User Reviews

I tend to be always wary of things based on a true story. A mixture of fact and fiction often blurs the tedious factual parts with outlandish falsehoods to make the show more exciting as a whole. Therefore it can often be difficult to engage yourself to view it as fact as there are a large number of scenes which appear to be grandstanding for the viewers.

Despite the above, the series is actually an exciting drama with some occasional comedy moments. It's certainly worth a viewing. The acting itself appears great, however it's difficult to know how good the acting is considering we're unaware whether the actors are portraying the Ingrams directly or whether there have been things added.

The reason for the 7/10 is not due to the production, excitement or directing, it is due to the script. I am slightly perplexed as to why the script has been written to feel empathy towards Charles Ingram. Although the wife was responsible for pushing Charles, he has surprisingly been made to look the innocent party, this is despite Charles committing insurance fraud before the quiz show fraud. So why has the script been written to make us feel empathetic?

Overall the show is well worth the watch. It's exciting, gripping and interesting. Would really recommend, however most certainly take everything with a pinch of salt - it's not all fact!

This was a very entertaining three part drama from ITV about how James Ingram and his wife allegedly cheated there way winning a million pounds on the quiz show "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire ".

I can assure you without giving anything away, after the final episode you like me will think the Ingram's were hard done by. And yet in a court of law with two of the countries finest barristers and a jury they were found guilty. This is because we only see the case for the defence and hardly any of the prosecution. In fact all three episodes felt like it was made by the Ingrams to make them look the victims.

However that apart I did learn a lot about the quizzing community who had devised a way of beating the phone in system to get themselves on the show. (You would have thought the producers suspected something when one contestant made it on the show four times!)

All the performances are excellent in particular Michael Sheen as the quiz host Chris Tarrent. 8/10

Though I let it pass me by when it aired, it's appearance on the Guardian's "TV of the year" list led to me giving "Quiz" a try. Though I accept people's frustration that the series doesn't want to prescribe guilt to its famous couple, in and of itself it's in interesting insight to the levels of manipulation seemingly innocuous and trustworthy institutions can fall foul too.

When the UK television production company Celador arrive at an idea for a new gameshow, they couldn't have predicted the unprecedented success that the show would be. "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" would become an worldwide phenomenon, but with their high profile, and the considerable prize on offer, inventive groups found a way to bend the show to their advantage. Into this, Major Charles Ingram (Matthew Macfadyen) follows his wife and brother-in-law into the hotseat, but unlike them he win's the top prize. However, accusations of cheating, particularly a conspiracy with coughing members of the audience, follow soon after.

Though the story clearly gets some people enraged, if it was 100% a work of fiction then it would be judged as a slightly farfetched but truly enjoyable miniseries. The performances are good, not just from the main cast but from numerous supporting performers like Helen McCrory, Aisling Bea, Elliot Levey and Nicholas Woodeson. Macfadyen and Sian Clifford do a great job of keeping the Ingram's as slightly odd but not unlikeable, which helps sell the indecision about their guilt. Personally, I didn't like this Michael Sheen impression as much as I have done some of the others, I don't feel he caught Chris Tarrant as well as he did Brian Clough, or Tony Blair. Some aspects of the story are really fascinating, not so much the actual Ingram saga, as the levels of manipulation that the show suffered. It suggests that a small but organised group of people managed to influence who made it onto the show and abused the phone-a-friend aspect.

As mentioned, the show works very hard to provide what might be considered a balanced view, which I suppose is noble, but betrays the truth somewhat. Though the Ingram's maintain their innocence and the show presents a very strong argument for them, they were found guilty by a jury, and fairly quickly too. As a report of history, I'd accept that the show is questionable - but as entertainment I'd say just ask the audience.

It's a big compliment when you feel you want another episode. Quiz does that. It engages throughout with a mostly tight story, mostly good cast and what we all love: a bit of a mystery.

The addiction to true crime dramas sets people up for this sort of story: unresolved tension, 'what if' scenarios and divided camps of 'guilty' vs 'not-guilty'.

The narrative of this production is all about the tension that is built into shows like Millionaire, and it openly then uses the same tactics for itself.

