Grantchester

Maybe Patzak1974 is unaware that this series is based on stories by James Runcie, son of a former Archbishop of Canterbury who had himself served as a tank commander in WW2 before being ordained. Though James wasn't born until 1959, I think we can assume that he based the character of Sidney on conversations he had had with his father about his wartime experiences and how they affected his faith.

Personally, I find the character much more believable than many portrayals of clergy I've seen in TV dramas. At least he is correctly addressed as "Mr Chambers", since the American habit of addressing priests as "Reverend" had not then reached these shores!

As another has written, I came to Grantchester after a few seasons of Father Brown. While another "priest+cop" series seemed redundant, Grantchester is brilliantly written and acted.

Sydney Chambers (the Vicar of Grantchester) is conflicted...almost tortured by the choices he faces; the complications of the crimes that drive the main part of the story don't make Sydney's life any easier. (No add'l info on this as that would be a spoiler.)

The last time I was this caught up in a British detective series was with Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes. Yes; it's that good - even better.

Go with it; you won't be sorry.

We loved this series through three seasons. The fourth is unfaithful to the characters, has absurd plots, and is poorly written. We won't be watching Season Five.

I have not read the books. Therefore I enter as a virgin into the land of Grantchester. So, to me, it is a pleasant, light, somewhat funny, charming show. If we accept the idea that the Director meant to make the show in that way, I think that it is successful. I think the acting is excellent, and the stories are within reason, and interesting,but not hard-hitting because the show is not meant to be "film noir". It is light entertainment. I don't have to really believe that a Vicar, Sidney Chambers (James Norton),is regularly solving murders with his friend, Geordie, the police detective. I need not believe that a seemingly small town would have so many murders--one or more weekly--OK, let's say the time frame is two months apart, still.....you get it. So I give this show a 9 because I do enjoy it. I particularly like the acting of James Norton as the Vicar, but all are good.

I very much enjoyed seasons 1 and 2 - another "cozy" mystery series, gorgeously filmed and well-acted. The mysteries themselves are self-contained from episode to episode, while character development story arcs take place in the background to tie things together. As other reviewers have noted, the writers have made hero Sidney Chambers remarkably liberal and modern in his views. Perhaps in 1953 there were small-town vicars with such attitudes, but after a while it feels unrealistic.

For whatever reason, season 3 fell flat for me, to the extent I thought they might have changed writers. Perhaps it's the peaking of a couple of those story arcs in season 2, but I found that I no longer cared very much about the characters, while the mysteries began to feel secondary to the characters' stories. I'm unlikely to come back for season 4.