Did anybody else notice the enormous gap under T&T's front door? It was big enough for the paperboy to pop an entire weekend's broadsheet newspaper though. I hope they have a draught-excluder.
Ignoring the fact that Albert should be a young lad, I would have preferred it if Matthew Steer and Walliams had swapped roles. Steer seemed more Tommy material and Walliams could have a done "wacky" chemistry guy easily! Obviously Walliams wanted the lead role though.
Ignoring the fact that Albert should be a young lad, I would have preferred it if Matthew Steer and Walliams had swapped roles. Steer seemed more Tommy material and Walliams could have a done "wacky" chemistry guy easily! Obviously Walliams wanted the lead role though.
I can't abide him anyway but he is TOTALLY wrong in the role.
Tommy and Tuppence had a poor showing last time
around with,I believe Francesca Annis as Tuppence?
This time,with camper than a campsite Walliams doing
his usual gurning,and Jessica 'Look How Wooden I am
Now' Raine in the star roles...well, words fail me. Next?
If you were a fan of the Father a Brown short stories the TV series was epically awful a parody in fact.
The TV series was more a UK version of Father Dowling, most of the stories bore absolutely no reference to the original Father Brown. Recurring characters purely from the imagination of the scriptwriters and recurring characters from the short stories made into totally different people.
I do agree about the Father B TV series being a parody of the original stories, but I still think the series was entertaining to watch, and pretty well acted all the way through, while, by comparison, Partners in Crime fails miserably on both counts.
TBH I don't think the BBC ever really stick to the books, do they? It's one of the things ITV manage to do better!
He is a terrible actor. He keeps pulling faces when acting surprised or showing any other emotion. There is zero chemistry between these two.
Well, is he an actor, or is he just a lucky comedy writer who gets acting roles?
I think the latter.
He reminds me so much of Frankie Howerd, in looks and mannerisms, and yet when he got the role of Frankie in a TV play, he couldn't even play that part right.
He's also terrible in that school programme he does, He also writes it doesn't he?
And isn't he a producer for this Partners In Crime thing? He gave himself the leading role right? Hmm.
His acting like you say is so bad. He's such a bulk of a man - I'd even go as far to say fat - that despite that he makes no impression on the screen. You're just aware he is there but you feel nothing.
No doubt with his connections he'll be cast in another leading role and be equally hopeless in that too.
I thought I would watch this as I like Agatha Christie but I am not keen on David Walliams. Thankfully he was not at all camp in this. I actually enjoyed it in a jolly hockey sticks , lashings of ginger beer kind of way. It did remind me a bit of Enid Blyton's Famous Five for adults.
He used to describe himself as the campest straight* man in the UK. He's now split up from his wife over her unwillingness to tolerate this (and him wearing womens clothes).
*He has stated that he "has had some gay fumblings as a schoolboy'.
I'm assuming that she knew all this before she married him
I've only just caught up with it. I found it very patchy, some bits were quite good but mostly I found it boring and a bit mystifying (not the plot). Walliams is very odd in the role as if he can't decide what role he's playing. He's fascinating though but for all the wrong reasons. He's a distraction from what might have been a good programme without him). I agree with RoseAnne that Matthew Steer would have been more suitable in the role. .
The Poirot series for instance did do away with the faithfulness over the years, but bar the odd misfire (Cards on the Table ) they made it work as the scripts were generally very good (so they could come up with a plausible alternative).
Funny thing about the Poirot series for me. When it started, it was all the short stories and I hadn't read (or heard!) them at the time, so they were all new stories to me and I love them for that reason. When they started doing the 'big books' I was looking forward to them, and the first one I remember, the ABC murders, was more or less faithful to the book, but many of the books I remember so well cos I've read them (or heard them!) so many times, I couldn't enjoy them because they were so different to the book version. Characters were left out, characters were changed ... I'm still getting over Cards on the table where they changed the killer! Sacrilige! Not to mention making the doctor gay. It was a crime itself what they did to that one!
David Suchet .... there are no words for how brilliant he was, I remember when I first saw him, it was like the description of Poirot from the books, brought to life! ... I remember he said before he started filming he read all the Poirot books to 'get' Poirot. So he would have noticed how the books were changed so much. He said his favourite was ABC murders. I can see why!
Well not when you consider Marple which plants the old dear into stories she wasnt even in in the 1st place!
The Joan Hickson Miss Marple's I absolutely adore, mainly because of the production and because Joan is just perfect as Miss Marple.
Marple is a joke. As they seem to just be a vehicle for 'names' to appear in to ham it up, I see them more as comedies. I've only watched one. That was enough. Has anyone ever explained why they put her in books she wasn't even in?
