volare12 Reviews

Midsomer Murders: Claws Out (2023) Season 24, Episode 3

WHAT is wrong with Fleur?

[1/10 · 22 December 2023]

I could barely make it through this episode, because the writers seem to have decided to make Annette Badland's character an increasingly unpleasant b---- whose preferred mode of snark is making fun of DI Winter and implying that he's an idiot every chance she gets. Winter has never been presented as less than an intelligent person and astute cop, nor has he ever demonstrated any animosity toward the M. E., so where this is suddenly coming from makes no sense at all. Badland is a good actress, but if the writers think that Fleur's many "fringe" past interests and snippy and condescending attitude make her funny, they're seriously mistaken. This episode is the worst example yet of their miscalculation. As for the actual story... well, some people get killed (a couple rather gruesomely), there are dogs and cats involved, and the case gets solved. And Fleur ends up with ...wait for it ....an insult-comic parrot as a pet! Uyyyyy. Next....

Grade: F--

Marple: A Murder Is Announced (2005) Season 1, Episode 4

If you see an announcement for a murder, just ignore it and stay home

[3/10 · 20 December 2023]

Sillier-than-usual Christie fare which begins with a shooting death, made to appear as though the deceased committed suicide right after making an unsuccessful robbery/murder attempt on someone else. A bunch of people inexplicably have been invited via an advertisement to be present as "witnesses", under the pretext of it being a party game. The machinations involved in the setup are absurd and unconvincing, sending up immediate red flags for viewers, and the scheme begins to unravel immediately under investigation, eventually leaving more dead bodies to contend with. The entire plot is unnecessarily complicated - there are too many characters who have no motive for the crimes, and too many side stories that just serve to muddy things up. Meanwhile the true culprit's identity becomes all too obvious by halfway through the story, leaving the viewer impatient for everyone else onscreen to catch up.

The actors are very good, though, particularly Robert Pugh, Cherie Lunghi, Claire Skinner and Matthew Goode, and the production values are superb. But oddly, those positives only serve to point up a trap in Christie's writing: it often doesn't work well on film when it's presented as ultra-seriously and lovingly as it is here, because the basic implausibility of it all gets thrown into greater relief. A lighter and more casual touch almost always serves her better, IMO. This particular story winds up not making much sense, because the motivation for the crimes turns out to be rather weak. There doesn't seem to be any real reason why the villain would need to resort to murder.

Crash (I) (2004)

Depressingly intelligence-insulting and pretentious - nothing to see (or learn) here

[1/10 · 21 May 2023]

With its noteworthy cast of actors and potentially compelling subject matter, "Crash" should have been a good movie. In other creative hands (i.e. A different writer and director) it very well might have been. Before I saw it I didn't know much about it, but I had heard good things from people I knew (this was in 2005, before the movie was even on the Oscar radar), so I was expecting at least a reasonably good film-watching experience. But when I did watch it, I almost immediately began to get a gnawing sense of "WTF?" The dialogue quickly revealed itself, starting right with Don Cheadle's quasi-profound (but actually absurd and nonsensical) opening voice-over, to be embarrassingly self-conscious and awkward, and the plot lines soon followed suit. I remember thinking "Well, this must get better, right?" Alas, it did not, and well before the end of the movie my neck was hurting from all the head-shaking in disbelief I was doing. To say I was disappointed is a considerable understatement. And as I encountered others singing its praises, I had to wonder: Why were so many being taken in by this lame Afterschool-Special-wannabe-masquerading-as-a-serious-film?

Perhaps it had to do with the overwrought and portentous sounding score, which seems to be constantly saying "Pay attention now, this is IMPORTANT!" Or the non-stop, in-your-face-with-a-vengeance confrontations which occur in every scene - the unsuspecting viewer might buy that all the artificial melodrama and manufactured histrionics are leading to some big statement. For me these manipulative tactics did not work, because I got no sense from the script that Paul Haggis had any authentic knowledge at all of the people, situations and feelings he was writing about, nor that he had bothered to do any meaningful investigation of them. Haggis picked human prejudice and alienation as his big themes for the film, but he isn't interested in presenting a believable story and letting us have our own reactions to it, he wants to "instruct" us, by telling us exactly what we are supposed to be thinking and feeling at every moment during his "thesis", and he uses the most ham-fisted and transparently calculated methods to do so. His film amounts to a schematic, all plot machinations with no substance. It features lots of characters interacting, but only two diametrically opposed character arcs, one or the other of which is assigned, by-the-numbers style, to just about every person with any substantial screen time. To wit:

Arc 1: Character appears racist, bigoted and generally unpleasant in day to day situations, but at a later point is revealed to be capable of some sort of tolerant and even possibly caring behavior.

Arc 2: Character appears morally sympathetic and trustworthy, but later is revealed to have underlying prejudices which are expressed verbally or through nefarious or destructive actions, or sometimes both.

Those are your two choices as far as storylines. The characters have about as much dimension as stick figures (even their names barely register while you're watching, and you won't remember them afterward), and the arcs invariably play out in a heavy-handed and graceless manner, with contrived coincidences and "epiphanies" that don't ring true. The events shown might well be within the realm of possible occurrence, but they are so poorly motivated in the writing that at virtually no point in the movie did I ever feel like I was watching real life.

And there you have "Crash". Haggis' MO is simply to take the above and rinse and repeat. And rinse and repeat again. The movie might as well be titled "You Shouldn't Judge A Book By Its Cover" since that's really the only point it makes. (Amazingly, some reviewers seem to find this grade school moralization to be the most original and thought-provoking idea in the world, as if without their having seen the movie it would never have occurred to them!) And if you don't get it the first time, don't worry, because with nothing else to offer, Haggis insists on making the point over and over. And over. And over. And OVER. Prepare to have many anvils dropped on your head.

Bad enough that this was given an Oscar for Best Picture, but IMO its Best Screenplay award is even more incomprehensible. Despite what many on here say (and what many in Hollywood tried to convince themselves of), the one thing the film does NOT do is seriously explore the complexities of racism, societal conflict and existential anguish. None of these subjects is portrayed with any true depth or insight. "Crash" is nothing more than a simplistic, amateurish, lowest-common-denominator hack job. It wants you to think it's saying something important, but in reality it's dishonest, shallow and clueless, and ultimately illuminates nothing.

As I Am (2020)

Strangely written movie with a couple of good performances

[5/10 · 12 March 2023]

I watched "As I Am" after reading the reviews on this site. I'm not sure why I read the reviews first, and I'm not sure why I watched the movie after reading them, since they seemed to be largely negative. Normally that would have put me off, but the trailer was intriguing enough to me that I decided to give it a go anyway.

