Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Fresh and Exciting

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The first batch of four seasons are not entirely clear on IMDb as for the release dates of them. Season 3 seems to be dangling somewhere in mid-space or should I say mid-airs. But nevertheless these four seasons are unified by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the main Crown Prosecutor concerned in the cases. These two characters leave at the end of the fourth season. Note finally that a season is ten episodes and they run one after the other not from one year to the next but just in sequential order over hardly two years of airing.It is a remake of the eponymous US series and the first episodes are the clear transfer from the US context (New York) to the UK context (London). But after a while of copycat translation the series gets on its own British feet. And it becomes interesting in itself and the covered cases. In the UK the Crown Prosecution Service has authority only in England and Wales. But the division between the police and the Crown Prosecutors is different from what its equivalent is in the US where the prosecutors are only prosecuting, hence taking into account what proves the guilt of the suspect. And that's the first difference.The Crown Prosecutors, just like the police, in Great Britain are looking for the "truth" which means the balanced approach of any eventual court procedure, both what proves the guilt and the innocence of the suspect. Several cases deal with this responsibility of crown prosecutors and one case goes as far as prosecuting the crown prosecutor because in one case one testimony proving the innocence of the accused had been sidetracked and hence kept away from the crown prosecutor who had the suspect, then accused, convicted in court by a jury and sentenced by a judge as guilty. This man, wrongly convicted and sentenced turns against the Crown Prosecution Service and the particular crown prosecutor who prosecuted his case after his release from prison.It is revealed that the piece of evidence was in fact pushed aside by an employee of the said crown prosecutor who had had an affair with her, and when he announced her he was ending the unethical relation she acted out of vengeance on her side. The crown prosecutor was acquitted by the jury of his case and the convicted innocent man had his case revised due to the new element that came out. In other words, neglecting a piece of evidence is a criminal offence in Great Britain for a crown prosecutor. Is it in the USA? It sounds more there as being the responsibility of the Defense to bring the evidence that proves the innocence of the suspect and accused forward in court. And in the USA there is a strong principle that someone cannot be tried twice for the same offence: look at Mumia Abu Jamal. The second great difference is the ethnic mix in the police (though not in the investigating team), in the Crown Prosecution Service, even in justice with quite a few black or ethnic judges, and in society with a great ethnic mix in London. Same thing with women who are integrated at all levels. The US series is far from this obvious and visible ethnic integration. And that is not a frivolous issue because on the US side the ethnic loss in public image is in no way frivolous but unluckily quite conscious and eventually, for some people at least, justified for any reason from bigotry to prudence.The final remark is that the cases are dealt with in a more humane way on the UK side. The social and even tritely social elements are brought up, analyzed and empathized by the various teams and court personnel. The few times when the jury is shown as a whole are clear about the great social, ethnic and gender mix in the twelve men and women there. And the main difference is the fact that a jury is not obliged to take decisions unanimously. A majority vote is possible. In other words, and as a conclusion this first batch of this series is moving slowly towards a real British approach of justice and social situations that produce the crimes, hence the criminals, and that implies the great caution at using psychiatric elements that could bring up the irresponsibility of the accused in their criminal acts. The common case between this series and the one in New York about a twelve-year-old that pleads guilty because the defense that tries to prove he is a killer because of a "killing" gene demonstrates to the child he is a "monster" that has to be eliminated. The British version definitely leaves the door open to some possible treatment, even in prison or a detention institution. That kind of hope is the main tone of the series and is definitely not dominant on the New York side. The British seem to consider crime as social dysfunction, at least in some meaningful proportion, whereas the US justice system insists a lot more on the individual and personal responsibility of the criminal, hence on the psychiatric or psychological responsibility which is a way to avoid asking the sorry question of the responsibility of society in crime. Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

