Wow... judging by a large share of unfavorable comments submitted here, "Bloodlands" isn't very popular among the viewers. Then again, most of the reviews were written after barely one (out of four) episode, and restrict to just one or two sentences stating the series is boring and awful. How reliable are those opinions? Personally, I found "Bloodlands" a compelling and well-scripted thriller mini-series, albeit with a number of shortcomings.
The series is heavy on politics, but what else do you expect from a murder-and-kidnapping story set in Northern Ireland, and jumping back and forth between April 1998 (the period leading up to the Good Friday peace agreement) and present day, where the truce between Catholics and Protestants is still very vulnerable. The kidnapping of former IRA-militant (and thoroughly unpleasant) Pat Keenan also reopens the unresolved case of the so-called Goliath murders. Those murders were committed between February and April 1998, presumably by a member of the police force, but had to be covered up in favor of the approaching peace agreement. DCI Tom Brannick lost his wife to the Goliath killer, and is now confronted again with the cold case.
There's not a whole lot of action in "Bloodlands", but the script is intelligent and full of unforeseeable twists. Especially halfway and during the finale, there are some perplexing twists. James Nesbitt in the lead role is somewhat a mixed bag. I like him as an actor, especially since his powerful role in "The Missing", and he fits the character, but his performance is wickedly uneven. All of his facial expressions, whether its rage or frustration or sadness, make it look as if he's struggling with stomach aches. Strong supportive cast, though, including Lorcan Cranitch, Charlene McKenna and Peter Ballance. And, what I definitely enjoyed most about "Bloodlands" was the Irishness; - duh! The history lessons, the trivia, the accents, and even one sequence in genuine Irish language.
