critics discuss movies with the same passion, and knowledge, that you, Gene, and your past co-hosts did (with the exception of Ben Lyons, but I won't beat a dead horse, haha.) January 2011 seems so far away!

I love your old show. Love it. That's because you guys had a sort of charisma. Even you and Roeper were great.

That said, I hope the above video was a pilot and not the real show. It comes across as cheesy and they didn't spend enough time on the movies. It was like a spoof of the old show without any comedy. Kim Morgan is pretty though :)

This is so exciting. I've been watching the program since I was in elementary school and it has helped shape my cinema love and viewing happens. Thrilled!

Holy Moly,now THIS is really exciting! So much looking forward to this.

Please explain the race/gender segregationist policy in your theater. I find this offensive.

Wonderful news and a great A-team. I'll be looking forward to seeing this!

Wonderful!

Informed and literate film criticism returns to broadcast television! Bravo to all involved!

It's about time you're getting back on television, sir!

While I was thrilled to hear you'll be a part of every episode, I think you should keep your finger, or in this case, thumb, in the pie. I think you should include a "Third Thumb" feature as a tiebreaker, when the vote is split.

In any case, I hope your new show doesn't rob you of Twitter time. I was a big fan of @ebertchicago even before you published my Webby-acceptance-speech suggestion ("I'm always right. Remember that."), and I hate to think we'd get fewer gems because you're up to your eyebrows in production headaches...

Also, while I have your attention, there's been a question that's been nagging at me ever since I saw you debut the Roger-Ebert-voice program on "Oprah":

When you first got to play with your own voice, what was the first cuss word you typed into it?

Much love and respect from someone who hopes PBS lets you bring your wit's wicked side to TV for all to admire.

--Rob

I wasn't this excited since... i think i was never this excited.!!

Congrats Roger & Team!

Heck Yes! Roger, you are loved by movie-goers because you are passionate about the movies. I'm ecstatic to see this back up and running.

Excited to see how this works out. Is there a website yet or will it be hosted at http://www.rogerebert.com/? (Couldn't quite tell from the release.) And, is it just me or does Christy Lemire have more than a passing resemblance to Vera Farmiga?

Charlotte herself has spun "Elegance @ the Movies" on her Web.

I love Elvis Mitchell's "The Treatment" series. I can watch him talk about movies for days. And I'm so happy to get some Roger Ebert again too!

Looking forward to setting the TiVo Season Pass for this one.

Fantastic! I wish you and Chaz all the best with this.

Excellent News, I cannot wait!

Yay here, too! I met and liked all these blokes at Ebertfest! Especially The Savage. You know who you are. Don't forget to wear the big brass armbands I said would look great on you. XOXOXO

This is really great news! And, if you ever need a fill-in host who's already in Chicago, you know where to find me...

They still get stuck forgetting they aren't sitting at a table with a friend sharing their opinions about a movie they've both seen.
Remind them of your rule,
1)Give a sense of what the viewers are going to see.
Act like a reporter.

Talk about the character's and what their facing, not about actors. "So and so was great,"
that piece of information is useless. Throw out every use of the terms "great acting," and "great directing". Vapid, meaningless, non-descriptive terms that lose people. Subjective.

Throw out words like "Funny" or "Entertaining" and especially almost every reference to whether or not you guys enjoyed it, or liked it. I don't care.

Describe. Be careful.

Go lock yourself in a room and read Roger's reviews. No one will ever be able to repeat it, but try. This means to much to all of us.

Thank God! Roger, you're the film critic I respect above all others, and since your blog began you've become a pundit whose opinion on politics, current events, and life in general is an important part of my own life. The way you live your life is an inspiration to me, and the way you do your work is admirable. I'm thrilled that the format you created will continue on television. I'll watch every week. Keep up the good work. You're nowhere near done.

This really made my day. :)

Fabulous! What an exciting team you've put together! I'm off to spread this around...

Kim Morgan, YAY! Elvis Mitchell... eh whatever. I don't know the other ones but I'll be checking it out.

Elvis Mitchell? Seriously? He's not a critic, he's a hack. Go read any of his old reviews for the Times. They're awful.

Chills I tell you! Chills I had when I read this post. I'm so happy and moved that this great show is coming back.
I once heard some celebrity say they would recommend watching any movie with the Criterion Collection name across the box. Maybe that could be included as one of the show's segments? I saw the Criterion Collection movie with Roman Polanski (in Polish) and it was BORING, PRETENTIOUS, waste of time, so we need some extra help to sort them out and find the hidden jewel ones. Would you consider also including reviews from "normal" people like me. That might be interesting too.

The computer voice is nice. I can just picture you saying those words.

Congratulations!

Woo hoo! This is exciting news, glad to hear the balcony is once again open. (And how many modern cinemas even have balconies? Another one to explain to the kiddies...)

The original show was before my time so I'm SO glad that this is happening!

Fantastic news, Mr. Ebert! I wish you all the luck in the world. I only wish there were more good movies for you guys to review. You and Mr. Siskel were very lucky that your earlier programs were produced at a time when there were truly great movies being released in this country, though your critiques of the run of the mill lousy ones (especially your annual "Worst Of" shows) were always great fun and are still hilarious on youtube.

This is wonderful news! I'm sad to see A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips go, but that's far outweighed by my happiness in seeing that the show will continue. Bring on the Thumbs!

Mazel tov! "At the Movies" lives on!

Welcome back my man! Welcome back!

Yes,it's finally here and I'm gonna watch this new program next year! Hey everybody! Roger Ebert returns! Roger Ebert returns! Thank You for coming back home!

YES!!!! This made my day, and will for years to come. Thnaks for all your hard work and effort guys. Keeping real criticism alive

Roger, this is great news. I grew up on AtM and the crew you've assembled looks worthy to inherit the mantle.

You look great in the picture by the way. If you don't mind me asking, are you wearing a prosthetic? If so, how has that experience been?

Mazel tov!

Welcome back. Can't wait for the thumbs up or down.

Ecstatic to hear this, Roger. It will be nice to once again have a television haven from the shallow hype and glitz.

I am curious...will there be an opportunity to feature viewer comments and reviews on the show? Maybe even a viewer review? I think of the people like Grace Wang and Kartina Richardson, who I wouldn't have heard of unless you'd spotlighted them on your site.

(Sorry for the double comment. Typing accident.)

Wonderful job Chaz Ebert! The "vibes" feel right. The look is fresh and still quite familiar (IEatGod, September 10, 2010 10:59 AM, comment aside, and yes it is just a clip sample.) Rog, it is so nice to see that your thumb still works quite fine.

I feel the energy and the love that made Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, Sneak Previews such a wonderful revelation. Nice to see my main man (I admired his reviews and film discussions that I read and saw over the years) front and center where he belongs, and I am excited with what Christy Lemire, Kim Morgan, and Omar Moore bring to the space. The balcony is open ;)

@IEatGod

... it's obviously a condensed clip. It's 6 minutes long.

Wonderful job Chaz Ebert! The "vibes" feel right. The look is fresh and still quite familiar (IEatGod, September 10, 2010 10:59 AM, comment aside, and yes it is just a clip sample.) Rog, it is so nice to see that your thumb still works quite fine.

I feel the energy and the love that made Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, Sneak Previews such a wonderful revelation. Nice to see my main man, Elvis Mitchell (I admired his reviews and film discussions that I read and saw over the years) front and center where he belongs, and I am excited with what Christy Lemire, Kim Morgan, and Omar Moore bring to the space. The balcony is open ;)

This is honestly the only thing on television I am looking forward to.

Thank you so much for this.

Great Stuff,

This is a great start, I would like to see rivalry like Gene and Roger spewed from time to time. This seems too sanitized. The spark that made the great shows of the past was the love hate relationship from both parts. If you can get some of that back then it will be a winner.

Ô Dear Monsieur Roger (I cannot bring myself to simply call you Roger because of the immense place you occupy in my intellectual life through blogs,tweets,reviews and books),why are you not using your voice from the Scottish gizmo that you sample a couple months ago? I will be counting the dodos until january. A friend of Bill from NDG in Montréal.

Fantastic news. Fantastic news indeed.

Awesome! This is great news! Hopefully it will air at a better time. The Phillips/Scott show was coming on at 2:07 Saturday morning (yes, that's the correct time) in the D.C. area. Thank God for DVR.

"American television is swamped by mindless gossip about celebrities..."

Ain't that the truth. I hate those shows and the horrid TMZ (you should write a blog about them, Roger). Enough about the stupidity of Mel Gibson (though that is a train wreck that's hard to look away from), is the movie any good?

Just when I thought I was out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome back, Roger. Can't wait for this.

Finally, my four public access channels are justified.

Fantastic!
Also, clever use of the '@' symbol in your logo. I hope that means we'll be able to see most or all of the content online as well. No cable tv for me, and my reception is unfortunately unreliable. I watched all of the last season with Phillips and Scott online and loved it.

IEatGod, I hope you realize that was a series of brief excerpts from the different segments of the pilot episode.

It looks interesting, Roger. I'll be watching!

Fantastic news!!

I am thrilled to see this coming back and to see Roger's involvement in it.

However ...

And I hate to be the one to spoil the party ...

But was it a conscious decision to feature two minority critics and two female critics, probably the two groups that, if you polled film criticism as a whole, are the least represented? I'm curious if this is about presenting the best television film critics available or making a social statement?

And, look, I am all for social statements. That is a valid reason. But if you are interested in making the best TV show possible ... Elvis Mitchell, for instance, is not the most charismatic guy on TV. He's just not. He's stiff and stilted and uncomfortable. Compare the chemistry of Lemire and Mitchell to young Siskel and Ebert -- or even Phillips and Scott -- and I don't think it's a flattering comparison. Great writers do NOT always make great television personalities.

I worry that in making a valid and noble social decision (if that is the case), the Eberts have made a poor decision as producers. And if ethnicity and sex were never part of the decision-making process -- if they merely chose WRITERS whom they felt were most qualify to be good TV hosts -- well, they've just made a poor producing decision.

I hope I am wrong. But I would've been more excited to see Scott, Roeper or Phillips in one of the chairs.

And of course, the ne plus ultra of movie review brands enlists some of the best critics around. They're all a pleasure to read/see, but I'm especially glad that Elvis has entered the building!

Glad to see Roeper is not included. Too smarmy for a serious reviewer of Ebert's caliber.

1° Love the fact that they're getting a real balcony. The set is truly first rate, reminiscent of the old S&E but very well updated.
Whenever I would watch Phillips and Scott, their set would tell me there wasn't a real enthusiasm from Disney about supporting their show all the way. It didn't even give the impression it was about film review.
2° Christy and Elvis seem to have great chemistry which in the long run is what will determine the show's future. All four are excelent choices.
3° Only quibble: I would have loved to have the old music theme back but that's just for us nostalgia fans.
4° I hope the old show's archive will be available in your new site.
3° I can't tell you how excited I am to see you back on TV Roger (though I guess I'll have to follow on the internet). Monica sends you her congratulations.

Whoo-Hoo! I began watching the original show – when it was still called "Sneak Previews" – back when I was just a kid. That program was a major contributor to my deep love of film. Going to the movie theater, with its attendant rituals of standing in line to get tickets, buying popcorn, and picking the perfect seat, is the closest thing to church I have. Glad to see such a landmark piece of film history getting another go-around. Congrats, Roger.

Hooray! Public TV is definitely the place to be for the welcome return of Roger Ebert and his intriguing cadre of film critics. The critics chosen to appear here combine intelligence that is definitely Ebert-worthy with a delightful diversity of backgrounds and points of view. Roger Ebert, the master of traditional film criticism, has also become a master of new media commentary, and I'm happy to see this show will deal frequently with how new media interact with the entrenched traditions of the filmmaking world. Of course, I am especially glad that Roger's personal commentaries will be a big part of the show as well. It is Ebert's format and bears his stamp from top to bottom. Nothing less would suit me. I look forward to the show and the accompanying web-based material with great eagerness. Thanks, Chaz and Roger! Welcome back, At the Movies! Save me a seat.

