I gave up on “Undercover” around the second epileptic fit, but my nearest and dearest stuck with it. The epilepsy turned out to be a coming and going affliction that came and went with neither explanation nor consequences.
Viewers were already irritated by the untimely postponement of the final episode, due to some urgent luvvie ceremony. But we were told to expect an exiting ending.
I couldn’t make head or tail of the plot, but I decided give the gripping reveal a try. Sheer disbelief sent me to sleep shortly after Nick unconvincingly broke his own arm, bloodlessly, by closing it in an iron gate. Who would do that? No-one even knew why he did that.
Next day I couldn’t wait to find out what happened. What was the outcome?
“Buggered if I know.” said the one who stayed awake throughout.
Well it is possible that he was confused in the way only people of a certain age can be. You know, “What did he say, mother? Didn’t quite catch that!”
But the confusion wasn’t age-related. Confusion and bafflement were universal. Every single viewer was baffled by the plot. No-one in this entire world understood anything about it. Who was what, or why.
The writer, Peter Moffatt, used to be a barrister. He said so. He probably wrote it to appease Sir Lenny Henry.
The plot was full of holes. (Plot-hole) No-one knew what the motivation was for any of the murders. No-one knew why Maya was appointed DPP or why she had so little to do once installed. No-one knew why anyone did anything, or who anyone actually was. The ending, which I missed, sounded like a Benny Hill farce. The American part of the plot was aimed at the American market; good luck with that.
People are making noises about a second series. Be afraid.
People are making noises about a second series. Be afraid.
The BBC will most likely dismiss complaints as being racist.
ReplyDeleteI think your visitors are going down a webhole if you are going to keep telling us the BBC's coverage of the Referendum campaign has been even-handed.
ReplyDeleteOFF TOPIC:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36304721
Classic BBC damage limitation! Having set all the hares running with World On the Move Day it now declares the hunting season is over by highlighting Richard Dearlove's migration-sceptic comments. My view is if the Remain campaign were 10 points ahead in the poll (which they aren't) then Dearlove would never have been given that prominence in what has otherwise been a shameful pro-mass immigration propaganda exercise by the BBC.
OFF TOPIC:
ReplyDeleteCraig, Please tell us whether you agree with Sue that the BBC's coverage of the EU Referendum Campaigns (yes - there are two campaigns in case Sue has forgotten) has been "even handed".
Yes, it is off topic. Craig knows my views (because he can read)
DeleteYou’ve made your point. This blog is not an echo-chamber; your comments are proof of that.
I live in the US and half of my TV viewing is UK shows -- mainly because they're intelligent, well written and brilliantly acted. The ONLY thing that kept me hanging in with "Undercover" was the brilliantly acted part of this otherwise idiotic series. The finale had both the wife and me screaming and cursing at the TV.
ReplyDeletePeter Moffatt is a bit of a crap artist, isn't he? His contempt of his audience's intelligence in this series was beyond arrogant. C'mon Peter, if you're going to do a show about the US justice system, crack a book or visit Wikipedia once at least. A British Lawyer can't just automatically practice law in the US without passing the state bar exam. This law is so strict that even a lawyer from California couldn't work in Louisiana unless they passed the bar there. But that was only the tip of the "stupid iceberg." The list on this show is very long:
1. How did Maya come to represent Rudy to begin with?
2. You don't just show up at the US Supreme Court with your death row client (whose been faking) to argue for his life. It TAKES YEARS to get an appearance and even then your client wouldn't EVEN BE THERE. Ahhh! And AGAIN, Maya wouldn't be able to argue the case because SHE WOULD HAVE NO STANDING to do so.
3. When Rudy is spared, he makes a comment to Maya that makes us think he DID kill the mayor which then later proves to be untrue because we discover it was Michael Antwi. Huh? So Rudy was in on it? Why? And does that mean Vernon Early, the witness who could've exonerated him was in on it too?
4. When Maya visits the skinhead who attacked Antwi in Jail he reveals that, ooooh, the CIA was behind Michael Antwi's murder. Yes, he's a delusional psychotic who talks to Jesus but Maya reacts to him like it was the truth. Okay, let's look at that brilliant piece of writing. IF the CIA and their British minions were indeed responsible for Antwi's murder, HOW IN HOLY HELL would this stupid skinhead know about it?! They wouldn't have told him because he was already primed to kill a black man AND he DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW. Stupid, stupid.
And then there was Maya's travels back and forth to Louisiana which showed a complete disregard for the laws of space and time. Even with the Concorde at her disposal there's no way she could have made those trips in those time spans. The last one in particular where Rudy only had 48 hours to live was egregious. In real life, Rudy would've been dead three times before she'd have made it back to save him.
The list of stupid is long and I could go on but why waste the brain cells? As for the resolution? What the fuck happened? Who was behind all of this and why? And lastly, do you people have roving assassins in the UK who kill people with impunity and then when caught red handed by the police in front of multiple witness waltz away free? Because if you do, I'm going to have to rethink where I move after Trump becomes president.
The BBC confusing people who'd have thought?... the plot thickens. #Indyref2
ReplyDelete