Opiniones de usuarios

This show is riddled with plot holes, it is inconsistent in tone, and baffling at times, but it's still a fun ride if you sit back and suspend disbelief and avoid analyzing it too deeply. If you struggle with unbelievable storylines or character decisions, this won't be for you. However, the actors performances hold up and you'll be wanting to see what happens next. It's a mix of older BBC murder mystery series, Sherlock, and a bunch of weird writing decisions in between. It's not a show you'll want to go out of your way for, but if you want a short series that's relatively mindless and entertaining, this will do the trick.

I decided to watch this despite mixed reviews because I love Stanley Tucci. As per usual, Stanley does a great job especially given the writing he had to work with. Tucci and the other death row inmate are fantastic together and it would be a much more interesting show if it was just based on them solving cases. Instead there is a horrible second story involving David Tennant. This is where the show goes off the rails. Tennant's character makes the worst decisions imaginable. I caught myself asking why countless times just during the first episode. It makes the show so unrealistic that it's practically unwatchable. Normally I see Tennant in great roles and I have no idea why he decided to take this part. He does a solid job but his character makes such poor decisions that I don't think any human would make regardless of their level of intelligence that it makes his part of the story very hard to watch. I've seen this in a couple other reviews but if you can throw all reality out the window while watching this, you'll probably enjoy it especially if you're a fan of Tucci or Tennant. If you prefer more realistic writing and decision making by the characters, this might be a hard watch for you. Essentially if you desperately need something to watch, give this a try but there are countless other shows that I would recommend before this one.

So much talent, actors and writers, but what a farce. They probably had to first come up with a list of plotholes to then write a story around it. I can't imagine running into so many problems when writing the story first... Every possible cliche is present. Should get stars only for that achievement.

• Empty phone battery
• Sudden and irrational change of mind at crucial point in story
• Calling each other and the others ignoring the call
• When they eventually answer the phone, talk about anything other than the thing they WANTED to get across
• Endless trivial discussions to actively ignore the topic you had to get off your chest. Next time, talk about the weather, at least *something* interesting to listen to.

• Ending up at the other side of the world for no apparent reason
• Convenient van to run over the one character that can make a difference.

A prisoner on death row works with a British journalist, the ultimate mission is to discover a missing teacher.

This is a hugely original, imaginative drama, it serves to ask the question, what lengths with a normal, everyday, caring person go to to protect someone that they loved.

If you're a fan of writer Stephen Moffat, as I am, you'll know he's capable of writing some incredible stuff, Sherlock and Doctor Who, you'll also know he's capable of writing some trash ......Sherlock and Doctor Who for example. This is a mix of both, some elements are amazing, some are quite poor.

If you're prepared to accept that reality is abandoned early on in episode one, you may just enjoy this, Part four is insane, it's wild and over the top, I loved it.

David Tennant is awesome (when isn't he,) Stanley Tucci was just phenomenal. The acting was perhaps the best thing about it, the two were captivating, but everyone played their part.

It's full of holes, so many times you'll be scratching your head, wondering what's going on. How thick were those walls??

7/10.

I can certainly understand not liking this, but it seems like a lot of the negative takes have come from people expecting it to be something else. I guess because of who was involved in its creation, a lot of people expected something along the lines of Sherlock. Maybe there was also some misleading marketing involved, but if so, I missed it.

What it reminds me of more than anything else (and *far* more than Sherlock) is Fargo, both the movie and the FX series. It's a dark comedy with two main plot lines, one about regular people who get themselves into a criminal misunderstanding, make a series of bad decisions in the ensuing panic and progressively making the situation worse for themselves until it all unravels, and the other about a journalist collaborating with an eccentric, hyper-competent death row inmate to rescue the person who got imprisoned in one of the former group's early bad decisions. I'm not gonna deny that it's implausible and absurd, but I think that's by design.

If you go in expecting Sherlock, you'll probably be disappointed. If you go in expecting Fargo, I think it'll be enjoyable enough.

This show sets up some contrived circumstances, in the first episode, somewhat rapidly in succession. Without going into details it requires a fair bit of suspension of belief, because literally none of those events would occur anything like that.

There's language that people don't really use in real life, that are somewhat more common in niche circles - and I notice this is for some reason common in British, and in particular BBC television series. I'm not really sure what it is about the BBC, but they have a way of creating TV that is particularly out of touch with reality.

On the positive side the acting is fine, the characters would be fairly compelling if in slightly less contrived scenarios and it isn't boring by any means, it just has a persistent distracting quality about it.