Siskel and ebert discussed films in a way that was both intelligent and accessible to audiences. As you are proud to remind us, neither of you were dressed like you were made for t.v.

The new hosts look a little too well dressed. I can hardly imagine an opening credits sequence where Christy and Elvis are casually walking through busy, daytime Chicago, giving eachother funny looks. I can't imagine their names printed on a box of goobers. I should, without a moment's hesitation, be able to picture their names on a theater marquee.

They should be passionate and fun in addition to being intelligent. The public enjoyed the passion in Siskel and Ebert's heated discussions. I know co-hosts need time to develop their chemistry... however, given their reserved and mellow nature, I'm not sure they would make great television personalities.

A.O. Scott and Michael really had a good chemistry. Their discussions were very intelligent yet not pretentious. They're great personalities with great passion. I really hope they have their own show again.

This is one of the best pieces of news that I have read today. Thank you for bringing us a new version of the classic movie review show started by yourself and the late Gene Siskel.

Also, thank you for your appearances in the revival. The computer voice works well for you. You are an amazing man and I wish you continued long life and health.

Great news!

Roger: You look great in that photo. Is the photo altered, or have you had some work done to repair your jaw?

Ebert: I was wearing a prothesis.

Outstanding! Did not expect this so soon. Time to start harrassing the local PBS stations about carrying the show.

Very cool. Congratulations Roger for getting this on the air.

On a side note will Richard Roeper be appeaing on the show with any regularity?

And on a second side note, I don't think I knew that Chaz was an attorney.

Yes. This may actually convince me to get cable again. Unless the station will also carry eps on their website? Hulu? Maybe?

This is such fantastic news. I highly enjoyed the pilot reel, and I look forward to another program highlighting intelligent film conversation.

I'm so glad you're back on TV, Roger! We missed you!

The most exciting thing about this show? It's not dominated by white males. And this is coming from a white male who writes about film.

I am certain that Roger's show will be interested in furthering the art, and not in snark. This will be a refreshing break from my usual diet of angry fanboys!

Finally! A movie review show with black people on it! TWO THUMBS UP! I'm happy!

Congratulations Roger. I've been watching you since your Sneak Previews days with Gene Siskel, and I'm thrilled that the old format is back on PBS, and so are you! I'll be looking for this.

Awesome to see it return. But it worries me they gave 2 thumbs down to Iron Man, and 2 thumbs up to Death at a Funeral.

two black men two white women, what about a Palin-Obama one-on-one?
It's gonna end up where "The Black and White Minstrel Show" did.

You CAN go home again!!! :)

Any way we can get Roeper and Michael Phillips back on board? Like at all?

Fantastic news, Roger!

So -- do we need to start badgering our local PBS stations to ensure they will pick it up?

Very good news.
I will be watching as I have been since the days when you and Gene had a dog of the week movie voted on by a real dog.

It's been a bad summer for Hollywood movies. If they don't get better, a TV show reviewing them won't attract much of an audience.

There should be a weekly segment that reviews classics like "The Sound of Music" "The Exorcist" "Gone With The Wind" and have commentary that actually adds something to the existing body of knowledge. Not trivia. Not the stuff that appears as extras on the second Blu-ray disc. Commentary. The thing you and Gene added to the movies.

"Saturday Night Fever." Of course.

When George Lucas releases "Red Tails," a look back at "American GraffitI" and how Lucas hasn't changed his emotional map over the decades.

A segment on horror movies and why modern horror movies fail.

The religious component of successful movies. Shane West was in "A Walk to Remember" and last night's "Nikita" on the CW, in basically the same role. A tough guy who meets a female with an agenda and baggage and falls in love with her, and then tries to hide it so he can remain "cool" to his male buddies. It was amazing watching a remake of "La Femme Nikita" and seeing themes from "A Walk to Remember" added to the mix.

I've read many of Omar Moore's reviews, and he doesn't bring the 'stuff' that the show needs to succeed. Maybe he can up his game if he's given the right challenge.

Don't let anyone giggle. Ever.

Have a segment showing how Gene copied his "arrogant sneer" from Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." He always saw you as Peter Lorre. That would make a wonderful Christmas show.

Dear Roger;
Congratulations and Best Wishes for your new show.
I am a big fan of Kim Morgan and Elvis Mitchell and look forward to being introduced to rest of the on air talent. Very exciting.

Hope you will reconsider the cheesy, noisy graphics.

Congratulations! Looks like the show will have some of the flavor of previous incarnations while also presenting something new and magaziney in the mode of your "Far-Flung Correspondents." That's great! I'll be watching!

I teared up immediately after seeing this! Thank you, Roger and Chaz; I missed you so much!

YEAH! Congratualations, Roger! I don't watch that much TV, but I'll be sure to keep an eye on this one.

I had no idea Christy Lemire was such a fox!

I love the old 50's be-bop movie poster style of the promotional image (i.e. Roger Ebert presents...). It reminds me of "Anatomy of a Murder".

Beautiful! You've made my week!

Since I'm not from the US, I won't be able to watch it, but I'm still happy for you.
Congratulations, Mr. Ebert. I think there's nothing else to say.

Great news, but my question is what will happen to the ATM archives online? Will the website for this show be completely different, or will it be merged with the old ATM website so that there is one comprehensive archive?

Why no Richard Roeper? Did you guys have a falling out??

Richard kept the show running while you were sidelined with your health issues...and chose to resign rather than bend to Disney's "suggestions" that led to the "2 Bens" debacle.

Taking nothing away from the new critics named, Richard should somehow be involved.

Exciting news! Have watched since beginning. Disappointed with recent incarnations. Ain't nothin' like the real thing baby.

I am thrilled with this news.

Best wishes to all involved in the production of this quality program.

I am thrilled to tiny little shiny pieces by this news.

Congratulations to everyone involved. Christy and Elvis are inspired choices to co-host, and I couldn't be happier to see Roger reclaim his legacy in such a magnificent, brilliant, perfect way. (And Chaz, you are such a hero.)

Bravo! My TiVo eagerly awaits...

This is great! As Roger's biggest fan from England, i'm thrilled to see his new show is coming :) Best of luck from across the pond

I can't wait to set my DVR for this! At 26, I haven't fully appreciated previous incarnations of At the Movies. I always enjoyed any episodes I did catch, but my love of films and film criticism has grown as I've entered academia and become interested in pop culture studies. I can't wait for this to start. I expect this to my my At the Movies, in the way that Doctor Who fans consider the doctor who (ha! I actually didn't mean to do that) made them love the show to be their doctor. Thank you for working so hard to keep the tradition going.

This news made my day! Hopefully, the new website will have video of shows earlier than 1986. Can't wait to have the show back again!

Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott were so good there in the last incarnation that I almost forgot about the importance of diverse faces and viewpoints, and found myself loving the straight, white men.

They will be missed, but I love the new critics, who I've read for years, and the new format, and I can't wait for it to start.

@ IEatGod wrote: "...Kim Morgan is pretty though :)"

May the ghost of Pauline Kael visit you in your sleep, and choke the 1950's out of you so we can officially bury it.

Welcome back Roger.

Oh, boy, Mitchell gave Please Give a thumbs down. And he seems to hate arthouse. We don't need no idiot like Gene Newman at premiere.com

I grew up on At the Movies. . . and I'm sure you'll appreciate this, but was ribbed as an overweight ten year old with glasses and hair parted to one side as looking just like that movie guy, "Eggbert"[sic].

Though we differ in politics, life is much more than politics. We agree very much on arts because I learned from you on the show and in your columns about art, on film in particular.

You've had many memorable lines in your movie reviews (over a decade later I can quote your line about the Mummy from memory- "... art this isn't, great trash it isn't; good trash it is."{thats as close as I can get}).

And you've had more memorable lines on TV. Who can forget when you guys hosted SNL and "reviewed" the spoof video of synchronized swimming ("I know you, I know you...")?

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the contribution to the enjoyment and appreciation of films you've given me, and cutting my teeth on At the Movies is something I'll always treasure.

It's nice to see it come back, with a new generation of reviewers. Hopefully, there's a 10 year old with glasses and hair parted to one side that will learn as much about film, the role of a critic, and how to appreciate a medium from the new crew.

Ebert Strikes Back.

Looks great! I'm going to set my tivo to record this as soon as I can.

Roger, I assume your segments will use your new text to speech voice when the show starts in January? It will be great to hear your voice talking about the movies again.

Congratulations on the upcoming launch, Roger. It was such a shame to lose the program just as Phillips and Scott were developing into a nice combative duo. I really thought that with the two of them, the show might continue its incredible run much longer.

Since I was 8 years old, Siskel and Ebert, Ebert and Roeper, and finally At the Movies was a bedrock of my life. No matter how much of my life changed as I grew, went to high school, had a blast in college, got married, got a real job and on and on, this show was a part of it. As you, Roger, have no doubt become to so many of your readers (me included), At the Movies is like an old friend.

(Also, it was great to see you looking so vital in that group shot. After that shocking magazine cover, it was a relief to see you exhibit the energy in your presence that you so vivaciously exhibit in your words.)

THIS IS seriously THE GREATEST news I've heard IN SOME time. What A FANTASTIC SHOW it used to be AND I'M SO HAPPY FOR you, Ebert, THAT YOU can bring it back. I PROMISE TO watch as OFTEN AS I can and I LOOK forward TO IT!

At last, the return of the "Siskel & Ebert" format, and Roger is actually a part of it. When Ebert/Roeper went off the air the only movie review program like that left was a version of "At the Movies", where two critics actually turn to a couple of online critics for more opinions (as if they didn't trust their own).

Certain men named Ben shall not be spoken of again.

Congrats!

Yahoo! I love the show and was so disappointed to see the last episode the other week. It will be great to have it back on PBS!

The show looks better than I anticipated. I'm looking forward to a serious show about movies. I tried watching Entertainment Tonight for the first time in years and wondered, who is the intended audience, and what's wrong with their attention span?

YAY!!!!!!!!!! And I love Elvis Mitchell!! That's something you don't see much - a diverse movie review crew!!! Congratulations to you and all of us!

Congratulations Rpger Ebert. What great news. Can't wait to see the new show. Well done!

Excellent news! I loved the original show, love you, but I don't watch TV. Will the "extended website" mean I can watch the show on-line?

This is HUGE!

Great job Roger! I'm happy for you. A suggestion: put up a calendar on your website listing time slots for all the major markets--that way we'll all know when to tune in. See you at the movies!

Okay everybody, all together now...

THANK-YOU-RO-GER!

*clap clap, clap clap clap*

Thank you Roger.

I have to say that I'm tremendously encouraged by the diversity of this group.

2 older distinguished critics who both love movies in Ebert and Mitchell. 2 of them women. 2 minorities, with one of them being from overseas. 2 younger critics. 3 bloggers. Just brilliant.

I'm excited to see what those type of voices bring over the long haul to film criticism as they bounce off of each other...

The chicks look hot, the guys not.

Sydney Pollack's final interview in a new documentary titled, "char•ac•ter", featuring Peter Falk, Harry Dean Stanton, Dabney Coleman, Mark Rydell and Charles Grodin directed by Drago Sumonja. Visit the films website at www.americanaentertainment.us

And you got the Zip code right, this time! ;)

This is excellent news. I guess the big question is will you participate on-air with the other hosts? I figure the face prosthetic and the cool personalized voice won't pay for themselves.

So will you, sir? Please!?

Congratulations Roger and Chaz. Good Luck with your new program. I will be looking for it come January. I wish I was a film critic, it would be so much fun to watch films and then jar with someone who doesn't agree with me!

