Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 10:33:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Film 2010

Started by clingfilm portent, October 13, 2010, 11:18:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Yes, its as bad as we were all expecting. Glitzy, popcorn-focused shite. Thanks Beeb.

Why does the presenter talk like she's on Sky Sports News? Is this live? Fuck this shit.

Tokyo Sexwhale

I've just switched it on - and they're reading stuff from "Twitter".  How utterly modern, and fucking uselessly uninformative.

You're too late, its gone. I only caught it from around mid-way but my mind is sufficiently numbed. That it, BBC? That's our lot? A load of films that we already know about, or we'll be hearing about ad finitum once the vicious ad campaigns start and the stars do their chatshow runs.

Rev

It's the One Show - Films Edition, but let's stop this getting out of hand before we start harking back to a golden era.  Film XXXX has always been shit.  It did have a small use in the Mr Pickles days, as although you had to snooze through his ridiculously conservative reviews, there'd be little nuggets of movie news and the odd trailer.  The internet killed that small bit of usefulness, and the Ross era was simply as show that was too well-established to be put out of its misery.

So, yeah.  It was bollocks, but it's always been bollocks.

boxofslice

I started a thread in PB but nobody replied to it - sad face.

It was terrible as I thought it was going to be.  Winklebum looked like she was on some heavy medication or had been up for 48 hrs and that Danny person seemed to have borrowed one of Kermodes cast off hairstyles.  Can do without the kiddie blogger giving his opinion too; was this a crap  attempt to get the yoof watching?

As for doing it live - pointless.  I really don't give a shit as to what Barry in Dulwich on Twitter thinks, I don't know him or his background so his opinion is meaningless to me.

What was so wrong with one informed person giving his thoughts to camera?

Crabwalk

The awkward live interview with Keira Knightly, Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield at the London Film Festival was something else wasn't it? The three actors could only giggle and babble their way through a set of terrible questions from the sweaty interviewer man. The nadir was reached when he asked them 'Would the three of you like to work together again?'. This is exactly the kind of thing I want from the BBC's flagship cinema program.

I agree that Film x has never been must-see TV, but surely there's scope for a more engaging, passionate and considered show than this?

Ignatius_S

Quote from: boxofslice on October 14, 2010, 09:06:35 AM
...What was so wrong with one informed person giving his thoughts to camera?
Or even Jonathan Ross. *cymbal crash*

dr beat

QuoteAs for doing it live - pointless.  I really don't give a shit as to what Barry in Dulwich on Twitter thinks, I don't know him or his background so his opinion is meaningless to me.

Kermode and Mayo's R5L programme handle the listener review side of things much better, wearying though the in-jokes might get at times.

Just had a thought - the Barry Norman-era Film programme could have made for a fantastic Smell of Reeves and Mortimer pisstake.

Rev

Quote from: Crabwalk on October 15, 2010, 03:25:14 PMI agree that Film x has never been must-see TV, but surely there's scope for a more engaging, passionate and considered show than this?

There is, but this particular show has always been very Sunday supplement.  I was really disappointed when Jonathan Ross took over, because it should have been exciting.  This was the guy who made the best TV series about films that has ever been broadcast on UK television - the Incredibly Strange Picture Show - and I'll have fisticuffs with anyone who says different.  Maybe his return from the wilderness years played a part, and I'm not arguing that he didn't immediately become a cock once he had surer footing in his other endeavours, but when he took over he was someone with a real passion for the filcks who was neutered by the show itself.

This is probably why Kermode couldn't do it; his whole schtick would be killed off by the politeness of the thing.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

It is so fucking fucking fucking shit it makes me violent. If I now murdered something, like a dog or a hedge, could I claim the BBC made me do it?

They haven't given it a very nice looking logo. What's the point in vacuous glitz if it looks like a fucking pilot?

As for the presenters, the format, the segments. Well, I give up. Fuck it.

An tSaoi

Kermode said he couldn't do the show (even if he was asked) because he doesn't 'do moderation', which I think says a lot about what type bland presenting style the Beeb are looking for.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Rev on October 16, 2010, 01:41:10 AM
There is, but this particular show has always been very Sunday supplement.  I was really disappointed when Jonathan Ross took over, because it should have been exciting.  This was the guy who made the best TV series about films that has ever been broadcast on UK television - the Incredibly Strange Picture Show - and I'll have fisticuffs with anyone who says different....
Which I'm pretty sure he didn't write, but hosted/presented.

In any case, he presented a show on BBC 2, which had a celebrity (mate) in and they would watch clips of cult films and afterwards, the channel would show a cult film (the only one I can remember is Cry Baby) – it may have been Mondo Rosso.

