Ashes To Ashes Revisited

[poliphilo]

I loved Life on Mars, but abandoned Ashes to Ashes after the first season. It wasn't that it was particularly bad, just that it wasn't as good as the original- and added nothing to it.  Last night I watched the penultimate episode of the third and final season- largely because Radio Times gave it such a glowing write up. All I can say is that if this was "the best ever" I haven't been missing much.

I'll probably watch next week if only because we're promised the truth about Sam Tyler. Ah, Sam Tyler. They really shouldn't have brought that up- because it only serves to remind us why the sequel is inferior. 

Philip Glenister as Gene Hunt gets all the attention, but he was half of a double act- and it was John Simm- a better actor in a less showy role- who anchored the earlier show in emotional truth. If we cared about Hunt it was because Tyler cared about Hunt.  Released into the wild without his minder, Hunt is much diminished- coarser- cartoony- a Falstaff without his Hal -  and everything that happens around him is coarser too.

Comments

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

"Falstaff without his Hal." Exactly so.

I guess that makes Ashes to Ashes the The Merry Wives of Windsor to Life on Mars's 1 Henry IV?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly.

[ingenious76.livejournal.com]

I have no idea how they're going to end it. There are so many plot lines running through it its confused itself.

LoM was a classic. A2A is just an unecessary knock-off.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I can see why they wanted to do something more with the characters, but they should have resisted the temptation. LoM is complete in itself.