This is SUCH amazing news! I was starting to worry it wasn't going to happen. And returning to public television is just the icing on an already sweet cinematic chocolate lava crunch cake. One question: How in the world did you get the name back from Disney?

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!

Gotta run, cannot see to type through tears. Love you, Dear Ebert! Cassandra

Excellent news! Can't wait to watch it.

This certainly is great news. I'm looking forward to seeing your new show Roger. It won't be aired here, but I definitely will be looking for a way to catch the show!

Best wishes from Denmark

What wonderful news! I hope I'll be able to watch it here in Britain. Congratulations to all involved!

This is great news. I only hope we can get this show in Canada. Congratulations Roger!

@Marie Haws regarding her scolding of @IEatGod

You might have to do the same with Kim. Have you seen how many photos of herself she has on her Sunset Gun photostream? :=)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunsetgunshots/

It will use the copyrighted "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down"® format made famous by Siskel & Ebert.

That's a trademark, not a copyright. I guess Chaz didn't review the post. :D

Somewhere up there you have to think Gene is smiling about this...

I just watched the clip and needed to write in once more. This looks amazing! There is so much promise and potential here. It looks like a combination of your traditional review shows and the special episodes of At the Movies dedicated to the MPAA or explaining the value of letterboxing (I think the episode aired in the laser-disc era), instead of that pan-and-scan garbage (now a thing of the past, thanks in part to that episode!). Is it too much to ask for a full hour, every week?

I am genuinely excited about where you're taking the show. Congratulations Roger! It really looks like you're creating something worthy of the name, "At the Movies." Thumbs up (tm)!

Congratualtions.
Hope the show is as insightful and as fun as its antecedents.
I live in India and would love to know whether it's possible to view the show online?

I have gone through most of your reviews that are available online and not to doubt your judgement, but the two reviewers don't seem to share the same chemistry that you had with Gene Siskel or Richard Roeper for that matter. Also missing is the volley of intellectual repartees and opinion that actually helped in greater insight into the movie.
Can't judge 'em by this video alone. Here's wishing you success!

By dex on September 10, 2010 1:43 PM: "Hope you will reconsider the cheesy, noisy graphics."

Nuts to that noise! The graphics remind me of a cross between a '60s spy movie and a let's-all-go-the-lobby animation. Cheese is an essential ingredient, in graphics as in life.

This is great news, Roger. We never missed one of your shows and are glad to see this incarnation of it. We had the privilege of seeing the co-hosts and contributors at Ebertfest and look forward to more. Question: who designed the fabulous Saul Bass-ish graphic?

cool news!

Any chance you can work Matty and Adam from Filmspotting into the host rotation? They're in Chicago!

Suggest you use a voice synthesizer that sounds like James Mason. Or possibly Richard Burton. Avoid the one that sounds like Ed Wynn.

I wish that there's a chance for this show to be shown in Singapore!

Roger, I remember you writing about this on your web page quite a while ago. I'm so pleased that this new phase of your reviewing will make it to TV this winter! You continue to amaze and delight this reader! Congratulations Roger! It will be an honor to watch the new show that is an extension of yourself!

Finally! I'm excited to see the show return, but, most of all, I'm thrilled that the THUMBS are back! I'm glad that Lemire is attached, and I'm hopeful that Roeper might be able to be a special guest from time to time, unless his contract forbids it. Will the show will be available online as well?

Congratulations Roger I am so pleased and happy for you.

I wish you all the luck in the world with it and can't wait to see it.

Will we be able to get the show here in the UK?

Congratulations on the show! I loved the PBS tone--it reminds me of the show "History Detectives." I liked the addition of the classic movie. Good luck.

I'm glad there'll be a show, but this looks too complicated. A.O. Scott and Michael Philips were doing an awesome job, it is a shame they never got their due. Ebert should have kept them, in my opinion. They gave Siskel and Ebert a great tribute in the moving final episode of At The Movies, too.

Absolutely wonderful news! I grew up with Siskel & Ebert, and spend a lot of time these days watching clips of those shows on YouTube (my favorite is the episode from 1984 where you review CONAN THE DESTROYER and TOP SECRET! The give-and-take between you and Gene on TOP SECRET! is classic).

Also great news that Elvis Mitchell is going to be part of it. I've always respected his opinion, and was a fan of his show on TCM.

All the best!

Congrats Roger - but was Elvis photoshopped into the group photo? He seems to have a silver halo around his head (maybe it's a sign of his greatness?)

Roger, I am so happy not only for you, but for us. I've grown up under your tutelage and while I've always respected and valued your opinion, in the past several years, your status has eclipsed that of a critic. Like Clement Greenberg, Baudrillard, or Derrida, your criticism and thoughts are as much a part of your directed commentary as the artistic work itself - only on a much grander scale.

Over the past several years you have increasingly represented the voice of a much younger generation (especially concerning your political views). And not since Warhol has one person possessed the ability to showcase art within the popular culture: even your Howard Stern appearances validate your ability to navigate the extremities of high and common culture unlike any current personality. Please continue to persevere, not only for us, but knowing that you have transcended pop and high culture to occupy a conceptual purgatory that only a handful of artists and critics have ever been able to attain.

It is one thousand times more difficult for a critic to touch people with a thoughtful pen than it is for an artist to influence people with an emotional brush; but you have, and I have always looked up to you because of this.

Congrats!

After watching the pilot I think that they should stick with the two critic format. I think that Kim Morgan and especially Omar Moore's segments were nothing special.

Elvis Mitchell has never been a host that I have cared for. He hosted an interview show on cable that I thought was not very interesting. I think Christy Lemire was fine on At The movies when she had a stronger cohost.

I think that the best match up would have been Michael Phillips and Richard Roeper or Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott.

Couldn't be happier that they are bringing this back! Format looks sound and the critics appear both intelligent and likable. My only quibble would be the computer voice for Roger, it's too jarring to concentrate on what's being communicated. I'd go with a voice over talent reading Rogers words instead of the computer. Otherwise, THUMBS UP!

I am elated at this dream come true with the return of Roger Ebert presenting AT THE MOVIES. I was one of Roger's students at the U. of Chicago in his film class when the original AT THE MOVIES began with Gene Siskel co-hosting. This news makes my day as Roger with his new cast will once again present "At the Movies". I almost put off moving to NY because I'd miss Roger's classes. You're the best, Mr. Ebert!

best wishes for your new success - I'm looking forward to tuning in again.

This is great news! At last a key void in film criticism will be filled again. The public needs to have this to give better guidance on how to appreciate what's out there and what to spend their time on checking out.

"They'll be awarding the Thumbs, and you can't have three Thumbs."

Ever the Darwinist, eh, Mr. E.?

Actually, I think a horror movie about a three-thumbed film critic would be popcorn bag full of awesome.

So excited to have At the Movies back. Great banner at the top too.

I can't wait, Roger!

Can I just say I love the address bar title of this: roger-ebert-presents-at-the-moe
I loved Moe.
Stooges fan?

Great news, Roger! Congrats! I'd been thinking recently, with the end of the show in syndication, that it would be a good idea to put it back on PBS, where it began and had done so well. (I could seldom find where they stuck it in syndication.)

Best of luck to you and all those involved.

And if you ever need a guest reviewer in the Horror/SF/Fantasy genres, I'm available.

Congratulations Roger and Chaz, and everyone involved in this show! This is great news! I am so looking forward to your return to TV in January, and the special segment on classics in particular!

Yes! Great news, Roger, and the trailer looks great - only concern is that the high number of segments may push out extensive conversation of some films deserving it. But I'm very much looking forward to seeing the full product in January!

awful mr. ebert. these hosts display the emotional range of a teaspoon. where is the passion? very fake, but at least it's better than ben lyons. good to see you back on the air.

Outstanding news! LOVE IT! My Tivo's waiting in the balcony!

Dear Roger and Chaz,

May I express my joy at your return to television! You are the heart and soul of movie commentary.

It has been a pleasure to read your blog but I am thrilled to know that you will be there in the flesh. My husband and I have missed you very much.

Thank you for returning to the flashing medium of sight and sound!

Judy Shuster

This is absolutely great news!
Congratulations to both of you and all those involved with producing the program.
I wish you all success.
And Thank You!

Thank God. When will it be on the air in Las Vegas, and where can I see it? Will there be a website up soon?

Can't wait for the show to start. The sample looks really promising, and it's cool to see a lot of the faces I saw at Ebertfest in April turning up for the show. Christy Lemire and Elvis Mitchell are an interesting pair; I enjoyed listening to both of them speak on the panel discussions, and I think there's the potential there for some excellent discussions/arguments. Omar Moore I actually had the opportunity to speak to, and he seemed like a terrific guy; he was intelligent and very friendly. And it's great to see you back on TV, Roger. I have no doubt in my mind this show's going to be winner.

great, i cannot wait

I'm very happy for you and Chaz - and for all of us! I can't wait until January. I've missed watching your show.

Is there a reason Richard Roeper won't be hosting? I really liked his work.

I'm totally thrilled about the show. And, am especially thrilled that one of us FFC has made it to the big time. I'm thrilled about Omar.

And, let's face it. You couldn't find nicer people than Christy and the others.

Omer M

This is fantastic. It brought a tear to my eye. Welcome back to TV, I can't wait to see the shows!

Congratulations Roger, and everyone joining the team! Looking forward to seeing this.
What a kick-ass logo too!

Since i'm not in the US, I hope there'll be a way for me to catch this show somehow. I can't help but feel happy for all those involved. Especially Christy and Elvis Mitchell. All of you guys deserve it. :) Great work by Chaz and Roger!

What a welcome return! My heart swelled with pride and I became immensely overwhelmed while watching those little clips of the pilot. It was like finding a pair of well-worn shoes in the closet and, after trying them on, discovering that they are still incredibly comfortable. Tears came to my eyes as Roger appeared with his segment, and after almost five years of not being on television, it should be a joyous, and momentous, occasion. WELCOME BACK AT THE MOVIES AND THE THUMBS!

GOOD LUCK TO CHRISTY, ELVIS, KIM, OMAR, ROGER, AND CHAZ ON THE SHOW!!

Just saw the clip. So smart and so handy for those folks who want to see movies whether it's on the big screen or via downloads and rentals. Not to mention seeing the master at work... for some folks just seeing Roger "back at it" will be worth the price of admission - even if it's only a short segment. I spend so much time talking about movies to people, trying to get them to go to the theater, check out a foreign film, read a subtitle and open their movie lovin' minds. I am happy to see this intelligent show that will let us in on debates between movie critics and connects with everyone regardless of their own conduit for movie watching (internet, Netflix etc) Bravo!!!!! Yay!!!

P.S. LOVE, Love LOVE the logo!!!!

I discovered and looked forward to the original show on PBS and followed it thru the years and many changes. Great to see its return to PBS and Roger's and Chaz' commitment to fun, informative movie reviews.

Congratulations, Mr.Ebert! I was sad to see (Disney's) At the Movies get cancelled, and what a pleasant surprise this is. I will definitely tune in.

Christy Lemire is a horrible choice!!! she's not that talented a critic at all. she was also part of the formula that failed that the last show. i think the choice of her is pathetic. sorry, i rather have chaz do it. she doesn't really have an eye for film, in my opinion. she never has.

christoph

Excellent, I'm glad the show is returning, can't wait.

Outstanding News!!! Congrats Roger and team. This is going to be a wonderful comeback and I'm pumped up about it!

Ebert – this really IS like a dream come true. And not only for you, but for everyone who loved your show for being intelligent and insightful. I'm so happy that this has finally come to fruition, and you can count on me to be a regular viewer!

Greatest cheers on the great news, and best of luck to you and everybody on set!

(On a side note: I'm exceptionally happy that Kim Morgan will be a regular contributor to the show! I've always admired her prose after you introduced her to us from her little niche on the net. It's great to see such a diverse group of contributors! :)

There has been a huge void in the cinema reviewing world. First with the untimely passing of Siskel, and the second due to Ebert's illness. The void has now been filled with the return of the format that was created by Siskel & Ebert. Mr. Ebert you are an inspiration by the way you live your life. TWO THUMBS WAY UP and welcome back! - You both were sadly missed.

