Chemistry of Death

Started well, but let's be honest, you've seen it a thousand times before. I personally get particularly frustrated by a father constantly chasing the shadow of a passed child, but then that's just me. It's difficult to invest in any one of the characters, especially the lead role. Thankfully it doesn't delve into the Dexter/Da Vinci's Demons style crime scene overview each time he assesses a dead body or that would be it!

It may improve as the series moves on, but I'm of an impatient nature so ep 3 was about my limit. If you like predictable, crime scene investigation then its not terrible, but if you prefer to be kept guessing then leave well alone.

The best about this show is undoubtedly the cinematography. Many times, it just takes the breath away. And not just the landscapes, but rather how they use it to depict characters, the scene, the environment they are in, the mood, the atmosphere. That is outstanding, 10/10. The story is arresting, dark from the very start, and just goes on and on to build up the protagonist of the series, a forensic pathologist riddled with guilt about his past. I would say, that's the less convincing - however, vital - element of the character, the theme about it well overused (in my opinion). The score is good, original and well in sync with the cinematography. One of the best English series in recent years. You won't be disappointed if you watch it, for sure.

Having read the books, I was excited to see this had been dramatised.

I was however shocked to reach the equivalent end of the first book by the beginning of episode 3. Everything just felt very rushed, with lots of important events and scenes missed. There was barely any building of characters or their back stories, with some characters completely missing who were important to the story in the books.

I'm not sure whether reading the books made it less enjoyable being aware of these ommisions, but it certainly felt underwhelming and decidedly rushed throughout.

I understand literary and poetic licence, but whilst it wasn't a bad production and the casting and acting was good, this didn't hit the spot if you've enjoyed the books.

Pretty much end of the good news! Sorry.

Hope this guys books aren't this bad. I'm thinking someone grabbed a great story and made a HUGE mess of it.

So much promise with so little fulfilment. The plot has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. Suggest you don't waste your time. There's so much tv out there it's not worth the effort to watch something this bad.

PS David Heyman is the only saving grace.

Ok first review from me. Now I've got to figure out why there is a character minimum on a review! I'm damn certain I've seen shorter ones than this. Still not enough, guess I'll keep typing unti...

Recently the "reboot" of CSI:VEGAS (2021) ran into a tiny spot of trouble. No viewers. To solve the problem, the producers coaxed some of the original stars out of retirement to put in cameos, trying to create a "bridge" between the old show and the new one. And that, in a nutshell, is the key to CHEMISTRY OF DEATH. It is not MORSE. It is not LEWIS. In fact, nothing about the show is done in a way that is intended to appeal to viewers who grew up on the traditional "English" mysteries. The pace is faster. The editing is faster. Voice-overs replace music. Shocking the viewer with jump-cuts and "big reveals" is not only acceptable, but actually encouraged. This is indeed a new generation of mystery show, and its success or failure will most certainly hinge on the charisma of Harry Treadaway. The same actor whose strong performances in MR MERCEDES, and STAR TREK PICARD, mesmerized viewers during his limited screentime. Clearly, the producers here felt that it was time to give Treadaway his own show, stand back, and see what happens. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))