Cracker

True, this is not Robbie Coltrane. True, the series is darker and at the same time less complex than the magnificent British series. But just because a California vintage varietal is not Château Latour does not mean it isn't potable. Taken on its on merits, without making comparisons to the original British series (in which the American series really has no chance to shine) this is a well-made and far-from-clichéd series. Playing Fitz as Pastorelli did-- as less-than-lovable, curmudgeonly without the usual saving graces of humor or humility, was actually very brave, and much truer to everyday life, truth to tell, than Coltrane's wonderful portrayal. Coltrane's characterization is in a way bigger than life, a flawed yet dazzling (and also, endearing) genius: very much in the tradition of other flawed, brilliant, larger-than-life sleuths from Sherlock Holmes to Hercule Poirot. I find Pastorelli's interpretation more in the line of, say, John Thaw's Inspector Morse (they even have similar tastes in music). Pastorelli plays Fitz as depressive, grouchy, arrogant, flippant, self-absorbed, and sometimes downright rude. That is truly going out on a limb, and would be even for British television, but for American television it is valor of the first water. So it is unfair to compare his portrayal with Coltrane's: they approach the character quite differently. Taken on their own, I think the Pastorelli episodes are fine productions. Being an American myself I was raised on happy endings and characters designed to elicit one's emotional engagement. Yet as others have rightly noted, life isn't like that. I remember an episode of a British production, one of Roy Mardsen's wonderful Adam Dalgleish tales, which ended, yes, with the criminal's apprehension-- but NOT happily (his assistant's grandmother, being held hostage, having been killed at the end when SWAT teams stormed the hideout)... and I was appalled at first--- but then I realized, that that was as possible an outcome as the happy ending would have been, perhaps more likely even. And this series has a lot of that flavor to it. So: approaching this and expecting the same thing as one got in the British production is really counterproductive. But if you watch these shows without expectations, you'll likely find them quite satisfying on their own merits.

This is what you get when you try to redo an extremely good miniseries without the great actors of the original. Where the british Cracker has everything to watch each episode twice, the US version has everything to turn it off after five minutes. Maybe if one starts with this version it could be considered a good series, but knowing the original, it only hurts. That beg the question: why have they done it after all? Why not broadcast the original?

Robert Pastorelli tried. The problem with this Americanized version of a great British series was the story lines didn't translate well. The story lines are so British. They would have been better off taking the characters and writing completely new scripts. It might have worked better if the series took place in New York. The LA area just didn't seem to fit with the dark feel of the show, all that sunshine just didn't work. I watched all of the episodes, waiting for an original storyline, never happened.

It was an admirable effort to bring a good show to American television. But poorly executed.

I was a big fan of the original "Cracker" & this americanised version simply doesn't work. The actors all put in good performances, but they can only work with what writers give them, and, therein lie the problems. Strangely, I find myself blaming Jimmy McGovern. He is an EXCELLENT writer & most of us brits still remember Robert Carlyle's electrifying performance as the psychotic 'Albie'. Let's face it, McGovern helped make him a star. However, that was writing for the British market - and Jimmy is British. This dire attempt at success in the US is about as convincing as my new York accent. I can only think of one reason for watching "Fitz" and that is; just imagine Robbie Coltrane playing Robert Pastorelli playing Fitz? Now that WOULD be hilarious.

Like others, I'm spoiled by watching the brilliant original. This movie is a near line-by-line re-creation of a Cracker episode. But it is done without the scene-setting and great asides from the original. Interstingly, they took some lines Fitz says to Judith at the end of the original and has him say them to Nina.

The sexual tension between Fitz and the Panhandle character is absent and awkwardly comes into play at the end.

Might be worth seeing for an early Makiska Hargatay police work. Or Josh Hartnell. Both don't show up in the IMDb credits.

Still, pretty much a waste of time if you've seen the original. The Fitz character lacks the believability of Robbie Coltrane.