Close to the Enemy (2016) User Reviews

Dramatization of uncomfortable truths.

[tamasmarcuis · 7/10 · 10 January 2017]

This may not have been the best drama ever produced, an understatement. But it does seem to have tried to as believably as possible show just how the British authorities excused themselves from pursuing the worst criminals this world has yet seen, in a stupid vainglorious attempt to claw back their faded imperial grandeur. We may sneer at the idea that this happened. It did. With the flesh still rotting on the murdered peoples corpses those in power in Britain waved away the smell and got on with business like nothing had happened.

So if this made some true blue Brits uncomfortable and compelled them to write angry hateful reviews, then it did its purpose as a piece of drama very well. So anyone who felt it necessary to jump online to write a tirade has been made to feel outrage by what they "claimed" to be poor work or "worthless" or "a waste of money". If it was why did it move you so? Why not just change the channel or go watch YouTube?

What hold has Poliakoff got over the BBC?

[pawebster · 5/10 · 18 November 2016]

Why does the BBC keep pouring out cash whenever Poliakoff writes a new series? In recent years there has been the awful Glorious 39 and the daft Dancing on the Edge, both of which were set in the thirties. They were marked by a lack of realism on more than one level. This would be fine if they substituted something else, such as comedy. As it is, they are just naff.

Now we are in an unconvincing version of the 1940s. Others have commented on the awful dialogue (which presumably is meant to be a clever conceit?), the stereotypical characters and the plot, which on past form, won't be satisfactorily resolved. Poliakoff seems to be particularly weak on finishing them.

In this serial, which I'm writing about after two episodes, there are, so far, some interesting elements and characters, despite the stereotyping, and I'll have to wait and see what the dénouement is like.

Jim Sturgess is not good in this. Why does he have a fake accent resembling Alan Whicker? He's supposed to be a superbrain, but comes over as a bit of a dope.

Dumb, dull and unconvincing, trivialising what could have been an interesting story if better produced.

[maria-ricci-1983 · 5/10 · 14 November 2016]

I will not delve into the politics of the matter, whether it portrays the "true heroes of the WWII" accurately or not.

Instead, I'd rather focus on the production, script and performances on themselves, which have issues enough to put the thumb down on this new series.

*There could be some minor spoilers here* Firstly, I didn't find the plot convincing. The whole relevance of trying to withhold that German scientist is never proved. Why is this particular scientist important? What has he decisively done so far to justify such an array of intelligence, microphones, hotel cover-ups, baby-sitting by a top officer, and the rest.

Then, the way in which the interdepartmental conflicts of interests between War Criminal Court and this particular office are dealt with--- by sending a nice female officer to lovingly beg for access to files instead of following an institutional procedure?? It was a pity to watch.

Then (really?) a golden intelligence officer will share a secret cover operation IN A RESTAURANT to his personal friends, and furthermore, grant them direct access to the scientist and his daughter? (Also, if the main character deliberately removes all the mics in the room, which is the point of keeping the office at the basement whose purpose was to listen to mics? You will find this kind of inconsistency all along, just in the first chapter... ) The performances are rather poor, particularly the girl actress who is is dire need for support and coaching (my apologies for criticising a kid's job), but the rest of the adult cast is just as dull or overstated (Angela Bassett and Freddie Highmore and Alfred Molina, what an array of wasted talent) or stereotyped (the mysterious man who picks up the girl's toy).

The tone is particularly annoying and unconvincing. To be a thriller, there is too much pouting and I-am-smart-and-know-better funny faces and winks, and the little girl cries are a suspense-blaster. To be a comedy, it lacks in humour and gags. To be a drama, it comes short of depth and humanity with its linear, flat characters. The whole thing is portrayed as a trivial, funny light-weight game, while we are supposedly led to believe the operation was a matter of national Priority One security.

I agree with the first reviewer in the fact that there is parade of inconsequential characters whose contribution to the plot seems arbitrary, unnecessary or pure decor to hide the lack of efficiency in the script.

In short, there are holes everywhere and of every kind. In my opinion, Close to the Enemy is a wasted effort and a failed attempt of an espionage thriller which will satisfy only a few.

The Polikoff magic is still there but thinly spread and a little imperfect.

