Reviews

Very similar in inadequate writing as the Sir, Sir, Sir episode which was inspired by the science fiction story of the bodysnatchers.

Four stories that are as poorly done as the "automaton" make up and the creepy doll stand-in, with some very dodgy acting as if the production was not bad enough.

Given this ensemble cast works so well together, and has done so for years this poor quality episode makes even less sense than the amateurish writing.

Even more baffling is that it's directed by "Murdoch" himself, not just the series lead by also one of the Executive Producers.

Alot of people made bad decisions to create this rubbish.

Sue Perkins is an intelligent, insightful, witty presenter with a deservedly long media career.

This series however places her front and centre at almost every moment sidelining the State and its people. By episode 3 Alaska is almost a backdrop; "Look at this! Roaring rapids.." the camera instead stays on Sue. And "This is true silence..." on arriving in McCarthy only to cut to the next scene. Even during a guided walk the silence is mentioned again, and again interrupted with chatter and background music.

This travelogue needs re-editing to bring the locals and land much more front and centre with Sue's contributions supporting rather than detracting from the subject.

There are some nice observations, such as the toilet breaks montage, that deliberately puncture the travelogue illusions such as "roughing it" and revealing her own culture differences.

I'd appreciate more travelogues from Sue Perkins with more disciplined editing; less of Sue on camera, more of the locals and landscape, less of her detracting humour, more of her insight and interviews.

The rights and privileges journalists have in Britain this episode reveals how real life events are reduced to entertainment.

This is a story, not a report, of an agoraphobic person who somehow travels around Wales; a traumatised parent whose family history is almost absent from this show; the overdose she took is glossed over with no details explaining what was taken or if she brought the drugs with her to construct a Diminished Responsibility alibi.

Having backed itself into a corner, this episode then has to stick to it's deficiencies.

Alot of sympathy for a multiple murderer while the suffering of the dead and bereaved are minimised.

It's weird seeing a movie that puts gay male culture front and centre of a lesbian-free world.

This highlights the movie's sloppy construction, it doesn't know what it wants to be.

The movie starts with a homage to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey resulting in every child rejecting baby dolls. What started out as amusing is so committed to a shot-for-shot homage it becomes a sinister, disturbing message that closely matches 2001's statement of the human race discovering weapons.

A chase scene in an office makes no sense.

A key character at her kitchen table is a touching moment but the way she is found has no internal logic.

Having seen this film with various friends I noticed audiences were left cold at same points.

Why would Ken run into plastic moulded waves in an environment he lives in? One of many 'jokes' that fails to land such as the cartoon car crashes, the boardroom whisper gag among others.

The movie has some cute moments having people enact doll play.

That absence of internal logic reveals this movie has no idea what it wants to be.

The laziest, dullest waffle trawling over the often-covered points jumbled together with multiple serial offenders.

Poorly realised and exploitative, this pedestrian documentary only shows any interest in its theme when covering the appalling actions of its subjects.

A disappointing waste of its own resources especially the access to those who knew the offenders as children.

Cluttered with self-promoting authors being treated with the same credibility as criminal profilers.

Flimsy coverage with precious few insights that never ties together it's point.

Just another glorification of violent cowards marketed as a social study.

Take a successful character from an ensemble crime comedy, exaggerate that character for needless clownish effect, then add several ongoing storylines about the regular characters ranging from trying to start a family to setting up a business and a central romantic relationship with no chemistry.

A talented cast lumbered with a flat soap opera with plot holes (such as IVF, a business start-up & an impulsive boat purchase but no corresponding source of income).

The crime mysteries are entertaining, the regional setting is charming but the preposterous soap opera approach is clearly of more interest to the producers than the crime genre.

Some shocking editing here: Prof Kevin Browne stating the financial and social needs of the parent who stayed meant she sidelined her children; reference to mental illness without evidence and, in line with most poorly researched crime documentaries, interviews with the friends and family of everyone but the absent parent.

There are precious few crime documentaries that bother broadcasting the evidence of a criminals' upbringing but when one parent's commitment is scrutinised it's worth asking why the same show says nothing about the other parent.

An interesting perspective but the production team are clearly out of their depth, reducing matricide by her own child to entertainment.

This rambling story has random characters popping up only to clumsily push the story in some direction or other.

