35 years.
I know it wasn’t the same after Siskel died and even more so when Roger had to leave, but it continued past that.
Despite the debacle of the “revamped” version, it came back recently with real critics and some intelligent discussion.
I guess there isn’t any room on TV for intelligent film discussion, anymore.
The last episode will feature at least part of it reviewing some of the history of the show as they go off the air. I wish Roger could join them.
Check your local listings.
At the Movies is not 35 years old. It’s true that Sneak Previews, the first review show for Siskel and Ebert, started in 1975, but they left that program in 1982. It continued until 1996 with other hosts:
In 1982 they moved to a program called At the Movies:
They left that program in 1986. It continued with other hosts until 1990.
In 1986 they moved to a program called Siskel & Ebert & the Movies:
Siskel died in 1999 and Ebert left the program in 2006. That program went through a number of different names. In 2008 it changed its name to At the Movies. (I presume that the producers made a deal with the earlier show to buy the use of the old name.) So the program At the Movies is either 28 or 24 or 2 years old, but it’s not 35 years old.
Sorry if that’s confusing for you young’ins, but it was even more confusing for those of us who lived through the entire stretch of Siskel and Ebert review shows.
I’m wondering if the show would have survived, even if both Siskel and Ebert were alive and in perfect health. The highly-talky approach seems pretty passe these days.
It would have survived if it stayed on PBS, probably. Niche programming. Now what’s in its place-“Nothing But Trailers” on HDNet?
Sort of sad to see it go - it was on my DVR list.
However, it was always a day late and a dollar short - by the time they reviewed the movie, I had already seen it. (We usually go see movies on the Friday opening day.)
So for me it was just curiosity to see what they thought of a film I had already seen.
Sometimes they would mention a small, independent film I hadn’t yet seen and it would pique my interest enough to search it out when it came to the local multi-plex.
I am surprised Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t come out with a TV show - they could add quick clips of a few reviewers and give a fast total on the average ratings. Could be fun.
There is a program called The Rotten Tomatoes Show:
While I’m at it, a link to the funniest thing that The Rotten Tomatoes Show has done:
Yes, I know the whole history. Ebert is pointing out that it is the same show to him.
He just tweeted, “Mike Phillips and Tony Scott conclude 35 years of “At the Movies” in style, to be replaced by celeb idiocy.”
He also tweeted:
"Ending a 35-year run, “At the Movies” airs its final chapter today, with a tribute to years past. Check your listings. "
So, he considers them really the same show and I was going with his interpretation.
Cool that he isn’t bitter. Cool that he’s tweeting.
Maybe they could read something from ol’ Rog on the air for the last show. Or at least show his thumb 
Thanks for the heads up, Mahaloth. I managed to catch the finale episode thanks to your post. It was kind of bittersweet, but well done.
I’ve always liked Michael Phillips, and kind of consider him the only heir apparent to Gene and Roger; both erudite and down to earth all at the same time…TRM
Cool, it doesn’t air here until midnight tonight.
Yeah,* that’s* a time slot.
The whole changing dhow and names and everything was too confusing. I never watched it because I could never figure out when if was on and on what channel.
It wasn’t just that the name of the show was changing. There were three different shows on the air between 1986 and 1990 with the same format. It was confusing when you would see not just Siskel and Ebert but two other teams of film critics trying to imitate them on two other shows which had once starred Siskel and Ebert. In many markets the shows got lousy time slots. The various shows would stay on the air because the time slots cost so little that they didn’t need a big audience, but you could easily stumble across one of these programs and say, “Wait, didn’t that go off the air a decade ago?”
I think they ended it exactly correctly.
I remember the argument about Cop and Half!
The first several years of Sisket and Ebert, studios didn’t do much advertising on TV, so the program was as much a marketing vehicle for them as it was about reviews. It was very effective too, you would go to a theater and the audience would react uproariously to the clip(s) they had seen on the show, and then go back to talking about whatever the hell they had been talking about before.
I imagine it’s much the same now with trailer mania, but I haven’t been in a theater in years.
They handled it perfectly, and I even tip my hat to AO Scott, (whom I often personally dislike) as he had some good insights on the state of cinema today—If they do collaborate on a movie review show in the future, I will be sure to tune in…
Ebert just linked(via Twitter) to a very nice history of the show, with Youtube clips.
Neat.
And now, Ebert is bringing it back!
Wow, that clip looked really good! Not only the content, but the production quality looked better than most on-line productions.
But… they really should cut the Ebert segment. That is just tooooo creepy. And it didn’t sound like his voice at all. Didn’t we have a recent thread about somebody who put together a system of bits of his own voice recordings so he could “talk” in real time? They obviously weren’t using that here.
Yeah, but I think he is identifying that as his new voice. He used the Ebert voice on Oprah, though.