Honey 2, from the director of Honey.

“Dancing is how I say the things I wanna say”

What? No it isn’t, fuck off. What are you, illiterate? Who consumes this fucking garbage. Honey 2?…who comissioned a second one!?



Anyway, apparently it’s the “dance movie event of the year” - that’s pretty specific. That’s like a hot-dog vendor saying to a guy today, “this is the 7th of June hot dog event of the day, for this street only, before 3pm”.



‘Dance movie’ is not a genre.

And the 7-1-8? What are they, like the Jets? Is this West Side Story?

What are Snoop Dog and A.C.Slater doing in this?

It’s tough out there, if you want to make it as a dancer. You probably have to bring it, on a daily basis.

Anyway, none of that is important now…because, “when the battle begins…go every step of the way” - yeah, every step of the way, right out of the cinema, haaaaaa

Aaand, scene.

The Football League Show

Gary Lineker: "But before we look at the rest of todays games, let's just get a word from Maneesh"

And so we leave the polish and professionalism of Match of the Day and are whisked off to the world of the Football League Show, not Robin to Match of the Day's Batman, but in fact Premier Inn to Match of the Day's Ritz.

First off, does anyone watch The Football League Show, at all. Are Yeovil fans and Stockport County fans dedicated enough to stay up until 2am to watch their team draw two all with Rochdale? If they are, then kudos.

When the BBC decided to make The Football League show, why didn't they use the Match of the Day template. Here's an established, veteran show, with great analysis of the game, good chemistry between the presenters and on at a good time in the evening. With such a strong example of what to do, right there in front of them, why did they go:

(a) "Yeah, yeah, I like that - but how about we do something, sort of similar, but much worse"
(b) "Well what do you mean?"
(a) "Let's see, how can I explain this? Have you ever eaten a good burger?"
(b) "Well yeah, sure"
(a) "Ok, great. Now you see this?"
(b) "Yeah, it's a burger"
(a) "Well sure, technically - it's a burger, just like the one you ate. However, closer inspection and even a taste...."
(b) "URGH; what's wrong with is?"
(a) "This, my friend, is a microwavable Rustler's burger, the shittest food known to man. Now, in it's design, the fact that it's a piece of beef inbetween two buns, sure - it's a burger. But when you actually bite into it, you find that none of those ingredients are actually there"
(b) "Thanks for this appauling burger analogy"
(a) "No problem. I have others..?"
(b) "It's fine"

Wasn't that a treat? But honestly, you can't watch Match of the Day without catching a little bit of The Football League Show. Here's what happens.

An opening with zero style, where a series of total berks do keepy ups on the street, alongside their favourite team mascots, made up of owls and lions and monsters. During this "We All Love Vindaloo" affair, a backing track plays. It has none of the agelessness of Match of the Day's classic theme tune, but sounds like drunk village band coming home from the pub after winning battle of the bands...also held in the pub. So far, this seems like the BBC is saying "Hey football league fans! Sheffield Wednesday? Pretty funny right? Haha, yeah I know. We're not taking this seriously anyway, because it's not really proper football. Well, see ya".

Once we get through the garish opening titles, we're confronted by a confused studio set that looks like Crimewatch and CNN were recently kicked out of it to make way for some uncharismatic presenters who also brought a panel of "brick wall" each with them. These are positioned awkwardly around the set so as to give the impression that the BBC ran out of money for a real wall and thought "ah, well, two metres of wall, spread out, is much better than no wall".
All this is set off nicely by needless computer screens and a breakfast bar, where the presenters sit.

The Football League Show then starts skimming through about five games at a time. Usually four games in the progamme's total are quite interesting, the rest are things like Badger Nose United vs. Chip Shop FC and have all of two people in the crowd. NO ONE, CARES. If you care, then you were probably at the game, because there are not Oxford United fans up in Liverpool lamenting the fact that they didn't get to watch the game against Swindon today.