I won't lie: much of the negativity on here is definitely justified. The worst aspect of the movie by far is the writing, acting and direction of the principal adult characters. As the respective parents of Emmanuel and Demetrius (the two young men who are the romantic protagonists of the story), they simply do not resemble any real people on this planet - they are over the top caricatures and stereotypes saying and doing ridiculous things, and I was cringing in disbelief watching their scenes (some of which appear to be intended as comic relief but fall way short of the mark). It's hard to pick who is the worst offender acting-wise, but my vote would be Rodney Chester as Kevin, one of Demetrius' adoptive fathers who's way too in touch with his inner "sassy black woman" - a truly obnoxious performance.

The shallow awfulness of these characters cannot be overstated, and its effect on the movie as a whole is almost insurmountably detrimental. Which is too bad, because Emmanuel and Demetrius, whose story this is, are actually interesting and appealing. They could have been better developed (the film is very short for a feature, clocking in at just over an hour, so a little more time spent on the principal relationship would not have been a bad thing), but actors Andre Myers and Jerimiyah Dunbar have a great chemistry together and are very convincing in their roles. Myers has the more difficult part - his socially awkward Emmanuel appears almost on the autism spectrum at times - but he pulls it off very well, and Dunbar has a natural screen presence, making Demetrius very likable, with both worldliness and vulnerability. I did find it believable that the two characters would fall for each other, primarily because of the actors' skills, but the writer would have done well to flesh out their relationship more. The ending is abrupt and very clumsily handled - out of left field Emmanuel confronts a familial abuse situation from his past, but it's just barely touched on, and the next thing you know the two romantic heroes are apparently heading off together for parts unknown.

I wouldn't say this is a good movie, but it does have some worthwhile ideas floating around in it, and two commendable lead performances. Several reviewers have complained about the sound quality, but I didn't notice anything particularly amiss about it, and that's something that *would* bother me if it was present. If you watch "As I Am", my advice would be to fast forward through any scenes that the parents are in - you won't be missing anything.

Complete Strangers (2020)

This is awful

[1/10 · 5 March 2023]

Ok, disclaimer: I didn't make it past the first half hour or so of "Complete Strangers". That was all I could stomach, but even based just on that, I feel safe in saying this movie is really bad. Nonsensical dialogue, illogical scenes that have no setup or conclusion, terrible editing with no feel for storytelling, and woefully sub-par acting across the board. To be fair, the supporting actors at least seem to be trying to inject their roles with some real emotion despite the absurd non sequiturs they're saddled with having to say. The lead actor, however, is truly abysmal - completely flat and unengaging. And, he also wrote and directed this! Frankly it's a mystery to me how it ever got released. One star for the visuals and the music, which are of a quality far better than this film deserves. My advice: if you're a complete stranger to this movie, keep it that way.

Mulligans (2008)

Not great

[3/10 · 18 February 2023]

The plot of this film concerns what happens to an outwardly-appearing perfect and happy family, when a situation occurs which forces the husband/father to confront the fact that he's gay - something he's been hiding from everyone, including himself, for pretty much the length of his married life. (Not altogether successfully, as it turns out - his wife has had suspicions for quite awhile, but chose to ignore them, until that becomes impossible.)

"Mulligans" could have addressed this interesting situation and issue in a realistic and compelling way, but alas, the writing is just too simplistic and shallow. The portrayal of the central conundrum seems accurate enough in a few places, but only a few. Mostly everything is just too pat and easy. Not helping the story's credibility is the casting, which has actor Dan Payne (36 at the time) playing the father of actor Derek Baynham (28 at the time). Baynham looks his age or older, and can't really pull off playing a college-age undergrad. Payne IS the right age to play someone who got married and had a son 20 years earlier while still a teenager, but he perpetually gives off an almost callow and unformed vibe, like an overgrown kid, which is all wrong for what the father's exterior should be. The two characters inevitably read much more like brothers or friends than father and son. This casting is such a serious misstep that the movie never recovers from it - the necessary suspension of disbelief is just too great. And though Payne and actress Thea Gill are compatible age-wise, they are nonetheless also not convincing as a married couple who've been together 20 years, Gill at times seeming more like Payne's mom than his wife.

And let's talk about the film's title. You thought it must be the name of the family, right? But no, "mulligan" is apparently a golf term, having to do with second chances during a game. What it *doesn't* have to do with is anything in the movie. Granted, there is a lot of talk about golf (both father and son are really into it), but it feels as if the writer, Charlie David, decided on the title first just because he liked it, and then in order to justify using it, threw in all the golf stuff despite it being pretty much irrelevant to the story. Thus while "Mulligans" may be an intriguing title before you see the movie, afterward it just seems like a stupid one.

Much of the rest of the writing is equally clumsy. The father falls into a clandestine affair with the son's visiting best friend from school (played by David, who is only slightly more believable than Baynham age-wise), but the two infatuated men inexplicably pick locations for indulging in French kissing that are virtually guaranteed to get them discovered, which happens not once but twice. But, no worries: the mess that is created when the truth is found out by everyone is well on its way to being straightened out (no pun intended) after, like, A DAY, and all parties involved are moving on optimistically shortly thereafter ("Hey, it wasn't such a big crisis after all, was it?"). The mom/wife bizarrely goes from being a conservative and uptight semi-harpy to seemingly the wisest and most philosophical and accepting person in the room, in the space of a few hours. The son gets over his initial anger pretty quickly, and the dad decides to leave and try to find a way to live an authentic life. The gay friend also leaves, his relationship with his college buddy now being awkward but maybe still salvageable.

The actors mostly give it their all, but it's a losing battle. For me Amy Matysio came off the best, making an engaging impression in the un-angsty role of the son's girlfriend. Some reviewers commented that "Mulligans" is like a Lifetime movie, which is a pretty accurate assessment: it's a soap opera episode masquerading as a serious flick. If that type of fare is to your taste, then check it out. If not, well then..... don't, and spend your time more productively.

Midsomer Murders: Dressed to Kill (2023) Season 23, Episode 4

What did I just watch?

[1/10 · 29 January 2023]

Wow. Where to begin? The current season of Midsomer has not been the best. The first three episodes have all been less than stellar. But Dressed To Kill, the fourth episode, is just..... awful. No, let me rephrase that: WHAT. A. HOT. MESS.

