Jasmine Sahu is well suited with this new American drama exclusive to Dave.
Lois Cameron explains why this series is much more than your average cosy period drama.
The last episode of this series sees Sherlock and Moriarty attempt to solve the final problem with devastating consequences.
With major cast changes afoot, Jacob Martin ponders whether Being Human can live up to its own scarily high standard.
In recent weeks, we’ve had an influx of new British dramas on our screens; unfortunately, they’ve all belonged to the same genre. We’ve had Vera, Case Sensitive, Case Histories, The Shadow Line, Scott & Bailey… and, after watching all of those, I thought, I know exactly what we need, another crime drama! Sure enough, the ever-reliable ITV gave us Injustice, a crime drama that ran every day last week. But with a big-name writer and an impressive cast, did it manage to stand out from the crowd?
The series followed top-notch barrister Will Travers (James Purefoy), who had settled down in Ipswich for a quieter life. However, he was drawn back to London when an old university friend (Nathaniel Parker) was arrested for murder. Naturally, there were also several sub-plots running alongside, the most important being the discovery of the body of a man who had been responsible for Travers’ breakdown and London departure…
So, it was a decent enough story, and one that showed great promise in the first couple of episodes, with former York student and teen-writer extraordinaire, Anthony Horowitz, throwing a good balance of intrigue and suspense into the mix. However, as much of a fan of his as I am, the writing wasn’t perfect. There was a little too much reliance on expository dialogue, and the earlier episodes were littered with characters continually referring to ‘what happened’. While such vague references did add to the intrigue at first, it was very easy to work out ‘what happened’, and it was disappointing that there wasn’t anything more to it.
That last comment could easily be applied to the series as a whole as, from Wednesday’s episode onwards, pretty much everything had been revealed. While I admire Injustice for making the audience question what was right and wrong, the advertising campaign’s slogan: ‘Is murdering a murderer always murder’, had already told us to expect this. Therefore, there needed to be something more in order for it to feel like it was a worthwhile viewing experience. Furthermore, the final episode’s solitary revelation wasn’t even remotely surprising. Admittedly, it might have been less obvious if not for the casting of Nathaniel Parker; if you learn nothing else from watching a lot of British drama, you know that Nathaniel Parker is not to be trusted, and his default ‘shifty’ setting was well and truly on.
While Injustice wasn’t really a performance-led drama, it cannot be ignored that they were a decidedly mixed bag. Purefoy couldn’t pull off the necessary anguish that would have made him convincing, his performance relying more on a furrowed brow here and a smirk there. His on-screen wife, Dervla Kirwan fared better, doing more than enough emoting to make up for everyone else, but her Helena Bonham-Carter hair did prove distracting. The real star of the show, though, was Charlie Creed-Miles, who was superb as Inspector Wenborn, perhaps the most unlikeable TV character of the year so far. And if the character’s sudden, unexpected comeuppance was at first disappointing, on reflection, it was actually the most interesting instance of the series’ ‘Was justice served?’ question.
But going back to my question: did Injustice stand out from the crowd? Yes, because it was different. Unfortunately, different doesn’t necessarily mean better, and if the army of crime dramas continues to push forward with the same force as it has done recently, it’s unlikely it will be remembered.
You must log in to submit a comment.
