I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Pretty Good

As Good As It Gets

Absolutely the worst movie.

This is one of the finest televised dramas I have ever seen. I was watching it on the TV channel that brings us wonderful British shows, Part 1, knowing that Part 2 would be aired the next week. About and hour into the telecast, the TV went dark and I looked about and there were no lights anywhere. We were undergoing a power outage. Determined to see the entire production, I ordered the DVD which I then did as gifts for film aficionados. I had no prior introduction to the work of David Tennant but was so impressed. Learning of his amazing career is a pleasure. He admires Derek Jacobi, an actor long admired in the States beginning with "I, Claudius." I was privileged to have drinks with Sir Derek in Stratford in the autumn of 1982 following his stellar performance in "The Tempest." He continues turning out marvelous performances.

David Tennant is a talented barrister whose big win comes back to haunt him in "The Escape Artist," from 2013. Lots of negative comments here on IMDb.Will has to defend Liam Foyle in a horrific murder case. It seems fairly clear that he's guilty, but Will manages to get him acquitted. The next thing he knows, Foyle has filed a complaint against Will. And here's where the problems with the script begin. Motivations throughout are simply not clear, and I guess we're supposed to assume that because this guy is a sociopath, he does things for the hell of it.And for the hell of it, he's out to get his defense barrister. His next move is more heinous, and this time, Will sees him when he looks out the window. This time, though, another barrister takes his case, and Will feels what it's like on the other side.There were criticisms on this board about the way British court procedure was portrayed. Naturally we here in America don't know much about that. What we do know is how odd the U.S. courts can be, so nothing surprises us. I watch a lot of true crime and have seen innocent people sitting on death row for 16 years, an abusive husband given joint custody of his children with his wife (he winds up nearly killing her) - etc.British courts aside, this is an unbelievable story that is nevertheless engrossing and has a neat, if preposterous, twist at the end. I enjoyed the acting overall as well. The script could have used a little more work in finding stronger motivations. I would guess that the writer had an incredible idea for a denouement and filled in the rest, but not very carefully.

I would not say this mini-series is awful. However, this is one of those "missed opportunities" that makes us sad because it could have been more.There is no excuse for the lazy writing displayed in The Escape Artist. Others in this review thread have covered a lot of the problems with this screenplay but here are the ones that bugged me the most:+++++SERIOUS SPOILERS BELOW +++++First we have the script outline (the "high concept"):1.) Legal Beagle gets an obvious murderer off on a technicality. 2.) Murderer kills wife of legal beagle. 3.) Murderer is tried and gets away scott-free, again through a technicality. 4.) Murderer is himself murdered. 5.) Legal beagle is arrested and tried for that murder. 6.) Legal beagle also gets off on a technicality. 7.) A character finally lays out how the legal beagle MAY have committed his "perfect crime".This "high concept" has it's own problems but a skilled writer should be able to make these 7 points work right? Wrong.The set-up: The protagonist "legal beagle" (played by Tennant) gets an obvious murderer off on a technicality. I don't know enough about the English legal system to understand why this doesn't just result in a mistrial but I'm generous so I'll buy it.Now the problems with the screenplay come fast and furious. The motive for the next murder is laughable. Yet for the story to unfold, a motive is certainly needed. Unfortunately the writer (David Wolstencroft) doesn't have an idea about how to make it believable so he takes the lazy way out.Issue 1. Why does the psychopathic murderer kill the legal beagle's wife? This point is not part of the high concept so rather than come up with a plausible motive (and I can think of several that he could have used), Wolstencroft employs the ham-fisted "not shaking hands with the man who got him off" as the motive and leaves it at that. ("Hey, he's a psychopath so who knows what would motivate him?"). So the viewer is left to assume that he would commit this second murder for no real reason whatsoever. The psychopath also has to assume that his only way of getting away with this second murder is to HOPE that another grievous error will be made by the system.Sure enough, Wolstencroft provides us with this grievous error (a storage unit is searched for a key bit of evidence without a warrant) and this error gets the murderer off on a technicality once again.Point 2. Moving to the end, Wolstencroft's climactic expository scene where the competing defense attorney (Sophie Okonedo) confronts the legal beagle with her speculation of how he committed his perfect murder of the psychopath is completely implausible. Not what she lays out, but that she knows any of it in the first place.Let's be honest here; Okonedo's character would have ZERO way of knowing anything about the murder of the psychopath except - wait for it - for a chance encounter she had earlier in the story where she shows up at the tail end of a meeting between the legal beagle and a local underworld "operator". This underworld operator evidently can provide background medical information on the psychopath - information that the legal beagle ostensibly uses to kill him later in the story.Here's the problem... The legal beagle meets with this underworld operator at night on a deserted street nowhere close to where Okenedo's character would ever go at that time of night. Yet incredibly, just as this meeting finishes she just happens to walk up to the duo as they are finishing up their mysterious conversation. THE SAME FREAKIN' MOMENT!! For the viewer's benefit, she makes a point of mentioning that she recognizes this underworld dude so we have to assume that this bit of dialog is there for an important reason (otherwise, why shoe-horn this implausible situation into the story?)Wolstencroft needs to have someone (in this case, Okonedo's competing attorney character) speak key expository dialog later but realizes that this dialog can't be spoken without a catalyzing scene earlier in the story. Someone had to have asked Wolstencroft after they read the script, "wait a second, how does the competing attorney come to suspect the legal beagle in the first place in order for her to layout the exact method he used to kill his wife's murderer?" Wolstencroft's answer: "You're right, that makes no sense… wait, I've got it! What if she just happens to walk in on a key meeting between the legal beagle and his conspirator planning the murder? That would explain it right?"So of course, the climax of the story hinges on this chance meeting that would never have happened had the writer had any wits about him. This kind of maddening writing permeates this script. A script that could have been smart but ended up being the opposite.Final thought. The screenplay is about how the guilty can get away with murder through technicalities. So why not make the psychopath's motive for his murders that he knows enough about the legal system to escape prosecution by gaming it? But this is never explored. So the psychopath is just lucky that the system was incompetent twice in a row rather than pursuing the angle that a serial murderer could pervert the system if he was smart enough to do so. Wolstencroft completely misses this story element - to the viewer's frustration.I still recommend The Escape Artist for David Tennant fans as he is great as always.

