IMDb RATING
6.8/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
When her husband, Lee, is murdered, Sarah Manning comes to realize that she knows nothing about his past. Sarah begins to question who Lee actually was and what he did in his work for a powe... Read allWhen her husband, Lee, is murdered, Sarah Manning comes to realize that she knows nothing about his past. Sarah begins to question who Lee actually was and what he did in his work for a powerful global organization.When her husband, Lee, is murdered, Sarah Manning comes to realize that she knows nothing about his past. Sarah begins to question who Lee actually was and what he did in his work for a powerful global organization.
- Awards
- 3 nominations total
Browse episodes
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaSarah Manning is also the name of the principal clone in Orphan Black.
Featured review
This is one of those programmes that seems to have been written for people who think of it as a high-gloss, clever drama. But, sadly, it isn't.
What a shame. The usual predictable plot: a bad thing happens to the new husband of a nice woman, and she is left finding out more and more about the truth re his life. All the while she is struggling to be a good mum to her 2 children. The peace of her life is ruined. We have seen this type of story a thousand times before . . . !
Layer upon layer of her husband's true circumstances are revealed . . . So it should have been interesting as a drama. But instead there are too many incredible plot points.
The main character has an old job that her previous employers beseech her to return to. This is ludicrous, as no boss has ever done so in quite such a self-humiliating way. She is clearly meant to have a high-level demanding job, but somehow we don't see her as the executive type. It all seems made-up. The character is unlikely; rather like Nancy Drew, thinking she can solve the crime when the cops can't. Teenagers believe in Nancy Drew - but then they're teenagers, so that's to be expected! So maybe younger people who watch this series will believe this near-on tosh. As for adult viewers, I'd have expected grown-ups to be told a tale about a more believable character. So why do the producers think their adult audience will believe in our protagonist, when she is created so cartoonishly?!
Overall, it looks as if the producers decided that if they pop a female character in shiny, sexy, mega-heeled red shoes - and add a trouser suit - then she will come across as a clever executive . . . But this is not the case! If instead they had created her character as a woman working in an average job, I'd have had more respect for the drama. Then the story would have felt more realistic, rather than just an excuse for a dress-up.
The woman seems to have gone through a marriage ceremony without having found out anything about her intended. She hadn't even asked him where his relatives are, and which of them will be turning up for the wedding day. As she'd only recently lost her husband to a fatal accident, this quick marriage is also unbelievable. To have 'snaffled' husband #2 so quickly, with two young children in play . . . ! She also has seen no photos of his past. That a woman could do that, with vulnerable kids to protect? And - as we are told that she is a lawyer - would a woman of her executive status, achievement and intelligence really make such a risky move?! Daft indeed!! In fact, IMO this is just one example of the series being purposely designed to make some viewers feel superior - superior to a character who could make such foolish decisions. Again, tailoring the drama series to a particular type of audience. This restricts its target viewership.
Other hackneyed plot features also get dragged into usage - like the sister who is her only support, but rather conveniently (for our heroine to look the better of the two) is less successful in a steady career, plus is divorced with a conman for an ex-husband. A nice line in sisterly competition then reared its predestined head. Very soap'ish.
Plus the old tropes: Was her obsequious old boss the evil killer? Is the head of the police department part of the deception? Why had her hubby the business sales director secretly carried a gun? Was her sister also secretly involved in some way? And had her previous husband also been murdered as part of the same cover-up?
Not to mention overdoing the dramatic ploys. Just when we think we have seen every type of conspiracy possible, there is another introduced. The Americans (CIA), the Canadians, the garda, local Irish politicians, ex-policemen, big pharmaceutical company businessmen . . . Is NO ONE free of suspicion, the world over?! Do me a favour! TV banality, indeed. At times verging upon predictable trash.
Plus the pace of the story in this TV programme is - as is the case with many badly constructed TV dramas - too slow. Dear, oh dear . . . By the second episode I was already frustrated by the overall dallying of the plot. That's not good, considering there were still 4 episodes to sit through.
I all too often find the output of recent TV miniseries dramas dull and predictable - as if made on a shoestring budget and as if expected to be put straight to video. The style of these programmes is frequently clichéd and lazily formed; almost made to a bad TV movie standard.
