The Movie Show RTE2 9 pm

mike65

No idea who these people are apart from Farrell, probably just a succession of shilling opportunities.

The Movie Show
New series. The latest news from the red carpet, focusing on the festival circuit and award ceremonies. In the first edition, Eoghan Doherty talks to Daniel Craig about his role in Skyfall, Ross Noble discusses new release Stitches and there is a review of Fun Size
Category General Arts/Culture
Cast
Reporter Eoghan Doherty (IMDB)
Presenter Eoghan McDermott (IMDB)
Presenter Mairead Farrell (IMDB)
Contributor Ross Noble (IMDB)

Technocentral

mike65 wrote: »

No idea who these people are apart from Farrell, probably just a succession of shilling opportunities.

The Movie Show
New series. The latest news from the red carpet, focusing on the festival circuit and award ceremonies. In the first edition, Eoghan Doherty talks to Daniel Craig about his role in Skyfall, Ross Noble discusses new release Stitches and there is a review of Fun Size
Category General Arts/Culture
Cast
Reporter Eoghan Doherty (IMDB)
Presenter Eoghan McDermott (IMDB)
Presenter Mairead Farrell (IMDB)
Contributor Ross Noble (IMDB)

Seen trailer on RTE 1 earlier, first I heard of it, laughed out loud at this part: Female presenters vo (about halfway through trailer) "..... and potentially libelous opinions.." and the clip to illustrate these lawyer baiting ripostes? A shot of her and a male presenter her "did you like the film?" him "no". Hardcore or what?

kitakyushu

Technocentral wrote: »

A shot of her and a male presenter her "did you like the film?" him "no". Hardcore or what?

Oooh, I'd hate to be that film! I bet they were expecting a "yes". Take that Hollywood!

MyBrokenKnees

35 seconds into the show and I can already tell they know nothing about movies

AnonoBoy

MyBrokenKnees wrote: »

35 seconds into the show and I can already tell they know nothing about movies

Apparently presenters when auditioning were told they didn't need to know anything about movies to be considered.

kitakyushu

Right, I gave it 3 minutes. I've seen enough for a lifetime.

baldbear

Having people who know feck all about movies isn't a good idea.

George White

Exactly, I even complained too Mairead on Twitter. Like stupidquestions 'what is a cinematographer'. To me, Mark Gatiss: Horror Europa is the best type of movie TV show.

Deedsie

OK RTÉ, ye nearly got it right. Give Eoghan Doherty a film review show. The other two are not required.

Thwip!

George White wrote: »

Exactly, I even complained too Mairead on Twitter. Like stupidquestions 'what is a cinematographer'. To me, Mark Gatiss: Horror Europa is the best type of movie TV show.

Mark Gatiss is fantastic though to be fair, he could carry any show

George White

Yeh, and I've chatted to him on Twitter, and he's very nice to his fans. He told me that Horror Express could not be fit into the Spanish horror segment, tho he loves it and that he doesn't consider FU Manchu horror!
The others clearly cast for their dopey looks! Mum says they should have gotten me! I know my Lucio Fulci from my Mario Bava, Larry Cohen to my David Cronenberg, Wes Craven to my John Carpenter, my Alfred Hitchcock from my Howard Hawks, my Antonioni to my Fellini, and I'm 17! They need someone like Dave Fanning back! A critic not a hopeless 'comedienne' as funny as rabies!

e_e

Siskel & Ebert had it right, no need for showbiz rubbish. Just 2 people who are passionate about movies discussing/debating the latest releases.

kitakyushu

e_e wrote: »

Siskel & Ebert had it right, no need for showbiz rubbish. Just 2 people who are passionate about movies discussing/debating the latest releases.

Speaking of Siskel-Ebert, TBH I think no one under the age of about 45-50 should be allowed do a movie review show. I'm sick of watching these "cool" reviewers painting on their fake smiles and acting like every new movie is a trip to Disneyland. I'd like someone a bit more jaded and liable to give about 75% of stuff the thumbs-down.

