I would urge everyone who thinks they have just witnessed a representation of the case to do the following - watch the actual episode of "Millionaire" - read the transcript of the trial - and latterly read Chris Tarrant's response to this show and how it has missed so much out and loaded it to slant the Ingram's as being innocent.
I knew what was coming in the week before part one aired, director and lead actor's were at pains to say they have made a show with balance, then in the next breath telling us they think they may be innocent. While naturally spending time with the real Ingram's proved a rewarding experience for one of the actors. Give me a break please!
Half of Ingram's full stint in the "Millionaire" chair isn't even shown, and the same goes for the prosecution case in court, a prosecution that produced an overwhelming guilty verdict from the jury who in real life were given facts not shown in the show. Balance is fine, I myself try and review with balance, but nobody should be producing TV shows when missing out key instances to suit "artistic licence" for viewing figures.
Tech wise it's fine, nothing wrong with the main cast performances. Michael Sheen once again morphs splendidly into a well known character (Tarrant), Matthew Macfadyen and Sian Clifford as the Ingram's give emotional depth to hook views into the web, Mark Bonnar good value as the show's overlord Paul Smith, and Helen McCrory as the Ingram's lawyer is clearly the best thing in it.
Then there is Stephen Frears in the directing chair, where unsurprisingly he has a handle on tense scene staging and getting his actors to provide depth as written. Yet it's still hard to believe that a talent such as he would be privy to a lopsided factual story telling, because well you have to have the element of doubt, right? Right?
The Ingram's were not murderers, armed robbers or the lowest of the criminal low, so they didn't deserve the treatment meted out to them by some scumbag members of the public post the news of the fraud breaking. But, and it's important, we need our TV/Film producers offering up full disclosure when dealing with real life crimes and the legal shenanigans that follow. 1/10
I knew what was coming in the week before part one aired, director and lead actor's were at pains to say they have made a show with balance, then in the next breath telling us they think they may be innocent. While naturally spending time with the real Ingram's proved a rewarding experience for one of the actors. Give me a break please!
Half of Ingram's full stint in the "Millionaire" chair isn't even shown, and the same goes for the prosecution case in court, a prosecution that produced an overwhelming guilty verdict from the jury who in real life were given facts not shown in the show. Balance is fine, I myself try and review with balance, but nobody should be producing TV shows when missing out key instances to suit "artistic licence" for viewing figures.
Tech wise it's fine, nothing wrong with the main cast performances. Michael Sheen once again morphs splendidly into a well known character (Tarrant), Matthew Macfadyen and Sian Clifford as the Ingram's give emotional depth to hook views into the web, Mark Bonnar good value as the show's overlord Paul Smith, and Helen McCrory as the Ingram's lawyer is clearly the best thing in it.
Then there is Stephen Frears in the directing chair, where unsurprisingly he has a handle on tense scene staging and getting his actors to provide depth as written. Yet it's still hard to believe that a talent such as he would be privy to a lopsided factual story telling, because well you have to have the element of doubt, right? Right?
The Ingram's were not murderers, armed robbers or the lowest of the criminal low, so they didn't deserve the treatment meted out to them by some scumbag members of the public post the news of the fraud breaking. But, and it's important, we need our TV/Film producers offering up full disclosure when dealing with real life crimes and the legal shenanigans that follow. 1/10