Avis des utilisateurs

This movie is much like what Pearl Harbour did to Tora, Tora, Tora (the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbour). It's a story with love interwoven among prisoner of wars. If you are looking for a good prison escape war movie, you'd be disappointed as they are loop holes all over. I was attracted by the trailer that said that "an escape from the tightest security prison" And if you are hoping for a full love story, it doesn't make it either. The plot is also shallow. However, the cinematography is excellent. I like the way it was filmed: the scenes in the prison was often in greyish-brownish tones and the military intelligence headquarters in brighter colours. Switching around the locations using this technique kept me interested all the time. The ending could have been better but is rather abrupt. I'd watch it again, if I was someone looking for a love story in war time setting. The trailer shown could be better. And in the opening scenes - a line "an officer and gentleman" was used. It was certainly not what it was meant to be.

When a very solid movie has been made on a true event, based on a book, or both, the Hollywoods of the world are hard pressed to repeat success with a remake. A rare few have been as successful when they copy an original hit movie. The vast majority either have failed outright or have had much less audience appeal. Yet, if one has a good story, or maybe a couple of good stories that you can change and mesh into a new tale of sorts, it's worth a try. That's what we have in this TV mini- series. "Colditz" was produced by Granada TV and aired on the BBC two nights in March 2005.

The movie title is taken from the famed German POW camp for Allied escapee officers. The filming in the Czech Republic gave some reality to the period and the place. And, it has some similarities to real prisoners who had been imprisoned at Colditz. The most striking of these is the character of Willis, played exceptionally well by Laurence Fox. Ironically, the real person he portrayed, Michael Sinclair, was called the Red Fox by the Germans. They had distributed his picture throughout Germany. The red-headed British captain may have been the most expert escape artist in WW II. He escaped nine times, including twice from Colditz. In this movie, Willis is finally killed when a German soldier shoots him. This scene is depicted about as it happened to Sinclair. He jumped the fence and was running to the woods when he was shot. He was the only prisoner in the six years of the Colditz camp to be killed while escaping.

But, this film otherwise has a major detraction from the story about Colditz Castle and the escape attempts. The first film about Colditz was in 1955. It had to condense much and the filmmakers made some changes, but it told the story as written by one of the first Colditz escapees, Patrick R. Reid.

Another American movie was made in 1971; and in 1972-74, the BBC ran a series with 28 episodes. Reid advised and worked on that series, and had written a follow-up book with more details. Now, jump forward 30 years, and someone at Granada TV thought this would be a good candidate for a remake. But, it couldn't copy the original. In fact, it should have the gratuitous female for romance and then some. So, the writers came up with a new story that they hoped would have appeal to modern audiences. The two-installment mini series was the result.

I don't know why they bothered to identify it with Colditz, except for the likely appeal from the name and real story. That was another way to draw people to the series. And, to be fair, it does show some realistic scenes about prisoners and escape attempts. But the story is much more about betrayal than it is about romance or escape from a POW camp. Those things surely are part of the story. But this more clearly is a story about a faithful girlfriend during wartime; a self-centered, rebellious and uncaring British soldier; and betrayal of another soldier, his girlfriend and his country by lustful persistence, lies, deceit murder and treason. So, for all of this, this rendition of "Colditz" is captivating and quite good. It has strong interest and entertainment appeal. I found myself wanting and looking forward to justice being done with the betrayer and lout.

I've not used character names here to keep the intrigue in the story for anyone who hasn't yet seen the film but would like to watch it. And by all means, if you haven't yet seen the original 1955 film with John Mills and Eric Portman, by all means watch for it to air or look for it in stores. It's worth the purchase price to have the real story and film.

I enjoyed watching the two part television series about the Colditz Castle even though I have known better escape movies such as "Papillon" or "The Shawshank Redemption" and even though the melodramatic love and treachery stories were rather predictable and some historical details had not been taken into consideration. There were also some things that I would have liked to see further developed such as the escape at the beginning of the movie, the death of the electrician and the fate of Sawyer but these things are only details.

