Warning, "spoiler" here...the comic book Mr Big of the piece is shot dead in part 1 ( 1973 )...but somehow hes walking around giving out alibis for people in 1983...dressed in the same turtleneck. Or was that a "flash-back" from 1983 to 1973? But wait a minute, the bloke he was giving an alibi for was being tortured and citing him for an alibi in 1983! So hows that work? Its anyones guess really.
Oh, that rat, are we supposed to think of 1984? Why how terribly clever!
One of my brothers was a policeman throughout the period covered in the series. Another of my brothers quit "The Force" in the sixties largely because he couldn't tolerate the daily tide of corruption that he witnessed. So I have no illusions about what a corrupt, venal institution the police was then or the kind of characters who were, and very often still are graced by Her Majesty's uniform. The character of Gene Hunt in Life On Mars was uncannily reminiscent of my own brother at that time, except for lack of the almost regulation moustache.
Well, Red Riding got the moustaches right, as well as all the other period detailing. But the goings on portrayed as regular activities of the local Bobby, shooting up bars with MP5 submachine guns, having Wild West shoot-outs in the station basement, "extraordinary renditions" of troublesome journalists to Chilean style work-outs for days on end at a warehouse...are utterly and ridiculously over the top. Can anyone name a single case of incidents such as these on record? Deaths in custody. Yes. Beatings and even murder of suspects, yes. But running around doing "deals" with submachine guns like Snake Plisskin in LA, give us a break! As for the much prior vaunted "atmosphere" created in these films, all it amounted to was the digital equivalent of a tobacco-filter giving everything a sepia tint. Comically crass. Almost like the workmanship of that satirical movie-director character created by Benny Hill.
The first episode had, in effect, no plot whatsoever. OK, Mr Big is linked to a serial killer and protected by the police who keep beating up the journalist who tries to expose the truth. So far, so simple, so cliché. So trite. Then in Part two The Names start to roll. The cast list of named characters continues to roll throughout part three. If you cannot keep up with this continual "he said, she said, he would, she would, the other said, his son and his daughters boyfriend" ...and I certainly couldn't...then you have no chance trying to make head nor tail of whats happening. Except The Cops Are BAD! Thats all it amounts to. Then at the end of part three we learn that, surprise, surprise, its everyones favourite candidate for local nonce that did it! Why should understanding a movie depend on the viewers ( I stress "viewers" ) ability to remember great lists of names and correctly attach them to characters glimpsed briefly in fleeting earlier scenes. Heres a clue to the director, its supposed to be a MOVIE, or TELEVISION, NOT a book or a radio play.
All in all, I was massively disappointed. The preceding hype for this series of films can only have exacerbated that. When one is persuaded to spend six hours of ones precious time on something, one feels cheated when it turns out to be such dross.
I think that young actor who, in the trailer, pompously boasts that "...if it had been an ordinary cop show I would not have taken part in it" will, I fear, live to regret that statement.
I would have awarded the series one point out of ten, but for its at least serving the purpose of showing the British police in a dim light ( quite literally ), which certainly constitutes something in its credit. Hence my awarding it "4".
Postscript.Before anyone cries "foul", we saw no submachine guns...no we didn't SEE them, but remember the scene when the weapons used in the attack on the bar are enumerated. Two of the guns used, it was revealed, had been MP fives.
Oh, that rat, are we supposed to think of 1984? Why how terribly clever!
One of my brothers was a policeman throughout the period covered in the series. Another of my brothers quit "The Force" in the sixties largely because he couldn't tolerate the daily tide of corruption that he witnessed. So I have no illusions about what a corrupt, venal institution the police was then or the kind of characters who were, and very often still are graced by Her Majesty's uniform. The character of Gene Hunt in Life On Mars was uncannily reminiscent of my own brother at that time, except for lack of the almost regulation moustache.
Well, Red Riding got the moustaches right, as well as all the other period detailing. But the goings on portrayed as regular activities of the local Bobby, shooting up bars with MP5 submachine guns, having Wild West shoot-outs in the station basement, "extraordinary renditions" of troublesome journalists to Chilean style work-outs for days on end at a warehouse...are utterly and ridiculously over the top. Can anyone name a single case of incidents such as these on record? Deaths in custody. Yes. Beatings and even murder of suspects, yes. But running around doing "deals" with submachine guns like Snake Plisskin in LA, give us a break! As for the much prior vaunted "atmosphere" created in these films, all it amounted to was the digital equivalent of a tobacco-filter giving everything a sepia tint. Comically crass. Almost like the workmanship of that satirical movie-director character created by Benny Hill.
The first episode had, in effect, no plot whatsoever. OK, Mr Big is linked to a serial killer and protected by the police who keep beating up the journalist who tries to expose the truth. So far, so simple, so cliché. So trite. Then in Part two The Names start to roll. The cast list of named characters continues to roll throughout part three. If you cannot keep up with this continual "he said, she said, he would, she would, the other said, his son and his daughters boyfriend" ...and I certainly couldn't...then you have no chance trying to make head nor tail of whats happening. Except The Cops Are BAD! Thats all it amounts to. Then at the end of part three we learn that, surprise, surprise, its everyones favourite candidate for local nonce that did it! Why should understanding a movie depend on the viewers ( I stress "viewers" ) ability to remember great lists of names and correctly attach them to characters glimpsed briefly in fleeting earlier scenes. Heres a clue to the director, its supposed to be a MOVIE, or TELEVISION, NOT a book or a radio play.
All in all, I was massively disappointed. The preceding hype for this series of films can only have exacerbated that. When one is persuaded to spend six hours of ones precious time on something, one feels cheated when it turns out to be such dross.
I think that young actor who, in the trailer, pompously boasts that "...if it had been an ordinary cop show I would not have taken part in it" will, I fear, live to regret that statement.
I would have awarded the series one point out of ten, but for its at least serving the purpose of showing the British police in a dim light ( quite literally ), which certainly constitutes something in its credit. Hence my awarding it "4".
Postscript.Before anyone cries "foul", we saw no submachine guns...no we didn't SEE them, but remember the scene when the weapons used in the attack on the bar are enumerated. Two of the guns used, it was revealed, had been MP fives.