markfranh's reviews
This page showcases all reviews markfranh has written, sharing their detailed thoughts about movies, TV shows, and more.
123 reviews
There is no doubt that the programme shows some wonderful places between Sydney, where the journey starts, and Adelaide, where this portion of the Indian Pacific ends (you can continue on to Perth).
The problem is quite simple: the train doesn't actually stop in most of the places shown; they are simply near the route of the train. The only stop the Indian Pacific actually makes between Sydney and Adelaide is the town of Broken Hill!
Everything else shown? Sorry, you won't be seeing it if you are doing the train journey.
(I will note that if you are doing it west to east it does also stop in the Blue Mountains but that's not the journey shown in the programme).
My wife and I did wonder how many British viewers would have thought to themselves "what a wonderful series of towns and sights you can see on this trip" and gone ahead and booked it without reading the fine print as to where the train actually goes!
There was little on the train itself other than a few short interviews with passengers and a few glimpses of meals being served. No shots of the cabins (which are very small!) which you'd think would be essential to any programme about a train where you are going to be overnighting. No talke of any onboard entertainment or the opportunity to meet other passengers.
Enough said.
Great scenery, but totally misleading as to what this train journey is all about.
The problem is quite simple: the train doesn't actually stop in most of the places shown; they are simply near the route of the train. The only stop the Indian Pacific actually makes between Sydney and Adelaide is the town of Broken Hill!
Everything else shown? Sorry, you won't be seeing it if you are doing the train journey.
(I will note that if you are doing it west to east it does also stop in the Blue Mountains but that's not the journey shown in the programme).
My wife and I did wonder how many British viewers would have thought to themselves "what a wonderful series of towns and sights you can see on this trip" and gone ahead and booked it without reading the fine print as to where the train actually goes!
There was little on the train itself other than a few short interviews with passengers and a few glimpses of meals being served. No shots of the cabins (which are very small!) which you'd think would be essential to any programme about a train where you are going to be overnighting. No talke of any onboard entertainment or the opportunity to meet other passengers.
Enough said.
Great scenery, but totally misleading as to what this train journey is all about.
My wife and I used to enjoy this show. Inevitably in previous seasons there was the odd dud but it is light hearted entertainment on a fairly low budget so you do expect the odd misfire.
You could always watch for the Shakespeare references in the plot and Sebastian interjecting lines from the plays at appropriate points.
All that seems to have been abandoned this year and something has gone gpne terribly wrong.
Episode 1 of Season 5 was about Frank and Lu running seperate agencies and then reuniting as the episode progressed. Nothing there really felt right but I'm happy to allow the odd episode that doesn't work.
But this one? We didn't even make it to the end.
What did it in for us in the end was a prolongued paintball scene about a third of the way through. It was just juvenile. Idiotic. Sure, there was going to be a murder at some point but we didn't even make it that far as we both turned to each other with the same conclusion that we didn't need to watch this rubbish.
What else can one say?
The whole plot just seemed unconvincing. Rick was unbelievable as a character and I'm afraid I put it down to a combination of bad writing and bad acting.
Sebastian was no longer interested in Shakespare but had become a children's entertainer. One of the highlights of previous season has always been Sebastian quoting Shakespeare so why on earth would they abandon this?
Can't be bothered writing any more really.
When a show fails this miserably, we just give up. Shakespeare and Hathaway was fun for four seasons but after this one, may it R. I. P.
You could always watch for the Shakespeare references in the plot and Sebastian interjecting lines from the plays at appropriate points.
All that seems to have been abandoned this year and something has gone gpne terribly wrong.
Episode 1 of Season 5 was about Frank and Lu running seperate agencies and then reuniting as the episode progressed. Nothing there really felt right but I'm happy to allow the odd episode that doesn't work.
But this one? We didn't even make it to the end.
What did it in for us in the end was a prolongued paintball scene about a third of the way through. It was just juvenile. Idiotic. Sure, there was going to be a murder at some point but we didn't even make it that far as we both turned to each other with the same conclusion that we didn't need to watch this rubbish.
What else can one say?
The whole plot just seemed unconvincing. Rick was unbelievable as a character and I'm afraid I put it down to a combination of bad writing and bad acting.
Sebastian was no longer interested in Shakespare but had become a children's entertainer. One of the highlights of previous season has always been Sebastian quoting Shakespeare so why on earth would they abandon this?
Can't be bothered writing any more really.
When a show fails this miserably, we just give up. Shakespeare and Hathaway was fun for four seasons but after this one, may it R. I. P.
There has been a trend in British tv series recently. Get a huge star or two, write some nonsensical script, and expect the series to be a huge hit because of the presence of the stars.
Well, the current rating of this series of 5.4 shows what people think of this series.
Suranne Jones. Jodie Whittaker.
Guaranteed hit. Right?
No.
We lasted two episodes before saying enough is enough.
To quote the famous line from Network:
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
This is the very last time that I start watching a series based solely on the presence of big name actors.
I got badly sucked in with Keeley Hawes' name in "The Assassin". Rated 6.4 on IMDB and I thought that generous. My wife and I gave up after 2 episodes as well.
There was a similar series about a year ago which also featured a big name and which was also rubbish (can't recall the name).
From now on, if I see a highly touted series based on the presence of an a-list actor or two coming out of the UK, I'm going to be highly skeptical. I promise.
Enough said.
Well, the current rating of this series of 5.4 shows what people think of this series.
Suranne Jones. Jodie Whittaker.
Guaranteed hit. Right?
No.
We lasted two episodes before saying enough is enough.
To quote the famous line from Network:
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
This is the very last time that I start watching a series based solely on the presence of big name actors.
I got badly sucked in with Keeley Hawes' name in "The Assassin". Rated 6.4 on IMDB and I thought that generous. My wife and I gave up after 2 episodes as well.
There was a similar series about a year ago which also featured a big name and which was also rubbish (can't recall the name).
From now on, if I see a highly touted series based on the presence of an a-list actor or two coming out of the UK, I'm going to be highly skeptical. I promise.
Enough said.
An extraordinary production.
If it was a mainstream British series, this would win a shedful of BAFTAs.
If American, it would be up for Emmy's galore.
If Scandanavian, well, it would win pretty much everything they award in Scandanavian if they have awards.
The Oscars obviously are for movies and this is tv series but if they awarded Oscars for tv then best actor co-winners go to the pair that played Mr. Wang and Captain Ma and that's guaranteed. The actor playing Ma's performance in the last 30 minutes or so in the final episode worthy of an award just for that aspect (not saying anything more on that as it would spoil the reveal).
I don't know if they do awards in China but I expect it swept the awards there if there are any.
There's no doubt it can be confusing at times. There are three time lines to follow. The last one is 2016 when three of the major characters from the earlier times are still involved and following up something that happened in 1998 and how it relates to an incident unfolding in 2016. The first time line is 1997 in which we see the lead up to the critical events of 1998 and characters are introduced before their lives fall apart. Then we have 1998 when the key events happen. Jumping back and forth between 1997 and 1998 can be especially confusing as obviously the characters look the same; by 2016, they have aged so you know when you are seeing the modern timeline.
Towards the end of the series, time line 1997 has progressed in leaps and bounds over the many weeks and months and eventually catches up to 1998 when everything comes together and you discover what it was all about as you watched 1998 unfold in the earlier episodes. It all starts to become clear as you put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Finally in the later episodes, what is going on in 2016 also starts to make sense as our trio of older men discover more about the earlier events and more is revealed.
Again, it all eventually starts to tie together.
There is much jumping back and forth between the time lines from episode to episode so that keeps the brain active trying to keep up and remember what happened the last time you saw what was going on in that year. That can be an issue. There are even episodes when a timeline is not shown at all and only picked up in the following episode so you immediately are trying to remember what happened last time you were there in the story.
This is not a series where you can watch one episode and then set it aside and pick it up a week later. You really need to concentrate and remember episode to episode what is going on. I'd suggest 12 consecutive evenings of viewing while setting the rest of your regular programming aside for the duration. Even better, two episodes in one evening as some of the episodes are well under an hour.
One negative was that in the version we watched the English subtitles sometimes didn't stay on the screen long enough. You could get 3/4 of the way through what was on screen and then they moved on to the next sentence so you miss potentially important words. Not always, but annoying when it happened. This was especially true in the first episode (or two) but seemed to improve as the series went on. Didn't help that the Chinese speakers were rapid fire when emotions ran high so the subtitles probably were struggling to keep up. Not the fault of the series ; no doubt it would have been better to speak Chinese to follow everything properly.
There are numerous loose plot threads everywhere as you watch the series (and that's the point) and you do wonder how it all will be tied back up by the end but, amazingly, after finishing it last night and thinking about it this morning, I can honestly say it all warpped up perfectly as far as we could tell. There weren't any of those , "hang on! What about ... That doesn't make sense" moments that are so common these days in so many series.
Would a Western remake of this series work? I wonder. Much of this is about China and the China of the 1990s when the economy was undergoing such rapid change. The coal mines of the UK as they shut down might be one setting if a British remake. The closure of steel mills in the USA possibly? Just throwing out ideas.
Anyway, watch this series.
Magnificent.
If it was a mainstream British series, this would win a shedful of BAFTAs.
If American, it would be up for Emmy's galore.
If Scandanavian, well, it would win pretty much everything they award in Scandanavian if they have awards.
The Oscars obviously are for movies and this is tv series but if they awarded Oscars for tv then best actor co-winners go to the pair that played Mr. Wang and Captain Ma and that's guaranteed. The actor playing Ma's performance in the last 30 minutes or so in the final episode worthy of an award just for that aspect (not saying anything more on that as it would spoil the reveal).
I don't know if they do awards in China but I expect it swept the awards there if there are any.
There's no doubt it can be confusing at times. There are three time lines to follow. The last one is 2016 when three of the major characters from the earlier times are still involved and following up something that happened in 1998 and how it relates to an incident unfolding in 2016. The first time line is 1997 in which we see the lead up to the critical events of 1998 and characters are introduced before their lives fall apart. Then we have 1998 when the key events happen. Jumping back and forth between 1997 and 1998 can be especially confusing as obviously the characters look the same; by 2016, they have aged so you know when you are seeing the modern timeline.
Towards the end of the series, time line 1997 has progressed in leaps and bounds over the many weeks and months and eventually catches up to 1998 when everything comes together and you discover what it was all about as you watched 1998 unfold in the earlier episodes. It all starts to become clear as you put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Finally in the later episodes, what is going on in 2016 also starts to make sense as our trio of older men discover more about the earlier events and more is revealed.
Again, it all eventually starts to tie together.
There is much jumping back and forth between the time lines from episode to episode so that keeps the brain active trying to keep up and remember what happened the last time you saw what was going on in that year. That can be an issue. There are even episodes when a timeline is not shown at all and only picked up in the following episode so you immediately are trying to remember what happened last time you were there in the story.
This is not a series where you can watch one episode and then set it aside and pick it up a week later. You really need to concentrate and remember episode to episode what is going on. I'd suggest 12 consecutive evenings of viewing while setting the rest of your regular programming aside for the duration. Even better, two episodes in one evening as some of the episodes are well under an hour.
One negative was that in the version we watched the English subtitles sometimes didn't stay on the screen long enough. You could get 3/4 of the way through what was on screen and then they moved on to the next sentence so you miss potentially important words. Not always, but annoying when it happened. This was especially true in the first episode (or two) but seemed to improve as the series went on. Didn't help that the Chinese speakers were rapid fire when emotions ran high so the subtitles probably were struggling to keep up. Not the fault of the series ; no doubt it would have been better to speak Chinese to follow everything properly.
There are numerous loose plot threads everywhere as you watch the series (and that's the point) and you do wonder how it all will be tied back up by the end but, amazingly, after finishing it last night and thinking about it this morning, I can honestly say it all warpped up perfectly as far as we could tell. There weren't any of those , "hang on! What about ... That doesn't make sense" moments that are so common these days in so many series.
Would a Western remake of this series work? I wonder. Much of this is about China and the China of the 1990s when the economy was undergoing such rapid change. The coal mines of the UK as they shut down might be one setting if a British remake. The closure of steel mills in the USA possibly? Just throwing out ideas.
Anyway, watch this series.
Magnificent.
If it weren't for the presence of so many big stars in the cast, this would be dismissed by all reviewers as less than mediocre run of the mill disappointing nonsense. I can't understand though why some havestill rated it as high as a 10. Unbelievable. I think my 5 might even be generous and really becaluse of the star appeal.
With one exception, it is the presence of the cast that actually makes this watchable but, nevertheless, really it must have been an embarrassment to those involved. Could these name actors not have shown a bit of judgement is agreeing to this farce of a movie?
The one exception to it being barely watchable is the woeful miscasting of Pierce Brosnan as "Red Ron". One had to cringe. What were they thinking? That a name more readily recognized in the USA than Mirren, Imre, and Kingsley might attract attract more viewers? That's all I could think of. There is no other plausible reason to put Brosnan in this role.
"Red Ron" is an ex-union firebrand who has spent his entire career fighting the bosses and much of it on the picket line. Brosnan? Never. Not plausible. Not even remotely believable. This needed someone the likes of Vinnie Jones, Ray Winston, maybe Tom Hardy. Yes, too young I know. But a bit of makeup etc would have solved that problem. But surely they could have found someone more believable in the role than Brosnan.
"Red Ron" is a "hard man" toughened up by his life's experiences and Brosnan just isn't it. An accent from the coal mines of Yorkshire or the East end of London.
You get the idea.
But that isn't the only problem.
The plot holes are absolutely ridiculous. Were all these in the novel or are they there because of shortcuts in the screenwriting? I don't know because I haven't read the book but they were inexcusable and showed total lack of caring for the story in trying to make this any way believable by the writer.
Yes, I know this is supposed to be light and not taken too seriously but that really is not an excuse for dreadful writing with so many plot holes you could drive an oversized truck used in mining operations in openpit mining in the deserts of Western Australia right through them.