I think that this movie got too many severe reviews on this side as the actors do some great efforts and the movie succeeds to keep the pace and attention quite high over more than three hours. I liked the fact that the plot spent some time on developing the different characters and the human conflicts which gave a philosophical and moral twist to the movie and treated topics such as desperation, drug abuse, treachery, bribery, love, dreams and freedom. The characters were authentic and diversified. The escape plans were mostly original and quite entertaining and it was good to see that an equal time was spent on the escape story and on the complex love story itself. That's why this movie was rather diversified and mixed action and drama passages with more romantic passages. I think that this dynamical mixture is one of the main factors that carried this good movie on.

In the end, if you like historical movies about the world wars or complex escape stories, you might pretty much like this film even if it is not a highlight of the genre. You will though get a well done and very entertaining movie that will make you think and learn a lot about history and life.

I enjoyed watching "Colditz" very much. However I was extremely disappointed in the character of Bunny Warren, played by Timothy West. This character is based on the war activities of Clayton Hutton (always known as Clutty). He was a remarkable man and I commend his book "Official Secret" as a true guide to the man. Clutty was one of those unsung heroes of those days who played a vital role during those dark days. To portray him as some kind of bumbling, irascible "boffin" does great discredit to the man. The writers of "Colditz" should be ashamed of their manner in which they presented him in this drama. He deserves better than that.

been wanting to see this one for awhile, the previews looked pretty good, was figuring it would be like the great escape, or papillion, wrong, it's more like cold mountain or pearl harbor. now don't get me wrong this is an interesting movie, with great characters, just i think that the previews and the cover on the DVD are misleading,, this is more of a romance than a war movie, you got the lead character appearing before the war with his sweetie,, doesn't ask her to marry him,, big mistake,, he goes of to war , doesn't see her for a long time,, his buddy escapes the pow camp, and promises the other guy that he will look up his girl,, well without giving anything away, i'm sure you can guess what may happen,, there are many attempted escapes in this movie, i didn't feel that the German officers were very authentic in this movie..

Well, I have a big crush on Damian Lewis but that is not enough to propel this series into a high star rating. There isn't nearly enough time spent on the attempts to escape from what is almost an inescapable fortress. There isn't enough attention to the place, or to the feelings of frustration and uselessness and claustrophobia that these POW's feel. In addition, sometimes it is difficult to understand what is being said. I could understand Lewis though.

There are too few scenes showing how these prisoners actually spend their TIME, other than staring out the window. Escape plans which took months in reality are glossed over, and suddenly you see a bunch of guys on another daring attempt, almost out of the blue. The Colditz story is a fascinating one and the 1972 series is well worth seeing. This one, see it once and you really get how great the original was.

I thought this version had a love triangle that took up too much screen time and pulled the viewer into London too often. That defeats the purpose of creating the proper atmosphere for the viewer to feel what it was really like to be stuck in Colditz with very little hope of escape. I will say that the acting and sets are good.

Colditz is a castle near Leipzig where during WW II the Nazis held Allied troops who were particularly at risk as escape artists. Many of the men had escaped POW camps prior to their incarceration in the huge castle, and the man in charge of the prison warns every new inmate that the castle is impenetrable: there is no possibility of escaping and those who attempt will be killed.

The film begins in London 1939 as men are preparing to leave for the front. Among them is a slightly naive but warmly human lad, Jack Rose (Tom Hardy) who has fallen in love with Lizzie (Sophia Myles), in a sweet, innocent union that represents the concept of 'the love we leave behind'. Jack leaves for duty with fellow soldiers Nicholas McGrade (Damian Lewis) and Tom Willis (Lawrence Fox) and soon they are captured by the Nazis and placed in a POW camp. Of course, being cunning lads, they soon escape only to be captured again and sent to the ominous Colditz - all except Nick. There they bond with men from home such as artist Sawyer (Guy Henry) and from other countries including France and Canada - among them Rhett Barker (Jason Priestly) who is a manipulator able to buy goods from Nazi guards including drugs to which he is addicted.

Nick is sent back to London where he meets Lizzie to tell her of Jack's safety. In time the two feel an attraction that proves to have fatal consequences because of Nick's obsession to have Lizzie to himself. Meanwhile the men in Colditz attempt multiple escapes only to be caught each time and put into solitary confinement. The drive to escape is aided by all of the inmates and yet their efforts are thwarted by colleagues turned informers for their own selfish needs. Artist Sawyer does escape and is assigned in London with the Intelligence outfit with Nick: he learns that supposedly Jack has been reported as killed in action (a letter forged by Nick to gain access to Lizzie's emotions) and the remainder of the story concerns the end of the war, the release of the prisoners from Colditz, and the fatal schism between the returning Jack and his rival Nick over the love of Lizzie.