The story is all over the place and nothing seems to make sense or go together. It's set in a small village where apparently lots of people are into cross-dressing, so we get an upcoming drag queens' night which was voted to take place over some bizarre production of Romeo And Juliet that was going to feature an in-his-fifties washed up actor making a comeback as Romeo. Right... (and speaking of bizarre, the would-be Romeo and his mother are played by actors who appear to be the same age.) Then we also have a domino festival, championed by the first murder victim, which falls more in line with the "quirky suburban" activity typically found in Midsomer - but it gets hardly any screen time at all and winds up being basically irrelevant. And last but not least, a strange case of Munchausen By Proxy syndrome coupled with child imprisonment going on in one of the local families.

It's unfortunate that Sophie Stone was given such a drecky story in which to appear - she is such a good actress that she manages to make her character not only credible (something no one else in the cast is able to achieve) but even almost sympathetic, no mean feat considering how unpalatable her plot line is. Her talents notwithstanding, the episode is pretty much unsalvageable. Watching it, it felt almost as though Barnaby and Winter weren't even doing any real investigating at all, they were just perfunctorily going though the motions of trying to look like they were, while everything just sort of happened around them. And really, is there anything M. E. Fleur *hasn't* done in her life? Now we find out that she also has a drag persona in her past. Sure, whatever...

I would advise anyone considering watching this one to observe the self-counseling mantra of George Costanza from "Seinfeld": "Think of what you would normally do, and then do the opposite."

Whitstable Pearl: Night Terrors (2022) Season 2, Episode 2

The neighbors are restless

[7/10 · 13 December 2022]

This is an entertaining if rather improbable tale, featuring a premise unabashedly cribbed from Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window", with a twist from Dario Argento's "The Bird With The Crystal Plumage" thrown in for good measure. It starts off with Mike laid up at home with his ankle in a cast (we are given only a vague explanation for this situation, but apparently Nikki, his police colleague, is somehow responsible). His girlfriend comes by when she can, bringing food and good cheer, and he occupies most of his time with looking out his front window at the apartment complex across the street, where all the units have floor-to-ceiling windows spanning the entire length of the front facade, and all the residents inexplicably leave all their blinds all the way open ALL THE TIME (I'm not exaggerating). One wonders, is having exhibitionist tendencies a prerequisite for living in this building? Mike, of course, also has his blinds open, which begs another question: why don't any of the neighbors notice him watching them? - he's plainly visible, sitting right in the window! As I said, improbability reigns here. .

The plot thickens when Mike begins to suspect something fishy is going on with the married couple living in one of the apartments. Armed with a high-powered camera, he starts taking photos, and then enlists Pearl's aid to investigate. She becomes a sort of Grace Kelly to his James Stewart, but unlike in Hitchcock's film where the voyeur protagonist's suspicions are confirmed, here circumstances are not what they look like, and it turns out that Mike's surveillance may not have gone completely unnoticed after all. In a subplot, Pearl has an outside client who talks like a budding psycho, which fortuitously winds up clueing her in to the solution to the mystery. There is a decent amount of effective suspense, and the whole thing is very well and stylishly directed, but a few story points don't make sense and/or are hard to swallow. It's enjoyable enough, though, if you don't take it too seriously. For me it's a 7 out of 10.

Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators: Time Decays (2022) Season 4, Episode 9

Best served cold... again

[6/10 · 12 September 2022]

Oh no, another revenge story. Okayyyy...

Well, the beginning does set up an interesting mystery, and it's clever the way the first scenes are presented out of sequence. The story quickly settles into a more straight-ahead format once the flashback recounting of events begins, but unfortunately it becomes very easy to guess where and with whom it's all going to end - virtually everything a certain character does telegraphs the person's eventual unmasking as the guilty party. And OK, the walk setting is imaginative, and the hikers are a reasonably colorful bunch, but still, when you get down to it, the resolution feels kind of "been there, done that". Even the element of Frank being a specific target of the villain's plot was already used in the second season episode "The Offered Fallacy".

The guest actors are all very good though, particularly Christopher Simon, Elizabeth Cadwallader and Yasmin Wilde. And Mark Benton gets an excellent showcase for his talents here - among many good moments, it's nice to actually see Frank going out on a date for once, short-lived though it is. "Time Decays" ultimately is a pleasantly diverting, if not especially remarkable, episode.

Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators: Most Wicked Speed (2022) Season 4, Episode 4

A strange one

[4/10 · 6 September 2022]

"Most Wicked Speed" actually has a somewhat original mystery floating around the heart of it, which is a small plus. On the downside, however, I found it hard to keep track of the particulars of the case, or to maintain my interest in any of the characters. A problematic aspect right off the bat is that the viewer's entrée into the story, which begins with the discovery of a murder and the arrest of a suspect, is via an American P. I. named Joe Venice, who dresses and talks like he's in a 1940's hard-boiled film noir, with occasional lapses into sounding like Rod Serling introducing an episode of "The Twilight Zone". Whichever way, his line readings strongly suggest that he's doing a parody of the P. I. genre - which might have worked if the rest of the episode had followed suit. Nothing outside his scenes stays in that vein, though - everything else is played in a straight, contemporary and naturalistic style, serious for the most part, except for Frank's interactions with Jason (a shady sort he's had run-ins with before), which veer into slapstick comedy, and Lu's interactions with handsome race car driver Reece Alonso, which veer into rom-com cutesiness. Then the ending, out of nowhere, becomes an emotional family reunion between two of the characters. The result of it all is a rather confused and confusing hodgepodge, both plot wise and stylistically.

It's too bad because some of the actors - Sally Rogers, Caroline O'Neill and Terry Mynott - are very good. The same can't be said for Canadian actor Kerry Shale, who plays Joe Venice. Shale has apparently done a ton of voice acting, and unfortunately it shows in his portrayal here, which seems to be more about displaying vocal mannerisms than depicting a real person. His is not the only performance that's questionable though - the usually reliable Patrick Walshe McBride gives Sebastian's undercover alter-ego (a sort of 1950's beatnik/biker type) an equally bizarre and completely unconvincing accent and characterization.

At least the valuable object everyone is searching for, when finally revealed, is impressively gorgeous. But other than that, this episode is not a memorable one.

Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators: Best Beware My Sting (2020) Season 3, Episode 7

Kiss Me Kate...

