Cracker: Mind Over Murder

"Cracker" (1997), a shoddy knock-off of Jimmy McGovern's popular Brit series of the same name, is a waste of time. A simple minded, dumbed down commercial product, this TV flick fails on all levels. The characters all look like scale actors and were poorly cast. The screen play is uninspired rote. The premise is nebulous. The acting is marginal. The script is soap opera quality. The direction...well, I'm not sure there was any. Even the DVD was crap and not only had no CC's or subtitles but didn't even have a menu...just the two 45 minute episodes. Passable, forgettable junk. (C-)

Note - It's worth mentioning that I was spoiled by viewing the entire Brit "Cracker" series on DVD and consider it one of the best psychodramatic TV series ever made. Hence, my objectivity may be compromised.

This excruciating remake of the excellent British series is not worth wasting your time on.

The police in the original had skepticism coming out of their ears when it came to having a psychologist on the team, exactly as many real police officers would. The American version has them fawning after Fitz at every opportunity, which is not only unrealistic, it also set up little dramatic tension.

While the English version has quirky, interesting, believable characters, the American one has typical American pretty people. Particularly disappointing is the lack of characterisation of the police. The original has a range of people we came to know well: Penhaligon, the young officer trying to cope with an inept boss and pathetic "lad" culture. Beck, the old-fashioned copper whose unpleasant exterior barely covers his mental instability. Bilborough, a nice guy, but so soft he has to get Penhaligon to do the talking when visiting people with bad news. What do we get from the American version? A token black character whose name escapes me and a chicky-babe who looks like Pamela Anderson's cousin.

The actors who play Fitz and Penhaligon (renamed to something unmemorable) could easily be replaced by wooden blocks and no-one would have noticed the difference. There's no spark between them. You don't care about them and you aren't convinced by them. Same with the Fitz/Judith pairing - he says something soppy and she simpers "sentimentality becomes you, Fitz". The "real" Judith would have laughed or sneered.

I could go on, but it just isn't worth the bother. Take from me: if you don't want to see a great show trashed, avoid this load of drivel.

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.

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?