Director Stuart Orme manages to keep the pace of this over three hour long film, allowing the viewer to meet and understand and care about a very large cast of characters (writers Richard Cottan and Peter Morgan have created deft personalities). Filmed in London and the Czech Republic the atmosphere is correctly captured and the large cast of characters includes many very fine cameos. If there is a single message to summarize a complex story, it is the old adage 'brothers in arms, rivals in love'. This made for television miniseries is well acted and is another opportunity to see the background stories of World War II. Recommended viewing. Grady Harp

Does anyone do any research for programmes any more? The holes in the production of "Colditz" were too numerous to mention, and the plot too ridiculous to contemplate.

The history of Colditz must be so well documented that practically everyone must know that the first Brit to make a home run from the castle was Airey Neave, and he did not escape by way of disguising himself as an electrician and borrowing his three-wheeler. (Such an ingenious impersonation was tried, but the would be escapee was caught and photographed next to the unfortunate tradesman.) To be fair, the feature movie "The Colditz Story" was also at fault here, as it depicted Pat Reid as making the first Brit home run, but it's closing remarks did make an acknowledgement of Neave's achievement.

In this latest effort little was made in capturing the flavour of situations and events (or hunger). Even a smattering of truth would have made all the difference, but then the silly love triangle turned the whole thing into a laughable fiasco. I have nothing against the inclusion of romance into such historical series, but here the facts were changed to fit the story. This should never be done but sadly it often is. As for the misguided depictions of mock executions, all surviving Colditz POWs (and indeed guards) seeing this, must be shaking their heads in utter disbelief.

The closing credits included a statement that the production was based in part on recent documentaries. I suggest the producers etc. should study them a little closer and talk to survivors, instead of resorting to uninspired artistic licence. I also suggest they should read the many books and websites on the subject. It's not difficult to find the truth if the time is taken to look for it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airey_Neave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colditz_Castle

Colditz film/tv productions usually have an all male cast. This one brought welcome respite from the usual restricted diet of bed sheet ropes and Red Cross parcels, introducing female cast members. Ignore all those 1 star reviews quibbling about the unrealistic metal content of German uniform buttons or door hinge authenticity. This is a story of love and a classic wartime moral dilemma, with a side helping of betrayal. It may not be Oscar winning material but Sophia Myles is a delight (as usual), Damien does what he does best and the dual setting adds to the overall feel of life during WWII. Well worth a watch if you're not going to quibble about historical accuracy......after all, Harry Potter isn't exactly true to life, is it!

This made for TV movie has a broad appeal. WWII enthusiasts will probably be lukewarm on it though. Young couples who are tired of watching reality shows may perhaps give it a go.

It starts off with some dashing suspense, but quickly dissolves into something like an episode of Desperate Housewives. (Love triangle, romantic obsession, deception, betrayal, bored inmates etc.)

All that's missing from Colditz is Teri Hatcher and a melted measuring cup.

Damien Lewis is excellent. Quite the opposite from his Band of Brothers character. Jason Priestly also has a nice small role. Again, he is nothing like his character on Beverly Hills 90210 (although I'm sure he must have felt some similarities between the two roles when he first read the script).

So, go ahead and watch it if you want to. But if you are a WWII enthusiasts (or not part of a romantic couple) then you're probably better off watching The Great Escape on DVD.

I nearly didn't see this because of the critical slating.

I'm glad I did. It certainly isn't historical fact, but neither is Robin Hood or King Arthur etc.

This is a love story based on the 'legend' of Colditz Castle the notorious POW from WWII.

If Mr Tarantino can get away with that nonsense of 'inglorious Basterds' I think a little artistic license can be granted here. At least they aren't misspelling the title and they made it in 2005 before you could get away with totally rewriting history. This is a movie whereas that was a cartoon.

Colditz did exist so did MI9 and other parts of the story are founded in fact, but this is a romantic drama FICTION! Get over it you anal historians.

It is well acted and has a reasonable plot, provided you believe that men will lie for sex. There I said it, people lie. It or 'shit' happens.

I enjoyed this movie as a movie not a historical document. Watch it before you criticize. I am glad that its not true.

