{TV - I have quit watching - and did so quickly} Bad (etc.) from the outset, so soon abandoned: a TV series I just HAD to stop viewing as it was either/or (i) such rubbish (ii) so uninspiring/unappealing ! :-(

This was actually so bad that it was, IMHO, badly MADE i.e. was poorly put together.

It was as if a 1st draft of the series had been cobbled together, that had then been pushed out by the production team as a final print.

Irrefutably appalling!

Like 'CSI: Cyber' (see below), too many US series like this seem rushed out. Part of a franchise, it's as if the production team etc. don't think they have to make an effort: it's just another cog in their moneymaking wheel . . .

The only comfort is that as only a single - and very short - series was ever made, it seems as if someone else was in the same opinion group as me! ,-)

WHAT a waste of the talented actor Tom Selleck! :-(

BADLY made. Drivel.

Like 'Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior' (see above), too many US series like this seem rushed out. Part of a franchise, it's as if the production team etc. don't think they have to make an effort: it's just another cog in their moneymaking wheel . . .

The only comfort is that as only 2 series were ever made, it seems as if someone else was in the same opinion group as me! ,-)

Sadly it was the same case with the other TV adaptation of P.D. James' character "Commander Adam Dalgliesh", with the great Martin Shaw in the lead role. For one reason or more, these adaptations made in the early Noughties just didn't work well. So sad. Fortunately there were only 2 adaptations to sit through, before the set of miniseries ended.

Sadly it was the same case with the other TV adaptation of P.D. James' character "Commander Adam Dalgliesh", with the great Martin Shaw in the lead role. For one reason or more, these adaptations made in the early Noughties just didn't work well. So sad. Fortunately there were only 2 adaptations to sit through, before the set of miniseries ended.

Unlike the original version - 'MacGyver' (1985+), which was EXCELLENT - this 2016+ remake is all style over substance. Too fast & furious. So sad.

Yes, it at least keeps the SUPERB 'science bits' that were the hallmark of the original series, but everything is run at too high speed, and each episode has too many MacGyver gadgets thrown it. Such non-stop ingenuity is unlikely, even by a character of 'MacGyver''s talents! ,-) The details and purpose in the story of the gadgets - and the threads of each episode's plot too - just can't be followed by the viewer.

Plus there is no real development or explanation of the story/character in each episode. This only serves to worsen the experience.

Such a waste of the talents of both George Eads & the rather winning new 'Angus Macgyver' actor Lucas Till.

So, kudos to the 1985 version: I will now be rewatching the 1985 Richard Dean Anderson version all over again. And as I only FIRST(!) saw that series recently in 2014, it will be a treat to look forward to rewatching it a few years from now.

I lost interest in the middle of watching episode 1, & only watched episode 2 as it seemed fair to try. Then I lost interest in the series for good. I never got anywhere near watching the full quota of the 6 episodes that were in series 1.

Sad to say: this was style-over-substance trash.

I lost interest in episode 1, & so far haven't got around to watching episode 2. It seems unfair to critique a series after just 1 episode, but I simply can't see myself wasting another minute.

Flat & uninspiring. Too many moody shots of KG walking along the harbour/beach. (Not the actress's fault, of course; it's just the way the series is put together by the production team.) The series is just not paced well enough for that to work. And her colleague - played by Howard Charles - is just too negative & depressing a character.

BTW, I also didn't like Charles' portrayal in 'The Musketeers' (TV series; 2014-16), but then I didn't like any of the style of that series, & I've added that programme to this list, too. It was in our opinion - like this series - overall a failure & a disappointment, and badly put together on several levels! :-(

So that's TWO TV opportunities recently lost! What a waste of production money, & a sad spoiling of what could have been a great couple of telly series. All these chances to entertain: wasted. :-( :-(

Plus:

There's something about some British TV series these days: they seem to have far too simplistic a script. This feature would IMHO make the programme easy to sell to a non-UK market, where they would use dubbing/subtitles to convey a translation. But these over-simplified lines simply serve to reduce the atmosphere of the episodes. And this series is one such programme.

The script is - somewhat bizarrely, at the same time as being too simple - also too over-crafted, leaving the acting requiring less subtlety. There are too many script lines for the actors to spout. Over-using lines in a drama is a mistake. There is far more to a good TV programme than mere words. Actors should be used for their non-spoken skills as well as for the lines they speak. In a series worthy of its lead actors - as well as its less key players - there should be nuances, hints, allegations, wit, subtlety, glances at other characters, pauses; not to mention non-acting influences such as lighting, use of incidental music, tactical scene changes, ambience . . . This series lacks all of these important features. Oh dear . . . :-(

Uninspiring & a dirge.

