BBC Television programmes  permalink

Turks and Caicos...

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 20 of 57
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    Totally disappointed...stellar cast..wooden acting..

    How could such a program be so bad....

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by JanH (U14017596) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    Totally disappointed...stellar cast..wooden acting..

    How could such a program be so bad.... 
    I agree I turned off after 20 minutes. smiley - sadface

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) ** on Friday, 21st March 2014

    Someone might moan about "the main thread" but it doesn't have the necessary title, so nevermind that.

    Yes I also found it weird. The dialogue seemed to try to be a little 'quick-back-at-you' clever here and there, ie unnatural, but mainly was delivered in such a stilted way, they either seemed not bothered or hadn't had too much time to rehearse. Bill Nighy and Christopher Walken came across as the worst for this.

    Maybe it's a superb acting method that passed me by.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by newmelinda (U7776647) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    Watched about 15 minutes but had to turn it off - yes very wooden acting, weird way of putting over the script. I was looking forward to this but now won't bother.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by jennyj (U15939066) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    Bill Nighy's become like a caricature of himself. Whenever I see him now I think he's being impersonated by someone for humourous effect.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Fishinghellfly (U9173430) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    I didn't watch all of it.

    The thing that really put me off was the script. Everyone was talking as if they knew their words were being broadcast and they wanted to make a political point about this, that and the other. People don't speak like that.

    The views of the writer were so obvious that the whole thing just didn't seem natural at all.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by saffiewalks (U11222674) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    What a weird progamme. Couldn't make up my mind whether the cast didn't give a toss, or the cold, disjointed way of speech and wooden acting was something the Director thought a good idea. Totally unbeievable, so many lethal smart alecs all assembling on one little island at the sam etime. CIA, MI5, Gentlemen from New Jersey.
    Bill Nighy looked ill and Christopher Walden appeared to have been embalmed.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by fortrosian (U2001738) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    I enjoyed it. That may be attributed to the fact that I am so surprised to have a programme on at that time of night with no violence in it, and it was all the better for that. the threat was enough.

    As this was the second part of a trilogy, and we missed part 1 so will need to go back and watch that at some point, because now I need to know what he was doing on the island in the first place.

    It was quite clever, well I thought so anyway. I'm obviously easily pleased!

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    The plot was clever, the cast top quality.
    It could have been suspenseful, intriguing, gripping; it wasn't.

    Christopher Walken was dreadful, very disappointing.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Johnnymol (U14690244) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    A cast that was as good as any Hollywood film, scenery that was nice on the eye, and the script by a top writer.

    It wasn't a disaster, but if taking into account all the above, it really should have been better. It was decidedly one paced (zimmer frame rather than walking pace) with a sort of weird stuttering dialogue which seemed to rely on an actor saying their lines followed by a space bar before the other would reply.

    Christopher Walken didn't bother me since he has a very distinct style of acting which seems unique to himself, and while it was more emphasised in this production it wasn't out of the ordinary seeing him deliver his lines as he did. The problem for me was the other distinguished actors who never seemed to break sweat in their adoption of a collective rigamortis style of precise word delivery which seemed totally alien to them.

    It was almost as if they were trying too hard to be ........"arty"

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    The Times critic cleverly talked of Johnny Worricker taking refuge in an episode of Death in Paradise. The author is well known for his stage work and the dialogue was very stagey which I didn't mind too much. It had the misfortune of being shown the day after the last episode of Line of Duty and suffered badly in comparison. It was of course a swipe at Tony Blair but that is so yesterday's news. The piece at the end with them carrying their cases down the beach and sitting uncomfortably in the boat was hilarious.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by daringpillowtalk (U8409377) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    A cast that was as good as any Hollywood film, scenery that was nice on the eye, and the script by a top writer.

    It wasn't a disaster, but if taking into account all the above, it really should have been better. It was decidedly one paced (zimmer frame rather than walking pace) with a sort of weird stuttering dialogue which seemed to rely on an actor saying their lines followed by a space bar before the other would reply.

    Christopher Walken didn't bother me since he has a very distinct style of acting which seems unique to himself, and while it was more emphasised in this production it wasn't out of the ordinary seeing him deliver his lines as he did. The problem for me was the other distinguished actors who never seemed to break sweat in their adoption of a collective rigamortis style of precise word delivery which seemed totally alien to them.