At first glance, the 2005 miniseries bearing the name Colditz appears to situate itself firmly within the lineage of World War II prisoner-of-war dramas - a genre steeped in codes of honor, collective endurance, and the archetypal escape narrative. Yet what unfolds is something far more intimate and morally volatile: not a story of Colditz itself, but a psychological drama in wartime, where betrayal, desire, and shifting loyalties eclipse any notion of patriotic clarity. While it borrows the visual and thematic grammar of the "prisoners of war" subgenre - one that has historically tread a fine line between patriotic escapism and psychological introspection - it resists its core conventions. This production makes no attempt at romanticizing captivity nor at simplifying the dynamics between captors and captives. Instead, it stakes its ground in a subdued yet persistent realism, both in tone and execution, while offering stylistic nods to earlier cinematic treatments of POW life, though with a considerably darker and more inward-looking palette.

That said, one cannot ignore the dissonance between the film's title and its actual narrative core. The decision to brand the miniseries with the name Colditz invites immediate comparison with earlier treatments of that prison - especially The Colditz Story (1955) and the 1970s BBC series - both of which aimed to dramatize real escape attempts, often framed through collective resilience and national character. The 2005 film, however, takes an entirely different path: it is, at its heart, not a story about Colditz as a prison or historical symbol, but rather a drama of betrayal, moral collapse, and private loyalties ruptured by war. The name operates more as a marketing anchor - invoking familiarity and historical gravity - than as an accurate reflection of the film's actual thematic center. In that sense, it may be more honest to say that Colditz serves here as a psychological backdrop, not the narrative engine.

Visually, the film commits to an aesthetic of restraint. The cinematography avoids overt stylization; handheld shots and low-saturation grading evoke a lived-in authenticity, subtly aligning the viewer's physical sensation with that of the prisoners - constrained, surveilled, and exhausted. The color palette is built around greys, browns, and sickly greens, emphasizing the institutional bleakness of the fortress and the moral murk that slowly overtakes its inhabitants. The visual language often echoes the aesthetic of The Colditz Story (1955), but eschews that film's clear-cut heroism in favor of ambiguity and psychological decay.

The direction avoids theatricality. The camera rarely strays into moments of sweeping grandeur, even in scenes that involve escapes or high tension. Instead, it focuses tightly on the human face - on the micro-expressions of fear, resentment, and desperation. It's a technique reminiscent of The One That Got Away (1957), which similarly centers on isolation and the individual psyche, but this film pushes further by extending those interior states across a broader, more fractured ensemble. The attention to claustrophobic interpersonal dynamics lends it an almost theatrical density, albeit grounded in rigorous naturalism. While some have described the film's structure as uneven or meandering, that perception largely dissolves when the two episodes are viewed consecutively. Seen as a continuous three-hour piece, the narrative unfolds with a grim cohesion, and the pacing aligns well with its emotional and thematic gravity.

What distinguishes this film from many of its mid-century predecessors is its postmodern awareness of British wartime mythology. Made in the early 2000s, a time marked by both a resurgence of interest in "true" wartime narratives and a general cultural skepticism towards institutional heroism, the miniseries occupies an ambivalent space. The portrayal of class tensions among the British officers, the moral compromises involved in escape planning, and the questioning of whether "duty" still holds meaning within such a dehumanizing environment all reflect a broader cultural shift. The early 2000s saw Britain still engaged in post-Iraq War introspection, and this film clearly carries the marks of that moment. Its messages about leadership, sacrifice, and institutional loyalty are less about inspiring national pride than interrogating the cost of those ideals when transplanted into a crumbling imperial framework.

This historical moment of production also helps explain why the film turns its focus so sharply toward the personal - to jealousy, disillusionment, betrayal, and romantic obsession. More than a war story, it is a tragic narrative about wartime love and moral failure. The inclusion of a central female character and the emotional entanglements that drive the plot would have felt out of place - even gratuitous - in earlier Colditz dramatizations. But here, that romantic tension becomes the hinge on which the entire moral architecture turns. In doing so, the film deliberately breaks with the genre's traditions: instead of collective endurance, it offers private collapse; instead of escape as noble duty, it presents evasion - emotional and physical - as acts riddled with ambiguity and ego.