[8/10 · 27 August 2022]

"Best Beware My Sting" is a good S & H episode, but I am a bit surprised at the description of it as "lighthearted" and "fun" in a few reviews - I wouldn't characterize it as such. It begins typically enough for the series, with Frank and Lu being hired by corporate bigwig Gordon Minola to prevent the radical environmentalist group Mortal Coil, of which his older daughter Kate is a key member, from undermining his efforts to get a fracking contract for his energy company. Minola also wants the detectives to ensure that nothing sabotages the imminent wedding of his younger daughter Bianca to her wealthy fiancé Lucas de Boulay. There are laughs to be had, true, from the difficulty everyone experiences in trying to wrangle firebrand Kate, whose go-to move when she's angry is to throw things at people's heads. A verbal exchange through a glass window between Frank and Bianca's ex-boyfriend Rufus also affords some goofiness, but the story turns dark quickly, with a kidnapping and then a murder figuring into the plot. Suspicion points in various directions, but as it turns out, the person behind it all is truly a cold-blooded sociopath of a type not often encountered on the show.

There are good guest acting performances all around, particularly from Caitlin Drabble, Lucy Pearson and Tim Renouf. The storyline has a lot going on, which results in it feeling rushed in certain areas: the kidnapping and its subsequent resolution could have been given more weight visually and dramatically, and we should have seen more of the murder victim before the character's demise. I agree with the reviewer who pointed out that Bard aficionado Sebastian would surely have commented on the two sisters' names at some point - the writer missed an opportunity there, but gets points for a reference to a nearby location called "Shrew's Croft".

Overall I would say this episode has a slightly more serious feel than usual for this show, but that's not a bad thing at all.

Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators: See Thyself, Devil! (2020) Season 3, Episode 2

Look both ways before... you know

[3/10 · 24 August 2022]

I love Shakespeare and Hathaway, so I hate to say it, but: "See Thyself Devil" is really not a good episode. The aging-rock-star-making-a-comeback trope has been done to death - it's been on virtually every British mystery show, and this series' contribution adds nothing new or noteworthy into the mix. It's evident pretty much from the outset who the culprit will turn out to be, and guess what? Why, it's another unrecognized person come back to avenge a slight committed against a family member years earlier! - a plot device S & H has already squeezed dry in previous seasons.

This time the rockstar, whose name is Tony King, is seeing bizarre and threatening visions of the devil (in the form of a black beast), and is convinced he's doomed unless Frank and Lu can get to the bottom of what's going on. The only actual death that occurs, though, happens in a silly scene in which a former member of King's band, now a vicar, sees the same "devil" behind the altar of his church, and goes running, screaming, out into the street where he promptly gets hit by a bus just as Frank and Lu are arriving to talk to him. (At least Tony has an excuse for his hallucinatory perceptions, seemingly being in a drug addled state much of the time, but the sober vicar surely should be able to tell that the thing behind the altar is just a person in a costume, because THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I mean, come on...)

The whole story is very lackluster. David Schofield does give a good performance as Tony, his face looking suitably almost as craggy as Keith Richards', but the character is an idiot and a jerk so it's difficult to care about him, and Hathaway behaving like a fanboy gets annoying. Ginny Holder is usually fun to watch, but she's also saddled with a cliché role here: the publicist who is motivated only by dollar signs. The other few guest actors barely register since their characters aren't interesting. I'll give three stars, only because Gloria gets a substantial part and a good backstory to boot, and because Sebastian gets one of his funnier undercover disguises (even though it's not really clear why he's needed). But mostly, this one's a no-go.

The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: The Ordeal of Mrs. Snow (1964) Season 2, Episode 25

The Cat's Meow

[9/10 · 10 August 2022]

"The Ordeal Of Mrs. Snow" is a good entry in the AHH series: suspenseful but not overly melodramatic, with interesting character conflicts and believable plot twists resulting from them. And, for animal lovers, it has cats! - two beautiful Siamese felines named Jack and Martha who are introduced at the very start as the pampered pets of wealthy widow Adelaide Snow. Adelaide (or Addie) is allowing her newly-married niece Lorna and nephew-in-law Bruce to live in her ritzy New York townhouse, but the situation is a bit awkward: Lorna is the beneficiary of her late father's will but does not have access to her inheritance for another year, while Bruce is from a humble background and, we learn, came into the marriage with some gambling debts, which Aunt Addie was willing to pay off for him, keeping it a secret from Lorna. Bruce currently works for Addie's financial advisor Hillary, but is anxious to move up in the world, and Lorna is frustrated at seeing him have to prove himself.

That's the initial setup, but things get really sticky when Bruce gets in financial straits again and Addie discovers he has forged her signature on checks in order to pay off his creditors. When she threatens to blow the whistle on him, he takes an impulsive action which puts her in real jeopardy. The subsequent suspense stems from seeing how it all will play out, and whether Addie will survive the life-threatening ordeal of the episode's title.

The writing and direction are very well done. A nice touch is that we experience the pivotal plot turn from Adelaide's POV only, making it more of a shock and heightening her realization of her circumstances. The tension is ratcheted up by cutting back and forth between Adelaide's desperate efforts to cope with her situation, and Bruce and Lorna partying with friends in the Hamptons (Lorna is unaware of her aunt's predicament but gradually begins to suspect that something is amiss back home). Also clever is how the cats' presence, incidental at first, becomes a crucial part of the story. And in a neat reversal, we get the climactic denouement from Bruce's POV. The ending, although fairly expected, still manages to hold a surprise and the resolution is left somewhat up in the air, which I actually like.

The acting is generally up to the series' high standard: Patricia Collinge is excellent as Adelaide, displaying the character's backbone as well as her fragility, and Jessica Walter adeptly navigates Lorna's slowly dawning realizations about her new husband. My one criticism is that Bruce is written a bit one-dimensionally as a villain, and Don Chastain's portrayal doesn't really add much depth. Still, this episode is very effective overall, and it's well worth catching.

The Chelsea Detective (2022– )

Gets the job done (but that's about it)

[5/10 · 15 July 2022]

This series looked somewhat promising from the blurbs about it, but it's basically just another run-of-the-mill cop show, of the type that seems to abound on the airwaves these days. I watched all four episodes of the first season, but for me there's nothing particularly remarkable about it. The regular characters are not terribly compelling to watch - the main character is dyslexic, apparently, but this doesn't really add anything of interest to the way the cases get solved; meanwhile his partner is a new mom who seems bemused by everything at work and perplexed by everything at home. They have two associates on their detective team who cover all the diversity checkboxes (one is male, black, married, straight; the other is female, white, single, likely gay from the way she dresses) while having no discernible personalities to speak of.

