Grantchester

I have not read the books. Therefore I enter as a virgin into the land of Grantchester. So, to me, it is a pleasant, light, somewhat funny, charming show. If we accept the idea that the Director meant to make the show in that way, I think that it is successful. I think the acting is excellent, and the stories are within reason, and interesting,but not hard-hitting because the show is not meant to be "film noir". It is light entertainment. I don't have to really believe that a Vicar, Sidney Chambers (James Norton),is regularly solving murders with his friend, Geordie, the police detective. I need not believe that a seemingly small town would have so many murders--one or more weekly--OK, let's say the time frame is two months apart, still.....you get it. So I give this show a 9 because I do enjoy it. I particularly like the acting of James Norton as the Vicar, but all are good.

We loved this series through three seasons. The fourth is unfaithful to the characters, has absurd plots, and is poorly written. We won't be watching Season Five.

I very much enjoyed seasons 1 and 2 - another "cozy" mystery series, gorgeously filmed and well-acted. The mysteries themselves are self-contained from episode to episode, while character development story arcs take place in the background to tie things together. As other reviewers have noted, the writers have made hero Sidney Chambers remarkably liberal and modern in his views. Perhaps in 1953 there were small-town vicars with such attitudes, but after a while it feels unrealistic.

For whatever reason, season 3 fell flat for me, to the extent I thought they might have changed writers. Perhaps it's the peaking of a couple of those story arcs in season 2, but I found that I no longer cared very much about the characters, while the mysteries began to feel secondary to the characters' stories. I'm unlikely to come back for season 4.

As another has written, I came to Grantchester after a few seasons of Father Brown. While another "priest+cop" series seemed redundant, Grantchester is brilliantly written and acted.

Sydney Chambers (the Vicar of Grantchester) is conflicted...almost tortured by the choices he faces; the complications of the crimes that drive the main part of the story don't make Sydney's life any easier. (No add'l info on this as that would be a spoiler.)

The last time I was this caught up in a British detective series was with Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes. Yes; it's that good - even better.

Go with it; you won't be sorry.

I like Grantchester for the period costumes and the Cambridgeshire setting, the plots are rather tame but what I do dislike about it is that the attitudes that it portrays are so anachronistic. The scriptwriters are becoming more determined to add in 21st century attitudes and to be politically correct, and this is completely out of place for a drama set in the 1950s. I had a rolling eyes moment when Chambers and Keating greeted each other with a hug - for heaven's sake, British men didn't even do that in the 1980s, let alone the 1950s! A handshake would have been a sign of affection but a hug - absolutely not. I really can't see a vicar that I would have known in my youth (in the 1970s) let himself go to that extent, I'm thinking in particular or the 'simulated sex on the dance floor scene' - even non-clergy wouldn't have behaved like that in the 1950s. People just didn't behave like that in public.

Another reviewer felt that Grantchester was better than Jeremy Brett's Sherlock; I think absolutely not. I know my British history in great depth and that version of Sherlock had an authentic feel of Victorian Britain. Grantchester viewers could be left thinking that the 1950s were not much different to today, just different clothes, and that certainly isn't true.