General and Episode 1:

[spooks] Code 9 then.  There's been quite a bit of bad press about this new programme from BBC Three - but for the life of me I can't fathom out why!!  I've watched one episode so far (the first one) and to be fair, I can't see anything in it that qualifies the statements of some of the reviews I've read! (Yup - I read reviews before watching!!).

I didn't think the acting was wooden (I have seen much worse, thank you very much) and the dialogue was fine.  I suspect (very strongly) that some reviewers have missed the point a tad......OK well......they've missed it a lot!!  I read a review stating that there was a lot of bad language in the show - I didn't think there was - and the language that was in there was in context!  Who doesn't say a swear word when surprised or shocked?! (Um...I do!!!)  Totally in context and didn't spoil it at all.  C'mon - it's 2013, ferchrissake!  If you only look back a few years ago, the "f" word was taboo on telly - now it's rife after the watershed and this is BBC Three, not mainstream terrestrial channels (apologies to BBC Three there!)

As I said - it's 2013, things have moved on, bombs have gone off.  As they do actually say in the programme - 25% of the MI5 "spooks" are dead and half of the others have moved on to private sector, so you would expect to have young new recruits.  It happens in wartime, after all.

Episode 2:

So - Episode 2 then. I thought that this was a bit of a wobbly start - it didn't seem to me that the actors were quite up to speed in the first five minutes, but after the title sequence - which I quite liked - all of my doubts were put to rest.

The story line was  OK - as most of the other reviews have said (ad nauseum) it's an old plot to use - but then aren't they all?  It's the way you do them (said Frank Carson style) rather than the fact that it's a story done before.  As Tom Baker once said - there are only five stories in the World - and they get re-done over and over again (or something like that) and I must say that although I know what was coming, it still retained my attention all the way through.

I liked Charlie's hesitance when he has to make big decisions - wouldn't you, if you'd been put in charge?  It was well acted by Liam Boyle.  Speaking of acting, there was nothing in this episode either, I didn't think, to suggest bad acting.  I've seen bad acting plenty of times - and there wasn't any in this episode (as suggested ad nauseum again by the reviews).  Brilliant acting by the guest actor Oona Chaplin (incidentally, she is the granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin) at the end of the episode though.

Episode 3:

OK, so I'm freely willing to admit that it may just be me then.  I still fail to see why this is still getting bad reviews in some quarters - I like it!  Given that this is now half way through, it has got better and better over the last three episodes.  Nice to see Kylie (Georgia, of course) having a bit more to do - quite fitting considering the fine actress she is.  No wobbly starts this week, although I do have to mention that one of the guest actors was a little bit dodgy - and he played the villain of the piece - Zero!  Mind you, it could be because I'm old and decrepit and didn't really "get it" so to speak.

Plot was fine though, acting (apart from my man Zero) was fine and this week was packed full of action etc.  I did like the intercutting between the Police Officer getting shot and our heroes in the nightclub.  I thought that was a bit of effective editing. There were a few things that could have been made a little more obvious to the not-so-discerning-public (i.e. me!) for instance why were the people packing the duff drugs all naked?  Perhaps it's a drugs thing and I wouldn't therefore be aware of it. Quite amused at the Cheif Constable though - although quite feasible that an officer in his position wouldn't care a stuff about "collateral damage", it was just the way he put it over with true vehemence. Lovely.

Episode 4:

Episode 4 then.  Now, I thought that this was a very good episode.  It kept my attention all the way through (without wandering off!) - the basic story premis was good and it was well executed (this was the main plot with the informants (or assets) being bumped off).  We had the nightclub scene again (in every episode so far - how their livers must be suffering!) but it was germaine to the plot, so all's well there.  This episode wasn't so Kylie heavy, so we didn't see Georgia do all that much this week , however the action scenes she did at the end were good - as would expect of our No.1 actress!

