MovieChat Forums > Life of Crime (2013) Discussion > Is it me or is this show just a mess so ...

Is it me or is this show just a mess so far?

posted 11 years ago by !!!deleted!!! (41638798)
7 replies | jump to latest

Tuned in thinking (with Richard Coyle for starters) that this would be a great time capsule of a woman's police journey.

But what happened?

Guess it's too early to judge. But are we supposed to LIKE her? Root for her?

Is she really utterly morally repellent or just a poor woman trying to get on in a man's world where she's being held back and thinks she has the right to plant evidence (!) and be generally obnoxious and refuse to follow the most basic order from a superior?

Even the most ambitious woman surely will at least serve a short time at the front desk learning the ropes. But this stupid cow wants to go straight to detective the first week? What the hey?

So this is how she gets ahead? Refusing flatly to follow any kind of order whatsoever. Refusing to pay any dues at ALL, even those she is obliged to pay to learn the job? Frames a suspect?

Charming.

She should be in prison at this point not carrying on as "Doris."

And I guess we can presume this show is a zero on the discussion scale, as well, since mine is the only posting nearly a week later!

In contrast, I see "The Fall" from BBC the first day had lines and lines of discussion. So people must have really ignored this show....ha.

So next week we jump 12 years to the death of Princess Diana?

Cor.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] !!!deleted!!! (41638798) 11 years ago

Not being of a persuasion that might fancy a glimpse at Hayley's endowments (ha), i found the rest of it pretty good and an improvement over the confusing first ep. But kept thinking of ways throughout it might have been better.

The format of 3 separate eppies in three eras was fun.

But as it continued and almost to the end, I felt that Declan was rather borrowing heavily from the Sarah Lund character type. Totally failed mum, emotionally vacant, unable to respond to the direct pleas of her child for help and support. Obsessive to the extreme to get the culprit at a cost to everything else.

So we've seen that before. But it was still pretty good.

One thing that seemed odd logically was that Holland was still roving the streets working clubs 15 odd years or so after having received an immense payout from the Met for his (supposedly) unsound conviction. I know he was subservient psychologically to Colin, but still....

Wouldn't he be plying his murderous ways from his villa on the Costa Del Sol instead by "current day"?

But oh well.

[–] oakcourt 11 years ago

Hello again Paradesend we seem to watch the same series! I'm struggling with this one but seeing it through. I think it's because I find Denise quite cold and quite matter of fact, I've not found anything to like even slightly in her the way I have Gill Anderson's Stella in The Fall. She seems to have few or no vulnerabilities which is unusual or maybe the script not well written. Not knocking her for being ambitious but even the most ambitious people still have some warmth. Not seeing it in her.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (41638798) 11 years ago

Yes, we do watch the same shows. ha

This seems to be the case with a core of fans who like certain kinds of shows--we see one another on different threads.

I agree and never warmed to Denise; not even to her efficiency and tenaciousness. Maybe her character was that way on the page and done so purposefully. Or just a failure in the director? The actress is talented, so surely she could portray what was on the page--if it were there in the first place?

Sarah Lund we could understand in her own way. And we certainly "got" Jane Tennison joining when she did--even before Denise--and how hard the Met made her life.

But Denise from the first just seemed utterly selfish and self-involved and just wholly unlikeable--never mind did not have the fundamental core integrity demanded of her job by planting evidence practically the first week she was in the job!

And were we to find it credible that a detective would foul up regularly, never even follow basic instructions as a raw recruit; and then get disciplined with demotion to DS in a high profile case that cost the Met god knows what in compensation--but still just carries on getting promoted to Superintendent??? Really?? Even after she's been ORDERED not to get anywhere hear Holland again? (The outcome notwithstsanding, she had been given a direct order. So perhaps no demotion was in order again, but certainly there had to be promotion consequences for disobeying yet again?)

I guess we were to surmise that she was so dedicated to getting the bad guys that she planted the evidence due to some emotional need to help the poor victim she'd met. She was young. Unformed. Poor judgement at that age? Something...

