I thought Antonia was a dreadful host! Quicker Claudia comes back the better.
Antonia seemed to be very negative on everything and totally up her own arse. She seemed to be very quick to give Interstellar a good kicking! Only time she showed any enthuasiasm was the mention of Sam Rockwell.
Winkleman would give a Uwe Boll directed movie based on zombie Jews rising from the dead at at concentration camps to eat Nazis called Auschwitched a top review if it had a 20 second shot of a cute albino baby bunny in it. When she starts talking in a high pitched baby's voice or acts like a horny teenager about anything with Clooney, Pitt, Gerard Butler or Chris Pine in it, you can tell she is to Film 2014 what Greg Wallace is to Masterchef; drab tinsel not doing the job well enough.
Let's face it, that would make a great movie though. I think you should pitch it.
The Interstellar spoiler was incredibly unprofessional as well.
FFS! This sounds awful. Thanks for mentioning this. Now I will avoid watching it until
I have seen the film. I am planning to not even read more of this thread.
While I don't know specifically what you are referring to, given the extent to which they
have tried to keep details secret this seems like a terrible move.
I thought Antonia was a dreadful host! Quicker Claudia comes back the better.
Antonia seemed to be very negative on everything and totally up her own arse. She seemed to be very quick to give Interstellar a good kicking! Only time she showed any enthuasiasm was the mention of Sam Rockwell.
It's a film review show, they are meant to express criticisms as well as praise in an adult and informed manner, that's why it's not on CBBC. I think you'll find most if not all critics tend to be a tad arrogant because they are specifically skilled and uniquely informed on the subject of film and world cinema, whereas I get the feeling as long as there are cute animals, a dishy hunk, a musical number and it's something kids can watch as well, Winkleman's far less informed and discerning about on what basis films appeal to her.
I cant stand Antonia, she seems to look down her nose on anything that is a successful film, or from Hollywood (I havent seen this week's so dont know if she has changed her tune). Wasnt she terribly proud of having never seen a pixar movie or something odd like that?
I don't particularly like her as a critic either. Almost every time she was on in the past and they did the bit at the end; "Favourite Film of the week?" she'd always completely bypass all the films they'd reviewed during the show and bring up a film from the 50's that was reshowing. Thought she was ok as host though.
I don't particularly like her as a critic either. Almost every time she was on in the past and they did the bit at the end; "Favourite Film of the week?" she'd always completely bypass all the films they'd reviewed during the show and bring up a film from the 50's that was reshowing. Thought she was ok as host though.
To be fair Peeping Tom is a much more provocative film all around compared to Eagle Eye, new doesn't always mean better.
Completely agree, I just thought she was being difficult in those cases though.
I daresay the gibbering, tangoed, panda-eyed, middle-aged teenager sitting opposite her drove her to the extremes of reacting violently against whatever piece of multiplex shite The Winkle was raving about in the misbegotten belief that he made her relevant with Da Yoot.
It's a film review show, they are meant to express criticisms as well as praise in an adult and informed manner, that's why it's not on CBBC. I think you'll find most if not all critics tend to be a tad arrogant because they are specifically skilled and uniquely informed on the subject of film and world cinema, whereas I get the feeling as long as there are cute animals, a dishy hunk, a musical number and it's something kids can watch as well, Winkleman's far less informed and discerning about on what basis films appeal to her.
Winkleman may be far less informed but at least she doesn't come across like a right snob with her nose looking down at everything with a stuck-up attitude. There's nothing likeable about Antonia whatsoever. Looks like i'm not the only poster who's not that keen on her. BBC pleave the hosting and reviewing to Danny Leigh.
I cant stand Antonia, she seems to look down her nose on anything that is a successful film, or from Hollywood (I havent seen this week's so dont know if she has changed her tune). Wasnt she terribly proud of having never seen a pixar movie or something odd like that?
I remember seeing that show. She did indeed admit to that. I just thought to myself what a plonker!
I never much liked Jonathan Ross, even though I'll admit his film knowledge was superior to that of Claudia.
I much prefer Claudia to Jonathan. I'll concede he was more knowledgeable, but I didn't think he was any more insightful. I found him embarrassing to watch, sometimes.
I didn't like Antonia as a guest, but I didn't mind her as host. She didn't anchor the show as an everyman like Claudia did, but maybe that's not so important.