What follows below could be viewed as spoilers so if you don't want to "spoil" your viewing (not that really is possible with what it is), you probably should stop reading here.
If not worried about spoilers and are interested in the numerous ridiculous bits of the plot read on.
***spoilers from this point on***
1) A contractor shows up at a cemetary with diggers prepared to completely destory the cemetary in preperation for development with no consideration to the fact there are bodies buried there. Just dig in with the backhoes and let the bones fly. Seriously? The local council gave planning permission for this? Come on. How stupid are we supposed to be? Two points: a) it's against the law. B) ain't going to happen anywhere in the world.
2) When the diggers are blocked by the protesters, Bodgan begins work in the cemetary with a shovel to show work has commenced and he just happens to randomly choose a spot where a body has been buried ... on top of a coffin. Of all the places in the cemetary he could have showen to just turn over a bit of dirt, he chooses the one spot where a murder victim was buried to hide the body. Of all the cemetaries in the UK, or in the world, he chooses the one where a murder victim has been buried to hide the body on top of a coffin. Come on. We aren't idiots.
3) Even more amazing, the body relates to the cold case the Club was investigating at the start of the movie. Really? What are the odds of that? Amazing.
4) Given all of that, it will come as no surprise to discover that the murderer of the person found buried in the cemetary and who was involved in the case that club was investigating at the start of the movie turns out to be one of the other residents of the rest home. Of course they are. This 50 years after the murder was committed the murderer is in the same rest home as those now looking at the murder and living next to where the body is buried. Wow!
5) The club manage to manipulate the police into assigning the very junior De Freitas to the case on the grounds that Ron will talk only to her. De Freitas who was responsible for the tea until the club intervened. Fine, for the interview only with Ron I'll buy that. But then for the rest of the movie De Freitas becomes Hudson's one and only assistant. Right.... That makes perfect sense. Promoted effectively from junior constable making the tea to the senior detective's personal assistant and confidant at the request of the Thursday Murder Club. Of course he agrees to that. Sure ...... If you buy that then I've got this bridge across the Thames I think you might be interested in buying.
6) The will of the dead contractor states that in the event of his death the redevelopment of the property must continue. Say what??? A) unlikely as who would ever dream of putting that into a will and b) unenforceable in law as any lawyer would know. Ridiculous.
7) Elizabeth and De Freitas track down Bob Tanner in a florist shop. Tanner who is wanted by the police on numerous outstanding charges and who has assumed a new identity in order to evade capture. Does De Freitas arrest Tanner? Does she at least call in backup to make the arrest? Does she at the very least return to the police station to advice senior officers of the location of the criminal so they can make the request of one of the most wanted gangsters in the UK? Of course not. At Elizabeth's request she leaves the room (then why did she come in the first place since she was obviously going to be in the way???) allowing Elizabeth to question Bob and do a deal and that's the end of it.
8) How are these retirees paying for their apartments in this retirement home? The flats are larger than many houses based on what they were showing in a few of the scenes. The NHS isn't paying for it. Sure, maybe Elizabeth has a massive pension from MI6 (really though?) and that covers the cost. But the minister? Where's he getting the money to live there? And the rest of them?
Enough from me. I'm 69 and off to an open house today at a local retirement estate (seriously!) and just hoping to see flats comparable to what were in the movie. Not to mention the Alpacas. If this place today doesn't have Alpacas, I'm not going to be interested. And the archery. They have to have archery. And don'f forget the life models for the art class. Must have those at a minimum.
With one exception, it is the presence of the cast that actually makes this watchable but, nevertheless, really it must have been an embarrassment to those involved. Could these name actors not have shown a bit of judgement is agreeing to this farce of a movie?
The one exception to it being barely watchable is the woeful miscasting of Pierce Brosnan as "Red Ron". One had to cringe. What were they thinking? That a name more readily recognized in the USA than Mirren, Imre, and Kingsley might attract attract more viewers? That's all I could think of. There is no other plausible reason to put Brosnan in this role.
"Red Ron" is an ex-union firebrand who has spent his entire career fighting the bosses and much of it on the picket line. Brosnan? Never. Not plausible. Not even remotely believable. This needed someone the likes of Vinnie Jones, Ray Winston, maybe Tom Hardy. Yes, too young I know. But a bit of makeup etc would have solved that problem. But surely they could have found someone more believable in the role than Brosnan.
"Red Ron" is a "hard man" toughened up by his life's experiences and Brosnan just isn't it. An accent from the coal mines of Yorkshire or the East end of London.
You get the idea.
But that isn't the only problem.
The plot holes are absolutely ridiculous. Were all these in the novel or are they there because of shortcuts in the screenwriting? I don't know because I haven't read the book but they were inexcusable and showed total lack of caring for the story in trying to make this any way believable by the writer.
Yes, I know this is supposed to be light and not taken too seriously but that really is not an excuse for dreadful writing with so many plot holes you could drive an oversized truck used in mining operations in openpit mining in the deserts of Western Australia right through them.
What follows below could be viewed as spoilers so if you don't want to "spoil" your viewing (not that really is possible with what it is), you probably should stop reading here.
If not worried about spoilers and are interested in the numerous ridiculous bits of the plot read on.
***spoilers from this point on***
1) A contractor shows up at a cemetary with diggers prepared to completely destory the cemetary in preperation for development with no consideration to the fact there are bodies buried there. Just dig in with the backhoes and let the bones fly. Seriously? The local council gave planning permission for this? Come on. How stupid are we supposed to be? Two points: a) it's against the law. B) ain't going to happen anywhere in the world.
2) When the diggers are blocked by the protesters, Bodgan begins work in the cemetary with a shovel to show work has commenced and he just happens to randomly choose a spot where a body has been buried ... on top of a coffin. Of all the places in the cemetary he could have showen to just turn over a bit of dirt, he chooses the one spot where a murder victim was buried to hide the body. Of all the cemetaries in the UK, or in the world, he chooses the one where a murder victim has been buried to hide the body on top of a coffin. Come on. We aren't idiots.
3) Even more amazing, the body relates to the cold case the Club was investigating at the start of the movie. Really? What are the odds of that? Amazing.
4) Given all of that, it will come as no surprise to discover that the murderer of the person found buried in the cemetary and who was involved in the case that club was investigating at the start of the movie turns out to be one of the other residents of the rest home. Of course they are. This 50 years after the murder was committed the murderer is in the same rest home as those now looking at the murder and living next to where the body is buried. Wow!
5) The club manage to manipulate the police into assigning the very junior De Freitas to the case on the grounds that Ron will talk only to her. De Freitas who was responsible for the tea until the club intervened. Fine, for the interview only with Ron I'll buy that. But then for the rest of the movie De Freitas becomes Hudson's one and only assistant. Right.... That makes perfect sense. Promoted effectively from junior constable making the tea to the senior detective's personal assistant and confidant at the request of the Thursday Murder Club. Of course he agrees to that. Sure ...... If you buy that then I've got this bridge across the Thames I think you might be interested in buying.
6) The will of the dead contractor states that in the event of his death the redevelopment of the property must continue. Say what??? A) unlikely as who would ever dream of putting that into a will and b) unenforceable in law as any lawyer would know. Ridiculous.
7) Elizabeth and De Freitas track down Bob Tanner in a florist shop. Tanner who is wanted by the police on numerous outstanding charges and who has assumed a new identity in order to evade capture. Does De Freitas arrest Tanner? Does she at least call in backup to make the arrest? Does she at the very least return to the police station to advice senior officers of the location of the criminal so they can make the request of one of the most wanted gangsters in the UK? Of course not. At Elizabeth's request she leaves the room (then why did she come in the first place since she was obviously going to be in the way???) allowing Elizabeth to question Bob and do a deal and that's the end of it.
8) How are these retirees paying for their apartments in this retirement home? The flats are larger than many houses based on what they were showing in a few of the scenes. The NHS isn't paying for it. Sure, maybe Elizabeth has a massive pension from MI6 (really though?) and that covers the cost. But the minister? Where's he getting the money to live there? And the rest of them?
Enough from me. I'm 69 and off to an open house today at a local retirement estate (seriously!) and just hoping to see flats comparable to what were in the movie. Not to mention the Alpacas. If this place today doesn't have Alpacas, I'm not going to be interested. And the archery. They have to have archery. And don'f forget the life models for the art class. Must have those at a minimum.
I suspect we aren't the only ones who watch programmes like Ivalo/Arctic Circle in order to get away from the usual American offerings. Scandi Noir is what we are after and that's why we look for offering likes Ivalo.
Unfortunately, the writers of Ivalo have partially turned their backs on Finland even though series 3 is still set in Ivalo. They've gone full-on American this time.
Theme of this series seems to be related to an American car company (think Tesla) has set up a facility near Ivalo and, of course, in the opening scenes there are a number of deaths related to their new test vehicle. By "a number of deaths" I mean a lot of deaths depicted in the usual American way.
Americans abound in this episode and if that wasn't bad enough the American actors are hardly top of the line actors. None particularly convincing.
Just really disappointing that the writers decided that in order to attract a wider audience they seem to have decided that it was necessary to turn this into a poorly done American shoot-em-up with lots of bodies everywhere type of show. This write down to the point of graphically depicting one of the dead being dipped into an acid bath to be disposed of. Just totally unnecessary.
Not sure at this point if we will be watching episode 2 but just wanted to record how disappointed we were on the direction that is being taken.
Unfortunately, the writers of Ivalo have partially turned their backs on Finland even though series 3 is still set in Ivalo. They've gone full-on American this time.
Theme of this series seems to be related to an American car company (think Tesla) has set up a facility near Ivalo and, of course, in the opening scenes there are a number of deaths related to their new test vehicle. By "a number of deaths" I mean a lot of deaths depicted in the usual American way.
Americans abound in this episode and if that wasn't bad enough the American actors are hardly top of the line actors. None particularly convincing.
Just really disappointing that the writers decided that in order to attract a wider audience they seem to have decided that it was necessary to turn this into a poorly done American shoot-em-up with lots of bodies everywhere type of show. This write down to the point of graphically depicting one of the dead being dipped into an acid bath to be disposed of. Just totally unnecessary.
Not sure at this point if we will be watching episode 2 but just wanted to record how disappointed we were on the direction that is being taken.
We watched the first episode three nights ago. Just baffled by the whole thing but decided it could only get better. MIstake..
A word of advice for those who are tempted to persist with this. Do what I did: use an AI to lookup something like "Summary of events in Episode 2 of The Assassin". Read it, and then repeat for episodes 3, 4, 5, and 6. By doing so, you can save yourself the misery of being hooked in by episode 1 and then feeling you have to binge watch the remaining episodes in order to find out what happens. I'm glad I did after we watched episode 2 (which was no better than episode 1 by the way) as I managed to get the remaining plot details without having to endure a further 4 hours of pain watching the remaining 4 episodes. Based on the summaries, we didn't miss much by giving up on this series.
Worth pointing out that even the AI I used implied strongly that it was confused about what the program was about!
Is it supposed to be a comedy or is it supposed to be a serious action drama? We couldn't tell.
I hadn't read reviews here on IMDB before watching and have only just read through the first 16 that are currently posted and was relieved to see that there are as many confused about it as we were.
Some seem to genuinely think it's supposed to be a comedy and that those not used to British humour just aren't getting it. We've watched loads of British tongue-in-cheek type series and The Assassin is't like anything we've seen out of the UK before. I'm not convinced.
Others think it is so bad that it is just coming across as being intended as a comedy. Again, not too sure.
We just think it's just not working.
If it's supposed to be a comedy, then the comedy is missing even as a "black comedy". If it's supposed to be a serious action type drama, then it's hilarious beause it misses the mark entirely.
What struck me after watching is that it SHOULD have been done as an obvious comedy but wasn't and it is so bizarre that it is coming across as a failed comedy.
I love Keeley Hawes and I have to say this isn't her fault. Maybe she didn't know how to play it. Did anybody tell her it was a comedy if that was the intention? I think ot.
It occurred to me that it needed someone with a Bruce Willis type sense of wry humour to play the role (keeping it as a female obviously). Maybe a John McClane type of character who finds himself in a serious situation but is wisecracking his (or her in this case) way through it. That might have worked. But not Keeley playing it absolutely straight and us wondering what it is supposed to be.
Can I add, too, that the scene with the sniper in episode 1 was just so ridiculous that it came across as almost funny. Funny without being funny or intended to be funny. A sniper tries to take out Keeley Hawes character. They can't of course, because otherwise there wouldn't be a series. Shot after shot misses the mark and I think with all the reloading we are talking maybe 30 bullets in all but just guessing. But the thing is this: bullets that miss Keeley don't just bounce off the ground or other obstacles vaguely in her vicinity. This professional snipers manages to hit bystanders square in the heart and killing all of them even if they are nowhere near where Keeley is hiding. His assignment was to take out Keeley; why is hitting everybody except Keeley? How can you not laugh at this sort of nonsense? How can writers expect audience to believe this is serious when this is the way something is written and so ludicrouse.
Confused? Well we certainly were. So we gave up after episode 2 proved to be no better.
A word of advice for those who are tempted to persist with this. Do what I did: use an AI to lookup something like "Summary of events in Episode 2 of The Assassin". Read it, and then repeat for episodes 3, 4, 5, and 6. By doing so, you can save yourself the misery of being hooked in by episode 1 and then feeling you have to binge watch the remaining episodes in order to find out what happens. I'm glad I did after we watched episode 2 (which was no better than episode 1 by the way) as I managed to get the remaining plot details without having to endure a further 4 hours of pain watching the remaining 4 episodes. Based on the summaries, we didn't miss much by giving up on this series.
Worth pointing out that even the AI I used implied strongly that it was confused about what the program was about!
Is it supposed to be a comedy or is it supposed to be a serious action drama? We couldn't tell.