And because they show the highlights of about five games at a time, the analysis is minimal. Steve Claridge, who...SOMEhow has managed to get on TV...has chance to give ten seconds of meangingless analysis. Manish, the Football League Shows annoying presenter who has the personality of a bookmark, asks:

"So, Steve Claridge, what did you think of Sheffield United's performance today?"
"Well Manish, Sheffield United are a football team"
"Great stuff. Now we're going to have a look at all the games in the Panda Pop 6th Division, where the powerhouse of Dover take on the titans of Bromley"

And why has The Football League Show tried to embrace new technologies. Match of the Day hasn't bothered, but The Football League Show is like someone's nan who keeps on telling everyone how they sent a text on a mobile phone once before returning it. They are constantly peddling their modes of communication; twitter, call, text, fax, carrier pigeon, morse code...this allows us to swoosh around on the unnerving FLS camera up into the rafters of the studio, or in the corner of the room, or to somewhere hidden under a box - where ever it is, it's an awkward angle and who's lurking there? A horrible, posh little wanker of a presenter who's desperately trying to sound interesting and so comes off like a Blue Peter/Newsround presenter as they announce the tweets that have just come in:

"I've got an email here from John, who says that Brighton play in blue and white stripes, but what do YOU think?"

Fuck off. I'm not interested in anyone else's idiotic opinions when I watch football highlights on TV. I'll go an internet forum for that.

The calls & texts are symptomatic of the shows whole problem. It's just so soft. The whole thing is so soft and meek and lacks conviction. Appauling presenters, a boring audience, even worse matches...the Football League Show is just a gigantic waste of time, a waste of a perfectly good graveyard slot. If you want to follow these small teams, then just get up off your arse and go to the game.

What's For Friday Night Dinner Mum? Oh, Wackiness Again.

Simon Bird has received a great deal of praise as a young comedian - although I was surprised to discover recently that he's actually 26 - and in the new Channel 4 show in which he stars, it was always going to be important that he distance himself from The Inbetweeners, especially since he's a comedian and would do well to display how versatile he is.

He doesn't do this and what we have on our hands is a new Channel 4 sitcom that comes off as the alternative existence of one of the Inbetweeners. Friday Night Dinner even begins in the same way, a garish opening sequence that seems to have been the joint effort of a graphic-arts student and NME magazine.
There are two main jokes that seem to be the inspiration for this series initially. The first is this: YOUNG PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT FROM OLD PEOPLE! Lol. Old people don't get young people. "Muuuum"..."Daaaad" - how humiliating! If only they were more in touch with youth culture. They should watch The Inbetweeners.
The other joke, is that everyone is an eccentric. It's like salt is also a crazy powder that everyone on their street takes. I refer to salt by the way, because it was one of three recurring jokes that took place in the first episode. This was very neatly done and tied together very precisely. It wasn't particularly witty though.

Indeed, little of the programme was actually funny. It didn't make me laugh, or I have to admit, even titter really. Yet there are much worse programmes that have made me laugh, at some point. All this was, was observant. Mildly observant. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it was painstakingly observant. It seemed as if great pains had been taken to get the typical, "banter" of the modern family, accurately down. And look, man, I know it's tough to get it just right...and it could have seem so stilted I suppose...but I mean...Friday Night Dinner has really gone all out to create a "natural" family dynamic - the mother watches masterchef, the father is is deadicated to his hobbies, the boys trick each other, the neighbour is a nutjob...it's all so tiresome, I'm sorry, it is.

And it would also be nice to have a comedy that isnt full of awkwardness, that isn't trying to be something. Friday Night Dinner would be better if it was Gavin & Stacey, but it's not.

My arguments might well so opposite. On the one hand, I don't like this regularl, uninspiring family dynamic. On the other, this programmes main problem was that it was too damn wacky. It was always trying to be slightly ridiculous - there are more ridiculous programmes out there, but they dont all work on a purposely regular premise (by which I mean it's whole point is that it's based on a regular domestic situation) - its supposed to be a regular, mundane, friday night dinner with the fam - BUT ITS ANYTHING BUT MUNDANE! Grandmas House worked (it did, you're wrong) because Simon Amstell's character stood as an observer - Friday Night Dinner needs a lynchpin, a protagonist who's own regular normality anchors the rest of the show, and makes sure that we're thinking "yes, this is a bit odd for a friday night dinner" instead of "this doesn't happen on friday night, this isn't very real" - a main character would give this a more believable foundation, but instead what we
have is a series of mild eccentrics trying to have dinner, but people keep coming round to use the bathroom and dealing with death and drinking salt - it's not MENTAL, I appreciate and it's fine for one episode...but are we going to see a couple of wacky situations every week? That's the bit I'm not sure I'm looking forward to.