Oh, I'm so glad to hear about this great comeback. I really admire how your passion for movies gets you to keep pushing on, reciclyng old well-working formulas and mixing them with nowadays filmical interests in order to reinforce the enjoyment of sharing our love for cinema. I wish all the best for this new stage.

Also, I'd like to know: will I have the chance to follow the show via internet? I'd really like to, and it would be a shame if I couldn't just because i live outside the U.S.

Thanks!

No one will ever have the fiesty or fun dynamic that you and Gene did. But just knowing that you support these people and that you are involved brings a warm feeling to my heart. It's like comfort food for the fim lover's soul.

Roger & Chaz, this is absolutely incredible news. Congratulations to you both. I am beside myself with anticipation.

OH THANK GOD! This will breathe new life into my unemployed existence beyond watching Mike Leigh movies! Right on!

Wow, this looks great! It's so great that we're going to hear from experienced and respected film critics who are women and people of color! I bet you've been thinking about how you might do a remake for a long time; how fantastic!

Will these episodes be available streaming on the internet (perhaps after a period of time, like the daily show)?

I was complaining to my son that they took At the Movies off the air. I rarely go to movies, but I do buy dvds so I look forward to the reviews. He sent me your web address and I'm really happy that you are bringing it back. Roger is looking good too which is great!

I was complaining to my son that they took At the Movies off the air. I rarely go to movies, but I do buy dvds so I look forward to the reviews. He sent me your web address and I'm really happy that you are bringing it back. Roger is looking good too which is great!

Excellent news. Congrats to all involved, looking forward to the show.

Great, I'm very happy a new show is coming soon.

I'm willing to give these new hosts a chance, it's an incredibly tough job to succeed the old hosts.

Good luck to all!

Roger Ebert has provided great value to his viewers and readers over the decades, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his work. I look forward to his new show, and wish him, his wife and his talented crew all the best!

Fantastic! I can't wait until the first season! Now I was wondering if you'll be offering the show on iTunes, as a podcast or something. That would be really convenient.

Roger,

It is great hear that you will be back in retro!

I have all your books and guides and every movie you ever gave 3 or more stars. I am anxiously awaiting watching you show again. Please, please, please; Go Retro, it worked then, it will work again.
Love your work,

Bill Frey

I'm not sure I should be this happy and get this teared up at the same time.

YES!!

Hip Hip HURRAY!!! I've missed your "voice" on TV desperately. This sounds like an excellent show. Can't wait!

I have to agree with Will.

1. There are too many moving parts to this show. The two man point-counterpoint system is what works. Its what made this show work for years. And when Gene died and you had the revolving door partner, it didn't work. When you were gone and Richard had the revolving door, it didn't work. The two Ben's didn't work. Phillips and Scott were an improvement over the two Ben's, but they should have had their own show without the title of "At the Movies" looming over their shoulder.

2. The clip came off extremely cheap and there was ZERO chemistry between Elvis and Christy. Elvis just doesn't seem comfortable with being on TV.

3.Christy came off as phoney as a 3 dollar bill. She's only as good as her partner. With Richard she was okay. With Elvis, it was bland and vanilla.

4.But Roger, the worst crime of all is casting Kim Morgan. Did any of your producers watch her spot when you were gone??? Or see her on E3?? In both spots she bombed big time. On your now former show, she was to put it in a word: Horrible! Horrible, horrible,horrible. In her cringe inducing spots when words came out of her mouth she was like a continuous Homer Simpson face palm; "Doh" Yeah, really, that bad. I actually wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt and read her review of Metallica's documentary "Some Kind of Monster." I got no insight into the documentary as she went on an 800 word diatribe on how she prefered Slayer, and why people should listen to Slayer. And this tells me exactly what about Metallica's documentary? Terrible casting unless all you want is an attractive blonde!

5. I think fans here are in love with the romantic notion that they are getting back Siskel & Ebert. But they arent.

6.What this new show looks like and smells like is the 300lbs Elvis in the white jumpsuit. The 80yr old Frank Sinatra who forgot the lyrics to the songs. A slurred speech of Dick Clark on New Year's Eve. You get what I mean. ;)

7.Roger, you are better than this! This show seems like a good idea on paper and produced with with heart and not brains.

8.I'd rather see "At the movies" die a natural death then it being kept alive artificially.

9.I for one hope this show bombs so you can start from scratch and go back to the drawing board. Use all that new technology has to offer you. And think of doing a longer form show!

10.Roger, I don't say these harsh things to hurt your feelings. Your insights have enriched many peoples lives; mine included. Like most of your fans, I've prayed for you to have a full recovery. And I still hope things in your life improve! But, I still have your voice in my head. When I read your cogent thoughts on your website, I hear "your" voice. You can't be replaced. And I don't want that voice in my head to go away.

I'm all for your comeback, but I don't believe this is it. Exit the stage gracefully. You've had a great run on TV. Comeback on a stronger platform than this.

Best wishes.

This is great news! All the best!

This is sensational news, and what a team!

Congratulations, all around.

Do we really need so many people in the balcony? It's too damn crowded. Why not just stick with the two-critic format?

I'm totally psyched to hear this. I was bummed out when "At the Movies" got canceled but it turns out that was just down for repairs. Lemiere is a good choice. I like her approach to film criticism on "What the Flick".

Any plans to have guest spots for A.O. Scott, Michael Phillips, or Richard Roeper?

Top Ten Movie Title Plays-on-Words Including the Word 'EBERT' That Should Be Used as Headlines For News Stories About the New Show:

10) Ebert of A Nation
9) Life is Ebertiful
8) All Ebert Eve
7) E.(b.e.r.)T.
6) The Day Ebert Stood Still
5) The Ebert Locker
4) Eberty Dancing
3) The Phantom of Eberty
2) Ebert on a Wire
1) Ebertigo

Sure looks like an interesting show. But I don't know...it just doesn't seem to have the same kind of charm that critics like Ebert, Siskel, Roeper and even Phillips and Scott had.

Good to see you still doing reviews though Roger. Still using that same voice though? What happened to the one that sounded like your old voice that played on Oprah?

Great news!

How do I go about getting my local PBS station (WSBE - Providence RI) to carry it?

You are amazing Ebert, your love of movies and faith that others share your passion is inspiring. Thanks you for reviving ATM, it made my day.

Congratulations on your show. I'm not much of a TV person, but I am a follower of your writing.

Offtopic: I recently read your review of "Love in the time of Cholera". Speaking of Nobel Prize winners who are untranslatable to film... you could also read Miguel Ángel Asturias, another great writer (Nobel Prize winner and, I believe, also untranslatable...). And he is from my country, Guatemala.

Congratulations again! Feel free to not post this if it is irrelevant to the discussion of your show.

Can't wait to check it out.

Congratulations and good luck to you on this new venture. I can't wait to see it air.

One question though...Is there really any reason to use the annoying computer voice when you could just as easily hire someone to recite your copy?

This is wonderful news! I'm hoping you can recapture the spirit of the original. I'll be tuning in.

I've been trying to figure out a poetic way to express my joy over this great news but I keep getting jumbled. Congratulations, Roger! I'm a big fan and was shocked to find out that the show was going to go off the air. Now you are back and have a strong team! We can always count on quality TV and film reviews from you! Filmmakers (such as myself) and movie goers will now continue to benefit from watching your show! Again, a big congratulations to you! It's always exciting news to hear about people pursuing their passion!

Hooray! This is great and exciting news. Congrats!

Have I really been watching you since 1976? Ouch...

While I will miss Phillips and Scott, I'm thrilled with this promising new team of critics! And seeing Roger back on television... well, what can I say? It's just right. Welcome back, sir. I'll be watching every week.

There has been a noticeable void in the film critique world ever since Disney has blundered it's way with At The Movies in its last year. The two Bens drove the nails in the coffin as it was difficult to watch and lost many viewers. When they were cut, it was good to see some better film critics but is was too late in Disney's eyes and I was surprised to hear it was ending. And since then, it seems like all films were given a free ride to run rampant without a watchful eye to tell the movie goer that it was good, bad or indifferent.

Now Roger Ebert has the foresight and intuition to know that this void has too be filled and returning it back to PBS is a sign a true intelligence. Those bad films like The Switch have nowhere to hid now. I will be eagerly waiting to find this new show on the remote control. Thanks Roger for bringing back the review process for those of us who care about films.

Normally I'd be looking forward to January for a new season of "24," but now that month won't come soon enough with the start of your new show.

Absolutely, positively cannot wait.

Mr. Ebert, THANK YOU. :)

Absolutely can not wait till it airs. Welcome home.

Thanks so much for doing this. I was really worried that At The Movies was going to be done for... I'm glad to see that's not the case. This looks like it will be great!

Thanks so much for doing this. I was really worried that At The Movies was going to be done for... I'm glad to see that's not the case. This looks like it will be great!

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so looking forward to this.

For christmas, how about a feature called "Spotlight Star of the Future."

Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker would have... ranks of A-list actors.

I remember a movie called "Coma" based on a novel by Robin Cook. Michael Douglas was bland, the female lead was bland, but there was a patient in a hospital bed, in the hospital for an operation on his knee, that had Star Quality.

Tom Selleck.

there's a young man on "Vampire Diaries" that EW magazine named the sexiest something-or-other.

Is there an actress who seems destined for... I know, there's a list, Reese Witherspoon and Kiera Knightley and Jennifer Anisto and of course, Angelina Jolie... but they've already had the lead role in a major motion picture. Can we nominate a female "Star of the Future" to spotlight? An actress whose name has never appeared before the end credits roll? I'm thinking she has to be tall.

The goal would be, ten years from now, when they ask which actors were featured on the very first episode of Roger's new show, the Spotlight Actress we nominated would have just won the Academy Award for Best Lead Actress.

Also, LOTR. If this is going to be shown on PBS, you've got to do Tolkein up right.

Wonderful news! As a former Chicagoan, I recall when the call letters WTTW were chosen and believe they stood for "Window to the World," which is most fitting for this new show! Can't wait to see it; we've missed you!

As an original fan of the Sneak Previews show, I couldn't be happier for this to happen. The format is still the best. Congrats and all the best!

Kim Morgan hardly seems worthy to be on the show. I hope A.O. Scott was asked. It seems a little like Affirmative Action at the Movies.

Ebert: Obviously you have never read Kim Morgan, or seen her on TV.

One can never replace "Siskel and Ebert" in any of its various incarnations, but it'll be good to have a movie review show on the air again. I look forward to it with guarded optimism.

This is so exciting. And on PBS where TV can be intelligent in America.

I am excited to see the new incarnation. I feel that A.O. and Michael got an aborted chance at the format. I enjoyed their critiques and was pleased to see you mention their efforts despite your disassociation with that program. All the best in the future, truly.

Off topic...but considering that At the Movies is a bit of the Ebert legacy, what do you suppose happens when you die. From what I understand you assume nothing, and you are more than content with the amazing adventures you have had. But do you dream of cataclysmic ecstasy as in Aronofsky's The Fountain, or the neverending spectrum of Kubrick's 2001, or the codgery "fuck it" of Don Logan in Sexy Beast? As a man that has no aspirations to the afterlife, do you still ponder the what if?

Ebert: No possible product of the human imagination can embody the prospect of infinity.

Yippee!! Way to go, Roger! Hope it'll play in Phoenix area.

It's clear that the drive behind this show is based on Gene & Roger's original conviction about serious debate. I'm so happy for this announcement!

Serious debate is already present in this Pilot clip. Energetic debate would make it even better.

It's a testament to Roger's writing that the computer voice in his segment doesn't distract me. But -- will Roger's segment always be a "thumbs up"?

