Bergerac

Like many here, I'd been looking forward to this series having loved the John Nettles Bergerac so many decades ago.

But this?

We nearly gave up after 3 episodes. But we decided to continue despite our doubts. After all, all series have the odd disappointing episode so no doubt it would get better.

It didn't.

After episode 4, we both wished we'd given up after the 3rd episode. It was even worse that the previous episodes. What the hell. We've come this far, we may as well finish. Only two episodes to go.

After the 5th. Only 1 to go. That's the best I could say.

You get the idea.

I think it was mid-way through perhaps the 3rd episode when we realized just how bad this was getting and how absurd some of what was going on that I turned jokingly to my wife during one scene and said "They did it", referring to the least likely character in the entire series and probably the only one that any reasonable person would have excluded from the start because the idea was ridiculous. No way they could have been the murder? It was an absurd concept.

Of course it turned out to be them.

An attempt at a plausible explanation was given in the closing scenes of the final episode but it just didn't work. Even the actors didn't seem to believe it at this stage. The writers just decided that they'd go all out, choose the character it couldn't possibly have been, and try to construct a totally unconvincing motive for the murder.

Even during the inevitable confession screen when being interviewed by Bergerac, the actor portaying the guilty party seemed to be saying to themselves, "Me? It was me? That's ridiculous. Why am I saying these lines? Nobody is going to believe me. Is it to late to get out of my contract? Is Coronation Street looking for cast members because anything must be better than this nonsense."

I don't blame the actor; I blame whoever wrote the plot. If the actor doesn't even believe the lines, then why do the writers think the audience will?

What rubbish.

Every episode had numerous incidents where characters would do or say something leaving us shaking our heads saying to each other that it simply wasn't credible. Nobody would act that way.

Well, maybe in Jersey they do.

They didn't in the original Bergerac but maybe things have changed.

Kate Wakefield is killed inside her home, DCI Jim Bergerac is off on the sick following the death of his wife and a problem with alcohol. Bergerac pleases with his boss to be allowed to operate as a special advisor.

I'm struggling to associate this show with some of the negative reviews I've read, this was a very good first series, very watchable, very consistent, a cut above most things I've seen recently.

I really liked the mystery, I liked the pacing, the characters and the production, the location work was terrific, I couldn't reply find a lot to criticise, even at six episodes long it worked.

I thought Damien Molony was very well cast as Bergerac, I definitely got the impression of a troubled man, trying his best, but failing. I grew up watching John Nettles, but I'm more than happy with Molony.

Very good performances from the likes of Pippa Haywood, Stephen Wight and Philip Glenister, I thought Aidan McArdle was terrific.

More please.

8/10.

I'm old enough to remember watching the original Bergerac and always enjoyed it. A lot of time has passed since then and the people I watched it with have long since passed away. As a bit of a detective buff I wondered what was that I enjoyed about the original series so I watched a few d episodes ahead of watching the new one. I'm glad I did because there it was straight from the opening credits, the sheer beauty of Jersey itself! The new series could literally have been filmed anywhere and is all the weaker for it. Unfortunately the more I watch the more I realise that Bergerac 2025 is inferior in virtually every aspect. Damien Moloney is a decent actor but lacks the charm of John Nettles, the support cast are all lesser versions of the originals and Zoe Wanamaker is completely wasted here.

The long form story could have been an upgrade but 2 three part episodes or even 3 two parters would have been preferable as the story was fairly basic and stretching it over 6 episodes made for dull viewing at many stages which made the lack of use of the beautiful surroundings even more difficult to understand.

Mention must be made of the excellent Phillip Glenister who stands head and shoulders above all others involved and left me wondering if he wouldn't have been better suited to the titular lead role.

All in all not terrible and probably better for those who have never seen the original but it could have been so much better.

Unfortunately, this production chose to treat some common life occurrences as though it's all just a "Slag Him Off!", "Slag Him Off!", "Slag Him Off!" opportunity. It's tiring and depressing.

A man imbibes one evening and all the next day he gets comments about being breathalysed, smelling bad, etc. Does this upright hominid not know how to shower or use a breath mint? WTH with this relentless nonsense? Clearly, there's a writer/team that doesn't understand garden-variety functional alcoholism, or what a true, full-blown drinking problem looks like. Instead, they flip out over practically nothing, and verbally exaggerate incessantly. PATHETIC.

Clichés and poor choices galore: 1) A pushy, wrong-headed, nearly amoral journalist who'd rather listen to a convicted criminal provide nothing but slander and defamation on any day of the week.

2) Idiotic psychiatry/counseling scenes, consisting of repetitive interrogations and hounding, followed by a full medical confidentiality breach with an employer.

3) Family conflict on repeat, where a parent is being barred from contact, but has done little of substance to warrant that.

4) Treating a grieving, depressed person with an emotional crutch like an abnormal pariah.

5) Bad, obvious evidence 'discovery' scenes.

6) Pressuring people while they're on the phone for absolutely no legit reason ('cept fake drama).

7) A totally illogical setup involving a semi-employment scenario (unrealistic in every way), with predictably irrational risk-taking, and then a parade of undermining and backstabbing colleagues (as if they could be called that) always marching around the office right behind to lay on the pointless pressure.

I mean, a guy has a drinking problem, but the counseling he's forced into doesn't address it, then he gets sent home to do nothing but scrut around his house for open bottles to chug? Would his 'superior officer' seriously think that cutting him off would be a way for him to get his head on straight, when being a workaholic is all that's keeping him going? INSANE.

And, no one is spending their full days having to parent teenaged children unless they are disabled dependents. SO DUMB!

Firstly, opening titles and music: complete mess, a weedy irritating noise with the original sound track muffled.

Which suits most of the script: Well over half was incoherent mumbling, not helped by the bloke bashing with the hammer in the next studio. The acting was not so much "wooden" as "concrete". The cast appointed by the United Nations. The police station appears to be a disused block of flats. Apart from some of the cast sounding as if they were reading their lines, many were sitting around for no reason at all, not contributing to the (lack of) action. Not a hint of humour, character, personality from anybody, as if it was all filmed in flat grey.

Dub it with american accents, rename it "Cop Guys" or somesuch. We watched an old copy of "Heartbeat" recently, and would advise Jason Durr as Bergerac, and Mark Jordon as Crozier. Oh, and good though she normally is, poor Zoe Wanamaker as "Charlie Hungerford" just does not cut it. Total drearyness, best avoided without anti-depressants. Waste of money. Ivor Macadam.