And once Casiokids kicked in at the end, I knew it was too late - this show sure was crazy and the guy who could have been but probably wasn't Garth Merenghi, bursts out the house going "YOU'RE ALL NUTS!" and that signals the end. It would be even better if this was Fawlty Towers. Which it sort of is. Only not as good. At all. Fawlty Towers also features relatively regular, domestic disturbances, but featured one MAD eccentric in Basil Fawlty and was anchored by Cybil [not sure how to spell that one].

It's a mild, tiresome show. But who knows, it's early days and it could well improve. But I won't be rushing back to watch it particularly. I mean, once you've watched The Trip, you're kind of hoping other comedies will try and do something different too.

Adverts That Need to be Stabbed in The Eyes

Adverts today have become a big fucking load. Of what? The worst things. Shit probably. But they're just awful, they've gotten worse, louder and, yes, more insulting to us, the viewer. Thank God for the BBC - even if the show is terrible, there are no moronic adverts trying to manipulate our brains. Here is a very imporant list of the all the very worst adverts on TV at the moment:-

Confused.Com:

I always, always mute the Confused.com advert. It used to be a pretty cheap, relatively unoffensive man or woman on a white background who used to explain how confused they were about insurance. Fair enough.
Suddenly it seems that the Confused.com mascot has come to life and that the mascot was, despite its initial appearance, a woman. And...going by this hair, possibly a burn victim:



This loud-mouthed, burn victim is currently in an advert I can't bare, where she launches meaningfully into a rendition, (or should that be murder), of "Somebody To Love" by Queen. A bunch of other other big smiley wankers start appearing behind her too and I think what really pissed me off, is the song, combined with all these characters looking really fucking happy about comparing their insurance. It makes me angry. It's everything wrong with the world, where "Somebody to Love" can be used for something as shallow as sales, marketing and insurance. Go fuck yourself Confused.com.

Vodaphone Bees:

Bees don't use telephones. There, that's already a great point. So what are we to you Vodaphone? Nothing but industrious little bees working for your hive of a phone empire. Yes, we are now officially insects to all the big corporations.
Look at the posters around right now and you'll notice that the bees are always on the phone, sure, phone company, got it - but sometimes, the bees have TWO phones, because they have FOUR arms. FOUR ARMS, does not equal, TWO PHONES, you could have TEN arms and still only need ONE phone. But no, we're supposed to buy more phones.



Ok, second, and what I hate most is that the bees are always leading these aspirational lives that we're supposed to somehow relate to or be able to achieve, if only we would get on the Vodaphone network. Observe properly and you'll notice that they're always carrying bags and bags of shopping or living a a nice middle-class, sub-urban lifestyle; "I watch the match on Saturdays, because as well as being a bee, I'm a graphic desinger with disposal income!". They say that bees are dying out - no, they're just better than us now.
And all this hatred is quite apart from the FUCKING BEE PUNS WE GET IN EVERY FUCKING ADVERT...ahem...also, it's actually VodaFone. I don't care.

The Ladders:

What is it? Oh you don't know. You will have seen it but it probably washed right over you. Here's the scene. Two posh wankers are playing tennis. Then, suddenly, to the 'protagonists' horror, the great, unwashed, masses come swarming down onto the court, all shirtless and stupid. And then a smug voice comes on over the top of it all.


"If you think about...this is a lot like looking for a 50K plus job!"

NO it isn't, FUCK off. It's nothing like that, because we don't all play fucking tennis at the weekends, you rich, middle-class fuck heads. Its a well known fact that if you earn 50k, you're too busy on your iPad to even be watching tv anyway. And it's called TheLadders.co.uk - indicating upward mobility I suppose. Oh good job lads, but I think you'll find that the common ladder is also a symbol of a manual labour job - did you know that their salary comes by the hour...I know, I know, you're right, someone should start a charity. Good luck in your application anyway, cunt.