The performances operate in quiet registers, never overreaching. The actors - largely drawn from the British television stage, with a few familiar faces known for work in period drama - manage to convey a level of psychological strain that avoids caricature. The aristocratic officers do not automatically command sympathy, and the working-class figures are not idealized. This complexity of character presentation is one of the film's quiet achievements. The German officers are also depicted with nuance, avoiding the lazy villainy that mars many earlier entries in the genre. There is no equivalent here to the grotesque archetypes of Escape from Sobibor (1987) or the rigid militarism of Stalag 17 (1953); instead, Colditz's guards are weary bureaucrats, occasionally sympathetic, sometimes brutal, always fully embedded in a system they neither created nor fully control.

The score is minimal, functional rather than emotive. It rarely intrudes, which is both a strength and a limitation. While the absence of sentimental cues enhances the realism, it can occasionally flatten the dramatic rhythm, particularly in sequences that might benefit from a stronger sense of urgency. In this sense, the film feels more akin to a BBC historical dramatization than to the tightly orchestrated thrill of something like The Great Escape (1963). But again, the lack of bombast seems intentional, and it serves the miniseries' core theme - that survival in captivity is a grinding, protracted, and morally compromising endeavor.

What perhaps limits the film's resonance, however, is its occasional uncertainty about structure. Being a miniseries, it tries to stretch what might have been a taut two-hour narrative into a multi-part arc, and while the extended format allows for greater character depth, it sometimes diffuses tension. However, when viewed in a single sitting - as a continuous narrative - these issues recede considerably. The flow becomes steadier, and the focus on psychological deterioration rather than physical escape acquires greater weight.

Where the film excels, beyond question, is in its spatial use of Colditz Castle itself. The location becomes a psychological force, a character in its own right. The architecture - all shadowed corridors, echoing stairwells, and iron-barred windows - is filmed with an oppressive reverence. The fortress is not merely a container for the story; it defines its very rhythm. This spatial awareness, combined with the film's commitment to realism and moral complexity, sets it apart from many other treatments of the same subject, even if it doesn't reach the iconic status of earlier Colditz-based cinema.

In the context of early 21st-century British television, where historical dramas were increasingly tasked with blending period authenticity with contemporary ethical sensibilities, the film strikes a careful balance. It avoids overt revisionism while still dismantling the clean dichotomies of earlier wartime narratives. It doesn't ask the viewer to admire heroism, nor does it indulge in cynical subversion. Instead, it offers something more unsettling: a portrait of a place where identity, loyalty, and morality are not fixed values, but fluid responses to confinement.

COLDITZ

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Dolby Digital

(2 episodes)

A desperate POW (Tom Hardy) plots escape from Colditz after learning that a former inmate (Damian Lewis) has returned to London and stolen Hardy's fiancée (Sophia Myles).

Lively addition to the 'heroes of WWII' subgenre, filmed on location in London and the Czech Republic, and directed with cinematic flair by Stuart Orme (THE PUPPET MASTERS). Richard Cottan's screenplay (co-written with Peter Morgan, based on the book by Henry Chancellor and the 2000 TV series "Escape from Colditz") cross-cuts between events at Colditz castle - where Hardy and fellow inmate Laurence Fox (DEATHWATCH) hatch multiple escape plans, only to be thwarted by a combination of bad luck and reckless bravado - and the less-interesting relationship which develops between Lewis and Myles, though the two plot threads merge neatly for a melodramatic finale. Lewis gives the showiest performance, playing a selfish character whose charming demeanor masks a propensity for greed and violence, though Hardy and Fox are suitably intense in crucial supporting roles. James Fox (father of Laurence) and Timothy West make extended cameo appearances as senior members of MI9, while former teen heartthrob Jason Priestley plays a Canadian POW whose burgeoning drug habit pays lethal dividends. Fine cinematography and production values.

I've already watched some 2 hours of this incredible flop! I'll go through it to see to what an extent the two script writers have gone.

Have they ever read a single line of the many books about Colditz and in particular Pat Reid's. Probably not.

Their sole interest in this movie is to show a love story and all the rest is just for the fun and accessory. The skills of all those prisoners, the friendship which developed between 6 or 7 nations united in the same hardships is second in line in the story.

This movie is an insult to the memory of so many young chaps who suffered for days in that awful prison.