I started following movies when Barry Norman was on the go at BBC and nothing has really done for me since.

Mitch epitag

It is funny how every mainstream movie program says the latest james bond movie is "THE BEST bond movie ever" the same shìte has been said about ever bond movie my whole life.

faceman

I saw some of it. Awful crap. One of the presenters of a movie show on our national broadcaster is frightened of horror movies. And they made her a presenter of a movie show. Wow RTE, wow

LowOdour

Deedsie wrote: »

OK RTÉ, ye nearly got it right. Give Eoghan Doherty a film review show. The other two are not required.

he is as bad on this as he is on the radio...his questions to daniel craig were stupid and embarrasing. Im not looking for reviews on obsure albanian dramas, but a half intelligent discussion wouldnt go amiss

LowOdour

Deedsie wrote: »

OK RTÉ, ye nearly got it right. Give Eoghan Doherty a film review show. The other two are not required.

he is as bad on this as he is on the radio...his questions to daniel craig were stupid and embarrasing. Im not looking for reviews on obsure albanian dramas, but a half intelligent discussion wouldnt go amiss

Deedsie

LowOdour wrote: »

he is as bad on this as he is on the radio...his questions to daniel craig were stupid and embarrasing. Im not looking for reviews on obsure albanian dramas, but a half intelligent discussion wouldnt go amiss

I disagree, he is very good on radio. Nice, warm, quirky approach is very refreshing in comparison to the usual misery guts that we have to endure. I am a fan anyway.

MyBrokenKnees

There must be someone in RTE that viewed this before it aired and said please RTE controller do not put this on the air. For the sake of the people of Ireland do not put this on the air they have suffered enough these last four years. Let us show them anything else but this steaming pile of non show with presenters with shiny white teeth Who are brainless about movies and just want to be cool and hip.

Just like James Bourne oh I mean Jason Bond Oh I don't no If you feel like watching don't take notice of my so called review just go see the movie, If you don't know who the star of the movie is Google is your friend.:eek:

Kinski

kitakyushu wrote: »

Speaking of Siskel-Ebert, TBH I think no one under the age of about 45-50 should be allowed do a movie review show. I'm sick of watching these "cool" reviewers painting on their fake smiles and acting like every new movie is a trip to Disneyland. I'd like someone a bit more jaded and liable to give about 75% of stuff the thumbs-down.

I'm well under 45 and if I had a review show, I'd give 90% of stuff the thumbs-down.

johnny_ultimate

Must admit I'd love an in-depth film show. Something that goes beyond mere reviews, previews and shallow interviews - discuss films, directors, movements, whatever in actual depth. People who know about film talking about film. **** showbiz / red carpet stuff or PR friendly reviews - trust the audience.

Of course such a show would likely be relegated to the graveyardiest of graveyard slots, but still.

Technocentral

Watched about 10 min, why does everyone on tv have to be young and apparently cool and trendy? Someone with an indepth knowledge and love of film should be chosen , not just shallow good looking types, someone like John Kelly or an equivalent of Barry Norman or Mark Kemode (male or female) with a knowledge of cinema since its inception to compare new stuff to, who would usually be older (40s/50s). I'd say Ghostbusters is the oldest film they have seen.

Marty McFly

Jesus a lot ageist posts in here but unusally its against people who are of younger generations,I dont think someone has to be in the 40's/50's mark to have a knowledge of film you just want some who is knowledgable on the subject and has a passion for it.


On the show itself it wasnt amazing but wasnt as bad as everyone making it out to to be yes it was no Barry Norman Movie Show but it was the first epiode let it find its feet, I know some the questiosnwere daft but at least they interviewed a cinematographer and went into some detail not much admittedly but most movie review shows wouldnt even bother doing that much.

Ill watch it again anyway maybe im on my own .

johnny_ultimate

I'd encourage younger voices too. You just have to read Roger Ebert's views on video games to show how out of touch he is in many major respects, and he's hardly alone in being from a completely different generation. Many great older critics, no doubt, but many are poorly suited to engage with the changing faces of film and film criticism.