The Animated Andrex Puppy:

Who the fuck does that newly animated puppy think he is? He's not cute anymore, he's just frightening...

HOW ARE YOU HOLDING THAT THING WITHOUT THUMBS YOU FREAKISH ABOMINATION!?

...and I don't get it...it looks like they live in a human world...I mean it doesn't seem to have been designed by dogs, it looks exactly like "our world" - yet somehow, thanks to Andrex apparently, dogs have clearly become the dominant species in this universe. I always thought they'd need thumbs to do that; turns out that all they needed was quilted toilet paper.
What I hate about this one is all the things this dog does. It's too, fucking, cute - like, over the top cute that then passes the line and goes into creepy. Everything falls on his head, everything gets nudged gently into place - and his fucking bitch (haha) of a girlfriend - she's so fucking kooky, pulling faces at the puppy/school-children on her way home. The whole thing is just sickening. And I just don't get it - how does it advertise toilet paper at all!? We get this horrible Twilight Zone episode where dogs rule the planet, but where young, money rich couples with town houses are still totally aspirational and that all boils down to toilet paper?
The only way I see it working is that the advert was supposed to make me vomit everywhere and then I think, "God I wish I had some thick toilet paper to clean this up".

ALSO - animating babies or animals is symptomatic of humanities arrogance. No, shut up, it is. Right, because we think we're so fucking smart now, that we're so advanced, that we can animate things so well now, that our animations are good enough to pass close enough to being the real thing on TV...but they're not...we're not...it looks shit ok? Fuck off Andrex. What happened to that real puppy when it was put out of work by the animated one eh? That's right; it, got, shot.

The 10 O'Clock Dive

The 10 O'Clock Live sits in the corner looking drastic, smoking and curling it's unkempt hair; it's in therapy.
"I just don't know who I am doc...sometimes I have this real desire to squeeze out these heavily scripted jokes...you know, satirical stuff, a little un-PC in places...but other times *it takes a drag of its cigarette* other times I think it's time to buck up my ideas and start interviewing politicians and talking about...you know, issues...not with any real depth or interest, but I do it in a sort of tokenistic sort of way....oh Doctor, it's all a facade *it grabs the doctors collar* tell me Doctor, WHO AM I!?"

"Who Am I" - the scream echoes up and down the halls of TV land. Other programmes look up in horror. No one wants to be that guy; the show that falls in between two stalls...hard.

On paper, this show looked absolutely fan-bloody-tastic. To the extent that I almost cancelled my trip to America so that I didn't miss the debut. Charlie Brooker, David Mitchel, Jimmy Carr, Lauren Lav..ergne? Yeah. What a line-up! Glasto eat your heart out, We've got insight, intelligence, wit AND someone that's down with the kids, all in one politically charged show.
The problems began though, right there. Politically charged show? I only say that from watching the damn thing. It marketed itself as a sort satirical take on the news, a send up of news reporting in general. Instead when I came to watch it, what I got was Newsround for the Hollyoaks generation.

Remember, us late 80s children, my generation, are the ones who set out with Newsround, right? They've realised that we have grown up and now they're back at it and cramming THE-WORLD-AROUND-YOU-FOR-DUMMIES down our throat again. Please, no, I can't breath, gaaargh *gorp, choke, dead*.
Seeing the four presenters sit round a table and discuss "issues" of government policing, or budget cuts, etc, is upsetting. I like these tv personalities, but they are being forced to act like all the active wankers at university that I wanted to stab in the eyes, the ones at Uni who take up real life issues that only they care about. It doesn't effect you, but they so adamantly pursue juuuusstiiiice that you want to become an anarchist and burn down the senate building just to spite them. Equally, I want to burn down the channel four executives who felt that they were hip and in touch enough to have found the legendary, hidden path to "appealing television for the fabled 20-25 year olds"

FAIL. EPIC. FUCKING. FAIL. You can't make a flying monkey just by stapling a pigeon to its back and you can't put in a couple of comedians and have them try and talk politics, whilst also try and be funny. The result is like water and oil, a heavily, heavily scripted production whose comedic and political sections sit very awkwardly next to each other over the course of a very long, disjointed hour.
The result is that no one quite enjoys the programme enough to really want to tune in again.

