Reviews

I caught the first episode on TV a while back and finally tracked down what this show was called so I can watch the rest of it. This miniseries has a decent cast and downright great cinematography but the plot doesn't make much sense. The first episode has just enough suspense and intrigue to want more, however nothing happens in episode two, and the finale leaves more questions than answers. This review is filled with massive SPOILERS!

The show starts with Tom (Michael Palin of Monty Python fame) faking an injury so he can go into care. We soon find out though that he isn't traveling alone, despite having an empty suitcase. The social worker who brought him there dies in mysterious fashion, prompting a police investigation... I'll skip to the end and say Tom is haunted by his childhood nanny, Isha, who died in a boat during WWI on her way back to India. Here's where the questions begin:

There was a line of dialog claiming she said she would protect him 'for all time' or somesuch, but why did she kill his wife and the social worker? Although I'm pretty sure it was never stated, let's assume Isha was a jealous ghost; why then did she kill the care home worker (second death in the show)? Is she some Gurkha assassin disposing of witnesses? Why didn't she go after the resident who recognized Tom (Nancy I think her name was)? In the second episode, Tom says in one of Hannah's visions that Isha would never hurt a child, but in the end Isha tries to kill her 10 year-old brother, and Hannah as well. Why?

Which brings me to Tom. In the beginning it seems like he was trying to get away from Isha, but he could have at any time by singing the entirety of a made-up song! He claims to have 'been very careful' when concocting his escape plan to the care home, and he says she travels in things related to her, so why did he just not leave on his own and not involve anybody else? In the end Tom has to make a choice; save Hannah and her brother or free Isha's spirit. He's reluctant because she's been with him all his 110+ years of living... so why was he running from her in the first place? If Isha's wish all along was for him to join her in death why/how did she extend his life, and if it wasn't why did he die immediately after he sang the song?

It's unfortunate how a story can draw me in so well but have a completely nonsensical premise. On top of that, this didn't need to be three episodes long; two would've cut out the necessary fat. It's entirely possible I've missed important parts that would answer some of my questions, but not all of them. As another reviewer said, watch the first episode then make up an ending on your own, it'll probably be more interesting. Cheers.

About 15 minutes in we paused to throw out our predictions where the episode was going. Since it would be way too obvious for the educated/successful wife to be the perpetrator, and for Jack to suddenly wise up and assist in digging out of the hole he's dug for himself, we went another route:

Since the guy found in his own luggage changed his name when he got married, and his wife sounded Irish (apologies if I got the accent wrong) we where thinking maybe he was trying to create a new identity to hide from something related to the IRA. I am well aware that the IRA isn't nearly as active or aggressive as they once were, but they can still make for some decent storytelling IMHO. Well, I suppose I can say that the ending came as a shock, but not in a good way.

The underlying plot with DCS Mulgrew just fizzled out here as well. If he didn't spend so much time whining about Vivienne leaving he could've made things right long ago without disregarding his life being saved (which is a suspicious story given who tells it). Then he gets out of his own protection detail, knowing how unstable the person is? I don't know which episode is more unsatisfying, this one or the season finale. Also, Billie finds out everyone has been keeping her in the dark and has absolutely no reaction to any of it. I won't be around for season/series 4 unless they get a better AI to write it.

This isn't a bad show, it just doesn't hold up against so many others that its weak points stand out even more. We were looking for a crime drama/police procedural that was more episodic than a season-long storyline, and we found it in London Kills for the most part. Sure, there's the underlying plot with Bradford's missing wife, but that's not the primary focus of each episode... at least not until the season/series two finale that is.

What pulls me out of the show oftentimes is all the little things: the office is too sterile looking to give the sense anything beyond coding for a new startup is being done. A team of four inspectors is all that make up the "murder squad" in this part of London, and they also respond faster in their high-end cars than uniformed officers? The team is so good that they caution/arrest everyone they want to interview on mere suspicion, and nobody ever asks for a lawyer! So far those (amongst others) can be marked down as possible budgetary constraints; hiring more people to play lawyers and officers costs money. What isn't, or shouldn't be anyway, is the characters.

Billie was easily my favorite character in the first season, despite getting dumb and becoming involved with a witness that she gave her home address to. She's a DC in training; there's no way she wouldn't have been reassigned to one of the dozens of other units after that, not to mention the unlikelihood of a TDC being assigned to homicide in the first place. Then there's Rob, who at first seemed to be written as a foil to Vivienne's constant questioning of evidence, as well as Bradford's flunky. Now he's taken the lead as the most level-headed person on the show, if not a bit smug at times. For most of season/series two Bradford has been reduced to brooding in his office.