    It was almost as if they were trying too hard to be ........"arty" 
    I did not understand Christopher Walken's acting. He looked like he was embalmed and/or rigor mortis was about to set in. Very odd, and his lines were delivered in strange voices and styles, even running consecutively like a radio being moved from station to station As he is such a highly paid and experienced actor I am sure it is me and just not making sense of it
    What I do know is that if he was CIA then I will eat my hat!!! not believable I am afraid. Very strange I did not understand some of it rather like something very important had been said which was the basis of the whole drama but I had missed it!. Still confused. (love Bill Nighy though and he did look unwell)

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    It was of course a swipe at Tony Blair but that is so yesterday's news.  Yes, and I think that was part of its problem. Had it been shown just after the information about the 'black site' prisons and the revelations about who knew what became known I think it would have had more impact. As it is, the information doesn't become any less shocking, but with time, its immediate impact does. I think it lent the drama an air of 'well,we know that, so what?' that rendered it rather flat.

    That alone wouldn't have made it difficult to watch, since I've watched many dramas about the Third Reich in Germany, and though the horror they deal with is sixty odd years behind us, it remains utterly horrific. The final nail here, I fear, was the acting, or rather the delivery of the lines. At times I felt I was watching robots. I don't know quite why it happened. I always find Bill Nighy's speech patterns rather limp and affected, and it was almost as if his style was 'caught' by the others. Johnny Worricker was supposed to be angry and indignant at one point, but I've heard myself sounding angrier in a slow-moving supermarket queue. He just sounded bored, and Pelessier looked to me as if he was stoned most of the time.

    Having seen two-thirds I'll watch the last episode, but I have to say it's a bit disappointing.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    I see the first part is on iPlayer till tomorrow...

    So you'd better hurry up...

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by goodhelenstar (U13943062) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    What a weird progamme. Couldn't make up my mind whether the cast didn't give a toss, or the cold, disjointed way of speech and wooden acting was something the Director thought a good idea. Totally unbeievable, so many lethal smart alecs all assembling on one little island at the sam etime. CIA, MI5, Gentlemen from New Jersey.
    Bill Nighy looked ill and Christopher Walden appeared to have been embalmed. 
    I missed some of it as I nodded off - not sure if that's because I was tired or because it wasn't holding my attention! I enjoyed the rerun of the first part and expected to enjoy this but really didn't. I love your description of Messrs Nighy and Walken! Winona Ryder is far too skinny. (I'm female, I'm allowed to say that ...).

    I did think, from what I saw of it, that it had more than a touch of the Poliakoffs which is not necessarily a good thing.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by SATM67 (U14061947) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    The languid air of this production, and the performances within it, is surely down to the Director.

    I don't know what his intention was, but the result on screen was soporific.

    Presumably, that was the motivation for the occasional blasts of excessively loud music.
    Certainly knocked my socks off.smiley - smiley

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by goodhelenstar (U13943062) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    Meant to add - I did find it odd, in this and in Page Eight, that younger women apparently find Johhny irresistible. He's kind and sympathetic in a fatherly sort of way but not exactly a catch!

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by deansay (U5811575) on Friday, 21st March 2014



    I did think, from what I saw of it, that it had more than a touch of the Poliakoffs which is not necessarily a good thing. 


    This same thought came to me as I was watching it, as this was in Poliakoff's style. But I enjoyed this too. Looking forward to the final one to see it all come together. 

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by oldmanriver (U14455170) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    I really enjoyed it apart from Christpher Walkden - he was truely dreadful. I liked it because Johnnie is all brainpower and has an air of vunerability about him. It is in the mould of "Tinker, Taylor" rather than "James Bond".

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Rocco Barbella (U14232775) on Friday, 21st March 2014

    The thing that impressed me most about this production was that Johnny Worricker's Waitrose carrier bag, stuffed full of twenty pound notes, survived intact being lugged around for three years since 2011's Page Eight drama.That and the fact that all ten stone of Mr.Worricker hasn't been mugged, even though the notes are clearly visible through the plastic. It wasn't even supposed to be a bag for life!

    That a carrier bag was the most impressive thing tells you all you need to know about this pile of tosh. The dialogue was risible, the plot was clunky and improbable. According to an article in this week's Radio Times, it takes David Hare a year to write an hour and a half. What on earth was he doing if this is all he could come up with. I just hope he isn't paid by the hour.

    I'm a big fan of languid, wordy dramas such as those written by Stephen Poliakoff. But going off Turks and Caicos, Mr. Hare isn't in the same league as Poliakoff.

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.