Jimmy Carr can do a bit of one-liner stand-up, sure, but contributes very little to the political discussions. Charlie Brooker looks like he wrote the damn thing and is having to watch everyone ruin his work. David Mitchell is a witty, commentator and referee but isn't quite a stand-up and suits other things more than a channel four youth-fest with fellow tv personalities. And Lauren Lavergne, sure, has youth-appeal and is a fine presenter, but when handed the detailed script of a section of..aha...satirical stand-up, she recited it like an auto-cue. In fact, in fairness, they all did. None of them can read from an auto-cue without adopting a sort of lazy eye.

In the end, I got bored. This is a greedy programme by Channel 4. Though broadly they are going for youth (just look at the hideous, vomit-worthy crowad of gel haired, shirt wearing, toss-faces in the crowd, all guffawing at crude jokes and booing & applauding as predictably as an X-Factor audience) overall this show is reaching for too broad of a demographic. As such, it's hard for them to keep anyones interest. I was geared up for entertainment when I sat down to watch this and I enjoyed the alternative election night, because then it has relevance...because there was an election...now it feels like GCSE-Bitesize came along to tell me about small businessman who aren't able to wear comfortable shoes in the Middle-East...by which I mean it feels irrelevant and dumb and as such it lost my interest very quickly.

Part of my annoyance about that is because on paper it should be a fantastic show. But it's not. It's the same reason Man City won't win the premiership. On paper it looks great, but it just doesn't gel. With all that money and talent, putting it together by selecting all the best players was just lazy and inorganic and the results showed that.

I'll probably still watch it though. There's not much else on afterall! DAMN THE TELEVISION TO HELL!

Harry Potter and the Magical Mystery Tour of Britain!

Six hours later I emerged from screen 8, blinking in the light. That's six hours I spent looking around a cinema to see if anyone else looked as unimpressed as I did. I was, of course, sitting in the new Harry Potter film, entitled, 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1', or as I like to call it 'Harry Potter and the Magical Mystery Tour of Britain'.

Unfortunately this was only part one of the final film, so I am now obligated to see the second. Kudos JK, have some more money. Harry Potter part one seems to be an advertisement for the British Tourist Board and National Heritage. Off they'd go, woosh, another area of outstanding national beauty, woosh, oh and another. I've never seen these places! I notice that they never once thought to hide in Margate.
Oh and that fucking tent. I was sick of the site of the fucking thing. A good hour and a half of the new HP film is not needed, because it features Harry and Hermione dragging the same bloody MAGIC tent around from place to place and going, "phew, aren't times difficult" - but hey, we have a magic tent and a magic bag with literally everything in it. At one point Hermione suggested that she and Harry stay out in the wilderness, with the tent, with the bag, and grow old together. I almost screamed at the suggestion, partly because I could physically feel myself getting older as the film went on, partly because it didn't seem beyond the film that we would have to watch that happen. Still, that tent was one prop worth its weight in gold. It was a sound investment and the prop man on Harry Potter should be praised.

So apart from these sweeping views of British landscapes, a cinematic technique that was only the tip of the iceberg when it came to ripping off Lord of the Rings, there were a few other moments in the film...though, predictably, they were stupid. The film began well but lost momentum after ten minutes. After seeing the scene with Death Eaters & Snape and the scene where everyone turns into Harry, it became rubbish.

For a start, the film is lacking in detail: "Oh, hi, we're back. Hm? Oh yeah, that's right, I'll tell everyone - guys, just to let you know Mad Eye Moody has died so I wouldn't bother to look out for h...what? Mad Eye...Mad Eye Moody. Squiggly eye with...oh nevermind, but, let's just all be aware; he's dead. He died, off camera so. Don't expect to see him again, that's all". The HP films are notorious for glazing over such details, but here it's abysmal.
Hey wait, don't the kids still go to school? I swear a school was involved once. Something about witchcraft and wizardry? Yep. Ok, let's see it. Uuum. OH HEY, LOOK, A TRAIN! Why would there be a train if there wasn't a school? That PROVES it, those students must be going somewhere! Yes, but I wouldn't mind seeing a potions lesson, or a Quidditch match or - ["LOOK; ok? The train means that they're going to school, and the school is out there somewhere, but that's not what it's about anymore, it's waaaaay bigger and more important than that now! No Hogwarts for you"!]

