Cracker

There are 3 great English series: Cracker, Prime Suspect and The Prisoner (with The Lakes a 4th). This latest movie is probably the best - the ending was one great piece of writing and simply devastating. Cracker was made to be Fitz and vice versa. Jimmy McGovern is just fantastic as usual - I wonder if they appreciate him in England. Likewise Prime Suspect is Helen Mirim's best work and Pat McGoohan will always be The Prisoner to me. I just caught a few episodes of The Lakes (can't find it anywhere) but it is worth a watch if you ever get a chance to see it. I have the older Cracker series and they are all fantastic - easy to watch more than once.

In contrast to the glowing review given by the previous poster,the latest Cracker is a huge disappointment on many levels. Primarily the new episode fails due to its overt and blatant political stance. As with any great series, the strength of Cracker lies in its characters, and its focus on the genus of the series.. crime and mystery solving. In the case of this latest episode, Cracker as a character is almost non existent.. the lesser characters such as his wife and oldest son seen perhaps or a total of 5 minutes of screen time. Instead we are subjected to one hour and 45 minutes of flashbacks, an "ugly American" that could only come from a stereotype that is appalling in its obviousness, and President Bush's comments. Frankly, if I wanted to spend time watching a paid political commercial I could watch the CBS evening news. Secondly I would venture to guess that they offered Coltrane a pile of money to appear in this because not only does he appear ill at ease but the script seems thrown together in its disjointed execution. I would suspect that this episode will quickly disappear and hopefully be replaced by episodes that stick to a tried and true formula free of political jargon which insults the intelligence of American viewers as well as those in England who refuse to have a favorite series used as left wing political crap. In sum this episode was a HUGE let down. Bring back Penhaligon and the gang!

It's been a decade since the last Cracker (the below par White Ghost) and 11 years since the last decent Cracker so expectations were high, but unfortunately Nine Eleven just did not deliver.

The two hour special was certainly controversial, raising issues about the US's financing of terrorism in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland that most TV dramas, certainly ITV dramas, would usually steer well clear of.

The problem was it just didn't feel like a Cracker episode, McGovern had things he wanted to say and just tacked Fitz onto an idea to make it more accessible to a wide audience. As always, McGovern's ideas were interesting but they just didn't work in this context, it felt rushed and would have benefited from being developed further, into a more rounded Cracker episode or maybe a separate project altogether.

The police were completely 2 dimensional, embarrassingly underwritten when compared to the likes of Beck, Wise, Penhaligan and Billborough, while Fitz really had very little to do - it seemed obvious that McGovern had grown tired of writing for this character, in contrast, he seemed to relish writing for Kenny, the killer, the only new character in this film who seemed at all believable.

Stylistically the production was also a failure. Flashing boxes flickered at the beginning of the programme and in and out of the breaks for no apparent reason - they looked horrible and distracted from the story! I can't believe anybody thought it was a good idea to sacrifice the classic white on black text of the original shows for these new graphics and text - if it isn't broke don't fix it! Cracker shouldn't be trying to emulate the style of Spooks and CSI - it was 10 times better than these shows in it's heyday!

And what was with all the flashbacks?? What worked so well in the original series is that Fitz would get into the head of the killer and we'd understand their motives through ACTING!

Did we have flashbacks to Hillsborough in To Be A Somebody? NO!

Did we have flashbacks to Floyd sitting in a bath of bleach in Men Should Weep? NO!

WHY? Because we didn't need them because the performances alone were strong enough for us to understand the motives of the killers. Flashbacks are usually a cheap devise used to reinforce a story when the writing isn't strong enough - and weren't necessary here. Anthony Flanagan's performance as Kenny was the stand out of the episode and the constant flashbacks to Ireland and the completely unnecessary 9-11 and Iraq news footage only distracted from the story.

Nine Eleven was something of a wasted opportunity, it had good elements - Fitz trying to fit into a very changed Manchester, a classic Cracker killer, and a controversial storyline - but this could have been so much better if supporting characters had been better written and the style and feel of the original series had been retained. On this evidence, I wouldn't want any more Cracker films in the future.

It doesn't give me any pleasure reviewing this hugely disappointing 'Cracker' special "Nine Eleven". As somebody who considers 'Cracker' to be one of the best shows not just of its genre but ever, this reviewer was honestly expecting much more than this.

"Nine Eleven" is not a complete abomination. The best thing about it is the characterisation of the killer, a sinister but never one-dimensional and very much compellingly character worthy of being a classic 'Cracker' killer. He is brilliantly portrayed by Anthony Flannagan. Robbie Coltrane also does a great job as Fitz, he deserved much more to do but what there is of Fitz is enjoyable.

In fact, generally it is the acting that salvages "Nine Eleven" from being a complete waste. There is also some atmospheric scenery, and with a weighty and controversial idea this had real potential to be a classic 'Cracker' special.

So what stopped it from being so? The main problem is that it doesn't feel like 'Cracker'. The characters are nowhere near as intriguing, with Fitz being too much of a criminally underused supporting character in his own show and the police being shallow and underwritten with almost non-existent chemistry. The balance of writing and mastery of storytelling apparent in 'Cracker' at its best is not apparent here, apart from the odd bit of spark (but considering the calibre of the show it is far more deserving of having just the odd bit of sparkle).