The plots deal in some interesting milieux, but the writing rarely seems to take advantage of it, instead going for a "been there, done that" feel. The cases are needlessly complicated (in this new universe of detective shows, murder is never straightforward), and our protagonists invariably discover as they investigate that almost everyone who knew the victim not only had a possible motive for the murder, but also had some contact with the victim shortly before the crime took place. Then, in a stunning twist (I'm being sarcastic), none of them turn out to be guilty and the culprit is revealed to be the one person whom the police have been completely ignoring as a suspect the entire time. This happens in EVERY SINGLE EPISODE, adding to the by-the-numbers feeling that pervades the writing.

The main character (I honestly can't even think of his name - Max, maybe?) has also just gone through, or is in the process of going through, a divorce. His ex (or soon-to-be ex) blathers about them having to move on, but nevertheless keeps finding excuses to show up at his houseboat, which she constantly makes fun of (although to me it's the coolest and most unique thing about the show). Their relationship is actually sort of intriguing, more so than the cases. I will give points also for the coroner character - it's nice to see a hearing-impaired person portrayed in a skilled professional capacity, and her pleasant and helpful attitude is a refreshing change from the usual "snarky oddball" M. E. persona that seems to have become de rigueur on cop shows.

The acting is ok, though again without being in any way exceptional, and the same goes for the cinematography and the music score. Everything about "The Chelsea Detective" feels very perfunctory. The show isn't exactly bad, but I can't say it's good either. Mainly, it's... there. As a police procedural/murder mystery series, it gets its job done, but only just. If you're willing to settle for that, then check it out.

ETA October 2023: After leaving the show alone for awhile, I decided to give the second season a shot (to be honest, I had forgotten all about it until I happened to see it again on my Acorn TV show list). I lasted for about forty-five minutes, roughly halfway through the first episode, before giving up completely. I couldn't believe it: the show is even duller than before! Everything about the story is boring beyond belief. The circumstances of the murder showed a tinge of promise - the victim is an art gallery manager killed during a heist - but the suspects are a sadly uninteresting lot, and the behavior of the detectives is appalling. The regulars have NO chemistry together and even less personality than they did in the first season - and, I might add, none of them are the least bit physically attractive so there's not even any eye candy factor to be a distraction from the dreariness. The new policewoman played by Vanessa Emme is obnoxious, and Adrian Scarborough's titular character is practically a cipher. None of them are likable or sympathetic at all. The only bright spot is Sophie Stone, but since she's playing the M. E. her screen time is limited.

I won't be finishing the episode, nor the rest of the season, and I am dropping my rating from 6 stars to 5, which is still being very generous. Watch at your own risk (of dozing off).

Vera: Recovery (2021) Season 11, Episode 2

Bizarre and disjointed

[5/10 · 10 March 2022]

This episode feels very off-the-mark for the series, to me. The teaser, showing moments from the last few days in the life of support worker Angela Konan, is spooky and atmospheric, but the way it's edited makes it hard to follow exactly what's happening and in what sequence it happens. After Angela's corpse is discovered in the woods of a national park, Vera and team show up to investigate. Vera seems needlessly harsh in her interviews of those acquainted with the victim, and though the witnesses involved act suspiciously and withhold information, it appears to be for no real reason other than to drag out the story by necessitating repeat interviews with the police, in order to fill out the episode's running time. Mark Benton does make a good impression in his low-key role as a secretive park ranger.

The entire story feels contrived, and although, as pointed out in other reviews, guest actor Jamie Ballard does a standout job in his interrogation scene, the denouement doesn't feel earned at all. It's also disappointing after all this time to see Aiden still basically just following Vera around like a lap dog and being given barely anything to do. Worst of all is the "Hallmark" ending, in which Vera and Aiden watch as the addict mother and her violence-prone daughter, who has already given her mom at least one black eye, walk off into the sunset together (Vera telling Aiden "they'll be alright", after cheerily advising the mom she'll have to "learn how to duck". I mean, WTF? Really? We're supposed to feel optimistic about this resolution?)

"Vera" has been a superb series which I have watched from the get-go, but the writing in this episode really falls short of the quality I've come to expect from the show. At least the location cinematography is up to its usual excellent standard, as is the acting. And I do like Riley Jones' new shaved-head look. Hopefully "Recovery" is just an aberration and the remainder of season 11 will be better.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Limitations (2000) Season 1, Episode 14

Good episode

[8/10 · 2 January 2022]

I was a fan of SVU in its first season, before it got ridiculously overblown and sanctimonious. This episode focuses on an unsolved serial rape case, on which the statute of limitations is about to expire. The SVU's attempts to close it before the deadline eventually bring to light an interesting legal and moral dilemma regarding one of the victims, who, it turns out, now knows who the rapist is but won't say. The performances of the actresses playing the victims are all very good, and the final revelation of the culprit's identity has a nicely ironic twist.

A side note: I really do wish people writing reviews on here would be more accurate with their facts. One of the previous reviewers for this ep credits the wrong actress in the pivotal role of the pacifist victim (and gets her first name wrong to boot - it's Seana Kofoed, not "Susan", and she plays one of the other victims). The other reviewer puts the right actress in the pacifist role, but gives her the wrong *last* name (it's Jenny Bacon, not "Baker"). Uyyy. Honestly, would it be so hard to just look up the correct information? It's all right here on this site.

Midsomer Murders: Drawing Dead (2018) Season 20, Episode 3

DR(awing d)EADFUL

[1/10 · 26 November 2021]

I guess I am in a minority judging from the other reviews, but I think this episode is just awful. Where to begin? Well, let's see - the character relationships are convoluted and hard to follow, and the characters themselves are generally unsympathetic and in some cases ridiculous. The murders don't make a whole lot of sense - the logic and motivations behind them are weak IMO, and I have a hard time buying that the murderer would actually go through with them. And the comic book festival (with attendees, including "fanboy" Winter, running around in silly costumes) and the competition over the inconsequential sheriff post both just make the whole mess seem juvenile.

The story hinges on the deaths - one in the recent past, one in the present - of two characters, one of whom we see only once very briefly in a flashback and the other of whom we never see at all. We learn so little about either of them that we have no investment in what led to their fates, and thus the motives for the subsequent murders fall completely flat. And as another reviewer pointed out, there is a glaring plot hole: Why wasn't any headway made by the police in solving Lord Argo's murder and the attack on Francesca at the time they happened? And, why does Barnaby act as if he's learning of that case for the first time? - he would have already been in Causton by then. Apparently not much thought was given to the continuity aspect here.

A sorry piece of writing this one is. The actors do the best they can, but to no avail. "Drawing Dead" is one of the most boring Midsomer outings I've seen - watching it I found myself barely able to stay awake, let alone muster up any interest in what was going on. Grade: F.

Midsomer Murders: Death of the Small Coppers (2018) Season 20, Episode 2

Death Of The Tiny Policemen?