Speaking of Marple one of the worst things they did - for me - was when they put Marple and Twopence in the same story - and made Twopence an alcoholic!
I may have missed it but, did Tommy (or Tuppence) ever find the object that 'Jane Finn' hid in his Bee Box on the train at Paris Nord Station?
As for other comments here, I agree with the poor CGI ; David Walliams seemingly acting the same character as the science teacher in Big School; different time period to the original novels.
The BBC can do it right - just look at Joan Hickson's Miss Marple series!
They haven't found the thing Jane put into the bee box. Having not read the book I'm guessing that they find it at the end and realise that they had the evidence all along.
The costumes and sets are gorgeous, but beyond that a lot of things are just 'off' to me. The comedy isn't right. Tommy and Tuppence, in the early stories, were young and adventurous. To script them as middle-aged with a teenage son, but still entirely silly, just doesn't work. Tuppence is much too young. The treatment of the son's character is disturbingly casual. Tommy - as played by Walliams - comes across as an irresponsible tw*t, who is both inept and quite unpleasant. Jessica Raine is very pretty, but has always had all the warmth of an LED. Her face seems entirely incapable of expression. To imagine either of these people even touching each other, never mind creating a child together, is beyond this viewer's capacity to suspend disbelief.
Husband-and-wife sleuthing teams are a very old-fashioned concept anyway - they belong to an era where it was acceptable to remove any offspring to boarding school so they didn't get in the way of the action, or an age of innocence where the lack of children didn't cause viewers to suspect a lavender marriage. They should have set Partners in Crime at the point where T&T were young and not yet married...but then Walliams couldn't have cast himself as Tommy, of course.
I may have missed it but, did Tommy (or Tuppence) ever find the object that 'Jane Finn' hid in his Bee Box on the train at Paris Nord Station?
As for other comments here, I agree with the poor CGI ; David Walliams seemingly acting the same character as the science teacher in Big School; different time period to the original novels.
The BBC can do it right - just look at Joan Hickson's Miss Marple series!
I would say David Walliams isn't actually acting - he's just being David Walliams!
My wife, who's Russian and feels a bit sensitive about the number of programmes the BBC are putting out lately which portray Russia in a bad light (not just political ones), was particularly miffed that they changed the story into a plot about Russian agents (I think they were German in the original).
We found the whole thing unengaging and flat and gave up half way through.
Hey ho had a skim through the thread, got bored with the negative reviews.
I know nothing of the original, books or whatever, so I'll stick with it, it's a bit of a stretch as a premise anyway these two sleuthing away, which I have to take a big old leap to suffer anyway.
I don't find them as a couple any kind of stretch either, bleedin odd couples, like that never happens in real life?
Hey ho, leave you lot to it, no doubt lots of people will enjoy this, purely for the atmosphere/period thing.
Hey ho had a skim through the thread, got bored with the negative reviews.
I know nothing of the original, books or whatever, so I'll stick with it, it's a bit of a stretch as a premise anyway these two sleuthing away, which I have to take a big old leap to suffer anyway.
I don't find them as a couple any kind of stretch either, bleedin odd couples, like that never happens in real life?
Hey ho, leave you lot to it, no doubt lots of people will enjoy this, purely for the atmosphere/period thing.
I daresay the negatives (like myself) will stop posting because they stop watching, so the thread will become more positive. That's what usually happens.
Though there are always those odd bods who watch what they don't like so they can post and say they don't like it.
I daresay the negatives (like myself) will stop posting because they stop watching, so the thread will become more positive. That's what usually happens.
Though there are always those odd bods who watch what they don't like so they can post and say they don't like it.
Well DS has form as far as I'm concerned, lots of traffic, usually negative before it airs, not unusual for it to be greater than once it's aired.
Now if only people would bugger off and watch something else once they've decided it's cack.
The 'DS pi$$ on your chips brigade', wasting time on programs they don't like.
That said, I did keep on watching Survivors as I just saw it as a series of lost opportunity's to do something much much better, I enjoyed picking at it
Hey ho had a skim through the thread, got bored with the negative reviews.
I know nothing of the original, books or whatever, so I'll stick with it, it's a bit of a stretch as a premise anyway these two sleuthing away, which I have to take a big old leap to suffer anyway.
I don't find them as a couple any kind of stretch either, bleedin odd couples, like that never happens in real life?
Hey ho, leave you lot to it, no doubt lots of people will enjoy this, purely for the atmosphere/period thing.
Yeah, I was surprised reading through the thread how many people didn't like it. Maybe I'm too easily pleased as I loved it and will definitely be tuning in again tonight. Thought the two leads were fine last week and worked well together.
Comments
I can't abide him anyway but he is TOTALLY wrong in the role.
This one rhymes with hit, I'll give it that
around with,I believe Francesca Annis as Tuppence?