Hogwarts. Remember Hogwarts? That's good, because Harry Potter doesn't. Not a mention of the bloody place. It's not fun anymore! There, I said it. I mentioned Quidditch. I'd have killed for a game of Quidditch in this film. Or even a cauldron blowing up in Ron's face or something, ANYTHING that suggested I was in the world of Harry Potter and not, instead, a childrens second-rate good vs. evil Lord of the Rings rip off.
What happened everyone? Remember when it used to be enjoyable watching a Harry Potter film? Remember when you used to crack a smile while you watched it? There'd be some mild peril, they break some rules, Harry steps up to a challenge, he and his friends defeat the threat...and then they'd all sit down to a big feast and Dumbledore (god rest his soul) would go "FIFTY points to Gryfindor!" and everyone would cheer and they'd all lift up the house cup, and go yeeeah!
Here instead we have Harry weeping into the face of a bloodied up house-elf with parkinsons and digging a shallow grave for him in Cornwall; Jesus. Wingardium leviosa!

The thing that really let's this rubbish down though is simple and it's hardly the films fault really. J.K.Rowling...how are you even published? This is why I stopped reading your books. I read Bukowski now man.
While the film can be held responsible for the ridiculously uninformed, poorly crafted scenes that are always meant to mean a lot more (romance with Ginny spanning many, many pages - yeah he zips up a dress and...we'll just take it as given that there's some sort of romance there, good, that's been alluded to, moving on...) Ahem, anyway, the director can not be held to ransom for Rowling's blatant cheating.

Yes, cheating. It's quite clear that she never, ever planned on writing these awful epic titles later in the series. The really huge books where it all becomes a serious battle between good and evil. Welcome to Harry Potter, where everything is something! We're going to take a look back at all the things you used to enjoy and we're going to tell you what they really were!
Harry's invisibility cloak was a seemingly innocent, inventive magical device for sneaking around school. OH-HO, not so fast, in fact Harry's cloak was a powerful, world-ending artifact the whole time! And look at this, Harry's glasses are a horcrux into another dimension where Dumbledore is alive as a phoenix and gives Harry the legendary fez of invulnerability which he must use to defeat Voldermort's postman, thus cutting the dark lord off from bills and magazine subscriptions of everykind kinds! Have at you brute! Or, whatever is convenient to J.K.Rowling's story at the time. Honestly, it's as bad as Sabrina the Teenage Witch! Sorry, that's not fair really. Sabrina was pretty good.
Douglas Adams did a lot of mad stuff with Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy but he obeyed the logical laws of the universe he created. The babel fish is convenient, but was explained and operated within an established world of Adam's creation. Rowling set up some rules in about three books, became a too powerful author, refused her book to be edited, and started blowing apart her own world, twisting it into some half-baked epic of two-part film sized proportions. Secret codes, mystical swords, old legends, one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them...oh, sorry...I get those two mixed up sometimes because one of them ripped off the other one. Dementor? More like Black Riders mate.

ALSO, how the fucking hell do Harry, Ron and Hermione get caught by a man impersonating Johnny Depp but then manage to defeat several powerful dark wizards at a leisurely stroll? It's ridiculous! I couldn't believe people were buying it. Another thing; "Shit, how do we get out of here"! said Ron. "Don't worry", said J.K.Rowling, who suddenly decided that she could draw on some old forgotten character, say, Dobby the house-elf, and decide that he could teleport everyone out of the impenetrable fortress. Good stuff. Good, good stuff.

Still, as ever, the Harry Potter franchise gave us another nice example of British actors...although there are so many of them now that they each get 5 minutes screen time at most before another lot come in. There were more cameos here than an E4 film countdown. Did you see the guy from Gavin & Stacey? That was cool.

So, in short, Harry Potter has lost the magic. And with that magic, it has lost its charm. No longer does anyone slip into the magical world via a telephone box, no longer do we get to see clever uses for post-boxes and things, oh no, now we get an intense ride of poor decisions and a poorly crafted plot that makes the DaVinci Code look plausible.

