Ashes to Ashes S2

This topic contains 14 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Anonymous 5 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #41609

    Anonymous

    Cracking first episode, I thought…

    #107293

    Anonymous

    Sigh. I hate to be Mr Negative, y’know. You wouldn’t think so from some of my posts, but I really do hate it!

    It was watchable enough as wallpaper entertainment. Keeley Hawes is noticeably better as Alex now, like someone’s told her ‘Calm down, love, it’s only a TV programme.’ She’s more subtle than last time round.
    But the story wasn’t that great, the dialogue isn’t as funny as before, and the old characters have become dull, ridiculous caricatures of themselves in a similar way to the Brig became in mid 70s Who.

    I could almost believe that it really was the 70s in Life on Mars. Yes, they had 70s music on the soundtrack and overplayed certain fads of that era, but here it’s badly overdone, a school disco view of the 80s. I don’t think we’ve had Chris doing a Rubik’s Cube yet, but it’s inevitable.

    I am curious about Alex’s mysterious captor. I’m pretty certain he’s the forensics dude who appeared briefly earlier on. I’ll continue watching just to see how that all pans out, but beyond that, I hope they resist the temptation to do ‘Skelton and Carling’ or somesuch!

    #107305

    Anonymous

    Wow Cast, I thought I would be the only one popping in here on the negative. Can’t say I am that disinterested but, I thought it was just ok. A  good story sure, but I found myself falling asleep once or twice. Its’ nowhere near as engaging as LOM was

    DI Alex Drake is too smug to be likable, and Keely is sadly not even close to being as captivating or likable as John Simm was as Sam. I had hoped that she would settle into a more friendly character and someone that we cared about but as it is I find myself watching more for Gene Hunt than her journey.

    The rest of the cast were still great, but the story was really only ok for me, good set up I guess. Series 1 had a lot of better ones. Hopefully it will pick up. although with this kidnap and drugging of Alex by a guy who knows what time she comes from i am very worried that they will walk down the path that the US LOM went down.

    Still can’t say I don’t like the show, it is good, series 1 got me and the mrs interested enough that we wanted to tune in each week and this episode did very much the same, though just barely.

    #107337

    Anonymous

    Personally, I loved it, but then I’ve always been a fan of Alex, although I think this series is a noticeable improvement on series 1

    #107374

    Anonymous

    CS and Terra surely you’re missing the point?

    A2A was never meant to be LoM 2 – it’s got similar themes and visual shorthand but this series 2 is the crux of it, approaching police corruption in a way they couldn’t with the heavy Sam Tyler mystery of LoM and the introduction of a new cop in Alex Drake in S1 of A2A

    S2 has hit the ground running with another strong episode this week in what is – shamefully – the best bit of police corruption-inspired prime time continuing drama since Between the Lines finished in 1994.

    Having just watched S1 last month big T, there was no better episode than last weeks or this weeks. Me and Ceri couldn’t cope with Alex on first viewing and caught the last episode by accident last year – it was only after watching all the series recentlyt that we realised how good it was, but S2 genuinely has picked up the baton from the quality conclusion to S1 and moved on in some decisive manner, I have to say.

    CS – I don’t think Carling has become a caricature, if anything he’s got a personality now, one that is pretty sinister and corrupt (as suggested in last weeks episode) while Chris is developing into a decent copper. Hunt is as good as ever, and while there may never be a line to top "twangs the royal hymen" he was on top form this week.

    <!– s:D –><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheesy.gif" alt=":D" title="Cheesy" /><!– s:D –>

    #107377

    Anonymous

    Yeah, I thought last night’s was the best they’ve done. I enjoyed it a lot. The story was involving. The whole Masonic thing was inspired, as was Gene’s reaction to Ray’s changed attitude towards him.

    Still stick by some of my original comments, mind. Yes, Chris is becoming a good copper and is still endearingly played, but he’s also basically a bog standard comedy foil. I also detest the way they’re advertising a soundtrack album in the programme, particularly when most of the songs used undercut the drama. Aside from the dreaded Phil Collins, the songs in last night’s weren’t relevant to what was happening on screen, and make it feel closer to Heartbeat than the Sweeney.

    The Falklands stuff is interesting, the way they related it to Ray’s treatment of the gypsies.

    Being picky, I notice discrepancies that jar. The Falklands stuff places events between 2 April and 14 June 1982. But when a photcopier is used to check a pic, someone says ‘Just like Harrison Ford,’ referring to Blade Runner which wasn’t released in the US til the end of June 1982, and a few months later in the UK.

    But…….maybe it really is ‘Alex’s World,’ a mish-mash of 80s stuff filtered through her subconsciousness, in which case it’s OK.&nbsp; <!– s:) –><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smiley.gif" alt=":)" title="Smiley" /><!– s:) –>

    #107379

    Anonymous

    I caught 2 minutes and turned over!

    #107381

    Anonymous
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:1g2h7zlg wrote:

    Being picky, I notice discrepancies that jar. The Falklands stuff places events between 2 April and 14 June 1982. But when a photcopier is used to check a pic, someone says ‘Just like Harrison Ford,’ referring to Blade Runner which wasn’t released in the US til the end of June 1982, and a few months later in the UK.

    [/quote:1g2h7zlg]

    Hmmm.. why are they referring to Harrison Ford in Blade Runner? Raiders was in 1981.