I can say that season two was a modest upgrade to season one IMHO, but the conclusion to David's missing wife was unsatisfying to me. For nearly six months she was held captive by one mentally ill man to take care of his sister's baby, and her only response to trying to get away was that he could overpower her? Um, try outsmarting the guy or busting open the windows to yell for help in suburban London! We also find out Bradford's "piece on the side" is actually a witness to an unspecified undercover case. Out of the thousands of police in London there's likely a whole team of people to hide and protect witnesses. Why is Bradford, the DCI of the homicide unit, doing this seemingly on his own, and why send some random person to check on her when he could've sent Viv instead since she was there earlier? Pseudo-drama at its finest! Cheers.

The final episode of season/series two wraps the storyline up nicely, and the series was overall pretty good; at least as good as the first IMHO. However, once the damning evidence is finally revealed I was left wondering why it happened in the first place?

Getting into spoiler territory: in her video K mentions that the company (sorry, forgot its name) has been doing illegal drug trials, and we're never told what the illegal part was. Drug trials are going on all the time involving thousands of people around the world, but there was no evidence the college students were being experimented on without their knowledge or consent, unless I missed it. At the very least, that shady college is guilty of immigration fraud, though if the people who died from the drug trials signed a consent form the company had nothing legally to worry about. Instead of conscripting a team of thugs to murder people, Rory's dad should've hired a bunch of lawyers to bury the story (I'm sure he had a lawyer or two on his payroll but he clearly wasn't listening to them). Without the questionable deaths, there would be no investigation, or plot for that matter.

Perhaps it was just me, but the side-story with Harry and the horse racing really dragged the pacing and main plot for me this time around. I liked the couple times Cam helped Jack out, since he's criminally underused, but leaving Harry out might've actually improved the season. We also don't really find out who called immigration on the bartender's wife. It's alleged to be related to Jack's visit to the office, since the deportation is done by the same woman, but it was likely by one of the regulars, and it was left open-ended for no particular reason... again unless I missed it.

There's a lot to like with season two, however the loose ends are my primary lingering ruminations of the whole escapade. Cheers.

Bloodlands is not a bad show. There's a lot to like such as the acting, casting, and cinematography, and the first two episodes were quite good for the most part. The last half of the first season/series seems to fall apart a bit for me though leaving me questioning if I will continue watching. Ultimately, there's simply way too much plot convenience for events to occur the way they do.

Getting into spoiler territory: Tom didn't need to shoot Adam. For over two decades the old guy had been dismissed as a crank, so why would anyone all of a sudden start to believe him? How does Tom get a boat and go to the island and back, cleaning up blood and other evidence, without anyone seeing him? Also, why not just dump him back in the now vacant gravesite, since there's no reason for anyone to revisit it? Why does Tom still have the gun he used in 1998? Oh, and the gun he used was a Walther PP, but it was most likely a .380 or .32 rather than a 9mm because the only 9x18mm made in that model was for the West German police. I mention this because it would be a fairly unique gun even for the 90s and probably not hard to track down.

A few other points: how was Tori able to kidnap a physically capable man at least twice her size, and how was he not found sooner by someone at the hotel? Why does Tom frame Jackie when the only thing he has on him was planted? A formal investigation on circumstantial evidence would only fizzle out quickly and likely point directly at him. When the notion of Goliath being a cop narrows the scope down to three people, all of whom are part of the investigation, why aren't they all immediately benched pending exoneration?

We finally learn here that Tom is Goliath... for the couple people that didn't make the connection earlier. He killed those three guys in 1998 because they kidnapped his wife so he would look the other way while they smuggle guns for the IRA. However, the kidnapping was just a ruse as Emma was indeed having an affair with David and helping the IRA. This creates a plot hole in that if Emma is still alive why wouldn't she come forward and point the finger squarely at Tom? She was an intelligence officer, and could probably overcome any 'colluding with terrorists' allegation that would be thrown her way, as well as saying she was afraid of Tom. She has no reason not to return and get her daughter back.

Despite all that, what concerns me most is why Tom continues to be a cop in the same place all this happened? I don't have a problem with the protagonist turning out to be a villain, or good guys doing bad things for the right reasons, but that's not what this is. Tom killed three people in a jealous rage, and three more to cover up those crimes. There's nothing to root for here. If he had either transferred or emigrated somewhere off island, he'd probably never have to worry about this again. But then there'd be no story, and we just couldn't have that now could we...

I've been revisiting the show as I read through the books, and since season/series 4 was my least favorite I was looking forward to checking it out again after reading what it was based on. That isn't to say I didn't like what I watched, just that it was less organized than other seasons. I know that I should review shows and movies on their own merits, just as I am well aware adaptations almost never line up with their source material, but this time around I am left wondering what they were thinking in some of their changes.

What I remember most about S4 is how unbalanced it felt; shifting between Ilus, Avasarala, Bobby, and Ashford. I can only guess that this was so other storylines could begin while what's supposed to be the main plot on New Terra moves along. What I find strange is most of that doesn't occur in the books, and didn't need to here either. All the election stuff with Chrisjen? Didn't happen. The stuff with Bobby and her nephew? Didn't happen. The part where Miller has Holden cut a root that turns on a spinning alien spire (which we never find out the purpose of)? Didn't happen. What should've happened and didn't was giving us some of the alien mechanoid beasts (rather than the metal bugs) and more of the subplot in space over Ilus/New Terra which was almost completely cut out.