I hadn't read reviews here on IMDB before watching and have only just read through the first 16 that are currently posted and was relieved to see that there are as many confused about it as we were.
Some seem to genuinely think it's supposed to be a comedy and that those not used to British humour just aren't getting it. We've watched loads of British tongue-in-cheek type series and The Assassin is't like anything we've seen out of the UK before. I'm not convinced.
Others think it is so bad that it is just coming across as being intended as a comedy. Again, not too sure.
We just think it's just not working.
If it's supposed to be a comedy, then the comedy is missing even as a "black comedy". If it's supposed to be a serious action type drama, then it's hilarious beause it misses the mark entirely.
What struck me after watching is that it SHOULD have been done as an obvious comedy but wasn't and it is so bizarre that it is coming across as a failed comedy.
I love Keeley Hawes and I have to say this isn't her fault. Maybe she didn't know how to play it. Did anybody tell her it was a comedy if that was the intention? I think ot.
It occurred to me that it needed someone with a Bruce Willis type sense of wry humour to play the role (keeping it as a female obviously). Maybe a John McClane type of character who finds himself in a serious situation but is wisecracking his (or her in this case) way through it. That might have worked. But not Keeley playing it absolutely straight and us wondering what it is supposed to be.
Can I add, too, that the scene with the sniper in episode 1 was just so ridiculous that it came across as almost funny. Funny without being funny or intended to be funny. A sniper tries to take out Keeley Hawes character. They can't of course, because otherwise there wouldn't be a series. Shot after shot misses the mark and I think with all the reloading we are talking maybe 30 bullets in all but just guessing. But the thing is this: bullets that miss Keeley don't just bounce off the ground or other obstacles vaguely in her vicinity. This professional snipers manages to hit bystanders square in the heart and killing all of them even if they are nowhere near where Keeley is hiding. His assignment was to take out Keeley; why is hitting everybody except Keeley? How can you not laugh at this sort of nonsense? How can writers expect audience to believe this is serious when this is the way something is written and so ludicrouse.
Confused? Well we certainly were. So we gave up after episode 2 proved to be no better.
My wife jokingly said to me after we watched this something along the lines of "if you make me watch the third episode of this rubbish, we're getting a divorce.
I agreed. Not with the divorce bit. About it being rubbish.
One of the worst things I've seen out of British television in a long time.
We watched the first episode and were not impressed but that's often what happens with the first episode in a series. It takes time to establish characters and perhaps that's why the first episode was so poor; a lot of time was wasted establishing character. I sensed there was more to it than that but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Surely it could only improve.
Big mistake. It didn't improve.
It was just awful. Worse than the first. The plot all over the place and hard to follow with so many twists and turns and coincidences it was just stupid at times.
I read a lot of professional reviews of programmes and base whether or not to watch a series based to some extent on what the pros think of something. I thought I'd seen a review of episode 1 a few weeks ago that indicated it might be "promissing". It wasn't particularly positive in its wording but I thing "promissing" was a fair summation.
After watching episode 2 last night, I by chance received a review from a regular reviewer in my inbox this morning which was only about episode 2. Let me just copy and paste in one key bit here from a review that was far from complimentary:
"And yet despite the familiarity, there are tonal problems here - the cast ham it up and sometimes play it for laughs, and the next moment swear their heads off and are confronted with some darkness. It doesn't all quite fit together."
100% agree. Tonal problems? Doesn't fit together? Absolutely to both. This is a series that doesn't know what it wants to be. If they'd played it for straight laughs all the way and wrote it that way, it would have worked. If they'd tried to play it serious throughout, it MIGHT have worked (but not convinced of that really). But what they did? It does NOT WORK.
The reviewer gave it 2.5 stars out of 5 which is the lowest I've ever seen him give anything and I even thought that was generous.
Summing it up when discussing it with my wife when the threat of divorce was put aside, we agreed on the main problem. Phyllis Logan as Cora Felton.
We thought her performanc and character just felt all wrong. I love Phillis in roles I've previously seen her in. She was great in Guilt. All the way back to Lovejoy in the 80s, just thought her perfect in that.
But here? Just not convincing and I think that due as much to the material and her not knowing what to do with it as her own performance being "off".
If an actor doesn't believe in the words she is uttering or the story (and she wasn't the only one here), how is the audience supposed to go along with it?
Absolutely beyond me how another reviewer here gave this an 8. I think my 2 just about right.
IN a word:
Dreadful.
I agreed. Not with the divorce bit. About it being rubbish.
One of the worst things I've seen out of British television in a long time.
We watched the first episode and were not impressed but that's often what happens with the first episode in a series. It takes time to establish characters and perhaps that's why the first episode was so poor; a lot of time was wasted establishing character. I sensed there was more to it than that but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Surely it could only improve.
Big mistake. It didn't improve.
It was just awful. Worse than the first. The plot all over the place and hard to follow with so many twists and turns and coincidences it was just stupid at times.
I read a lot of professional reviews of programmes and base whether or not to watch a series based to some extent on what the pros think of something. I thought I'd seen a review of episode 1 a few weeks ago that indicated it might be "promissing". It wasn't particularly positive in its wording but I thing "promissing" was a fair summation.
After watching episode 2 last night, I by chance received a review from a regular reviewer in my inbox this morning which was only about episode 2. Let me just copy and paste in one key bit here from a review that was far from complimentary:
"And yet despite the familiarity, there are tonal problems here - the cast ham it up and sometimes play it for laughs, and the next moment swear their heads off and are confronted with some darkness. It doesn't all quite fit together."
100% agree. Tonal problems? Doesn't fit together? Absolutely to both. This is a series that doesn't know what it wants to be. If they'd played it for straight laughs all the way and wrote it that way, it would have worked. If they'd tried to play it serious throughout, it MIGHT have worked (but not convinced of that really). But what they did? It does NOT WORK.
The reviewer gave it 2.5 stars out of 5 which is the lowest I've ever seen him give anything and I even thought that was generous.
Summing it up when discussing it with my wife when the threat of divorce was put aside, we agreed on the main problem. Phyllis Logan as Cora Felton.
We thought her performanc and character just felt all wrong. I love Phillis in roles I've previously seen her in. She was great in Guilt. All the way back to Lovejoy in the 80s, just thought her perfect in that.
But here? Just not convincing and I think that due as much to the material and her not knowing what to do with it as her own performance being "off".
If an actor doesn't believe in the words she is uttering or the story (and she wasn't the only one here), how is the audience supposed to go along with it?
Absolutely beyond me how another reviewer here gave this an 8. I think my 2 just about right.
IN a word:
Dreadful.
My wife and I only just started watching old episodes of this series a few weeks ago. We're enjoying it even though it is pretty routine stuff and nothing particular new here.
As is the norm for most British TV series, the lead detective is in a failed relationship (the only exception to this rule where the lead is either in a failed or unusual relationship or at least disfunctional that we could think of is MIdsomer Murders). The #2, of course, has issues of her own. Nothing at all out of the ordinary and all very predictable.
Normally I wouldn't bother even reviewing this but because one episode has one of the stupidest plot holes I"ve ever come across I thoght it worth writing about. Both of us (my wife and myself) immediately spoke up and said something like "WHAT!?" when it was shown on the screen as it just was idiotic.
I won't give too much away as this really isn't a spoiler. I won't even mention the episode but here is the basic scenario.
A woman goes missing. Her car is tracked to another part of London and found. She was clearly the passenger (injured) while someone else (the kidnapper perhaps? Say no more!) was driving. No sign of anyone. No body. Just a bit of blood and a locket. However, there is a lot of water on the passenger side of the car at the feet of where the woman would have been sitting.
A few moment thoughts on that one ...
... and our #2 detective suddenly pauses mid-step and blurts out the conclusion, "we passed a lake on the way here ..."
Sure enough, they search the lake and find the body of the woman in the lake.
So if the kidnapper/murderer/whatever drives to the lake, removes the body from the car, drags the body to the lake, dumps the body in the lake, returns to the car, drives it to where he/she abandons it ....
... why on earth would there be any water in the car at the foot of the passenger seat where the missing and now found dead woman was sitting and thus allowing the detective to conclude the body was in the lake?
It was ridiculous.
And so avoidable if the writers could have just used their brains to write around it.
E.g. Having located the car, the police consult CCTV to track the route of the car. There happens to be a camera on the road passing the lake. The car is seen to turn off the road and disappears in the direction of the lake only to reappear 10 minutes later. Conclusion: the lake needs to be searched.
Problem solved and it could have been covered in maybe 20 seconds of editing.
But ... no ... we have to have one of the stupidest plot holes in television history.
We'll continue viewing the rest as it airs but, geez, there had better not be any more "bloopers" like this one or we shall soon give up.
As is the norm for most British TV series, the lead detective is in a failed relationship (the only exception to this rule where the lead is either in a failed or unusual relationship or at least disfunctional that we could think of is MIdsomer Murders). The #2, of course, has issues of her own. Nothing at all out of the ordinary and all very predictable.
Normally I wouldn't bother even reviewing this but because one episode has one of the stupidest plot holes I"ve ever come across I thoght it worth writing about. Both of us (my wife and myself) immediately spoke up and said something like "WHAT!?" when it was shown on the screen as it just was idiotic.
I won't give too much away as this really isn't a spoiler. I won't even mention the episode but here is the basic scenario.
A woman goes missing. Her car is tracked to another part of London and found. She was clearly the passenger (injured) while someone else (the kidnapper perhaps? Say no more!) was driving. No sign of anyone. No body. Just a bit of blood and a locket. However, there is a lot of water on the passenger side of the car at the feet of where the woman would have been sitting.
A few moment thoughts on that one ...
... and our #2 detective suddenly pauses mid-step and blurts out the conclusion, "we passed a lake on the way here ..."
Sure enough, they search the lake and find the body of the woman in the lake.
So if the kidnapper/murderer/whatever drives to the lake, removes the body from the car, drags the body to the lake, dumps the body in the lake, returns to the car, drives it to where he/she abandons it ....
... why on earth would there be any water in the car at the foot of the passenger seat where the missing and now found dead woman was sitting and thus allowing the detective to conclude the body was in the lake?
It was ridiculous.
And so avoidable if the writers could have just used their brains to write around it.
E.g. Having located the car, the police consult CCTV to track the route of the car. There happens to be a camera on the road passing the lake. The car is seen to turn off the road and disappears in the direction of the lake only to reappear 10 minutes later. Conclusion: the lake needs to be searched.
Problem solved and it could have been covered in maybe 20 seconds of editing.
But ... no ... we have to have one of the stupidest plot holes in television history.
We'll continue viewing the rest as it airs but, geez, there had better not be any more "bloopers" like this one or we shall soon give up.
I was a fan of the Parnell Hall novels, both his "Puzzle Lady" series as well as the PI "Stanley Hastings" books. Always looked for them at the local library and snapped them up whenever a new one came out. Going back 20 years in my memory but enjoyed them all.
It's always "puzzled" me (pun intended) that it's taken so long for them to be made into a television series and now when one is made that the setting has been moved from the USA to the UK. Nothing wrong with that of course.
In any case, I was looking forward to this when it was announced that Phyllis Logan would be starring in the role as it seemed a good casting.
However ...
the result is disappointing.
And disappointing for the unfortunate reason that it seems to have been made on a very low budget.
The script follows the first novel but it just all felt like it had been cobbled together and no effort had been made to polish it or have others read it and make the changes thatwere needed to be made to the script to clean it up.
Dialogue often didn't quite feel right and it often felt that even the actors didn't believe in the lines and if they don't believe the lines, how are they supposed to deliver them convincingly?
And then we have the leaps in the plot that don't quite work. Cora gets the news that one of her bridge partners has gone missing. So she and her niece and the reporter decide to go looking for her. And then the immediate jump to what seems to be an isolated viewpoint on the outskirts of town at night where they discover the missing woman's car? The first place anybody would look of course (note sarcasm). It just didn't work.
Annoying little things too like when the third puzzle clue is discovered (in the parking lot), the clue is read by the group and the reporter immediately comes up with the answer to the clue. It would have been nice if the viewers could have learned what the clue actually said first so we could have had a moment to think about it but, no, all we heard was the answer. Small point, but just shows the lack of thinking that went into cleaning up the script.
Even the budget for the cast must have been tight because once you go past the four main characters, almost everybody else that appeared just felt like they were in an amateur production. The mayor, in particular, sounded like he might have been better in my local town's annual amateur production featuring our town's residents as "actors"; not in a major tv production. Could they not afford someone who could deliver the lines convincingly? It felt like he had just learned the lines and was reciting them in a rehearsal rather them delivering for the screen. To be fair, with the lines he had being a real cliche, maybe it was his frustration with the script that was the real problem.
Filming time must have been limited as well as there were scenes that really should have been reshot but clearly the director said "we don't have time, that will have to do." At one point the cameraman is tracking the action and clearly briefly stumbles so the camera momentarily is not focussed on the actor and well off centre before he recovers and the camera finds Cora again. Just a fraction of a second but noticable and in a proper production, the director would have said "do it again" but not here.
Most modern productions use steadycams so that there is no motion with the camera as the cameraman moves around but not here. The actors routinely aren't quite in the centre of the shot as the cameraman struggles to move smoothly. I guess they couldn't afford modern equipment?
In another scene, a leaf unfortunately falls across Cora's face as she is walking through the cemetary. Sure, this happens in real life, but in a proper production the director would have had the actors run through that bit again but it was allowed to stand as it was a distraction.
In yet another, lights in a darkened room at night don't match the torch that it being used and clearly something had gone wrong with the lighting but "nevermind, close enough".
To the person whose review said this was just a concept taken from Ludwig. No, it wasn't. More the other way around. The Puzzle Lady was written over 25 years ago so it was more likely the writers of Ludwig stole the idea from Parnell Hall.