[4/10 · 24 November 2021]

That's what I thought the title of this episode meant, when I first saw it in print - after all, "copper" is slang for "policeman". I was intrigued by the possibility of a visit to a Midsomer village that would have a diminutive constabulary. I can't say I'd ever heard of the "Small Copper" butterfly species before, and so I was somewhat disappointed to learn that the title referred not to humans but to insects. Frankly, my imagined plot line would not have been much more absurd than the actual explanation behind this story's murders.

The story itself is kind of amorphous - it comprises several elements that never really mesh together well, making the episode feel unfocused and all over the place. There are the missing Coppers of course, and we get a bit of "Collectors vs. Conservationists" debate. Also on hand is an exclusive and elite high IQ society, which is currently auditioning new membership candidates via a difficult exam. And for good measure, a mystery involving international espionage is also thrown in, bringing back a character from a previous case whose family history is somehow connected. All interesting plot strands in their own right, but bizarrely, the murders wind up not really having to do with any of them.

As other reviewers have already pointed out, the solution of the case comes out of left field - the murderer turns out to be someone whom we barely even see for most of the episode. The ways in which the character chooses to dispatch the victims would require a lot of time and effort to set up, particularly for the second and (attempted) third murders. When was the person able to do all this? And even more perplexing, WHY do it? The motives, when revealed, are extremely dubious and frankly, lame.

Some of the acting is enjoyable though - Ellie Haddington, Ray Fearon and Peter Egan turn in good performances, Mark Benton makes an amusing oddball, and Ella Kenion has a very funny scene in which her character displays an inordinate amount of glee at a time when it seems not quite appropriate. Fiona Dolman also gets some nice moments as Sarah, whose work is effectively integrated into the plot. On the other hand, a performance in the big denouement confession scene is so OTT as to be truly cringeworthy. Let's just say I wouldn't want it on *my* acting reel.

Overall grade for this one: C+

Mr & Mrs Murder (2013)

You Too Can Be A Murder Investigator! (even if you have another full-time career)

[6/10 · 8 October 2021]

"Mr. And Mrs. Murder" is a pleasant enough series, if you can get past the silly premise. Another entry in the by-now-rather-tired "Civilians Who Are Better At Police Work Than The Police" genre - you know, where the main characters have full-time private sector jobs that in actuality would keep them much too busy to do anything else, if they *did* their jobs instead of spending most of their time playing amateur detective - this one offers as said civilians Charlie and Nicola Buchanan, a husband and wife team of industrial cleaners who specialize in crime scenes. Hired to tidy up murder locales and restore them to normal well after the police forensic team has already gone over everything, they are inexplicably able to turn up all sorts of physical evidence and background facts that the real detectives somehow overlooked or conveniently didn't follow up on. And, of course, they wind up solving the cases. Yeah. Right....

We're talking well-trodden ground here, in the tradition of "Murder, She Wrote", "Rosemary And Thyme", "Father Brown", etc. The writing is actually decent though and does a good job of avoiding clichés, and the mysteries are pretty original and manage to hold some surprises. But the premise just becomes more and more absurd as the episodes progress and we watch our protagonists - whose job, I will point out again, is to CLEAN - staging re-enactments, following and/or questioning suspects, conducting unauthorized searches of private property (usually after gaining access under false pretenses), and in general demonstrating an almost pathologically obsessive preoccupation with matters completely outside their professional jurisdiction. One begins to wonder: If they really enjoy detective work so much, why not just *become* private investigators already?

One might also wonder whether anyone in the local constabulary ever takes any initiative at all in trying to uncover the truth behind the crimes, because it certainly never seems like that's the case. In the other series mentioned above the police are portrayed as capable, or at least functional, but in this show the only detective we ever see reports to the Buchanans to share confidential info and get updates and instructions, almost as if he is working under their supervision rather than the other way around.

Shaun Micallef and Kat Stewart do have a very good chemistry as the leads, even if their characters are always a little too "on" and their banter a little formulaic. Potentially more fun are Jonny Pasvolsky as the couple's nice-guy police contact/friend and Lucy Honigman as the reluctant niece who gets dragged into their shenanigans. It would be nice if the two of them got more screen time and more to do.

I suppose for some the show will pass muster as a disposable diversion, but I'm now just halfway through the first and only season and I find myself losing interest. I'm still not sure if I will watch all the remaining episodes. Grade: B-.

Midsomer Murders: Happy Families (2021) Season 22, Episode 3

Fails to deliver (if you get my drift)

[5/10 · 28 September 2021]

This one starts off really well. The setting is great: a lone mansion on a island accessible only by boat, at night during a heavy rainstorm (this being Midsomer, the island is presumably situated in the middle of a large lake, though that's never made clear). The first death occurs very dramatically during a posh birthday party for the unfortunate victim, wealthy game mogul Victor Karras. Attired in bright red raingear, M. E. Fleur determines cyanide poisoning to be the probable cause, and removes the body from the scene by ferry shortly after Barnaby (in bright yellow raingear) and Winter arrive to investigate. The situation gets much more tense when the detectives, along with all the other residents and party guests at the mansion, become stranded after the ferry gets washed away on the mainland side and the storm prevents any other boats from reaching the island. And making matters even worse for Barnaby, he had a row with Sarah before leaving home, and now is unable to reach her to let her know about his situation.

Very good setup, but the mystery of whodunit doesn't fulfill its expectations, unfortunately. The subplots are mostly pretty cliché: a failing business empire, a relative who wants to take over, a disgruntled employee who is stealing from the company, personal relationships on the rocks. Also making an appearance is the ever popular "murder-attempt-that-isn't" fake-out. At least the eventually discovered method of Karras' poisoning shows some imagination, and Winter finding the answer in the library rather than on the (unavailable) internet is a nice touch. The murder mystery party game could have been utilized in the plot in a more interesting way, but instead it's relatively inconsequential, its sole purpose being to provide the story with a second victim - a truly annoying character whose death, which most viewers will immediately guess is in the cards, couldn't come soon enough for me.

Worst of all, though, is the solution. The guilty party is one of the stupidest villains ever in the series: committing two murders, trying to frame an innocent person, and ruining a good handful of lives for a motive that, it turns out, doesn't even exist except in the killer's imagination. It's nothing more than a misunderstanding that could have been easily clarified by a simple conversation, and then everyone would have lived happily ever after.

