sublimineyes
Joined Dec 2011
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews59
sublimineyes's rating
I'm not aware of any whodunnit show using a puzzle setter as the lead character before so this could have been interesting, had a unique take. Unfortunately the puzzle setter here is simply used as a hook to hang an ill selected pick n mix of familiarities on.
The end result is yet more comfy cardigan fare, I guess designed to lure in viewers who liked a certain performer, or certain interior decor or clothes, or certain types of music. At least I hope so, rather than this all being at the whim of the show's creator.
The big problems are:
1) apart from a period in episode 1 (and slightly in 2 and 3), David Mitchell is David Mitchell. You've seen him before and he definitely isn't the character introduced at the beginning of episode 1. Where did that character go? Why cast Mitchell if the directors (especially the director of eps 4-6) are just going to have Mitchell act his normal stuff, which isn't the character introduced at the start of Ep1 or the character needed to produce actual tension, intrigue, interest?
2) there is no chemistry. If this is supposed to be a 2020s Jonathan Creek go back and watch and you'll find chemistry between Davies and Quentin. There is none between Mitchell and Martin.
3) while Mitchell feels undirected, Martin feels simply miscast. A sort of, "ooh, she's a bit quirky, we'll go with her".
4) the support cast (including the sets, look, music, colour palette) are paper thin cliches or jarring "comedic" fillers
5) apart from 1 episode it fails at being either a whodunnit or a howdunnit. Instead it feels like the audience is supposed to bask in the warm, cardigan covered glow of Mitchell's reveal
6) but surely the pleasure of a howdunnit is to learn something, or test yourself. And the pleasure of having a puzzle setter as lead should be to experience multiple types of puzzles, which each episode clearly built around a type of puzzle introduced early in that episode and with a framework the audience can get involved in. Or something along these lines. But none of this happens.
This really is a hugely underachieving show. But with a comfy cardigan.
The end result is yet more comfy cardigan fare, I guess designed to lure in viewers who liked a certain performer, or certain interior decor or clothes, or certain types of music. At least I hope so, rather than this all being at the whim of the show's creator.
The big problems are:
1) apart from a period in episode 1 (and slightly in 2 and 3), David Mitchell is David Mitchell. You've seen him before and he definitely isn't the character introduced at the beginning of episode 1. Where did that character go? Why cast Mitchell if the directors (especially the director of eps 4-6) are just going to have Mitchell act his normal stuff, which isn't the character introduced at the start of Ep1 or the character needed to produce actual tension, intrigue, interest?
2) there is no chemistry. If this is supposed to be a 2020s Jonathan Creek go back and watch and you'll find chemistry between Davies and Quentin. There is none between Mitchell and Martin.
3) while Mitchell feels undirected, Martin feels simply miscast. A sort of, "ooh, she's a bit quirky, we'll go with her".
4) the support cast (including the sets, look, music, colour palette) are paper thin cliches or jarring "comedic" fillers
5) apart from 1 episode it fails at being either a whodunnit or a howdunnit. Instead it feels like the audience is supposed to bask in the warm, cardigan covered glow of Mitchell's reveal
6) but surely the pleasure of a howdunnit is to learn something, or test yourself. And the pleasure of having a puzzle setter as lead should be to experience multiple types of puzzles, which each episode clearly built around a type of puzzle introduced early in that episode and with a framework the audience can get involved in. Or something along these lines. But none of this happens.
This really is a hugely underachieving show. But with a comfy cardigan.
My take on this seems to be backward to the consensus, as I found the early episodes to be clearly he best, instead of the other way around.
The main problem I found was a general lack of atmosphere, both of how this should have changed with time and location (given as the story unfolds over multiple countries and decades), and simply in general. Watch the BBC/Guinness Tinker Tailor for how to do Le Carre atmosphere.
This isn't helped by having Peter Egan from ep 3 onward. He is a likeable actor but lightweight, without the range or spookiness the character deserved. And it made no sense at all to me for him to be cast, when his younger version, Benedict Taylor, could surely have played older versions simply with prosthetics. It isn't as if the BBC didn't have money to go location shooting, so why not prosthetics too.
