Shardlake

I'm going to keep it short and sweet. Watched the first episode and some of the ingredients were good and had potential like Sean Bean and Arthur Hughes characters. Also it takes place in such an interesting time in Englands history which is exciting because there are not too many shows set at the time of the Dissolution of the monasteries, it's a show with a serious tone, so it should definitely take the historic time it's based in seriously right?? Nope it fails miserably at that. Such a waste, I didn't even bother with the next episode. If you want to watch a better show that is similar I would watch The Pillars of the Earth.

Ohh well, I wonder what other amazing books Disney can ruin next.

There is more to putting a drama like this together than sinister music, sinister looks and a bit of running about.

The shame about SHARDLAKE is that the budget is there and the actor are there, the script however isn't.

The adaptation takes a strong book by C J SANSOM and makes it a meandering mess of a thing, a basic detective procedural laced with long exposition sections in the refectory, replete with lingering glances, meaningful stares and moody music.

The music is a sub Hans Zimmer smush of broody brace and tense strings that doesn't really drive the action, just paints it in different variants of beige.

It's a diverting watch but could have been so much better in the hands of writers and directors who trusted the material.

I'm only one episode in. So far, the characterisation is good. The production values impressive and the direction stellar. Alas, already the immersion into the 16th century setting is stifled by 21st century narratives.

I'm personally not a British person. Yet, I can't help but feel insulted on behalf of the real historical people of the time period in England.

When I watch a "historical drama", as a viewer with an interest in history, I want immersion. It's a sad indictment of modern society when historical TV productions feel obligated to be all inclusive in the name of progressive politics.

The story itself is very intriguing, but the show as a whole feels disingenuous and far removed from the time period. There are dual narratives at play. One is set in the 16th century and the other is set firmly in the 21st and it's difficult to separate one from the other.

If you don't require immersion you'll probably enjoy the series. However, I personally find it difficult to suspend belief enough to envision that so many people in 16th England were of Asian and sub-Saharan African descent.

This is just an honest opinion of someone who has no political agenda or biases whatsoever. I like historical dramas. Unfortunately, this historical/fantasy hybrid is not something I can invest in.

As a huge fan of the Shardlake books I was excited to see this production. It did not disappoint for acting and entertainment but I did feel it was abbreviated and could have been a couple of episodes longer. I also felt that the addition of a rather unlikely number of black characters did take away a very important element of how the black apothecary monk stood out as different; that said it didn't really effect the plot too much. The thing that did annoy me was the replacing of the character Mark Poer Shardlake's manservant, with Jack Barak, a character who makes his first appearance in the follow up novel "Dark Fire" I assume this is done to allow a continuing partnership in the next Shardlake series but this meant adjusting the ending of this series. So unnecessary! We are not children, we can cope with the introduction of new characters.

I thought it impossible for TV to capture the essence of C. J. Sansom's Shardlake book series. I am happily surprised by the spirit and quality of the TV series so far. The casting, especially Arthur Hughes and Anthony Boyle (the man is currently in 3 series I am watching!) is near perfect based on the books. Episode 4 is a bit muddled when it comes to tieing up all the loose ends (Norfolk and his man) but still consider the series off to a good start. And for those who have criticized the "the historical accuracy" of people of color in Tudor England, I refer you both to the novels and to the British Library. Africans had important roles in Tudor times, including in religious communities. It wasn't until later they were relegated to lower status due to the slave trade.