It feels like the budget was there, the intention was there, and in the first 3 or so episodes it all comes together as a 10/10. But for me the series feels cast with this first part in mind, for which the leads are very well suited and brought out by script and director to give energy, belief, believability and interest.
The trouble is that the leads/script/direction trend downwards from there. Most importantly, for me Christopher Blake simply doesn't have near enough range to do justice to the role, and the script/direction don't help him out. Yet his depiction in episodes 1-3 feels excellent.
Mel Martin is better and I get a nagging feeling she could have done more if she was asked to play episodes 1-3 to a narrower range so that she could better show character development.
Similar issues come up with other actors, where portrayals in different episodes don't seem to come from the same heart. For me, especially with. Ralph Arliss.
The best acting? Jeremy Irons top. Michael Aldridge in a character part. David Ryall. Sherrie Hewson. And the them tune, which wonderfully sets tone.
Just had a brief look at other reviews and wonder whether the background isn't clear to all. For instance "write from a rather poor and humble family" is wrong. The family is clearly middle class. Very poor compared with he Aspens yes, but it is essential to understand that there are very clear differences in wealth and background between the male leads. Perhaps not so easy to spot depending on age and where you are from, but essential.
Overall, enjoyable but disappointing to miss the initial promise.