[glasslens · 7/10 · 11 December 2016]

First of all, I am a big Poliakoff fan. Shooting The Past and Perfect Strangers were almost perfect pieces of drama - a fantastic story (in the true sense of the word) sublimely paced and acted - a sheer joy to watch again and again as I have done. Good Poliakoff just takes over all your senses - you become part of it rather than watching from the outside. and as with all great art, leaves you feeling almost renewed for having seen it. Close To The Enemy - and I have just watched episode 5 has all the brilliant Poliakoff touches sprinkled on like jewels. It has a finely nuanced story, slow pacing, sumptuous characterful sets, exquisite photography and good music (although this is the weakest of Adrian Johnston's normally outstanding work for Poliakoff). The jazz is fantastic though.

But there is something wrong, and I think a lot of that is in the casting. Jim Sturgess in the lead role lacks any form of charisma - he would be fine in a supporting role, but is appallingly cast here, and it has had a significant negative effect on the production. The character needs to be slightly larger than life and he is simply not. Just think how Tim Spall has set previous Poliakoffs alight. Lindsay Duncan, Alfred Molina and the sublime Angela Bassett have charisma and gravitas in spades but they do not make up for a badly cast lead. I sincerely hope Poliakoff has realised his casting issue and will not let it happen again. But this production, imperfect as it is, still has lots of Poliakoff magic albeit a bit too thinly spread. Still, I can't wait to see the next episode - it is a highlight of my week and the highlight of my current TV viewing.

Update after seeing whole series. This was a very flawed masterpiece. I stand by my opinion of the lead character - a big mistake. I think the whole production was too long and there were parts with no explanation - Lindsay Duncan's character and the perfume formula came from nowhere and went nowhere, though thank goodness for her presence. The "unexpected" end did not seem right to me and seemed a last minute change. But there were times when the magic shone through and the hand of the master was seen at work. My fellow reviewers have been much more negative and I can see why but perhaps time and repeat viewings will change minds You can't please everyone and sometimes genius is not recognised till it's too late.

Acting so bad you'd think it was a spoof

[danbebber · 2/10 · 14 November 2016]

You know comedy shows like Harry & Paul or Mitchell & Webb or Armstrong & Miller do 1940s smarminess? Well, this is like that, only not very funny. It's only funny in as much as the acting is so bad you can't really believe it. Stand-out bad performance goes to Jim Sturgess as an even cheesier version of Pierce Brosnan. Alfie Allen (Theon Greyjoy, as he is better known) comes on like the "Suits You" tailors from the Fast Show. The cut-class accents everyone is putting on are cracked and blemished, taking you out of the story. All the characters are clichéd. We get the noble lady of the night, the sassy American jazz singer. Everything about this show is just so awful, apart from Phoebe Fox who is a center of calm in an otherwise farcical maelstrom of nonsense. So we have to turn away from the plot, the acting, and the script, and look instead at the physical components. From the beginning, we see that everyone's clothes are brand new and show no signs of wear, straight from the tailor shop. The military uniforms are clean, new, and without any dirt. The sets also have a fake feeling about them. Look at Foyle's War to see how this type of show should be made. Had to stop watching after 30 minutes.

Terrible

[myrathomas-39258 · 15 December 2016]

This is so awful. I have kept watching in the hope it would improve but have totally lost interest. First of all I was thrown by the Game of Thrones actor and Bates Motel actor appearing. Kept wondering whether I was in the wrong programme. I was also watching Philip Glenister in another programme running just before this. Confused.com.

The episodes are one long slog after another and not at all convincing. Terrible accents and acting from what are usually good actors. But then again with no decent material can you really blame them?

No idea why Poliakoff has any sort of reputation to be honest. I have seen nothing of his to write home about but here we are again with a lavish but drawn out boring and badly written production.

There is nothing that seems right about it.

Not Great but not Bad.. Highmore made it worth it

[deniseactress · 6/10 · 2 June 2019]

Ok it's not Emmy winning category it's typical British after WWII vintage story. Felt like I was watching Midsomer Murder mystery. I read so much criticism against Freddie Highmore comparing what he does to his Norman Bates role.. this character is nothing like Bates but Highmore does 'crazy' well. And take his scenes out this series this series would flatline. His neurosis is seemed nuanced for this WWII genre.

Unconvincing Garbage - re-titled Close To An Enema

[Tricycle_Thief · 1/10 · 22 November 2016]

There's a lot to be said about Close To The Enemy but not much is complimentary.