This time,with camper than a campsite Walliams doing
his usual gurning,and Jessica 'Look How Wooden I am
Now' Raine in the star roles...well, words fail me. Next?
Thank you - great minds eh?
I do agree about the Father B TV series being a parody of the original stories, but I still think the series was entertaining to watch, and pretty well acted all the way through, while, by comparison, Partners in Crime fails miserably on both counts.
TBH I don't think the BBC ever really stick to the books, do they? It's one of the things ITV manage to do better!
Well, is he an actor, or is he just a lucky comedy writer who gets acting roles?
I think the latter.
He reminds me so much of Frankie Howerd, in looks and mannerisms, and yet when he got the role of Frankie in a TV play, he couldn't even play that part right.
He's also terrible in that school programme he does, He also writes it doesn't he?
And isn't he a producer for this Partners In Crime thing? He gave himself the leading role right? Hmm.
His acting like you say is so bad. He's such a bulk of a man - I'd even go as far to say fat - that despite that he makes no impression on the screen. You're just aware he is there but you feel nothing.
No doubt with his connections he'll be cast in another leading role and be equally hopeless in that too.
Where did you read this..?
He must have read it here:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/david-walliams-split-lara-stone-5276458
Well not when you consider Marple which plants the old dear into stories she wasnt even in in the 1st place!
Next series is called Tuppence.
Funny thing about the Poirot series for me. When it started, it was all the short stories and I hadn't read (or heard!) them at the time, so they were all new stories to me and I love them for that reason. When they started doing the 'big books' I was looking forward to them, and the first one I remember, the ABC murders, was more or less faithful to the book, but many of the books I remember so well cos I've read them (or heard them!) so many times, I couldn't enjoy them because they were so different to the book version. Characters were left out, characters were changed ... I'm still getting over Cards on the table where they changed the killer! Sacrilige! Not to mention making the doctor gay. It was a crime itself what they did to that one!
David Suchet .... there are no words for how brilliant he was, I remember when I first saw him, it was like the description of Poirot from the books, brought to life! ... I remember he said before he started filming he read all the Poirot books to 'get' Poirot. So he would have noticed how the books were changed so much. He said his favourite was ABC murders. I can see why!
The Joan Hickson Miss Marple's I absolutely adore, mainly because of the production and because Joan is just perfect as Miss Marple.
Marple is a joke. As they seem to just be a vehicle for 'names' to appear in to ham it up, I see them more as comedies. I've only watched one. That was enough. Has anyone ever explained why they put her in books she wasn't even in?
As for other comments here, I agree with the poor CGI ; David Walliams seemingly acting the same character as the science teacher in Big School; different time period to the original novels.
The BBC can do it right - just look at Joan Hickson's Miss Marple series!
Husband-and-wife sleuthing teams are a very old-fashioned concept anyway - they belong to an era where it was acceptable to remove any offspring to boarding school so they didn't get in the way of the action, or an age of innocence where the lack of children didn't cause viewers to suspect a lavender marriage. They should have set Partners in Crime at the point where T&T were young and not yet married...but then Walliams couldn't have cast himself as Tommy, of course.
I would say David Walliams isn't actually acting - he's just being David Walliams!
My wife, who's Russian and feels a bit sensitive about the number of programmes the BBC are putting out lately which portray Russia in a bad light (not just political ones), was particularly miffed that they changed the story into a plot about Russian agents (I think they were German in the original).
We found the whole thing unengaging and flat and gave up half way through.
I know nothing of the original, books or whatever, so I'll stick with it, it's a bit of a stretch as a premise anyway these two sleuthing away, which I have to take a big old leap to suffer anyway.
I don't find them as a couple any kind of stretch either, bleedin odd couples, like that never happens in real life?
Hey ho, leave you lot to it, no doubt lots of people will enjoy this, purely for the atmosphere/period thing.
I daresay the negatives (like myself) will stop posting because they stop watching, so the thread will become more positive. That's what usually happens.
Though there are always those odd bods who watch what they don't like so they can post and say they don't like it.
Well DS has form as far as I'm concerned, lots of traffic, usually negative before it airs, not unusual for it to be greater than once it's aired.
Now if only people would bugger off and watch something else once they've decided it's cack.
The 'DS pi$$ on your chips brigade', wasting time on programs they don't like.
That said, I did keep on watching Survivors as I just saw it as a series of lost opportunity's to do something much much better, I enjoyed picking at it
Righty ho, Jazz festival...
Yeah, I was surprised reading through the thread how many people didn't like it. Maybe I'm too easily pleased as I loved it and will definitely be tuning in again tonight. Thought the two leads were fine last week and worked well together.
Oh well, each to their own