Bloodlands

I'm a consumer of police procedurals in general and Scandi Noir in particular, across all its guises, cultures and languages. Ignore all the bad reviews, watch for yourself, and make up your own minds. It's good by the way. Very good.

I don't understand why reviewers compare programs/movies. I want a variety. While I think Line of Duty is brilliant, I am still enjoying Bloodlands for the history and the stories it has to offer that, frankly, would not possible in Line of Duty.

The locations are beautiful and ones that we are not often privy to - Northern Ireland - as are the politics which involve so many layers of Irish age old problems.

So, enjoy this unique show and what it has to offer in Irish actors and story telling. I have to mention the accents that are unique to that region (of course) when we are so used to the jumble of Londons' lot.

There's been a lot of mention of James Nesbitt's closeups. Yep. There's a lot. Lucky for us he has a versatile face! And you can't miss those raven black eyebrows - they won't let you.

Also, If you're bored, there's the drinking game that you can have which involves the words "Daddy" and "Mummy".

This is an interesting series - with Northern Ireland as a character brings it up several notches.

In ten years of reading Imdb daily, I've never seen more unfair, inaccurate, inexplicably negative reviews of one show. After reading a few dozen reviews, my spidey senses tell me someone's running a smear campaign on BLOODLANDS. Many reviews are factually incorrect. Many other reviews here are irrationally biased and critical where it's clearly undeserved.

Nesbit's acting is good. Camera work is not "shaky," certainly not as much as NYPD BLUE. There are no glaring "plot holes." BLOODLANDS is no more or less predictable nor cliched nor boring than any other british police procedural these days. This show does not "take itself too seriously," What does that even mean?

Why are so many reviewers comparing this to LINE OF DUTY? Is that the only british police proedural they know? That's almost like criticizing BOSCH, by saying "it's certainly not THE WIRE."

For a yank, I watch a lot of british police procedurarls, and I found this one refreshingly different in that it's set in Northern Ireland of today, and how the IRA issues still affect modern policing, like that special investigative commission that handles newfound remains of victims of the pre-peace agreement violence.

The supporting cast is good, though I found the acting weak link was the character of Nisbet's boss, who was his former partner from the pre-peace agreement days when the IRA was active. Either the actor doesn't fit here, or his dialogue is particularly clunky; either way, it comes off oddly rhythmed and toned.

Wow... judging by a large share of unfavorable comments submitted here, "Bloodlands" isn't very popular among the viewers. Then again, most of the reviews were written after barely one (out of four) episode, and restrict to just one or two sentences stating the series is boring and awful. How reliable are those opinions? Personally, I found "Bloodlands" a compelling and well-scripted thriller mini-series, albeit with a number of shortcomings.

The series is heavy on politics, but what else do you expect from a murder-and-kidnapping story set in Northern Ireland, and jumping back and forth between April 1998 (the period leading up to the Good Friday peace agreement) and present day, where the truce between Catholics and Protestants is still very vulnerable. The kidnapping of former IRA-militant (and thoroughly unpleasant) Pat Keenan also reopens the unresolved case of the so-called Goliath murders. Those murders were committed between February and April 1998, presumably by a member of the police force, but had to be covered up in favor of the approaching peace agreement. DCI Tom Brannick lost his wife to the Goliath killer, and is now confronted again with the cold case.

There's not a whole lot of action in "Bloodlands", but the script is intelligent and full of unforeseeable twists. Especially halfway and during the finale, there are some perplexing twists. James Nesbitt in the lead role is somewhat a mixed bag. I like him as an actor, especially since his powerful role in "The Missing", and he fits the character, but his performance is wickedly uneven. All of his facial expressions, whether its rage or frustration or sadness, make it look as if he's struggling with stomach aches. Strong supportive cast, though, including Lorcan Cranitch, Charlene McKenna and Peter Ballance. And, what I definitely enjoyed most about "Bloodlands" was the Irishness; - duh! The history lessons, the trivia, the accents, and even one sequence in genuine Irish language.

This is a strange program -- all the ingredients seem to be there for a good show but it doesn't get there. Part of the problem is that the plotting is twisted and hard to follow, part of the problem is that the characters aren't very well developed, and part of the problem is that the writing is overly cliched -- way too many "'let's go get 'em" and "there he is!" and "this is an important case and we must do our best" kind of lines.

But the other issue is the strangest -- for whatever reason, the camera spends far too much time focused on James Nesbitt's face, as though the storyline depended entirely on his expressions. He's a good actor but do we have to watch him so closely, follow his every facial tic, watch his eyes watch other people? It's almost as if someone said, "hey, let's do a show about James Nesbitt's face and, sure, we can add some plot and some characters if you want." Weird.