Kermode and Mayo's Film Review Show

[JPA]

Just wanted to start a thread about this after reading the one regarding the latest incarnation of Film 2010.

I do really enjoy the show and always look forward to the podcast, though admittedly it isn't without its faults. Which I now want to complain about. The thing that's really starting to irritate me is how the show is structured, and what they do within their running time. Considering it's supposed to be a film review show, too often there are times when the main release that week is given a detailed analysis, but then the remaining films are sped through in order to cover everything before the show ends - sometimes Kermode will recommend a film that's on limited release right at the end almost as an afterthought.

I personally could do without the interviews in the first half of the show (or at least reduce the length or have one every fortnight), which would then allow more time reviewing the latest releases.

What say you? I imagine there's a few listeners on here, so feel free to discuss the show generally.

[chand]

I usually seem to catch the end of it, and invariably Mayo is hurrying Kermode through his final reviews and going "30 SECONDS TO TALK ABOUT [FILM X], GO!". I just assumed it was because Kermode was a rambling gobshite though.

[dr beat]

I'm listening to this weeks podcast right now.  I've not had much time to get to the cinema over the last few months, so I sort of use this show as a way of keeping updated with whats going on.  I agree, I always look forward to it even though its not without its shortcomings.  They do, however, seem to have cut down on the 'hello to Jason Isaacs' stuff which I found a bit smug and insular.

The biggest problem I have is not with them as such, its more the nature of 5Live as a station - the show suffers badly whenver there is a big news or sport story as they will constant cut away from the film chat, which I find incredibly annoying, and why I prefer the podcasts.  I suspect the extension to two hours was partly to try and compensate for this.

I don't mind the interviews too much, as I don't consider myself too expert on film so I found them informative.  But I agree the reveiws are too rushed.

What did people think of Boyd and Floyd standing in over the summer btw? I thought they were ok, and kind of liked having two critics debating the films.

[JPA]

I don't mind the interviews too much, as I don't consider myself too expert on film so I found them informative. 

I don't hate them by any means, some are interesting, some less so. It's mainly the chunk of the show they take that I'd rather be given over to reviews.

What did people think of Boyd and Floyd standing in over the summer btw? I thought they were ok, and kind of liked having two critics debating the films.

They weren't too bad actually and I agree, sometimes it is good to have that dynamic. Something which Film 2010 has gone for has seen, though I presume a large part of that is to combat that accusation that Winkleman is utterly unsuitable for the show.

[non capisco]

I liked Boyd and Floyd as a temporary break from Mayo and Kermode's mock-spats. I realise Mayo and Kermode are good mates and don't actually hate each other but Mayo's "get on with it, no-one cares" type interjections are as tiresome on a film review show as the extremes of Kermode's didacticism. It was nice to actually hear a pair of critics just offering opinions about films for a bit without having to play at being a double act. Having said that, I do still listen to the Mayo & Kermode podcast every week as for all his faults I still credit Kermode as being the guy who actually got me properly into cinema via his slot on the Mark Radcliffe show circa 1993 and I'm interested to hear his opinions on the things I've just watched. All the surrounding "Benjamin Sniddlegrass" shit I can take or leave most of the time. And Kermode should really stop repeatedly referring to M. Knight Shymalan as M. Knight Shamalamadingdong, it just reminds me of that 'Ramadan' bit in 'Knowing Me, Knowing Yule'.

[kidsick5000]

If it wasn't for Mayo flattening the Kermode extremes I wouldn't be listening.
It's a great show. Kermode is way, way off the mark (Superbad being a key wrongness), but he has calmed down the 'deliberate' ranting and is better for it.
Really like getting the long interviews on the podcasts. Nice to hear them trying to skip around Stephen Wooley's bizarre complaints that excessive use of the f-word gave his film a higher rating (Possibly the stupidest thing I've heard for a long time. What does he expect to happen?)

[Famous Mortimer]

I used to really hate Kermode, and will probably go back to that way of thinking soon, but his takedown of Sex and the City 2 was a great thing indeed.

[Nibbsy]

I was actually just thinking about this yesterday. I've been listening to the podcast weekly since it started, and have always found it a great way of keeping up with the latest releases, despite Kermode's flaws which others have mentioned.

But the new format doesn't work for me at all. I find myself skipping to about the 90 minute mark on the podcast to get to the new releases, and having to put up with endless inane listener comments while they go through the top 10 then spend 5 minutes on that weeks films. I don't have a problem with the interviews, they just need to be shorter.

Also, I find the live shows dreadful. 