Winkleman may be far less informed but at least she doesn't come across like a right snob with her nose looking down at everything with a stuck-up attitude. There's nothing likeable about Antonia whatsoever. Looks like i'm not the only poster who's not that keen on her. BBC pleave the hosting and reviewing to Danny Leigh.
Couldn't disagree more. People with discerning tastes and outspoken views are apt to be labeled snobs. I haven't seen her be excessive in either, but in both she's a whole lot more substantial than the vacuous Winkleman, who seems to treat the show as a vanity project for showcasing her "wonderfully kooky and flighty" persona. Tonight I thought Quirke was an intelligent, enthusiastic and charming host.
Tonight I thought Quirke was an intelligent, enthusiastic and charming host.
I'm not a hater of Winkleman, understanding that her role is that of an everyman/woman, but I have to say that I'm preferring Antonia Quirke as the host. Having three critics, one a guest, who are knowledgeable and forthright with their opinions about film is actually working out well (reminds me of The Guardian Film Show). They all have different, informed opinions and express them well. Last week's and last night's episode were quite enjoyable.
Antonia is awful. I cant concentrate with her constant swinging head movements when she talks. Watch her and you'll see what I mean.
I think most people tune in to watch them discuss films and show preview clips, not fixate on the female presenter's body language to find minutiae about them to complain about. I don't think encouraging others to fixate on something you have helps at all, it's a movie review show, not Britain's Next Top Model.
Antonia is awful. I cant concentrate with her constant swinging head movements when she talks. Watch her and you'll see what I mean.
Hmm... I thought I was meant to be watching a film review show, with reasonably intelligent debate about films and that kind of thing, not ogling over the presenter. Makes me wonder why we're in the state we're in, with presenters on shows who know little about their subjects but look and act nice on camera. Oh for the likes of Professor Jacob Bronowski to return to our TVs...
Quirke has started to annoy me now, mainly because she is so full of her own ideas that she sometimes interrupts her guests and cuts off what they are saying. It's not that her ideas are bad, it's that I don't think that's how a host should behave.
Quirke has started to annoy me now, mainly because she is so full of her own ideas that she sometimes interrupts her guests and cuts off what they are saying. It's not that her ideas are bad, it's that I don't think that's how a host should behave.
Reviewer expressed opinions and debates them fiercely with other reviewers. I think that's what the point of having a panel of reviewers is for, it's not like when Ross would just monologue at the screen without any antagonism or critiques about his own take on the movie. A woman with ideas talking over men? How dare she not know her place. After all, as the host, it's not like it's her job to dictate the topics of discussion and lead the conversation... except, you know, it is.
I'd much rather three reviewers who know what they are talking about than Winkleman doing her high pitched "teeny tiny" voice over some twee moment in a cartoon movie while Ollie tries desperately to point out it's basically Shrek done by some budget French studio with a dog instead of a donkey.
A woman with ideas talking over men? How dare she not know her place. After all, as the host, it's not like it's her job to dictate the topics of discussion and lead the conversation... except, you know, it is.
She asks questions, she should have the grace to listen to the answers, and only pull back the guests when they go off-topic (which wasn't what was happening here). Everyone in a debate should give the others a chance to speak, and that especially applies to the host. Claudia might not have known as much about film, but she was a better facilitator and moderator.
I'm not sure where the implication of sexism comes from, by the way. For what it's worth, I prefer both Quirke and Winkleman versions of Film to Ross's.
Maybe but they managed to give away a huge spoiler on the interstellar movie.
I've just seen Interstellar and the spoiler they gave away is very unprofessional. Doing
these review/preview things is their job and they knew the filmmakers wanted to limit
the spoilers. It doesn't exactly ruin everything but it does spoil a great scene and other
key developments throughout the film. He could have easily mentioned the scene more
ambiguously then said it was a dramatic and moving moment. Point made, without spoiling it. >:(
Thankfully I saw the comments such as that above before seeing the show so avoided
watching until after seeing the film.
As for the film, while flawed in several ways, I thought it was terrific. Very gripping and
mind bending. Also visually stunning. Worth going to the Imax. I'm not surprised it has had
mixed reviews/responses but I think many will like it nonetheless.
I cant stand Antonia, she seems to look down her nose on anything that is a successful film, or from Hollywood (I havent seen this week's so dont know if she has changed her tune). Wasnt she terribly proud of having never seen a pixar movie or something odd like that?
