So I just watched the first episode and here are a few comments

The whole format seems anachronistic and strangely forced. I cannot yet explain why. It may be that web browsing has truly killed this type of show.

Where is Roger? I was surprised that he did not make a single appearance.

Best bit was the Werner Herzog commentary on My Dog Tulip

The guy, who's name iI

The guy with the name that I cannot cope with, was good, but needs to slow down - he's new on camera so that's understandable.

She comes over as the wide smiling chick. I know she's deeper but sheesh I did not see it tonight.

The piece on The Third Man was to be honest - pathetic.

I'm not sure who they ink is theirnaudience. The film fan will quickly be bored and the the average Joe won't watch.

I hope they can make it work, but this was a 4/10 start.

Rob

Do you have a link?

I've tried and failed to find the episode online. Which is just as well -- I'm not interested. Capsule criticism is fine on a movie forum but it's, as Rob is implying, old news on television. Commentary tracks, particularly those by critics/historians, have become my favorite form of movie criticism.

I'm sorry, but what the hell happened here? I hope Rob won't take offense when I ask how many glasses of wine he had prior to typing this. His 2nd post looks like he hit the "Quote" button instead of the "Edit" button in order to delete an orphaned partial sentence.

In any case, I shouldn't talk. And, I'd like a link too if it is indeed online. I read a review somewhere that really praised Ignatiy Vishnevetsky. I haven't read any of his stuff but apparently he comes across as a really knowledgeable guy. I took the time to read some of Lemire's reviews when she was announced as co-host and didn't like them at all. She comes across as a populist critic and they might as well replace her with the Tomatometer.

Too many, lost count
Rob

http://www.ebertpresents.com/

Videos for individual reviews are online, though the site could use some tweaking.

For instance, the movie titles under "Recent Reviews" are clickable though you'd never know because the site doesn't underline (or use different colours) for their URLs

I didn't really look at any of the vids because either the video size or the codec used is putting an incredible strain on my ageing PC. Pity that. They should really offer some lower quality options. Still, tough to criticise an unfinished product (at least I hope that it's unfinished).

Eh...not familiar with either of the reviewers. It may indeed be a format that is becoming outdated.

I thought about why I was so disappointed.

Film criticism has evolved. There are more avenues primarily driven by the internet and podcasts and this enables deeper more long form discussion. It's why I so enjoy 90 minutes of Mark Kermode and 75 minutes of Film Spotting each week along with sites such as Slant.

What the show provides is short form summaries and opinions from talking heads with a need to smile at the camera every 30 seconds and be hyper active. there's no rationale or thought.

They are caught in the middle. Too high brow for the average joe friday night action / rom com at the multiplex and too low brow for the likes of me.

It makes me sad, but things have moved on and this format appears remarkably anachronistic is it searches to rediscover a magical moment from a time that no longer exists.

I do wish it well, but think it will be short lived.
Rob

I enjoyed their take on The Way Back, for what it's worth

It is true. Ebert might have been better off establishing a web series, which would've allowed two critics to spend more time--maybe ten minutes--on each individual film.

I'm gonna be honest. After watching a few of these, I'm totally man-crushing on Ignatiy Vishnavetsky

I have to say that I agree. The dude knows his movies, is passionate and well-spoken. He was by far the lesser known of the two and an eleventh hour replacement but at this early stage I'm still prepared to call him the show's greatest asset. Lemire grates for some reason. Imho they should have kept Elvis Mitchell and gotten rid of her. Could you imagine Mitchell and Vishnavetsky going at each other? Both speak really quickly but they totally know their shit. Might have put the average viewer off but it would have been a real treat for film fans.

Glad to hear I'm not alone. In addition to all the attributes you mention, he's very charming. Also agreed about Lemire. She's not "bad" per se, but she's irksome in a way that I can't put my finger on. I think it's that Vishnavetsky is natural and disarming while she feels more forced. But that's something she can fix over time--I found Roeper terrible initially, but he came a long way

last night's ep was interesting - 'movies that made us critics'

Vishnevetsky's some hardcore film buff, he picked Shoah, Playtime, a Stroheim film I never heard of, a Griffith I never heard of & Godard's Histoire(s) du cinéma. can't believe he's only 24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatiy_Vishnevetsky

Lemire picked Wizard of Oz, Breakfast Club, Magnolia

I keep missing this on tv so I'm glad to see the reviews online. Vishnevetsky not only chose interesting films, but he made me want to see his picks. I've seen only Play Time. I don't mind Lemire. I don't think she's used to being in front of a camera.

Jeff Greenfield had some nice comments on the big speech in political films.

"Hardcore" is the right word. Have any of you guys read his blog:

http://soundsimages.blogspot.com/

Goddamn! There are some little capsule reviews that are just...wow!

He almost seems wasted on this show.

I'm glad there's someone who sees Jacques Tourneur in Devil.

Is it just me or does it look like Christy Lemiere has aged A LOT since we saw her co-hosting with Roeper?

Lemire is the weaker of the duo, which is ironic given her history in media. Vishnevetsky is, by comparison, relaxed and personal, which is doubly ironic because not only does he not have experience in TV, but he comes across as quite the artistic snob in his print reviews. The secondary elements in this incarnation are all disposable--the only "correspondent" I have even remotely enjoyed thus far was Richardson on "Black Swan", which I suspect was more because of my affinity for the film than for her. Roger's Office comes across as a desperate attempt to keep him in the program at this point (sadly). My advice: Get back to the bread-and-butter -- the reviews -- and polish them as much as possible... At this point, they almost seem an afterthought. Last weekend's "Movies that Inspired Us to Be Critics" episode was insufferable, but I won't give up on the show just yet. There have been very few big ticket movies to review thus far, so the true substance of the show is yet to be seen.