I had great hopes for the series, but whole thing was just showing really terrible clips, while the host guffawed and said how crap it was. In the show he came across as knowing fuck all about film and enjoyed cult films for being bad - for worse, he made some rather good pictures look if they had no redeeming features.

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 19, 2010, 03:07:36 PM
Kermode said he couldn't do the show (even if he was asked) because he doesn't 'do moderation', which I think says a lot about what type bland presenting style the Beeb are looking for.
Not really - the moderator is meant to keep the discussion on track; Melvyn Bragg on In Our Time is a great example.

I haven't been to any myself, but friends have given bad reports about when Kermode moderated or hosted live events, such as one with Ken Russell – the main complaints were his own opinions dominate proceedings and doesn't seem bothered about whether the audience are interested or not. I nearly made the Russell one but heard it was basically him sucking up to the filmmaker.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

To be honest, I'd rather have someone who is knowledgeable and stridently opinionated about films, even if I disagree entirely with them, than some fucking ochre bint carping on about who's fit and a load of 3d shite.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on October 20, 2010, 03:43:24 PM
To be honest, I'd rather have someone who is knowledgeable and stridently opinionated about films, even if I disagree entirely with them, than some fucking ochre bint carping on about who's fit and a load of 3d shite.
Oh, I think most of us would - I was talking more about when someone is meant to be moderating a discussion, which  I thought was what Kermode was saying in that bit that An tSaoi quoted, but re-reading, he most likely means appearing.

I remember reading that he was quoted when the new host was announced and having a quick look, here's a bit:

QuoteThe thing with that programme is it requires a mainstream sensibility. If you were doing that programme, why would you get that bloke who says 3D is a con?

So that fits in with your feelings about 3D and what An tSaoi said, nicely.

Interesting article here - http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6990882.ece




Shoulders?-Stomach!

They're happy to have him co-presenting The Culture Show, a job which involves him presenting and discussing certain aspects of mainstream culture he's arguably less qualified to talk about than Winkleman is to talk about films. And who decided that being anti-3D was against mainstream sensibility?

The deterioration of Film is an inexcusable joke when you consider just how good that programme could potentially be.

Rev

(Incredibly Strange Film Show and Joffa Ross)

Quote from: Ignatius_S on October 19, 2010, 03:24:17 PM
Which I'm pretty sure he didn't write, but hosted/presented.

I'm almost certain that he did write it, if not single-handedly.  It was a pet project to fatten Channel X's CV, after all.

Small Man Big Horse

Quote from: Ignatius_S on October 20, 2010, 04:07:46 PM
Interesting article here - http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6990882.ece

I have to admit I'm not much of a fan of his, but this bit especially annoyed me:

Quote"People don't talk about films in a moderate way. People are passionate about movies and the thing I've always been obsessed with trying to get across, in writing or on the radio, is that sense. Nobody goes to see a film and says afterwards, 'On the one hand this, on the other hand that'.

Yes they do. All the time.

QuoteThey say, 'It was the best film I ever saw' or 'it was the worst film I ever saw'.

I have never met anyone in my life who's like that. Actually, that's a lie, my 4 year old Godson is. But I don't know anyone over the age of 10 who thinks like that.

Jemble Fred

Agreed. There's no middle-ground on that article, it's pure bollocks.

Harpo Speaks

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 19, 2010, 03:07:36 PM
Kermode said he couldn't do the show (even if he was asked) because he doesn't 'do moderation', which I think says a lot about what type bland presenting style the Beeb are looking for.

I always thought this was a bit of a stupid comment that was playing up to his 'Kermodian Rant' image. In one sense of the word it's true - in that he will really go after something he hates in a way that no Film 2010 presenter does.

However looking at the article above, it seems he's actually referring to 'Moderate' as a middle-ground, a balanced view. Which is bizarre because this is something I think most film viewers do - and Kermode does himself. He almost always picks out the few positives in a terrible film, or the flaws as he sees them in a good one, so it's a really strange view to take. His passion shines through, but his reviews are never as simplistic as the Worst Film Ever!/Best Film Ever example.

Ignatius_S

This thread reminded that when I talked to Chris Smith, director of Black Death and Severance, he mentioned that he once worked on Film – basically, watching films and writing it up for the host.

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on October 20, 2010, 04:20:20 PM
They're happy to have him co-presenting The Culture Show, a job which involves him presenting and discussing certain aspects of mainstream culture he's arguably less qualified to talk about than Winkleman is to talk about films. And who decided that being anti-3D was against mainstream sensibility?

The deterioration of Film is an inexcusable joke when you consider just how good that programme could potentially be.
Good point – I suspect that the BBC feels Winkleman is more suited to take the show in the direction they want. Also, I wouldn't be surprised that having blokes fronting the show previously, they might have preferred to have a woman doing the job.