Where the show excels is that it doesn't really pick a side, it shows seemingly balanced evidence for both sides of the case.

In a nod to 'Network' it also asks us what the culture of sensationalist TV breeds - and how networks can benefit and profit from all outcomes.

The acting is largely good. Michael Sheen is outstanding as Tarrant. Matthew Macfadyen dances the fine balance of the role he plays of competent vs comical and when you rewatch the original footage you realise he got it right. Sian Clifford indistinguishable from Diana Ingram.

It has some mis-steps. The brother-in-law and one of the network executives are frantic and out of place, and the odd stray into attempts at comedy (evidence: "It's Raining Men") are oddly distracting. I wonder if they are holdovers from the theatre when you inject absurdity to give the audience a bit of a wake up in pace. We've all been there for the obvious "everyone cheer" moments, but they don't work so well on TV.

It's an eye opening programme that will leave you wanting more, just like any good drama and mystery should evoke.

The best ... or worst ... about this was Sheen's masterful portrayal of the awful Tarrant with all his smugness, witless, often embarrassing comments to and about competitors and partners and his dreadful contorted facials. He eventually made the show unwatchable for me. Well done Sheen for an accurate portrayal of this staggeringly overrated unpleasant presenter.

Spread over the Easter weekend, this was ITV's dramatisation of events now almost twenty years old when the network's then flagship light entertainment quiz show (not a game show!) "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" was the at the centre of a cheating scandal revolving around a series of carefully choreographed coughing fits to guide the contestant Major Charles Ingram all the way through fifteen questions of increasing severity to the ultimate prize of £1,000,000. Once convinced that they'd apparently been duped, the show's production company Celador reported Ingram and his alleged accomplices, his wife Diana (much was made at the time of the couple coincidentally sharing the names of the Royal couple) and fellow-contestant Tecwen Whittock to the police and a criminal case was made against them. The trial made as many headlines as the original show when the couple (and Whittock who barely features in the action here, actually) were duly convicted but only given a Pyhrric suspended sentence so that the trio didn't have to go to jail, but obviously didn't collect their "Winnings", nevertheless left the trial in disgrace and out of pocket, leading to their bankruptcy when ordered to pay the legal costs of the trial. The Ingrams have pled their innocence ever since but at the same time haven't been above milking the publicity for financial reasons by appearing, for example, in other reality programmes since then.

So, did this programme find them guilty then? Apparently not. At no stage do the couple admit, even in private, that they're up to no good and the fact remains that the only strong "evidence" of any foul play against them is Diana's dodgy-seeming calls to Whittock immediately after Charles's inauspicious first night on the show (his appearance was made over two nights) and more pertinently, his decidedly odd behaviour in the chair as he abruptly changed at least two of his answers to the correct ones after seeming to completely rule them out.

This production revealed several interesting background points surrounding the original show which I either didn't know or had forgotten, including the fact that Diana and indeed her brother-in-law had already appeared in the show before Charles or that there was a network of what we'd now called hackers in the background offering their services to not only get people onto the show but to also usurp its procedures to win large sums of money for signed-up participants, with the claim being made that they were instrumental in helping hundreds of winners to win over 10% of all the show's prize-money down the years.

I'm not personally convinced the couple were so innocent. Before it was taken down from YouTube over the last couple of days, I was able to watch the offending episode in full where if anything Ingram's dithering and bumbling nature is even more pronounced. That said, how he'd decipher and interpret which cough to follow in a crowded TV studio seems like a risky game plan to me and he did go on to prove his intelligence by joining M.E.N.S.A. I think I'll go 50/50 on that one Chris.

This series entertainingly recreated the scandal with some fairly obvious dramatic licence (did for examp!e Ingram and the gung-ho Celador producer really cross swords, so to speak, in the gents toilet at the trial, I wonder!) and I suppose couldn't have asserted the Ingrams' guilt in any case, without attracting a libel charge against it. I felt the casting could have been better, with Matthew McFadyen bearing no physical resemblance at all to the real major, more's the pity when compared to Sian Clifford's marked similarity to his wife and of course the human chameleon Michael Sheene's take on show presenter Chris Tarrant.

