I was entertained by the entire episode, but felt that it ended a bit too melodramatically. Our two criminals are shown to be as ruthless and vicious as they can be. The young woman begins to act in crazy ways, even more so than she did in the first half, making us wonder who is really the dangerous one. She is utterly fixated on finding the little boy that she gave up at age fourteen. We are made to fear for the lives of anyone that has an association with this little boy. Still, in fairness, it is quite good.
6 Reviews
Killer on the Tube
Tweekums14 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
These comments refer to the entire two part story.
This story sees the team investigating to apparently unrelated deaths; a female deacon has been killed in her home and a drunk homeless man has fallen in front of a tube train. Meanwhile Lana Sutherland; a witness to the tube death has taken sympathy on another homeless man sat outside the station and invited him back to her place this looks like it could be a fatal mistake as he seems distinctly creepy and it isn't long before we see him attacking more people who end up on the mortuary slab. Lana asks for his help finding the son she put up for adoption putting more people in danger. Away from the main case one of the investigating officers approaches Nikki, asking her to investigate a cold case concerning his mother who spent several years in gaol for killing her husband he is convinced she is innocent despite her confession.
For most of this story it looks obvious who the killer is; the only apparent question is whether Lana will become his victim or his accomplice. Jack Roth is distinctly creepy as Owen Hanmore, the obvious suspect, and Leila Mimmack is nicely ambiguous as Lana. The familiar setting of the London Underground and the apparently unrelated victims make this a somewhat disturbing story taking the Tube after watching this would be like going for a swim after watching 'Jaws'! The conclusion does involve the obligatory twist but it isn't too far-fetched. The second case involving the policeman's mother is interesting but a bit irrelevant as the character is unlikely to appear again. Overall a solid story if not quite as gripping as the season opener.
This story sees the team investigating to apparently unrelated deaths; a female deacon has been killed in her home and a drunk homeless man has fallen in front of a tube train. Meanwhile Lana Sutherland; a witness to the tube death has taken sympathy on another homeless man sat outside the station and invited him back to her place this looks like it could be a fatal mistake as he seems distinctly creepy and it isn't long before we see him attacking more people who end up on the mortuary slab. Lana asks for his help finding the son she put up for adoption putting more people in danger. Away from the main case one of the investigating officers approaches Nikki, asking her to investigate a cold case concerning his mother who spent several years in gaol for killing her husband he is convinced she is innocent despite her confession.
For most of this story it looks obvious who the killer is; the only apparent question is whether Lana will become his victim or his accomplice. Jack Roth is distinctly creepy as Owen Hanmore, the obvious suspect, and Leila Mimmack is nicely ambiguous as Lana. The familiar setting of the London Underground and the apparently unrelated victims make this a somewhat disturbing story taking the Tube after watching this would be like going for a swim after watching 'Jaws'! The conclusion does involve the obligatory twist but it isn't too far-fetched. The second case involving the policeman's mother is interesting but a bit irrelevant as the character is unlikely to appear again. Overall a solid story if not quite as gripping as the season opener.
Edge of the seat viewing.
Sleepin_Dragon16 July 2018
The second part of Falling Angels see the team take on a couple who behave as a modern day, violence fuelled Bonnie and Clyde. The first part was truly excellent, captivating and gripping viewing, the concluding episode was all that and more.
First of all I mist give credit to writer Graham Mitchell, who was responsible for episodes such as a Special Relationship and coup de grace, it had more of a thriller feel to it, could have easily been a Waking the Dead script.
Leila Mimmack and Jack Roth were both remarkable, and his tranafotransfoscene was incredible. The pair combined superbly, Roth perhaps stealing the show.
A brilliant twist at the end, one which I'm sure nobody expected, those elements make for a story I would deem a classic, up there with Shadows. 10/10
First of all I mist give credit to writer Graham Mitchell, who was responsible for episodes such as a Special Relationship and coup de grace, it had more of a thriller feel to it, could have easily been a Waking the Dead script.
Leila Mimmack and Jack Roth were both remarkable, and his tranafotransfoscene was incredible. The pair combined superbly, Roth perhaps stealing the show.
A brilliant twist at the end, one which I'm sure nobody expected, those elements make for a story I would deem a classic, up there with Shadows. 10/10
Cheating the Audience
retina_scan29 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Unlike others, I found this one of the weakest episodes to date. Plot development and character motivation is rather clumsy and for the sake of dramatic twists rather than conistency in storytelling. So we are told that the first guy who was pushed off the tube platform was 'muscle' for her but in what way? And why did she push him? There's some other details that don't make sense - since when do people arrange to meet in a tube platform, like Niki and the Scottish guy do? Halfway through episode 2, it all turns into a rather clumsy North London Bonnie & Clyde.
