Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

This is one of the finest televised dramas I have ever seen. I was watching it on the TV channel that brings us wonderful British shows, Part 1, knowing that Part 2 would be aired the next week. About and hour into the telecast, the TV went dark and I looked about and there were no lights anywhere. We were undergoing a power outage. Determined to see the entire production, I ordered the DVD which I then did as gifts for film aficionados. I had no prior introduction to the work of David Tennant but was so impressed. Learning of his amazing career is a pleasure. He admires Derek Jacobi, an actor long admired in the States beginning with "I, Claudius." I was privileged to have drinks with Sir Derek in Stratford in the autumn of 1982 following his stellar performance in "The Tempest." He continues turning out marvelous performances.

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.

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.

SPOILER ALERT: this may give away some elements of the plot.Tremendously good acting wasted on a preposterous plot and limited character development. There is only vague explanation for any of the actions taken by the villain, and legally it seems highly unlikely that any of the outcomes would have been possible. I guess no one can do decent character development anymore. David Tennant was good, as was Sophie Okonedo, but the only thing that was believable was the pain felt by the victims of the gruesome crimes committed. I really expect better from these British series. I can understand that the writers felt they had a good premise--a top-notch barrister gets his obviously guilty and extremely creepy client off on a technicality, because that's his job, only to find himself then victimized by the same person. Alas, their development of that idea was vague and unconvincing.