Whilst admitting that the show could have conceivably taken a quite different viewpoint on the "did they or didn't they" question and so seemed like a bit of a cop-out in the end, it had enough going on in the background to sustain the entertainment over three nights. Or maybe I should rephrase that...

The rather incredible story of Major Charles Ingram, the man who cheated his way to £1 Million.

This three part series came as a total surprise, it's a wonderful story, and one which many of us will remember well. That famous cough.

It's obviously been tinkered about with, but this shows the origins of the show, the famous swindle, and the aftermath of events. You don't need to be a who wants to be a Millionaire lover to enjoy it, if you're a fan of quality drama, then you will love it.

Top notch acting, the cast do a great job, but the standout is definitely Michael Sheen, who gives a quite alarmingly accurate performance as Chris Tarrant, the mannerisms, voice and reactions are first rate.

I wasn't expecting to enjoy it, I absolutely loved it. Just what was needed during this awful lockdown, 10/10.

I enjoyed it as a drama, but it left a lot to be desired when dealing with fact and adding fiction.

When I first heard of this program, I was really excited to watch it. Now, having seen the first episode of Quiz, I actually really enjoyed it! It's a must watch (in my opinion) for pretty much any enthusiast of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.

This show started out engaging enough, but it deteriorated in episode 3. At least there were only 3 episodes, so it wasn't too much of a time-suck. But Michael Sheen made this worthwhile to watch. He was funny, over the top, and so cute!

A very misleading mini series.

It is well made as light entertainment goes and the acting is generally very good with the glaring exception of 'Ingram' who, when portrayed in the chair, is a noticeably different character than you can see on the real how.

The trial is also changed to make interesting television rather than a fair account of the evidence presented.

So - 8 for entertainment and 2 for accuracy.

It's good but don't expect a biopic or gripping drama. This is basically a little bit of a laugh that successfully takes the story and turns it in every way possible. It's inaccurate and there are a few moments where it seems like you're watching Mr Bean but it's good fun. Sheen is uncanny as Tarrant.

I really enjoyed the first episode of Quiz! It is a wonderful production, paid attention to details. The cast is absolutely amazing! Matthew Macfadyen is brilliant as Charles Ingram, his natural acting is simply captivating!!! Can't wait for episode 2!

This was quite well done. They made a bit of a joke of it, it was a little slapstick but I was keen on something lighthearted after all the crime shows I usually watch.

The acting was quite good - I love the main actor from succession and he does a good job as a bumbling idiot in this show! I'm not in the UK but From what I've seen, the actor playing the WWTBAM host did great.

I didn't know much about this story before I watched it so I went in open minded. I know how I would have voted on the jury based on what was shown and said in the show. I've since read up more about it and it's mostly accurate to real life.

This was the best drama documentary I have seen all year. Matthew Macfadyen and Sian Clifford were excellent as Charles and Diana Ingram. Aisling Bea added a note of comedy to the proceedings. But the best performance by far I was by Michael Sheen as Chris Tarrant, perfectly capturing all the strange vocal inflections and physical movements of the original. Some commentators have suggested that the show was unfairly biased towards Charles and Diana. However I thought it fair to put both sides of the argument. If you choose to believe that they were completely guilty then that is up to you. However, it does seem clear that the presentation of evidence was skewed by the television company themselves and that many of these shortcomings were pointed out by the defendant's solicitor. My only slight complaint is that this would have been much tighter as one show, maybe an hour and a half, rather than dragged out into three 1-hour instalments. I also felt that some of the minor players in the drama, for example Diana's brother, did not bring very much to the proceedings and and I could have done without knowing of his personal difficulties.