Episode 1 was a weak start to what could be an intriguing story, but it rapidly became a series of seemingly unconnected sub-plots. It is possible that 'all will be revealed' Agatha Christie style at the end, but viewers need to feel confident at the outset that a story is going somewhere interesting and is plausible - I was not.

In Episode 2 my attention was flagged. The main story did not develop, but more subplots were added, many of which seemed gratuitous. Maybe the aim was to fill screen-time, rather than actually tell a story convincingly.

Many characterisations seem unnatural. Ferguson's drawling accent is an affected mix of Canadian, Hibernian and public school. However, it is amusing rather than grating. The disturbed brother, Victor, seems to have flown in from the 1970s.

The real disappointment is the story lines ( too many in fact) all seemi to go nowhere in particular within the time allotted. There are some solid threads, but many that appear to be deceptions. There is an art to good story telling - Mr Poliakoff appears to have lost it in an attempt to be much cleverer than is needed.

In Episode 3 especially, it seems to me that Mr Poliakoff does not actually have the credentials to write a convincing historical drama about the period and instead has turned to fantasy and fairy tale. The shallowness of the script and a wobbly realisation on screen are all becoming evident. It revealed many incredible gaffs and misrepresentations that appear to be crucial to the plot, for example:

The Connington Hotel 'Bomb Site'. There are always some oil drums with post-apocalyptic theatrical effect fires in them, but no one around. Occasionally the hotel staff march around the bomb site filling a few moments of screen time and adding an air of surrealism.

Victor's abduction of Lotte. Silly. Only a poor script writer would leave a car where it would immediately be found. And then Victor and Lotte run into a field of maize that was not grown in Britain until the 1960s. If the purpose was simply to get Victor a job, then he could have run away to the park or the railway arches or another randomly inserted location and saved the BBC money.

Military Police had no jurisdiction in civil cases like the 'abduction' of Lotte. The local police Special Branch could have been involved if there was a vague 'security element', but not MPs. At that time, most were in Germany 'training' the German civilian police, or Austria. After the war, they were rarely seen on British streets and did not carry rifles, and probably couldn't find one at short notice. The posse pointing their rifles at Victor is a figment of Mr Poliakoff's overworked imagination.

Spitfire fiasco - The building with the deconstructed Spitfire was laughable. It had the markings JE-J, copied from a website where you can see drawings of that Spitfire used earlier in the war by fighter ace Johnnie Johnson. Somehow, probably due to appallingly sloppy research, it appears in Close To The Enemy. Maybe it is going to re-appear later with Biggles - I mean Ferguson - flying it, with a jet engine fitted, on a supersonic flight? To be honest, I really don't care any more - bring it on!

Supersonic aeroplanes - The plot hinges on the German "Jet Engine Scientist" being employed to design a supersonic aeroplane. Engine and aeronautical design are significantly different. Ferguson & Koehler discuss whether a supersonic aeroplane needs swept wings or "fixed wings". The term 'fixed wing' is incorrect: it is used to distinguish rotating wing aircraft like helicopters from conventional aircraft. Koehler would have known the difference: Germany had experimented with rotating wing aircraft throughout the war. Britain didn't need a German to design a supersonic aeroplane, it already had one - Barnes Wallis - who had been working on that at Vickers since 1945! Anyway, Koehler's "new office" is plain stupid. Anyone working on such an important project would have been placed in a company like Vickers which had worked on top secret designs throughout the war and which had all of the resources needed under the direction of . . . . Barnes Wallis.

Ferguson beating up the Little German - Why? So he needed to find out what was going on, but the story line ignores that just to spice up the action with gratuitous fisticuffs. The secret of Room 605 is revealed later: it could have been revealed earlier, "saving celluloid" and audience patience. Ferguson is now clearly looking tired and bleary-eyed and may even be on amphetamines the way he looks.

Wanted German War Criminal Escapes to Harwich! The explanation was that valuable Germans were "disappeared" and found safe houses where they could work for the British. So, where is he going via Harwich, the principle port for Holland? Oddly, without any authority, Ferguson initiates the chase with the hapless Miss Griffiths in tow. Are they carrying the Arrest Warrant? Who cares! Mr Poliakoff has his own reasons for leaving a trail of incredulity.