All of which is disappointing as I found Taylor really excellent, in a Malcolm McDowell way. Would have loved to see him take the character to the end.
His chemistry with the stand out performer, Ray McAnally was also much better.
Beyond this, the script simply didn't build sufficient insight into Taylor/Egan's motivations so that there was no character tension, no sense of where paths could come together or go apart. So it eventually needed exposition where none should have been required. After all, motivations are what a non-action spy story is all about.
Beyond this, I liked Cuthbertson, Howard, Ashcroft and, especially, Weigang. They all deserved better.
Overall, a letdown after a solid start.
The main problem I found was a general lack of atmosphere, both of how this should have changed with time and location (given as the story unfolds over multiple countries and decades), and simply in general. Watch the BBC/Guinness Tinker Tailor for how to do Le Carre atmosphere.
This isn't helped by having Peter Egan from ep 3 onward. He is a likeable actor but lightweight, without the range or spookiness the character deserved. And it made no sense at all to me for him to be cast, when his younger version, Benedict Taylor, could surely have played older versions simply with prosthetics. It isn't as if the BBC didn't have money to go location shooting, so why not prosthetics too.
All of which is disappointing as I found Taylor really excellent, in a Malcolm McDowell way. Would have loved to see him take the character to the end.
His chemistry with the stand out performer, Ray McAnally was also much better.
Beyond this, the script simply didn't build sufficient insight into Taylor/Egan's motivations so that there was no character tension, no sense of where paths could come together or go apart. So it eventually needed exposition where none should have been required. After all, motivations are what a non-action spy story is all about.
Beyond this, I liked Cuthbertson, Howard, Ashcroft and, especially, Weigang. They all deserved better.
Overall, a letdown after a solid start.
Had heard so many positive reviews of this so gave it a go. I really can't understand what people see in it though.
For me, up until episode 6 it was a straightforward, lightweight, derivative show of the sort that doesn't take any concentration, doesn't make you laugh out loud, just sort of mellows things if you want to switch off and not think.
Brammall is likeable enough but too often goes Gervais. Only he isn't anywhere as good as Gervais at being Gervais. Should simply have stuck at being the Brammall he was at other times, which was likeable and more honest feeling.
Dyer brings more depth to her character and to me didn't feel like she was trying to be someone else. But it was only "more depth", not a lot of depth or originality.
Where things are interesting is Dyer's interaction with her screen mother, Thomson. This does get played throughout but it should have been played much, much more. It is what the show should principally have been about, not a Brammall/Dyer romcom.
The rest of the cast are paper thin and both they and the plot loaded with stereotypes. Yawn.
Eventually I got to Ep 6 and the dislikeability of the new supporting characters in this episode, the script and tone so jarred with Ep 1-5 that I gave up half way though. On it and the show.
I wouldn't recommend, unless there isn't anything better to watch. Which there is.
For me, up until episode 6 it was a straightforward, lightweight, derivative show of the sort that doesn't take any concentration, doesn't make you laugh out loud, just sort of mellows things if you want to switch off and not think.
Brammall is likeable enough but too often goes Gervais. Only he isn't anywhere as good as Gervais at being Gervais. Should simply have stuck at being the Brammall he was at other times, which was likeable and more honest feeling.
Dyer brings more depth to her character and to me didn't feel like she was trying to be someone else. But it was only "more depth", not a lot of depth or originality.
Where things are interesting is Dyer's interaction with her screen mother, Thomson. This does get played throughout but it should have been played much, much more. It is what the show should principally have been about, not a Brammall/Dyer romcom.
The rest of the cast are paper thin and both they and the plot loaded with stereotypes. Yawn.
Eventually I got to Ep 6 and the dislikeability of the new supporting characters in this episode, the script and tone so jarred with Ep 1-5 that I gave up half way though. On it and the show.
I wouldn't recommend, unless there isn't anything better to watch. Which there is.