This is a three-part mini-series that aspires to portray accurately a major scandal that took place in England in 2001 and revolves around the alleged cheating of a player in the popular television quiz show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire". The show was a massive success in the United Kingdom and its format was adopted subsequently by several countries in Europe and the United States which aired the show under the same title. In September 2001, an army Major, Charles Ingram, won the grand prize of 1.000.000 pounds answering correctly in fifteen multiple-choice questions of increasing severity, but the producers of the show immediately suspected that something was wrong regarding his outstanding performance. In the footage of Ingram's game, they detected some suspicious coughing coming from the audience that supposedly indicated the wrong answers to the player sitting in the hot chair. The members of the audience in question were Ingram's wife, Diana, and a timid man sitting in the fastest-finger chairs, Tecwen Whittock.

The case went on trial and Charles, Diana, and Tecwen were ultimately found guilty by the jury and given a suspended sentence, thus avoiding imprisonment for their crime. There is a controversy over whether the trio actually cheated or not and the producers of Quiz are careful not to endorse one view or the other. The creators of the series declared that they wished to make a balanced production where the viewers get to form their own opinion after presented with the cold facts and the arguments from either side. I read many hateful reviews, most of them written by people who are convinced of the Ingrams' guilt and seem to believe that this show is nothing more than an attempt to exonerate the protagonists who are presented in a rather favorable light. While I don't necessarily agree with them, I have to admit that at the end of the third and final episode, I was left with the impression that the couple, as well as Tecwen, could be innocent and they should be given at least the benefit of the doubt.

Quiz is directed by the veteran English auteur, Stephen Frears, who is widely known for his films Dangerous Liaisons, Dirty Pretty Things, and The Queen. The series features a carefully selected cast with Mark Bonnar (Shetland, Line of Duty), Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon, Midnight in Paris), Sian Clifford (Liar, Fleabag), and Matthew Macfadyen (Pride & Prejudice, The Three Musketeers). Sheen gives an impressive performance as the show's host, Chris Tarrant. He has studied his role so meticulously that he has absorbed all the peculiar mannerisms of the real Chris Tarrant and morphs magnificently into his character. Macfayden and Clifford are both captivating as the Ingram couple who face an unprecedented challenge when their extraordinary story is put into the public spotlight. Mark Bonnar is exceptional, as always, in the role of Paul Smith, the creator and producer of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire", who is determined to put away the Ingrams for ruining his life's work.

This is an enjoyable show and its short length, three episodes of forty-five minutes each, makes for a quick watch. I watched it in just one sitting and I was quickly drawn to its bizarre storyline which becomes even weirder when one considers that this is a true story. I am not British, so I had no prior knowledge of the incident and that helped as I had not had an already formed point of view on the subject. Quiz has high production values, stark performances, and a unique true-life scenario that is worthy of the viewers' attention. The courtroom scenes in the final episode are great, though they are emphasizing on the defense's arguments rather than the prosecution's. Its only flaw is that some sub-plots are not explored in-depth, like that of the quizzing fraternity, and finally, they seem to be unrelated to the main storyline. Nevertheless, it remains a riveting show that guarantees entertainment and leaves the audience to decide what is true or not concerning this incredible true story.

A superb drama in which Matthew Macfadyan and Michael Sheen truly shine as Charles Ingram and Chris Tarrant respectively.

Over the last few days here in the UK the big new thing has been this three episode long mini series called Quiz, I waited and watched them all at once and here is my review for the show. The premise of the show is based on true events where a Army Major was accused of cheating and stealing 1Million Pounds from the popular quiz show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.

Main Character Matthew Macfadyen plays Army Major Chris Ingram on this show and I thought he did a great job in the role. At first you see quite a timid every day man who is very well respected and honourable but as the show goes on you can see him gaining confidence in himself and really standing up for himself in the wake of the accusations. You also see a different persona when he appears on the quiz show itself as he really plays to the cameras and nails the entertainment side of the game, you aren't sure whether to root for him but he comes across as pretty likeable so it makes it a tough moral dilemma.