As to the reviewer who wasn't convinced a crossword setting (even though she isn't!) older woman solving murders could be any way realistic. How is this any worse than Ludwig where a missing detective's identical twin brother steps in and assumes his role in solving crimes? How realistic is that? Or how about one Father Brown who week after week shows the local policeman to be incapable of solving murders? Or one Jessica Fletcher, author, who for years showed up the local police in a smaill town in Maine? Need I go on?
Anyway, enough said. I could say more but no need.
So much potential. So disappointing.
It's always "puzzled" me (pun intended) that it's taken so long for them to be made into a television series and now when one is made that the setting has been moved from the USA to the UK. Nothing wrong with that of course.
In any case, I was looking forward to this when it was announced that Phyllis Logan would be starring in the role as it seemed a good casting.
However ...
the result is disappointing.
And disappointing for the unfortunate reason that it seems to have been made on a very low budget.
The script follows the first novel but it just all felt like it had been cobbled together and no effort had been made to polish it or have others read it and make the changes thatwere needed to be made to the script to clean it up.
Dialogue often didn't quite feel right and it often felt that even the actors didn't believe in the lines and if they don't believe the lines, how are they supposed to deliver them convincingly?
And then we have the leaps in the plot that don't quite work. Cora gets the news that one of her bridge partners has gone missing. So she and her niece and the reporter decide to go looking for her. And then the immediate jump to what seems to be an isolated viewpoint on the outskirts of town at night where they discover the missing woman's car? The first place anybody would look of course (note sarcasm). It just didn't work.
Annoying little things too like when the third puzzle clue is discovered (in the parking lot), the clue is read by the group and the reporter immediately comes up with the answer to the clue. It would have been nice if the viewers could have learned what the clue actually said first so we could have had a moment to think about it but, no, all we heard was the answer. Small point, but just shows the lack of thinking that went into cleaning up the script.
Even the budget for the cast must have been tight because once you go past the four main characters, almost everybody else that appeared just felt like they were in an amateur production. The mayor, in particular, sounded like he might have been better in my local town's annual amateur production featuring our town's residents as "actors"; not in a major tv production. Could they not afford someone who could deliver the lines convincingly? It felt like he had just learned the lines and was reciting them in a rehearsal rather them delivering for the screen. To be fair, with the lines he had being a real cliche, maybe it was his frustration with the script that was the real problem.
Filming time must have been limited as well as there were scenes that really should have been reshot but clearly the director said "we don't have time, that will have to do." At one point the cameraman is tracking the action and clearly briefly stumbles so the camera momentarily is not focussed on the actor and well off centre before he recovers and the camera finds Cora again. Just a fraction of a second but noticable and in a proper production, the director would have said "do it again" but not here.
Most modern productions use steadycams so that there is no motion with the camera as the cameraman moves around but not here. The actors routinely aren't quite in the centre of the shot as the cameraman struggles to move smoothly. I guess they couldn't afford modern equipment?
In another scene, a leaf unfortunately falls across Cora's face as she is walking through the cemetary. Sure, this happens in real life, but in a proper production the director would have had the actors run through that bit again but it was allowed to stand as it was a distraction.
In yet another, lights in a darkened room at night don't match the torch that it being used and clearly something had gone wrong with the lighting but "nevermind, close enough".
To the person whose review said this was just a concept taken from Ludwig. No, it wasn't. More the other way around. The Puzzle Lady was written over 25 years ago so it was more likely the writers of Ludwig stole the idea from Parnell Hall.
As to the reviewer who wasn't convinced a crossword setting (even though she isn't!) older woman solving murders could be any way realistic. How is this any worse than Ludwig where a missing detective's identical twin brother steps in and assumes his role in solving crimes? How realistic is that? Or how about one Father Brown who week after week shows the local policeman to be incapable of solving murders? Or one Jessica Fletcher, author, who for years showed up the local police in a smaill town in Maine? Need I go on?
Anyway, enough said. I could say more but no need.
So much potential. So disappointing.
We really wanted to like this.
We've been Hortowitz fans for years, going back to Foyle's War which is probably the best war era drama we've ever seen.
"Magpie Murders" as a novel was one of the cleverest bits of writing I've read. Most murder mysteries simply recycle old ideas, but this was something new and that is so rare. The TV adaptation he did was even better than the novel and that even rarer. The sequels to both were almost as good and, again, that's rare.
The Hawthorne and Horowitz novels? Again, a completely new type of plot where the real life author (Horowitz) has inserted himself into the story with a completely fictional character (Hawthorne). Superb.
But this???? Anthony, what were you thinking? Did they offer you big $$$ just so they could put your name on the production and attract viewers? Were you rushed by a deadline and had to churn out something by the end of the month and this was the best you could do on short notice?
Whatever the reason ... it just doesn't work.
Nothing new. "Lost" immediately comes to mind but with a bit of a secondary story that probably would have made it more interesting to some. Agatha Christie's "And then there were none" is the other obvious aspect as (we understand) characters get killed off one at a time, day by day.
Characters absolutely wooden. Acting just felt totally wrong.
Everybody's favourite Icelandic actor, Ólafur Darri Ólafsson, simply recycling an American persona that he's used in at least two other series; the "good ole boy" with the slow drawl of an accent. Once? Yes. A second time? Pushing it. But using the same type portrayal a third time in a different series? No thank you.
We lasted 20 minutes before checking online reviews as we watched, realizing it wasn't for us, and then giving up.
We've been Hortowitz fans for years, going back to Foyle's War which is probably the best war era drama we've ever seen.
"Magpie Murders" as a novel was one of the cleverest bits of writing I've read. Most murder mysteries simply recycle old ideas, but this was something new and that is so rare. The TV adaptation he did was even better than the novel and that even rarer. The sequels to both were almost as good and, again, that's rare.
The Hawthorne and Horowitz novels? Again, a completely new type of plot where the real life author (Horowitz) has inserted himself into the story with a completely fictional character (Hawthorne). Superb.
But this???? Anthony, what were you thinking? Did they offer you big $$$ just so they could put your name on the production and attract viewers? Were you rushed by a deadline and had to churn out something by the end of the month and this was the best you could do on short notice?
Whatever the reason ... it just doesn't work.
Nothing new. "Lost" immediately comes to mind but with a bit of a secondary story that probably would have made it more interesting to some. Agatha Christie's "And then there were none" is the other obvious aspect as (we understand) characters get killed off one at a time, day by day.
Characters absolutely wooden. Acting just felt totally wrong.
Everybody's favourite Icelandic actor, Ólafur Darri Ólafsson, simply recycling an American persona that he's used in at least two other series; the "good ole boy" with the slow drawl of an accent. Once? Yes. A second time? Pushing it. But using the same type portrayal a third time in a different series? No thank you.
We lasted 20 minutes before checking online reviews as we watched, realizing it wasn't for us, and then giving up.
Like many here, I'd been looking forward to this series having loved the John Nettles Bergerac so many decades ago.
But this?
We nearly gave up after 3 episodes. But we decided to continue despite our doubts. After all, all series have the odd disappointing episode so no doubt it would get better.
It didn't.
After episode 4, we both wished we'd given up after the 3rd episode. It was even worse that the previous episodes. What the hell. We've come this far, we may as well finish. Only two episodes to go.
After the 5th. Only 1 to go. That's the best I could say.
You get the idea.
I think it was mid-way through perhaps the 3rd episode when we realized just how bad this was getting and how absurd some of what was going on that I turned jokingly to my wife during one scene and said "They did it", referring to the least likely character in the entire series and probably the only one that any reasonable person would have excluded from the start because the idea was ridiculous. No way they could have been the murder? It was an absurd concept.
Of course it turned out to be them.
An attempt at a plausible explanation was given in the closing scenes of the final episode but it just didn't work. Even the actors didn't seem to believe it at this stage. The writers just decided that they'd go all out, choose the character it couldn't possibly have been, and try to construct a totally unconvincing motive for the murder.
Even during the inevitable confession screen when being interviewed by Bergerac, the actor portaying the guilty party seemed to be saying to themselves, "Me? It was me? That's ridiculous. Why am I saying these lines? Nobody is going to believe me. Is it to late to get out of my contract? Is Coronation Street looking for cast members because anything must be better than this nonsense."
I don't blame the actor; I blame whoever wrote the plot. If the actor doesn't even believe the lines, then why do the writers think the audience will?
What rubbish.
Every episode had numerous incidents where characters would do or say something leaving us shaking our heads saying to each other that it simply wasn't credible. Nobody would act that way.
Well, maybe in Jersey they do.
They didn't in the original Bergerac but maybe things have changed.
But this?
We nearly gave up after 3 episodes. But we decided to continue despite our doubts. After all, all series have the odd disappointing episode so no doubt it would get better.
It didn't.
After episode 4, we both wished we'd given up after the 3rd episode. It was even worse that the previous episodes. What the hell. We've come this far, we may as well finish. Only two episodes to go.
After the 5th. Only 1 to go. That's the best I could say.
You get the idea.
I think it was mid-way through perhaps the 3rd episode when we realized just how bad this was getting and how absurd some of what was going on that I turned jokingly to my wife during one scene and said "They did it", referring to the least likely character in the entire series and probably the only one that any reasonable person would have excluded from the start because the idea was ridiculous. No way they could have been the murder? It was an absurd concept.
Of course it turned out to be them.
An attempt at a plausible explanation was given in the closing scenes of the final episode but it just didn't work. Even the actors didn't seem to believe it at this stage. The writers just decided that they'd go all out, choose the character it couldn't possibly have been, and try to construct a totally unconvincing motive for the murder.
Even during the inevitable confession screen when being interviewed by Bergerac, the actor portaying the guilty party seemed to be saying to themselves, "Me? It was me? That's ridiculous. Why am I saying these lines? Nobody is going to believe me. Is it to late to get out of my contract? Is Coronation Street looking for cast members because anything must be better than this nonsense."
I don't blame the actor; I blame whoever wrote the plot. If the actor doesn't even believe the lines, then why do the writers think the audience will?
What rubbish.
Every episode had numerous incidents where characters would do or say something leaving us shaking our heads saying to each other that it simply wasn't credible. Nobody would act that way.
Well, maybe in Jersey they do.
They didn't in the original Bergerac but maybe things have changed.
Yes, I stole that title from another review but as it nailed it precisely and I couldn't say it any better I thought I might as well.
"Ok, if you don't think too hard"? Absolutely. In fact, I found that the only way to see this show through to the end was to simply stop thinking when it was on. If you actually tried to think about what was going on, you'd probably end up banging your head against the nearest wall so shutting down the brain for an hour really was the only option.
"Good acting"? Absolutely. Some of the best talent in the UK and you can't blame any of them for the result. It wasn't their fault!
"Lazy writing". Let's just focus on one example of the laziest type of writing that was on show here. As the series develops, it becomes apparent that everything revolves around a recording made of an incident (and I'll not describe it as it would be a spoiler). The Americans want it. The Chinese want it. The criminal gang wants it. The British want it. Webb wants it. Helen has to find it. Hence all the conflict. Everybody is after this recording with Helen at the centre of the search. Whoever ends up acquiring the recording will be able to resolve the situation the way they want to resolve it. Does it make sense? Not really.
The problem with the writing about a desperate search for the recording and the one to get it is the 'winner' is that that we are supposed to simply ignore the fact that it is possible to make copies of a recording! If the gang gets the recording, their huge problem that has been the cause of much of the violence doesn't necessarily disappear because, if a copy has been made, it can then be onsold to the Chinese or Americans. The problem will not go away just because they have the recording device if other copies of the video have already been made ...
... which they have been . At one point Helen shows someone the recording using her phone to display it. Thus showing that she must have copied the video from the recording device to her phone!!! Again, lazy writing that they assume viewers won't pick up on.
But we aren't supposed to think these things through are we? We're just the dumb viewer without a brain cell capable of picking apart holes in plots.
"Plot holes you can drive a truck through"? See "Lazy Writing" above.
The review I copied the title of my own review from summed this up quite nicely:
"People are dumb; they won't question this."
Exactly. Nailed it.
Let me touch on the other negative that other reviews also covered.
This series doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a drama or is it a comedy?
At times, the scenes played out are deadly serious and are supposed to be taken seriously. Fine. So it's a drama then is it?
But at other times it switches to the kind of thing you'd expect in Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie films. Not to be taken seriously to the point of being something of a black comedy.
Viewers expect consistency in a genre and we don't get it here. It's all over the place from scene to scene and especially episode to episode. Many other reviewers have noted the same issue so it isn't just me complaining about this.
Series 2? I understand it's already been commissioned but we won't be watching.
Incidentally, I usually try to write and polish my reviews a bit better than this one (which I concede is a bit of a mess) but I figured this time, since the writers of Black Doves were so lazy, that I would be lazy as well.
"Ok, if you don't think too hard"? Absolutely. In fact, I found that the only way to see this show through to the end was to simply stop thinking when it was on. If you actually tried to think about what was going on, you'd probably end up banging your head against the nearest wall so shutting down the brain for an hour really was the only option.
"Good acting"? Absolutely. Some of the best talent in the UK and you can't blame any of them for the result. It wasn't their fault!
"Lazy writing". Let's just focus on one example of the laziest type of writing that was on show here. As the series develops, it becomes apparent that everything revolves around a recording made of an incident (and I'll not describe it as it would be a spoiler). The Americans want it. The Chinese want it. The criminal gang wants it. The British want it. Webb wants it. Helen has to find it. Hence all the conflict. Everybody is after this recording with Helen at the centre of the search. Whoever ends up acquiring the recording will be able to resolve the situation the way they want to resolve it. Does it make sense? Not really.
The problem with the writing about a desperate search for the recording and the one to get it is the 'winner' is that that we are supposed to simply ignore the fact that it is possible to make copies of a recording! If the gang gets the recording, their huge problem that has been the cause of much of the violence doesn't necessarily disappear because, if a copy has been made, it can then be onsold to the Chinese or Americans. The problem will not go away just because they have the recording device if other copies of the video have already been made ...