These criticisms are not just nit-picking, they point to two conclusions: firstly, the story should be credited to W.E. Johns and titled "Biggles and the German Scientist"; secondly Mr Poliakoff seems to be out of his depth with this subject and is 'punching above his weight'.

The series only lacks a few jokes to turn it into a comedy pastiche. It is certainly not a serious piece of historical fiction - it is a fatuous jumble of fantasy and misconceived pseudo-history. At the end of the day it's just entertainment - and not all that good at that.

Ep. 4 Ridiculously impalusible. Reel-to-reel tape recorders were not around in 1947 FACT!

My son calls it Close To An Enema

Not so much an historical drama more an allegory

[timkendall069 · 10/10 · 9 December 2016]

This highly stylised drama examines how morality is distorted by the politics of war, government and commercial interest. Each character represents an attitude or moral standpoint as they struggle to come to terms with the new post war priorities. Close To the Enemy resonates with the moral dilemmas of the times in which we live now through the perspective of post WWII Britain. It is beautifully crafted and thought provoking in a style not dissimilar to Dennis Potter. It is not really an historical drama, more an allegory. We are living through turbulent times, all the more so if you are in the Middle East, Africa or any of the many countries now suffering from exploitation and suppression. Poliakoff invites those of us who are more fortunate to consider who is really in control and examine theirs and our morals and motives.I love it!

Enjoyable except for Norman Bates

[fastfred-78611 · 7/10 · 28 December 2016]

I totally agree with Dave Mason from the UK. Victor was Norman Bates. Every scene Freddie Hightower was in was just like watching him in Bates Motel. Type casting is one thing but this was unacceptable. I was glad when he tried to top himself. I loved the story. I loved the music. If not for Freddie Hightower I would have given it a 10. I was a little shocked to not see more reviewers mentioning the Victor Norman similarity. To be fair I also think Freddie is the weakest thing in Bates Motel. Enough about Freddie. I love UK TV and find it more stimulating than the run of the mill predictable US offerings. This show has much to be appreciated. Just try to let the type casting not turn you off.

The Comic Strip presents...........

[andywatters · 4/10 · 15 November 2016]

First thing that stood out as odd, apart from the leading man, was the overlaying of the music. Too much and in all the wrong places. As to the lead - someone should teach him how to walk properly. And what was that accent? He was like a bad cross between Cary and Hugh. And his brother, a small boy in a coat two sizes too big for him, punching above his weight.

SPOILER ALERT!

Why didn't the blackshirts return en-masse and give his brother a proper bashing?! Instead, conveniently, the brothers get separated again, only for brother Callum to return and save his younger brother from a lone blackshirt - this whole scene a cringer.

I expected the dialogue to be of the wooden variety but not to such an extent. A spoof but without the laughs.

Sets were great, production values obvious. Only the acting, casting and dialogue that lets it down.

I really enjoyed this show.

[grandmabrat · 9/10 · 26 March 2017]

I don't understand all the bad reviews, but then they usually say they gave up watching early on. I went all the way through it and wish there would be another season or two. I don't know what they think is 'well written' but I enjoyed most of the plot and scenes. Only the sexy scenes were not to my liking and felt as if they were put in to make things more 'exciting'. The last episode was the best way to end things. I didn't feel cheated or let down. I really liked the scenes in the hotel. It was interesting to see the challenges after the war that we never really see made into a series or a movie. I think the story message to me was that people in a difficult situation don't always do the right thing. They aren't always brave and sometimes they are just plain overwhelmed. And that is whether you are on the winning side or the losing side.

Intriguing

[charmwayster · 7/10 · 26 September 2020]

The time period is very interesting and so are the story lines. Most of the actors are good; however, there was something a little off about the production. I don't know what, but it just felt a little repetitive. It really portrayed many of the different factions that probably happened after World War II as well as personal struggles that are plausible. It might have accomplished what it needed to in less episodes, but I would watch another season if there were one. I'm left wondering what did the little girl see when she and her father were in Germany and how will it affect her in the future.

Is it me or is it just awful.