Personally, I didn't think much of Ross much as the host. In the early days, there were too many summing ups that were basically 'If you enjoy romantic comedies, you love it, but if you don't, it's not going to be your cup of tea.'

Quote from: Rev on October 21, 2010, 02:41:51 AM
(Incredibly Strange Film Show and Joffa Ross)

I'm almost certain that he did write it, if not single-handedly.  It was a pet project to fatten Channel X's CV, after all.
I first assumed it was Ross who wrote it, but was never able to find any concrete to support this – but then again, I can't say there's anything to definitely say he didn't! However, I don't believe the show ever credited any writer and Ross was just listed as 'Jonathan Ross presents The Incredibly Strange Film Show' so we can't tell from that.

I'll take but 'pretty sure' as I can't be, but it's my gut feeling that he didn't.

However, if he did, I think it made Mondo Rossi all the more disappointing as that so much potential, especially as there were some great guests like Ingrid Pitt, but ones like Rowland Rivron was such lazy TV – mates laughing at bad clips. I didn't think Asian Invasion was overly fantastic, but I thought it was a return to form.

The Incredibly Strange Film Show really was great as you say.

Quote from: Small Man Big Horse on October 21, 2010, 02:52:01 AM
I have to admit I'm not much of a fan of his, but this bit especially annoyed me:...
The reason that I thought this was interesting because it shows Kermode talking about his opinion about film in general – at a time when he's flogging a book about film – plus, there was speculation about him taking over Film, so I thought it quite relevant to the discussion.

Small Man Big Horse

Quote from: Ignatius_S on October 21, 2010, 01:50:25 PM
The reason that I thought this was interesting because it shows Kermode talking about his opinion about film in general – at a time when he's flogging a book about film – plus, there was speculation about him taking over Film, so I thought it quite relevant to the discussion.

Oh it definitely was, and made for interesting reading - but it did annoy me at the same time for reasons mentioned. That all said I'd much rather see Kermode on Film 2010 that Winkleman, despite my issues with him.

Small Man Big Horse

This hasn't been too bad this week - Claudia is of course terrible and doesn't seem to be able to say anything other than "It's brilliant / great", but so far the co-host and guest has both been quite interesting. The main reviews have been of indie / arthouse films, there's been a Capra-retrospective, LFF coverage and now an interview with Guillermo del Toro - infact this could be worth watching weekly if it wasn't for Winkleman.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Fuck off Winkleman. Fuck off so much.

uncle_rico

Quote from: Small Man Big Horse on October 27, 2010, 11:15:54 PM
This hasn't been too bad this week - Claudia is of course terrible and doesn't seem to be able to say anything other than "It's brilliant / great", but so far the co-host and guest has both been quite interesting. The main reviews have been of indie / arthouse films, there's been a Capra-retrospective, LFF coverage and now an interview with Guillermo del Toro - infact this could be worth watching weekly if it wasn't for Winkleman.

First time watching this tonight.  Who was the guest? (I missed the first half).  I thought the Del Toro interview was interesting, as this is the first time I've heard him talk about the Hobbit fallout.

Small Man Big Horse

Quote from: uncle_rico on October 28, 2010, 01:14:56 AM
First time watching this tonight.  Who was the guest? (I missed the first half).  I thought the Del Toro interview was interesting, as this is the first time I've heard him talk about the Hobbit fallout.

Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian's film critic. I didn't always agree with him, but at least he put his points across interestingly and eloquently.

wasp_f15ting

Is Kermode that expensive?? really.. I know he doesn't like mainstream pap, but Barry Norman pulled it off, so I am sure he could have too..

Actually who is that gay guy who reviews cannes films on bbc news 24 at 4 in the morning? He was bloody good..

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Why is it okay for him to talk about films people like and go to see in the worst possible terms on the radio but not on the telly?

Do the general public not accept being effectively called a bunch of fucking cretins when they can see the person doing it?

Small Man Big Horse

It's times like these that I really miss Christopher Price, he'd have made for a great host.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: wasp_f15ting on November 03, 2010, 01:25:00 AM
Is Kermode that expensive?? really.. I know he doesn't like mainstream pap, but Barry Norman pulled it off, so I am sure he could have too.....
The host doesn't watch/review all the films being featured - part of the job is making out that you did and that's you thought.

uncle_rico

Quote from: wasp_f15ting on November 03, 2010, 01:25:00 AM

Actually who is that gay guy who reviews cannes films on bbc news 24 at 4 in the morning? He was bloody good..

I think the guy (or gay) you speak of is Jason Solomons.  Personally, I've always looked on him with disdain, ever since he filled in for Kermode when Sin City came out (man, there's a lot of gay subtext in that sentence!).  His bashing of the film didn't bother me, it was just that he criticised it for not being something it wasn't even atempting to be in the first place.