One really misses the poignant emotion and dark, acerbic humour, which is replaced with too much of a heavy-handed and overused anti-American tone that comes over as far too preachy. Even the violence is not as unflinching. With a story-line as controversial potentially as it was on paper, what could have been weighty, harrowing and emotional stuff is spoilt by a lot of tedium, an overload of heavy-handedness and constant flashbacks and the whole Iraq stuff that only confused and padded out the story, not necessary really. The direction also lacks spark, and unusually mawkish, and there is nowhere near enough of the "whydunnit" psychology that made 'Cracker' so unique among other mystery/detective shows.

Visually, "Nine Eleven" is not much better, apart from some decent scenery, style, atmosphere and class is severely lacking with sometimes distractingly amateurish camera work and too dark lighting. The music can be intrusive and doesn't really add to the action or drama, instead taking away from it.

All in all, while a comeback of Fitz is always welcome he deserved better than this, which is not a good representation of why 'Cracker' is so brilliant. 4/10 Bethany Cox

For those of you who've never heard of it (or seen it on A&E), Cracker is a brilliant British TV show about an overweight, chain-smoking, foulmouthed psychologist named Fitz who helps the Manchester police department get into the heads of violent criminals. It's considered to be one of the finest shows ever to come out of England (and that's saying something), and was tremendously successful in England and around the world back in 1993.

Now, the original stars have re-teamed with the original writer to knock out one more 2-hour episode. I've loved this show ever since I'd first seen it, over a decade ago. The DVD box set holds a place of honor in my collection, and I can quote a good deal of Fitz's interrogation scenes practically word for word. The idea of Robbie Coltrane reteaming with Jimmy McGovern for another TV movie about Fitz filled me with absolute glee.

I'll start with the good. One of the many things that impressed me about the original Cracker series was how quickly Fitz was defined as a character. Five minutes into the first episode – with his lecture (throwing the books into the air), his drinking, and his cussing of the guy after him on the gambling machine queue – and you knew, simply knew, who this character was. You could feel him "clicking" in your mind, the kind of click that only happens when a great actor gets a great role written by a great writer.

Coltrane, of course, remained great throughout the show, but I always felt that some of the later episodes – those not written by McGovern – mistreated the character.

So the good news is this: Fitz is back. As soon as you see him in this show – making incredibly inappropriate comments at his daughter's wedding – you'll feel that "click" once again. It's him: petulant one moment and truly sorry the next, always insightful, sincere to the point of tactlessness but brilliantly funny in the process. If you love this character as much as I do, you'll be delighted with how he is portrayed in the movie. And this extends to Judith and Mark: in fact, everything having to do with the Fitzs is handled perfectly.

The problem I do have with this movie revolves around the crime Fitz is trying to solve. In standard Cracker fashion, we know exactly who the criminal is in the first five minutes – the suspense lies in seeing Fitz figure it out. In this case, we have a serial killer who is out for American blood. And the reason for this, unfortunately, is not due to any believable psychological trauma – rather, it seems that the murders are here simply to allow the writer to display his personal political beliefs.

It's difficult for me to write this, as I truly believe that Jimmy McGovern is one of the greatest writers in the world. Nor do I have a problem with movies that are about current issues, or movies that take a political stand. But in the Cracker universe, we expect to see the characters behaving like human beings, not like caricatures. Instead, the Americans in this movie are all depicted in an entirely stereotypical fashion. They're know-nothing loudmouths who complain about everything, treat the locals like crap and cheat on their wives – one of them even manages to do all of the above within less than 5 minutes. I honestly thought I'd mistakenly switched channels or something.

But it doesn't stop there. We get constant reminders of just how badly the war in Iraq is going – reminders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story and appear practically out of nowhere. The killer is so busy ranting about how Bush is worse than Hitler that he almost forgets to get on with the killing; but more to the point, he is such a mouthpiece for the writer's political views that he forgets to act like a believable human being, and thus we – as an audience – don't buy his sudden transformation from a happy family man to a tortured serial-killing soul.

I can't say that this ruined the show for me – it's was still good TV, better than almost everything else in the genre (mainly due to, once again, Coltrane). But its constant politicizing made it impossible for it to be as good as the real Cracker classics like "To Be A Somebody" – an episode that was just as "issuey", but one that was handled with far more subtlety and psychological depth.

Two other small points: Panhandle not being around is a disappointment, but what's worse are her replacements. The entire police department – which for so long filled with such great characters - is now full of vanilla. Completely interchangeable cops who lack any and all personality (how you could drain Coupling's Richard Coyle of personality is beyond me, but it is indeed missing here).

Also, there are couple of moments where the show lost its believability for me. One such instance revolves around Fitz having to narrow down the entire population of Manchester from 1 million to a hundred based on some very strange criteria (French windows? How does the computer know if I have French windows?) – he not only succeeds in doing this, but he succeeds in less than an hour. I don't think so.

So, all in all, I was a little disappointed. It's recommended viewing, but remember to leave at least some of your expectations at the door. Still, if there's new series to come after this, it would all have been for the good: I'm convinced that McGovern can still write great stuff, and maybe now that he's got his politics out of his system he can go back to writing about people.