Ok, first for 'Wallander'...I agree with you wholeheartedly LadyWentworth. It seemed to me that in Episode One something vital was missing. My friend, I talk to on IM nearly daily, and I have been discussing it all week with her. She said she gave up on it after 20mins, but then her ex told her his run-down which made us laugh hysterically. He said "you didn't miss much; first a girl commits suicide, then Wallander cries in a field of yellow flowers; then a body shows up, Wallander looks really sad and cries a little more; then a few more bodies show up, Wallander looks sadder, then the grand finale and Wallander looks like he's had it, really depressed. Well, you have to admit that is pretty funny. Now my friend said it was not Ken's fault; his acting was great, as usual; but we both agreed a little less tears at first, working up to more later on, would have been way more effective and have more emotional impact. Also, her impression was that the screenplay was nothing special and not written that well. Well, it did seem very simpified and you could pretty much see, where it all was leading midway through; so where was the suspense? I thought that just maybe, having watched countless Youtube videos of the show, had sort of ruined it for me. They should not post so much, if they want to maintain suspense, even in trailers. This is a constant beef of mine anyway, even with movies. They show way too much; sometimes the very ending. Ok, so let's move onto Episode Two; I think this one was way better; although, still a little predictable; yet like Episode One, also a bit sketchy or vague, especially when it comes to Kurt himself and why he is so darn depressed. I'm still trying to figure out if the producers/director/screenwriter/author had the objective, of not presenting this as a pure mystery, but more of a story of human conflicts and the human condition. I read somewhere online, that these stories explore the corruption of youth and ask the question "why is this happening today, even worldwide?" So, is this the perspective I am missing here? Ok, one thing that really bugged me about this second episode, was the woman Kurt mets has such horrible teeth - the lower ones are actually black looking and gappy. What was with that? Is that a Swedish thing or what? Maybe, she ate too much pickled herring (did you see Ken on Craig Fergusson? )? I did however, think that Ken's acting was better in Episode 2; he seemed to be getting deeper and more seriously into the role. It did keep you on the edge of your seat at times; although, I am still questioning a lot of the plot. It feels a little like David Lynch's TV series, "Twin Peaks", when one would go away from the show and question it for weeks and never really resolve the entire plot or just what was going on. Am I stupid or what? I keep telling myself that 'Wallander' is quite different and so I am trying to give it a chance. It's much slower paced, I would imagine, from popular shows in the US such as CSI, and similar crime shows, that have snappy dialogue and strike me as slick. This is not a slick show at all. In fact, often the computer systems even look a bit antiquated, not sure why they designed the sets like that - was it to throw us off a bit - like out of balance and create an uneasy feeling? See what I mean, it's mid-week and I am still trying to figure it out. Sure I am easy - 'Much Ado' would be fine. I love the film of course, and own it.
OK. Episode One. Yeah, I would say that your friend's ex's summary was the right way to tell her what happened! Well, let's get this out of the way. Ken was fine. He always is. He is not a problem here. Having said those things, I can now go into critiquing the show. I have watched enough crime stories (TV and film), and I do really enjoy them. I didn't really like this at all. For lack of a better word, it seemed like "fluff". Everything was so predictable. As I said before, I wasn't impressed with the program at all. Seriously, I was wondering what made it so popular. There really was nothing that stood out in it (excluding him, of course ). You say that watching the videos on YouTube may have ruined it for you, but I didn't watch any. So what is my problem??? I just didn't care for it. Basically, I thought it was boring. I sat through it just because. Episode Two. I thought this one was better from the moment it started. Still, though, like you said, predictable. I just knew from the moment that he met that woman that she would be involved in some sort of way. She almost had to be. Because unless she was going to be his on-going love interest, there was no reason for her. So I suspected she would be up to no good. I knew that as soon as he was telling her about the case (I thought he would have more sense than to do somethng like that! ) that my suspicions were right. It was better. I think the story was better (though some parts of it were confusing - maybe I am just stupid, though!). As for the actress, I seriously didn't pay enough attention to her to notice her teeth. That is rare for me to not notice bad teeth! She was familiar to me, though. I can't think where I have seen her before. But anyway, yes, the computers!!! I thought the same thing! But I let it go. I figure that they had a reason to make them look that way. I have to say that I am not understanding the point of the "look" to this show. Why does it look like that? They make it look so mysterious and different, but all this is is a crime show. It isn't like he is hunting for vampires or anything like that! The color of it really bothers me sometimes (like the yellow flowers). As for his depression, all I can make out is that it might involve his wife. I am not sure, though. Then I thought that maybe he had just reached that moment in his career where he is just tired of everything like these murders. Who knows? It is something that gets us talking at least, right? I, for one, am curious to see if Episode Three will be even better. Now, it won't be on here (I don't know about you) this week because of the Memorial Day Concert. I heard that there is going to be another series. I really am not understanding why people like it so much. It isn't horrible. I just don't really enjoy it. It kills 90 minutes, but still, I don't think it is good enough to have a second season. But then again, maybe the second season will be so spectacular that I will have to apologize to the producers for what I said! Yes! Let's watch "Much Ado"! We could watch it sometime in June. Maybe around mid-June. What do you think?
