It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

I was referred to this miniseries via IMDB links, I had not heard of the novel of the same name and did not delve into its synopsis (usually I try to avoid creations with strong court session elements and/or affair-based troubles). The beginning was promising, particularly sequent recognition of Emily Watson´s talent, but the the events and some twists began to take the turn usually created by sensitive female authors, and the follow-up of "bad stuff" in court did not impress me much either. Sometimes it seemed that even the small number of episodes (4) was excessive, and then a thought came to me that it was Mrs. Watson only whom I focused on... Other performances, incl. Ben Chaplin´s, were just pleasant, but nothing special.Often enough, but not this time, having in mind a British series - so 7 points from me, and I might recommend it to Mrs. Watson´s admirers only.

Before "Apple Tree Yard" premiered, media coverage and promotional materials seemed to be selling it as a drama looking at the (supposedly) under-explored theme of extramarital affairs resulting from the sexual frustrations of middle-aged, middle-class married life.This topic is, thankfully, only the focus of the first episode of this four-parter; while the theme remains as an undercurrent in subsequent episodes, the main plot thread descends into standard thriller territory. Emily Watson is brilliantly understated as Dr. Yvonne Carmichael, the ordinary woman living a comfortable existence who is unexpectedly seduced by the mysterious Mark Costley. It is harder to evaluate Ben Chaplin's performance as the latter due to the mysterious nature of the character, but that nature is skillfully conveyed; one can understand why Yvonne would be curious about someone so enigmatic. The other actors are convincing in their roles, but the parts they are given are somewhat underwritten (even the vital character of rapist George Selway is denied any motivation other than Yvonne). This flaw is, however, not a major one; the focus of the series is Yvonne, with every scene taking place from her perspective. Yvonne is a character made fascinating by her normality and the questions her actions raise.The show's makers seem to be asking the viewer "What would you do in this situation?" Some reviewers have dismissed the plot as laughable because it depends on Yvonne doing things that no so-called "rational" person would do. As observers, we are invited to ponder whether we could remain rational in times of extreme stress, fear and uncertainty. While most viewers would probably disagree with at least one of Yvonne's decisions, few of us could state with confidence that we would always act as we would wish to, regardless of circumstances.In many ways, Yvonne (and, by extension, Watson) is the series saving grace. By focusing on her thoughts, desires, actions and reactions, the viewer is distracted from how generic and predictable the plot is, particularly in the later episodes. From the moment Costley neither affirms nor denies Yvonne's assumption that he is a spy, we know that he will be revealed as a fantasist. As soon as Yvonne decides not to tell the police about her affair with Costley, we know that it will be used as a bombshell revelation in the courtroom. The makers want us to be surprised as the twists and turns the story takes, but there is nothing truly unexpected in the series (with the exception of the rape, which I will come to shortly). Case in point: the final revelation that Costley only killed Selway because he believed Yvonne had told him to. Ending twists (as M. Night Shyamalan would agree) should impact the viewer and make them reassess everything they have just witnessed. This one is more of an "oh" moment; in no way does it subvert viewer expectations and assumptions. Instead, it merely reinforces what we know about Costley: he sees himself as a hero and his manslaughter as a heroic deed.What is surprising (and revealing) about this series is how little it has to say about adultery. Considering how the BBC chose to promote it as a mature look at the topic, it would be reasonable for one to expect some sort of message. Strangely enough, despite the serious tone and lack of comedy the series presents, that message never comes. One might argue that adultery is implicitly condemned through the consequences of Yvonne's affair, but those consequences also hinge on her being raped and her lover having a personality disorder, while the affair between Yvonne's husband and one of his colleagues is merely a plot device to blind him to the true cause of Yvonne's distress. On the other hand, the series in no way encourages adultery or polygamy, nor does it criticise the institution of marriage. This on-the-fence approach reveals the makers' true intentions: any serious themes are mere window-dressing for a thriller whose purpose is ultimately to provide some escapism for viewers.If this series will be remembered for anything, it will not be the generic plot, nor will it be Emily Watson's admittedly brilliant but far from unusual performance. What sticks in the mind the most (and prompted the most discussion after the first episode aired) is the depiction of rape. For this scene director Jessica Hobbs is to be commended; she strikes the perfect balance, avoiding the traps most rape scenes fall into. It is shocking without being needlessly explicit, it in no way feels romantic or erotic and it is treated as an earth-shattering event rather than a mere plot device. It feels perverse to talk about great rape scenes, but the one featured in "Apple Tree Yard" certainly falls into that category.Overall, this series is not an instant classic, nor is it even as original as it would have you believe. However, it is still recommended for viewers looking for an thought-provoking but entertaining thriller.P.S. On a frustrating note, we never do find out why Costley was rejected by MI5.P.P.S LEGAL INACCURACY: It is suggested that at one point the police deliberately lied to Yvonne. In the UK, that is illegal. Furthermore, all interviews are recorded, so a policeman who did lie during an interview would be opening themselves up to facing disciplinary action.