OK Yep - its imlausable - but how many plausible pieces of fiction are there?

This is an British TV programme by The BBC. Its basically half set in The USA but intertwines with a UK based situation. Quite unique in my view.

I think its really well written - great storyline and really good characters.

At first, when I saw Stanley Tucci - a resident of my home town London (and I see him sometimes around the neighbourhood) - was in this production I was not at all convinced of his suitability - but he is absolutely perfect in this role.

Its a really well produced series worthy of a lot more than the ratings on here. I dont know why the ratings are so low - with the storyline, acting and intertwining production, I think this is just great.

But dont take it all too serriously!

You must watch it until AFTER The Credits on the last episode.

This show pulled me in within the first 15 minutes. The storyline is a complicated, frustrating mess from the off. It is a reminder how anyone can find themselves in a predicament which leads them to do silly things that they would never have thought possible. The first episode is the best for comic value but the episodes get a little darker as they go along and the last is the most frustrating but not in a bad way. It is just like the characters. All likeable, but annoying because of the things they do. This is definitely set up for a sequel and I will be tuning in. Very smart script and so very watchable.

My title says it all. Two of my pet plot peeves are stupidity (the characters do something stupid to move the plot forward) and contrivance (circumstances beyond credibility to move the plot forward). So masterful in so many ways, it is a shame that this plot seems written by a drunk amateur shouting out random ideas ("hey, and then this could happen!...").

The best bit was Stanley Tucci's and Atkin Estimond's neo-Sherlock/Watson rendition. Great character concept, actor pairing, and portrayal. The only downside (again) was the fairly contrived scenarios they were challenged to solve. But I could watch them banter all day.

I would reboot the series around Tucci and Estimond and hire a professional writer to focus on plot structure and you would have winner to rival "Sherlock" and "Elementary".

Whoever gave bad reviews obviously didn't give it more than five minutes. I apologize if any spoilers slip out. Stanley tucci as usual is excellent. This is like Sherlock Holmes if he was a death row inmate. Kind of a Hannibal lector thing except the guy isn't really dangerous or (I think) guilty. This would make a fantastic series. I can't figure out why others saw this and thought it wasn't good. The entire cast was excellent. The plot was solid and the mystery was soooo good.. if you liked murder she wrote or any of the other similar shows where the hero solves crimes in an almost supernatural fashion, than this is for you.

I found it very entertaining and found myself wishing it was a series.

I dont understand why the negative reviews? Moffat developed a tongue in the cheek thriller. I think that people who gave this series 1 star dont understand the quirky, playful script behind it. They take it all very seriously and dont grin as the the story develops.

It is not a drama, it is not a thriller that will make you sit at the edge of your couch. Did you guys watch "The Woman in the House Across the Street from the Girl in the Window"? Did you think that was a real crime show? This is a implausible but playful TV series that will hook you to Netflix for four hours because everything that sounds very illogical will tie to a ending and everything will work out. And your heart will pound to know what will happen in the end!

Relax, just sit and enjoy the show. Dont take everything too seriously! This one will make you disconnected from the world over the weekend! Quite good and very enjoyable light series!

The story had potential to create a great series. However some decisions or turning points taken at some point are absurd. They were so absurd that made me loose the engagement to watch it till the end. The pros are that it's a different story then the usual series, something new. Acting is very good as well. However certain decisions or actions are absurd for the seriousness that the director wanted to create. It's a short series which is good for those that do not like long series with a story that is kept stretched out. All in all, it's not a bad series, but not a great one either. Watch it if you have nothing better to watch.

There are two storylines going here, but the problem is that they're tonally very different.

The one with Stanly Tucci is dry, cerebral and psychologically-engaging, while the one with David Tenant is broad, sort-of comedic and relies on ludicrously-unlikely plotting.

Either would have been fine if they'd picked one and stuck with it. The Tennant storyline works perfectly well if you just 'park-your-brain' and accept the absurdity, but then you're being asked to engage with the measured, thoughtful tone of Tucci's storyline.

Going back and forth between the two is jarring - jumping from broad, dark comedy to smart, subtle drama.

Tucci's storyline would have made a gripping psychological study, not least because Tucci is such a compelling performer, but it's a shame it was thrown away in this "game of two halves."

