To recap, last year America saw the nearest thing we've had to a revolution caused by people upset over the ruining of a movie reviewers chat show, when At The Movies replaced its beloved icons of decades, the inventors of the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down scale Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, with two smirking meatheads who looked like the only thing they wanted to debate about film was Megan Fox's cup size.

Heeding the outbreak of fury from its audience, At the Movies producers duly awarded the Bens their one way tickets to Palookaville. But then taking perhaps the audiences demands for more seriousness a bit too much to heart, brought in our new Movie Critic Overlords - venerable, scholarly, erudite AO Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune.

In a simpler time, one might have thought there would be some middle ground between Frat Party and The Grad School Profs Still Talking Hours After the Dinner Has Been Cleared And Not Noticing Their Wives Have Passed Out in Their Seats. But in this age, such a choice is not to be had.

At The Moviesis whetting out appetite for some good old critical banter about about Le Cinema with a video introducing their new critics, from the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. Strangely, they only drop Scott's New York Times credential five times during the five minute video. If these people are truly going to pull off a highbrow show, they're going to have to find a way to get that up to once every twenty seconds.

The video sets the new season's scenario with the irresistible tag line "Two Accomplished Critics. One Stimulating Discussion." With a premise like that, who needs a script?

Some saliva-inducing high points:

• "Serious reviews from serious journalists" promises the voice over as the feeling sinks in this is going to be a very long evening.
• Scott recalls seeing Fantasia and Willie Wonka as a child and realizing "movies are an art form that can make fantasies real." He omits from story the ass-whooping he received. the next day on the school bus when he shared that realization with his friends.
• More on the youth of AO Scott: "I got interested in a very early age in reading film criticism...and I found that criticism was something that I really enjoyed."
• A whistful retelling of Scott's historic journey from the depths of writing for Slate to the aforementioned New York Times after a critical essay on Martin Scorsese caught the culture editor's eye, and Phillips travels across the landscape of American newspapers.
• On what makes At The Movies such a beloved national treasure, Scott says, "The show has always, I think, stood for critical intelligence brought to this popular medium of television in a way that's accessible, clear and fun." And who wouldn't think that's a hoot and a half?
• Phillips on Scott: "I can not wait because he works at such a high level of critical acumen."
• Phillips suggest that the show may actually redefine TV chat as we know it. "You get the debate going to right way, it's not going to be two way, it's going to be three way. Us two, and the viewers."

Let the jocularity commence!

Replacing Lyons and Mankiewicz as hosts of the long-running show, formerly hosted by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, will be A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune, two men widely respected in the world of film criticism who have both served as fill-ins on the show in the past.

As the LA Times Patrick Goldstein notes, Ben Mankiewicz wasn't all that bad, but it appears as though he was brought down by the tremendous weight of Lyons' Herculean suckage.

To be fair, Mankiewicz, the scion of a fabled Hollywood family who hosts Turner Classic Movies presentations, was clearly more knowledgeable than his counterpart. As my colleague Chris Lee reported last December, Lyons, son of film critic Jeffrey Lyons, was held in such low esteem in the critical fraternity that others in the profession were lining up, happy to be quoted by name ridiculing his work, with Chicago-based film critic Erik Childress saying of Lyons: "He has no taste. Everyone thinks he's a joke."

So how awful was Ben Lyons? This awful:

You know what hurts a movie like Max Payne is the success of the Batman franchise. That obviously is about story and character so they think for all films of the genre it's gotta be about story and character and this whole backstory of him losing his wife. I don't care about that. I wanna see Max Payne shoot people. That's all I want from a movie like this.

Film lovers of the America rejoice — your own personal long national nightmare is finally over! But what will now become of the "Stop Ben Lyons" blog?

As a less painful alternative to the new At The Movies I took a plastic knife to my eyeballs and poked then until they bleed a little. Next time I just won't watch at all. — Dirty Harry

It's almost insulting. The producers want to beef up the ratings so they hire two youngish guys and stick some "neato" graphics around the screen and viola! Now the hipsters will come! -donner- said it best. It hasn't been the same since Gene died. And Roger, God love him, has been doing his best, but the thrill's been gone. — wh

They should get rid of the "Rent It" verdict. It's a lazy way to judge a movie. Either see it or you don't; this will force their reviews to be more focused. — Rob Grizzly

The only thing I feel good about with this "new direction" is at least they didn't hire Billy Bush (I'm never gonna forgive that ***hat for defecating on the Golden Globes earlier this year, am I? Maybe I should see somebody about that...) — Meier

I'll never have an opinion because I'm never going to watch the show. I prefer to read the comments and reviews of Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips on the Internet. — Jakeem

Don't you worry, "Jakeem": As evidenced by their appearance Sunday on Entourage's season premiere, Roeper and Phillips still have a bright TV future in ironic fake-review cameos:

• At the Movies [Buena Vista TV]
• Does 'At the Movies' work.. [PopWatch]