Let me from the start declare the breadth of my ignorance of U.S. cop shows.I have never seen the original "Law and Order" nor any of the "CSI" or "NCIS" series nor any combination thereof. I came to "Law and Order - U.K."with no preconceived ideas,no knowledge of the format therefore nothing to compare it with. The first thing that struck me was the ludicrous juxtaposition of the separate functions of the police and the C.P.S. In England the police are not the lackeys of the Proecutors,they do the investigating,compile the evidence,submit it to the C.P.S. in a so - called "Soup Report".The function of the C.P.S. at this stage is to decide whether there is a realistic chance of getting a conviction i.e. a 75% or more likelihood of convincing a jury of the accused's guilt. If this criterion is met a prosecution may go ahead presuming it is in the Public Interest to do so. The C.P.S. do not investigate - they prosecute.They rarely consult officers of such low rank as D.S.Brooks.Rarely see victims or their relatives,grieving or otherwise.Never plot revenge if a villain gets a "Not Guilty". The real life consequences of such a verdict are diametrically opposite to the ones in "Law and Order - U.K." The Prosecutors are philosophical and blase - it is the police who get outraged.And who can blame them if all their hard work for months has counted for nothing;the painstaking gathering of evidence,the coaxing of witnesses,the arrogance of the "No Comment" interview,the distress of the victims,they see all of this made worthless by some obscure technical point of law or the machinations of a weasel lawyer and they are mightily annoyed. That D.S.Brooks should smile and shrug it off is quite unthinkable. I knew a D.S. of about his age who would throw his papers on the desk in disgust and stomp out of the court whenever he lost a case.That's how much it should mean.Brooks should offer more than a wink and a smile and a "That's life",he really should.He and his oppo seem do to a lot of walking too,don't the C.I.D. run to motors nowadays?I suppose it's an excuse to show the scuzzier side of Sarff London,but I bet he still claims his Car Allowance..... Despite all this,"Law and Order - U.K." is compulsive viewing.Two reasons.First the inspired casting of Mr Bradley Walsh and Mr Bill Paterson,the only believable characters in the show.They act their respective juniors off the screen with absolutely no effort.And secondly the care with which the minor parts are cast.Too often these are the province of "resting" soap veterans,but L & O has a habit of using new faces that is very refreshing. It's entertaining if you don't know how the system really works,annoying if you do,but Messrs Walsh and Paterson are worth an hour of anybody's time.

Before I start, it should be noted that Bradley Walsh and Jamie Bamber regularly provide good performances. In fact Bradley Walsh should be commended as he always provides something more than just the script in every scene he is in. The start of a second series has shown an improvement in the police procedural half of the show but rest of the show however is seriously let down by poor scripts and an Americanisation of the English legal system. Since when do barristers have time to go around conducting their own investigations? The whole show comes across as having English accents and London locations substituted into American scripts. No other effort seems to have been made to make the script either English or believable. And there lies the second biggest problem of the series: the unBritishness of the moral issues championed in the show as well as how they are both perceived and handled. When watching the original Law and Order shows that these scripts were taken from one can dismiss the situation and reactions of the actors as being American through ignorance and enjoy the "foreign" show. However, when the _exact_ same show is presented in a familiar setting one realises how ridiculous it really is.As someone who enjoys Law and Order, and who wishes British shows were more fast paced and American at times, I keep trying to give this show a chance. Unfortunately, a second series in and it is still unbelievable.

I have been a long time fan of Law and Order (USA) and also a fan of Law and Order CI - but not a fan, however, for the past few years of L and O's SVU which has gone completely haywire in my opinion - trying to outmatch CSI's graphic special effects and violence – and just not working. The regular L and O was getting a bit dull, but seems to have had a kind of rebirth with some new actors the past few seasons, but even so, it's pretty tired, I think. I found Law and Order UK a refreshing change -- equal to (maybe even better than?) and yet different enough from the regular L and O to make it really compelling. Law and order (USA) has always made the justice system its main target and the various story lines wind through their way through the US legal system showing its strengths and weaknesses. The legal system in Britain is very different from the US system, of course, which makes it even more interesting. Like New York, London makes a great backdrop for the series. All actors are strong except for Freema Agyman. I have never found her to be a particularly strong actress. I wish they had chosen someone with a sharper edge - someone "real" and less like an actress simply playing a bleeding-heart role. Agyman plays it way too soppy and wide-eyed -- which makes her very annoying. Bradley Walsh plays Ronnie Brooks perfectly, (right now Bradley IS the show) and who can complain when the amazing Harriet Walter (I wish she was in it more!) and Bill Paterson (ditto) show up on a great show like this? Ben Daniels is also very good as Senior Crown Attorney, James Steel. I loved the two episodes I've seen so far. Top notch!