Author Topic: Jonathan Creek (Read 2386 times)

TimO · « **on:** 01 March, 2014, 10:45:38 am »

I just watched the new episode of Jonathan Creek on iPlayer and was surprisingly impressed by it.

Whilst I love the stories, in the past they'd rather overdone his sidekick character, by basically having different women play a very similar character, which if they'd done it again for a new series, would have been rather silly.

This episode, in effect, had two sidekicks, neither of which was quite like the old ones.

I thought it was done quite cleverly, and made a refreshing change in style, whilst still having Alan Davies as the lead, who I've always liked, and now Sarah Alexander, who I also like, so it's even better.

There are only three episodes in this series, but I nevertheless look forward to the remaining two.

David Martin · « **Reply #1 on:** 01 March, 2014, 01:59:01 pm »

The Holmes ripoff was mildly amusing.

I liked the way he plays a much older JC - reflecting his real age I suppose.

howieduck · « **Reply #2 on:** 01 March, 2014, 05:35:33 pm »

But I thought the actual plot actually told me that they have run out of ideas and they ought to end it !

gene hunt · « **Reply #3 on:** 01 March, 2014, 09:21:50 pm »

Was not impressed if I am honest, to show what happened near the start means little or no point in watching to the end.

I always enjoyed the older episodes as it was good to get to the end and then find out.

Kim · « **Reply #4 on:** 01 March, 2014, 09:33:45 pm »

I found it a bit 'meh' too, tbh.

Not particularly through lack of a clever mystery - they ran out of those by series 2. It's more that the new One Foot In The Grave style elaborate comedy setup thing didn't really work for me. Jonathan being generally weary of solving mysteries, and the work experience boy were great though. As was the...

(click to show/hide)

Wowbagger · « **Reply #5 on:** 01 March, 2014, 10:06:37 pm »

I saw enough to make me realise that it was going to be crap and paid no more attention.

Dez has watched a lot more and has laughed at the fact that some photo purported to be from the 1960s or so was clearly printed on an inkjet.

My son looks out for such things.

Dez · « **Reply #6 on:** 01 March, 2014, 10:08:00 pm »

Why would anyone even consider it said "sawjoy"? It was obviously upside down.

Kim · « **Reply #7 on:** 01 March, 2014, 10:11:38 pm »

Quote from: Wowbagger on 01 March, 2014, 10:06:37 pm

Dez has watched a lot more and has laughed at the fact that some photo purported to be from the 1960s or so was clearly printed on an inkjet.

Jonathan Creek has previous for badly photoshopped images (newspapers especially) being unrelated to the plot. The production team are just sloppy, and haven't accounted for the fact that HD is a lot less forgiving of such things. It's quite offputting though, as you can never work out if it's relevant or not.

David Martin · « **Reply #8 on:** 01 March, 2014, 10:56:02 pm »

I found TV drama was spoiled when I learned Chekov rules. We need more distractors.

rogerzilla · « **Reply #9 on:** 03 March, 2014, 06:57:05 pm »

I thought it was funny when Alan Davies was doing Julia Sawalha, because they had the same hair

Si · « **Reply #10 on:** 05 March, 2014, 10:04:40 am »

YALRM (Yet another locked room mystery.)

It was all a bit Colombo....we knew who'd done the main bit of mystery from the start, we just needed to work out how JC would work it out.

Not as good as the old ones. But not totally unenjoyable, with, as mentioned above, some nice tweaks.

David Martin · « **Reply #11 on:** 09 March, 2014, 02:07:19 pm »

I liked the second - Different in stele to the earlier ones.

Kim · « **Reply #12 on:** 09 March, 2014, 05:54:01 pm »

I found it a bit rubbish, because I was still in mystery mode, and they were far too obvious. Haven't quite got used to it being 'One Foot In The Creek' comedy yet.

Si · « **Reply #13 on:** 10 March, 2014, 05:00:26 pm »

I thought it was more Midsummer Creek

LEE · « **Reply #14 on:** 03 January, 2017, 01:30:47 pm »

What shite*

*No, not a question, a statement.

TimO · « **Reply #15 on:** 03 January, 2017, 11:52:53 pm »

Quote from: LEE on 03 January, 2017, 01:30:47 pm

What shite*

*No, not a question, a statement.

Almost three years after the previous post. Are you sure you're talking about the same episode?

Kim · « **Reply #16 on:** 04 January, 2017, 12:18:42 am »

I doubt it's improved with age.

Jaded · « **Reply #17 on:** 04 January, 2017, 12:22:36 am »

It has morphed into a sub-routine in Sherlock.

LEE · « **Reply #18 on:** 04 January, 2017, 11:13:26 am »

Quote from: Kim on 04 January, 2017, 12:18:42 am

I doubt it's improved with age.

I seem to remember watching it a few years ago and some of it made sense. I mean that his reasoning seemed credible (for a TV show).

The Christmas episode was just awful, like it was written the same morning. I'm still not sure I fully got the point of half of it.

A poison pellet rolls into a wife's bedside drink when she lifts a book from the bookshelf........and a smudged child's painting gives a (false) clue that it wasn't her husband who killed her?

And some white sheets buried with some springs can create convincing Ghosts when they Boing out of a coffin?.... And looking at a phone then at the letter "Y" on a poster can convey the word "PhoneY" ...to indicate that the identity of the perpetrator? A horizontal illusion of a man falling into flames?

WTF?

I mean..REALLY?

Drivel. I'd be ashamed to be identified as the writer.

red marley · « **Reply #19 on:** 04 January, 2017, 04:08:02 pm »

I rather liked it in a fluffy Christmas-special kind of way. I take the preposterous reasoning and contrived plot lines as a dig at Moffat and Gatiss era Sherlock and the like and entirely intentional.

What it does lack now though is Caroline Quentin.

Author Topic: Jonathan Creek (Read 2386 times)

red marley