Here's a link to a cool interveiw with our guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm07P...&feature=email
I am mortified. I somehow missed the last Episode. You see, our paper listed some other show, in the same time slot, so I didn't bother turning on the TV. Now I look online and I have determined the listing may have been wrong. Only saving grace to this, is that I did order the DVD and it should be released the 2nd; I can view it around the 8th. Shipping is usually fast with Amazon. Ok, I had to have it, even though I did criticise the first installment. I thought the second one picked up a lot and I am disappointed I missed the third one last night (that is, if it did actually air here - Philadelphia area). I heard the extras on the DVD are great! I can't wait to watch the whole thing again and hope to see things, which I previously missed on TV. I had to have it - afterall, it is Ken! ....and let me add, his acting was still superb!
Well, I have been spared. I preordered the DVD; afterall, it is Ken and I try to own as much of Ken I can get my hands on. SO, last night I watched Episode 3. I have to say it was quite good. I thought it far surpassed the other two; especially the first one. I thought Ken was brilliant in it; his emotions were a little more restrained and yet he revealed so much behind his expressions and those eyes. The ending was really something. I had not considered that until close to the end. What stood out most in this third one was the photography and the scenery. It was simply amazing stuff; very different look and very well done The scenery was breathtaking at times; I have never seen such luminous skies. Color was intense and I watched some of the extra on "The Look of the Film" and found it interesting that they mixed up cameras alternating between a very high resolution one and a standard camera. The person who filmed this series has done documentaries so that he has this expertise to his credit. I actually can't wait to re-view this last Episode, even to view that scenery again. It was really something and made me want to visit Sweden someday. I think a lot of things came together in this last installment, especially the question of Kurt's health and also some background information which was key concerning his daughter. I think now I am hooked if this comes out as a long running series. I even consider reading one of the novels, just to see how Henning Mankell writes...now I am curious. I still have a few unanswered questions about this last episode, but probably will clear them up when I watch it over again and pay closer attention to the details. All in all, I would say it's a good start to new series. I think with subsequent episodes the show will pick up momentum considerably.
Well, after viewing my DVD version of Wallander I feel a bit altered in my impression. I truly enjoyed the second viewing and I picked up on more of the key details this time. Some of my former confusion and questions have been answered. I went to bed thinking about the second episode and trying to completely clarify the plot and the details and now I feel a lot more confident I have it all figured out. Since I don't watch the snappy and quirky crime series' on US TV I don't have those to compare this to. I know a lot of Americans are doing so by citing how great CSI, Bones, Dextor, and other crime series are. I am sort of glad I am not in the position to compare, because I think this show is a lot different in aspect and focus. I am actually curious now about Mankell's writing and would even like to read a non-Wallander novel by him; one that Ken suggests during the interview with Mankell is "The Depths" which he raved over. I would be inspired to try that one first. Ok, one major thing I thought I discovered from viewing the DVD was that Episode One seemed to me to have been cut some for American TV viewing. I noticed a few parts towards the ending which clarified it much better for me. I may be wrong and have just failed to notice these scenes or moments, first time around; but if it was cut, that's unexceptable in my book. I watched Episode 1 and 2 last night back to back. Tonight I probably will watch Episode 3. So LadyWentworth, will we still be discussing "Much Ado About Nothing" as tenatively planned? I didn't mean to hijack this group to discuss Wallander but it just came up here a this time when it was airing in the US. We can pick back up on the W discussion after you have seen Episode 3.
