Der Kuss des Sandmanns

DI Tom Thornes (David Morrissey) is haunted by an incident years ago. He investigates victim Alison Willetts who has been left with locked-in syndrome. She was attacked and injected in the back of the neck. She is aware but unable to communicate or move. She is being treated by Dr. Anne Coburn (Natascha McElhone). There has actually been three previous victims. Kevin Tughan (Eddie Marsan) is Thornes' disbelieving boss and pathologist Phil Hendricks (Aidan Gillen) is suspicious.

The locked-in syndrome is pretty interesting. I like Alison's interior dialog. It's more compelling than expected. David Morrissey is a great actor. The biggest problem for me is the convenient reveal and connection to Thornes' problem from years ago. It's all too connected and I don't like it. There is no real reason for the connection other than it serves the writing.

"I have little doubt that author Billingham would be mortified at what has been done to his brilliant book and beloved characters..."

Before you go all self important with the 'book was so much better' garbage, you may want to get your facts straight. Mark Billingham is listed as an executive producer, which, as I understand it, has an awful lot to do with how a film's made. No, I haven't seen the film, read the book, or even heard of any of it before looking at the review, but it just bugs the crap out of me when people think they own a movie just because they read the book. And to assume that the author might be disappointed without even looking into whether the author had a role in the movie adaptation? I'm pretty sure your review is useless.

The cops in this British drama don't act like professional policemen but more like mentally deranged teenagers with anger management issues. The main character, DI Thorne (David Morrissey), is not in control of his emotions. His volatility and rage seem to infect the other members of the cast so that in total what we have here is a virtual feeding frenzy of scenery chewing. Cops yell at other cops and cops and medical doctors yell at each other. In one scene one character becomes enraged and punches another character repeatedly in the face for no reason that was apparent to me. DI Thorne seems to believe that he can communicate with a woman in a vegetative state by shouting at her. Other times he seems depressed and on the verge of suicide. The plot is senseless and contrived. Nobody appears to behave rationally. A woman doctor, when she finds out that her daughter has been kidnapped, just freaks out and starts screaming uncontrollably and Thorne freaks out too, running around like a chicken with its head cut off. So who's minding the store?

I don't generally like procedurals that feature serial killers, and especially serial killers with weird and perverted MOs, and especially serial killers who have an obsession with the primary investigator, sending him taunting messages. These are tired, boring clichés. That's my prejudice. But I must admit that genre could be done well in the right hands. This one is just awful. Don't waste your time.

Here we have a three-ring circus PLUS the kitchen sink. This show is so chock-a-block with clichés, red herrings, obvious plot contrivances, and all the current motifs of crime TV that it's hard to imagine what they left out. (We have the renegade cop always in trouble but with infallible instincts, the cold female boss, the seemingly genius serial killer that no one can catch no matter how many clues are strewn about in plain sight, the 'orrible, 'orrible crime, the cop himself and/or loved ones drawn into danger, dubious psychology made up on the fly, etc., ad nauseum.) The show is all so blatantly contrived that it seems to veer into self-parody on numerous occasions, totally undercutting whatever dread or deep engagement we're supposed to be experiencing. Sadly, with so much fine British TV to chose from, never seen on these shores, this is a show that Encore chose to bring over to the US. No thanks.

This could have been excellent or at least better than it was in the end. Too many flashbacks, confusing characters and dialogue. And the messy conclusion did nothing to advance the cause of any sort of resolution or closure. And to begin to suggest the end result of the "victim" was ludicrous. I am not familiar with the author's work but he cannot possibly be pleased with this presentation.