It really is a story where the scenery deserves praise especially as it's the only part of this production that consistently delivers.

The CGI is very good creating charming characters that fit well into their scenes.

The performances are adequate except for Stephen Merchant whose dry wit hits the right tone especially about the story's absurdities.

Given the main character is named Christmas, this story comes across as weirdly atheist.

Overall a patchy attempt at making a new fairytale.

Suranne Jones strains to carry the dead weight of this poorly developed production.

Flaccid direction forces this compilation of cutting room takes into a limp adaptation where proven talent is given no opportunity to draw in the audience.

Nish Kumar successfully reinterprets a clichéd character to show the frustration it must feel, especially when it tries to be wordlessly enigmatic.

Jo Brand seems poorly rehearsed and largely jokeless.

The Morecambe and Wise duo has real spark and charm even where the jokes failed.

This show is a good example of the risk of writing jokes for comics who do exactly that for a living. They should be trusted to amend the script.

The clunky explanation at the end revealing motives undermined a nice twist.

It appears the script was put in the hands of the wrong producers.

When your TV pitch is, "What if we used Victim Impact Statements as the synopsis?" this tabloid trash is the result.

Slovenly to the point of worthless, this grovelling series seems to campaign for sainthood of the victims while reducing the attackers to clichéd villains.

Cynical commercialisation of victim's families, police and other crime professionals by using their contributions to add undeserved credibility to this flyweight series.

Almost no analysis specific to the each case, just editing the contributors into childish good guy, bad guy storytelling.

Yet another real-life criminal given a portrayal at the expense of his victims, their friends and families.

The last days of Ted Bundy skim over the genuine suffering he caused while making him look so much like a victim.

For me, this is summed up in the usual head-shaving scene before being electrocuted in a drama clearly aiming for realism, no mention of the diaper the condemned have to wear. Nothing squalid to tarnish the presentation of a notorious criminal.

Once again another disgusting, vicious criminal dies on screen in glory.

The portrayal of Hagmaier is interesting but really doesn't convince.

You must see this at the cinema. The sound design is wonderful so every note is crisp.

Such impressive performances by so many artists including the special guests really makes this a marvellous concert.

The camera work and editing are often a mess. Bill Wyman plays stage right alongside several guitarists but the wide shot chosen shows just 2 guitarists and an expanse stage left; a keyboard player gets a solo while Christine McVie sings and he's shot in almost total darkness. Alot of these amateurish errors does sometimes make a it distracting shambles.

I'd still see this again though.

Finally found a narrator suitable for this show, Detective Karen Hunt; informed, sounds easy on the ear with reassuring diction.

One crime for money the other seemingly motiveless despite a court case and conviction.

Brown Bob Productions' weak research, amateurish writing and obviously uninformed narration weaken the hard work of the police.

A poorly presented programme complete with tabloid clichés regurgitated by some actor and not even the date of the crimes. The police interviews are appropriately professional and compassionate which highlights even more the infantile narrator's script.

Having the female police Detectives giving accounts of their investigations instead of their managers is a big bonus.

Just having a retired detective (not a journalist) narrating a grown-up script would elevate this show from exploitative to informative.

This trashy show exposes Discovery Channel far more than its naked contestants. Deceptions we recognise from decades of the fake 'reality' genre are deployed here; non-existent jeopardy, out-of-sequence editing, overly dramatic post-production, manufactured conflict, etc. Discovery Channel is racing Disney Nat Geo channel to the bottom.

Based on Brian Master's "Killing For Company" and some supplemental info, this is still a dramatic adaptation of a book. Tennants' portrayal is deliberately flat while carefully displaying Dennis Nilsen's need for control against his otherwise mediocre life. Daniel Mays encapsulates the frustrations of a good copper trying to do right by the victims when the available evidence isn't yet enough to get through the bureaucracy. There are plenty of excellent gay actors who could have played Masters and Nilsen yet in this day and age they cast straight people. Disappointing given the show's faithfulness to Master's but not surprising.

Series 1 was an investigation into one case and made sense. This series is just a TV Presenter wandering around failing to chase down any conclusions. Truly pointless

Impressive images, well informed but fatally undermined by a dreadful presentation of subtitles; no tinted background for the spindly-looking text.