Goodness me what a lot of bile and spleen has been written in the press about this flippertigibbet, this feathery fascinator, this pink marshmallow of a show!
The fact that it's very silly indeed, that its plot has to be held up with matchsticks to keep it afloat, that not all of the acting is any good, that the premise is as daft as a box of frogs – none of these things make it a whit less enjoyable, and I like to think of myself as having a brain and a critical faculty (though maybe some might wonder now). But I also like to switch them off on a Sunday night when preparing myself for another week in hell, so I don't care a tarnished farthing how mad and bad the show actually is. I've been glued to every episode and if they can manage to scrape another series off the walls I'll be glued to that, too. Go on, hate me. I think Alex Kingston, Paul Higgins (a nice surprise after his excellent turn as 'Scotland's crossest man'), Ronni Ancona and Annette Crosbie are great. I think several parts are seriously underwritten and could use a lot more development – but having just watched episode five I'm tossing out every possible academic objection. I thought everyone did really, really well in the wedding episode. In episode seven it was nice to see Josie finally getting into her part as her awkward friendship with Ronan develops; but what on EARTH is going on with Gill and his love life? I'm not buying that latest development at all.
Still - what were all those critics expecting? "Great Expectations"? Is this not supposed to be undemanding entertainment on the lines of "Heartbeat"? Were we expecting to be challenged and deeply moved? I wasn't. I got exactly what I wanted; it's like those lucky dips at fêtes which turn out better than you expect: a trinket of no value, of course, but pleasant nonetheless.
The fact that it's very silly indeed, that its plot has to be held up with matchsticks to keep it afloat, that not all of the acting is any good, that the premise is as daft as a box of frogs – none of these things make it a whit less enjoyable, and I like to think of myself as having a brain and a critical faculty (though maybe some might wonder now). But I also like to switch them off on a Sunday night when preparing myself for another week in hell, so I don't care a tarnished farthing how mad and bad the show actually is. I've been glued to every episode and if they can manage to scrape another series off the walls I'll be glued to that, too. Go on, hate me. I think Alex Kingston, Paul Higgins (a nice surprise after his excellent turn as 'Scotland's crossest man'), Ronni Ancona and Annette Crosbie are great. I think several parts are seriously underwritten and could use a lot more development – but having just watched episode five I'm tossing out every possible academic objection. I thought everyone did really, really well in the wedding episode. In episode seven it was nice to see Josie finally getting into her part as her awkward friendship with Ronan develops; but what on EARTH is going on with Gill and his love life? I'm not buying that latest development at all.
Still - what were all those critics expecting? "Great Expectations"? Is this not supposed to be undemanding entertainment on the lines of "Heartbeat"? Were we expecting to be challenged and deeply moved? I wasn't. I got exactly what I wanted; it's like those lucky dips at fêtes which turn out better than you expect: a trinket of no value, of course, but pleasant nonetheless.