Supporting Characters Okay, lets get to the performance that everybody is talking about and that is Michael Sheen as host Chris Tarrant and I swear to you this is a truly memorable performance. Sheen nails Tarrant's mannerisms and likeness so well it is uncanny. I literally cannot imagine anybody else in the world who could have done as good a job in this role as Sheen does he truly does a special job and it adds legitimacy to the show. Sian Clifford plays Diana Ingram and honestly this show really makes her out to be the villain of this show, it seems you aren't meant to root for her and her obsession with winning is what causes this whole incident. She does a good job in her role, though I am not sure the real life person would be particularly happy with her depiction. Mark Bonnar plays the head of who wants to be a millionaire and I thought he did a great job, you see the events through a different point of view with his character and you do care about him and see the damage the other characters have done to him personally and professionally.

Story The story is pretty absurd when you think about it but it is interesting in seeing these people attempt to get away with this act of deception. I have mentioned before how much I love courtoom scenes and this show nails it's courtroom scenes, the drama is executed greatly whether in these courtroom scenes or the quiz itself. My one complaint is that there are some story arcs that I felt could have been eliminated as they don't really play into the main plot and feel very tacked on.

Script The script is very good, the drama is well executed and it makes you sympathise for the characters and interested in the situation. The humour when used actually works and helps make the characters feel like real people which helps when your show is based on true events.

Style As mentioned the show really nails its style when it comes to the courtroom scenes and the brilliantly tense quiz scene. However, I felt like the show should have started with the quiz and we learn about the situation and the background of the characters after, as the show has a very slow start and it takes a bit of time to really get going.

Overall Overall, this is a great mini series that being short is an easy watch and it is an interesting story that has added layers as it happened and is still talked about today.

Rating - 8/10.

Michael Sheen as Chris Tarrant was so perfect, and that smile :D I just wish we could have more of Michael portraying Tarrant.

Extreme Railways & Ultimate Birdspotting with Chris Tarrant.

Maximum Rambling in Norfolk with Chris Tarrant & Alan Partridge

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

In September 2001, the TV gameshow Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? was at the height of its peak, raking in millions of viewers and one of the top programmes on the schedule. It was at this time when Army Major Charles Ingram (Matthew Macfadyen) appeared as a contestant, after his wife Diana (Sian Clifford) had already been on and won £32,000, and became one of only two people to win the million pound jackpot. However, his behaviour on the show sparked suspicion from the producers, and him and his wife, along with accomplice Tecwen Whittock (Michael Jibson) were taken to court on suspicion of cheating.

At a time when everyone is suspicious of those around them who cough, it seems darkly apt that ITV have delivered this dramatization of one of the most unbelievable episodes in its history. It undoubtedly was ripe with dramatic potential, another one of those 'you couldn't make it up' things, and what better channel to be behind it than the one of which it all happened? Despite Ingram's protestations of innocence, he's always been more than happy to milk his notoriety, appearing in various interviews and even appearing in Z list reality TV shows, so this is another thing he really can't complain about.

In a time when streaming services such as Netflix are known for making excessive thirteen or so episode series, terrestrial stations like ITV are still sticking with a restrictive three or so, as is the case here. With this in mind, the first episode would have done well to not spend so much time elaborating on the history of the nation's obsession with the gameshow and how ITV needed to come up with an exciting brand new format, and focused on how the machinations of the plan came together. Performances wise, Sheen always does his homework on the real life roles he plays, and captures Tarrant's mannerisms down to a tee, while fellow big name star Macfadyen also inhibits the part of the bumbling, mild mannered major really well.

If this guy had been a little less over zealous, there's a chance he could have got away with what could still have been quite a lot of money, but his poor performance on the show and lack of confidence just gave the game away, and his name became synonymous with one of the most audacious things ever carried out on live TV. It's fitting that ITV have made an imperfect but still highly worthwhile production of an incident its own channel will always be famous for. ***

So I've reviewed almost all major ITV dramas and I've been less than favourable with some of their output. Their formulaic and 2d approach to some real-life dramas is often as appealing as a date with one of the Eggheads.

Usually, their characters are very underwhelming regardless of the genre and it always strikes me that their dramas are either under or over-rehearsed (more likely the former).

However, I have to say, that this is what becomes when a good script with a good director make drama-love and make little drama babies. The acting is spot-on and the production levels are great (along with burgundy Escort).