BTW: And such dreadful colourisation: why was everything looking so blue?! The tech team should have been to the rescue on THIS fault, at least! ;-)

The less said about this appallingly dross TV remake, the better. Most of my comments (see above) about the remake of 'MacGyver' (2016–21) cover what I thought about THIS also-ran reboot. And I didn't last much longer with the remake of 'Magnum P.I.' (2018–22). :-(

Humdrum & uninspiring. Formulaic. Scared to be different, scared to be brave. Scared to stand out as a drama series.

Why, oh why, do they keep bringing out such trash, and yet again ruin the memory of another great series of the 1980s?! :-(

Only watched the opening episode i.e. pilot, broadcast in 2021. And as that was just 1 episode, it means I only coped with watching just one story in the series! Something that unhookable is NOT a sign of a good drama programme!

Just not good enough to carry on watching. Bland & uninspiring.

What a waste of the talent of John Simm.

Plus:

There's something about some British TV series these days: they seem to have far too simplistic a script. This feature would IMHO make the programme easy to sell to a non-UK market, where they would use dubbing/subtitles to convey a translation. But these over-simplified lines simply serve to reduce the atmosphere of the episodes. And this series is one such programme.

The script is - somewhat bizarrely, at the same time as being too simple - also too over-crafted, leaving the acting requiring less subtlety. There are too many script lines for the actors to spout. Over-using lines in a drama is a mistake. There is far more to a good TV programme than mere words. Actors should be used for their non-spoken skills as well as for the lines they emit. In a series worthy of its lead actors - as well as its less key players - there should be displayed by the characters several unspoken features: emotions, nuances, hints, allegations, wit, subtlety, glanced interactions with other characters, pauses. And that is not to mention the non-acting influences that are often missing from this series . . . such as indicative lighting, use of appropriate incidental music, tactical scene changes, specifying a scene's ambience . . . This series lacks all of these important features. Oh dear . . . :-(

Watched all 4 episodes of Series 1; but I'm going no further.

Just not good enough to carry on watching. Bland & uninspiring.

Plus:

There's something about some British TV series these days: they seem to have far too simplistic a script. This feature would IMHO make the programme easy to sell to a non-UK market, where they would use dubbing/subtitles to convey a translation. But these over-simplified lines simply serve to reduce the atmosphere of the episodes. And this series is one such programme.

The script is - somewhat bizarrely, at the same time as being too simple - also too over-crafted, leaving the acting requiring less subtlety. There are too many script lines for the actors to spout. Over-using lines in a drama is a mistake. There is far more to a good TV programme than mere words. Actors should be used for their non-spoken skills as well as for the lines they speak. In a series worthy of its lead actors - as well as its less key players - there should be nuances, hints, allegations, wit, subtlety, glances at other characters, pauses; not to mention non-acting influences such as lighting, use of incidental music, tactical scene changes, ambience . . . This series lacks all of these important features. Oh dear . . . :-(

Watched all 3 dramas of Series 1; but I'm going no further.

Just not good enough to carry on watching. Pedestrian, 'safe' & uninspiring.

Not to my liking, for several reasons. e.g. Technically, just too flat. Made as if to be dubbed & sold abroad. Uninspiring. And parts of each episode's plot were even completely left out! It feels badly finished, as a production.

Yes, Bertie Carvel is great to look at. WHAT an elegant physiognomy, & beautiful nose ,-) . And you feel he would be a great calm in a storm. I can see him playing Austen's 'Mr Darcy', to great effect - Regency high collars and all. But the characterisation here lacks what could simply be called 'oomph'. We need a bit of edge in a detective series, not just moody looks by the lead, & lingering camera shots. 'Dalgliesh' is a quiet, clever, poet of a man, yes; but something is missing . . . I blame the way the series has been put together.

I shall rewatch the Roy Marsden version of this detective series, from the 1980s & 1990s. At least that version has more episodes i.e. a greater number of adaptations of the novels: Marsden played 'Dalgliesh' 10 times in total. A fully rounded series like that would at least have given the storyline & characterisations more time to be fleshed out. It's a long time since I watched those televisualisations . . .

And it's even longer since I read the P.D. James novels, of which I read many, years ago. I'd dread rereading them now, in case this version of the 2020s proves to be a complete diatribe. :-/

Plus:

There's something about some British TV series these days: they seem to have far too simplistic a script. This feature would IMHO make the programme easy to sell to a non-UK market, where they would use dubbing/subtitles to convey a translation. But these over-simplified lines simply serve to reduce the atmosphere of the episodes. And this series is one such programme.

