Bloodlands

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.

The draw was James Nesbitt and a UK Crime Drama. This one takes you on an unexpected path. It's a great murder mystery set in Ireland's Troubles. Great performances. Interesting twists. I give this series an 8 (great) out of 10. {Police Procedural}

A solid police show with a nice steady stream of twists and reveals, the second episode just dropped on ROKU and it keeps up the intrigue begun in the first. Not so complex that you need a scorecard to follow it, yet it never seems to drag or leave you looking for the FF button. I admit to being a sucker for Irish police shows and this one hasn't disappointed. Edit: I have to withdraw my enthusiasm for this series since the writers decided to make so many characters totally unlikable or dead. They had a great start but I think they dropped the ball big time. For me a show needs to have someone I can root for and they've left me with no one.

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.

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.