[crapdoc · 1/10 · 8 December 2016]

The worst most wooden acting since the Woodentops. What on earth is that terrible accent the leading man affecting. Someone has already likened it to Harry and Paul do the 1940s from the Fast Show ,which would have more credibility. Every time he opens his mouth I'm so irritated by his accent I can't concentrate on where the story is going. Then there's the creepy "Allo allo stereotypical German " . The younger brother "with problems". It's an endless catalogue of characters who telegraph their stories with in 5 minutes of opening their mouths. Mmmmm blackshirts and a disinhibited younger brother what could possibly happen next..... Of course the women are so much more complex, no sorry I'm lying. It's incredibly sad that all the sets costumes and hard work of the rest of the team come to nought with appalling acting, direction and at the end of the day a pretty threadbare story. What a stinker!!!!!

Waste of time and money

[candyapplegrey · 1/10 · 20 November 2016]

Unlike your reviewer, Dan, who I totally agree with, I didn't make it to the half hour mark. I only lasted twenty-five minutes. In my defence, each minute felt like an hour. Jim Sturgess is particularly awful, putting on an accent and a tone that are horrible to listen to, phony and irritating at once, as if he were copying a Cockney doing a bad imitation of a toff. His voice in this is completely unbearable – and as he was heavily featured in most of the first twenty-five minutes, you'll see why I had to give up. There are so many actors out there who could achieve a posh accent or already have one (George Blagden, Alex Vlahos, Johnny Flynn to name a few) that it seems stupid to cast one who can't deliver (although maybe anyone who could, read the script and said 'No thanks'). It's not all his fault though as I often persevere longer with dramas where there's one annoying character, if the script, plot, other characters hold my interest. This is not the case here. I've enjoyed Poliakoff in the distant past (certainly not recently) but perhaps he's had his day. It annoys me that the BBC has spent our money on something else so turgid and tiresome.

What a load of old tommyrot !

[john-70-690278 · 2/10 · 23 December 2016]

Stephen Poliakoff has produced some excellent mini-series for the small screen but, sadly, this is not one of them. Why the BBC chose to waste a bucketful of licence payers' money on 'Close to the Enemy' must be something that only those who made the decision will ever know.

What can one say ? The story-line made very little sense, while most of the characters were utterly one-dimensional, with many drifting in and out for no particular reason. The actual characterizations were poor and chunks of the action seemed completely irrelevant to the plot, such as it was. The lead character, Callum Ferguson, came across as something of a drip although this didn't stop numerous women from going all gooey eyed at him, presumably just so that we could then be treated to a few titillating bits of 'action'.

The assorted nasty Germans, who were presumably the 'enemy' of the title, were a nebulous bunch of non-entities; Lindsay Duncan, as some sort of 'femme fatale' was completely wasted in a pointless role, having nothing but the formula for some perfume, or whatever, to divulge, though being treated with 'kid gloves'; most peculiar. Alfred Molina, as a supposedly rather mysterious former civil servant wandered about to no particular purpose other than being mysterious. Still more mysterious was the secret service man who was presented as Callum's nemesis, though he actually did nothing of note.

Callum's mad brother, the earnest young woman hunting for NAZI criminals, Robert Glenister's Brigadier someone or other, and scores of others contributed nothing of any real note. The one and only bright spot was the occasional music which was jazzy, fun and worth listening to. Sadly, there wasn't very much of it.

All in all, this was rubbish. Poorly scripted, poorly acted, little plot and not worth watching.

Wonderful drama

[asennett-78545 · 10/10 · 22 December 2016]

I expect this will annoy some people and if so all well and good. Reading the negative reviews of Poliakoff's recent BBC drama I was apt to think that the reviewers were likely to be from a particular demographic: white, middle aged and ( this is a long shot) Brexit voters. It seems to me that they have completely misunderstood the whole point of this brilliant drama. It is indeed stylistically quirky, stilted in its language and takes a long time to get to its real points. However, it is a wonderful journey and well worth the seven hours it takes to get there. Far from being poorly acted, as several people state, it is quite brilliantly acted and huge talents like Lindsay Duncan and Alfred Molina are far from wasted. Moreover there are new talents being revealed here. I think that the reason several reviewers hate it so much is that it is a cultured and deliberately nuanced piece of drama that demands the audience pay attention and read between the lines. For it is not really about the 1940s at all! It is about now. It is about the racism and bigotry of the time in which we live. The intolerance of difference and tendency to avoid thinking in our society. The moral dilemmas of the central characters are not simply those of the 1940s where murderers got away with things because the British, Americans and Russians wanted to use their knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are not only still with us but pose a threat that may be even greater than in the Cold War era. It is about power in age age when bigotry, racism and fear are ever present. The efforts of some to create a Europe and international community of cooperation are placed in jeopardy by the ignorance of those who don't want to think, don't wish to explore the past for what it can teach us and who simply want the crap of the vast majority of media output we are presented with on TV, film and the Internet. If you can't see that you have totally misunderstood the point of Poliakoff's work.

