The story is that of a teenage girl from a rural village who went missing while walking her dog on the moors. Her body was never found but evidence that she had been kidnapped and murdered was, as was evidence that her stepfather was responsible. Based on that evidence, and despite the absence of the girl's body, her stepfather was convicted and hanged. Fast- forward forty years to the present, when filmmaker Catherine Heathcote is reexamining the crime in a documentary for TV. As the deadline for wrapping up her film nears, a key figure in the documentary, George Bennett, the then-young lead detective in the original investigation, whose career was launched by the case, reverses his decision to discuss the case on camera. Bennett is clearly troubled by the case, and he tells Heathcote vaguely "mistakes were made." Heathcote's request of her boss for more time, so she can pin down the truth, is rewarded by his pulling her from the film and replacing her with an ambitious assistant whose orders are to meet the deadline. Something was clearly amiss with the original investigation, but what? Heathcote presses ahead on her own to find out.
While I had a sense of what was troubling George Bennett, and the direction the story was heading, the film was effective in keeping me guessing at the details until nearly the end. It did so, however, in large part because of the improbability of its resolution. Now, I don't wish to exaggerate this point: I have encountered stories and resolutions that I found equally, if not more, improbable in any number of episodes of highly-regarded British mystery series. (Pushing the improbability envelope seems to be the norm in mystery/police-procedural dramas these days.)
In summary, the quality of the production is high, and the story will hold your interest. The acting is first-rate: Juliet Stevenson is always good, and the actors who play Bennett and his partner as young men are well matched physically to the two who play them as old men (I found this to be more effective than aging the young actors with makeup). The journey to the story's resolution is satisfying even if the resolution itself is not completely so.
While I had a sense of what was troubling George Bennett, and the direction the story was heading, the film was effective in keeping me guessing at the details until nearly the end. It did so, however, in large part because of the improbability of its resolution. Now, I don't wish to exaggerate this point: I have encountered stories and resolutions that I found equally, if not more, improbable in any number of episodes of highly-regarded British mystery series. (Pushing the improbability envelope seems to be the norm in mystery/police-procedural dramas these days.)
In summary, the quality of the production is high, and the story will hold your interest. The acting is first-rate: Juliet Stevenson is always good, and the actors who play Bennett and his partner as young men are well matched physically to the two who play them as old men (I found this to be more effective than aging the young actors with makeup). The journey to the story's resolution is satisfying even if the resolution itself is not completely so.