I enjoyed the first series and would give that an 8 but series 2 and 3 are nowhere near as well put together. Overall, it also feels like it is borrowing from Line Of Duty (OK, I don't watch many police shows, so maybe I've missed many other similar productions) but is a long, long way behind.
What really makes the show is Joanna Scanlan. The writing clearly revolves around her and in series 1 it works well. I wouldn't call the show a comedy at all, but her character and performance is maybe irreverant?
Series 1 holds together well because beyond Scanlan the threads of all the characters blend together well and so the script has good balance. Paul Ritter is the strongest performance other than Scanlan but all are at least passable, except for Alexandra Roach's badly written, unbelievable character..
Series 2 suffers dramatically as the show switches from giving the secondary characters and threads breathing space to focusing heavily instead on Scanlan Elaine Cassidy and Roach, with Ritter as the main second string. It also suffers from real implausibility in relationships and an increasing god like, foot never wrong approach to writing Scanlan. The characters are all beginning to show themselves to be rather 1D. Plus Kate O'Flynn's character has become bizarre and the lawyer pair are comic strip style. It has also become political in its choice of bad guys and really seems to throw things in to the script just for the sake.
Series 3 thankfully eliminates Roach's character and brings some of the characters from series 1 back to life a bit more. But by now Scanlan is well and truly feet never touching the ground always gets things right, Cassidy is simply irritating, the politicisation of who is bad and who isn't has swung way beyond any reasonable balance and the bad guys are simply laughably badly written. I only bothered to stick with it to see if one or more twists appeared at the end (I was expecting Scanlan/Viv and Tom Varey/Stuart to be shown as corrupt. But nothing. Simply stuck to its dull, 1D rails.
So, overall 6 stars. But best bet is to watch series 1 and then spend your time on the vast amount of better stuff available than series 2 and 3.
What really makes the show is Joanna Scanlan. The writing clearly revolves around her and in series 1 it works well. I wouldn't call the show a comedy at all, but her character and performance is maybe irreverant?
Series 1 holds together well because beyond Scanlan the threads of all the characters blend together well and so the script has good balance. Paul Ritter is the strongest performance other than Scanlan but all are at least passable, except for Alexandra Roach's badly written, unbelievable character..
Series 2 suffers dramatically as the show switches from giving the secondary characters and threads breathing space to focusing heavily instead on Scanlan Elaine Cassidy and Roach, with Ritter as the main second string. It also suffers from real implausibility in relationships and an increasing god like, foot never wrong approach to writing Scanlan. The characters are all beginning to show themselves to be rather 1D. Plus Kate O'Flynn's character has become bizarre and the lawyer pair are comic strip style. It has also become political in its choice of bad guys and really seems to throw things in to the script just for the sake.
Series 3 thankfully eliminates Roach's character and brings some of the characters from series 1 back to life a bit more. But by now Scanlan is well and truly feet never touching the ground always gets things right, Cassidy is simply irritating, the politicisation of who is bad and who isn't has swung way beyond any reasonable balance and the bad guys are simply laughably badly written. I only bothered to stick with it to see if one or more twists appeared at the end (I was expecting Scanlan/Viv and Tom Varey/Stuart to be shown as corrupt. But nothing. Simply stuck to its dull, 1D rails.
So, overall 6 stars. But best bet is to watch series 1 and then spend your time on the vast amount of better stuff available than series 2 and 3.