A two hour film unnecessarily dragged out for seven episodes

[emuir-1 · 2/10 · 22 April 2018]

There seems to be a current trend to drag out what would have made a good two hour film to six or more episodes filled with unnecessary characters who have nothing to do with the plot, presumably to fill in time, all moving along at glacial pace. This series is such, and to make it worse, the main lead has an irritating younger brother Victor, Freddie Highmore, playing the same disturbed character fighting with authority, defying all the rules, and generally getting into trouble before he brilliantly solves all the problems which he plays in the Good Doctor.

Set in bomb damaged London in 1946 Callum Ferguson is an army officer who is tasked with bringing over an essential German scientist to our side before the Russians or worse, the Yanks, get their hands on him and he has to accomplish this in four days, later extended to three weeks. The scientist's child does not speak English on day one but by the end of the first week is fluent. The scientist may be one of the war criminals being hunted down by an attractive young woman, a former secret service agent.

So many of the characters are superfluous that I don't know where to begin:

Alfred Molina as a rather cryptic wealthy businessman (?) who knows which strings to pull and spends most of his time dining as well as he can given the rationing;

Angela Bassett as an African american jazz singer - why was she even in it?

Freddie Highmore as an annoying younger brother who should have been strangled at birth;

Various mysterious Germans as red herrings;

A woman scientist/senior engineer working on jet propulsion who appears to be mixed race, possibly part African. Did they even have women working in such exalted positions, let alone mixed race in 1946?

Charlotte Riley as a wealthy American widow getting in everyone's way but used as the love interest; and the blond actress/prostitute living in the hotel getting in the Germans' way; The plot is so clunky with plot devices, such as wanted Nazis left alone after being arrested to wait for the police car to arrive, thus giving them a chance to run away - give me a break! Some of the superfluous characters were given a few lines to move the plot which could easily have been given to the main characters. The whole script needed tightening up by a good editor with red pencil and an eye for inconsistencies and holes in the plot. The later episodes of Foyles War covered this same ground so much better.

About the only thing which resonated with me was when Lindsay Duncan, as the wealthy widow of a German industrialist, gave a speech in the last episode where she described how she had known of what was going on but did nothing, shutting her eyes and ignoring the disappearances of employees. One was left to wonder if those who did nothing were just as guilty as the war criminals who carried out the atrocities.

Love 'Close to the Enemy'

[barbara-41708 · 10/10 · 10 December 2016]

Absolutely love Close to the Enemy. We need more series on TV which make us think as we wait for the dark side of certain characters to be exposed with the nuances of a brief glance saying so much. I lived through this time in history and the story is believable. All the actors are superbly cast. I have begun to like Dieter and Lotte and am hoping their ending will be a happy one but I will have to wait and see. The relationship between Callum and Rachel is sometimes difficult to watch with my young family members but c'est la vie. We have yet to know the true horrors of Callum and his brother Victor's experiences in the War, only viewing a flash back of Callum and being told Victor was at Monte Cassino. Well done to all involved and thank you for making Thursday night a moment I can look forward to and enjoy. Barbara

The most dreadful rot

[csail-68925 · 1/10 · 10 December 2016]

Whoever commissioned this expensive waste of BBC resources deserves to be sacked. Furthermore Stephen Poliakoff should receive no further commissions as it is by now clearly apparent that he has completely taken leave of his senses. An occasional need for suspension of disbelief may be acceptable but when every plot line, non-plot or dead end is simply ludicrous it becomes unwatchable. This frustration is exacerbated by the ham acting of which the appalling efforts of the slouching, unshaven Jim Sturgess in his sub-Pierce Brosnan impersonations is the most tedious and frankly irritating. High production values are no compensation and merely underline the fact that most regrettably, at a time when there is pressure on the licence fee, the BBC continues manifestly to harbour incompetent management.

Poliakoff miraculously gets even worse...

