Shardlake

I'd forgotten the plot of the original Dissolution novel on which this is based hence the whodunnit element was enough to keep me watching the whole series. I see some reviewers are critical of casting choices which I can't truly see any issue with - it's a dramatisation, faithfulness to the period in terms of exact settings, clothing, architecture etc don't need to be adhered to, as after all, in the time of its setting the language spoken itself would've been impossible to recreate faithfully to modern viewers understanding! I'm interested to see if further adaptations will continue as I do love the genre of medieval murder mysteries and TV lacks these! But the main characters were well developed and cast, and I'm amused at the irony of Sean Bean playing Cromwell who, we all know, irl did not meet a happy and peaceful ending, much like many of the characters Sean plays...

There are some standout things about the adaption of Sansom's beloved Shardlake like the casting of Arthur Hughes. The actor embodies everything a fan of the series could hope for in our beloved character. He really is excellent.

There were little inclusions which I loved like the bird from Peru Land. Excellent. Also the flashbacks to Matthew as a boy - very beautifully done and very touching.

1 x star lost: The actors that were cast as Barak, Abbott Fabian and Brother Guy the physician were horribly miscast. Anthony Boyle is NOT Jack Barak. Boyle swaggers his way through the storyline but he does not embody who Barak is. Not even close. And without giving spoilers away - that whole scene in the stable was absurd. Guy was a Moor and the actor that played him didn't have the range to convince me he was Guy. Oh...and a Black Abbott Fabian? Blacker than Guy? Give me strength.

1 x star lost: Tudor England was not multicultural like it's depicted. Get over it. Stop trying to change history. Ridiculous.

I'm happy you chose Arthur Hughes and I enjoyed the adaption. Very atmospheric and compelling.

I'm only one episode in. So far, the characterisation is good. The production values impressive and the direction stellar. Alas, already the immersion into the 16th century setting is stifled by 21st century narratives.

I'm personally not a British person. Yet, I can't help but feel insulted on behalf of the real historical people of the time period in England.

When I watch a "historical drama", as a viewer with an interest in history, I want immersion. It's a sad indictment of modern society when historical TV productions feel obligated to be all inclusive in the name of progressive politics.

The story itself is very intriguing, but the show as a whole feels disingenuous and far removed from the time period. There are dual narratives at play. One is set in the 16th century and the other is set firmly in the 21st and it's difficult to separate one from the other.

If you don't require immersion you'll probably enjoy the series. However, I personally find it difficult to suspend belief enough to envision that so many people in 16th England were of Asian and sub-Saharan African descent.

This is just an honest opinion of someone who has no political agenda or biases whatsoever. I like historical dramas. Unfortunately, this historical/fantasy hybrid is not something I can invest in.

There is more to putting a drama like this together than sinister music, sinister looks and a bit of running about.

The shame about SHARDLAKE is that the budget is there and the actor are there, the script however isn't.

The adaptation takes a strong book by C J SANSOM and makes it a meandering mess of a thing, a basic detective procedural laced with long exposition sections in the refectory, replete with lingering glances, meaningful stares and moody music.

The music is a sub Hans Zimmer smush of broody brace and tense strings that doesn't really drive the action, just paints it in different variants of beige.

It's a diverting watch but could have been so much better in the hands of writers and directors who trusted the material.

I'm going to keep it short and sweet. Watched the first episode and some of the ingredients were good and had potential like Sean Bean and Arthur Hughes characters. Also it takes place in such an interesting time in Englands history which is exciting because there are not too many shows set at the time of the Dissolution of the monasteries, it's a show with a serious tone, so it should definitely take the historic time it's based in seriously right?? Nope it fails miserably at that. Such a waste, I didn't even bother with the next episode. If you want to watch a better show that is similar I would watch The Pillars of the Earth.

Ohh well, I wonder what other amazing books Disney can ruin next.