... which they have been . At one point Helen shows someone the recording using her phone to display it. Thus showing that she must have copied the video from the recording device to her phone!!! Again, lazy writing that they assume viewers won't pick up on.
But we aren't supposed to think these things through are we? We're just the dumb viewer without a brain cell capable of picking apart holes in plots.
"Plot holes you can drive a truck through"? See "Lazy Writing" above.
The review I copied the title of my own review from summed this up quite nicely:
"People are dumb; they won't question this."
Exactly. Nailed it.
Let me touch on the other negative that other reviews also covered.
This series doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a drama or is it a comedy?
At times, the scenes played out are deadly serious and are supposed to be taken seriously. Fine. So it's a drama then is it?
But at other times it switches to the kind of thing you'd expect in Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie films. Not to be taken seriously to the point of being something of a black comedy.
Viewers expect consistency in a genre and we don't get it here. It's all over the place from scene to scene and especially episode to episode. Many other reviewers have noted the same issue so it isn't just me complaining about this.
Series 2? I understand it's already been commissioned but we won't be watching.
Incidentally, I usually try to write and polish my reviews a bit better than this one (which I concede is a bit of a mess) but I figured this time, since the writers of Black Doves were so lazy, that I would be lazy as well.
Crossovers work when you have two series which are reasonably well matched. A good example might be the CSI American series of 20 years ago when years ago CSI Las Vegas did crossovers with both CSI Miami and CSI NY. By definition, all those series are similar so a crossover works. It makes sense and the result was fine.
Or a crossover between two legal series (e.g. The old Boston Legal maybe with LA Law) would certainly work.
But when series is a fairly serious drama with only the occasional touch of humour (i.e. Astrid) while the other series seems to have been intended as a comedy with the occasional hint of drama (Alexandra), it is a mismatch that is going to be very hard to pull off.
(I'll have to admit I've never seen the Alexandra series prior to viewing this so can only surmise it is a comedy based on what was shown in this movie length farce)
Predictably then, this crossover between a drama series and a comedy series didn't work and the result was terrible to the point of being offensive to the viewer.
I did read one interview with Sara Mortenside before viewing this which immediately rang alarm bells. She commented that having to pair up with the Alexandra show meant that they had to adjust to the "lighter" tone set by that show. I had two immediately thoughts when I read that and both were of the "oh oh, that's ominous" nature.
Firstly, that phrasing suggested that meant that the Astrid team had to "dumb down" to match the tone of the other series. By "lighter", I understand now that she meant a rating of something between "suitable for a six year old" and "absolute rubbish". Sadly, on watching the movie we confirmed that dumbing down was exactly the right phrase. Dumb it certainly was.
My second reaction to reading the interview was that Sara seemed to be apologizing in advance to those in the Astrid world for the result. And, yes, on viewing this I thought that an apology was both appropriate and required.
Watching the usually serious Astrid and Raphelle characters suddenly behaving like comedic characters simply doesn't work. Yes, Astrid and Raphaelle have their "lighter" moments but those moments are never glaringly stupid as was the case here. Why did the writers think it would having the two characters behave in ways that wasn't consistent with their behaviours in their Paris based world? Beyond belief really.
One can only hope this won't be attempted again as it was a disaster.
For anybody considering viewing this I can only advise that if you are coming in from the Astrid world that you stay away. Far far away so as not to spoil your understanding and image of the Astrid et Raphaelle world.
Fortunately, viewing this nonsense was simply a prelude to watching series 5 of Astrid so I can only hope that the characters return to "normal" behaviour next week. I just wish I could erase the 90 minutes of this crossover from my mind.
If you are coming in from the Alexandra side and contemplating viewing this, I don't know what to suggest. If this is typical of the Alexandra series, then ... well, I won't put my thoughts on your viewing taste in writing.
I'll leave it there.
Or a crossover between two legal series (e.g. The old Boston Legal maybe with LA Law) would certainly work.
But when series is a fairly serious drama with only the occasional touch of humour (i.e. Astrid) while the other series seems to have been intended as a comedy with the occasional hint of drama (Alexandra), it is a mismatch that is going to be very hard to pull off.
(I'll have to admit I've never seen the Alexandra series prior to viewing this so can only surmise it is a comedy based on what was shown in this movie length farce)
Predictably then, this crossover between a drama series and a comedy series didn't work and the result was terrible to the point of being offensive to the viewer.
I did read one interview with Sara Mortenside before viewing this which immediately rang alarm bells. She commented that having to pair up with the Alexandra show meant that they had to adjust to the "lighter" tone set by that show. I had two immediately thoughts when I read that and both were of the "oh oh, that's ominous" nature.
Firstly, that phrasing suggested that meant that the Astrid team had to "dumb down" to match the tone of the other series. By "lighter", I understand now that she meant a rating of something between "suitable for a six year old" and "absolute rubbish". Sadly, on watching the movie we confirmed that dumbing down was exactly the right phrase. Dumb it certainly was.
My second reaction to reading the interview was that Sara seemed to be apologizing in advance to those in the Astrid world for the result. And, yes, on viewing this I thought that an apology was both appropriate and required.
Watching the usually serious Astrid and Raphelle characters suddenly behaving like comedic characters simply doesn't work. Yes, Astrid and Raphaelle have their "lighter" moments but those moments are never glaringly stupid as was the case here. Why did the writers think it would having the two characters behave in ways that wasn't consistent with their behaviours in their Paris based world? Beyond belief really.
One can only hope this won't be attempted again as it was a disaster.
For anybody considering viewing this I can only advise that if you are coming in from the Astrid world that you stay away. Far far away so as not to spoil your understanding and image of the Astrid et Raphaelle world.
Fortunately, viewing this nonsense was simply a prelude to watching series 5 of Astrid so I can only hope that the characters return to "normal" behaviour next week. I just wish I could erase the 90 minutes of this crossover from my mind.
If you are coming in from the Alexandra side and contemplating viewing this, I don't know what to suggest. If this is typical of the Alexandra series, then ... well, I won't put my thoughts on your viewing taste in writing.
I'll leave it there.
All "the internet" is asking the same question: What happened to Tosh and Donnie's baby?
It would be amusting if it wasn't so frustratingly stupid. Regular viewers of Shetland will know that Tosh and Donnie had a wee one several seasons back. Tosh continued to work in the Police while Donnie became a stay-at-home dad. Donnie was routinely seeing out and about town pushing stroller with the baby very obviously present in pretty much all of his scenese.
This series, there are numerous scenes involving Donnie and Tosh either out together or at home together with absolutely no child in sight and nobody at any time discussing the baby. No references like "oh, she's being looked after by so-and-so" or "she's asleep in her cot". Anything to acknowledge her existince but, no, she's just gone.
Are the writers really so jaded that they think viewers can't remember plots from previous series and notice when a character simply disappears?
There are such things as continuity editors in TV (and in a series of novels) who are for responsible for making sure such gaffs don't occur. Where were they when this was being written? How could this happen?
My wife was frustrated enough to google "Tosh's baby" and found a number of sites online where this has become a topic. We aren't the only ones to have noticed and thought this ridiculous.
Besides that ... the plot is also one of the weakest in the 9 seasons this otherwise series has run. I don't want to give away spoilers but will let viewers make up their own minds on that one. I'll only say that after each episode we were left shaking our heads in disappointment thinking just how implausible it all was and how many holes in the plot that there were.
Let's hope for better next year.
It would be amusting if it wasn't so frustratingly stupid. Regular viewers of Shetland will know that Tosh and Donnie had a wee one several seasons back. Tosh continued to work in the Police while Donnie became a stay-at-home dad. Donnie was routinely seeing out and about town pushing stroller with the baby very obviously present in pretty much all of his scenese.
This series, there are numerous scenes involving Donnie and Tosh either out together or at home together with absolutely no child in sight and nobody at any time discussing the baby. No references like "oh, she's being looked after by so-and-so" or "she's asleep in her cot". Anything to acknowledge her existince but, no, she's just gone.
Are the writers really so jaded that they think viewers can't remember plots from previous series and notice when a character simply disappears?
There are such things as continuity editors in TV (and in a series of novels) who are for responsible for making sure such gaffs don't occur. Where were they when this was being written? How could this happen?
My wife was frustrated enough to google "Tosh's baby" and found a number of sites online where this has become a topic. We aren't the only ones to have noticed and thought this ridiculous.
Besides that ... the plot is also one of the weakest in the 9 seasons this otherwise series has run. I don't want to give away spoilers but will let viewers make up their own minds on that one. I'll only say that after each episode we were left shaking our heads in disappointment thinking just how implausible it all was and how many holes in the plot that there were.
Let's hope for better next year.
And that really sums it up.
If I could leave it there I would as it seems a waste of time to write more but IMDB has a minimum length for reviews so I shall continue.
The Guardian newspaper did a review of this when it came out and gave it only 1 star out of a possible 5. Frankly, I don't think that's fair.
1 star is generous. But perhaps their system doesn't allow for less?
There is absolutely nothing enjoyable about this. My wife and I lasted around 10 minutes of the first episode and we only managed that long because neither of us wanted to be the first to speak up and say, "what rubbish".
We loved the original British version and watched that series twice.
But this? All we are seeing is the lead doing a very bad impression of Ricky Gervais doing David Brent. And I do mean very bad.
She has added absolutely nothing to the role or the character so why bother.
Jokes fall flat and that's if they were intend to be jokes as it was hard to tell.
Please don't waste your time.
I see IMDB viewers have rated it 4.3 as of when I'm writing. That too seems generous.
I give it 2 stars and I'm really not sure why I've ranked it that highly.
If I could leave it there I would as it seems a waste of time to write more but IMDB has a minimum length for reviews so I shall continue.
The Guardian newspaper did a review of this when it came out and gave it only 1 star out of a possible 5. Frankly, I don't think that's fair.
1 star is generous. But perhaps their system doesn't allow for less?
There is absolutely nothing enjoyable about this. My wife and I lasted around 10 minutes of the first episode and we only managed that long because neither of us wanted to be the first to speak up and say, "what rubbish".
We loved the original British version and watched that series twice.
But this? All we are seeing is the lead doing a very bad impression of Ricky Gervais doing David Brent. And I do mean very bad.
She has added absolutely nothing to the role or the character so why bother.
Jokes fall flat and that's if they were intend to be jokes as it was hard to tell.
Please don't waste your time.
I see IMDB viewers have rated it 4.3 as of when I'm writing. That too seems generous.
I give it 2 stars and I'm really not sure why I've ranked it that highly.
I love this show.
However, my wife and I just hated this episode and it probably would rank as the weakest of the 30 or so episodes that have gone to air so far.
It opens promissingly enough. Raphael regains consciousness in a car (a the driver) with a cut to her head from where it made contact with the steering wheel when the car crashed. The camera retreats so that we see the car has crashed into a concrete construction barrier.
Beside her is a man sitting head down in the passenger seat. When the ambulance arrives and Raph is getting treated, we learn that not only is the man dead but that he is dead from a gunshot.
Unfortunately, Raph seems to have amnesia due to the concussion she sustained in the accident so can not explain anything and has no memory of the events leading up to her presence in the car or why the dead man is next to her.
I'm giving away no spoilers there as this is all in the opening two minutes.
Naturally Coste becomes a suspect (obviously!) and the episode proceeds from there. Friends come to her rescue to help find the truth while an investigator is appointed who wants to arrest her. All very predictable.
Intriguing scenario. One is left wondering how this opening scene all came about knowing all will be revealed by the end of the hour.
Except it isn't.
Sure, we eventually learn who the dead man is, who killed him, why he was killed and all of that just as you would expect in this sort of show.
Amazingly, the explanation in the ending for the murder does not in any way explain how Coste ends up sitting in the driver's seat of the car having crashed it into the concrete barrier with the dead man sitting in the passenger seat.
In fact, with the ending that is giving, it is absolutely impossible to contruict any scenario that could possibly have led to the scene viewers see in the opening two minutes. The opening scene is totally inconsistent with the events that we later learn that actually happened leading up to and right after the murder.
It's just stupid, sad to say.
I'd invite others to watch, absord and understand the details of the murder that are revealed, and then think back on the opening and try to construct some sort of explanation as to how the opening scene comes about. Good luck to you!
So ... very disappointing and so inconsistent with the usual fairly high quality plots this show has produced in earlier episodes.
What an awful way to end season 4 on such a low note.
Good news is that there will be a season 5 and it has already begun shooting and presumably will be going to air later this year. A chance for redemption perhaps.
However, my wife and I just hated this episode and it probably would rank as the weakest of the 30 or so episodes that have gone to air so far.
It opens promissingly enough. Raphael regains consciousness in a car (a the driver) with a cut to her head from where it made contact with the steering wheel when the car crashed. The camera retreats so that we see the car has crashed into a concrete construction barrier.
Beside her is a man sitting head down in the passenger seat. When the ambulance arrives and Raph is getting treated, we learn that not only is the man dead but that he is dead from a gunshot.
Unfortunately, Raph seems to have amnesia due to the concussion she sustained in the accident so can not explain anything and has no memory of the events leading up to her presence in the car or why the dead man is next to her.
I'm giving away no spoilers there as this is all in the opening two minutes.
Naturally Coste becomes a suspect (obviously!) and the episode proceeds from there. Friends come to her rescue to help find the truth while an investigator is appointed who wants to arrest her. All very predictable.
Intriguing scenario. One is left wondering how this opening scene all came about knowing all will be revealed by the end of the hour.
Except it isn't.
Sure, we eventually learn who the dead man is, who killed him, why he was killed and all of that just as you would expect in this sort of show.
Amazingly, the explanation in the ending for the murder does not in any way explain how Coste ends up sitting in the driver's seat of the car having crashed it into the concrete barrier with the dead man sitting in the passenger seat.