[nothingisforbidden · 1/10 · 24 August 2017]

As I have written before...

Writer-director Stephen Poliakoff is the M. Night Shyamalan of British TV drama. He started strong, with dramas that seemed to be new and different. Then, with each new project, his threadbare bag of tricks became more familiar and predictable; what once seemed offbeat became simply irritating, and Poliakoff's narrative deceits became increasingly obvious, no longer distracting us from his inability to create living characters or even a coherent plot.

Is it possible that he has continued this trajectory, and this project is worse than the last?

Sadly, yes.

Can he get even worse? Keep watching, as I am sure the BBC will never cut off his funding.

What was it all about?

[batman50 · 3/10 · 23 December 2016]

Having sat through all seven episodes in the hope that something would make sense or I would understand the point of the whole farrago, I remained disappointed.

In the final episode, it is true, the tension was screwed up during the wedding - was Callum going to object during the ceremony or speak out during the best man's speech? It was a bit like the Duke of York leading his men - nothing happened, he just went on looking grim and murderous and why Rachel found him so attractive, I don't know. Then, suddenly, in the prosaic surroundings of a chicken run, Harold does the deed, before swanning off to a sunny retirement in France. So that was that then, and building a snowman healed all the hurts and solved all the problems at this very problematic hotel?

Not being quite old enough to remember 1946, I can't say how realistic the environment was - it certainly wasn't sooty enough - and the old vehicles all looked too clean but, even given the rigours of war, there were just too many strange, pointless and plot-less elements to the story. If the point being made was that war isn't great and that people end up damaged, then OK, but it didn't need seven hours to do it.

Maybe giving the author lots of money and then letting him direct it as well was not a great move - I am sure Hollywood can vouch for that!

Brilliant writing and acting

[KathleenK22 · 10/10 · 16 November 2016]

I love this show. It is far and way my favourite at the moment. It is subtle and allows the viewer to anticipate and figure things out which I really appreciate. The characters are varied and interesting. Out of two brothers one is a bit of a flake but extremely interesting and provides one of the subplots as well some humour. The main character is good looking and charming. There is eye candy aplenty whether you are male or female. Some give the impression that they are not all they seem though. There are many characters but they are developed sufficiently for the viewer to identify with them or know them. I like to predict and have managed that already after four episodes. To this end, it offers one an idea or a possibility and then one waits to see if they have guessed correctly. There is quite a bit going on at once so one's mind is kept occupied. New characters are introduced who add another dimension. It is not always easy to know who is bad and who is good though. Recurring landscapes like outside the hotel makes the viewer wonder why we are are brought back there time and time again. There is rubbish and burning and bleakness. I can't help feel some people are missing how well this is written and how much there is actually in it. Love this show!

How did this get script approval? & the diabolical acting???

[loakman-3 · 1/10 · 11 January 2017]

I have just watched the final episode in the vague hope that the story would make up for the terrible script & just about the most wooden male lead I have ever seen! Unfortunately it did not! If this is the best the BBC can currently produce given their excellent track record as far as drama is concerned, then I think its time they took a break.

I have written a handful of reviews on IMDb over the years & write this one as a warning to others, avoid this utter trash!

Oh and just one other mention in addition to Jim Sturgess (wooden lead, strange accent) if there was an Oscar for most annoying, badly played character, it would have to go to Freddie (what the hell were you thinking) Highmore, I suggest he goes back to Bates Motel where he belongs.

Utterly brilliant --- Poliakoff

[macfadyen998 · 10/10 · 5 December 2016]

You either like or loathe Stephens Poliakoff's work. Close to the Enemy returns to well trodden Poliakoff territory the darker side of those from Britain's great and good who appeased Hitler and murk deeds of the UK's intelligence and security services, however the tone is not quite so menacingly dark as that of "Glorius 39". In spirit it perhaps closer to "Dancing on the Edge" which has a similar hotel setting and range of characters. Like Dancing on the Edge it uses jazz to add to the period feel and provide relief from dark theme although less prominently than in the earlier drama.

Poliakoff's work as always attracts a superb cast Alfred Molina in particular puts in a superb performance, an Lindsay Duncan is as always worth watching. Phillip Glenister puts in a quality performance. I should also individually praise all the members of the cast from the rising generation of actors but as every single one them was superb it would take all day.