IslandGuru Who payed the critics

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Logan Dodd There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

simon-894 This works as a short sketch only. It is a single gag that is repeated ad nauseam and after only three episodes I could take no more. It is painful to watch and frankly not worthy of fine actors, Hugh Bonneville and Jessica Hynes. For example, the conference suite scenes have the same structure and outcome every time - only the dialogue (such that it is) varies. The Head of Security character is unbelievable and just isn't funny, the Intern is just annoyingly hopeless. Several scenes are just a waste of time and banal in the extreme. It's altogether unbearable and unfunny.

jc-osms I suppose the natural career change for "2012"'s Olympics supremo Ian Fletcher was to an executive position at another of the great talking-shops, the BBC itself. Thus "W1A" continues very much in the footprints of its predecessor, with Fletcher at the centre of the middle of things at the Beeb, quickly becoming the spokesperson and whipping boy for a number of topical-at-the-time scandals at the corporation, involving regional discrimination and pay levels. Now with the Quango-esque title "Head Of Values" he's soon involved with a similar group of headless deadbeats talking lots but saying little in another amusing spoof comedy.The problem for me was the too-similar format to "2012" right down to each episode starting with him turning up to work and attending morning meetings although this time there was much less emphasis on his private life. The supporting cast includes the excruciatingly on-point media guru Siobhan "Sure, great" from the show before and a bunch of colleagues not markedly different again to those before. Therein lies the problem, with the show somewhat lacking in freshness with not only the characters but some of the plot devices seeming a bit second hand. I also think more could have been done to make use of the real-life BBC talent available apart from the amusing spat between Clare Balding and Carol Vorderman to see who gets to partner Alan Titchmarsh in a new reality show "The Tastiest Village in Britain".There are amusing moments for sure particularly when Siobhan attempts to rebrand the BBC for the Apps market and Bonneville leads a good cast who play their quirky characters to the hilt. Nice to see Olivia Colman in a cameo role too. All told though, the law of diminishing returns appears to be in action here although somehow it wouldn't surprise me to see Ian Fletcher in future park his fold-down bike at the biggest talking-shop of all the House of Commons in an as yet unwritten sequel to his latest misadventures.

droopsnout I suspect that some of the reviews here have been made by people who are perhaps too close to the BBC, or are amongst a significant section of the British population who regard the licence fee as the wrong way to fund the Corporation.I didn't see "Twenty Twelve" (but have just ordered the DVDs of Series 1 & 2), and in fact have only managed to see the first two episodes of "W1A". That clearly leaves me open to criticism for reviewing a series I haven't fully seen. On the other hand, it meant that I had no particular expectations before I viewed.What I did see I found to be hugely funny - certainly one of the most wryly observed and succinctly written comedies of recent years.Yes, I am sure that what it portrays is desperately close to reality! And indeed, that is what makes it all the funnier. The characters are, of course, caricatures with little depth, but in a light-hearted series of just four episodes, I doubt we would be expecting serious character development, especially when some of them speak the same (or similar) lines in every episode.As a Brit who loves the BBC, despite its weaknesses and failings, and who thinks the licence fee is truly excellent value for money, I admire the organisation all the more for its willingness to have the mickey taken in this way.Reading the other reviews, you might think that there was little to laugh at in this short series. Far from it. I very rarely laugh out loud, but this had me chortling more than most.

ianlouisiana No doubt about it,the BBC wants to be loved,wants to be "Auntie" and "The Beeb",wants to be known as the home of "Children in Need" and "Sports Relief" where its favoured entertainers and presenters are given endless opportunities to show their caring side whilst simultaneously promoting themselves and their BBC programmes whilst engaging in emotional blackmail. In reality,the national broadcaster is smug,self - regarding,self - regulating,incestuous,and exerts far too powerful an influence on its audience whom it regards as a malleable amorphous mass who blindly pay out their licence fee in order to be patronised,ignored and have their intelligence insulted at regular intervals. Thus with "W1A"they may appear to be mocking their own excesses but in fact they are showing them off - demonstrating to us viewers that the organisation will always be an Oxbridge talking shop producing whatever it decides will be good for us and spending our money however it sees fit with no possibility of redress. Too many clever - clever people at the BBC may chortle at the in - jokes and applaud the "sporting" way celebrities appear as themselves(don't think Miss C.Vorderman should give up her day job - whatever it may be) but have failed to consider that this programme's predecessor,"2012", was centred on a specific once - in - a - lifetime event that for the previous two years had occupied the news media almost non - stop.It was very much of its time. The BBC's Olympic Legacy seems to consist of re - cycled scripts and hackneyed ideas,I'm afraid.