markfranh
Joined Jul 2011
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews117
markfranh's rating
We watched the first episode three nights ago. Just baffled by the whole thing but decided it could only get better. MIstake..
A word of advice for those who are tempted to persist with this. Do what I did: use an AI to lookup something like "Summary of events in Episode 2 of The Assassin". Read it, and then repeat for episodes 3, 4, 5, and 6. By doing so, you can save yourself the misery of being hooked in by episode 1 and then feeling you have to binge watch the remaining episodes in order to find out what happens. I'm glad I did after we watched episode 2 (which was no better than episode 1 by the way) as I managed to get the remaining plot details without having to endure a further 4 hours of pain watching the remaining 4 episodes. Based on the summaries, we didn't miss much by giving up on this series.
Worth pointing out that even the AI I used implied strongly that it was confused about what the program was about!
Is it supposed to be a comedy or is it supposed to be a serious action drama? We couldn't tell.
I hadn't read reviews here on IMDB before watching and have only just read through the first 16 that are currently posted and was relieved to see that there are as many confused about it as we were.
Some seem to genuinely think it's supposed to be a comedy and that those not used to British humour just aren't getting it. We've watched loads of British tongue-in-cheek type series and The Assassin is't like anything we've seen out of the UK before. I'm not convinced.
Others think it is so bad that it is just coming across as being intended as a comedy. Again, not too sure.
We just think it's just not working.
If it's supposed to be a comedy, then the comedy is missing even as a "black comedy". If it's supposed to be a serious action type drama, then it's hilarious beause it misses the mark entirely.
What struck me after watching is that it SHOULD have been done as an obvious comedy but wasn't and it is so bizarre that it is coming across as a failed comedy.
I love Keeley Hawes and I have to say this isn't her fault. Maybe she didn't know how to play it. Did anybody tell her it was a comedy if that was the intention? I think ot.
It occurred to me that it needed someone with a Bruce Willis type sense of wry humour to play the role (keeping it as a female obviously). Maybe a John McClane type of character who finds himself in a serious situation but is wisecracking his (or her in this case) way through it. That might have worked. But not Keeley playing it absolutely straight and us wondering what it is supposed to be.
Can I add, too, that the scene with the sniper in episode 1 was just so ridiculous that it came across as almost funny. Funny without being funny or intended to be funny. A sniper tries to take out Keeley Hawes character. They can't of course, because otherwise there wouldn't be a series. Shot after shot misses the mark and I think with all the reloading we are talking maybe 30 bullets in all but just guessing. But the thing is this: bullets that miss Keeley don't just bounce off the ground or other obstacles vaguely in her vicinity. This professional snipers manages to hit bystanders square in the heart and killing all of them even if they are nowhere near where Keeley is hiding. His assignment was to take out Keeley; why is hitting everybody except Keeley? How can you not laugh at this sort of nonsense? How can writers expect audience to believe this is serious when this is the way something is written and so ludicrouse.
Confused? Well we certainly were. So we gave up after episode 2 proved to be no better.
A word of advice for those who are tempted to persist with this. Do what I did: use an AI to lookup something like "Summary of events in Episode 2 of The Assassin". Read it, and then repeat for episodes 3, 4, 5, and 6. By doing so, you can save yourself the misery of being hooked in by episode 1 and then feeling you have to binge watch the remaining episodes in order to find out what happens. I'm glad I did after we watched episode 2 (which was no better than episode 1 by the way) as I managed to get the remaining plot details without having to endure a further 4 hours of pain watching the remaining 4 episodes. Based on the summaries, we didn't miss much by giving up on this series.
Worth pointing out that even the AI I used implied strongly that it was confused about what the program was about!
Is it supposed to be a comedy or is it supposed to be a serious action drama? We couldn't tell.
I hadn't read reviews here on IMDB before watching and have only just read through the first 16 that are currently posted and was relieved to see that there are as many confused about it as we were.
Some seem to genuinely think it's supposed to be a comedy and that those not used to British humour just aren't getting it. We've watched loads of British tongue-in-cheek type series and The Assassin is't like anything we've seen out of the UK before. I'm not convinced.
Others think it is so bad that it is just coming across as being intended as a comedy. Again, not too sure.
We just think it's just not working.
If it's supposed to be a comedy, then the comedy is missing even as a "black comedy". If it's supposed to be a serious action type drama, then it's hilarious beause it misses the mark entirely.
What struck me after watching is that it SHOULD have been done as an obvious comedy but wasn't and it is so bizarre that it is coming across as a failed comedy.
I love Keeley Hawes and I have to say this isn't her fault. Maybe she didn't know how to play it. Did anybody tell her it was a comedy if that was the intention? I think ot.
It occurred to me that it needed someone with a Bruce Willis type sense of wry humour to play the role (keeping it as a female obviously). Maybe a John McClane type of character who finds himself in a serious situation but is wisecracking his (or her in this case) way through it. That might have worked. But not Keeley playing it absolutely straight and us wondering what it is supposed to be.
