WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

sharkhandler I have to admit, this show really makes me laugh.As someone who thought mock the week was just an excuse for comedians to show off their stand up (which it is) and who is tired of the 'comquizes' like QI, HIGTFN, Buzzcocks etc, I couldn't face another one.Until it came on and I couldn't be bothered to change the channel, I watched it and found myself chortling. Why? Simple: by now, in it's third season, the chemistry between the two presenters is palatable. Marcus Brigstock and Rufus Hound have a wonderful sparring nature and John Sargent, despite the comic timing of a basset hound, anchors things beautifully.Like all of these things, the show stands or falls on the quality of the guests. Having Jonny Vegas, Phil Jupitus, Reginald D Hunter etc - you can't really go wrong.If you can catch the episode where Hound strips down to his altogether then bends over and shows his backside to Brigstock (while arguing for the benefits of naturalism) you will see what I mean.Give this one a chance, it's getting stronger and stronger.

walliersway This format is remarkably similar to one from a French company called Little Nemo who've been showing it at various MIPCOM and MIPTV exhibitions since 2005. It's called 100 Seconds of Fame. You can find the original pilot at http://nemotv.com/100sfin 100 seconds of Fame, contestants are given words or topics and 100 seconds to weave them into a convincing story to appease the crowd below.After each round, the crowd vote off the weakest speakers until just one remains. As the series progresses, the best of the best are pitched against each other until just one winner emerges.The format is innovative and fun as well as being low-cost and easy to produce; it uses a small studio and many episodes can be filmed back-to-back in a day.

markthomp1 I thoroughly enjoy this show. There's a great chemistry between Hound and Brigstocke. The topics and arguments are secondary. This is an improv show. The audience isn't really voting for one side of an argument; they're voting for the funniest performance. If you liked Who's Line Is It Anyway, you'll probably like this show too.A lot of the comedians are also on Quite Interesting. I guess the British comedy scene is a lot like it's acting community where a lot of the personalities show up again and again. For the most part, that's good. Phil Jupitus, Sean Locke, and Johnny Vegas can't be beat.I hope the show makes it to a third season.

Thomas Hardcastle What we've got here is a programme trying its best to fit the framework for what is popularly known today as the "quizcom" - a quiz with a comedic element forming the backbone of the programme.Argumental, a Dave exclusive, is not shown on analogue terrestrial television, simply because it is nowhere near as good as every other quizcom out there. "Have I Got News For You," "Mock The Week," "Never Mind The Buzzcocks," et al contain more humour in their first two minutes than Argumental contains along the course of an entire show.There are two reasons for this - one being the nature of the show, and how arguing for something you might not necessarily believe leaves you with a dearth of ideas. The main reason why Argumental fails dramatically to hit the mark, is the substandard comedians desperate to ply their trade, and prove that they are not, by any means, "C-list" comedians. In doing so, however, they prove more than any stand-up ever could, that they are nothing but "C-list" jokers, bereft of ideas, lacking the necessary charms required to drive a show and its audience on for the duration of an entire series.