In fact, with the ending that is giving, it is absolutely impossible to contruict any scenario that could possibly have led to the scene viewers see in the opening two minutes. The opening scene is totally inconsistent with the events that we later learn that actually happened leading up to and right after the murder.
It's just stupid, sad to say.
I'd invite others to watch, absord and understand the details of the murder that are revealed, and then think back on the opening and try to construct some sort of explanation as to how the opening scene comes about. Good luck to you!
So ... very disappointing and so inconsistent with the usual fairly high quality plots this show has produced in earlier episodes.
What an awful way to end season 4 on such a low note.
Good news is that there will be a season 5 and it has already begun shooting and presumably will be going to air later this year. A chance for redemption perhaps.
Well that caught your attention but what do I mean by that?
My wife and have enjoyed Robert Thorogood's Death in Paradise for years and for the last couple of years Beyond Paradise as well. He's written over 100 episodes of Death in Paradise alone and it just amazes us that he continues to come up with different ways to kill people and (almost) stump the police until Neville or Humphrey or whoever eventually finds the solution. He's a brilliant writer or at least constructor of mystery scenarios.
And to be fair, the actual murder scenario in this two part series is very good. Yes, it was stolen from a very famous earlier piece that I won't name as it would be a spoiler but it doesn't detract from the plot. That isn't the problem.
Unfortunately, the problem lies with the investigation. The whole thing was such a disappointment that had us cringing at times because it was so ridiculous.
We're all used to the concept of an amateur or group of amateurs investigating and solving murders. It's a standard of the crime genre both in novels and on television series.
However, this only works if at least one or more of a number of conditions exist. Just to name a few:
1) the amateurs have some special expertise/skill that the police don't have 2) the amateurs have special knowledge of the crime that they can't get the police to take note of for whatever reason.
3) the police are incompetent 4) the police refuse to listen to the amateurs on the grounds the amateurs are indeed amateurs and should leave it to the professionals. This usually works best in period pieces and/or where the police are prejudiced against women or race.
5) The police have already investigated the "crime" and have concluded the death was accidental or suicide and don't want amateurs muddying their closed investigation.
6) A small town police force is involved which lacks the resources to do an investigation properly.
7) The novel or show is being done for comedy
I'm sure there other scenarios as well.
Here's a few examples of where amateurs investigating a murder actually do work:
The classic without compare, of course, is Sherlock Holmes who has the intellect and skills that the police don't have where even the police will admit he is their superior and welcome his assistance. That certainly doesn't apply here. Technically, he's an amateur but nevertheless an amateur whose involvement is credible.
Agatha Christie's Miss Marple where the murders usually occur in a small town where the police are out of their depth and where Miss Marple's special gift for understanding human nature from her advanced age gives her the insight to eventually work out the motive and who the guilty party is. That's not the case here.
Father Brown, where the local detective invariably arrests the wrong person week after week (a formula in its writing and borderline light comedy) and where Father Brown needs to investigate to insure an injustice isn't done.
J. K. Rowling's (Robert Galbraith) Cormoron Strike The Cuckoo Calls where the police have concluded the death was suicide and where the brother of the deceased pays a private detective to investigate. That's certainly not the case here in any sense. Strike, again, an amateur but at least he is a PI and his involvement is paid and against the wishes of the police who feel the matter is closed.
The 2012 series The Betchley Circle with murders set in post war London where a group of ex Betchley Park women (whose special intellectual gifts were recognized during the war but are ignored post-war) end up investigating as the police think a women's place is in the home. Not the case here.
Agatha Raisin where again the senior detective is an idiot and Agatha finds herself investigating to find the real killer and indeed eventually sets up her own private investigation business. Helps that the series is a bit of a comedy and never to be taken too seriously. Again, not really what's going on here. I'm not an Agatha Raison fan but at least it was better than this series!
Here we have three real amateurs (a dog walker, the wife of the local vicker and a retired archaeologist!) taking it upon themselves to investigate even though the police force is well resourced and are quite willing to listen to any facts the women have in order to further their investigation. They continually put themselves in danger for absolutely no good reason even though providing the facts to the DS at the police would have served to solve the crime eventually as she was happy to listen to any facts they had found but constantly begged them not to put themselves into such danger.
It just doesn't work and had us pounding our heads on nearby walls in total frustration at how ludicrous it all was. We only continued to watch because the actual mystery of the murders was intriguing and we wanted to know the who and the how. It was just so annoying to have it being investigated by these three women when this would have been great as a two part Death in Paradise episode or even as a standalone series with the young and inexperienced female DS solving it eventually!!!
If it had been played for comedy, it might have worked. If the local police had been idiots, it might have worked but that wasn't the case. If the lead DS had been a bigotted 64 year old male who hated women it would have worked but not when the lead DS is a woman herself keen to hear what the 3 amateurs had to say; it didn't work! If the women had had some sort of special skill set the police lacked it might have worked but not this dog walker, housewife and retired archaelogist.
It occurred to me early in the second episode when the three women strut into the police station wearing their special badges as newly appointed police assistants that this really should have come with an R12 rating: restricted to those under the age of 12 as that seemed who it was aimed at. Better yet, more believable as a tv series aimed specifically at teenagers based on three young teenage girls investigating where the police had proved themselves to be idiots and the kids were going to be the heroes; that would have worked wonderfully for a teenage audience..
The final scene with Judith is just absurd. She really had to sit in that house alone knowing what was going to happen? She couldn't, say, have had her friends and a few policemen waiting in the back room for the killer to arrive and confess? No, no, no, she had to face the killer by herself, unarmed and simply hoping throwing something in his face would be enough to turn the tables on the killer? How stupid are we supposed to be?
I'm sorry to have to be scathing but this deserved it. I can only assume that those few people who have given it a high rating early after it went to air are those who are either teenagers themselves or perhaps are the inevitable fake reviews that turn up from time to time on IMDB to encourage people to watch. Sorry, I'm probably being unkind to teenagers in saying that as nobody in their right mind, teenagers included, could watch this and felt it worthy of such praise as I was reading in those reviews.
My wife and have enjoyed Robert Thorogood's Death in Paradise for years and for the last couple of years Beyond Paradise as well. He's written over 100 episodes of Death in Paradise alone and it just amazes us that he continues to come up with different ways to kill people and (almost) stump the police until Neville or Humphrey or whoever eventually finds the solution. He's a brilliant writer or at least constructor of mystery scenarios.
And to be fair, the actual murder scenario in this two part series is very good. Yes, it was stolen from a very famous earlier piece that I won't name as it would be a spoiler but it doesn't detract from the plot. That isn't the problem.
Unfortunately, the problem lies with the investigation. The whole thing was such a disappointment that had us cringing at times because it was so ridiculous.
We're all used to the concept of an amateur or group of amateurs investigating and solving murders. It's a standard of the crime genre both in novels and on television series.
However, this only works if at least one or more of a number of conditions exist. Just to name a few:
1) the amateurs have some special expertise/skill that the police don't have 2) the amateurs have special knowledge of the crime that they can't get the police to take note of for whatever reason.
3) the police are incompetent 4) the police refuse to listen to the amateurs on the grounds the amateurs are indeed amateurs and should leave it to the professionals. This usually works best in period pieces and/or where the police are prejudiced against women or race.
5) The police have already investigated the "crime" and have concluded the death was accidental or suicide and don't want amateurs muddying their closed investigation.
6) A small town police force is involved which lacks the resources to do an investigation properly.
7) The novel or show is being done for comedy
I'm sure there other scenarios as well.
Here's a few examples of where amateurs investigating a murder actually do work:
The classic without compare, of course, is Sherlock Holmes who has the intellect and skills that the police don't have where even the police will admit he is their superior and welcome his assistance. That certainly doesn't apply here. Technically, he's an amateur but nevertheless an amateur whose involvement is credible.
Agatha Christie's Miss Marple where the murders usually occur in a small town where the police are out of their depth and where Miss Marple's special gift for understanding human nature from her advanced age gives her the insight to eventually work out the motive and who the guilty party is. That's not the case here.
Father Brown, where the local detective invariably arrests the wrong person week after week (a formula in its writing and borderline light comedy) and where Father Brown needs to investigate to insure an injustice isn't done.
J. K. Rowling's (Robert Galbraith) Cormoron Strike The Cuckoo Calls where the police have concluded the death was suicide and where the brother of the deceased pays a private detective to investigate. That's certainly not the case here in any sense. Strike, again, an amateur but at least he is a PI and his involvement is paid and against the wishes of the police who feel the matter is closed.
The 2012 series The Betchley Circle with murders set in post war London where a group of ex Betchley Park women (whose special intellectual gifts were recognized during the war but are ignored post-war) end up investigating as the police think a women's place is in the home. Not the case here.
Agatha Raisin where again the senior detective is an idiot and Agatha finds herself investigating to find the real killer and indeed eventually sets up her own private investigation business. Helps that the series is a bit of a comedy and never to be taken too seriously. Again, not really what's going on here. I'm not an Agatha Raison fan but at least it was better than this series!
Here we have three real amateurs (a dog walker, the wife of the local vicker and a retired archaeologist!) taking it upon themselves to investigate even though the police force is well resourced and are quite willing to listen to any facts the women have in order to further their investigation. They continually put themselves in danger for absolutely no good reason even though providing the facts to the DS at the police would have served to solve the crime eventually as she was happy to listen to any facts they had found but constantly begged them not to put themselves into such danger.
It just doesn't work and had us pounding our heads on nearby walls in total frustration at how ludicrous it all was. We only continued to watch because the actual mystery of the murders was intriguing and we wanted to know the who and the how. It was just so annoying to have it being investigated by these three women when this would have been great as a two part Death in Paradise episode or even as a standalone series with the young and inexperienced female DS solving it eventually!!!
If it had been played for comedy, it might have worked. If the local police had been idiots, it might have worked but that wasn't the case. If the lead DS had been a bigotted 64 year old male who hated women it would have worked but not when the lead DS is a woman herself keen to hear what the 3 amateurs had to say; it didn't work! If the women had had some sort of special skill set the police lacked it might have worked but not this dog walker, housewife and retired archaelogist.
It occurred to me early in the second episode when the three women strut into the police station wearing their special badges as newly appointed police assistants that this really should have come with an R12 rating: restricted to those under the age of 12 as that seemed who it was aimed at. Better yet, more believable as a tv series aimed specifically at teenagers based on three young teenage girls investigating where the police had proved themselves to be idiots and the kids were going to be the heroes; that would have worked wonderfully for a teenage audience..
The final scene with Judith is just absurd. She really had to sit in that house alone knowing what was going to happen? She couldn't, say, have had her friends and a few policemen waiting in the back room for the killer to arrive and confess? No, no, no, she had to face the killer by herself, unarmed and simply hoping throwing something in his face would be enough to turn the tables on the killer? How stupid are we supposed to be?
I'm sorry to have to be scathing but this deserved it. I can only assume that those few people who have given it a high rating early after it went to air are those who are either teenagers themselves or perhaps are the inevitable fake reviews that turn up from time to time on IMDB to encourage people to watch. Sorry, I'm probably being unkind to teenagers in saying that as nobody in their right mind, teenagers included, could watch this and felt it worthy of such praise as I was reading in those reviews.
There are likely going to be two types of reactions to this series.
If you've never read any of Ian Rankin's novels and are willing to ignore the gaping incredible holes in the behaviour of some of the characters at various times, then you'll probably find it acceptable.
However ...
If you've read the novels then you will likely think this something of a travesty.
This series seems to take characters from the novels and picking and choosing the various characters from vastly different points of time (and by vastly I mean in some cases literally decades!) in the chronological development of the Rebus world and throw them together to call them a story. I'll go through a few that are the most serious anomalies.
In the books, Rebus and Cafferty are the exact same age. In the early books, Rebus the DS is head to head at times with Cafferty who has his empire. In the later novels (which are still being written of course), Rebus has left the force in his advancing years (and later returns) while Cafferty is also aging and has health issues and struggling to hold on to his empire in the face of challenges from others. However in this series, we have a young Rebus circa 1987 in the novels with an aging Cafferty maybe 25-30 years older than this Rebus and perhaps around the early 2010s in the world of the novels. The dynamics of the relationship are totally lost.
Malcolm Fox? The first Rebus novel was written in 1987 when Ian Rankin was still at University. In it Rebus was the DS that you see in this tv series. Rankin had written something like 15-20 books in the series before Malcolm Fox makes his first appearance in a novel of his own ("The Complaints") by which time Rebus had advanced through the force and bent or broken so many rules that it would be natural for Fox to take an ongoing interest in Rebus' history and activities. Here, he is just totally out of place and really serves absolutely no purpose in the story other than to add a character whose name is familiar to readers of Ian Rankin's books. His complaints to Siobhan about being careful around Rebus just ring so hollow at this point in time. When Fox is introduced 22 years into the stories? Absolutely they would make sense but not now.
Gil? In the novels, Rebus and Gil are in an ongoing romantic relationship in the early novels! No sign of that here and never any chance of that happening here given their dynamics.
Darryl Christie? He doesn't make an appearance in the novels until the 18th one which came out in 2012. He's the new kid in town challenging the aging Cafferty. Rebus isn't even a serving DI in this novel but has already retired from the force!!! So how is he here going up against a very young DS Rebus?
Michael Rebus? Well, in the novels he is a fairly successful hypnotist having followed the same career as Michael's and John's father. Yes , there is a storyline where he gets involved in dealing drugs but having him portrayed as a down-and-out individual living on an estate in a poorer section of town is just the opposite of who is was as a minor character in the books. If I recall correctly, he even owned some sort of expensive flash car in the books; no sign of that here of course.
One could go on but these are the main inconsistences off the top of my head.
