The Shadow in the North

I was somewhat worried that this episode might deviate too far from the original book, especially as "The Shadow in the North" is my favourite of the Sally Lockhart quartet. However, I was pleasantly surprised, it stuck extremely close to the book and really brought Philip Pullman's creation to life. The acting was superb, Billie Piper as the Financial Consultant-cum- detective Sally Lockhart was very convincing as the feisty, yet vulnerable young woman who is pulled into a dark underworld of corruption and murder. Equally, Jared Harris as evil tycoon Axel Bellman was great- understated yet chilling, just as Pullman envisaged him. I can't fault the script or pace of it either, it was gripping but managed to obtain the essence of dialogue/ storyline without leaving out anything significant, and some adaptations might tend to do. Overall, highly enjoyable and entertaining, a worthy adaptation of Pullman's great story!

In the second in Philip Pullman's Sally Lockhart trilogy, his heroine Sally Lockhart, parentless and alone, has found a ramshackle, surrogate family in Fred Garland's photographer-cum-private investigator, his uncle, and cheeky cockney Jim Taylor. Protected by her enormous hound, Chaka, she is now a financial consultant, using the patchy education her father had given her to advantage and staunchly defending her independence in Victorian London. The story kicks off with two events: one of Sally's clients explains that she has been ruined by the failure of a business she invested in on Sally's advice. At the same time a magician named McKinnon seeks Fred's help as he believes he has witnessed a murder. These circumstances combine to make a thread that leads straight to a dangerous businessman and sinister work in a factory in the north, and great danger for all of Sally's friends.

I'd really enjoyed "The Ruby in the Smoke", the first of the adaptations of the brave and modern Sally Lockhart trilogy, when it aired on British TV last Christmas. I was very excited to hear a sequel was planned; thought the chemistry between the radiant Billie Piper's Sally and J J Field's pleasing Fred Garland had worked well, and the stories are strong base material, even if squished into a TV slot.

But...maybe it was watching this with my parents when it aired over New Year on British TV - but I found this strangely detached, even a bit mechanical. This time round the leads' chemistry seemed to be absent, the script dry, the story rushed (as was the previous one) - the relations between the characters insufficiently explained. Considering we'd had to wait a year for this one, I was a bit disappointed. Perhaps the aim was to make a classroom-suitable programme for Victorian History lessons? - if so, why air it post watershed?

I wouldn't mind watching it again to find out whether it was just a false first impression. Sally is the Victorian heroine girls need today; incidentally, I disagree with other reviewers' annoyance with her modern look - it's exactly this quality that makes her a perfect poster girl to draw younger viewers into historical fiction. Ditto the thoroughly enlightened casting policy, reflecting actual, modern British society in a way you'll hardly ever see in historical TV shows. I've got a lot of time for both leads; and the baddie, Bellmann, was quietly menacing. It also looked amazing, packed with great period details. If they make it to the third in the trilogy I'd be very surprised, but would hope that they can find a way to better draw out the drama and excitement. Meanwhile, the excellent original books are a must if you enjoyed this even a bit.

Someone in the forest.

Blood on the snow.

He is still there, all in a glass coffin.

Bells, bells...the Bellmann.

There's a shadow in the north.

Now that Sally has lost a father and gained a family, she is ready for the next adventure.

Sally is now an investment counselor. JJ Field and Jim tailor give up their old professions and become detectives.

Again, there are several overlapping spooky problems including lost funds and murderous sward play. We are allowed to speculate and kibitz. About halfway through the movie most of the mysteries start to make sense. Now all we have to do is hope there are not any last-minute twists. Closed Caption helps with some of the mumbling.

Based on a novel by Bill Pullman (author of "The Golden Compass") you can see the Pullman pattern in the story. Pullman always has strong-willed women. Adrian Hodges wrote the screenplay, the same person that wrote the screen play in the first episode and kept the essentials while making it more palatable as a film.

Many people watched the BBC production because Sally (Veronica Lockhart) is well played by Billie Piper of "Dr. Who" fame. Yet all of the other actors most pretty well known in their rights helped make this an excellent presentation. Jim Taylor (Matt Smith) returns from the first episode and has a bigger part.

Strange what you remember and forget so I had to watch it again nearly two decades later.

After watching the first episode I was very much looking forward to seeing this episode. What a letdown. It went all Hollywood the focus changing from the story to an overdose of relationships including the required sex scene. It lost the story. It failed to tell the tale, something episode one was so great at. Bah, Humbug.

This is not at all what I expect from "Mystery!" Unless intended as farce, in which case it did not succeed either, I found the production far-fetched, and fraught with 21st century sensibilities and laxity.

Why did Sally only wear a hat to visit the villain? Was it 1875 when she was investigating, but 1970 or later in the rest of the story? I would have expected her to cover her head whenever she went out, with the exception of emergency.

And though very funny (*Was* it an attempt at farce?), during the scene at the Patent Office, I wasn't sure whether the Anglo-Asian clerk was befuddled by Sally because she was a woman or ineptly flirting with her.

To quote Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This production eliminated none of the impossible, and so we are left wallowing in disbelief at what we are expected to accept as the "truth" of the story.

Not being a reader of Pullman, I cannot comment on how true it is to the book on which it was based. Perhaps Mr. Pullman deserves the blame for my incredulity?