[boxofslice]

As others have said, the squeezing of the actual reviews into little more at times of 20 minutes is annoying.  Less time can be given over to going through the top ten as most regular listeners already know what's out there.  Interviews are fine but the reading out of listeners comments on movies are pointless for the reasons I gave on the Film 2010 thread.

I am bemused at Kermode's current love for Zac Efron.

[rjd2]

I am bemused at Kermode's current love for Zac Efron.

He  adored Me And Orson Welles which Efron was superb in, actually I think he described it as one of his fav films of last year. Maybe it's that?

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Kermode's flaws are exactly what keeps me listening.  He's overly opinionated to the point of telling people they are wrong and saying to Leonardo DeCaprio that he was close to forgiving him for Titanic (which I'm not surprised he took offence at), continually recommends the least appealing film of the week (often without actually reviewing it), talks without pausing for breath much of the time and frequently goes off on tangents meaning he often doesn't finish sentences or get to the point.  But I can't help but love that.  It's SO much more entertaining than any other review show, particularly with Mayo deliberately winding him up and pushing his buttons in the way only good friends can.  His rants are gold dust of entertainment, particularly when a film like Sex and the City 2 or Exorcist: The Beginning come along.

I don't bother listening to any stand-ins because they just don't have the same entertainment factor.  They really make it clear how much of the entertainment comes from the friendly friction between them, and how much is due to Kermode's opinionated and ranting nature.

[Custard]

I used to really enjoy their show, 'til recently (well, the start of the year, i'd say) when they started getting a little too knowing about when they were being funny. Mayo suddenly turned up the "Get on with it" business, and Kermode played up to the crowd much more, instead of it all feeling natural and effortless, as it had done previously.

I dunno, i'm possibly off the mark, but to me it suddenly went from a fun listen with genuinely interesting reviews, to two annoying blokes, being, well, annoying together, and then rattling off a quick review, inbetween setting up each other's staged quirky comments to each other. It's like they suddenly decided overnight that they were hilarious, and aimed for laughs a lot more, instead of playing to their real strengths. Talking about films.

Kermode squeeling McG as "McGeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!" is making me grit my teeth even writing it down.

As a previous poster noted though, the Sex and The City 2 review was fantastic, and reminded me just how good the show can be when it lessens the other toot.

Is there any other decent film podcasts, then? I tried the Guardian Film Weekly one this week, but found the interviews that take up most of the running-time quite boring. I just wanna hear film reviews! heh

[SavageHedgehog]

I went from hating Kermode to loving him, but I generally can't be doing with the show these days. The two hour format stretches them too thin, and the interviews are generally tedious (with some exceptions, like Joe Dante recently). I agree they are becoming too self-aware, and in particularly his "wacky" obsession with the evils of 3-D is extremely boring.

[Consignia]

I became addicted to the show when I was constantly driving long trips on Friday afternoons, and it was an oasis of entertainment in the otherwise trip. I don't drive that much anymore, but I still keep up with it via podcast.

I agree the interviews can get a bit tedious in the 2 hour format, but it's much better than the one format that it used to be were he'd do interviews, top ten and reviews in effectivly 40 minutes, which meant most films got rushed, as opposed to the more limited releases now.

[Pepotamo1985]

Bizarrely, I was contemplating posting a thread about my man Kermode only the other day. I have little to say that hasn't already been said, he's far from perfect, but he's a self professed film nerd who has a complete innate understanding and encyclopaedic knowledge of the medium and I'm happy for him to rant because he really, really knows what he's talking about. He's not always on point (witness his pretentious review of Four Lions), but when he is, he hits the clit right on the head, and his righteous mephitic indignation at truly appalling populist film bilge is always a wonder to behold. The sheer bile directed at SATC2 is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Here are some more of my favourite Kermodian rants...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zI-YEJiGRc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooPdPYZpR2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgviM30xtRA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiKDfgkyBY

[kidsick5000]

"McGeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!"

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHH!HHH!

[confettiinmyhair]

"The good Doctor".

I hate it when he calls him that.

[JPA]

Kermode is way, way off the mark (Superbad being a key wrongness), but he has calmed down the 'deliberate' ranting and is better for it.

What did he say about Superbad? I find his opinions generally chime with my own on the whole, but I wonder if he has a bit of a blind-spot when it comes to comedy (someone else referenced, the Four Lions review is a recent one that stood out for me).

[kidsick5000]

What did he say about Superbad? I find his opinions generally chime with my own on the whole, but I wonder if he has a bit of a blind-spot when it comes to comedy (someone else referenced, the Four Lions review is a recent one that stood out for me).

