Come on now.
-
TrevorAclea — 16 years ago(March 29, 2010 12:50 PM)
Apparently it's because his rants are perceived to have made a lot of publicists and directors unwilling to co-operate with the show: it was already a problem on
The Culture Show
and would only have got worse if he'd been host. Also I'm guessing the fact that Winklemania has presented shows with good ratings while he works on shows with low ratings is a big factor. To be fair she's probably about as qualified as Woss was when he took over.
"Security - release the badgers." -
-
smut_husky — 16 years ago(April 02, 2010 03:20 PM)
I do think she's a strange choice for the show to be honest. I can understand why they've picked away from the more cynical type, but she's the polar opposite. Hopefully, her stuck behind a desk reading of a screen will keep those Davina laughs and general insincere acting like a prat behaviour down to a minimum, but I just don't see why they've picked her.
Yes she's been doing alright with more mainstream shows, but she still doesn't seem a fit. If they wanted to go with a female presenter, some of the other names touted would have been better in my opinion.
Still, I'll give her a chance - if she's not bolted down with a contract written in blood they could always test the water and ditch her for someone else. -
I_John_Barrymore_I — 16 years ago(April 02, 2010 03:49 PM)
I'll declare an interest and say I've always liked her. I'm not saying she's right for The Film Programme, but she's certainly no more outlandish a choice than Jonathan Ross was. Again, I didn't care for the show during his tenure, but he did reveal himself to be quite the film buff and that counts for a lot. Maybe Winkleman will do the same.
"If I have any genius it is a genius for living" - Errol Flynn -
Concise_Statement — 15 years ago(November 01, 2010 07:37 PM)
Aww man, it should've been Kermode. There is no better film critic right now. An expert in his field, very opinionated, and a great interviewer. There was no other choice for this gig.
Ms. Winkleman comes across personable enough but she seems about as qualified for the BBC's flagship film review programme as, well, me.
From what I saw of the debut show, the revamp committed several sins.- The host is looking to be as nice to every film as possible. What the hell kind of critic is that?
- Hello! There's a film journalist right beside her. He's boring but at least this is his job. If you want conversation get two entertaining versions of
him
to run the damn programme. Like oh, I don't know, Siskel and Ebert? - One of their 'correspondents' is 12. And a blogger. Great.
- Another of their correspondents is Chris Hewitt. My review of him remains unchanged from his tenure at Empire : annoying twat - 1 stars. I love how his big opening interview was him standing around gawping at the three drunkest people in the room. Cringeworthy television punctuated by a genuinely uncomfortable Claudia concluding, "Let's do that every week!" Yeah. Exactly.
This BBCThreeification of a very simple, pleasant format means I won't be in any rush to tune in again. Combined with the axing of At the Movies, this spells something of a death for televised film criticism (though I suppose Jonathan Ross ushered that in ages ago). Shame. I'm now strictly on a ration of The Review Show, not a pretty position by any standards. I can feel the middle class contempt for me, the viewer, smoking out the screen as if to sneer, 'It's 'fewer' not 'less', you dolt. And who invited
you
anyway?"
"
And no regrets?
"