Youthful film fans tend to be extremely enthusiastic (occasionally too enthusiastic, granted) and it's always great to hear a young voice developing and finding their feet - it can be that process of constant discovery that can lead to some interesting and original thoughts / perspectives. I'm in my mid-twenties, and I know I'd love to hear people my age discussing film in actual depth.

mike65

Knew I wasn't going to miss anything.

o/t Mark Gatiss doc on Tuesday was excellent given the desperate running time constraint.

Basq

Ahhh... didn't know "Nordy Eoghan" was on this.

He's genuinely quite reliable on Ray Foley tbf.

But Mairead Farrell? Jesus wept!

Technocentral

Marty McFly wrote: »

Jesus a lot ageist posts in here but unusally its against people who are of younger generations,I dont think someone has to be in the 40's/50's mark to have a knowledge of film you just want some who is knowledgable on the subject and has a passion for it.


On the show itself it wasnt amazing but wasnt as bad as everyone making it out to to be yes it was no Barry Norman Movie Show but it was the first epiode let it find its feet, I know some the questiosnwere daft but at least they interviewed a cinematographer and went into some detail not much admittedly but most movie review shows wouldnt even bother doing that much.

Ill watch it again anyway maybe im on my own .

If your referring to the likes of me I wasn't been "ageist" for the sake of it, what I meant was that someone who has written and reviewed films for 20 or 30 years is going to be more knowledge and authoritive than someone just out of college or with 2 or 3 years experience and it stands to reason that they will be older for that reason. They may well have seen 10 times more films and be in more of position to put newer stuff into context, that's all.

johnny_ultimate

Passion and enthusiasm can be every bit a match for experience, TBH. Always nice to have the two together, but plenty of older critics are guilty of a condescending elitism that makes their opinions harder to swallow.

Young directors have made great films in any number of examples - no reason why young enthusiasts can't make great critics.

mike65

Critics are broadly like wine or cheese - when young they lack body, when too old they go sour. :pac:

Technocentral

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Passion and enthusiasm can be every bit a match for experience, TBH. Always nice to have the two together, but plenty of older critics are guilty of a condescending elitism that makes their opinions harder to swallow.

Young directors have made great films in any number of examples - no reason why young enthusiasts can't make great critics.

Loads of great younger directors so I know what you mean but for my money the best current critic for indepth knowledge and insight isn't 25 or 50 but in his 70s, Philip French is enthusiastic passionate and hugely experienced and he loves films from this year as much as from 1943.

Goldstein

That was a lot of hair to try to take seriously if your name's not Elvis or Egon.

Critics who are "wusses when it comes to horror", ffs.

Galvasean

Not naming names, but if you look at this very forum there are plenty of people in their 20s more than capable of being an excellent film critic.
Unfortunately it seems if you want to get a prime time TV slot as a reviewer Hollywood style dentition is deemed far more important than actual film knowledge. I remember seeing an advert for this show and it explicitly said you didn't need any experience or knowledge in relation to film, which is a total joke. How can you expect balanced reviews from someone who actively and openly dislikes a particular genre?

Basq

Galvasean wrote: »

Not naming names, but if you look at this very forum there are plenty of people in their 20s more than capable of being an excellent film critic.
Unfortunately it seems if you want to get a prime time TV slot as a reviewer Hollywood style dentition is deemed far more important than actual film knowledge. I remember seeing an advert for this show and it explicitly said you didn't need any experience or knowledge in relation to film, which is a total joke. How can you expect balanced reviews from someone who actively and openly dislikes a particular genre?

I give this post 4 thumbs-up out of 5... would read again!

Duggy747

Used to love Dave Fanning's one, it was no-frills, straight to the point with decent interviews, and a good theme tune to boot :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvfG9uFswis

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

Not naming names, but if you look at this very forum there are plenty of people in their 20s more than capable of being an excellent film critic.
Unfortunately it seems if you want to get a prime time TV slot as a reviewer Hollywood style dentition is deemed far more important than actual film knowledge. I remember seeing an advert for this show and it explicitly said you didn't need any experience or knowledge in relation to film, which is a total joke. How can you expect balanced reviews from someone who actively and openly dislikes a particular genre?