No beefs over acting this week...well....maybe just the one comment.   Not exactly a complaint though, just a bit of a rhetoric on Charlie, played by Liam Boyle.  I don't know whether this is just me, but does the character of Charlie seem a bit two-dimensional, a bit stiff?  I suspect that this in not the lack of ability on Liam Boyle's part - I've seen him in a couple of things, including the brilliant Drop Dead Gorgeous - so I know he can act.  Perhaps this was a direction from "above" or maybe even his (or someone else's) interpretation of the character.  Hmm.  Would be nice to see a tad more animation in Charlie...but not necessary.  Who knows - maybe the character will "loosen up" as the series progresses (and the obvious romantic tension between Charlie and Rachel increases).

Episode 5: 

Episode 5.  And what a corker this week!  The subplots are hotting up nicely as we discover that there's a second bomb and it's implied that it could go off at the one year anniversary of the original bomb!  Woooo.

Lots of action this week with a good main story.  OK, it's a main story that's probably been done a lot of times before - but as I've said before, it's done in a slightly different way - and this week it had me glued to the seat for the whole 48 minutes and 3 seconds!  Lovely bit of acting from Lucinda Dryzek as the Stockholm Syndrome girl manipulated by her so-called boyfriend to hold her mother to ransom.  But this week, I think the acting crown has to go to Andrew Knott (Rob) who held the main part of the plot.  His sub plot continues - although not a great deal this week as he's mainly holed up in a bank with a load of semtex!  A very very close second, however, is our very own Georgia with some good action scenes this week.  The scene where she has to retrieve the bugging devices was excellent and (although it was written) very well acted by Georgia!  I did laugh out loud at the bumbling girl falling in the door.  Excellent!

The character of Charlie this week seems to have gone a little less cardboard-like (must have read what I said last week!) and Liam Boyle did a good turn as the IT Geek geek "breaking in" to Winsmere Camp to question the scientist prisoner Abid Malik (Philip Arditti) and discovering the second bomb plot.  Incidentally it's implied that MI5 had a hand in that too.  Can't wait to see how that pans out next week.

Episode 6: 

So the last episode - Episode 6.  Spoilers ahead!!

And mightily good this episode was too, despite all the shenagigans in the reviews (see my closing rant...er...speech).  Only the one guest actor this week - and we saw him last week - Philip Arditti as Abid Malik, the scientist who made the bombs.  Turns out in the end that he was being used (by MI5) to make them under the false pretences of being undercover and manipulated by the MI5 double-agent......who turned out to be Yates.  Ok, so we might have seen the plot and the culprit coming a mile off (actually it took me about 15 mins!) and it's an old, old story, but again, I thought it was well executed and well acted.  Certainly no qualms about anyone's acting this week - even the character of Charlie (Liam Boyle) - whom I have mentioned in past reviews was a bit "cardboard-y", was a bit more "normal" than of late, the look of sheer bewilderment on his face when Rachel was telling him that they "had to have a talk when he got back" was absolutely priceless.

A little bit Kylie-light this episode, as the plotline dictated really.  Another golden moment from her though, when the trap to snare the camp Doctor was laid....and it turned out that the camp Doctor was......well......camp!  Gorgeous bit of acting there from Georgia and very well executed, as we expect from our favourite actress! 

Speaking of family-friendly, not a great deal of swearing this week - although there was some...but in context again. (No nighclubs for the second week running either...I'm beginning to miss the nightclubs!    ).

Webmaster Rants Comments on [spooks] Code 9 Series 1.

Be aware that this commentry contains "opinions" - those opinions belong to the webmaster and no-one else!

Now I know full well, that not many people are actually going to read this.  In fact those that do are going to be me and probably a couple of members of my staff at work (that I'll force to read it!)  So I'm not particularily worried about being kind here!  If you are "someone else" that reads it - and you're a Georgia Moffett fan - then I hope that you'll agree with some, if not all of the things I've said here.