I think Christy Lemire is the strongest of the group -- but coming in dead last in this current lineup is Kim Morgan. Kim's snarky style works best in print.

I have seen Elvis talk with much more conviction in other media clips -- and in Austin I've even watched him go toe-to-toe with Tarantino -- so I'm going to just chalk this up to "Pilot" stiffness. He's interesting to listen to, and I think Christy and Elvis have potential to get more comfortable with each other. Right now Christy is the stronger & faster debater.

I think this has all the ingredients to build into something great. Based on this clip, it won't *start out* great, but it will be good enough to keep my attention.

More power to you. I'll be watching.

Congratulations! The show looks great; best of luck with it!

Thank you, Mr. & Mrs. Ebert.

I'm surprised and a little disappointed that Roeper is not involved in your new show. I thought he did an admirable job of carrying the torch while you were sidelined and admire him from walking away from the show rather than participate in its "cheesification" (is that a word? It is now, I guess!)

I have heard Roeper discuss the idea of this new show you were producing in several interviews, which misled me into believing he would have a seat at the table.

Of all the names discussed in this thread, my preferred duo would have been Roeper and Phillips, but I see that two middle aged white guys wouldn't have fit your "melting pot" vision for the show.

In any case I will still give the new show a shot, I have always found the format helpful in whittling down all the new releases and figuring out which are worth my ten bucks. The new cast would have to be pretty awful ("Two Bens" awful) to drive me away.

Ebert: Richard and I were involved in many efforts. Then he moved on, with my congratulations, to cable and to a major gig on WLS-AM, the prime Chicago talk outlet.

Sounds great!

Let's get Jim Emerson as a guest host one of these days.

Man, that guy's suit is cool.

Very Wes Anderson-y.

Glad this is coming to fruition. Just get Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott as contributors and I'm a happy camper.

Roger, thank you for your work and for returning to TV. We've missed you and look forward to hearing your reviews.

Millions of thumbs up with this news!

Dear Roger,

Congratulations on your dream come true. I hope that Elvis, Christy, Omar, and Kim become just as big names as you have. Too bad guys like Richard Roeper, A.O. Scott, and Michael Phillips became first-magnitude names like you did, but it was well worth the effort. It takes theat most courage that you even appear in front of the camera with "Roger's Office," and this will not cause viewers to stay away in droves. It is a testament of integrity and not glamour, with TV prides itself too much with. This shows you are a great role model to one and all. Stay well, my friend.

With love as a fan,
Goldiechick

I was very pleased to here about the re-birth of At The Movies, but I was really hoping that Phillips and Scott would be the primary participants. In just one season they have developed a chemistry very reminiscent of the Siskel and Ebert days. Perhaps they have a non-compete agreement for some period of time, but I hope they return the airways at some point. Best of luck with your new venture.

The pilot feel rather stiff and lifeless.

Please Roger, bring back Scott and Phillips! They were great reviewers and had a real chemistry that approached that of Siskel and you. This show desperately needs their trademark nerdy/sarcastic sense of humuor! Please.

I'm so glad At The Movies is coming back. But please Roger, bring back A.O. Scott, Michael Phillips, and Richard Roeper. They're my favorite critics as well.

YEA YEA YEA!

Thanks Roger, and thanks Chaz!

best of luck as the new venture rolls out, and i can't wait to watch!

Word! Congratulations to you, and us! And the many people of the future who will enjoy the show! Best news I've heard in a while!

Great news! I'm glad this show will be more intelligent than the At the Movies Disney tried to dumb down. I'm a little sad Tony and Michael wont have a role in it but I'm just glad the format will continue and even better with the classic Thumbs!

I'm looking forward to hearing the critics debate the classics. Recently I watched the Siskel and Ebert villians special and it was by far the highlight of my day. Gene chose Hal and Roger chose Harry Lime as their favorite respectable villians and there was a great debate over the nature of femme fatales and women villians.

This is absolutely the best news I've had in ages! Made my day! I have the greatest admiration for you, and I deeply miss Gene Siskel.

Great news, looks like it'll be a terrific show. Congrats!

dude.

thanks.

later.

I am very much looking forward to this program. Not only will it fill the current void, but it will include Roger Ebert's expert touch.

I also want to say how much I admire Mr. Ebert's willingness to return to public life after his tribulations. Our great gain.

Since the game plan seems to the throwing in everything but the kitchen sink....

How about going back to the old Saturday morning serials and end with a cliffhanger?

A moment of extreme suspense where the heroine is left in mortal danger, literally hanging from a cliff...

and superimposed: "Can she survive? Come back next week to find out!!!"

Since no one has nominated a "Star of the Future," I'll start.

Diora Baird.

Combines Lucille Ball and Marilyn Monroe...

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

30 Days of Night: Dark Days

The type of roles that Marilyn might have taken, at an early point in her career.

Go Michigan! Go Blue!

And a moment of silence in memory of those who died on 9/11.

I am so excited! I have had a huge whole in my TV viewing every week since At the Movies went off the air. I love the new format and it will be great to see Ebert back on TV! Looking forward to it.

Congratulations Mr.Ebert. I've read about your intention to do this for quite some time, and I couldn't be happier for you. Can't wait to see you on television again. I just had my own dream come true. I'm engaged! Random, I know, but hey, it's the internet.

Since you're already featuring Omar, one of your Far-Flung Correspondents, on the show, might it be a good idea to have, every once and a while, a review from one of your Far-Flung Correspondents? I know there's only so much you can pack into half an hour, but even giving them some recognition would be great. Or, you could highlight a great online review once a month, in order to give people a different take on a film, and help give the movie reviewers of the future (though they're really reviewers of the present) a larger following.

Then again, I'm sure you've thought long and hard about the format, and--of course--know what you want people to get out of it better than I do. :-)

On the subject of cliffhangers...

ending the first show with a combination of...

Christy running through a dark house and screaming in terror...

... opening a door to reveal Elvis sitting in a rocking chair, wearing his mother's dress...

... and the theme from "Halloween",,,,

might bring ME back next week, to find out what happens.

I'm not going to dance around it. I really hate the selection of Kim, and I'm pretty numb to the idea of the show. Obviously, the announcement on the main page made me giddy, but the article and pilot both tempered my anticipation.

There's not a better way to say it. I'm going to give it a chance, but I just... well... don't get it. At all.

Also, to state that Kim is a respected blogger is factually inaccurate. Respected by the right people to get her this gig, obviously -- but the consensus is that she sucks, as is evident by the reaction.

Ebert: Freddie, two comments on Kim? I've posted these comments and I see absolutely no such consensus. In my world of movie bloggers, her writing, insights and industry inspire awe. What world are you from? I have been tweeting Kim for a year, and I reached out to her. It's not like she applied for the job.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!

I'm so glad you'll be back, Roger but to tell you the truth, I'm really going to miss the old format. The Omar Moore segment at least seems a little extraneous. Also, Michael Phillips and AO Scott were great hosts, any reason why you didn't take them along with you? I apologize for nitpicking but either way, I'll still be watching.

I love how the figure in the ad-post is missing a mouth. Well done, Ebert. Can't wait for the return.

Looks like it could be fun but I hope there are some good arguments about the movies. As for Iron Man 2 getting double thumbed down, that stings.

I watched the preview clip and I liked what I saw. The show is diverse and well rounded. I especially enjoyed the segment about Women's Films.

My wish list for the new show (these are not demands):

1. Interviews with female filmmakers such as Allison Anders (Gas, Food, Lodging) and Courtney Hunt (Frozen River).
2. Surprise visits from well known directors such as Martin Scorsese.
3. Interviews with new media film critics such as Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson (the hosts of the Filmspotting podcast).
4. A variety of ways to purchase episodes and support the show (Netflix Instant, Amazon or iTunes digital downloads).

I'm very excited about this show, which will exist simultaneously in the new media and television realms.

"Siskel & Ebert & The Movies" led me to journalism, film criticism, and finally filmmaking. I hope that this show will have the same positive effects on a new generation of viewers.

man, this is soooooo good to hear. anyone who is a fan of movies should be a fan of this show. they always tried to mention smaller films and now that Ebert is in charge, i'm sure that more indie films and documentaries will be shown. it is also nice to see 2 african americans on a show that doesnt have to do with comedy or gangs. well done guys. PLEEEEASE keep up the good work.

Congrats! Bravo! Way to Go! And all that jazz. A warm welcome to the critics and to you, Roger, in the office.

I don't have tv, but will find a way to see/hear/read about the show.

As one who watched Roger & Gene from Day 1 on PBS, it's ironic to see it go full circle and back again. While nobody can replace the interplay and intelligence between the two originals, here's hoping the new reviewers can deliver. And, like Roger & Gene, never reveal any spoilers.

This is great news because I've considered your writing to be among the best in any area of journalism for the past 20 years or so, and this will keep your work on a national stage.

Mr. Ebert,

I am so happy that you are bringing "At the Movies" back to television; and PBS no less! It has been awhile since television had an intelligent show about current cinema. I am looking forward to your project.
I also must say that I have admired and respected your work since you first started at the Sun Times. And I felt the same way about Mr. Siskel at the Tribune. Thank you, sir, for all of the years of intelligence and entertainment, proving that those two concepts DO work together.

NEVER SAY DIE!!! I love you Roger!!! Glad you're back with a review show from someone who is truly passionate about film. I remember watching you and Gene with my Dad (RIP)on PBS discuss films since 1979 or 1980, and while I don't always agree with you (or Gene for that matter...haha...Yin VS. Yang??? in a Way) ...still...looking back...it was like watching MY DINNER WITH ANDRE: the TV SERIES (if there could or ever would be such a thing [we can dream I suppose -- but then, it was your guys' show wasn't it...well...for me anyways]. You are a true champion of spirit and determination. I send salutations from a solitary Pocket of Light... Your Heart Is In My Hands...

man, i soooo love a return of at the movies, but i hoped for at least a familiar critic!!! :(

Kim Morgan is hot! I can't wait to see the new show! Also, she's hot!

Great news! So glad the tradition you and Gene started comes back yet again--better than ever.

The audience for PBS is smaller, less interested in sports, more interested in classical music. Rather than just review a movie about to open, which copies material available all over the Internet, there has to be some film theory. How does drama work? Why do we still love a movie where a shark eats a little boy on the Fourth of July?

You could reach out to a studio or a director making a film, and show raw footage (aka dailies). From a movie that won't open for another six months. Show how a movie is assembled from pieces, with the music often added after all the editing is done.

Disney has just hired a new writer for "The Legend of the Lone Ranger." I think we're familiar enough with the Lone Ranger that the "big surprise" won't be spoiled if we find out he was a Texas Ranger who survived an ambush. Maybe this would be a good time to ask Disney if you can use "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" as a way to examine the dramatic structure of big-budget movies. In an early draft, the Lone Ranger used silver bullets to kill werewolves. I assume Tonto was a shaman who had special knowledge about shapeshifters. If you simply give an opinion from a movie you've just watched, viewers will think, "Nothing special there." But if you get the writers together around a table, and let them pitch their concepts without revealing which ones make it into the finished product, even "The Lone Ranger" could become interesting by PBS standards.

Then, use your knowledge to create a short, intense, suspenseful cliff-hanger. And show it again at the start of the second episode, and resolve the crisis by having the heroine jump out of the cab before it explodes and run into the Chicago studio and take her seat next to Elvis. Again, the idea is to explain why audiences are fascinated by life and death situations.

Another interesting subject is, what percentage of a movie consists of close-ups of faces. Why will we sit for hours to watch pretty or expressive faces? Why do we like some faces more than others? What do Cary Grant and Johnny Depp have in common?

A show on PBS will attract an audience if the hosts actually know the secrets to success, and are willing to share. "The Sound of Music" is a great place to start. Not just a musical, but a relationship between a woman, the children she is hired to take care of, and a naval Captain still recovering from the death of their mother.