How to win my heart in 2 seconds: a series created by Steven Moffat, for the BBC, with David Tennant and Stanley Tucci starring in it. I was already in love even before the first second of the 4 episode series. For the story, I will not say more than what is in the synopsis: "A prisoner on death row in the US and a woman trapped in a cellar under an English vicarage, cross paths in the most unexpected way." It is very much a British series, so if you are more into big action US ones, you will probably hate it, which would explain the rates you see all around. You do need to get through the first scene though, which is at best cringe worthy. You then get into a 4 hour long movie divided into 4 episodes so that you can watch them at a pace (yes, of course I binge watched them), where the whole premise could be summarised with 'Everyone is a murderer. You just have to meet the right person' said by Stanley Tucci within the first episode. The acting is superb from Tucci and Tennant (how else could it be?), though not great with the supporting actors. I did find it fun that I hated the main victim so much that I was on the aggressor's side.

The Stanley Tucci storyline is a 10/10. Give me multiple series of that character solving (good) crimes from prison. The simple cunning. The somehow lovable insane serial killer. Tucci somehow pulls off Sherlock clever and creepy/menacing inmate. Just incredible set up and character creation.

The David Tennant storyline is a 0/10. I ended up fast forwarding some bits just to get to the other storyline. A ridiculous series of very easily avoidable events. It's not an interesting enough crime to solve (although the manner that the apropos named Grieff solves the crime is impressive)

Please give us more Tucci and Grieff!!

Hopefully not following the Janice storyline.

When I first read about this new drama, it seemed a bit contrived and boring. But since it is written by Steven Moffatt, I decided to give it a chance. I am glad I did - just a few minutes in and I was hooked. Brilliantly weird, totally fresh, not a single predictable line or plot twist, great OTT characters - this will be four hours of total bliss.

Great acting all around, especially by Stanley Tucci and his wacky cellmate.

All in all, there are only two writers capable of combining suspense with comedy on this level. One is David Renwick, and the other is Steven Moffatt. Shows like Sherlock, Coupling and Joking Apart are now joined by another masterpiece. I can even forgive him for the utterly silly Doctor Who and the awful Chalk - this is him back on form.

...when he have a bad day.

There is not more add otherwise it will be quite spoiling.

Cast is great,Tucci great,all of them are very entertaining.

It is a Thriller and it is also funny in a dark way.

I want more thats for sure. It has only 4 Episodes(1 Season),i say Give it a Try without expecting much,but Sense of Dark Humour,otherwise you´ll probably feel disturbed. This is thrilling but its not a action-show,so lower you expectations because of the cast and you might be pleasantly surprised,maybe even longing for more like i do.

I give easily 8-9 of 10 stars ,its definitely worth it without a doubt.

That the BBC is able to produce some kick-ass great content has been shown last year with the highly popular "The Serpent". With "Inside Man", another attempt is made by de BBC to achieve world-fame. I must however admit that they only partially succeeded this time.

With a cast of actors that makes you drool, it wasn't a difficult choice to start watching this show. And I must say that the first two episodes hooked me.

The combination of a story that (1) takes place on deathrow in a USA prison, and (2) in a vicarge in england, makes this a combination of "hell" and "heaven". The events that actually occur are the total opposite of what you expect: i.e. The good stuff happens on deathrow, whilst the bad events occur in the vicarage. How more counter intuitive can it get?!

Episode 3 and 4 however became so absurd that I wondered what on earth I was watching. The absurdism however reached such a level that it became an overall enjoyable watch. Some of the events even made me recall some great "Mr. Bean"-sketches, where every good intentioned deed resulted in utter chaos. This without the comedy that is...

The show is set-up in such a way that they can easily extend it with a second season. And I honestly hope that this will happen. I would hope though that a second season would get rid of the storyline in the vicerage and focus solely on the deeds of the "deathrow detective". Because that part of the story is just utter genius!

I would rate this very enjoyable watch with a rating of 7.3/10, which needs to be rounded down to 7 stars to meet the iMDB scoring intervals. The reader of this review deserves to know that I find this show a well-deserved watch and most certainly deserves a sequel!

Doctor Who, Sherlock, now this - Moffat keeps trying and keeps missing, held at bay by his own wrongly perceived cleverness. And no, giving the audience riddles nobody can bring themselves to care about doesn't make for engagement and interest.

The acting is all around good, but the material they were given to work with doesn't worth the paper it was printed on.

None of the characters are likable or interesting, none of them can elevate the strangely s*x-obsessed plot.

The entire mess could have been avoided by asking the teacher if she really thought the kid would have proudly claim the video as his had he known what was in it.