In the course of writing and maintaning this website (which I am very pleased to do!) I do quite a lot of research - research that involves reading an awful lot of reviews and articles.  This is, on the whole, quite a pleasurable job, as - as we all know - Georgia Moffett is a very good actress and has proved this many times over.

That's why I don't really understand why this series has had such bad reviews.  It was only six episodes long and I really can't for the life of me see all that much wrong with it!  I've mentioned about fast cutting camera work (which I really don't like - but that's because I'm old and can't move that fast anymore!   ) and I've mentioned a couple of the guest actors on these episodes maybe not coming up to scratch (but they weren't that bad!)....but that was about it really!  I've read some really horrid reviews about it from some quite influential people on popular websites and they're all quite scathing on virtually every single aspect of the series.  However....they are virtually all the same reviews citing the same "problems" with the series.  Does no-one have any independant views any more...or was it really that bad..or is everyone just slating it because someone else (someone influential) has?  I wonder.

As I mentioned before I haven't watched Spooks.  Not because I don't like it, but because I've never had time to watch it.  And I do watch TV!  Somtimes I watch an awful lot of TV...and sometimes it's genuinely awful!  I'm a huge Doctor Who fan...and I would challenge anyone to say that the current series with David Tennant as the Doctor, is bad.  It isn't.  It's very, very good!!  So good, in fact that the very last episode of series 4 (The Doctor and Davros etc) pulled in 10.5 million viewers.  That's over half of the British population watched it on TV when it was broadcast......and loved it.  David Tennant and The Doctor Who team have won (and quite rightly so) many awards for it.  And long should they carry on too!

And there's my point really.  Who was watching and loving Doctor Who in the 1980's??  Not many people, I'll be bound.  A few million (if that) and that was when the programme was aired on a prime channel when there were only four to choose from (not the four milion channels that inflict on your conciousness nowadays!).  So it wasn't very popular and reviews used to make the same remarks about Sylvester McCoy and Sophie Aldred.  It wasn't well directed, produced, acted yada yada yada.  And look at it now!  Ok, so it had a good run before being cancelled, but there you go.

Have any of these numpties that write those reviews, ever watched "original programmes" on satellite TV.  I suspect not.  Or daytime TV even (the scourge of being off sick from work!).  Or even some of those highly funded US programmes that ultimately come to nought in the end (and some carry on for series after series!).  No, I think not.  Production values don't even come in to it Guv.  No, I'm not going to mention any.  (Especially "First Wave"    ).

So many people compare it to Spooks I wonder whether the producers should have come up with a different name for the show!  They did, originally, apparently, but was dropped at the last minute.  Perhaps they should have done and then the reviews might have been a whole lot better.  There was a good deal of hype before the series too - not, I think, too much hype, but there was a good deal.  I think that was quite right as there's a lot more to this show than just six episodes.  There's the marvellous FaceSpook, where you can play an online game as yourself in an MI5 environment and the Liberty News site - quite cool as it was updated dynamically as the episode aired.  Very novel and original approach, I can't think of any other show that's done that.  The website is awesome and in places funny too.  You don't get that for Coronation Street!

So no.  I don't accept the criticisms.  However I do admit that there is room for improvement - there would be, there's always room for improvement in a fledgling show (Dad's Army didn't take off until it's fourth year, by the way)..  So - instead of recommending that the whole concept should be scrapped and written off as a load of bad acting and bad plots etc, provide some positive feedback - suggestions to improve the show, then maybe we'll get another Doctor Who or Dad's Army!!

I for one then would look forward to a series 2.  I thought there was a lot of potential there to tie up some loose ends and carry on.  I sincerely hope that the producer (Chris Fry) and the writers try to ignore the bad comments, take on board the good ones and hope that the BBC commissions a second series.  I for one am quite happy for The Corporation to spend my Licence Fee on it...as I think there is definite potential there.  Roll on Series 2!!