# Film 2012



## Orang Utan (Feb 8, 2012)

i just had the misfortune to accidentally watch this
what the freaking fuck is this shit?
i didn't think it was dumbdownable but they managed.
both presenters are total fucking idiots and they get even bigger idiots to do guest spots.
and if that's not idiotic enough they fucking get idiotic fucking viewers to text in too!
CUNTS!


----------



## Reno (Feb 8, 2012)

I haven't seen more than five minutes of this since the days of Barry Norman and I didn't like him either.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 8, 2012)

i liked Jonathan Ross, even though i didn't agree with his reviews much. he at least appeared to like films and even seemed to know about them.
these two seem to be dragged in off the street.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 9, 2012)

They play off each other and sometimes bicker, it's ok.  Last week's was very good but last week they had great films on.

They play far too many trailers but that's film progs for you...they don't mind criticizing, always a plus.   Another plus is that there are actually two of them...and you can tweet.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Feb 10, 2012)

It's very poor tv made for idiots by idiots born of idiot's idiots.


----------



## scooter (Feb 10, 2012)

I've never understood the point of watching or reading reviews of films before you've seen them.


----------



## Bungle73 (Feb 10, 2012)

scooter said:


> I've never understood the point of watching or reading reviews of films before you've seen them.


To see of they're any good?


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 11, 2012)

To get a general idea after having read many reviews by many different reviewers and understanding their likes/dislikes in relation to your own.


----------



## starfish (Feb 11, 2012)

Bring back Johnny Vaughan.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 11, 2012)

Do these presenters have names or anything?


----------



## scooter (Feb 11, 2012)

I understand the theory of watching reviews before seeing the film but it doesn't work in practice. It's all meaningless because you don't know what they're talking about until you've seen it. Much more interesting to read reviews after seeing the film.


----------



## Reno (Feb 11, 2012)

scooter said:


> I understand the theory of watching reviews before seeing the film but it doesn't work in practice. It's all meaningless because you don't know what they're talking about until you've seen it. Much more interesting to read reviews after seeing the film.


 
I like reading reviews before and after films. Reviews generally give you the premise and context of the film, so you get an idea of what they are talking about. I tend to get a general critical consensus of a film and I read Sight and Sounds reviews and a few online ones before I go see a film. Often I would not find out about or pay attention to a film if it wasn't for reviews. Smaller films don't get much publicity and sometimes  will go and see a film that looked like rubbish from the advertising, because it got great reviews. If you don't read reviews, what can you go by but publicity, which will tell you that the film is always amazing.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 11, 2012)

Watching a film is a significant investment in time, and potentially resources. Some sort of impression of whether it's any good or not and whether you might like it is therefore useful. That's not weird is it?


----------



## starfish (Feb 11, 2012)

Depends. Everyone has a different opinion.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 11, 2012)

starfish said:


> Depends. Everyone has a different opinion.


Well, maybe, but I'm guessing that most people would prefer to pick films to watch with some information on them beforehand.


----------



## scooter (Feb 11, 2012)

That's the problem - you don't get an impression of whether it's good or not. The number of films I've seen that reviewers recommend that didn't really do it for me..

I've given up relying on reviews for that.

A review is more interesting for getting a general second opinion rather than for finding out whether it's any good. Also I've always forgotten the Film 2012 review by the time i see the film anyway


----------



## starfish (Feb 11, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, maybe, but I'm guessing that most people would prefer to pick films to watch with some information on them beforehand.


 
Agreed. Its something severely lacking on TV these days. We really need a good critical film prog.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 11, 2012)

scooter said:


> That's the problem - you don't get an impression of whether it's good or not. The number of films I've seen that reviewers recommend that didn't really do it for me..
> 
> I've given up relying on reviews for that.
> 
> A review is more interesting for getting a general second opinion rather than for finding out whether it's any good. Also I've always forgotten the Film 2012 review by the time i see the film anyway


It's not necessarily about whether the reviewer says it's good - if you know that their tastes tend to coincide with yours, fine. But regardless of that, if they are any good they will say things about the themes and plotting and style and pace and whatever that you can use to form a judgement for yourself. What else is there, go by the poster?


----------



## starfish (Feb 11, 2012)

Its cause they have to enthuse about the flim & say how great everyting is about it despite the fact it may be shite.


----------



## starfish (Feb 11, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not necessarily about whether the reviewer says it's good - if you know that their tastes tend to coincide with yours, fine. But regardless of that, if they are any good they will say things about the themes and plotting and style and pace and whatever that you can use to form a judgement for yourself. What else is there, go by the poster?


 
If only there were a film that deep.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

A decent film review isn't simply about if the films any good or not, it's part of an ongoing conversation with the history of film and how this relates to the present and to future possibilities. You pick up info about how to read films from reviews, about how things worked or failed and why, comparisons with other directors and films opens up other avenues to investigate and so on - and unless you're going to watch every half-decent film multiple times it's probably best to make yourself part of this conversation beforehand.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 11, 2012)

I like to check Paul Ross's reviews. If he says it's the best film of the year, I know it will be a stinker and will be sure to avoid it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 11, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Do these presenters have names or anything?


Claudia Winkleman and Danny Leigh.


----------



## D'wards (Mar 1, 2018)

Film 2018 was awful last night. It was really a discussion on identity politics in the Oscars with little content or reviews .

Not long for this world that show, if last night's was anything to go by

They appear to have given Danny Leigh the elbow too, which is a shame cos he was knowledgeable and passionate about film.

They need to get back to one presenter behind a desk  - the afore mentioned Danny Leigh or Catharine Shoard would get my vote


----------