So to sum up, what do we have? Rebus circa 1987 era when he was young interacting with Darryl and Ger circa 2012 by which time Rebus in the books is a DI at the end of his career and leaving the force. So, sorry, this doesn't work for me. Siobahn from 1993 being the newcomer assigned to Rebus in "The Black Book" but here in a relationship with Malcolm Fox which in the novels doesn't occur until 2015 (I think it was) when she is a DI by then and Rebus has left the police. That relationship amongst senior police worked in the books but here, it seems inconceivable with Siobhan a newcomer. So, again, sorry, it just doesn't work for me seeing them here.
Everyone knows that when a novel (or series of novels) is made into television that changes are inevitable. That's almost a given if only for the sake of simplification. However, one still expects there to be some sort of consistency for the most part but this series throws consistency right out the window.
For comparison, Shetland was written around Jimmy Perez but when actor Douglas Henshaw left the series last year a new Detective had to be brought in played by Ashley Jensen. That is still consistent with the novels and perfectly acceptable because it takes the storyline forward and in a different direction. That's fine. Ditto Vera where her #2's have swapped a couple of times due to cast changes. Again, it's fine.
I don't know what we have here. A good storyline that someone decided to adapt for tv by pulling in random characters from all over the Rebus world in order to force it to somehow work and then get Ian Rankin to agree to the mess? I don't know. It really comes across that the story was written first with anonymous characters and then the Rebus characters chosen from here and there out of 37 years of stories to somehow make it into a Rebus story. It doesn't work.
Just so disappointing.
After all, where do you draw the line? Would viewers want an "Agatha Christie" in which Poirot was stuck on a case so he called in Miss Marple for assistance? I'm not sure I would. Or perhaps next year Rebus could request assistance from Inspector Barnaby from Midsomer Murders (both Rebus and Midsomer Murders originally being series of novels) in order to track down Professor Moriarty. Would you want to see that? Tongue in cheek perhaps, but not presented as a serious adaptation of the Rebus novels.
So where DO you draw the line? I know I don't know but I do know that this Rebus very much crossed it. It just felt wrong throughout.
One review I read in a newspaper called this a "reimagining" of the Rebus world. Fair enough description. But it would have required a lot of imagination to expect true fans of the real Rebus world to like the result.
If instead of "John Rebus" in this series we'd had a "James McBurry" and with similar changes for all the other characters with no tie-in at all to Ian Rankin's novels, it would have worked for me.
But because that's not the way it was presented but sold to me as a REbus story instead, the whole thing just didn't make any sense for my wife or myself as it was impossible not to constantly spot the glaring inconsistencies with the world of the books.
So, as I said, if you aren't familiar with the books, then perhaps you can tolerate what they've done in this series. However, if you know and love the characters from Rankin's now 37 years of writing a total of I think 25 novels and still counting, seeing his characters thrown together at random like this is a bit of a travesty to say the least.
Just one final thought. Kudos to Richard Rankin who deserves praise for his portrayal of the young Rebus. Nothing wrong in what he's done and I do want to make that clear. Just such a shame about the script he had to work with.
If you've never read any of Ian Rankin's novels and are willing to ignore the gaping incredible holes in the behaviour of some of the characters at various times, then you'll probably find it acceptable.
However ...
If you've read the novels then you will likely think this something of a travesty.
This series seems to take characters from the novels and picking and choosing the various characters from vastly different points of time (and by vastly I mean in some cases literally decades!) in the chronological development of the Rebus world and throw them together to call them a story. I'll go through a few that are the most serious anomalies.
In the books, Rebus and Cafferty are the exact same age. In the early books, Rebus the DS is head to head at times with Cafferty who has his empire. In the later novels (which are still being written of course), Rebus has left the force in his advancing years (and later returns) while Cafferty is also aging and has health issues and struggling to hold on to his empire in the face of challenges from others. However in this series, we have a young Rebus circa 1987 in the novels with an aging Cafferty maybe 25-30 years older than this Rebus and perhaps around the early 2010s in the world of the novels. The dynamics of the relationship are totally lost.
Malcolm Fox? The first Rebus novel was written in 1987 when Ian Rankin was still at University. In it Rebus was the DS that you see in this tv series. Rankin had written something like 15-20 books in the series before Malcolm Fox makes his first appearance in a novel of his own ("The Complaints") by which time Rebus had advanced through the force and bent or broken so many rules that it would be natural for Fox to take an ongoing interest in Rebus' history and activities. Here, he is just totally out of place and really serves absolutely no purpose in the story other than to add a character whose name is familiar to readers of Ian Rankin's books. His complaints to Siobhan about being careful around Rebus just ring so hollow at this point in time. When Fox is introduced 22 years into the stories? Absolutely they would make sense but not now.
Gil? In the novels, Rebus and Gil are in an ongoing romantic relationship in the early novels! No sign of that here and never any chance of that happening here given their dynamics.
Darryl Christie? He doesn't make an appearance in the novels until the 18th one which came out in 2012. He's the new kid in town challenging the aging Cafferty. Rebus isn't even a serving DI in this novel but has already retired from the force!!! So how is he here going up against a very young DS Rebus?
Michael Rebus? Well, in the novels he is a fairly successful hypnotist having followed the same career as Michael's and John's father. Yes , there is a storyline where he gets involved in dealing drugs but having him portrayed as a down-and-out individual living on an estate in a poorer section of town is just the opposite of who is was as a minor character in the books. If I recall correctly, he even owned some sort of expensive flash car in the books; no sign of that here of course.
One could go on but these are the main inconsistences off the top of my head.
So to sum up, what do we have? Rebus circa 1987 era when he was young interacting with Darryl and Ger circa 2012 by which time Rebus in the books is a DI at the end of his career and leaving the force. So, sorry, this doesn't work for me. Siobahn from 1993 being the newcomer assigned to Rebus in "The Black Book" but here in a relationship with Malcolm Fox which in the novels doesn't occur until 2015 (I think it was) when she is a DI by then and Rebus has left the police. That relationship amongst senior police worked in the books but here, it seems inconceivable with Siobhan a newcomer. So, again, sorry, it just doesn't work for me seeing them here.
Everyone knows that when a novel (or series of novels) is made into television that changes are inevitable. That's almost a given if only for the sake of simplification. However, one still expects there to be some sort of consistency for the most part but this series throws consistency right out the window.
For comparison, Shetland was written around Jimmy Perez but when actor Douglas Henshaw left the series last year a new Detective had to be brought in played by Ashley Jensen. That is still consistent with the novels and perfectly acceptable because it takes the storyline forward and in a different direction. That's fine. Ditto Vera where her #2's have swapped a couple of times due to cast changes. Again, it's fine.
I don't know what we have here. A good storyline that someone decided to adapt for tv by pulling in random characters from all over the Rebus world in order to force it to somehow work and then get Ian Rankin to agree to the mess? I don't know. It really comes across that the story was written first with anonymous characters and then the Rebus characters chosen from here and there out of 37 years of stories to somehow make it into a Rebus story. It doesn't work.
Just so disappointing.
After all, where do you draw the line? Would viewers want an "Agatha Christie" in which Poirot was stuck on a case so he called in Miss Marple for assistance? I'm not sure I would. Or perhaps next year Rebus could request assistance from Inspector Barnaby from Midsomer Murders (both Rebus and Midsomer Murders originally being series of novels) in order to track down Professor Moriarty. Would you want to see that? Tongue in cheek perhaps, but not presented as a serious adaptation of the Rebus novels.
So where DO you draw the line? I know I don't know but I do know that this Rebus very much crossed it. It just felt wrong throughout.
One review I read in a newspaper called this a "reimagining" of the Rebus world. Fair enough description. But it would have required a lot of imagination to expect true fans of the real Rebus world to like the result.
If instead of "John Rebus" in this series we'd had a "James McBurry" and with similar changes for all the other characters with no tie-in at all to Ian Rankin's novels, it would have worked for me.
But because that's not the way it was presented but sold to me as a REbus story instead, the whole thing just didn't make any sense for my wife or myself as it was impossible not to constantly spot the glaring inconsistencies with the world of the books.
So, as I said, if you aren't familiar with the books, then perhaps you can tolerate what they've done in this series. However, if you know and love the characters from Rankin's now 37 years of writing a total of I think 25 novels and still counting, seeing his characters thrown together at random like this is a bit of a travesty to say the least.
Just one final thought. Kudos to Richard Rankin who deserves praise for his portrayal of the young Rebus. Nothing wrong in what he's done and I do want to make that clear. Just such a shame about the script he had to work with.
Several years ago, there was a Spanish TV series called "Elite" about the events in a private school. Series one of that series featured a suspicious death which the police investigated so the series revolved around the events leading up to the death with many of the episodes showing how the relationships among the students developed over the course of the school year leading up to the death. Lots of love and sex but arguably all secondary to the main plot and much of it needed to explain the circumstances leading up to the death of one of the students. It was excellent and we would highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.
Series 2 also had a suspicious death and, once again, lots of relationship development but all needed to develop the plot and explain what happened.
Series 3, however, had no plot whatsoever and everything shown was pure love and sex with lots of triangles being formed with relationships formed and broken. But absolutely nothing in the way of a plot. It was nothing but a soap opera and of no interest at all unless you wanted to follow high school romantic intrigue. It was barely watchable and we wondered what the point of it all was.
If you view Berlin as a follow-on from Money Heist (even though it is a prequel), then this series is very much like Series 3 of Elite. It's not about the plot as the robbery is very very much secondary to showing the relationships being formed and broken. (At least there is some sort of plot, unlike Series 3 of Elite but the robbery is secondary to everything else and only occasionally interesting). Even the characters weren't particularly interested in the robbery most of the time as Berlin was most interested in pursuing Camile, Damian was lamenting the break-up of his marriage, and the other four were focussing on potential partners rather than the robbery. Who cared about the robbery? We didn't in the end.
So will Roi and Cameron eventually get together? What about Bruce and Keila? And most of all, what about Berlin and Camile? Will it be happily ever after or will it all end in tears? And Damian? Does he find happiness ... of a sort? And will he and Berlin eventually be reconciled after their messy falling out early in the series?
In this final episode all those questions are answered (except maybe Damian) as we see how each of those relationships play out. For those who cared to watch through to the end, pretty much everything is tidied up as you would expect.
And the robbery? Yes, that's tidied up as well but by this time weI really didn't care any longer.
My wife summed it up quite well as we neared the end end of this episode. "Money Heist was one of the best series we've ever seen but this was probably one of the worst".
So the good news is that the series is over. To be fair, this might have been one of the better episodes but I have to say I wondered if I just enjoyed it more knowing it was the last and things were finally coming to an end.
The bad news is that they've very obviously left it open for a season 2. Sorry, not interested.
Series 2 also had a suspicious death and, once again, lots of relationship development but all needed to develop the plot and explain what happened.
Series 3, however, had no plot whatsoever and everything shown was pure love and sex with lots of triangles being formed with relationships formed and broken. But absolutely nothing in the way of a plot. It was nothing but a soap opera and of no interest at all unless you wanted to follow high school romantic intrigue. It was barely watchable and we wondered what the point of it all was.
If you view Berlin as a follow-on from Money Heist (even though it is a prequel), then this series is very much like Series 3 of Elite. It's not about the plot as the robbery is very very much secondary to showing the relationships being formed and broken. (At least there is some sort of plot, unlike Series 3 of Elite but the robbery is secondary to everything else and only occasionally interesting). Even the characters weren't particularly interested in the robbery most of the time as Berlin was most interested in pursuing Camile, Damian was lamenting the break-up of his marriage, and the other four were focussing on potential partners rather than the robbery. Who cared about the robbery? We didn't in the end.
So will Roi and Cameron eventually get together? What about Bruce and Keila? And most of all, what about Berlin and Camile? Will it be happily ever after or will it all end in tears? And Damian? Does he find happiness ... of a sort? And will he and Berlin eventually be reconciled after their messy falling out early in the series?
In this final episode all those questions are answered (except maybe Damian) as we see how each of those relationships play out. For those who cared to watch through to the end, pretty much everything is tidied up as you would expect.
And the robbery? Yes, that's tidied up as well but by this time weI really didn't care any longer.
My wife summed it up quite well as we neared the end end of this episode. "Money Heist was one of the best series we've ever seen but this was probably one of the worst".
So the good news is that the series is over. To be fair, this might have been one of the better episodes but I have to say I wondered if I just enjoyed it more knowing it was the last and things were finally coming to an end.
The bad news is that they've very obviously left it open for a season 2. Sorry, not interested.
Not sure why we persisted with this but really, really glad did we did (and please note the sarcasm in that statement).
Turns out this is a comedy and we just hadn't understood that until now. We hadn't realized that's what was intended until we got well into this second last episode of an agonizingly long series.
From just bad and ridiculous plot with silly writing, this has now descended into the realms of total farce. At several points in this episode, my wife and I were so amazed at what we were seeing that we found ourselves on the verge of laughing.
Only then did it strike us at pretty much the same time. This whole series was intended to be taken as a comedy. Wow. Who knew?
For example, Bruce ends up taking a couple of hostages at gunpoint and just to emphasize the humour of the surreal scene, he has one of them turn on the radio just so they can all join in a group sing along of the Bee Gees "Staying Alive".
Get it? Held at gunpoint? Fearing for their lives. Gee. Subtle. But oh so funny.
Meanwhile, since they have nothing better to do (like escape???), Berlin and Damian crash a wedding banquet at the hotel and break into a song duet thus emphasizing their reconciliation but not much else. Wouldn't have been quite so bad if either could sing well but ... er, no, they can't really sing. But at least it was funny. Well, it must have been as our eyes were watering with the tears it was so ridiculous.
Or maybe they were tears of pain; I'm not sure.
You get the idea.
In a desperate attempt to save the plot, the characters of Raquel and Alicia are introduced as police brought in from Spain to investigate since they would know Spanish criminals better than the French police obviously. Well, of course they would. And naturally, this being a prequel to Money Heist, Alicia and Raquel are best mates back in the old days and that is emphasized of course by the over-the-top friendliness of the two. Oh the irony ... knowing what we know from what eventually happens in Money Heist as we all do. Oh so subtle.