I don't mind her as a guest so much but I thought she came over as rather insufferable
hosting. Many critics can be pretentious but she is often just a snob. If she wants to be
a film historian I guess it doesn't matter so much if she has limited knowledge of modern
films. But as a reviewer of contemporary movies, "boasting" that you have not seen any
Pixar films is somewhat pathetic.
It would be like a computer game reviewer saying the last good game was Jet Set Willy.
If she wants to be a film historian I guess it doesn't matter so much if she has limited knowledge of modern films. But as a reviewer of contemporary movies, "boasting" that you have not seen any Pixar films is somewhat pathetic.
It would be like a computer game reviewer saying the last good game was Jet Set Willy.
Well, your analogy would work if Pixar made every modern film. Anyway, if she's hosting, she'll be forced to watch Pixar and other mainstream films in order to host the show. Mind you, I'm sure she said that she dislikes Pixar rather than she hasn't watched Pixar, but that's just from memory, so I might well be mistaken.
Looking at her reviews in various publications, there are some art house films mixed in with some pretty mainstream stuff. There are even some CGI animated films, like Turbo from Dreamworks, which she seems to think was OK, and Tintin, which she wasn't too pleased about (I don't agree with her on that). Even though I don't dislike Pixar myself, enjoying a few of their works to varying degrees, I'm glad that there is someone out there with a contradictory opinion about their work.
Really enjoyed yesterday's show. Some informed and conflicting debate was quite welcome.
What I'd like to see is Film 2014 run all year not just a few weeks. It drives me mad it doesn't run all year! I understand it might be difficult for one presenter but Antonia is a fine replacement for Claudia, maybe they could share presenting over the year.
The BBC will never run it year round. They remain convinced that nobody goes to the cinema in the summer. If you ask me there`s still some patrician anti-commercial BBC resentment at essentially giving a free plug to filmmakers for half an hour a week.
The BBC will never run it year round. They remain convinced that nobody goes to the cinema in the summer. If you ask me there`s still some patrician anti-commercial BBC resentment at essentially giving a free plug to filmmakers for half an hour a week.
Well, back in the wonderful Barry Norman days that wasn't an issue - since he would mercilessly tear films to pieces if he thought they weren't great. Film companies probably dreaded the show back then.
I miss that kind of opinionated passing of judgement. Winkleman seems a nice person but she's far too delicate for the show I think. These days, the show seems too worried about being nice in general.
It's now more of a "Heeey, some of you out there may enjoy it! Pleasant enough without doing anything groundbreaking!". Pretty much every separate film discussion ends up blending in with every other one. It's a bit of a pointless show in its current guise.
Comments
Antonia seemed to be very negative on everything and totally up her own arse. She seemed to be very quick to give Interstellar a good kicking! Only time she showed any enthuasiasm was the mention of Sam Rockwell.
Let's face it, that would make a great movie though. I think you should pitch it.
FFS! This sounds awful. Thanks for mentioning this. Now I will avoid watching it until
I have seen the film. I am planning to not even read more of this thread.
While I don't know specifically what you are referring to, given the extent to which they
have tried to keep details secret this seems like a terrible move.
It's a film review show, they are meant to express criticisms as well as praise in an adult and informed manner, that's why it's not on CBBC. I think you'll find most if not all critics tend to be a tad arrogant because they are specifically skilled and uniquely informed on the subject of film and world cinema, whereas I get the feeling as long as there are cute animals, a dishy hunk, a musical number and it's something kids can watch as well, Winkleman's far less informed and discerning about on what basis films appeal to her.
I don't particularly like her as a critic either. Almost every time she was on in the past and they did the bit at the end; "Favourite Film of the week?" she'd always completely bypass all the films they'd reviewed during the show and bring up a film from the 50's that was reshowing. Thought she was ok as host though.
To be fair Peeping Tom is a much more provocative film all around compared to Eagle Eye, new doesn't always mean better.
Completely agree, I just thought she was being difficult in those cases though.
I daresay the gibbering, tangoed, panda-eyed, middle-aged teenager sitting opposite her drove her to the extremes of reacting violently against whatever piece of multiplex shite The Winkle was raving about in the misbegotten belief that he made her relevant with Da Yoot.