    #107383

    Anonymous
    &quot;atomickarma&quot;:2kqqyto5 wrote:
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:2kqqyto5 wrote:

    Being picky, I notice discrepancies that jar. The Falklands stuff places events between 2 April and 14 June 1982. But when a photcopier is used to check a pic, someone says ‘Just like Harrison Ford,’ referring to Blade Runner which wasn’t released in the US til the end of June 1982, and a few months later in the UK.

    [/quote:2kqqyto5]

    Hmmm.. why are they referring to Harrison Ford in Blade Runner? Raiders was in 1981.
    [/quote:2kqqyto5]

    Yes, but I took it that the photocopier bit was referring to Rick Deckard’s optical photo thingummyjig in Blade Runner – the imaging device that he uses to get close ups on pics (this was quite a unique concept in 1982!)

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t remember Indiana Jones using anything for jiggerypokery with photos.

    Anyway, it’s irrelevant if (as is probable) it’s all happening in DI Drake’s mind.

    #107384

    Anonymous
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:31gexn9v wrote:
    &quot;atomickarma&quot;:31gexn9v wrote:
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:31gexn9v wrote:

    Being picky, I notice discrepancies that jar. The Falklands stuff places events between 2 April and 14 June 1982. But when a photcopier is used to check a pic, someone says ‘Just like Harrison Ford,’ referring to Blade Runner which wasn’t released in the US til the end of June 1982, and a few months later in the UK.

    [/quote:31gexn9v]

    Hmmm.. why are they referring to Harrison Ford in Blade Runner? Raiders was in 1981.
    [/quote:31gexn9v]

    Yes, but I took it that the photocopier bit was referring to Rick Deckard’s optical photo thingummyjig in Blade Runner – the imaging device that he uses to get close ups on pics (this was quite a unique concept in 1982!)

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t remember Indiana Jones using anything for jiggerypokery with photos.

    Anyway, it’s irrelevant if (as is probable) it’s all happening in DI Drake’s mind.
    [/quote:31gexn9v]

    IF…

    But yes you’re right about Deckard’s gadget, forgot about that

    #107385

    Anonymous
    &quot;atomickarma&quot;:3viep3a6 wrote:
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:3viep3a6 wrote:
    &quot;atomickarma&quot;:3viep3a6 wrote:
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:3viep3a6 wrote:

    Being picky, I notice discrepancies that jar. The Falklands stuff places events between 2 April and 14 June 1982. But when a photcopier is used to check a pic, someone says ‘Just like Harrison Ford,’ referring to Blade Runner which wasn’t released in the US til the end of June 1982, and a few months later in the UK.

    [/quote:3viep3a6]

    Hmmm.. why are they referring to Harrison Ford in Blade Runner? Raiders was in 1981.
    [/quote:3viep3a6]

    Yes, but I took it that the photocopier bit was referring to Rick Deckard’s optical photo thingummyjig in Blade Runner – the imaging device that he uses to get close ups on pics (this was quite a unique concept in 1982!)

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t remember Indiana Jones using anything for jiggerypokery with photos.

    Anyway, it’s irrelevant if (as is probable) it’s all happening in DI Drake’s mind.
    [/quote:3viep3a6]

    IF…

    [/quote:3viep3a6]

    You suspect an extra sting in the tail, guv?

    #107387

    Anonymous
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:1g78io8x wrote:
    &quot;atomickarma&quot;:1g78io8x wrote:
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:1g78io8x wrote:
    &quot;atomickarma&quot;:1g78io8x wrote:
    &quot;CastellanSpandrel&quot;:1g78io8x wrote:

    Being picky, I notice discrepancies that jar. The Falklands stuff places events between 2 April and 14 June 1982. But when a photcopier is used to check a pic, someone says ‘Just like Harrison Ford,’ referring to Blade Runner which wasn’t released in the US til the end of June 1982, and a few months later in the UK.

    [/quote:1g78io8x]

    Hmmm.. why are they referring to Harrison Ford in Blade Runner? Raiders was in 1981.
    [/quote:1g78io8x]

    Yes, but I took it that the photocopier bit was referring to Rick Deckard’s optical photo thingummyjig in Blade Runner – the imaging device that he uses to get close ups on pics (this was quite a unique concept in 1982!)

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t remember Indiana Jones using anything for jiggerypokery with photos.

    Anyway, it’s irrelevant if (as is probable) it’s all happening in DI Drake’s mind.
    [/quote:1g78io8x]

    IF…

    [/quote:1g78io8x]

    You suspect an extra sting in the tail, guv?
    [/quote:1g78io8x]

    Indeed – hinted at last night with Gene’s "reading", which was innocently explained within the episode but reminded us of the existence of Sam Tyler, who I don’t believe really died.

    #107388

    Anonymous

    I thought that at first, even believing that the shadowy Alex-stalker might be Sam, but I wasn’t so sure after Ray turned out to be the ‘Tyler’ at the ceremony.

    #107396

    Anonymous

    looks like interesting things are happening but still a bit slow this week. Good show but slow.

    At least it makes sense why Gene uprooted to London, or at least i think it does. Still making Ray out to be the bad guy or stupid enough to think he is right, which is true to form, but I thought things were getting better at the end of LOM. Then again, not sure how they will tie it up, but I said to Detour last night, it could be that these are not the people from Sam’s after life, this could be Alex’s version.

    #107594

    Anonymous

    I have to say that we saw the 3rd episode over the weekend and I thought it was a very good one. Looking forward to next week.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 2005-2014 Kasterborous. Theme Old Paper by ThunderThemes.net