On the plus side, the production values are great as usual. There are some wonderfully spooky visuals as Karras' corpse is being transported from the island and we see his wife Eleanor standing on the shore watching. And we get a nice shirtless shot of Nick Hendrix in pajama bottoms. The guest actors are fine for the most part, without being really noteworthy. Adrian Edmondson and Caroline Quentin take the hammy route, when underplaying might have been a more interesting choice for their roles. Rachael Stirling comes off the best as Eleanor, while Greg Lockett as Joshua, the thieving assistant, is very good-looking but finishes last acting-wise.

Not one of the show's worst episodes, but disappointing. I was expecting more after such a strong beginning.

Nebbie e delitti: I Misteri delle Donne (2005) Season 1, Episode 4

Could have been much better

[7/10 · 5 September 2021]

This episode starts off well with an intriguing murder scenario, and is engrossing for much of its length. Unfortunately however, not only does the solution to the case strain credibility, but the denouement also takes a hard right into Cop-Show-Cliché Land. The identity of the culprit does come as a surprise (though we get a hint before the actual revelation), but the person's behavior during the story doesn't really make any sense, and the plot seems contrived mainly just to add some drama to the Soneri/Angela romance. It would have been much more interesting in every aspect if the writers had looked elsewhere among their characters to cast the guilty party. The acting is very good as usual, but this one left me disappointed.

The X-Files: Soft Light (1995) Season 2, Episode 23

Worst episode of season 2

[3/10 · 27 July 2021]

"Soft Light" was Vince Gilligan's first script for The X-Files, and on the basis of this effort it's hard to believe he went on to write some of the best episodes of the series. As if the absurdly silly premise (A killer shadow!... Really?) wasn't bad enough here, the story is also sloppily executed, replete with scientific faux pas (a shadow that goes under a door and comes out on the other side? A black hole that's selective about what it destroys?), random unexplained story threads (What was Dr. Banton doing at Margaret Wysnecki's house? If not X, who was Dr. Davey planning on delivering Banton to?), shoddy detective work (Why did no one ever try to speak to Dr. Morris West, who was right across the hall from Neuwirth in the hotel and could have immediately established a possible connection to Polarity Magnetics?), and nonsensical plotting (the discovery that Banton is at the train station is made to seem like the logical outcome of following one of Mulder's "brilliant" hunches, but it's actually not: the fact that two of the victims happened to take the train has no bearing at all on the case, despite Molder's theory, and Banton's presence at the station is nothing more than a contrived - and extremely lucky - coincidence).

Guest actors Tony Shalhoub and Kate Twa give respectable performances, and it's refreshing to see Scully portrayed as a mentor of sorts, but "Soft Light" is nonetheless disappointing. What's most annoying is that the writing problems could have been easily avoided or solved with a little thought and imagination. As it turns out, the only noteworthy positive point here is Mark Snow's music, which gives us a lovely and very distinctive episode theme, heard first in the teaser, and then periodically throughout the story. Too bad the story isn't worthy of it. Grade: F.

Les petits meurtres d'Agatha Christie: Le crime de Noël (2017) Season 2, Episode 20

Not a Christmas to remember

[2/10 · 16 June 2021]

I am a big fan of this series in general but this has to be the worst episode I've seen. It is not based on anything Agatha Christie wrote but is rather a completely original story, which does not really speak well for the writers. Despite it taking place at Christmas, watching it is not much of an uplifting or heartening experience.

Lots of stuff you've seen before: an orphanage is run by greedy and abusive monsters; the kids are precocious and resourceful (if I wanted to be unkind I'd say bratty); an adult character encounters the child version of herself, who of course is invisible to everyone else; the perpetrator of the crimes turns out to be the proverbial "Least Likely Person You'd Suspect" (but you will figure out who it is right away). Plot points are left unexplained or hanging in mid-air: Why is the new teacher so late in arriving when her belongings are already there? What makes the mother of Baptiste and Louison change her mind? With all the adults gone from the orphanage, what is going to happen to all the kids at the end? Guess we'll never know.

The denouement is very weak, and the interplay between Avril and Laurence reaches new lows of unpleasantness - their scenes together are frankly excruciating. Speaking of which, we also get to hear Marlène sing... you may want to have some earplugs handy. All in all, not recommended.

Les petits meurtres d'Agatha Christie (2009–2024)

A fun series with multiple personalities

[9/10 · 11 June 2021]

By which I mean that "Les Petits Meurtres D'Agatha Christie" is really two separate and distinct series in one. But the same basic concept holds throughout: Take Agatha Christie stories and adapt them into French, keeping some of the framework of the original story while adding new characters and elements to a greater or lesser degree. Throw in a soupçon of comedy as well, and voilà! While some Christie fans may balk at such liberties being taken with her work, others (like me) will enjoy the presentation for exactly what it is: a sort of Christie hybrid, done with delightful French humor and élan, that succeeds (mostly) on its own terms.

Each episode is roughly 90 minutes, allowing ample time for both plot and character development, but a noteworthy aspect of these adaptations is that neither of Christie's most famous detective protagonists appears in them. Don't expect Jane Marple or Hercule Poirot to show up, even if they were in the original story - they won't, nor will any sort of French doppelgängers. The creative team instead opted to come up with their own completely original sleuths.

The two incarnations of the show are both set in France, but in different time periods. The first takes place in the 1930's, and the principal regular characters are policemen: Commissaire Jean Larosière, played by Antoine Dulery, and Inspecteur Emile Lampion, played by Marius Colucci. Larosière is somewhat larger than life: passionate about women, food and poetry, with a rather flamboyant and mercurial personality. He is also an excellent and very experienced detective. Lampion, by contrast, is younger, a bit of an introvert, an admirer of his boss but also more modern in his thinking and capable of making his own contributions to the cases. And, he happens to be gay, which is handled well as a character element - it isn't over-emphasized but neither is it ignored, and the perceptions and ramifications of it are portrayed appropriately for the era rather than with a p.c. 21st century sensibility.

Both characters are uniquely conceived and fully fleshed-out creations, and are very engaging. Their relationship evolves as the series progresses, and Dulery and Colucci are really superb in their roles, with Colucci my especial favorite. IMO this first incarnation is much the better portion of the series, though disappointingly it only comprises 11 episodes.

When Dulery and Colucci decided not to continue with the show, the creators did a complete revamp, setting the second incarnation in the late 1950's or early 1960's (it's a bit unclear which). The principal characters are now Commissaire Swan Laurence (who names their kid "Swan"?), played by Samuel Labarthe; his secretary Marlène, played by Elodie Frenck; and reporter Alice Avril, played by Blandine Bellavoir.