Often, before or after watching a film I will go to IMDb to read through the reviews to see what others think about a particular film. In the case of "The Escape Artist", I was rather surprised at the intensity of many of the reviews. To say that they hated the film is probably an understatement! One called it the 'by far worst show' ever to be aired on "Masterpiece Theater" here in the United States. Another said it had a 'dreadful story line'. Many complained that the show wasn't very believable, though some admitted that the acting and mood were good.I cannot say how credible the story is here. The complaints mostly had to do with court procedures and last time I checked, I wasn't a British barrister (for us non-Brits, it's a lawyer who tries cases in court). I think the other reviewers were probably correct--but I simply don't know for sure. Heck, I am not even sure about court procedures in the US let alone the UK! So, while the story does seem far-fetched at times, I just cannot say whether such a case could or could not occur.David Tennant stars as Will Burton--a very successful defense barrister. The film begins with him defending Liam Foyle in a grisly murder case. It seems pretty obvious that Foyle is a sociopath who did brutally murder someone...but Burton is able to work the system and get him acquitted. Shortly after this, inexplicably, the now free Foyle files a protest against Burton for misconduct! This makes no sense and soon it's obvious that Foyle is out to get Burton. Yes, I know--why would he attack the man who just got him out of prison?! Well, Foyle's next move is to attack Burton's wife and he butchers her--just like the earlier victim. In this case, Burton himself sees Foyle out the window-- gloating over his handywork. Now Burton gets to feel what it's like to be on the other side of the law and see another clever lawyer work hard to keep Foyle from serving time for his infamous crimes.What follows are a lot of court proceedings and more instances where seemingly good evidence is tossed out because Foyle's new barrister is clever...just like Burton had been. Again, I have no idea if it was reasonable or not...I just don't know. However, I have seen many cases here in the US where justice truly was blind...and stupid. I used to work in the mental health system and was called to court frequently and saw insane behavior by judges (such as one where a judge made a long speech blaming society for a rapist who had molested a four year-old). So, unless you are a barrister or judge, it's really not possible to determine if any of this is plausible--and I'd LOVE to hear from one if you have seen the show and could explain to all of us if the plot was believable. What I do assume was quite ridiculous is the scene where Foyle is screaming and behaving like a wildman at his second barrister's office. He's walking about on their conference table and is unhinged. I don't think it's far-fetched to assume if this really happened that the lawyers would have him arrested and would petition to be removed from the case. Harsh verbal abuse and threats wouldn't be tolerated. A few other scenes also seemed tough to believe--such as the ridiculous and poorly written confrontation scene between Foyle and Burton in the third and final installment.So what I am left with is to discuss the other merits of "The Escape Artist" apart from the bizarre plot twists and court procedures. The acting was superb and it was nice to see Tennant could do something other than play Dr. Who. He was excellent in his role as Burton. As for the rest, they, too were quite good. Additionally, the combination of direction, music and cinematography worked very, very well to create a creepy and brooding mood. It certainly is never dull nor unprofessional looking--which makes me wonder about all the really, really, really negative reviews. They just seemed a bit harsh, though I could understand their concerns about the difficulty in believing the plot. As for me, I see it as a film you can enjoy provided you just turn off that part of your brain that wants to question the plot. Just suspend your sense of disbelief and enjoy.Finally, although this was originally shown on "Masterpiece Theater" here in the States, it is out on DVD and is available widely (as well as through Netflix). Not especially brilliant but never dull and worth your time if you love thrillers.