Quiz

It's a big compliment when you feel you want another episode. Quiz does that. It engages throughout with a mostly tight story, mostly good cast and what we all love: a bit of a mystery.

The addiction to true crime dramas sets people up for this sort of story: unresolved tension, 'what if' scenarios and divided camps of 'guilty' vs 'not-guilty'.

The narrative of this production is all about the tension that is built into shows like Millionaire, and it openly then uses the same tactics for itself.

Where the show excels is that it doesn't really pick a side, it shows seemingly balanced evidence for both sides of the case.

In a nod to 'Network' it also asks us what the culture of sensationalist TV breeds - and how networks can benefit and profit from all outcomes.

The acting is largely good. Michael Sheen is outstanding as Tarrant. Matthew Macfadyen dances the fine balance of the role he plays of competent vs comical and when you rewatch the original footage you realise he got it right. Sian Clifford indistinguishable from Diana Ingram.

It has some mis-steps. The brother-in-law and one of the network executives are frantic and out of place, and the odd stray into attempts at comedy (evidence: "It's Raining Men") are oddly distracting. I wonder if they are holdovers from the theatre when you inject absurdity to give the audience a bit of a wake up in pace. We've all been there for the obvious "everyone cheer" moments, but they don't work so well on TV.

It's an eye opening programme that will leave you wanting more, just like any good drama and mystery should evoke.

It's good but don't expect a biopic or gripping drama. This is basically a little bit of a laugh that successfully takes the story and turns it in every way possible. It's inaccurate and there are a few moments where it seems like you're watching Mr Bean but it's good fun. Sheen is uncanny as Tarrant.

This show started out engaging enough, but it deteriorated in episode 3. At least there were only 3 episodes, so it wasn't too much of a time-suck. But Michael Sheen made this worthwhile to watch. He was funny, over the top, and so cute!

A very misleading mini series.

It is well made as light entertainment goes and the acting is generally very good with the glaring exception of 'Ingram' who, when portrayed in the chair, is a noticeably different character than you can see on the real how.

The trial is also changed to make interesting television rather than a fair account of the evidence presented.

So - 8 for entertainment and 2 for accuracy.

I tend to be always wary of things based on a true story. A mixture of fact and fiction often blurs the tedious factual parts with outlandish falsehoods to make the show more exciting as a whole. Therefore it can often be difficult to engage yourself to view it as fact as there are a large number of scenes which appear to be grandstanding for the viewers.

Despite the above, the series is actually an exciting drama with some occasional comedy moments. It's certainly worth a viewing. The acting itself appears great, however it's difficult to know how good the acting is considering we're unaware whether the actors are portraying the Ingrams directly or whether there have been things added.

The reason for the 7/10 is not due to the production, excitement or directing, it is due to the script. I am slightly perplexed as to why the script has been written to feel empathy towards Charles Ingram. Although the wife was responsible for pushing Charles, he has surprisingly been made to look the innocent party, this is despite Charles committing insurance fraud before the quiz show fraud. So why has the script been written to make us feel empathetic?

Overall the show is well worth the watch. It's exciting, gripping and interesting. Would really recommend, however most certainly take everything with a pinch of salt - it's not all fact!