IMDb RATING
7.3/10
8.5K
YOUR RATING
'Quiz' tells the story of Charles Ingram, a former British army major who caused a major scandal after being caught cheating his way to winning £1 million on the game show 'Who Wants To Be A... Read all'Quiz' tells the story of Charles Ingram, a former British army major who caused a major scandal after being caught cheating his way to winning £1 million on the game show 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?''Quiz' tells the story of Charles Ingram, a former British army major who caused a major scandal after being caught cheating his way to winning £1 million on the game show 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?'
- Nominated for 1 BAFTA Award
- 3 wins & 10 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
It's a big compliment when you feel you want another episode. Quiz does that. It engages throughout with a mostly tight story, mostly good cast and what we all love: a bit of a mystery.
The addiction to true crime dramas sets people up for this sort of story: unresolved tension, 'what if' scenarios and divided camps of 'guilty' vs 'not-guilty'.
The narrative of this production is all about the tension that is built into shows like Millionaire, and it openly then uses the same tactics for itself.
Where the show excels is that it doesn't really pick a side, it shows seemingly balanced evidence for both sides of the case.
In a nod to 'Network' it also asks us what the culture of sensationalist TV breeds - and how networks can benefit and profit from all outcomes.
The acting is largely good. Michael Sheen is outstanding as Tarrant. Matthew Macfadyen dances the fine balance of the role he plays of competent vs comical and when you rewatch the original footage you realise he got it right. Sian Clifford indistinguishable from Diana Ingram.
It has some mis-steps. The brother-in-law and one of the network executives are frantic and out of place, and the odd stray into attempts at comedy (evidence: "It's Raining Men") are oddly distracting. I wonder if they are holdovers from the theatre when you inject absurdity to give the audience a bit of a wake up in pace. We've all been there for the obvious "everyone cheer" moments, but they don't work so well on TV.
It's an eye opening programme that will leave you wanting more, just like any good drama and mystery should evoke.
The addiction to true crime dramas sets people up for this sort of story: unresolved tension, 'what if' scenarios and divided camps of 'guilty' vs 'not-guilty'.
The narrative of this production is all about the tension that is built into shows like Millionaire, and it openly then uses the same tactics for itself.
Where the show excels is that it doesn't really pick a side, it shows seemingly balanced evidence for both sides of the case.
In a nod to 'Network' it also asks us what the culture of sensationalist TV breeds - and how networks can benefit and profit from all outcomes.
The acting is largely good. Michael Sheen is outstanding as Tarrant. Matthew Macfadyen dances the fine balance of the role he plays of competent vs comical and when you rewatch the original footage you realise he got it right. Sian Clifford indistinguishable from Diana Ingram.
It has some mis-steps. The brother-in-law and one of the network executives are frantic and out of place, and the odd stray into attempts at comedy (evidence: "It's Raining Men") are oddly distracting. I wonder if they are holdovers from the theatre when you inject absurdity to give the audience a bit of a wake up in pace. We've all been there for the obvious "everyone cheer" moments, but they don't work so well on TV.
It's an eye opening programme that will leave you wanting more, just like any good drama and mystery should evoke.
A very misleading mini series.
It is well made as light entertainment goes and the acting is generally very good with the glaring exception of 'Ingram' who, when portrayed in the chair, is a noticeably different character than you can see on the real how.
The trial is also changed to make interesting television rather than a fair account of the evidence presented.
So - 8 for entertainment and 2 for accuracy.
It is well made as light entertainment goes and the acting is generally very good with the glaring exception of 'Ingram' who, when portrayed in the chair, is a noticeably different character than you can see on the real how.
The trial is also changed to make interesting television rather than a fair account of the evidence presented.
So - 8 for entertainment and 2 for accuracy.
It's good but don't expect a biopic or gripping drama. This is basically a little bit of a laugh that successfully takes the story and turns it in every way possible. It's inaccurate and there are a few moments where it seems like you're watching Mr Bean but it's good fun. Sheen is uncanny as Tarrant.
This show started out engaging enough, but it deteriorated in episode 3. At least there were only 3 episodes, so it wasn't too much of a time-suck. But Michael Sheen made this worthwhile to watch. He was funny, over the top, and so cute!
Did you know
- TriviaResponding to the show, Charles Ingram praised the miniseries as 'terrifyingly accurate' and 'excruciatingly enjoyable'. Chris Tarrant, on the other hand, criticized the courtroom scene and how Ingram was portrayed as a victim. In response, Ingram branded Tarrant on Twitter 'deluded' and a 'liar'. Tarrant branded Ingram, 'a rotter, a cad and a bandit'.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Jeremy Vine: Episode #3.72 (2020)
- How many seasons does Quiz have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 49m
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 16:9 HD
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content