The plot of the Bodyguard is like the finest Swiss cheese: full of countless holes. I tried to count, but gave up at 15.
(As the point of this post is entirely a list of spoilers, consider yourselves warned before you read on.)
Here's my very incomplete list and why I rate this series so poorly.
1. The open scenes are full of suspense but in hindsight (as so many of my criticisms will be) nonsensical. To begin with: Who called in the 'terrorist threat' to London transport? I assumed that rather important point would be pursued and be an important link in the solution it was so silly but it was just one of those threads that made no sense. I know it is a standard plot device but it remains a weak one. How did somebody come to spot a suicide bomber getting onto the train? No explanation is ever given. (And even then, it was the wrong person - i.e. Nadia's husband, not Nadia!)
2. Those who reached the end of the series (we came close to giving up) know that Nadia ends up revealing herself as the master bombmaker and (apparently) the mastermind behind the series of bomb attacks in London. Huge point this one: master bomb makers generally don't blow themselves up. They are way too valuable to the organization to be allowed by their colleagues to blow themselves up in a suicide attack. They could make dozens and dozens more bombs killing hundreds if not thousands of people if they keep themselves alive but will only kill a handful of people if they volunteer for a suicide mission on a train. Terrorists get the 'foot soldiers' to sacrifice themselves, not the bombmakers. And, in any case, she certainly wouldn't have tried to suicide attack while her work was unfinished - i.e. the later bomb attack on Julia.
3. Why would Nadia even be wearing a suicide vest? At the time, it is meant to appear that Nadia is an unwilling 'volunteer' to the terrorist cause. However, in hindsight we know that she is very willing and wants to make the attack. But a suicide vest in this situation makes no sense at all once we know (in hindsight) that Nadia is the mastermind. More likely would have been a fully concealed bomb inside a piece of luggage which could NOT have been accidentally spotted and could then have been triggered by the pressing of a discrete button. There are situations for suicide vests but this clearly was not one of them. If you are walking into a police station or an embassy or government building where a large piece of hand luggage would be viewed with suspicion, then a vest is probably the way to go. But on a train where luggage and bags are routine? That's definitely NOT how to do it if you are a willing bomber. Think it through viewers. It made no sense in hindsight other than to try and mislead viewers from the stop with a bogus scene.
4. Worse, why suicide at all? It was totally pointless. Nadia is an engineer who is a genius and who put together a series of complicated devices including one that was triggered by a clever pressure switch. Don't you think just maybe she could have built one that could have been triggered remotely or with a timer? Get on a train at Heathrow with some luggage just as hundreds of others are doing at the same time. Place the luggage in the luggage area. 5 minutes later, disappear to the toilet, leaving the luggage behind. 5 minutes after that, get off at the next station. 5 minutes later, boom. No need for a suicide mission at all. It was an unbelievable bit of the plot and yet critical to completely and unfairly mislead viewers.
5. Why does Nadia even confess at the end? All they really hit her with is that she knew about where David's kids went to school. It would have been dead easy to talk her way out of that one but instead, after putting on her innocent wife for several weeks at every interrogation, she decides to suddenly confess everything. Why? It made no sense.
6. Yes, they go on to mention that her DNA had been found inside the final bomb control. WHAT? Her DNA? What did she do? Spit into it? Lick it? Pull out one of her hairs by the root and leave it inside the bomb control? Cut herself when making the bomb and drip blood into the device? Ridiculous. Just handling it might have left fingerprints but not DNA. There is no DNA in perspiration if that's what they were implying. It was a stupid suggestion.
7. Finally and in any case, why did Nadia back down in that opening scene and not detonate the bomb if she really was intent on being a suicide bomber. She gave a very convincing performance in the opening 10 minutes as the poor innocent wife. But if she intended, initially, to blow up the train, then why didn't she do so when David confronted her and she was surrounded by passengers in the first few minutes? Again, it made no sense.
