Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Znoodles As noted by previous reviewers, the thread of court logic is threadbare. However, the set design, direction, casting & soundtrack are spot on. Given that the "artist" is a murderer who gets away with murder, it would have been nice to see more of his macabre character explored. Of course, Mr. F is no Alice Morgan, but he is multifaceted in ways that are only alluded to by the writers.The jealous up & coming barister also has many character opportunities that we, as the audience are left wondering. For 180 mins, prepare for slightly suspenseful courtshow antics. Be entertained & don't wait for the the frown furrow to leave your brow.

davvvyc Just saw first episode initially. Great suspense of a killer thriller typified by how often his lower nature is only out done by his slippery escapes in front of the screen. Enjoyed the 'slapstick of unfortunate events.' But the irony of injustices to the main character, a charming lawyer, is a numerous litany of misfortune because he's observed to be a good man but slips and slides in an outfield to be sucker punched by the killer 'for not performing a common courtesy.' I hope to see the other two episodes on TV during the showing weekly but believably real is this story because the entertainment value is more than enough to be engrossed and watch it with my girlfriends. If you need to see both sides of human nature both kind and nefarious weaved well watch this series as the Lawyer has an intimate close knit family but the killer is subtly diabolical in how deviously he murders victims. Exciting to watch but unreal in detail taken to the extreme it is though it's ironies are pleasing.

craig-w As others have pointed out, there are irritating problems with logic throughout the story. But I found the show clearly worth viewing - because the dialog was great, the premise was a good one, the acting and directing were outstanding, I cared about the characters, and the ending was satisfying.The writing of a screenplay has a number of important components, and not every good writer is a master of all. David Wolstencroft was the author, and his dialog is very good, his character development excellent, the basic scenario good, his plot creativity good, his resolution of the story rather brilliant. His one fault, as I see it - and it's a big one for me - is believability. In order to advance his story, he resorts to plot twists that defy logic, and characters who act stupidly and have emotions that don't fit - and he does it over and over. A serious failing. I've often thought that every screenplay that wants to be considered as serious art should go through a logic evaluation process before screening.Still, it was a riveting series, and I couldn't wait to see how it would turn out. I worried about some of the characters, the villain was memorable, and I loved the ending; it was so clever that a little implausibility there didn't ruin it for me.

peterriches-197-504828 This series is well acted and directed in the sense that the scenes work.However, the story is completely implausible and relies on ludicrous contrivances to try to force out the main theme - the conflict between justice and moral right.The British legal system has many faults and judges and lawyers can be manipulative,self seeking and make errors, but not to this degree.It seems that the Director and writer think the use of some excellent actors and plenty of gratuitous violence can cover up these flaws.Doubtless it will be successful as audiences can be easily taken in, eg by David Tennant's equally well acted but ridiculously plotted Broadchurch.