incredibly well done. Glad they didn’t ruin the ending by making the murderer being some random character. It was pretty straightforward but the acting was fantastic and the story was believable.
I liked the ending, it's where I started, but after a few episodes in I thought the wife, son, or father-in-law all could have done it.
When the wife took the stand I thought that was telegraphed, I knew she was setting him up. that's really the only thing I had an issue with. right after she kicks him out for accusing/questioning their son, she suddenly says my husband could never do this and I should be on the stand to say that. I knew that was going to happen. And the ensuing helicopter chase seemed rushed.
otherwise good show.
Excellent series and great storyline. Loved the way Grace
When the wife takes the stand, the prosecutor starts asking all the questions about what his mother said about her son/the husband (no empathy etc). His lawyer makes the proper objection "Hearsay" and the judge allows it in evidence as a declaration against interest. If anyone has ever tried a case, they know that what the mother said is NOT a declaration against interest.
I know its a minor point, but that made me crazy. Texted a few other lawyers and they all had the same reaction.
I know they had to find a way to create that dramatic moment but it was not at all realistic.
The show was really well done. Grant was great - Kidman and Sutherland were great - the defense lawyer was great. The story just seemed contrived and the law seemed in realistic. The "who dont it" part was kind of meh - but i did love the WAY over the top cliff hangers at the end of every episode.
the mother's testimony , they would have brought in the mother as a witness
I'm not a legal expert, but as I understand it, spouses cannot by law be required to testify against each other.
but because the defense put her on the stand the questioning was opened up to the prosecution.
the prosecution could not simply have called her as a witness.
It is my only complaint with the show, not the actual legal details like the other poster mentioned - that's well beyond my legal acumen. but this plot segment was telegraphed and not believable to me.
I liked that they didn't invent some crazy solution to who did it and I liked that even with the final answer being pretty obvious they did a good job of misdirecting.
On the flip side there was a lot that was kind of hard to believe/farfetched and emotionally manipulative.
Also agree with everyone that the acting was really strong pretty much across the board. The kids were both good in their roles, the defense attorney was great, Donald Sutherland was good like he usually is.
the mother's testimony , they would have brought in the mother as a witness
I'm not a legal expert, but as I understand it, spouses cannot by law be required to testify against each other.
but because the defense put her on the stand the questioning was opened up to the prosecution.
the prosecution could not simply have called her as a witness.
It is my only complaint with the show, not the actual legal details like the other poster mentioned - that's well beyond my legal acumen. but this plot segment was telegraphed and not believable to me.
Sort of along the same lines it bugged me having the defendant testify - i'm not a defense attorney but i've always understood that to be something that just doesn't happen in a case like that.
garbage. One scene more unrealistic than the next.
How was Frazier allowed to show up at the victims husbands house while out on bail?
Why was the Frazier's son allowed to watch every second of coverage?
Why was the victims son in the courtroom at all?
How were people on the stand permitted to go off on tangents without being cutoff and told to just answer the question?
How did the "crackerjack" lawyer not know that the wife's 911 call, fearing for her life would have been played?
Even a public defender wouldn't have allowed her to testify.
Complete waste of time, unrealistic nonsense.
I did hear that the book was better.
I told my wife in the beginning I would be pissed if it ended up with the husband as the killer. Everything added up to him as the killer and it was so obvious I was hoping for some type of clever twist. Not even going to get into the legal issues as I think that Lawyer was too good to make so many mistakes and borderline unethical decisions.
I will say the acting was very good. I think that is the first movies I saw in which Hugh Grant played something other then the goofy British guy.
type of things. I liked the actors and characters. I liked the potential twists that kept coming up, they kept you swaying back and forth. I also liked the end, it swayed back to the original suspect. I thought this was actually a novel idea. Most times there is a twist and the new suspect is it. Here they kept you guessing. Finally I thought the final scene was really good, I guess some don't. I thought again it was creative in how she made herself look weak just to get him locked up.
I was a big fan. I liked the hammer reveal in Henry's violin case.
