User Reviews

DCI Sutton is once again tasked with a high profile case, this time it's a rapist and sex attacker who focuses on elderly victims.

Sutton is clearly a hugely competent Detective, only this time he's treading on someone else's toes, he's trying to muscle in on the case for want of a better phrase.

It's a powerful opening episode I thought, it really is the stuff of nightmares. Outrageous crimes, hideous, worse still, how long he got away with things.

Clunes is terrific once again, he plays the part with conviction, some real subtlety, he never tried to overdo things.

Stephen Wight, who plays Clive, was going to be seen by millions, appearing here, and over on BBC 1 in Silent Witness, same night, same time.

It's very chilling, all in all, a cracking start, 9/10.

Just finished watching season 2 and it's very good. Clunes much better than I expected and the whole series has been very tense - better than many films in the same genre.

Highly recommend.

Martin Clunes played DCI Sutton in the search for Levi Bellfield. The serial killer and sex offender in Manhunt broadcast in 2019.

In this follow up, Sutton is tasked to review the search for the Minstead rapist, also known as the Night Stalker who targets elderly women.

The crimes date back to 1992. DNA analysis suggest that the attacker is a black man but Sutton soon discovers that the crime squad investigating the crimes is seriously under resourced.

The first episode is the set up. Although Sutton is meant to review the past crimes, the Minstead rapist has struck again.

It is a live matter again and Sutton is the umpteenth person bought in over the years to carry out the review.

Clunes is very comfortable under the skin of Sutton but this episode was unenergetic. The hallmarks of a series that is longer than it should be.

The first episode only became interesting when it showed the harrowing testimony of the elderly victims.

Right form the start of the first episode i was baffled by a huge GOOF, i imagine this can only be a deliberate mistake, seeing as it was such a massive GOOF.

On the first scene a camera drops down from the sky overlooking a quiet street with what looks like a modern London Skyline in the background, The scene was lit up like a Christmas tree, with tons of skyscrapers galore, the camera furthers down onto the row of houses with skyline still in the background, and informs us it's October 1992.

Neither of these buildings or skyline existed in 1992, it would have been derelict wasteland and you wouldn't have seen anything.

All i can think off is the director was trying to show London as it is now, rather than be accurate and true to the time period, which for me was a very bad choice, and totally made me switch off and come here to rant. Was this done to infuriate the audience.