He was quite favourable to Four Lions wasn't he?
Anyway, his review of Superbad just got off on the wrong foot by seeing Michael Cera and Jonah Hill's characters being presented as someone young folk should want to be, mostly being offended by the language and misogyny Hill's character was spouting.
All totally missing the point -  that the characters are not cool, and their use of language and swearing is a lame attempt to be cool. It's only when they stop trying so hard do they actually get anywhere with the girls.
I'm no fan of the film but Kermode's anger, and this was a mini rant was so off target it was ridiculous. Even more that that he still cites it for its deplorable moral value.

I also had a problem with his review of Casino Royale because both he and Mayo extensively moaned about the plot thread about ELLIPSIS saying it went nowhere, when it was clearly explained. I shouldnt remember this stuff, but sometimes you expect a film critic to actually pay attention to they're films they're reviewing.

[JPA]

He was quite favourable to Four Lions wasn't he?

He liked it, but it seemed like the overriding emotion he got from the film was one of sadness rather than it being funny.

[Paaaaul]

I think he liked it more as a drama than a comedy.

[Famous Mortimer]

But Superbad is shit, so I at least agree with him on that.

Damn you Kermode! I'll be your follower next!

[Pepotamo1985]

He liked it, but it seemed like the overriding emotion he got from the film was one of sadness rather than it being funny.

Wasn't he part of that Newsnight Review panel which slammed it for not making a greater sociopolitical point about the nature of terrorism and Western oppression?

[Whug Baspin]

There was a recent show where Mark was singing the praises of Inception for not using too much exposition or speaking down to its audience, he then went to lengths to explain and give examples of what he meant by exposition. By christ it's smug as fuck when it really has no reason to be. It's a good review show and a lot of people love movies, but that really is it.

[JPA]

Wasn't he part of that Newsnight Review panel which slammed it for not making a greater sociopolitical point about the nature of terrorism and Western oppression?

I don't think so, aren't you thinking of Peter Whittle?

There was a recent show where Mark was singing the praises of Inception for not using too much exposition or speaking down to its audience, he then went to lengths to explain and give examples of what he meant by exposition.

I agree that Inception is a film that does credit its audience, however there is actually quite a bit of exposition in Inception isn't there?

'We might end up in Limbo'

'What's Limbo?'

'Well it's this...' etc

[Mister Six]

There was a recent show where Mark was singing the praises of Inception for not using too much exposition or speaking down to its audience, he then went to lengths to explain and give examples of what he meant by exposition. By christ it's smug as fuck when it really has no reason to be. It's a good review show and a lot of people love movies, but that really is it.

But Inception is full of exposition. It never feels like it, but pretty much the entire first half of the film is the characters wandering around and explaining the rules of the dream sequence. I say 'pretty much', because the rest of the first half is exposition about DiCaprio's past.

[Whug Baspin]

Totally agree, sorry I wasn't trying to praise Inception myself, it was just Kermodes inability to see his own dumbing down and over-explanation that struck me,

[Neil]

There was a recent show where Mark was singing the praises of Inception for not using too much exposition or speaking down to its audience, he then went to lengths to explain and give examples of what he meant by exposition. By christ it's smug as fuck when it really has no reason to be. It's a good review show and a lot of people love movies, but that really is it.

I haven't heard the review in question, but I do think there's a staggeringly massive difference when it comes to talk radio.  In fact, art and criticism need to take fundamentally different routes. 
He could well be patronising in this specific review, but people talking about what exposition is strikes me as a valid thing to discuss.  It's likely the case that he just loves talking, and discussing the mechanics, so went with that, with no real desire to speak down to the audience.

With art, I always want the artist to credit the audience with intelligence, but with criticism, discussing the actual mechanics kind of has to be done.

[Whug Baspin]

One thing he has perfected is making his thoughts flow very fluently and it is great to listen to him think on his feet as he's working through something and trying to put it into the best way psosible, pulling in film references and taking care not to be misunderstood. I do love that. Reminded me of chatting to a friend who's been a teacher for the last 8 years and he said it's helped him so much to just have to stand infront of people and talk/think at the same time. It makes you much more articulate, better at explaining yourself as you go along without having to sit and meditate on something for ages before coming close to phrasing it well.

[Dark Poet]

Is there any other decent film podcasts, then? I tried the Guardian Film Weekly one this week, but found the interviews that take up most of the running-time quite boring. I just wanna hear film reviews! heh

Filmspotting is excellent - http://filmspotting.net/

They tend to review one film a week (in depth) and then something older (at the moment, they're doing a Powell and Pressburger marathon) in addition to other features.  I find it interesting to go back and listen once I've seen something and with an archive of some five years, there's plenty of scope for that.