It made me think of a moment early in the show where the headmaster of the school asked Henry what he said to the kid who's mom was killed. And Henry said that he said sorry because it was in the 5 Cs of honor (courtesy). Not because he actually felt remorse.
Then coupling that with Jonathan's mother saying that he was a sociopath, I thought it could've been something that was passed down. I don't know if that was intentionally tied together, but I connected those dots none the less and it definitely had my head spinning.
I told my wife in the beginning I would be pissed if it ended up with the husband as the killer. Everything added up to him as the killer and it was so obvious I was hoping for some type of clever twist. Not even going to get into the legal issues as I think that Lawyer was too good to make so many mistakes and borderline unethical decisions.
I will say the acting was very good. I think that is the first movies I saw in which Hugh Grant played something other then the goofy British guy.
That was the twist. The fact it was the person they were making out to be. Most shows whoever they show as the most likely to be the killer you can almost always immediately say they aren't the killer.
In the end I guessed it was the son and the mother knew and as going to take the husband down to save her son. That is the normal twists we get and they are getting predictable... so when it was the husband I was like whoa... ok he did do it.
Ruined by the finale. Out of nowhere the wife wants to testify and the super attorney goes for it after saying they were in a good place. They had the case won at that point and any attorney of her stature would never introduce uncertainty to the process. And then the helicopter chase was just insulting. Seriously?
However, as others have said, Nicole Kidman, Noma Dumezweni and Donald Sutherland were fantastic in their roles.
and I should clarify - when I say I liked the end - I mean I liked that Jonathan did it.
It seemed the most obvious conclusion, I think the show did a good job at misdirection. I thought the title referred to Grace and could see her learning of the affair and killing Elena. But I could also see the Husband (Fernando - who was excellent in Berlin Station and Ray Donovan) killing Elena like the defense tried to say. I can see Henry (the son) killing Elena, and in the back of my mind I could also see Franklin (Donald Sutherland) doing it though they didn't push that angle as much as they could have IMO.
they planted decent seeds of doubt in the viewers mind to throw suspicion and give the defense something to work with.
but the plot around the actual end is what I had criticism around (as I previously mentioned).
To me the entire show was revolved around Hugh Grant being a sociopath and seeing him through his family's eyes. All the evidence was overwhelmingly obvious he did it, but he had an ability to make you think he couldn't have done it. The defense attorney saw through it right away in one of their first meetings.
I'm glad they ended it with him being the murderer. You could finally see how dangerous the guy was in the last car ride with Henry.
His mistress Elena was really something. Gorgeous woman.
Ruined by the finale. Out of nowhere the wife wants to testify and the super attorney goes for it after saying they were in a good place. They had the case won at that point and any attorney of her stature would never introduce uncertainty to the process. And then the helicopter chase was just insulting. Seriously?
However, as others have said, Nicole Kidman, Noma Dumezweni and Donald Sutherland were fantastic in their roles.
Yup, and that’s what I hate about how many shows go. They go against their own rules far too often. No shot the attorney does that.
And he’s, the ending chase was brutal. Episodes 1-5 were a 9 for me. The finale was a 4.
did they ever explain why Grace was captured on video walking near the murder scene the night of the murder?
She seemed to not even remember doing it and the detectives seemed to think she's not a suspect, but it was strange nonetheless.
I lost track if we ever learned the story behind that. For a while I thought that's where the story was going.
To my knowledge it was chalked up as her going for her nightly walk and sheer coincidence on location. They mention other cameras in the area captured her coming and going as well so it seems that the time stamps on them disqualified her from being a suspect.
The courtroom scene was farcical. Charging a 12 year old for obstruction and sending him to juve? Get the hell outta here. The wife in the helicopter at the end? Can’t believe how much goodwill was destroyed with that last episode. My only other gripe with the show was the over the top woman empowerment angle, which seems to be a prevalent theme. Big little lies had this as well, but season 1 shows you how you go about it, season 2 not so much.
I told my wife in the beginning I would be pissed if it ended up with the husband as the killer. Everything added up to him as the killer and it was so obvious I was hoping for some type of clever twist. Not even going to get into the legal issues as I think that Lawyer was too good to make so many mistakes and borderline unethical decisions.
