Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just finished the short series. Interesting. Well acted. Good cast. Hated the ending!!!
I just finished it too and agree with you that the cast and performances are good but the story gets muddled and pretty unbelievable at the halfway point. And those strange endings at the end of the episodes....what was that?
Watched the whole thing last night. It was an interesting plot, but I have to say that I didn't really buy the whole courtroom part. For one thing, what was the defense lawyer doing, just sitting there on her hands and not objecting to the totally inappropriate questioning by "Kate"? British customs, or the screenwriters being in love with their own monologue? And behind the scenes, are defense and prosecutor in the UK really that chummy, bonding over a general contempt for the defendant? Or just a sharing of wokeness? And the message is apparently that the end justifies the means.
Aside from the ideology which seemed pretty heavy-handed to me, the casting of the young and middle-aged characters was only partly successful in terms of similarity, but if it had been more successful, it would have given away the plot twist. I get it.
Funny, we were well into the 3rd episode before it occurred to us why we seem to know "Kate" so well. Downton Abbey!
Watched the whole thing last night. It was an interesting plot, but I have to say that I didn't really buy the whole courtroom part. For one thing, what was the defense lawyer doing, just sitting there on her hands and not objecting to the totally inappropriate questioning by "Kate"? British customs, or the screenwriters being in love with their own monologue? And behind the scenes, are defense and prosecutor in the UK really that chummy, bonding over a general contempt for the defendant? Or just a sharing of wokeness? And the message is apparently that the end justifies the means.
Aside from the ideology which seemed pretty heavy-handed to me, the casting of the young and middle-aged characters was only partly successful in terms of similarity, but if it had been more successful, it would have given away the plot twist. I get it.
Funny, we were well into the 3rd episode before it occurred to us why we seem to know "Kate" so well. Downton Abbey!
Re the bolded:
1. I wondered about that too. So many objectionable comments made by both lawyers, not to mention witnesses. I would think the lawyers would be popping up like Jack in the Boxes to yell "I object" virtually nonstop.
2. This is something I've seen portrayed on other British shows and movies- a much more collegial relationship between opposing counsel. I find it hard to believe they would be openly discussing the case over G&T's at a bar, but I can believe that in the UK, opposing counsel interact more than here in the U.S.
I also agree that the casting of the younger actors worked very well in Sophie and James's case, but not in Holly's.
Location: Lakewood NJ/Murrells Inlet SC/ N. Naples FL/Swainton NJ
4,029 posts, read 6,547,614 times
Reputation: 3531
And, unless I missed something (which I often do), we never really find out how and why Holly became the prosecutor. Why the change (or at least the use) to a new name and the severe change in appearance?
I think the writers could have done a better job with the storyline. The ending was a bit abrupt and the middle part was too long and a bit tedious at times.
And, unless I missed something (which I often do), we never really find out how and why Holly became the prosecutor. Why the change (or at least the use) to a new name and the severe change in appearance?
I think the inference is that she was really prosecuting him for what he did to her all those years ago. Why would she risk her entire career though? Not disclosing the fact that she knew the Defendant is a huge conflict of interest, unethical, and she would no doubt be fired and possibly even disbarred (or whatever the equivalent in the UK would be called).
Another observation- people sure do bang loudly and insistently on other people's doors, don't they?
Last edited by Texas Ag 93; 04-21-2022 at 11:26 AM..
I think the inference is that she was really prosecuting him to what he did to her all those years ago. Why would she risk her entire career though? Not disclosing the fact that she knew the Defendant is a huge conflict of interest, unethical, and she would no doubt be fired and possibly even disbarred (or whatever the equivalent in the UK would be called).
Another observation- people sure do bang loudly and insistently on other people's doors, don't they?
Absolutely, but in the context of the show, and the mindset, the end justifies the means, I guess! After all, if they cast the princess of Downton Abbey, Michelle Dockery, as the prosecutor, we can't assume that she won't end up on top! Too much clout.
And for those of you who are reading the thread from the bottom up: Spoiler alert!
Fairly interesting but I have to agree with the dislike of the ending.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
