thought this was a poor remake of the original so far, very plodding.
In the original, Sarah was Peter's secretary who he had an affair with, and they used Pru's flat (I think) to do it in. Thats how Gav found out Peter was playing away.
Well the acting can only be taking as far as the bad script and bad directing ! im just reiterating most of the views on here !Take Michael Caine! has been in loads of films but despite the fine actor he is he admits hes been in some turkeys and films with bad scripts! ANY actor worth his/her salt admits that the script is very important ! the Sarah charactor may be a fine actor in other roles but in this one (in MY opinion ! ) she doesnt hack it ! and many on here have ridiculed other actors performances in this drama ! so are they all arrogant aswell ??? to me its a pale shadow of the brilliant origional .and would be better if it had more content and was longer in duration as it seems rushed....and as someone has correctly pointed out on here !...if they wanted to change the script so much call it a differant name ! ..and finally !.as a few others have said we are all intitled to our opinion ! so respect that !! ......
Yes, appears, but we can't be sure. There is a real mystery air about this adaptation, what with Gavin's tattoo and him seeming to know of Peter's mother. It seems almost as if he had intentionally targeted Peter and his family.
I'm glad this series hasn't been spoilerified to death: a quick Google search didn't reveal any plot details, and I hope no-one posts them here - I can't resist spoilers, and I always read them.
The part was NOT badly acted! You must be rather arrogant to think you know all about acting when it's clear you don't. And directing? Can you direct??
Sarah's part is not as fully fleshed out as it should be but that is not the actress' fault. These days the accountants, exec producers and other bods decide on the amount of time they will pay for filming and they make executive decisions about how the script should run... much to the writers' despair!
and btw - i comes before e...as in unbeLIEVable!!!!
Cassie said she got pregnant deliberately, with the implication that it was like mother, like daughter. Part of the dyfunctionality of every character.
I think the dialogue style grates a bit in this modern-day version. It just doesn't ring true. It feels like the characters are still talking in phrases from the 70s (when was the last time anyone said "up the spout" or talked about "chandelier-rattlingly fantastic sex"?)
Ok, I was driven to my bookshelf for my copy of Bucket of Barbed Wire (it was called that back then too ) Lovely pic of Frank and Susan on the front btw..
Now, I'm thinking that the reason they have change the characters of Gavin and Prue is because of the violence. In the original Prue goaded Gavin into violence during sex which then spilled over in to everyday life. She instigated it, she wanted it, she liked it.
And in a later episode Cassie confesses that she had an affair with a violent man and liked it!
This would make her a willing participant and not a victim in domestic violence. Now, can you imagine the row if ITV were seen to be saying 'Oh it's ok, she wanted to be beaten up...'
So therefore they have to make Prue a wimpy victim and Gavin an out and out horror rather than two people in a manipulative complex marriage.
And why Sarah has to be an architect and not Peter's secretary as in the original I do not know.
Anyway Imogen Poutt is surely the most annoying character and personally
I can't wait for her early demise!
Sorry to witter on. Btw I am also regretting not buying 2 dvd sedts and flogging on on Ebay!