The sucess of a great movie depends on the character web. The relationships that we care about. I doubt christy and Elvis will have a relationship we really care about, the way you and Gene did.

Unless Hollywood suddenly starts making better movies... in which case, you can go back to Plan A.

This is great news; and it'll be great to see a couple of familiar and a couple of new critics!
The format looks good - a slightly-nostalgic touch of how it used to be, freshened up with the some new faces and segments (as is should be). I'm looking forward to getting to know better some critics I've only read. And learning even more about what I already love!

Now, my 'whatever-night-it-airs' (used to be Sundays) can give me back that feeling of an old normal that is long over-due, and more than welcome! This is like finding an old favourite comfy sweatshirt you thought got thrown out, AND discovering it still fits 11 years later!

Since it stopped airing I've often thought about how much I have REALLY missed this show AND Roger (and Gene, and EVEN Richard, despite how he and Roger rarely agreed; their debates were good banter tho'!) Thank You! for coming back, coming 'home'; very brave, and yet, it feels just like the Right Thing To Do! YAY!

Chazz it is an honor and a pleasure to welcome you to the "At the Movies" family. I hope you are the person composing and overseeing a "Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies" site on Facebook.

Your beloved husband posted on a column this year about how he could appear on a show without speaking. The one thing about the Disney show I will miss the most was the "Yellow Light RENT IT" category. So it was several weeks of housecleaning before I envisioned the "Yard Signs" that Roger could hold up to express his opinion for the DVD segment (and give the computer voice a rest).

LOVED IT (with a portrait of his thumb pointed skyward)

LOAN IT (with a portrait of the open palm of his hand ... stuff that's worth cost of a pay-per-view but not a theatre admission).

LOATHED IT (with a portrait of his thumb pointed towards the ground ... showing exactly where the studio that green lighted that nonsense should go)

So sad to her the Siskel Film Center can't expand to include a TV studio.

I agree. Bring back Phillips and Scott. Please.

Where is your new reconstructed voice? This has been cause for some excitement. I was very surprised to see you using the generic computer voice in this pilot.

Great to have you back. My favorite show is finally back!

Great news! Too bad the show couldn't start now. Fall movie season always provides interesting film discussion fodder. I guess we will have to settle for the long awaited arrival of The Green Hornet in January. All the best, Roger. Welcome back to PBS!

Love it love it love it.

Congratulations Roger, and thank you for bringing back this much needed program in a time when celebrity gossip invades even the latest reviews...I pray we see none of that here.

Also, let me be one of the first to offer insensitive criticism and beg for a change to your personalized computer voice. The Stephen Hawking monotone of the Apple default distracts the viewer from the point you are making. Plus, when I read your reviews on this site, that isn't the voice I hear.

Great news! Too bad the show couldn't start now. Fall movie season always provides interesting film discussion fodder. I guess we will have to settle for the long awaited arrival of The Green Hornet in January. All the best, Roger. Welcome back to PBS!

My husband and I watched some form of Siskel & Ebert for over 30 years every Sunday night at 10:30 amd were heartbroken that the most recent show was cancelled. Absolutely thrilled that Rogert E is bringing back this tradition for us to enjoy.

This is great news, and having Roger's "thumb" on the show -- even if it's a bit more behind the scenes -- is certainly welcome. A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips ably and honorably filled some mighty big shoes, and we're ideal partners to Roger's idea partner (Richard Roeper) as well. Is there any hope that we may see Tony and Michael eventually join this fine new endeavor? I'm looking forward to looking back. Go!

when i watch politicians make speeches, i like to see which hand gestures they use and how often, like when bill clinton would make a fist with a pointed thumb, and then thrust it occasionally forward. i also was wondering what you might do on your part.

as expected, there were shots of letters appearing on the screen, your fingers typing, and scenes from the film, which all worked. i also expected close ups of your eyes, shot from behind the monitor, as you look back and forth from keyboard to screen and reflections of the screen on your glasses. maybe the director thought that was over used.

i saw 50% of what i expected, but your director should be 200% more creative than i am, which means someone is 25% behind.

the most compelling element of "siskel & ebert" was the give and take of a two-person segment. the segments with kim morgan and omar moore seem to drag because there's no interaction. i realize each has a specialty, and it's really a one-person opinion or analysis, but perhaps they could talk to/with someone else who can either ask questions or add some peripheral information.

It's great to see AT THE MOVIES coming back, and Rogert Ebert nonetheless. Now let's bring back MIchael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune, and Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times. 1,000 times stronger than Lemire & Mitchell, and all the new extras combined. Or if not Roeper, A.O. Scott, film critic of the New York Times. The new ATM shouldn't be too PBS focused, it needs a little mass appeal also to definitely seal success. Let's go Phillips & Roeper (or Phillips & Scott).

I liked the pilot. I just hope that you remain true to the genre - two people in a dark theater giving opinions on movies. I like Roger's Office, too, but I really don't want a history lesson or entertainment tonight program. But I will be watching.

Roger, you have made me a better reader, writer, filmgoer, and thinker. I am so happy to see that your influence is only getting stronger.

I am thrilled that you and your vision for AT THE MOVIES is back and at PBS. And if you are going to be behind the camera, I am very happy that you are starting with new and interesting co-hosts. Welcome Back Roger.

Motherf**k Yeah!

Annoying Fan Suggestion
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/

(Who likes the idea of inviting Dan Schneider as a guest?)

[PS. I realize the ball has barely been rolling {from a fans perspective, not from the Eberts} so suggesting guests for the show may seem ludicrous, but as previously stated I am so Motherf**king excited for this thing.]

/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
Annoying Fan Suggestion

I think the few people hating on Kim just think that a hot lady shouldn't know anything about movies. Those people should give their heads a shake!

PBS... genius.

I was under the impression Roger's computer voice was going to sound more like him. In the clip shown it seems very pieced together (which is how the technology is, I guess) but it also didn't really sound like him at all. (I mean no offense in saying this and realize this is better then not hearing anything from him at all). Just my opinion... despite this, I'm glad he'll actively be involved in the show. If it airs where I live, I'll watch it.

I grew up with these guys!! Glad Ebert is back! January can't come soon enough.

Hey, great news! Really happy to see this coming back - best of luck Roger.

Welcome back Roger! We missed you. I have not watched At The Movies for awhile. After Richard left it became BORING. Good luck to you always!

Congratulations, Roger, Chaz, as well as the hosts.

"They'll be awarding the Thumbs, and you can't have three Thumbs." Hmm...why not? Then, once a month, you can have a segment recapping movies where one person strongly disagreed with the consensus of the other two. You could call it "Minority Report".

I am so much looking forward to this!! Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! : )

You just made my day! I've been reading your writing for years now and lament the absence of your intellect from television- welcome back man.

Fabulous! I can't wait!

Roger,
I tweeted this to you but 140 characters doesn't do it justice. I know being an advocate for the disabled is not your chosen profession but by coming back to TV you are serving that role.

Even in an age where disabled kids are "mainstreamed", many disabled adults find challenges integrating into everyday life. To watch TV, one would believe that everyone was able bodied. Seeing you every week with your synthesized voice, not making a show of it, just being there, will be a great subtle reminder that this world is for all of us to participate in, no matter what differences we might have.

Probably about a year ago I wrote a comment on your blog asking you to return to TV and I got hammered by a lot of readers telling me to leave you alone and let you get on with life. I can't tell you how pleased I am to see you coming back on your terms!

You and the rest of the new gang will be on my Tivo come January. You can count on it! :-)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Ebert and PBS! You've just made my day.

Too bad you couldn't get Richard Roeper. I disagredd with him a lot but the discussions with him are always fun to listen to. He prevents the show from getting to pretentious and boring.

This is great news! The only film critic I am familiar with (besides Mr. Ebert) is Elvis Mitchell. I love his show "The Treatment" on NPR (and I'm not a taxi driver).

Looking forward to this new show!

Well, it is great to have a movie review show once again, this time with the balcony back as well as the thumbs. I see in the picutre Roger looks well again, unless that is a body double-sure hope not. I recognize both critics from the Disney show, although I remember when Elvis guested, he didn't like any of the films that week, not even Analyze This. Hopefully, he'll find some films he likes! Too bad you couldn't get Richard and Michael aboard-but maybe down the road you can. Disney screwed up in 2008 with not just continuing with Roeper and Phillips and they paid the price big time. Can't wait until the new year to see the show.

Is it too early to look at the film career of actress

Mozhan Marno

who played the title character in "The Stoning of Soraya M."

and was in last week's episode of "Hung" as a new client?

Certain movies would appeal to the PBS audience more than others.

Robert Downey jr. is filming a sequel to "Sherlock Holmes." I thought British TV host Jeremy Clarkson would make a perfect Moriarty.

January 14
The Dilemma
The Green Hornet
Ranchero

January 21
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (Miramax horror)
Untitled Kutcher/Portman film

January 28
The Mechanic
Restless
The Rite

May 20
POTC 4

June 17
Green Lantern

June 24
Reboot of "Planet of the Apes"
Cars 2

July 22
Captain America

July 29
Cowboys and Aliens

I just don't see the PBS audience tuning in for an early review of "The Green Hornet."

A segment on "Cowboys and Aliens" that won't be opening until July, in January? That would be my choice for "the movie we reviewed on our first show." Harrison Ford and Olivia Wilde, plus some British guy named Craig, Daniel Craig.

Wonderful!

Just last week my wife and I were at dining with friends and they asked if we'd seen any good movies recently.

I replied, "Not since Roger and Richard went off the air!"

Sounded silly when I said it aloud, but it's true; we've missed your passion and guidance and look forward to the realization of your dream!

Thumbs up from us!

This is great news! This made my day. I look forward to getting to know these critics, and a segment with you, Roger, will be priceless. January seems so far away. :)

Roger, you are still my favorite reviewer and I am thrilled that you'll be back with Chaz and others by your side. I look forward to January.

As an avid viewer of Siskel & Ebert since its inception through the final episode of "At the Movies" this August, I looked at the new clip with great interest.
I realize it's unfair to jump to conclusions based on a 6-minute highlights package. Nevertheless, red flags very quickly appeared; similar to the sinking feeling I got upon seeing the first train-wreck episode of Leonard Maltin's "Secret's Out," when it was a panel show.
What I perceived in your clip was the kind of "cheesification" that Mr. Roeper complained about regarding Disney. As I listened to the brief reviews, I heard words like "bummed" and "totally" and "huge thumbs up," and saw an unmistakable vanilla quality which reminded me of the Ben Lyons period.
I think if Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott had been retained, the fan base that they built could carry forward to the new show and give it the class and maturity so long associated with the program, which would hopefully result in a healthy run on PBS.
But the way things look now, I'm afraid the program may soon fade and become only a footnote in Mr. Ebert's TV endeavors.

Ebert: Of course you saw the "highlights" and the uncut show might have pleased you more. The language "bummed" and "totally" and "huge thumbs up" doesn't bother me. It's vernacular. I've used such expressions myself.

Hooray!
Welcome back to the tube, Roger. You've been sorely missed. I've watched since the days on Channel 11, and am looking forward to intellegent discussion once again.

I confess to have still felt bummed by the vanishing of the old series with Scott and Phillips, even a month later. But this new series brings hope to those of us who like to take our movie news and views slow and easy on the old tube or LCD (ideally with Martini in hand). Huddling 'round the iMac just doesn't do it for my wife and me. Also, it's wonderful that you've removed the show from the Darwinian arena of commercial TV. There's no reason now that it can't go for decades. We can hardly wait to see the new show early in the new year.

Hey Roger,

I'm 24 years old. For years when I was much younger, I would now and then catch At The Movies on TV. As a growing movie lover, it was always a surprise treat, like a prize in your cereal box. ("OH! IT'S ON! -Two thumbs down?! DOWN?! What are they paying you idiots for!?) I don't know why it was so hard to keep up with consistently, but I suppose that weekends, for kids, mean an oblitoration of all usual orientation. I never properly took hold of the show, and I was sad, peripherally watching it change, and change, and then go.