What bothers me mostly is when writers are cheating the audience. There are long scenes in episode 1 that are clealry filmed to portray her as the person in danger and him the dangerous guy. The way they are filmed, the framing, point of view, etc. All point to that direction. The twist in the end cancels all this out. This is just lazy and cheap storytelling that is cheating and insulting the audience. Pity because last week's story was one of the best.
What bothers me mostly is when writers are cheating the audience. There are long scenes in episode 1 that are clealry filmed to portray her as the person in danger and him the dangerous guy. The way they are filmed, the framing, point of view, etc. All point to that direction. The twist in the end cancels all this out. This is just lazy and cheap storytelling that is cheating and insulting the audience. Pity because last week's story was one of the best.
A mess filled with gun drill shaped plotholes!
harbinger-13 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Such a shame. Another well acted, nicely shot, effectively plotted episode let down by shoddy writing, editing and logistics.
The twist doesn't work. To the point it's almost insulting the audience. Lana can't have administered the killing blow, because the plot details around that make no sense. For the first kill, Rosemary, Owen doesn't yet know about the adopted child, because that is only revealed in the cafe later. So how can he know to kill the person who gave her away before he knows Lana had a child that was given away?
Now, let's play devil's advocate and assume maybe the scenes were non-linear. So the cafe scene happened before the kill. Which of course makes no sense, but still. Now the second kill, the ex-boyfriend and father to the child is supposedly killed by Lana, but in that same sequence Owen returns to the apartment to find Lana tucked up in bed. Now, again, allowing for some leeway, maybe Lana returned home before him and waited for him to come home.
But then why on the third kill, Jamal, when the twist shows her administering the killing blow, does she then act like she knows nothing about the killings after his face appears on the TV. Which means that altercation in the bathroom also doesn't make a lick of sense considering the twist reveals they killed Jamal together.
And after all that frankly lazy, embarrassing plotholes (all of which are in the script by the way, so the editor can't be blamed), factor in all the ridiculous other coincidental, deus-ex-machina nonsense throughout. Chief of those being how lucky it is that not only everyone they need to kill take the tube and all still live in London, but that they also travel with enough frequency that all of them can be killed within the short week time frame the events take place.
Not to mention the questionable moralistic concept that a sociopath can seemingly pick any random homeless person and manipulate them to kill. What a wonderful zeitgeist message!
This is ludicrous. Embarrassing. And insulting to the audience. Which is a shame, because the episode has merit in other areas, particularly a shocking (in the way it's shot. It's obvious from the start this will be their fate), but fitting denouement. But in all honestly, after this episode I only felt cheated and insulted.
The twist doesn't work. To the point it's almost insulting the audience. Lana can't have administered the killing blow, because the plot details around that make no sense. For the first kill, Rosemary, Owen doesn't yet know about the adopted child, because that is only revealed in the cafe later. So how can he know to kill the person who gave her away before he knows Lana had a child that was given away?
Now, let's play devil's advocate and assume maybe the scenes were non-linear. So the cafe scene happened before the kill. Which of course makes no sense, but still. Now the second kill, the ex-boyfriend and father to the child is supposedly killed by Lana, but in that same sequence Owen returns to the apartment to find Lana tucked up in bed. Now, again, allowing for some leeway, maybe Lana returned home before him and waited for him to come home.
But then why on the third kill, Jamal, when the twist shows her administering the killing blow, does she then act like she knows nothing about the killings after his face appears on the TV. Which means that altercation in the bathroom also doesn't make a lick of sense considering the twist reveals they killed Jamal together.
And after all that frankly lazy, embarrassing plotholes (all of which are in the script by the way, so the editor can't be blamed), factor in all the ridiculous other coincidental, deus-ex-machina nonsense throughout. Chief of those being how lucky it is that not only everyone they need to kill take the tube and all still live in London, but that they also travel with enough frequency that all of them can be killed within the short week time frame the events take place.
Not to mention the questionable moralistic concept that a sociopath can seemingly pick any random homeless person and manipulate them to kill. What a wonderful zeitgeist message!
This is ludicrous. Embarrassing. And insulting to the audience. Which is a shame, because the episode has merit in other areas, particularly a shocking (in the way it's shot. It's obvious from the start this will be their fate), but fitting denouement. But in all honestly, after this episode I only felt cheated and insulted.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