"Biscuitcharley" has written in his review in 2012 "It may have been filmed in the Czech and England, but it is an American production, and yet again, they have demonstrated their ability to rewrite history to fulfill their own greedy, empty past. Thanks again Hollywood, for making me sick to my stomach and aching for you not to destroy history, again!".

I totally adhere to his analysis. What would say Americans if we Europeans dared to rewrite the Civil war period? They should really be ashamed of themselves. No words can express my disgust before such a production!

I'd wish some directors stopped taking the liberty of making a parody of history ( except comedies of course),never mind the performance of actors, locations etc.While I understand the need for drama and romance we all have a duty with the truth. Many POWS were imprisoned in Colditz, they were there for a reason: attempting to escape on several occasions showing an extraordinary resilience, stamina, and sense of duty.Yet the film does its best to soil their memory in the mind of the people who do not know any better.As far as I remember nowhere in the credits the director has the honesty of saying that the story is fiction. LEST WE FORGET.

The Colditz story has continued to exert a fascination over film and television audiences ever since the end of World War II. Guy Hamilton's 1955 film THE COLDITZ STORY had John Mills as Captain P. R. Reid planning an escape from the fortified jail and successfully doing so despite the attentions of over zealous German prison guards. In 1972 I remember the BBC series COLDITZ with a stellar cast including Robert Wagner, Edward Hardwicke, Jack Hedley and the late Anthony Valentine turning in a memorable performance as the sadistic Major Mohn, one of the German prison officers.

Sadly Stuart Orme's 2005 miniseries does not even come close to the standards set by the previous adaptations of the tale. The tale oscillates from Colditz to London, and involves a tangled romance between Nicholas McBride (Damian Lewis with an incomprehensible Scottish accent) and Lizzie Carter (Sophia Myles). There are the usual regimental stereotypes (Tom Hardy, Laurence Fox), plus a benevolent senior officer based in London (James Fox). There is also a boffin improbably portrayed as an homosexual by Timothy West.

Peter Morgan and Richard Cottan's screenplay plods on to an inevitable conclusion, with most sequences taking place in darkened rooms either in the prison or in the offices of a branch of the Secret Service in London. The German officers are predictably sadistic ('ALLO 'ALLO has a lot to answer for in this context) while the United Nations of prisoners in the camp find it difficult to co- exist. The drama is engaging enough, but one wonders why anyone actually bothered to remake the story in the first place.

As an avid follower of all things Colditz, I have to admit I shall boycott this number until the end of time. Fine, drop a love story in front of the war, it's been done over and over again, and it works. It is greatly romantic, with all the heart wrenching death and lovers being ripped apart by the German army... I'm making myself sick thinking about it! I am sad that Colditz has been brought into it. I watched a trailer, and heard I think one English accent. It is an abomination of history. Drugs? In Colditz? The Germans letting someone go? It is a stack of poop so high, we are all in peril of being covered if it topples. It may have been filmed in the Czech and England, but it is an American production, and yet again, they have demonstrated their ability to rewrite history to fulfill their own greedy, empty past. Thanks again Hollywood, for making me sick to my stomach and aching for you not to destroy history, again! Don't even get me started on U-571!!

I have to disagree strongly with other reviewers.I have had the opportunity of visiting Colditz and talking to inmates of the prison.I have to say that if there was any authenticity in this feeble effort it was more by accident than design.For example when the prisoners are greeted at the camp by the security officer they are told that they will be shot if they try to escape.This is palpably incorrect.The treatment of prisoners was governed by the Geneva convention and this did not permit such a punishment.Prisoners could be shot if they were caught in the act of escaping and refused to surrender.This unfortunately did happen.As for the love story was this written by the ghost of Barbara Cartland.The dialogue was dated 40 years ago.I resent the fact that the exploits of some very brave men were cheapened by this feeble effort.Thankfully It will now sink without a trace so that we still have the evocative feature film to refer back to.

There is no way to spoil this show with spoilers. Because just reading the "3 line synopsis" on IMDB tells you what happens in the end. One person is killed, Two are recaptured And one escapes. It then tells you the bloke name who escaped. Why the hell would anyone....ANYONE want to watch an "escape movie, series, mini-series" where you have been told what the end is? Way to ruin a show!

I gave up on it in the end. Too much cliched nonsense.

Dragged down by bad characterisations from the three male leads, especially Damian Lewis. What was he thinking?