I will commit to this new show, as long as I can relate to the reviewers. I'm not going to let At The Movies slip away un-noticed again. I'm real happy for you that this has come together and I can't wait to see it.

So happy!

....and with Elvis Mitchell as well. He was simply my favorite when you were trying out for Richard Roeper. I'm a big fan of his The Treatment show.

Roll on January and congratulations.

Rob

Awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome!!!

LOVE that this will be on PBS.

Please keep in mind, Roger, that the unscripted debates are a thousand times more compelling than the scripted recitations. If the hosts are given the opportunity to "go at it," I will be very happy. This is not to say that I need the hosts to be at odds. It's the passion that is compelling.

Sorry, nowhere else currently to post this comment apparently. As to the recent Koran burning / Bible thumping controversy. WHAT WOULD CHRISTopher [ironic name] HITCHENS SAY?!?! Thanks. Love you, Dear Ebert. Cassandra

@ Marilyn Ferdinand wrote on Sept 10, 2010 3:54 PM

re: Marie Haws regarding her scolding of @IEatGod
You might have to do the same with Kim. Have you seen how many photos of herself she has on her Sunset Gun photostream? :=) http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunsetgunshots/

Chuckle; yes, I did scold him. :)

But jeeesh... anytime a woman does anything, how she looks while doing it invariably gets commented upon and 99% of the time, by some guy.

If a man finds a woman attractive, of what possible use it that to anyone else? Why share it aloud and who is that opinion for, anyway? And what's really contained within it, if not the sound of the male gaze...

"I find this female to be of value because her appearance does not displease me."

And while she's clearly attractive, emotionally speaking, I personally don't care how Kim looks as bears no influence: it won't make her movie reviews any better or any worse. Making the observation of looks a moot point within the context of discussing the new show - and why it bugs me.

If Kim were doing promotion for "At The Movies" and being interviewed on Entertainment Tonight or some such, and they're also talking to her about things in her own life, then yes; you can notice how she looks - as she's not reviewing a movie.

But if she's DOING HER JOB and you focus instead on her appearance - and you don't do that for the men on the show, it's hard not to draw a parallel between that sort of mindset then, and an episode of Mad Men. Ie: 1950's type thinking etc.

It's patronizing.

Note: there's how you look, and then there's who you are. Men make that distinction for one another and far less so, for women. THAT'S why such comments get my back up.

If Kim were doing promotion for "At The Movies" and being interviewed on Entertainment Tonight or some such, and they're also talking to her about things in her own life, then yes; you can notice how she looks - as she's not reviewing a movie.

Uh, keep in mind, though, the "Female critic" issue is a notoriously SORE spot with longtime Sneak Previews/ATM aficionados, who've had our own bad horror stories with the issue, and can speak from battle experience--
Anyone who was watching the '99-00 year of "auditions" to replace the late Gene Siskel was at the point of thinking that Mr. Ebert and/or his producers had finally gone round the bend in insisting on blow-dried whitebread Boston entertainment reporter Joyce Kulhawik as groomed to be the new replacement.
Fans were following the "auditions" like sports nuts before the Super Bowl: A landslide of fan votes were for Harry Knowles (who showed a surprisingly comfortable film savvy beyond his goofy AintItCoolNews.com background), and Joel Siegel (who projected much of Siskel's philosophical quality, and was surprisingly professional away from Good Morning America) was moving up as a close second in the polls...But no, like many a replacement-show producer before him (anyone remember Rex Reed and Nancy Glass taking over the former "At the Movies"? How about Jeffrey Lyons and Alison Bailey in "Reel Talk"?), either Mr. Ebert or his producers believed that a "He said/She said" format of male and female critic was the future of the show. As you can see, it's been the eternal El Dorado, an impossible dream that's sent many a producer to rack and ruin.

There's just one slight problem with that dream, and don't picket my front lawn for saying it: THERE JUST AREN'T THAT MANY GOOD FEMALE CRITICS...We lost the cream of them with Pauline Kael. Film criticism may at heart be like car repair, following the Packers, or watching the Stooges--It requires a certain sports-obsessiveness to discuss minutiae in overenthusiastic detail--and believe that the entire world will be better or worse off for it being done well or not--and it's males, most of all, who can show such pointless "warrior" dedication to a hobby. If a woman can discuss Orson Welles' cinematography or Hitchcock's editing, I say let her and bless her for it...But if a female critic is lured by the bright lights of "Entertainment news", and waxes more enthusiastic about Avatar's box office or Johnny Depp's career, no one, male or female, deserves to share in the higher echelons of a discipline, let alone a profession. Many who become local station "entertainment reporters", possibly, deserve to, for no critic can serve both film and studio.

But anyway:--About the last S&E replacement (and lord help us, Buddy-nepotism won out in the end, and we were subjected to seven nebbishy nails-on-chalkboard years of fellow Sun-Times critic Richard Roeper, aka The Human Squirrel):
Like most movie nuts--and one who'd grown up in Boston, and had enough of Happy Joyce to last a lifetime--I was driven to writing Mr. Ebert at his Sun-Times column, and asking, in effect, "...Yes, I'm sure you're friends on the junket tours, but have you freaking gone INSANE??? Mr. Ebert's comment (as I'm hoping I'm not breaking confidence) was to ask, well, as a backup, what did I think of Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum? I answered that I respected her in print, but couldn't honestly remember her appearance on the show.
The fatal dream, it seems, had claimed one more victim. :(

The Lady Doth Protest Too Much Dept.: Men also hate it when women praise other guys' good looks, but we stop short of labeling it sexist, simply because "jealous" will suffice.

(And why should we turn a blind eye to the physical appearance of someone appearing on television?)

I sincerely hope that this is shown here in the UK, or at least streamed online the way At The Movies was. It would fill a similar gaping void.

Perfect! I love the whole concept, and it sounds like it will contain all the goodness of the old format, which I loved. I hope you have Richard come in and co-host once and a while because he was great.
Can't wait, keep up the great work Roger!

Welcome back, Roger. You have been sorely missed. I have been watching since the early 80's when I was a teenager. Every sunday night after the 10 o'clock news on Channel 3. No matter what time I had to get up monday morning. My grandparents use to live right across from the local movie theater. What a delight. So dissapointed when I heard of the cancellation of "At the Movies", but then I read in the Sunday edition of The Wisconsin State Journal that you were bringing back the show. Can't wait. Will definitely be watching. Where's Richard? Bueller.......Bueller someone go find Richard. Phillips and Scott got the short end of the stick on their deal. They did a fine job. Hopefully these gentlemen will get a seat once in a while on the new show.
Til January, the balcony is closed.

I was with you until "women's pictures"...

I hope you have Richard come in and co-host once and a while because he was great.
Where's Richard? Bueller.......Bueller someone go find Richard.

I'm sorry to press the point, but I really have to ask some of the people here, and it's a genuinely honest question: WHAT'S WITH the nostalgia for Richard Roeper, aside from simply the last generation watching the show without Gene Siskel?
I can appreciate that Siskel had his own more "spiritual" style to movie reviewing, tending to review movies on what they said about society in general, and that he would be a hard act to follow. But Roeper often came off as desperate, amateur, hyperactively camera-struck, and deeply, deeply untalented, believing that everything he'd learned at Fox News would play in S&E's balcony, even after S&E had changed and educated our view of film criticism...You can take the critic out of the local station, but heaven help him if you can't take the local-station out of the critic.

There was no replacing Ebert's "partner" of twenty years, but the format of the show had kept Roger trying to hold discussions of a director's style or the subtlety of a performance...And just as Roger got on a film-analysis roll, Richard would cut him off--often mid-sentence--to jump in, fairly bouncing at the chance, to insert one of his own dweeby, cutesy local-station pun/blurbs that he hoped would be picked up by RottenTomatoes next week: "If you ask me, Tom's been on CRUISE CONTROL for his last few films..." The camera would cut back to Roger's interrupted reaction, and maybe it's projection on the part of the audience, but swear you could see in his eyes that patient look of "...Shut!...UP!!" (And if that look wasn't there, Roger, you were a fool, because that was exactly what some of us at home were near shouting back at the screen.)
Even in talk-show appearances, where Siskel & Ebert used to be equal combatants on Johnny or Conan, Roeper would again see the spotlight shining on him, and almost literally bounce out of his chair like a 10-yo. to cut Ebert off every time a bon mot impulsivevly occurred to him.

A Pulitzer-winning print critic does not deserve a hyperactive tagalong little-brother to exchange deeper discussion with, and if you were trying to "train" or educate him for the big time, Roger, it did not work: Trying to carry on a rational, grownup film discussion with Roeper was like talking to a brick wall with grinning local-news ads plastered on it.
We have since lost the hope that the "auditions" of '99-'00 will bring us a new talent, or that we'll get something a little more highbrow than "diverse demographics". But, Roger, when former S&E fans look at the last ten years and pleadingly ask, "What the hell were you thinking?", take it as an honest question in the spirit it's meant. :)

Thrilled to hear this news. After reading my first Roger Ebert film back in the 70's I virtually stopped reading any others. I have always admired the balanced manner in which he views a film. I'll be an avid follower of this new program. Hope I get it in my area!

Dear Mr. Ebert,
I was honored that you saw fit to respond to my comments. I of course realize that "bummed," "totally," etc. are vernacular, and can be found in 90% of the reviews now seen on TV and on-line, especially from critics who were born after 1970.
But it's not what I've come to associate with your writing (unless you're using the terminology to make a point) or "At the Movies."
And since you are presenting this new incarnation of "At the Movies," I think there's an assumption that its critics will be of a more mature, erudite nature.
Which is not to imply that Mr. Mitchell, whose work I've enjoyed, lacks those qualities. I'm just afraid that his affable nature, when paired against another smiling, easygoing host, is going to result in a mighty bland show.
A lot of it comes down to what comes across on camera. I personally thought that Joyce Kulhawik came off just as favorably in your try-outs as Richard Roeper; so it's not necessarily a matter of gender either.
If I might put a face with my name--- I presented you with some audio examples of original work when we met on the 2003 Film Festival at Sea, and you later started doing "the wave" as I performed "Hey Jude" in the karaoke room! I subsequently sent you a highlights video of that Disney Cruise (including a number of your presentations) and a copy of my 2008 "Four-Star Review Rhapsody" CD, in which I weaved over a hundred pieces of soundtrack music as accompaniment to my capsule reviews.
All the items might have gone directly to the dustbin; but just in case they never reached you, please let me know if you'd like me to resend any of them (I think you would really enjoy the "Review Rhapsody;" it's a strikingly original work, if I do say so myself).
All my best to you and Chaz, who was so kind to me that night on the cruise (she came over to our table and said "I thought you were the best.")
And consider me available if you're looking to fly someone to Chicago to evaluate the new show!

Sincerely,

Steven Kelly

Are you bringing back the "Dog of the Week"? I remember when the dog, Sparky was it?, jumped up on the seat to remind you that it was time for the Dog of the Week. That was a great segment, funny, clever, good writing. I always looked forward to that segment.

Are you bringing back the "Dog of the Week"? I remember when the dog, Sparky was it?, jumped up on the seat to remind you that it was time for the Dog of the Week. That was a great segment, funny, clever, good writing. I always looked forward to that segment.

Sadly, think "Dog of the Week" has become a cultural casualty since the 70's:
A) It usually involved going out to catch one of the local Grindhouse horror/kung fu/blaxploitation, because the A-pictures were already the main fodder of the show (and one slow week, the two asked, "What are you doing here, Sparky, you should've been here at the beginning of the show!"
Unfortunately,
B) the Grindhouse theater has gone the way of the Drive-In, having been replaced by bad Asylum direct-to-videos and the SyFy Channel.
Especially considering
C) it started becoming Cruelty to Critics to MAKE them sit through an exploitation picture every week just to fill the producer's humor segment. (It was Siskel, after all, who first popularized the phrase "Two hours of your life you'll never get back".)

