Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

SuzyCayenne I watched this show last night, and woke up feeling so annoyed about the utter contempt for the intelligence of viewers that I'm moved to write this review. As other reviews have noted, the acting and tension elements are good, which makes it all the more noticeable that the writing is so woefully deficient.Some genres don't depend on credible authenticity, but the legal thriller is not one of them. The Escape Artist asks the viewer to believe constantly in the implausible and impossible; it lacks even the semblance of internal consistency. I'm not talking about simply technical errors, but about constant gaffes on critical plot elements:1. That a murder charge in a case rife with "serial killer" implications would be completely set aside by procedural error, rather than result in a mistrial and new proceedings.2. That a high profile case would be assigned for prosecution to the same chambers where the victim's husband works?? Yes, barristers pride themselves on impartiality, but seriously, why would anyone take the chance of obvious conflict of interest (and the potential blowback on careers; there may be a press embargo during the case but I can't imagine this would be ignored by them forever). I'm a former defense attorney in the U.S., and granted we have a different system, but surely the Crown Prosecution Service pays more attention to such things than this would indicate?Even if we accept this highly unlikely allocation of the prosecution, we are then asked to believe that the firm is assigning their most incompetent junior to the case because "the others are too busy." Oh, right. Rather than reassign one of their other cases, they're going to go with this guy on the absolutely most serious and sensational crime they're ever likely to handle.3. That the young son, known to be present during the murder, would not be handled by someone experienced in child psychology, therapy etc, rather than just have his father barking at him, "Sure you didn't see anything?" Again, any legal system has errors and sloppiness, but we're asked to believe time and time again that it's happening in the most high profile kind of case? There are also less plot-driven errors: why is Tara out to get Will? If it's professional jealousy, the background has not been established. (Go watch Silk for a primer in how to do this the right way.) Is she worried about the firm's reputation? Why not tell them to be more careful?And Maggie knows she's had a home invasion, apparently on two occasions, but sees no need to involve the police? She's representing a guy with SOCIOPATH SERIAL KILLER written all over him in mile high letters, she knows he may well have killed the wife of his last attorney, and now it looks like he's broken into her house and she's basically so okay with this, she only makes a brief phone call to a colleague? Really? Even insignificant things were botched. What happens to the family dog? he's present at the cottage when Kate is killed, but unhurt (killer apparently unhampered by presence of dog, neighbors not alerted by any barking, etc.) and then he completely disappears. Let's see, the father thought it was a good idea to get rid of the last remaining continuity and comfort for the kid? Feeble, just feeble.I expect far better than this from Masterpiece. Don't waste such a good cast on such a train wreck of a script next time.

Astrolpdc1 Unfortunately not all efforts can be crackerjacks and this painfully true aphorism certainly applies to The Escape Artist. In all literature, plays, teleplays, and large screen movie releases etc., there is credible suspension of belief and there is also incredible suspension of belief. The latter describes what is necessary to take this particular 'escape' ride. It appears many of the writers nowadays reflect much of the fantasy universe they grew up playing in, with their games and hand-held devices. One can write well and not feel compelled to banish all commonsensical behavior on the part of essential characters. Whether this behavior stems from major characters being shocked and taken aback when confronted by an unexpected and repugnant evil. Or worse, whether it stems from a jaded apathy and more than implied complicity with evil. But nowadays common sense and right thinking are largely absent from teleplays and Movies of this kind. I guess it is the only way for many of them to make things work anymore, such is the state of creative writing.The ending, and I mean the actual last 30 seconds of the teleplay, to my mind, are the only truly clever and revealing moments in this work, leaving the observant viewer to question his eyeballs and hit the replay button on the DVR. Something of great importance is on-screen for a very few seconds. There is a purposeful director's close-up which brings an insight and some measure of finality to the story ... and at the same time, has the obvious potential for raising more intriguing questions about complicity and who just may be involved in this intrigue. The actor's attention to something and subsequent inexplicable physical movement in these few seconds conveys a good deal. Perhaps an Easter Egg? I'm surprised no review before me has drawn attention to this. But considering the low ratings maybe I shouldn't be as it really doesn't make up for the lost 3 hours preceding it. Oh well.

esauboeck-1 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.

peterriches-197-504828 This series is well acted and directed in the sense that the scenes work.However, the story is completely implausible and relies on ludicrous contrivances to try to force out the main theme - the conflict between justice and moral right.The British legal system has many faults and judges and lawyers can be manipulative,self seeking and make errors, but not to this degree.It seems that the Director and writer think the use of some excellent actors and plenty of gratuitous violence can cover up these flaws.Doubtless it will be successful as audiences can be easily taken in, eg by David Tennant's equally well acted but ridiculously plotted Broadchurch.