Belgravia: The Next Chapter

After thoroughly enjoying the original series of 'Belgravia' (a solid 8/10 miniseries, arguably 9/10), I was hopeful that most of the negative reviews of "Belgravia: The Next Chapter" would be wrong, or at least a bit exaggerated. Alas, the negative reviews are more right than wrong, and this second season is yet another example of a great show taking a massive step down from a successful first season.

It was always going to be a tough task to match the clever, rewarding, and intelligent writing of the first season, but "The Next Chapter" falls short of even the above average level of writing of well-produced shows of the modern era of entertainment. The main plot line and the character arcs of the two leads is just not very interesting, especially from about the 3rd or 4th episode on. While season one seemed too short and had you begging for more at six episodes, this second season tests your patience at eight episodes in which little seems to happen half the time. You know a writer is completely clueless when they start portraying the 1871 Paris Commune in a positive light (the best era in Paris's history, the Belle Epoque, only happened thanks to the failing of said evil Commune, not to mention that the same ideology that the Commune spouted would go on to kill 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 more people than fascism in the 20th century). The side plots are eye-rollingly predictable at best. So how does it even earn a review this high? Mainly because of the great production, excellent cinematography, and wonderful acting, especially by Harriet Slater. While other positive reviews here credit the 'victim' plot line, the reality is that the focus on victims has created a culture in which every struggling person pretends to be a victim in every way possible, causing their mental state to deteriorate. Similarly, our main male lead sulks, acts petulant, and behaves like a prick and uses his so-called 'victim' status as an excuse. Overall, this is a very skippable season of television, although not a total disaster.

I am a fan of period dramas, and have set "Downton Abbey" as the golden standard. Naturally, that means I am very interested in titles by Julian Fellows, and have seen at least a few of them. When I watched "Belgravia", I thought it was a lightweight compared to "Downton Abbey". Whereas the characters in "Downton" are complex and well developed, the characters of "Belgravia" seemed a bit charicatured and simplified. There were the good guys on one side, and the bad ones on the other. The whole plot seemed a bit like an ordinary fairytale, and it was easy to guess where everything would end up.

Now, I started watching the spin-off show straight after finishing the original show, and was very pleasantly surprised. The characters all seem more complex than in the previous show, and there are more side plots, just like we saw in "Downton Abbey". The "downstairs" party are much more complete characters than the ones in the first part of "Belgravia", and I find myself interested in their backstories. Much more to work with for the writers, and I can easily see a continuance for this show.

I am seriously puzzled that so many hate this season compared to the original. Do most people prefer the lightweight, straight forward story with few surprises in store? I find that hard to believe. Yes, this season is much more subtle, and keep its mysteries for a longer time, but I completely disagree about the notion that the main character has the personality of a "block of wood". He is contained, troubled and melancholy. He tries to open up now and again, but struggles with himself. I think the actor is doing a clever job of a character that is hard to portray.

The Next Chapter was quite disappointing. I disliked the main character, Lord Trenchant played by Benjamin Wainwright from the moment on screen. He is sullen and has a face that shows it (think Kristen Stewart, Anna Kendrick) in every scene. I realize his character is complicated and miserable but even when proposing to his love, he looks like he ate a lemon. Just not a likeable. The new wife, Clara, played by Harriet Slater, is portrayed like a 13 year-old teenager who is smitten and Pollyanna-ish. I blame the poor writing not the actor. I wonder how such a great first series could turn into a common soap opera in the second? Made it through the first excruciating 52 minute episode and decided I couldn't continue with the series.

Ignore the low scores. I thoroughly enjoyed this. The story had many elements to it and kept my attention and me entertained throughout. If there was one negative it would be the character Frederick Trenchard. I felt the actor playing him had only one expression on his face. I feel I need to see him in something else to see if he acts any different. A comedy role perhaps because to watch him on screen in this was pretty depressing. Apart from that all of the other characters were good but one really stood out for me. The actress Hannah Onslow. Her facial expressions in every scene were captivating. She doesn't have to deliver a line of script, she just expresses herself so well with her facial expressions and body movements and often had me giggling. Well worth a watch and even a binge.

Belgravia Was awesome. But this part 2, the next Chapter is a poor follow up.

Sadly, I find the next chapter, extremely depressing, extremely slow, not as polished, overall extremely considered this failure.

With the next chapter being so poor, I cannot see this being renewed for a third season, which is so disappointing after the first season was so great.

It's not often that you completely destroy a series like they have here with the sequel to the original. So disappointed the lead character is either a really bad actor or his character. He's completely flawed.

After watching four episodes now, I don't even see the point of this season with him being just miserable, and we all know that he isn't the legitimate child and air. It is actually his brother if you've watched the first season

disappointing. Overall, I suggest you avoid.