Maddog Macfadyen plays Ingram with more than enough elasticity and whilst this, may again, down to the script, McSwegan hits it out the park. He actually gives the 2-D Ingram a lot of spikes and dips; I really wasn't sure on him, but his and Sheen's chemistry really somehow elevates this drama to a different level. They played together in Frost/Nixon and I'm fairly certain they've tread the boards once or twice... possibly in the Scottish play. Here's a bit of pop trivia for you - Macfadyan had a bit-part in QT's Grindhouse... someone stuck their thumbs in his head and killed him... bad form, bad form. I also don't know why I have this in my head, but I could've sworn he had a small role in Shaun of the Dead or something... Answers on a postcard please.

Nonetheless, when I first heard of the casting - I genuinely thought that the roles would be reversed; I thought that Sheen would play Ingram whilst McDoughall played the overly-physical Chris Tarrantula. Good on him I guess, but if Mr. Tarrant had went to hug me on the set of Millionaire, I think I'd have stolen the chequebook out of his pocket - so I can't criticise Ingram for essentially being the Gopher in, what appears to be, a rather depressingly instance of Great British invention (social hacking). We mastered the art of 'man in the middle' in Rule Britannia, and the people involved in this are only carrying on that tradition.

Regardless, this programme tries to balance the boardwalk of objectivity - but anyone with two brain cells can see that they (ITV) sideloaded this programme and I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a return of WWTBAM with Michael Sheen presenting as Chris Tarrant (he does do CT better than CT does himself - it's creepily odd - the man is a Welsh alien no, not A WELSH ALIEN, but a Welsh alien shape-shifting bi-product of the craft).

The ensemble are very good also, and whilst this is almost definitely down to the script and direction, there isn't a dropped line nor missed beat... The actors do their jobs immaculately here and I really hope ITV take something away from this programme.

However, the pacing is sometimes a bit whirlwind and this is quite possibly down to post, but in-camera, Stephen Frears has crafted a piece which could literally sell by the bucket-load.

The camerawork is great and is a relative charm considering ITV's production houses often revert to talkie-walkies and faux handheld with zooms, pans and awkward tilts (there isn't enough tilts on TV - we need more tilts).

It's actually quite in-depth and at three-episodes long, it doesn't feel enough; but in all honesty, it probably could've done with a bit more courtroom as even with my own research, there was quite a lot that this programme glossed over.

And with that, there are one or two scenes which comes across like a contemporary Carry On, namely, the bloody confetti.

It is hard not to draw conclusions after seeing this and you will find yourself digging up a little more on this subject - that is good TV... And I hope ITV get their fingers out and craft a behind-the-scenes for this as I personally would love to have seen what went on behind the camera with regard to direction and production.

But, go, stop reading this absolute sermon of a review and give it a watch - it's well worth the 40 minutes of advertisements whilst you browse eBay for a pair of socks.

One for the post-broadcast researchers:

A level up from ITV in a time where our nation needs it most. Keep it up and please now produce a programme based on Jimmy Saville with Micheal Sheen. I once pitched this to someone in Glasgow in a revolving doors elevator pitch thingio and quickly s**t myself when I realised I was actually in the BBC Scotland and not ITV... The lady laughed and quickly fluttered her eyes when she realised I was serious, which I guess is the main thing.

On the whole, I really hope you go and give it a watch - whoever you are. But don't sit in judgement over the persons involved in this; or at least, try not to. You've got a 50/50 chance of getting it right either way and if you ask the audience, they'll tell you they're downright cheats (no-one likes that word, and I suspect this is all a bloomin' matter of interpretation and semantics).

Ask yourself what you would have done if you were in their situation; they thought they were smarter than the average folk and quite possibly entitled to be on the gameshow. Whatever their motivations were for doing what they did (exploiting technology to get more money and get to the front of the queue), it really does beg the question "If the Ingrams managed to nearly pull this off, how many more have used tech-aided exploits to get ahead?

And to further extend on this, who hasn't ever cheated in their life? No-one has never cheated in their lives regardless of your interpretation of the word.

0 out of 2 people found this review helpful - as of 12 hours after publishing - Chaz/Di... You ain't kidding this one, ha! :)