Martin's Close

No atmosphere, no scares, bland. That says it all.

I watched this as I am a fan of M. R. James.

Boy I now know I should have not bothered. Yes this has a high score on here but it was awful.

I cannot think of one good thing that this had in it.

I have now only started to catch up with all the horror shows on television over the Christmas holidays as I work over them.

Got to now watch Susan Hill' s Ghost Story and A Christmas Carol with Guy Pearce.

See I told you I could not think of anything good to say about this.

This production stays with the style of the story, and without that there would be no production. M.R. James is amazing, his ghost stories can scare me out of the house in the middle of the night, but they never do. That's what I like about them. When I've read (or listened) to one of his ghost stories, I'm never left wanting more from the story. Ive been entertained & then I'm respectfully left to myself and my own thoughts. This production does just that. I'm influenced by the fact that I've read the story several times. I wasn't left wondering or wanting at the end of the episode. The story line was understood. The humor in this production was equal to that of the story. It worked out right, that rarely happens in the story to screen conversion. I find that commendable. A ghost story for Christmas... is not meant to stick around, making you sick and hollow with fear.... it's something else, and it requires balance. This production kept that balance, not an easy thing to do these days.

I don't often post my views on IMDB because I know how difficult it is to make a halfway decent drama. This one is so strangely bad that I feel I have to flag it up. It's so dud that it has the feel of a student movie and apart from the performances of Peter Capaldi and Sara Crowe there's a distinctly amateurish air throughout (Simon Williams is good but wasted as the unnecessary modern commentator). Any courtroom drama should have plenty of coverage plus a few unique angles to give the editor (and the audience) a sporting chance of a stimulating ride. In this case there's far too much in close up - you could be watching Eastenders for goodness sake! The real curse is the script which has its own spoilers built-in, no surprises anywhere and, crucially for a ghost/horror story, none at the end. That such a remarkably bad production has Mark Gatiss's name on it is plain weird. There is so much brilliant drama on British TV (often written by Moffat & Gatiss) that this is definitely an oddball orphan. Over the years the BBC has made several half-hearted attempts at Christmas ghost stories. Even the better ones seem to lack conviction, 'going through the motions' almost. Come on BBC, it a great genre, give us a cracker for 2021!

Mark Gatiss has adapted another M R James ghost story for Christmas. Although BBC4 has had its budgets slashed and they announced several years ago they would make no new dramas.

Gatiss ensures that BBC4 do make new dramas even if it is on a micro budget. He even coaxes Peter Capaldi to make an appearance as the trial prosecutor.

There is a present day narrator who tells a story of the hanging judge Jeffreys. However in 1684 he was once involved in a trial of John Martin that had people spooked.

Martin was accused of murdering an innocent Anne Clark. Innocent is a loose word for slow. It is unclear why Martin was attracted to Clark. He was engaged to a pretty woman with prospects. He would get a large dowry and would be set for life. Yet he wooed the frumpy Clark and met up with her several times. Pretty soon, his engagement ended and Martin blamed Clark for his misfortunes.

However although Martin is accused of killing Clark, her spirit remains. There has been some kind of sightings of her. Even Martin sees a strange vision in the courtroom.

Gatiss only uses a few sets, he keeps it sparse. A small room acts as the courtroom very much in keeping with the period. It is more eerie than chilling. There is very little by way of jump scares but there is an unsettling atmosphere.