Can I add, too, that the scene with the sniper in episode 1 was just so ridiculous that it came across as almost funny. Funny without being funny or intended to be funny. A sniper tries to take out Keeley Hawes character. They can't of course, because otherwise there wouldn't be a series. Shot after shot misses the mark and I think with all the reloading we are talking maybe 30 bullets in all but just guessing. But the thing is this: bullets that miss Keeley don't just bounce off the ground or other obstacles vaguely in her vicinity. This professional snipers manages to hit bystanders square in the heart and killing all of them even if they are nowhere near where Keeley is hiding. His assignment was to take out Keeley; why is hitting everybody except Keeley? How can you not laugh at this sort of nonsense? How can writers expect audience to believe this is serious when this is the way something is written and so ludicrouse.
Confused? Well we certainly were. So we gave up after episode 2 proved to be no better.
My wife jokingly said to me after we watched this something along the lines of "if you make me watch the third episode of this rubbish, we're getting a divorce.
I agreed. Not with the divorce bit. About it being rubbish.
One of the worst things I've seen out of British television in a long time.
We watched the first episode and were not impressed but that's often what happens with the first episode in a series. It takes time to establish characters and perhaps that's why the first episode was so poor; a lot of time was wasted establishing character. I sensed there was more to it than that but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Surely it could only improve.
Big mistake. It didn't improve.
It was just awful. Worse than the first. The plot all over the place and hard to follow with so many twists and turns and coincidences it was just stupid at times.
I read a lot of professional reviews of programmes and base whether or not to watch a series based to some extent on what the pros think of something. I thought I'd seen a review of episode 1 a few weeks ago that indicated it might be "promissing". It wasn't particularly positive in its wording but I thing "promissing" was a fair summation.
After watching episode 2 last night, I by chance received a review from a regular reviewer in my inbox this morning which was only about episode 2. Let me just copy and paste in one key bit here from a review that was far from complimentary:
"And yet despite the familiarity, there are tonal problems here - the cast ham it up and sometimes play it for laughs, and the next moment swear their heads off and are confronted with some darkness. It doesn't all quite fit together."
100% agree. Tonal problems? Doesn't fit together? Absolutely to both. This is a series that doesn't know what it wants to be. If they'd played it for straight laughs all the way and wrote it that way, it would have worked. If they'd tried to play it serious throughout, it MIGHT have worked (but not convinced of that really). But what they did? It does NOT WORK.
The reviewer gave it 2.5 stars out of 5 which is the lowest I've ever seen him give anything and I even thought that was generous.
Summing it up when discussing it with my wife when the threat of divorce was put aside, we agreed on the main problem. Phyllis Logan as Cora Felton.
We thought her performanc and character just felt all wrong. I love Phillis in roles I've previously seen her in. She was great in Guilt. All the way back to Lovejoy in the 80s, just thought her perfect in that.
But here? Just not convincing and I think that due as much to the material and her not knowing what to do with it as her own performance being "off".
If an actor doesn't believe in the words she is uttering or the story (and she wasn't the only one here), how is the audience supposed to go along with it?
Absolutely beyond me how another reviewer here gave this an 8. I think my 2 just about right.
IN a word:
Dreadful.
I agreed. Not with the divorce bit. About it being rubbish.
One of the worst things I've seen out of British television in a long time.
We watched the first episode and were not impressed but that's often what happens with the first episode in a series. It takes time to establish characters and perhaps that's why the first episode was so poor; a lot of time was wasted establishing character. I sensed there was more to it than that but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Surely it could only improve.
Big mistake. It didn't improve.
It was just awful. Worse than the first. The plot all over the place and hard to follow with so many twists and turns and coincidences it was just stupid at times.
I read a lot of professional reviews of programmes and base whether or not to watch a series based to some extent on what the pros think of something. I thought I'd seen a review of episode 1 a few weeks ago that indicated it might be "promissing". It wasn't particularly positive in its wording but I thing "promissing" was a fair summation.
After watching episode 2 last night, I by chance received a review from a regular reviewer in my inbox this morning which was only about episode 2. Let me just copy and paste in one key bit here from a review that was far from complimentary:
"And yet despite the familiarity, there are tonal problems here - the cast ham it up and sometimes play it for laughs, and the next moment swear their heads off and are confronted with some darkness. It doesn't all quite fit together."
100% agree. Tonal problems? Doesn't fit together? Absolutely to both. This is a series that doesn't know what it wants to be. If they'd played it for straight laughs all the way and wrote it that way, it would have worked. If they'd tried to play it serious throughout, it MIGHT have worked (but not convinced of that really). But what they did? It does NOT WORK.
The reviewer gave it 2.5 stars out of 5 which is the lowest I've ever seen him give anything and I even thought that was generous.