The script is - somewhat bizarrely, at the same time as being too simple - also too over-crafted, leaving the acting requiring less subtlety. There are too many script lines for the actors to spout. Over-using lines in a drama is a mistake. There is far more to a good TV programme than mere words. Actors should be used for their non-spoken skills as well as for the lines they speak. In a series worthy of its lead actors - as well as its less key players - there should be nuances, hints, allegations, wit, subtlety, glances at other characters, pauses; not to mention non-acting influences such as lighting, use of incidental music, tactical scene changes, ambience . . . This series lacks all of these important features. Oh dear . . . :-(

I started watching the first episode available online - "Meurtre au Champagne" (S2 E2) - in 2022. And . . . within just 14 minutes I wanted to switch it off!!

WHY oh WHY do other 'writers' think they can steal A. Christie's plots - that are absolute gems - & render them into a mishmash of something completely different?! If a writer can't create a good story themselves, that doesn't give them the right to do a Frankenstein (no pun intended!) job on another author's works.

For years, here in the UK, we have seen Sarah Phelps near destroy (IMHO!) A.C.'s work, in her TV adaptations. I haven't the heart to waste my time explaining why those versions of A.C.'s brilliant tales have all been so wrong.

Nor do I have much time to waste explaining why THESE horrors from France are so bad. Except to say: laissez-la, les Français! The concept is a disaster as a TV series, & shouldn't have been continued beyond the first draft. There is no Poirot, Marple, nor any of A.C.'s chosen detectives, including the 2 leads from the original story of the novel 'Sparkling Cyanide'. Instead the current fav character of choice in TV - the young, sassy, attractive but independent, female journalist - is summarily dumped into the story as one of the key detecting characters. The scenes are carelessly put together, with no flow between them. And its overall feel is crude and coarse. It's not so much a pastiche of the novel, as a caricature of the A.C. style & story! THIS story had practically nothing in common with the plot of 'Sparkling Cyanide'.

I have to say: this French drama series is not alone in missing the mark. Not all the film & TV versions of A.C. do justice to the author - and they often use very different styles to put across a story. Some adaptations work, some don't. The 1980s' US TV version of 'Sparkling Cyanide' was not worth the viewing. Nor was the UK TV version of the 2000s. But the book IS a good read. So why not make it into a good viewing experience, & transcribe it with style & flair?! A.C. herself expanded the plot of a short story - 'The Yellow Iris' - into the full-length novel that she named 'Sparkling Cyanide'. If the short story was worth that development, then it should be transcribed with more dexterity still, for a screen adaptation.

The episode seems to be just an excuse to portray the lifestyle, fashions & furbelows of the 1950s. But with the usual (these days) TV modernisations of all the societal rules & regs that WERE standard in those days. Completely changing the moral code of a bygone era is NOT an acceptable alteration/update. And a viewing of the lovely fashions of the '50s does not a plot make! Much was the same in the TV series 'Ms Fisher's Modern Murder Mysteries' that was set in the 1960s. And the 1920s-set 'Frankie Drake Mysteries'. But THIS drama series of A.C.'s tales really took the biscuit! At least the other two series are not versions of a well-known work, and are not by one of the most published authors in the world - and this fame for good reason. As if just showing the viewers what the lifestyle was in a past decade made up for a thin, overly stylized plot! A detective story should at least have a good crime storyline!

I don't like to critique something mid-sentence, as it were - it seems unfair; so I truly tried to watch this single episode further than the initial 14 minutes. But I found that I quite literally couldn't bear to watch this over-keyed tale. I kept wanting to get up and do something PRODUCTIVE with my evening! Anything would have been better than enduring this insult of a TV show! And wasting my brain time. Then I realised my brain had already AUTO-switched off from absorbing the pictures moving across the TV screen, and the script with it. This meant that - joy! - my head had, by 'disconnecting' from this drama, given itself the break it needed. The old grey matter no longer needed to process/absorb any more of the trashy adaptation. A complete recoil from viewing, by my brain, even though the programme was still running in front of me on the TV! ,-) Joy! What a relief!

. . . So - after a total of 40 minutes of watching the episode - I switched off the screen itself. And retired to recover, to get over my shock. Over a nice cup of tea. . . . How delightfully British, I'd like to think! ,-)

Never watched beyond ep 1.

Just was not appealing to my sense of comedy.

I only lasted 5 mins into the first episode!

Watched as far as the end of episode 2 (which was also the end of series 1).

Will watch no more of the 'Maigret' TV movies made from 2016+.

SO nice to see Rowan Atkinson in a straight drama, but this series was over-stylized pap. What a waste of a talent, as it was clear Atkinson was a good casting in the role. If the series had been produced by a different team, with a different approach to the finished product . . .