Cracker: Mind Over Murder

True, this is not Robbie Coltrane. True, the series is darker and at the same time less complex than the magnificent British series. But just because a California vintage varietal is not Château Latour does not mean it isn't potable. Taken on its on merits, without making comparisons to the original British series (in which the American series really has no chance to shine) this is a well-made and far-from-clichéd series. Playing Fitz as Pastorelli did-- as less-than-lovable, curmudgeonly without the usual saving graces of humor or humility, was actually very brave, and much truer to everyday life, truth to tell, than Coltrane's wonderful portrayal. Coltrane's characterization is in a way bigger than life, a flawed yet dazzling (and also, endearing) genius: very much in the tradition of other flawed, brilliant, larger-than-life sleuths from Sherlock Holmes to Hercule Poirot. I find Pastorelli's interpretation more in the line of, say, John Thaw's Inspector Morse (they even have similar tastes in music). Pastorelli plays Fitz as depressive, grouchy, arrogant, flippant, self-absorbed, and sometimes downright rude. That is truly going out on a limb, and would be even for British television, but for American television it is valor of the first water. So it is unfair to compare his portrayal with Coltrane's: they approach the character quite differently. Taken on their own, I think the Pastorelli episodes are fine productions. Being an American myself I was raised on happy endings and characters designed to elicit one's emotional engagement. Yet as others have rightly noted, life isn't like that. I remember an episode of a British production, one of Roy Mardsen's wonderful Adam Dalgleish tales, which ended, yes, with the criminal's apprehension-- but NOT happily (his assistant's grandmother, being held hostage, having been killed at the end when SWAT teams stormed the hideout)... and I was appalled at first--- but then I realized, that that was as possible an outcome as the happy ending would have been, perhaps more likely even. And this series has a lot of that flavor to it. So: approaching this and expecting the same thing as one got in the British production is really counterproductive. But if you watch these shows without expectations, you'll likely find them quite satisfying on their own merits.

People were extremely unkind to this American remake of the brilliant British crime drama "Cracker." Yes, the British version was superior; but I often felt that the American version didn't get the credit it deserved. It wasn't supposed to be a direct copy, it was supposed to be a distinctly American version, as "All In The Family" or "Three's Company" were. I would have liked to watch it develop. My theory is that the main problem people had was with the American Fitz - Robbie Coltrane is so flawed, but his egotism is tempered by a humor and humility that Robert Pastorelli didn't really possess. Nonetheless, I refuse to trash this show like everyone else and heartily recommend it, should you find it somewhere - it didn't last very long. And whether you find it or not, do go watch the British "Cracker" series. It's magnificent.

This Cracker was OK, but a so-so remake of the original British TV series. Like so many US remakes of British TV, it was watered down by the US networks, who seem to treat American audiences like small children, and never let them see anything remotely "different".

The original British version starred Robbie Coltrane (Haggred in the Harry Potter movies), and his large, overweight frame helped make him a good anti-hero. It also made the romance between him and Sgt Jane Penhaligon all the more interesting (she was a slim red-head played by Geraldine Somerville). It was pretty obvious that she found him attractive because of his brains. In the US version, a slimmer actor was used. Why? Probably because US networks just won't EVER make the hero a fat guy, or perhaps because God forbid TV should suggest that looks aren't the most important thing in a relationship.

This is what you get when you try to redo an extremely good miniseries without the great actors of the original. Where the british Cracker has everything to watch each episode twice, the US version has everything to turn it off after five minutes. Maybe if one starts with this version it could be considered a good series, but knowing the original, it only hurts. That beg the question: why have they done it after all? Why not broadcast the original?

Robert Pastorelli tried. The problem with this Americanized version of a great British series was the story lines didn't translate well. The story lines are so British. They would have been better off taking the characters and writing completely new scripts. It might have worked better if the series took place in New York. The LA area just didn't seem to fit with the dark feel of the show, all that sunshine just didn't work. I watched all of the episodes, waiting for an original storyline, never happened.

It was an admirable effort to bring a good show to American television. But poorly executed.