It's difficult to comment and criticize specific issues without giving too much away-I shall edit and add additional material as the drama unfolds...I'm rather a fan of slow-burners-I certainly prefer them to the usual juvenile offerings of whizz-bangs, pointless shouty-shouty arguments and endless car chases which seem to permeate everything these days, but I think the BBC have taken things rather to the extreme this time. Sunday night dramas are not really my cup of tea, but after hearing an interview on the wireless with both Emily Watson (who sadly seems to have fallen off the radar in recent years-I loved her in Gosford Park), and Ben Chaplin (a woefully underused actor IMHO), I thought 'why not?'.. Our story opens with Dr Yvonne Carmichael viewed through the window of a prison service transport (a goof, actually, but an understandable one-all windows in these vans have one-way, not two-way glass), staring at the Thames, and reminiscing and ruminating over the course of her life, and the events of the last nine months. Then a segue to her earlier interrogation by a Select Commons Committee (and we discover she's done this before) tells us she is a highly educated professional, and considered an expert in her field, which makes the story that subsequently unfolds all the more difficult to swallow. Yes, I agree with the basic premise that life doesn't end at 50, nor do a woman's sexual urges automatically switch off, but it's difficult to match this sudden outpouring of reckless passion with Watson's otherwise virtually deadpan performance-another character comments later in the episode that she looked like the cat that got the cream (I'm paraphrasing), but I could see no change in her demeanour, indeed, when she suspects her husband (another fine workmanlike performance from Mark Bonnar-shame we never get to see him on the big screen) of past infidelity, and challenges him on the subject, she might just as well have been discussing the shopping list. The only time she evinced any emotion (other than with The Stranger), was in relating the proposition put to her by one of her graduate students, and that was quickly stifled... This contributes to a complete lack of empathy and engagement with her character. Although we know virtually nothing about The Stranger (Ben Chapman), his is by far the more sympathetic role, admitting to his foibles, effortlessly charming, and as excited to embark on a new adventure as a small child... I think the problem here is poor direction. I'm not familiar with Jessica Hobbs' work (see above), but she seems to be directing by the numbers here, and rather sketchily at that. We know that the two main characters are played by very able actors, and I've no doubt that the source material is top-notch, but in the modern tradition, this mini-series has been stretched to cover four hour-long episodes, by introducing too much 'filler', and lots of staring-into-the-middle-distance, which is supposed to convey deep, meaningful thinking (and fails), when it would have been far better to smarten up the pace, and reduce the running time.I'm no prude, by any means, but I fail to see why modern dramas rely so heavily on salaciously suggestive detail (without actually revealing anything), and deliberately shocking language, while ignoring plot and character development. In this case, granted, it's intrinsic to the setup to keep details of The Stranger to a minimum, especially as the drama is told from Carmichael's POV, and we do learn something of Yvonne's home life (she's soon to become a grandmother), but cannot see the benefit of delivering such lines as 'you're ****ing a spook'-this from a professional expert addressed earlier as 'professor'-it might also be pointed out here that Carmichael's explanation of the known functions of, breakdown and distribution of human genetic material would not have passed muster in a GCSE examination-I know she was interpreting to a non-expert, but as a leading academic in her field, this just didn't work.This first episode ended after a shockingly brutal attack (more evidence that this is definitely presented from the female perspective-by no means a bad thing), and, rather in the 'Saturday Morning Pictures' tradition, left us on a cliff-edge, ready for the next instalment. It is reasonably well-written, beautifully photographed (London never looked so grey, and yet so enticing at the same time), but it desperately needs to go up a gear, or risk losing its audience. Let's see what happens next week-watch this space...

Expecting a show with a plot driven by the intricacies of the novel, I encountered a sex-centered, infuriating typical sexual drama. The main character's motives are half-baked, and the plot is sickening to endure. Whatever "ingenious" production they were trying to create, whatever show they were "proud" of, has dissipated under the work of sloppy writing. Sexual themes are great, but this show has managed to make a bad first impression by butchering the sexual drama theme. And the rape scene, while accurate to the novel, felt all the more distasteful, especially when left as a cliffhanger, as if to motivate the audience to await in hope for the result of rape.