And looking back,
D) A lot of what were eventually considered good cult B-movies were passed off as "Dogs" just because they played the wrong side of the tracks and the show was on a deadline--Early Wes Craven and the first "Nightmare on Elm Street" ranked as a "dog" for playing the B-theaters; so did Richard Franklin's "Patrick" and most of David Cronenberg's early psychological Canadian B-horrors. Siskel even publicly apologized for lining up "Adios, Amigo" as a "dog" for playing the blaxploitation theaters, and found it turned out to be a surprisingly enjoyable early Richard Pryor comedy.

Basically, DotW was cashing in on what eventually became Harry & Michael Medved's worst-film craze, and frankly, that's not aged well, either: In the old days, enjoying a bad har-har review for its own sake was an unknown cultural experience--Nowadays, we not only KNOW what a bad film looks like (and, thanks in part to Ebert, how to sardonically pants one), the concept was replaced by the more cult-audience involvement of MST3K, and simply pointing at a film and laughing at it today comes off as too unprofessional and schoolyard. (Not to mention a bit celebrity gay-sniping, which we already have too much of in 00's culture...No one wants a movie review show to turn into E's "The Soup".)

@ Eric J. and his "here's just one slight problem with that dream, and don't picket my front lawn for saying it: THERE JUST AREN'T THAT MANY GOOD FEMALE CRITICS"

Eric, you are in wide company in this perception, even though IT ISN'T TRUE AT ALL! There are lots of good female critics, but what it takes to get the attention and imprimatur of people like you I still don't know. Why don't you get out more and raise your consciousness? I'm more than tired of putting people straight time and time and time and time again. Stop wallowing in your own lack of awareness.

Ebert: Obviously you have never read Kim Morgan, or seen her on TV.

Unfortunately, I have. I know you lost your ability to speak, but that doesn't mean you also went blind and deaf. The only thing obvious is you haven't seen her on TV or read her writing.

Ebert: Freddie, two comments on Kim? I've posted these comments and I see absolutely no such consensus. In my world of movie bloggers, her writing, insights and industry inspire awe. What world are you from? I have been tweeting Kim for a year, and I reached out to her. It's not like she applied for the job.

Inspire awe? What world are you lost in? Now, it seems like an even bigger blunder. You chose her on purpose because of her tweets!

What does a year worth of tweeting mean? That you and her developed a sympatico over movie reviewing doesn't mean she is right or good.

Roger go back and watch her with Richard. People are telling you this for a reason!!

Ebert: I did not say I chose her because of her tweets. Read again. I chose to tweet her because of her writing. We did not "develop a sympatico." I scouted YouTube clips in which she wins debates with male colleagues because she knows so much about the movies and argues clearly and well.

You seem to have a thing about her.

@ IEatGod wrote: "...Kim Morgan is pretty though :)"

Then @ Marie Haws wrote:

"May the ghost of Pauline Kael visit you in your sleep, and choke the 1950's out of you so we can officially bury it."

Uh, do you not think that Kim Morgan intended to look "pretty" in that photo above? Is it wrong to appreciate that, as she presumably wanted us to? He thought the clip as a whole was lacking, but cited one obvious virtue. Lighten up.

Ebert: Kim Morgan's photographs, IMHO, deliberate homage to images of movie actresses from the 1940s and 1950s, the period she most identifies with. They are never snapshots, but considered compositions, and art-directed by her.

It figures.

The show won't even start until January, and already Allemand et Freres are telling you what's wrong with it.

....And why should I be any different?

Actually, I don't have to. On his great site NewsFromME, Mark Evanier sums the situation up as well as anyone can.
To wit: what made the original show a success was you and Gene, not what you were doing.
It's that word that I always hate to see used in this context, but there it is: Chemistry.
You and Gene just happened to have personalities that complemented each other's, and it came across on camera.
This is a quality that can't be manufactured; if it's not there naturally, the thing won't work.

Looking back, I can recall any number of attempts to create a "team", whether on stage, on film, on radio-TV, or even on the printed page. The majority of these artificial pairings failed to live up to their hype, simply because (Cliche Alert) the chemistry wasn't there.This doesn't mean the work wasn't good, but that the pairing never lost its forced quality; you could always see the seams.

You and Gene could have done your show about any topic at all, and it would have flown because of the two of you. That your shared subject happened to be the movies made for the quick-'n'-easy hook that the suits love so much.
My guess is that if Gene Siskel were still here, you and he might have expanded your show into a colloquy on many topics, much as you've done with your journal.

All that said, best of luck with the new show.
Who knows, maybe your new team might strike gold.

I am so relieved; the world has been set right again. Ebert and the reviews return to PBS. Then I think about it for a moment and am irritated: January?? Really? I have to wait that long, when it's prime-time grownup-films-coming-out-to-make-the-Oscars season??? Four months wasted! I need those reviews ***NOW***, not in January!! Then I remember a) my manners, and b) what contract negotiations and broadcast scheduling can be like. Never mind.

At least we'll be getting the reviews again ... thank heavens for small favors. Live long and prosper, Roger: we don't want you vanishing into the Great Unknown before this thing becomes a weekly reality again. That would just be tremendously wrong/a loss/horrifying/absurd/dealbreaking/bitterly stupid. [sigh] We must simply be patient until the new year.

Aw, c'mon Roger! I've waited so long for you to return, and got so excited you started your own show, but couldn't you get a couple of critics with a vocabulary?

That's what made your show with Gene so awesome.

Outstanding news! It was a sad day to see the old show canceled. To see this wonderful new fresh start is magnificent. At one time, I thought we'd never be able to thank you, Roger, for your outstanding work and part of our lives. And now to find that you will be back is fantastic news. You are a man doing his true calling and I wish to thank you for your many years entertaining myself and the millions of fans of the movies. I look forward to your new show and guarantee that I will be there. Thank you and all the best.

To wit: what made the original show a success was you and Gene, not what you were doing.
It's that word that I always hate to see used in this context, but there it is: Chemistry.
You and Gene just happened to have personalities that complemented each other's, and it came across on camera.

Hear, hear: What first caught the original Chicago audience, and later the national's, was that it was capturing a real local rivalry that already existed in the papers--Like watching Jack Benny and Fred Allen appear on each other's old shows, and you couldn't just substitute George Burns and expect to get the SAME jokes defaulted into place with any sincerity.
The show couldn't have been just Ebert any more than it could have been just Siskel; Chicago already expected a team.

More importantly, Gene & Roger just happened to be (2nd cliche' alert) the two sides of the movie-review coin:
Gene usually took the philosophical approach, would praise the effort to make a good movie or get morally offended that someone took the time to make a bad movie, and generally ask what it said about us as a society that the movie could be made at all. Roger was more the technical movie buff who liked picking apart how the movie was made, and tended to heckle the lazy script holes. We got the Why and the How of movies in one, and that made any two thumbs up or down a complete validation on all counts. Any attempts to try for "contrast" by putting a male/female, or old/young, or print/Internet critic together just can't quite get the complete discussion of a movie.

(Again, during the '99 auditions, thought Harry Knowles created a new contrast synergy, between the Old School and the New Geek, while most of the others simply seemed to have been auditioned on the basis of "So, can you remember to look into the camera?"
But, then he had that flap over on his own website, which made the perfect alibi for dropping him out of the auditions for disagreeing with Roger. ;) )

Wonderful news. Félicitations!

Love the 1960s red white black title card.

Love that Kim Morgan is back on TV with you. I completely don't get the unkind criticism she's receiving in posts above. She was excellent in the small spots on tech and the guest hosting. Glad to hear too that she can best many a man in an online film debate.

I live in Toronto and receive PBS over-the-air in High Definition from the Buffalo, New York area. I don't get any of the other US stations over-the-air in my high-rise condo, so I'm glad to know I'll be able to get this show in high def. Excellent!

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I can now forget that part of my very long life has been missing and look ahead to expanding my vision and agreeing or in some cases very much disagreeing with you.

My very best to you Mr. Ebert, and again..thank you.

Great News!
Although Phillips & Scott had some insightful dialogue, the perpetual interruptions with Disney/mainstream commercials was anathema...
Maybe you could contact JoeBobBriggs (assuming the radical right hasn't exterminated him) to act as occasional "guest critic" (given PBS's history of amazingly craven bowing to the gods of the fcc, just edit him a bit...) to add a bit of the contrarian, or maybe Kevin Smith - wait, I seem to recall at least one episode where KS was a guest critic, and he seemed to be willing to edit himself enough to be mainstream, even though his films certainly are not...OK, so best wishes with the new venture...
DMc

I watched your show when you were, "Opening Soon At A Theater near you" with the great Gene Siskel. I was a young boy then with big eyes and a bigger imagination... when Creature Features was still going strong, along with Encyclopedia Brown and Carl Sagan! The sounds of John's, Jaws composition mixed in with the beginning of the Disco era made US all giddy. It was such a wonderful time, right before Jack Horkheimer launched his great Star Gazer, and a year in advance of our bicentennial.

We watched your "Coming Soon..." with anticipation that we wouldn't have to worry about wasting money on lousy movies, or that we were right, when we enjoyed a movie thinking, Ebert and Siskel really know what they are talking about, like when you reviewed (much later on), Romero's "Dawn Of The Dead". I talked my family into going to the drive in to see it. We all loved it! Great review on your behalf, Roger! :)

We are older now, and brighter. May you and your lovely wife have a very brilliant show -- and thank you for hanging in there to show US all how to be stronger!

Excellent... just plain excellent!

Awesome news! Both my mom and I will make sure to catch the show when it's on :). We've been fans since way back and we'll make sure to pass on the good news to all of our friends and family.

This is, by far, the best news I've heard this week.

Great to see the "real" show returning. Don't know much about the critics, but I hope they come with the same fire and passion that made Siskel & Ebert the best review show ever.

this is absolutely awesome! can't wait for this show to come back, roger ebert is one of my movie heroes!

I'm so happy to hear that At the Movies will be back! PBS will be a great venue and it seems like the format is really pitch perfect this time. I can't tell you how much I love hearing discussions on films and how through this show have heard of movies that I might not have heard of otherwise. This news truly warms my heart!

It looks, from my quick skim of the comments here, like you might already have received as much advice as you could possibly take note of, let alone want.

But am I going to let THAT stop me? HA!

So. Let's begin. First, in the interests of full disclosure, I should say I don't watch TV. I used to drop that tidbit freely and found that people took offense, assuming I was staking out some sort of high ground from which to look down on them (and that may even have been true, then). So now I try to say it as seldom as possible and nobody much cares one way or the other. (I can see, though, that the exception might be when I'm about to offer advice related to crafting a watchable TV show. So it's out there now.)

And, having said I don't watch TV, now follow the caveats. Sometimes I've been a friend's house and the device was turned on. I lived with it. Sometimes I'll stay in a motel and wonder if "anything is on." So, on very rare occasions, all of them some years ago now, I actually watched some of your show with Gene Siskel.

And on those few occasions I never watched without feeling a sense of unease and agitation. This was the result of one thing:

YOU TWO DIDN'T SEEM WILLING TO LISTEN.

I'm sure your experience was different. All but positive of it, even, given how often a person's appearance may differ from the way they're experiencing a moment.

So here's the advice: TELL THE REVIEWERS TO LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. Please. People who won't listen are extremely uncomfortable to listen TO.

I had to walk away from your show on the few instances I even saw any of it, because I couldn't stand the intensity of your shared desire with Siskel to be the one doing the talking. Even in agreement, you two seemed so competitive it wasn't worth it to me. And I LOVE your written work. Just LOVE it. I have a whole shelf of your annual reviews.

Okay. I'm done now.