Winkleman may be far less informed but at least she doesn't come across like a right snob with her nose looking down at everything with a stuck-up attitude. There's nothing likeable about Antonia whatsoever. Looks like i'm not the only poster who's not that keen on her. BBC pleave the hosting and reviewing to Danny Leigh.
I remember seeing that show. She did indeed admit to that. I just thought to myself what a plonker!
I didn't like Antonia as a guest, but I didn't mind her as host. She didn't anchor the show as an everyman like Claudia did, but maybe that's not so important.
I'm not a hater of Winkleman, understanding that her role is that of an everyman/woman, but I have to say that I'm preferring Antonia Quirke as the host. Having three critics, one a guest, who are knowledgeable and forthright with their opinions about film is actually working out well (reminds me of The Guardian Film Show). They all have different, informed opinions and express them well. Last week's and last night's episode were quite enjoyable.
I think most people tune in to watch them discuss films and show preview clips, not fixate on the female presenter's body language to find minutiae about them to complain about. I don't think encouraging others to fixate on something you have helps at all, it's a movie review show, not Britain's Next Top Model.
Hmm... I thought I was meant to be watching a film review show, with reasonably intelligent debate about films and that kind of thing, not ogling over the presenter. Makes me wonder why we're in the state we're in, with presenters on shows who know little about their subjects but look and act nice on camera. Oh for the likes of Professor Jacob Bronowski to return to our TVs...
Reviewer expressed opinions and debates them fiercely with other reviewers. I think that's what the point of having a panel of reviewers is for, it's not like when Ross would just monologue at the screen without any antagonism or critiques about his own take on the movie. A woman with ideas talking over men? How dare she not know her place. After all, as the host, it's not like it's her job to dictate the topics of discussion and lead the conversation... except, you know, it is.
I'd much rather three reviewers who know what they are talking about than Winkleman doing her high pitched "teeny tiny" voice over some twee moment in a cartoon movie while Ollie tries desperately to point out it's basically Shrek done by some budget French studio with a dog instead of a donkey.
I'm not sure where the implication of sexism comes from, by the way. For what it's worth, I prefer both Quirke and Winkleman versions of Film to Ross's.
I caught some of the programme the other night, I thought she was quite good.
Jonathan Ross used to.
I've just seen Interstellar and the spoiler they gave away is very unprofessional. Doing
these review/preview things is their job and they knew the filmmakers wanted to limit
the spoilers. It doesn't exactly ruin everything but it does spoil a great scene and other
key developments throughout the film. He could have easily mentioned the scene more
ambiguously then said it was a dramatic and moving moment. Point made, without spoiling it. >:(
Thankfully I saw the comments such as that above before seeing the show so avoided
watching until after seeing the film.
As for the film, while flawed in several ways, I thought it was terrific. Very gripping and
mind bending. Also visually stunning. Worth going to the Imax. I'm not surprised it has had
mixed reviews/responses but I think many will like it nonetheless.
I don't mind her as a guest so much but I thought she came over as rather insufferable
hosting. Many critics can be pretentious but she is often just a snob. If she wants to be
a film historian I guess it doesn't matter so much if she has limited knowledge of modern
films. But as a reviewer of contemporary movies, "boasting" that you have not seen any
Pixar films is somewhat pathetic.
It would be like a computer game reviewer saying the last good game was Jet Set Willy.
Well, your analogy would work if Pixar made every modern film. Anyway, if she's hosting, she'll be forced to watch Pixar and other mainstream films in order to host the show. Mind you, I'm sure she said that she dislikes Pixar rather than she hasn't watched Pixar, but that's just from memory, so I might well be mistaken.
Looking at her reviews in various publications, there are some art house films mixed in with some pretty mainstream stuff. There are even some CGI animated films, like Turbo from Dreamworks, which she seems to think was OK, and Tintin, which she wasn't too pleased about (I don't agree with her on that). Even though I don't dislike Pixar myself, enjoying a few of their works to varying degrees, I'm glad that there is someone out there with a contradictory opinion about their work.
Really enjoyed yesterday's show. Some informed and conflicting debate was quite welcome.
I miss that kind of opinionated passing of judgement. Winkleman seems a nice person but she's far too delicate for the show I think. These days, the show seems too worried about being nice in general.
It's now more of a "Heeey, some of you out there may enjoy it! Pleasant enough without doing anything groundbreaking!". Pretty much every separate film discussion ends up blending in with every other one. It's a bit of a pointless show in its current guise.