These episodes - there are 27 in all - do not work quite as well as the first set IMO. The premise is awkward: it requires that Avril, who works for the newspaper La Voix Du Nord ("The Voice Of the North"), be somehow centrally involved in each case that Laurence investigates. This is problematic because Laurence hates Avril's guts and doesn't want her around. And so they wind up conducting separate inquiries (Laurence officially, Avril surreptitiously) and occasionally trading information, which creates a split focus that often dissipates the forward momentum of the plot. The banter between the two characters can get excessively mean-spirited at times, and their one-note oil-and-water relationship becomes tiresome. Avril's availability to take on ongoing "undercover" jobs at the drop of a hat, despite apparently having a full-time position at her newspaper, is a gimmick which stretches credibility. The cases themselves are not as absorbing as the Larosière/Lampion stories, and the motivations and logic behind the crimes are not as well thought out. The later episodes also tend to emphasize comedy over mystery and to give more weight to the personal lives of the regular characters, to the overall detriment of the show.

The actors cannot be faulted though. Elodie Frenck is wonderful as the sweet-natured Marlène, with her Marilyn Monroe-esque platinum coif and red lipstick - she is a scene stealer. Samuel Labarthe is terrific as the misanthropic and misogynistic Laurence: he really commits to the character's arrogance and doesn't try to make him likable, but he still manages to give him a great deal of nuance and depth, and I actually find him very funny as well (I was not at all familiar with Labarthe's work but I am now a bona-fide fan). Blandine Bellavoir is also an excellent actress, but here she is saddled with playing an often-annoying character who never quite feels organic to the show (it strikes me that Avril could be removed from many of these plots and with a minimal re-shuffling of elements, the stories would be tighter). Dominique Tricard and Cyril Gueï are fun to watch in their small but colorful recurring roles of police superintendent and medical examiner, and late casting addition Marie Berto as Officer Arlette Carmouille is also a plus - too bad she shows up just as the series is heading into its final episodes.

It must be said that the production values in both of these incarnations cannot be faulted - the show looks absolutely stunning, with exquisitely detailed set decoration and costumes (and cars!), all captured in style by the gorgeous photography. Stephane Moucha's music, including the memorable title theme, is outstanding. The humor in the writing, of which there is quite a bit, is also very enjoyable, and the overall direction is top-notch. I give the series a 9 star rating, but that is really for the Larosière/Lampion episodes, which I think are first-rate. The Laurence/Avril episodes are more around a 7 star rating, I'd say - but still, I'd recommend the show as a whole. And in fact, a new third incarnation, set in the 1970's, has begun being filmed. It has not aired in the US yet, but I will be very curious to check it out.

Petits meurtres en famille (2006)

Excellent French mystery!

[9/10 · 29 January 2021]

"Petits Meurtres En Famille" (or "Agatha Christie's Family Murder Party", as it's known in English) is a wonderfully well-done miniseries, one which I very much enjoyed watching. It appears at first glance to have been a prequel to/pilot for the equally wonderful series "Les Petits Meurtres d'Agatha Christie", but if you are already a fan of that show (as I was) and then go to watch "En Famille", be forewarned: the miniseries turns out quite differently from what your expectations will be. It really takes place in its own universe, and should be viewed accordingly.

It does, however, feature the same principal characters (Commissaire Jean Larosière and Inspecteur Emile Lampion), played by the same actors (Antoine Duléry and Marius Colucci), from the series' first 1930's-set incarnation. Here we get to see the two French policemen meet for the first time, which is a treat. Young Lampion, newly arriving at Larosière's precinct, is a great admirer of the older detective and has enthusiastically read up on his cases - he is anxious to get his feet wet with some "ac-ti-on" and investigate the local "meurtres", and so is duly disappointed to learn that such crimes are extremely uncommon in the area and that his first big assignment is a lengthy and mundane office task which needs to be completed by the time Larosière takes his vacation trip to Egypt in a couple of weeks.

Most of the first episode is spent introducing and establishing the relationships between all the various family members and staff who inhabit or are visiting the Le Tescou estate, where the events of the mystery will occur. Early on Larosière is summoned to the chateau for a meeting with wealthy patriarch Simon Le Tescou, a decidedly unpleasant fellow who has unrepentantly succeeded in alienating everyone around him. It's no big surprise that by the end of the episode Simon has been murdered, all elements of the crime scene pointing to the deed having been done by a person or persons in his household. Larosière is, of course, called in to investigate, and rookie Lampion gets to fulfill his wish for more active police work as the Commissaire's assistant on the case.

The circumstances of this first murder seemed a bit familiar to me, which turned out to be because I had seen the PBS "Poirot" adaptation of "Hercule Poirot's Christmas", the story on which this is based, many years ago. Christie's solution to the mystery is certainly a surprising one, and particularly so in this adaptation, but while it's admittedly very clever, I'm not sure it's entirely feasible. Here I was actually waiting for one more final twist to be revealed, but it never came, leaving me a bit... well, disappointed. Still, for astute viewers, there are clues to the outcome in the writing and direction.

The six hour running time, split into four 90 minute installments, allows the writers to do an admirable job of fleshing out a wealth of characters and suspects. Although the story is presented seriously, and parts of it are even a bit dark, there are also welcome moments of humor sprinkled throughout. The acting is terrific across the board, with particularly noteworthy performances from Bruno Todeschini, Elsa Zylberstein, Marie Bunel and Leticia Dolera, in addition to the splendid portrayals of the police duo by Messrs. Duléry and Colucci. Edwin Baily's direction is top-notch, with each of the first three installments ending on a well-placed cliffhanger.

The pacing is mostly handled very well, though the final installment does feel like it loses a little steam. There are some questionable plot points: the motivation for the second murder is somewhat contrived, while that behind a later murder attempt seems rather weak; and a suspect under interrogation admits to the killings despite not being guilty, for a not-at-all-convincing reason. Some of the romantic and personal issues get too drawn out and soap opera-ish. And after the culprit is finally unmasked and taken away, there is an overly long coda of scenes addressing the remaining characters' futures. Oddly, the fate of the innocent person who confessed is one that we don't see resolved - a puzzling oversight, since that character had one of the more interesting storylines in the mix.

But all in all the whole thing is enjoyably engrossing and entertaining, and my criticisms amount to no more than nitpicks. The photography of the Brittany locations is beautiful, as are the period costumes and sets, and Stéphane Moucha's music is great, suggesting jaunty whimsicality, romantic passion or ominous creepiness as called for (the memorable theme music used for the later series makes its debut here, under the dazzling opening credit sequence). And for me, hearing the French language is always a pleasure. I highly recommend catching "Petits Meurtres En Famille" if you get the chance.