The hell? That'd be like me going for a job presenting a sports show and knowing sfa about sport. how can you take someone's opinion seriously when they don't have a clue what they're talking about? its one step up from asking some random person outside a cinema who's just seen a film.

podgemonster

They have the 2 presenters interviewing the 1 reviewer and a seperate reporter interviewing the cast/producers. Dave Fanning did all 3 jobs in his show so did Jonathon Ross. Skyfall interviews were very poor.

With all the faffing about in 30 mins they only reviewed 2 movies!

krudler

Why does an reviewer even need to be interviewed? can the just not talk to the camera or talk over clips from the movie?

Zubeneschamali

krudler wrote: »

That'd be like me going for a job presenting a sports show and knowing sfa about sport.

TV3 ran a motor show there a year or so ago, with one motoring journalist and a couple of professional presenter types who knew nothing but looked good.

Now they have a new motoring show... and the journo is gone, it's just the people with nice teeth now.

Technocentral

krudler wrote: »

Why does an reviewer even need to be interviewed? can the just not talk to the camera or talk over clips from the movie?

Controversially I'd add one more person, someone to interview the reviewers and expose their asinine opinions.

johnny_ultimate

It's Ireland, guys - why the heck would they hire one talented person when they can hire four inept ones to do the same job worse? :pac:

Technocentral

Heres that hilarious "libelous" bit from the trailer I was telling you'se about, its at around 19 - 25 seconds!

Technocentral

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's Ireland, guys - why the heck would they hire one talented person when they can hire four inept ones to do the same job worse? :pac:

Hey, leave off the public sector there

kitakyushu

I love how nowadays even an ad has to have an ad at end of it.

Galvasean

"The biggest movie nuts on the planet" - yet they don't know much about or even like movies... That IS pretty nuts!

Wanna know my dirty little secret? I auditioned for this but was told I was too unpredictable and foul mouthed to be on television.
Personally I think that was a nice way of them telling me that I have ganky teeth.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

"The biggest movie nuts on the planet" - yet they don't know much about or even like movies... That IS pretty nuts!

Wanna know my dirty little secret? I auditioned for this but was told I was too unpredictable and foul mouthed to be on television.
Personally I think that was a nice way of them telling me that I have ganky teeth.

Friend of mine was involved in this early on and I too did an audition for it. Put together a tape and everything but was told that they wanted something lighter and less serious. Was asked what films left the most lasting impression on me over the past years and when I told them A Serbian Film, Dogtooth and Martha Marcy May Marlene I got blank stares. it was obvious that what they wanted was someone with no interest in cinema but looked good and could be hip with the kids and watching the trailer posted above it's clear that no one involved has any interest in cinema beyond perhaps geeting to meet celebrities they read about in US weekly.

siblers

Like video game shows, film review shows just seem dated and pointless now. So many different reviews availble online weeks before any of this stuff is reviewed on tv. I still enjoy film 201_ though. :pac:

dark crystal

siblers wrote: »

I still enjoy film 201_ though. :pac:

Oh me too...I think Danny Leigh is actually a really good film reviewer and I love all the countdowns, lists and features they include in the show.

It's returning on Wednesday 14th November if you're interested

Miguel_Sanchez

Technocentral wrote: »

Heres that hilarious "libelous" bit from the trailer I was telling you'se about, its at around 19 - 25 seconds!

"Did you enjoy this movie?"
"No."

Quick! Get my solicitor on the phone!!!

Galvasean

We should make our own movie TV show... with black jack! and hookers!

johnny_ultimate

With actual libelous reviews!

"Next up, you won't guess which Hollywood star has a basement in their home where they torture puppies and young children. Find out after the break when we review The Hobbit!"

Goldstein

Galvasean wrote: »

We should make our own movie TV show... with black jack! and hookers!

In fact, forget the tv show and the blackjack.