I've managed somehow never to be drawn into the long-running hit TV spy show Spooks. I say 'somehow', but in fact what happened is that I missed the first couple of series, and then felt disinclined to try to catch up. So when the film released last year based on the show, rather clumsily titled Spooks: the Greater Good turned up on the schedules, I decided to watch it to see what the fuss is about.
It's often the case that, when a popular TV show is adapted for the big screen, things go awry. This is especially disappointing for those who have long been fans of the series. I wondered if the fact I'd not seen the series would be a disadvantage or, alternatively, give me the chance to assess it without preconceptions. As things turned out, I'd say it wasn't really a disadvantage not to have seen the series on TV. Did I enjoy the film? Yes, certainly.
It begins in a blaze of action as terrorist Qasim is helped to escape from custody by armed terrorists in a shoot-out. Has a mole assisted Qasim? Peter Firth, playing top spy Sir Harry Pearce, thinks so. He's the fall-guy for the disaster, and he responds by faking his own suicide. What is he up to? Among those wanting to find out are the Director General of the Secret Service, played by Tim McInnerny, and his deputy, Geraldine, played with icy calm by Jennifer Ehle. Suffice to say that I thought McInnerny's performance was a hundred times better than it was in Houdini & Doyle.
Among those who become embroiled in Pearce's cunning plans is the brilliant Tuppence Middleton, once again demonstrating her versatility as an actor. The plot complications come thick and fast, and this is not a story that has quite the relentless grip of The Night Manager,because there is less space for characterisation. But it's an enjoyable action thriller. I'd be interested to know how fans of the TV show rate it.
Showing posts with label Houdini & Doyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Houdini & Doyle. Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
Sunday, 20 March 2016
Houdini & Doyle - ITV review
The premise of Houdini & Doyle is excellent. The legendary escapologist and the man who created the world's most famous detective knew each other in real life, and someone had the bright idea of teaming them as a sleuthing duo in a television series. Even better - potentially - the first episode of the series sees the pair investigating a locked room mystery. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, I'll answer that question in a moment. The first clue that something might be amiss came with the relegation of episode one to a rather obscure place on the schedules. Did the TV bosses know something we weren't being told? But in these days of catch-up, perhaps that meant little. However, it wasn't long before the dialogue had me cringing. A low point was the moment when Houdini used the phrase "Garbage in, garbage out". Did people really talk like that in or around 1900? (The story was set some time before the characters met in real life, but that example of artistic licence wouldn't have troubled me had history been respected in general terms)
The setting for the crime, a Magdalene laundry, was evocative, and the glimpses we were given of Houdini's stagecraft were well done. In fact, Michael Weston made a pretty good job of playing Houdini. Alas, the American producers of the show reportedly told Stephen Mangan not to play Doyle with a Scottish accent (something Nicola Sturgeon ought to complain about, surely) and he seems to have lost heart as a result, splitting his infinitives without a care. At no point did I find his portrayal of Doyle compelling. Nor did Tim McInnerny convince as the grumpy senior cop; a shame, as I still remember him fondly from Blackadder and he is very good in the new film based on Spooks.
For gender balance, we were presented with an attractive female police constable character, who contributed little to the detective work. How many women PCs were there in 1900, anyway? I don't mind when stories veer away from strict historical accuracy, or make mistakes on matters of detail. Goodness knows, I've erred myself, more than once. But there needs to be a sense that the writer is striving to get it right, even if not with complete success. Houdini & Doyle gave me the impression that those in charge didn't care enough about the history or the characters, and as a result that splendid premise seemed to me to have been wasted. A shame.
Well, I'll answer that question in a moment. The first clue that something might be amiss came with the relegation of episode one to a rather obscure place on the schedules. Did the TV bosses know something we weren't being told? But in these days of catch-up, perhaps that meant little. However, it wasn't long before the dialogue had me cringing. A low point was the moment when Houdini used the phrase "Garbage in, garbage out". Did people really talk like that in or around 1900? (The story was set some time before the characters met in real life, but that example of artistic licence wouldn't have troubled me had history been respected in general terms)
The setting for the crime, a Magdalene laundry, was evocative, and the glimpses we were given of Houdini's stagecraft were well done. In fact, Michael Weston made a pretty good job of playing Houdini. Alas, the American producers of the show reportedly told Stephen Mangan not to play Doyle with a Scottish accent (something Nicola Sturgeon ought to complain about, surely) and he seems to have lost heart as a result, splitting his infinitives without a care. At no point did I find his portrayal of Doyle compelling. Nor did Tim McInnerny convince as the grumpy senior cop; a shame, as I still remember him fondly from Blackadder and he is very good in the new film based on Spooks.
For gender balance, we were presented with an attractive female police constable character, who contributed little to the detective work. How many women PCs were there in 1900, anyway? I don't mind when stories veer away from strict historical accuracy, or make mistakes on matters of detail. Goodness knows, I've erred myself, more than once. But there needs to be a sense that the writer is striving to get it right, even if not with complete success. Houdini & Doyle gave me the impression that those in charge didn't care enough about the history or the characters, and as a result that splendid premise seemed to me to have been wasted. A shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)