Grantchester

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 have been an avid watcher of this programme for a number of years. I thought James Norton made a fabulous hunky, tortured vicar in the first incarnation of the series, but I was less pleased with Tom Brittney. We now have a third vicar, Rishi Nair, whom I think will infuse the role, and the show, with a bit more spice. I'm certainly hopeful!

What I like about the show: -It is light entertainment that always circles back to good values, after casting a light on questionable ones.

-British series use actors that look like real people. I like seeing wrinkles and a bit of chunkiness, balding men, a career woman with one arm, and homely looking folks.

-The locations are gorgeous.

-The acting is good, especially Al Weaver as Leonard. And Robson Green is the perfect actor for his role. I can't imagine anyone else in it, and am relieved they don't cycle through detectives like they do vicars.

Watching the series, of course, requires a generous helping of suspension of disbelief, as do most series in this genre (how many murders, really, can happen in a place this small, week after week?) and I can overlook some aspects that aren't quite in line with the times the series is set in, except the language. Somehow, I guess because the show is accurate with props and costuming, I expect the same of dialogue. But in this 9th season, Geordie is described as having "a thing for vicars", and his daughter calls everything "a drag". I don't think either of these idioms were all that popular in the early 60s, when (I believe) this is taking place. The new vicar also speaks of receiving envelopes through his mail slot containing "quotes" from the Bible, which any self-respecting vicar would refer to as passages or verses of scripture, certainly not quotes. These are irksome oversights, and I hope they employ somebody to watch out for these mistakes.

All that aside, I look forward to finding out what Alphy and gang get up to this season!

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.

Grantchester since the very first episode has been particularly good viewing, the concept of a clergyman helping the local detective solve all manner of village crimes initially seemed a wee bit far fetched,and better suited to the Father Brown afternoon slot,but it's totally engaging, intriguing, and sometimes contains a level of grit.

The combination of Robson Green and James Norton as Sidney and Geordie is a good one, they play of each other incredibly well, they frequently see all that is good and bad in one another. Tessa Peake Jones is particularly good as Mrs Maguire.

I can't recall seeing a bad episode, always consistent, some of the standout episodes include the finale of series one, and series three's Christmas special. I'm impressed how they manage to make each episode feel so unique, and the personal lives of the lead duo add to the story.

A perfect way to end the week, Sunday evening Grantchester. 8/10

I like Grantchester for the period costumes and the Cambridgeshire setting, the plots are rather tame but what I do dislike about it is that the attitudes that it portrays are so anachronistic. The scriptwriters are becoming more determined to add in 21st century attitudes and to be politically correct, and this is completely out of place for a drama set in the 1950s. I had a rolling eyes moment when Chambers and Keating greeted each other with a hug - for heaven's sake, British men didn't even do that in the 1980s, let alone the 1950s! A handshake would have been a sign of affection but a hug - absolutely not. I really can't see a vicar that I would have known in my youth (in the 1970s) let himself go to that extent, I'm thinking in particular or the 'simulated sex on the dance floor scene' - even non-clergy wouldn't have behaved like that in the 1950s. People just didn't behave like that in public.

Another reviewer felt that Grantchester was better than Jeremy Brett's Sherlock; I think absolutely not. I know my British history in great depth and that version of Sherlock had an authentic feel of Victorian Britain. Grantchester viewers could be left thinking that the 1950s were not much different to today, just different clothes, and that certainly isn't true.