Tony-Holmes
Joined Dec 2011
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews224
Tony-Holmes's rating
I've just seen this one again, on the terrific 'Talking Pictures' channel (UK, older TV and films).
I saw it before, but didn't post a review, though I quite often did when first viewing this Cremer version of Maigret (We'd seen the original - in UK - Rupert Davies episodes, the 90s shows with Michael Gambon - excellent - as Maigret, and the 20-teens version with Rowan Atkinson as the lead . . .not quite as good, but a decent attempt).
This episode was as usual in the Cremer era very atmospheric, and packed with terrific acting. Cremer captures Maigret very well, though I find it immensely irritating that the assistant Lucas, pretty much ever-present in the books, is almost completely missing from these! Bizarre!
Two other reviews, Whalen, pretty accurate as usual, and Bellinger, who goes overboard with enthusiasm. His piece includes "No loophole of any kind can be detected and things follow on from each other flawlessly.". This is just nonsense.
It's an interesting story, great acting, and lots of plausible suspects. The atmosphere is maintained throughout the almost 2 hours as Cremer keeps on ferreting away at those concerned, to winkle out the truth.
BUT BUT BUT -- there most certainly IS a glaring loophole! What killed the unfortunate victim? We were told quite early in the episode, an extremely unusual form of poisoning. It was an elementary piece of police work to discover where this method had come from, and from there just a short hop to locate the killer. But it would have lopped off well over half the episode, so indeed that short story was 'fleshed out'?!
I saw it before, but didn't post a review, though I quite often did when first viewing this Cremer version of Maigret (We'd seen the original - in UK - Rupert Davies episodes, the 90s shows with Michael Gambon - excellent - as Maigret, and the 20-teens version with Rowan Atkinson as the lead . . .not quite as good, but a decent attempt).
This episode was as usual in the Cremer era very atmospheric, and packed with terrific acting. Cremer captures Maigret very well, though I find it immensely irritating that the assistant Lucas, pretty much ever-present in the books, is almost completely missing from these! Bizarre!
Two other reviews, Whalen, pretty accurate as usual, and Bellinger, who goes overboard with enthusiasm. His piece includes "No loophole of any kind can be detected and things follow on from each other flawlessly.". This is just nonsense.
It's an interesting story, great acting, and lots of plausible suspects. The atmosphere is maintained throughout the almost 2 hours as Cremer keeps on ferreting away at those concerned, to winkle out the truth.
BUT BUT BUT -- there most certainly IS a glaring loophole! What killed the unfortunate victim? We were told quite early in the episode, an extremely unusual form of poisoning. It was an elementary piece of police work to discover where this method had come from, and from there just a short hop to locate the killer. But it would have lopped off well over half the episode, so indeed that short story was 'fleshed out'?!
Just saw the first episode, 60 years after it first went out, now showing on the excellent Talking Pictures channel.
I'm pretty sure I never saw this show, I think it was in the early days of us having a TV, we were very poor and had a set that you put coins in (like a gas meter!), and we just couldn't afford to watch too much??
But for the early 60s, it looks OK, strong lead characters and the first story was pretty well done, plus the support cast was good (not always the case back then!).
Yes, you occasionally get shaky sets and a bit of dialogue they didn't bother to do a re-take, that's how it was back then!
But it shows the early days of policing, with better evidence gathering, overall I enjoyed it, APART from the horrible start music!
I'm pretty sure I never saw this show, I think it was in the early days of us having a TV, we were very poor and had a set that you put coins in (like a gas meter!), and we just couldn't afford to watch too much??
But for the early 60s, it looks OK, strong lead characters and the first story was pretty well done, plus the support cast was good (not always the case back then!).
Yes, you occasionally get shaky sets and a bit of dialogue they didn't bother to do a re-take, that's how it was back then!
But it shows the early days of policing, with better evidence gathering, overall I enjoyed it, APART from the horrible start music!
As many reviews have said, it's a worthy story, and expertly told, and doubtless there will be many such cases of injustice ongoing through the States, especially with so many folk actually voting for a bigoted, racist nincompoop like Chump.
But any such film will always be compared to the ones that have gone before, like 'In the Heat of the Night', and others, so they'll just struggle to get as much attention.
As for solving America's inbuilt problems with racism, EVEN in this day and age (2025 as I write), well, better advertise for some leaders who can both inspire, and perform miracles on a daily basis?! Good luck with that!
But any such film will always be compared to the ones that have gone before, like 'In the Heat of the Night', and others, so they'll just struggle to get as much attention.
As for solving America's inbuilt problems with racism, EVEN in this day and age (2025 as I write), well, better advertise for some leaders who can both inspire, and perform miracles on a daily basis?! Good luck with that!