I recognize how difficult it must be to pack all we got in only ten episodes, and how likely very expensive this show is, but cutting out all that unnecessary filler would free up more time and money to give people more of what they want to see; plus S4 is where Amazon took over the show so its budget probably doubled anyway. Don't get me wrong; I think Bobby and Chrisjen are great characters (their actors are very nice as well), but their entire arc this season could've been covered in one scene, just like it was in the book.

I chose this episode specifically for my rant because Oppressor is where we see first hand what Dr. Lucia Mazur's involvement was in the shuttle explosion. While blowing up the landing platform does happen pretty much the same way in the book, it's her husband who's involved and wracked with guilt, not her. Lucia is the settlement's only doctor... that whole philosophy of 'do no harm.' She's also a loving wife and mother who cares about her family and community. This switch makes no sense and has zero story-driven purpose, especially since her husband is still a character with spoken lines, so it renders both of them useless because now she isn't tending to anyone's medical needs, and he's not helping to save the orbiting colony ship in later episodes.

I am enjoying this show for the most part, but I still question naming it Van der Valk since it's nothing like the original... aside from the setting.

I've been watching this season/series out of order apparently; this was the latest episode released where I watch it. While Blood in Amsterdam was well done and kept my interest throughout the ep, the 'big reveal' at the end fell a little flat for me because a) it was a bit predictable and b) made no logical sense. What sets the investigation going is dismembered body parts delivered to three members of the same family. The problem with this is there was no reason to do either one of those things.

SPOILERS: Despite all the mystery behind the mother's death, it turns out she had faked her death to live with the family shrink on property in the Caribbean she had sold and bought in another name. They wanted to disappear together but accidently killed an employee who found them out. Rather than dump the body in one of Amsterdam's many waterways, or leave it in the abandoned building where it happened, they cut it up with a machine used on diamonds and sent it to her three children. Why? She already recorded her will; just disappear like intended! All they ended up doing was to bring undue attention onto what they wanted to conceal.

It would've been less interesting, but someone in or close to the family bumping her off to take over the diamond business would've made more sense. What we got was too convoluted to the point of insanity, and it completely took me out of the story.

Note: I am aware the title of this episode is meant to have a double meaning in the deaths and family bloodline, but the dismembered body was perfectly cleaned of blood and the family connection didn't really matter to the plot since a successor had already been chosen.

This show was recommended by someone who shares my affinity for British TV, and I may have to pick her brain as to why she liked it. The Tower wasn't that bad, particularly the actors who did a fantastic job all around, but the show seemed to rest almost entirely on plot convenience and contrivances. The author of the books is apparently a former detective from the Met, so either this adaptation didn't translate well or she favors pseudo-drama over realism; I don't know, didn't read it.

There is a major incident involving the death of a veteran officer and a teenage girl in London and only about a dozen people show up, including EMTs? The people put in charge of the case is only a DI and DS? There's two witnesses to the incident; an officer and a small boy, but she's allowed to leave the scene without escort and they never manage to speak to the child? There's more... a lot more, but those only cover part of the first episode!

Going into SPOILER territory: when you look closer into the motivations of Lizzie Adama (changed from Griffith in the book for some reason) the story begins to fall apart. She initially reported that she wasn't in the house to hear her partner's racist slurs, then changes her statement in a second report... six day later. She doesn't do this because she's pressured to back him up (even though she was indeed pressured), she changes it because of a second incident where he illegally threatens a prostitute to receive medical attention, where she ends up dying anyway, and they don't want any loose ends when they try prosecute the guy who did it. Neither of these would hold up because a halfway decent defense attorney could probably get that second statement thrown out, being nearly a week later, and there were two paramedics who heard Hadley coerce the women into their care. So her reasons for running away and lying later probably wouldn't matter.

Then there's DI Shaw. He was cagey from the beginning and should've been relieved during the investigation. He didn't want to mention Lizzie in the press because of the organized crime guy who killed the prostitute would go after her. That doesn't make sense because they already saw each other when he pointed a gun in her face and stole her body camera; Adama's nametag was very clearly displayed and the guy may have even said it. To make matters worse, Shaw is having an affair with Lizzie and the only response to that is "it isn't illegal." That may be true, but it's still incredibly inappropriate (being her senior officer) and it speaks DIRECTLY to his integrity as an officer and a married man.

The season/series ends on a whimper with basically nothing happening to anybody, though there is potential for something to happen later if you care to tune in. The reason nothing happened is because Lizzie was convinced to lie in order to save her job because 'they need officers like her.' What makes her so special? She's just as expendable as every other cop in this show, plus there's probably a hundred new officers receiving the same training she did only six months prior, many of whom may very well be people of color and/or women. If you enjoy thrillers/police procedurals this might be for you, but you may have to turn off your brain; I just don't work that way though.