The good news is there's only 1 episode to go and then we can be put out of our misery. The bad news is that we still have to watch it. Groan.
Turns out this is a comedy and we just hadn't understood that until now. We hadn't realized that's what was intended until we got well into this second last episode of an agonizingly long series.
From just bad and ridiculous plot with silly writing, this has now descended into the realms of total farce. At several points in this episode, my wife and I were so amazed at what we were seeing that we found ourselves on the verge of laughing.
Only then did it strike us at pretty much the same time. This whole series was intended to be taken as a comedy. Wow. Who knew?
For example, Bruce ends up taking a couple of hostages at gunpoint and just to emphasize the humour of the surreal scene, he has one of them turn on the radio just so they can all join in a group sing along of the Bee Gees "Staying Alive".
Get it? Held at gunpoint? Fearing for their lives. Gee. Subtle. But oh so funny.
Meanwhile, since they have nothing better to do (like escape???), Berlin and Damian crash a wedding banquet at the hotel and break into a song duet thus emphasizing their reconciliation but not much else. Wouldn't have been quite so bad if either could sing well but ... er, no, they can't really sing. But at least it was funny. Well, it must have been as our eyes were watering with the tears it was so ridiculous.
Or maybe they were tears of pain; I'm not sure.
You get the idea.
In a desperate attempt to save the plot, the characters of Raquel and Alicia are introduced as police brought in from Spain to investigate since they would know Spanish criminals better than the French police obviously. Well, of course they would. And naturally, this being a prequel to Money Heist, Alicia and Raquel are best mates back in the old days and that is emphasized of course by the over-the-top friendliness of the two. Oh the irony ... knowing what we know from what eventually happens in Money Heist as we all do. Oh so subtle.
The good news is there's only 1 episode to go and then we can be put out of our misery. The bad news is that we still have to watch it. Groan.
I think the episode ran something like 42 minutes long. Of that, roughly 25 minutes or so was devoted to the side story between Roi and Cameron in which they go on an unauthorized nightime outing: nightclubbing, stealing a car, going to an illegal street race, taking an airplane for a joy ride. The usual thing. We've all been there.
The probem was that none of this had absolutely anything to do with the main story which was supposed to be about robbing the auction house. Well, there was roughly 2 seconds at the end of the side story when Cameron mentions she's lost something rather important but that doesn't justify the 25 minutes leading up to that relevation. It was totally unnecessary. Other than that relevation, the story would have lost absolutely nothing in terms of moving the plot along if they'd cut the entire 25 minutes and just skipped straight to the "oops" moment.
So what exactly was the point of this 25 minute interlude?
Was it character development? Well, we're over 1/2 way through the series, the robbery has been accomplished and the jewelery has been safely stowed away (mostly). It's a bit late now for character development I would have thought.
An explanation for Cameron's late participation in the robbery? Hmm, does anybody really care by now? I didn't. So what she had a bad relationship in the past with a musicial. So what, I say again. Been there, done that.
It was all quite pointless and left my wife reaching for a novel she had sitting beside her asking me to tell her when it was all over.
As I said, easily the weakest episode in this very weak series and possibly worthy of the usual phrase: "Well, that's 42 minutes of my life I'm never getting back".
Utter rubbish.
The probem was that none of this had absolutely anything to do with the main story which was supposed to be about robbing the auction house. Well, there was roughly 2 seconds at the end of the side story when Cameron mentions she's lost something rather important but that doesn't justify the 25 minutes leading up to that relevation. It was totally unnecessary. Other than that relevation, the story would have lost absolutely nothing in terms of moving the plot along if they'd cut the entire 25 minutes and just skipped straight to the "oops" moment.
So what exactly was the point of this 25 minute interlude?
Was it character development? Well, we're over 1/2 way through the series, the robbery has been accomplished and the jewelery has been safely stowed away (mostly). It's a bit late now for character development I would have thought.
An explanation for Cameron's late participation in the robbery? Hmm, does anybody really care by now? I didn't. So what she had a bad relationship in the past with a musicial. So what, I say again. Been there, done that.
It was all quite pointless and left my wife reaching for a novel she had sitting beside her asking me to tell her when it was all over.
As I said, easily the weakest episode in this very weak series and possibly worthy of the usual phrase: "Well, that's 42 minutes of my life I'm never getting back".
Utter rubbish.
We've loved previous Alex Pina shows. Money Heist, of course, every season of it was a success. The less well known "The Pier" with the same lead actor as Money Heist in the key role. Also wonderful during its two season run. Sky Rojo was different but we did think the first season worth watching simply because it was so different.
So we'd been really looking forward to Berlin when we'd seen around a year ago it was going to be released at the end of 2023. A prequel to Money Heist with that show's most popular character coming back to life to be shown what he was doing prior to Money Heist. What could possibly go wrong?
Immediately into binge mode but that didn't last too long. First episode? Okay. But it just didn't feel right. Still, some series take an episode or two to get going.
Second episode, more holes than the first and we are thinking this isn't what we were expecting.
Third episode? Just lost the plot completely by now.
So what's the problem? Well, as so many have pointed out, it's just not credible that the mastermind of the breakend has decided to pursue a love interest almost full time while seemingly simultaneously keeping control over his team doing the drilling and breaking into the vault. It just doesn't ring true.
Worse than that, the time lines just aren't working either. By that I mean that some of what you see when they are focussing on the break-in is taking places over a period of many days while at the same time they are swapping back and forth to the romance and that is showing events taking place in just one day. And vice versa. It's just all over the place.
To make matters worse, there seem to be "flash forwards" over and over again where Berlin is talking to the team about what they will be doing while at the same time the video is showing the team actually doing it days or weeks in the future. Very confusing. Is it happening "now", today, or are we anticipating what will eventually be happening?
There are contradictions in some of the plot events as well though maybe I should be generous and put it down to bad translations but not sure how this got through editing.
So we're currently at episode 3 and will probably continue but aren't particularly optimistic this will improve. It's just a mess.
We expect better from Alex Pina after previous successes but this one is a bit of a fizzer.
So we'd been really looking forward to Berlin when we'd seen around a year ago it was going to be released at the end of 2023. A prequel to Money Heist with that show's most popular character coming back to life to be shown what he was doing prior to Money Heist. What could possibly go wrong?
Immediately into binge mode but that didn't last too long. First episode? Okay. But it just didn't feel right. Still, some series take an episode or two to get going.
Second episode, more holes than the first and we are thinking this isn't what we were expecting.
Third episode? Just lost the plot completely by now.
So what's the problem? Well, as so many have pointed out, it's just not credible that the mastermind of the breakend has decided to pursue a love interest almost full time while seemingly simultaneously keeping control over his team doing the drilling and breaking into the vault. It just doesn't ring true.
Worse than that, the time lines just aren't working either. By that I mean that some of what you see when they are focussing on the break-in is taking places over a period of many days while at the same time they are swapping back and forth to the romance and that is showing events taking place in just one day. And vice versa. It's just all over the place.
To make matters worse, there seem to be "flash forwards" over and over again where Berlin is talking to the team about what they will be doing while at the same time the video is showing the team actually doing it days or weeks in the future. Very confusing. Is it happening "now", today, or are we anticipating what will eventually be happening?
There are contradictions in some of the plot events as well though maybe I should be generous and put it down to bad translations but not sure how this got through editing.
So we're currently at episode 3 and will probably continue but aren't particularly optimistic this will improve. It's just a mess.
We expect better from Alex Pina after previous successes but this one is a bit of a fizzer.
What do you get if you cross the Williams brother with a Tarantino production? Boat Story.
Sadly, this isn't what I wanted. If I wanted to watch Tarantino, I'd watch a Tarantino film at a theater or on a pay tv channel late night, not a prime time tv series which is unsuitable for many viewers.
If you think the Tarantino comparison is inappropriate by the way, note that passing referrence to the name "Quentin" in the first episode by one of the characters. There is no way that is a coincidence. The Williams have made it very clear the style is quite deliberate and the comparison is to be made by viewers.
The massacre (what else could you call it?) in the first episode very reminiscent to the opening scenes of the 1995 film Desparado. At least that's the way it struck me. No, Desparado wasn't directed by Tarantino but he did appear in those opening scenes to essentially give his blessing to that film.
A famous quote from another Tarantion film came to mind. Samuel L. Jackson in Jackie Brown: "AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mother###### in the room, accept no substitutes." No, the psycho killers in this story didn't use Ak-47s but they certainly killed every single you-know-what in the building. Not that they needed to: it just made for a Tarantino style production or so the Williams thought.
And it was all so pointless to have displayed it so explicitly. Just as effective would have been to have had the camera focussed on the driver outside, perhaps doing a Sudoku or reading a book, all to the sounds of 2 minutes of gunfire from inside the building before the 2 killers come out to explain what had happened. The over-the-top use of blood bags and having actors fly across the room after being blasted just wasn't needed.
When the second episode resumed with a similar amount of violence after just a few minutes, and again without any real need to show the violence as it could have been hinted at, my wife and I gave up.
A shame, as the plot and story otherwise excellent, Karyo brilliant, Hoggard and Joseph both doing wonders with their parties, and a masterful narration from our favourite Icelandic actor, what more could we want? Well, less violence when it wasn't really needed that explicitly.
Next time guys, more of "The Missing" and "The Tourist" and less of the Tarantino please.
Sadly, this isn't what I wanted. If I wanted to watch Tarantino, I'd watch a Tarantino film at a theater or on a pay tv channel late night, not a prime time tv series which is unsuitable for many viewers.
If you think the Tarantino comparison is inappropriate by the way, note that passing referrence to the name "Quentin" in the first episode by one of the characters. There is no way that is a coincidence. The Williams have made it very clear the style is quite deliberate and the comparison is to be made by viewers.
The massacre (what else could you call it?) in the first episode very reminiscent to the opening scenes of the 1995 film Desparado. At least that's the way it struck me. No, Desparado wasn't directed by Tarantino but he did appear in those opening scenes to essentially give his blessing to that film.
A famous quote from another Tarantion film came to mind. Samuel L. Jackson in Jackie Brown: "AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mother###### in the room, accept no substitutes." No, the psycho killers in this story didn't use Ak-47s but they certainly killed every single you-know-what in the building. Not that they needed to: it just made for a Tarantino style production or so the Williams thought.
And it was all so pointless to have displayed it so explicitly. Just as effective would have been to have had the camera focussed on the driver outside, perhaps doing a Sudoku or reading a book, all to the sounds of 2 minutes of gunfire from inside the building before the 2 killers come out to explain what had happened. The over-the-top use of blood bags and having actors fly across the room after being blasted just wasn't needed.
When the second episode resumed with a similar amount of violence after just a few minutes, and again without any real need to show the violence as it could have been hinted at, my wife and I gave up.
A shame, as the plot and story otherwise excellent, Karyo brilliant, Hoggard and Joseph both doing wonders with their parties, and a masterful narration from our favourite Icelandic actor, what more could we want? Well, less violence when it wasn't really needed that explicitly.
Next time guys, more of "The Missing" and "The Tourist" and less of the Tarantino please.
This has the potential to be a wonderful series. The storyline is great. The main actors wonderful and the characters believable. The secondary characters as odd as you would expect. The narration by everyone's favourite Icelandic actor is spot on.
It's just unfortunate that the episode is spoiled entirely by one lengthy scene where the Williams brothers have decided that they want to be Tarrantino and show lots of blood and gore and needlessly so. Yes, the mass shooting is necessary for the plot development. I can see that. We've established that the killers are ruthless psychopaths in doing so and that the Tailleur will resort to desperate measures to recover his property.
However, this still could have been accomplished by just having the killers scene to enter the station and perhaps for the camera to be then focussed entirely on the driver for 3 or 4 minutes doing, say, a Sudoku, all the while listening to non-stop gunfire in the background and being unaffected by it. We still would have got the message. The killers then come out and report on what happened and what they found.
Instead, the Williams decide to shoot up everybody they see with lots of special affects, a year's budget on blood bags and actors flying across the screen after being blasted at point blank range. One brief moment of querky dialogue which simply added nothing.
Memo to Williams: it is possible to convey violence in a plot without needlessly showing it.
All in all, the whole 5+ minutes of gore was entirely gratuitous and spoiled the entire episode for us.
We will continue to watch episode 2 but if the violence continues at this sort of unnecessary level, we will likely quickly give up which would be a shame as the plot has so much potential.
If it hadn't been for this one scene, I would have given it a 9. But because of the scene spoiling the entire experience, I only rate it a 6.
It's just unfortunate that the episode is spoiled entirely by one lengthy scene where the Williams brothers have decided that they want to be Tarrantino and show lots of blood and gore and needlessly so. Yes, the mass shooting is necessary for the plot development. I can see that. We've established that the killers are ruthless psychopaths in doing so and that the Tailleur will resort to desperate measures to recover his property.
However, this still could have been accomplished by just having the killers scene to enter the station and perhaps for the camera to be then focussed entirely on the driver for 3 or 4 minutes doing, say, a Sudoku, all the while listening to non-stop gunfire in the background and being unaffected by it. We still would have got the message. The killers then come out and report on what happened and what they found.
Instead, the Williams decide to shoot up everybody they see with lots of special affects, a year's budget on blood bags and actors flying across the screen after being blasted at point blank range. One brief moment of querky dialogue which simply added nothing.
Memo to Williams: it is possible to convey violence in a plot without needlessly showing it.
All in all, the whole 5+ minutes of gore was entirely gratuitous and spoiled the entire episode for us.
We will continue to watch episode 2 but if the violence continues at this sort of unnecessary level, we will likely quickly give up which would be a shame as the plot has so much potential.
If it hadn't been for this one scene, I would have given it a 9. But because of the scene spoiling the entire experience, I only rate it a 6.