I will say the acting was very good. I think that is the first movies I saw in which Hugh Grant played something other then the goofy British guy.
That was the twist. The fact it was the person they were making out to be. Most shows whoever they show as the most likely to be the killer you can almost always immediately say they aren't the killer.
In the end I guessed it was the son and the mother knew and as going to take the husband down to save her son. That is the normal twists we get and they are getting predictable... so when it was the husband I was like whoa... ok he did do it.
I could of handled that if they would of given more clues or hints that it could of been someone else. IMHO every time they gave any hint it could of been someone else they immediately explained that reason away. For example out of no where they bring up the wife caught on camera near the scene. Then it is almost immediately dismissed and you know it couldn't of been her. If you're going to do that at least make is think it might be someone else.
In the end I was surprised Hugh Grant turned out to be the killer. Right up until the end they kept dropping hints that maybe, just maybe he didn't do it. The flashback at the end was brilliant where he was hitting her with his fists and we all expected him to kill her. But instead he said "I just broke up with you" and starts to walk out the door. At that point I was thinking OMG he really didn't kill her, the wife or the kid must have.
As for the court scenes, I thought they were unrealistic at first. Every question Hayley asked sounded like a closing argument that should have been objected to and the whole hearsay thing with his mother was ridiculous. Then again this could have been a lousy judge.
I liked the ending, it's where I started, but after a few episodes in I thought the wife, son, or father-in-law all could have done it.
When the wife took the stand I thought that was telegraphed, I knew she was setting him up. that's really the only thing I had an issue with. right after she kicks him out for accusing/questioning their son, she suddenly says my husband could never do this and I should be on the stand to say that. I knew that was going to happen. And the ensuing helicopter chase seemed rushed.
otherwise good show.
I know its a minor point, but that made me crazy. Texted a few other lawyers and they all had the same reaction.
I know they had to find a way to create that dramatic moment but it was not at all realistic.
The show was really well done. Grant was great - Kidman and Sutherland were great - the defense lawyer was great. The story just seemed contrived and the law seemed in realistic. The "who dont it" part was kind of meh - but i did love the WAY over the top cliff hangers at the end of every episode.
I'm not a legal expert, but as I understand it, spouses cannot by law be required to testify against each other.
but because the defense put her on the stand the questioning was opened up to the prosecution.
the prosecution could not simply have called her as a witness.
It is my only complaint with the show, not the actual legal details like the other poster mentioned - that's well beyond my legal acumen. but this plot segment was telegraphed and not believable to me.
On the flip side there was a lot that was kind of hard to believe/farfetched and emotionally manipulative.
Also agree with everyone that the acting was really strong pretty much across the board. The kids were both good in their roles, the defense attorney was great, Donald Sutherland was good like he usually is.
Quote:
the mother's testimony , they would have brought in the mother as a witness
I'm not a legal expert, but as I understand it, spouses cannot by law be required to testify against each other.
but because the defense put her on the stand the questioning was opened up to the prosecution.
the prosecution could not simply have called her as a witness.
It is my only complaint with the show, not the actual legal details like the other poster mentioned - that's well beyond my legal acumen. but this plot segment was telegraphed and not believable to me.
Sort of along the same lines it bugged me having the defendant testify - i'm not a defense attorney but i've always understood that to be something that just doesn't happen in a case like that.
How was Frazier allowed to show up at the victims husbands house while out on bail?
Why was the Frazier's son allowed to watch every second of coverage?
Why was the victims son in the courtroom at all?
How were people on the stand permitted to go off on tangents without being cutoff and told to just answer the question?
How did the "crackerjack" lawyer not know that the wife's 911 call, fearing for her life would have been played?
Even a public defender wouldn't have allowed her to testify.
Complete waste of time, unrealistic nonsense.
I did hear that the book was better.
I hated the cinematography throughout. Too much tilt shift lens gimmicks.
I will say the acting was very good. I think that is the first movies I saw in which Hugh Grant played something other then the goofy British guy.