8. Nadia claims to have passed messages from inside prison to the outside co-conspirators on how to plant the Julia bomb. This seems a very remote possibility at best. Not impossible; just very implausible given the high alert situation in London. Maybe I'm being picky on that one, but it seems very contrived and borderline unbelievable that she would have been in a position to pass messages.
9. Why drive a truck loaded with explosives at the school as a suicide mission? Again, it was hardly necessary to have a suicide mission. It would have been far simpler to simply park the truck in front of the school gates overnight, stand a few hundred meters away, and when you have a crowd of kids (including David's) enter the school in the morning push the remote button to detonate the bomb. Again, there is a time and place for a suicide truck (like driving a loaded truck at the US embassy as happened in Beirut decades ago) but not in a school situation when it is NOT an obvious target unlike an embassy or police station where a truck parked outside would have been a huge issue. You don't waste good terrorists in a suicide bombing when it isn't necessary.
10. The blood on David's face throughout the final episode. How ridiculous was that? David is claiming loudly that he did not put on the vest himself but nobody believes him. And yet nobody in the police confronting David ever says "hey, maybe he's telling the truth if he's been beat up like that as he obviously didn't do that to himself." Nobody even once mentions the blood he is covered in during the entire, what, 30 minutes he is walking around London. Not once. Not credible. Not in the least bit believable.
11. In episode 4, suspicion falls on one of Julia's aides after the planting the bomb at the school where Julia was giving the speech. "Why wasn't he vetted," asks one of the police or security people. "Of course, he was vetted" is the reply, "anybody working for the Home Secretary" is thoroughly vetted ,or words to that effect. But then we have the fired aide, Chanel, who is openly seen in the company of someone who is known to be a leading figure in the London crime world, Luke, and who obviously had been in a relationship with him for ages. Yet somehow that was missed in the vetting process for Chanel??? Maybe if the relationship was hidden but she was hardly trying to hide it with him picking her up at work and she was frequenting his club. Again, just not believable that a proper vetting wouldn't have spotted this.
12. We see David carefully hiding his gun behind a wood panel in his home and spending rather a lot of time sealing the panel and disguising it carefully so that it can't be found if his home is searched. Later, a police search of his home discovers the panel but the gun isn't there. Why? We find later that David opted to move it. Why did he move it after all the careful disguising of the hiding place? No explanation is given. And where does he move it to? To a location in his home that any thorough search of his home would have detected (behind an easily accessed ceiling light that only needed to be pushed lightly to reveal it wasn't attached) and which would have been a far more obvious hiding place than the panel. Again, silly.
13. David returns to Julia's flat and it takes him all of two minutes to figure out where she has hidden the missing device. In a location that (again) the previous police search of the flat would have unquestionably checked. Behind a photo? Come on! How do you not check that???
14. In a closing scene, David confronts Chanel in her flat. I missed a word or two but the next thing we have is David driving with Chanel to David's boss's house??? Why has she directed him there? It makes no sense unless I completely misunderstood what was going on. Anyway, that's were they go and there he has the extraordinary luck to arrive at the very moment the crime lord is confronting the corrupt police chief in her driveway about her lack of controlling the situation. Amazing luck isn't it? He arrives at the exact second that Luke decides to openly contact the corrupt boss. Just amazing. Or was it just awful sloppy lazy writing.
15. Why was David's clip replaced with blanks? The reason given at the end was something to do with the bad guys wanting him to be used as a patsy. Right. So they knew he would try to kill himself and thought it best to keep him alive by replacing his bullets with blanks so he didn't? How unrealistic is that? One: he could still have chosen to kill himself a different way. Two: wouldn't it have been better to actually have him kill himself and then leave evidence in his flat (like a typed confession?) that he was indeed in cahoots with the killers? Far better than letting him live and run around for 3 episodes trying to find the killers don't you think?
Anyway. I've had enough of going back over this series trying to remember all this nonsense. It's a shame many viewers didn't reflect a bit more on what they had seen before giving the series a 10 and praising it so highly. Was it well made? Sure. Was the lead actor excellent. Yeah, I'll give you that one. But was the writing of the plot in the least bit decent? Er. Not in a million years.
112 out of 219 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.