Meanwhile, this year at Hogwarts, one of the girls in Ravenclaw found a magic shoe that released a dragon into the Quidditch cup final, but it was defeated through some clever magic and dynamic broom flying and she won 50 points for Ravenclaw and they won the house cup. Ah, much better.

A distinct 5.5/10
Still...it was better than Inception.

Passing the Torch; Film 2010

Claudia Winkleman was handed the hefty mantle of continuing Jonathan Ross' legacy on Film 2010 and made her debut a month ago now. I've watched about three of the four now aired and...look, it was always going to be hard to follow in the steps of Jonathan Ross...but first, let's take a look at the new structure of the show.

Film 2010 (or whatever year was featured in the title) was always a very well balanced programme. It was both easy to watch and informative, it made incisive and intelligent points without being inaccessible (like, say, The Culture Show might be to certain people). It was a BBC big hitter, by which I mean it had a wide audience, appealing to a variety of people types. And, naturally, rather than try and replicate the show exactly, some changes have been made to the format of the show - but importantly the show's target demographic seems to have shifted, or at least that's the only explanation I can think of that explains the awful new tone of what used to be a fairly regular event in my week.

Apparently , rather than giving a fair, detailed and broad review of new films, Film 2010 has opted for a more select audience it seems. The word 'broad' is fairly key here. So often used as a fairly negative word, 'broad' is usually used alongside undeserved bedfellows like 'dumbing down', 'mass appeal' and plain 'stupid. Broad doesn't necessarily have to mean X-Factor. I'm mentioning this because it seems that Film 2010 has chosen to make itself less broad and to develop a somewhat different dynamic to itself.

For me, and fuck off I'm usually right about this stuff, Film 2010 has degenerated into a pretentious, indie hipster, film student, overly opinionated, nightmare [with due respect to reading film students].
The beginning of every review seems to begin with a flurry of name dropping, old 'classic' film references and the mention of technicalities, just so that none of us are in any doubt that Claudia Winkleman and her sidekick Dobby [name unknown] know what they are fucking talking about - "let's get one thing straight here guys, I've seen this film, this film and this film, one of them was in black and white and I know the work of this direcotr who made a film that not many people have seen but I have because I fucking know film" - thanks Claudia, we get it, but I presumed you knew about film by virtue of your hosting this programme so let's skip the pretentious bullshit from now on eh? It's exhausting.
Winkleman can't help but proceed everything with "For me" and "I've always" and "His early work" - the sorts of phrases that tell you that your order of the big pile of crap is on its way in just a sentence time. This isn't so bad you say, but she literally barks all of these comments at this bloke Dobby [name unknown], who is just as bad as her really and returns her service with some film opinions that are equally high art, high literature and so richly full of themselves that to consume one as food would be to give yourself diabetes of the idiot gland. Shut up, it's a real condition.

My point is, this show is for everyone. It's on BBC 1 for fuck sake. But it's like they go out of their way to prove what an exclusive club it is. At the beginning it ought to play the piano music, the title should come up with Film 2010 and then Claudia Winkleman's head should pop up and go "keep up if you can stupid" at which point her brain should explode, revealing an excess of film tape. GOD SHE KNOWS SO MUCH ABOUT FILM!!

There are strong overtones of hipster-ness in the show, which is probably why I'm reacting so furiously towards it. Anything trying to be anything and it's not for me. I mean, FOR ME Film2010 would be better with Jonathan Ross, I'VE ALWAYS liked Film2010's EARLIER WORK. Oh look at that, I'm a wanker as well. But then I haven't ruined a perfectly good platform for film review by rendering it some pompous excuse for these two presenters to vomit up their conceited yet mysteriously repetitive views, not on the film itself, but on film as a medium, man. It's the way Winkleman and Dobby both talk to each other in argumentative way, fully believing that their opinions on film define their very being. And that's just pathetic.
Come back Jonathan Ross, you gave a well rounded, accurate opinion on film and didn't have to roll out the obscure references and pro-subtitle stance to prove just how much passion you had for film. As such, I found you both likeable and believable. Film 2010 and Claudia Winkleman are neither of those things.