Kinda how I felt. He really needed to be innocent but found guilty, IMO. Really didn’t like the ending of an otherwise great show.
All in all it was an 9 for me.
It made me think of a moment early in the show where the headmaster of the school asked Henry what he said to the kid who's mom was killed. And Henry said that he said sorry because it was in the 5 Cs of honor (courtesy). Not because he actually felt remorse.
Then coupling that with Jonathan's mother saying that he was a sociopath, I thought it could've been something that was passed down. I don't know if that was intentionally tied together, but I connected those dots none the less and it definitely had my head spinning.
I will say the acting was very good. I think that is the first movies I saw in which Hugh Grant played something other then the goofy British guy.
That was the twist. The fact it was the person they were making out to be. Most shows whoever they show as the most likely to be the killer you can almost always immediately say they aren't the killer.
In the end I guessed it was the son and the mother knew and as going to take the husband down to save her son. That is the normal twists we get and they are getting predictable... so when it was the husband I was like whoa... ok he did do it.
However, as others have said, Nicole Kidman, Noma Dumezweni and Donald Sutherland were fantastic in their roles.
It seemed the most obvious conclusion, I think the show did a good job at misdirection. I thought the title referred to Grace and could see her learning of the affair and killing Elena. But I could also see the Husband (Fernando - who was excellent in Berlin Station and Ray Donovan) killing Elena like the defense tried to say. I can see Henry (the son) killing Elena, and in the back of my mind I could also see Franklin (Donald Sutherland) doing it though they didn't push that angle as much as they could have IMO.
they planted decent seeds of doubt in the viewers mind to throw suspicion and give the defense something to work with.
but the plot around the actual end is what I had criticism around (as I previously mentioned).
I'm glad they ended it with him being the murderer. You could finally see how dangerous the guy was in the last car ride with Henry.
His mistress Elena was really something. Gorgeous woman.
She seemed to not even remember doing it and the detectives seemed to think she's not a suspect, but it was strange nonetheless.
I lost track if we ever learned the story behind that. For a while I thought that's where the story was going.
However, as others have said, Nicole Kidman, Noma Dumezweni and Donald Sutherland were fantastic in their roles.
Yup, and that’s what I hate about how many shows go. They go against their own rules far too often. No shot the attorney does that.
And he’s, the ending chase was brutal. Episodes 1-5 were a 9 for me. The finale was a 4.
She seemed to not even remember doing it and the detectives seemed to think she's not a suspect, but it was strange nonetheless.
I lost track if we ever learned the story behind that. For a while I thought that's where the story was going.
To my knowledge it was chalked up as her going for her nightly walk and sheer coincidence on location. They mention other cameras in the area captured her coming and going as well so it seems that the time stamps on them disqualified her from being a suspect.
Quote:
I told my wife in the beginning I would be pissed if it ended up with the husband as the killer. Everything added up to him as the killer and it was so obvious I was hoping for some type of clever twist. Not even going to get into the legal issues as I think that Lawyer was too good to make so many mistakes and borderline unethical decisions.
I will say the acting was very good. I think that is the first movies I saw in which Hugh Grant played something other then the goofy British guy.
That was the twist. The fact it was the person they were making out to be. Most shows whoever they show as the most likely to be the killer you can almost always immediately say they aren't the killer.
In the end I guessed it was the son and the mother knew and as going to take the husband down to save her son. That is the normal twists we get and they are getting predictable... so when it was the husband I was like whoa... ok he did do it.
I could of handled that if they would of given more clues or hints that it could of been someone else. IMHO every time they gave any hint it could of been someone else they immediately explained that reason away. For example out of no where they bring up the wife caught on camera near the scene. Then it is almost immediately dismissed and you know it couldn't of been her. If you're going to do that at least make is think it might be someone else.
As for the court scenes, I thought they were unrealistic at first. Every question Hayley asked sounded like a closing argument that should have been objected to and the whole hearsay thing with his mother was ridiculous. Then again this could have been a lousy judge.
And given her relationship with the father-in-law not sure she didn't intentionally try to lose the case.