Watching them now I find that the first part of each introduces us to an intriguing mystery reawakened by the discovery of a body, while the second spins off incoherently in all directions while Eve shouts at people.
But I am glad they are there and you do find serous actors like David Hemmings and James Fox turning up in the cast.
3 comments:
Curious that you should have posted this now, as I have just spent the last month or so watching the entire series. (I did not watch it when it was first broadcast.) It's a curious amalgam of good acting and interesting characters, but with some extraordinarily ridiculous plots - but none the worse for that. Some of the filming around London makes me feel nostalgic for some modern buildings that have already gone. Some of the plots were obviously based on contemporary legal/criminal scandals - Islington Children's Homes and the rise of the Far Right spring to mind.
What I want to know is if it's worth watching Silent Witness, which also seems to be on IPlayer - maybe you could advise?
Trevor Eve plays a flawed, quirky character in both -- well adjusted detectives have never been part of the formula (Holmes, Marlowe, Spade, Poirot)...
The main differences between Shoestring and Waking the Dead are in the way television drama is made. Shoestring uses Bristol as a distinct part of the cast, Waking the Dead is one of dozens of London-based cop dramas. WtD provides some strong female roles but the writers are sometimes sloppy in portraying male stereotypes. There's a lot of policing by running around; the only time I have seen a police officer run is outside a football stadium.
Anonymous: I'm afraid I can't help you on Silent Witness as I've rarely watched it.
Post a Comment