But the whole thing over the 3 eps just never "jelled"--for me anyway.

[–] lancer165 11 years ago

Quite correct she did not per her dues as a 'doris' did she?

In the beginning we see some colleagues prepared to aggressively sexually assault her and that is show as 'a lads way of being friendly'. Much worse was her being NON SEXUALLY assaulted by the same pair of hands when she had her rank pulled down instead of her knickers.

Although that was not given a protracted part of the story line I would have liked her to have been able to give that character a right 'seeing' to as a superior her ability to be in the area of evidence could have done him some damage for past events as I am sure that a sexual deviant would have not baulked at aiding a conviction.

OP is correct it did ring a little lame but we do know that there have been actual police corruption groups over the years. Our story is about a fairly focused female on the rise and one who although unable to give to her family that she ran away from [I thought she was told to get out]. He thought was indeed a correct one and we now know that although the evidence was planted there is no reason it would not have been there as the van was the holding and moving area. Criminals should always maintain in that the evidence had been planted because they had thoroughly cleaned the crime scene. This with good defence work would mean that all this sort of evidence cannot be used and freedom must be granted. Now that is where the lawyers need to change the law.

{ we cleaned it all up so if anything was found it was planted and thats a crime your honor Can we go now?]

I watched it all together last night. No I am not a female. And for me the three involved would be for that unmarked plot behind the ???? Garden wall.
Not just because I believe in capital punishment but I do believe in cutting the nonsense and cost involved in maintaining the lives of such as these. Yes there are a few more on my particular list of total removal from society but mostly they will include all aggressive sexual attacks.

I was mostly disappointed at Con O'Neils outburst moments and his almost Jekyll and Hyde characterization of her boss.

I also just had to see if the original person of interest was indeed a full associate. It was too easy i suppose. That was the real crime was it not. Joining up the dots.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GaelinW 9 years ago

And were we to find it credible that a detective would foul up regularly, never even follow basic instructions as a raw recruit; and then get disciplined with demotion to DS in a high profile case that cost the Met god knows what in compensation--but still just carries on getting promoted to Superintendent??? Really?? Even after she's been ORDERED not to get anywhere hear Holland again? (The outcome notwithstsanding, she had been given a direct order. So perhaps no demotion was in order again, but certainly there had to be promotion consequences for disobeying yet again?)

Unless I missed something, it was never made clear just what she specifically did wrong in the first investigation with Holland. Yes, we know she planted evidence, but it was my understanding that no one other than Ray knew that. But she got the blame for the erroneous conviction anyway. Because she was "tenacious"/disobeyed order (in light of her superior wanting to railroad the father. Ray disobeyed those same orders), was at the station after she was suspended and having been a rape victim herself (took the case too personally). In sum, she was suspected of wrongdoing, but there was no real proof of any specific act that would have led to Holland being falsely convicted.

Anyway, despite the character being completely unlikeable, based solely on what was depicted I see no reason why she shouldn't have continued being successful and promoted in her career. Particularly if she continued to be good at her job. Years 1-12, she had a meteoric rise in the job. Then she got blamed for a bad conviction. As I mentioned how and why is really unclear. There wasn't a specific wrongdoing named. It took her another 12 years - fairly long time - to make it back to DI.

It's at this point that she is up again for promotion. Also, at this time it is proven that Holland was guilty the whole time and for several rapes and at least 2 murders. That would effectively wipe away the stain of her first demotion and position her to make Superintendent. Plus, given that she was the only one who thought Holland was a serial rapist and murderer and willing to pursue, it would have made the superiors who "ordered" her not to pursue him look bad.

So it could be argued that she was promoted because she earned it and/or her superiors wanted to keep her quiet about their ineptitude and willingness to keep their distance from a serial killer allowing him to keep doing it.

I don't trust people who don't like pets and I don't trust people who pets don't like.