Summing it up when discussing it with my wife when the threat of divorce was put aside, we agreed on the main problem. Phyllis Logan as Cora Felton.
We thought her performanc and character just felt all wrong. I love Phillis in roles I've previously seen her in. She was great in Guilt. All the way back to Lovejoy in the 80s, just thought her perfect in that.
But here? Just not convincing and I think that due as much to the material and her not knowing what to do with it as her own performance being "off".
If an actor doesn't believe in the words she is uttering or the story (and she wasn't the only one here), how is the audience supposed to go along with it?
Absolutely beyond me how another reviewer here gave this an 8. I think my 2 just about right.
IN a word:
Dreadful.
My wife and I only just started watching old episodes of this series a few weeks ago. We're enjoying it even though it is pretty routine stuff and nothing particular new here.
As is the norm for most British TV series, the lead detective is in a failed relationship (the only exception to this rule where the lead is either in a failed or unusual relationship or at least disfunctional that we could think of is MIdsomer Murders). The #2, of course, has issues of her own. Nothing at all out of the ordinary and all very predictable.
Normally I wouldn't bother even reviewing this but because one episode has one of the stupidest plot holes I"ve ever come across I thoght it worth writing about. Both of us (my wife and myself) immediately spoke up and said something like "WHAT!?" when it was shown on the screen as it just was idiotic.
I won't give too much away as this really isn't a spoiler. I won't even mention the episode but here is the basic scenario.
A woman goes missing. Her car is tracked to another part of London and found. She was clearly the passenger (injured) while someone else (the kidnapper perhaps? Say no more!) was driving. No sign of anyone. No body. Just a bit of blood and a locket. However, there is a lot of water on the passenger side of the car at the feet of where the woman would have been sitting.
A few moment thoughts on that one ...
... and our #2 detective suddenly pauses mid-step and blurts out the conclusion, "we passed a lake on the way here ..."
Sure enough, they search the lake and find the body of the woman in the lake.
So if the kidnapper/murderer/whatever drives to the lake, removes the body from the car, drags the body to the lake, dumps the body in the lake, returns to the car, drives it to where he/she abandons it ....
... why on earth would there be any water in the car at the foot of the passenger seat where the missing and now found dead woman was sitting and thus allowing the detective to conclude the body was in the lake?
It was ridiculous.
And so avoidable if the writers could have just used their brains to write around it.
E.g. Having located the car, the police consult CCTV to track the route of the car. There happens to be a camera on the road passing the lake. The car is seen to turn off the road and disappears in the direction of the lake only to reappear 10 minutes later. Conclusion: the lake needs to be searched.
Problem solved and it could have been covered in maybe 20 seconds of editing.
But ... no ... we have to have one of the stupidest plot holes in television history.
We'll continue viewing the rest as it airs but, geez, there had better not be any more "bloopers" like this one or we shall soon give up.
As is the norm for most British TV series, the lead detective is in a failed relationship (the only exception to this rule where the lead is either in a failed or unusual relationship or at least disfunctional that we could think of is MIdsomer Murders). The #2, of course, has issues of her own. Nothing at all out of the ordinary and all very predictable.
Normally I wouldn't bother even reviewing this but because one episode has one of the stupidest plot holes I"ve ever come across I thoght it worth writing about. Both of us (my wife and myself) immediately spoke up and said something like "WHAT!?" when it was shown on the screen as it just was idiotic.
I won't give too much away as this really isn't a spoiler. I won't even mention the episode but here is the basic scenario.
A woman goes missing. Her car is tracked to another part of London and found. She was clearly the passenger (injured) while someone else (the kidnapper perhaps? Say no more!) was driving. No sign of anyone. No body. Just a bit of blood and a locket. However, there is a lot of water on the passenger side of the car at the feet of where the woman would have been sitting.
A few moment thoughts on that one ...
... and our #2 detective suddenly pauses mid-step and blurts out the conclusion, "we passed a lake on the way here ..."
Sure enough, they search the lake and find the body of the woman in the lake.
So if the kidnapper/murderer/whatever drives to the lake, removes the body from the car, drags the body to the lake, dumps the body in the lake, returns to the car, drives it to where he/she abandons it ....
... why on earth would there be any water in the car at the foot of the passenger seat where the missing and now found dead woman was sitting and thus allowing the detective to conclude the body was in the lake?
It was ridiculous.
And so avoidable if the writers could have just used their brains to write around it.
E.g. Having located the car, the police consult CCTV to track the route of the car. There happens to be a camera on the road passing the lake. The car is seen to turn off the road and disappears in the direction of the lake only to reappear 10 minutes later. Conclusion: the lake needs to be searched.
Problem solved and it could have been covered in maybe 20 seconds of editing.
But ... no ... we have to have one of the stupidest plot holes in television history.
We'll continue viewing the rest as it airs but, geez, there had better not be any more "bloopers" like this one or we shall soon give up.