So I began to wonder, when watching this particular series, if maybe I'd had little expectation of quality. Meaning I had set the bar too low, and so I saw what I feared I might? Thus a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps? But no, I then realised, as I have seen the lead actress, Elaine Cassidy, play several well-created parts in excellent dramas, I WAS expecting an average - or even better than average - TV drama. Sadly, I saw instead a finished product that was just a plain old let-down.
It is not all bad - it doesn't have a bad storyline, for example - but I don't like all the unbelievable parts. They seem unnecessary, a case of repeated deus ex machina. These plot strategies make the story both stupidly simplified and at the same time annoyingly elongated. Surely audiences don't need pandering to the lowest denominator, that much?!
It wasn't the worst ever TV miniseries I have seen, but it wasn't good enough to have spent 5 hours of my life watching. And it took me over 3 months to plough through all 6 episodes of the drama: I found it so unlikeable, I kept putting it off.
So this WAS one of those predictably mediocre outpourings. And a disappointment.
What a shame. The usual predictable plot: a bad thing happens to the new husband of a nice woman, and she is left finding out more and more about the truth re his life. All the while she is struggling to be a good mum to her 2 children. The peace of her life is ruined. We have seen this type of story a thousand times before . . . !
Layer upon layer of her husband's true circumstances are revealed . . . So it should have been interesting as a drama. But instead there are too many incredible plot points.
The main character has an old job that her previous employers beseech her to return to. This is ludicrous, as no boss has ever done so in quite such a self-humiliating way. She is clearly meant to have a high-level demanding job, but somehow we don't see her as the executive type. It all seems made-up. The character is unlikely; rather like Nancy Drew, thinking she can solve the crime when the cops can't. Teenagers believe in Nancy Drew - but then they're teenagers, so that's to be expected! So maybe younger people who watch this series will believe this near-on tosh. As for adult viewers, I'd have expected grown-ups to be told a tale about a more believable character. So why do the producers think their adult audience will believe in our protagonist, when she is created so cartoonishly?!
Overall, it looks as if the producers decided that if they pop a female character in shiny, sexy, mega-heeled red shoes - and add a trouser suit - then she will come across as a clever executive . . . But this is not the case! If instead they had created her character as a woman working in an average job, I'd have had more respect for the drama. Then the story would have felt more realistic, rather than just an excuse for a dress-up.
The woman seems to have gone through a marriage ceremony without having found out anything about her intended. She hadn't even asked him where his relatives are, and which of them will be turning up for the wedding day. As she'd only recently lost her husband to a fatal accident, this quick marriage is also unbelievable. To have 'snaffled' husband #2 so quickly, with two young children in play . . . ! She also has seen no photos of his past. That a woman could do that, with vulnerable kids to protect? And - as we are told that she is a lawyer - would a woman of her executive status, achievement and intelligence really make such a risky move?! Daft indeed!! In fact, IMO this is just one example of the series being purposely designed to make some viewers feel superior - superior to a character who could make such foolish decisions. Again, tailoring the drama series to a particular type of audience. This restricts its target viewership.
Other hackneyed plot features also get dragged into usage - like the sister who is her only support, but rather conveniently (for our heroine to look the better of the two) is less successful in a steady career, plus is divorced with a conman for an ex-husband. A nice line in sisterly competition then reared its predestined head. Very soap'ish.
Plus the old tropes: Was her obsequious old boss the evil killer? Is the head of the police department part of the deception? Why had her hubby the business sales director secretly carried a gun? Was her sister also secretly involved in some way? And had her previous husband also been murdered as part of the same cover-up?
Not to mention overdoing the dramatic ploys. Just when we think we have seen every type of conspiracy possible, there is another introduced. The Americans (CIA), the Canadians, the garda, local Irish politicians, ex-policemen, big pharmaceutical company businessmen . . . Is NO ONE free of suspicion, the world over?! Do me a favour! TV banality, indeed. At times verging upon predictable trash.
Plus the pace of the story in this TV programme is - as is the case with many badly constructed TV dramas - too slow. Dear, oh dear . . . By the second episode I was already frustrated by the overall dallying of the plot. That's not good, considering there were still 4 episodes to sit through.
I all too often find the output of recent TV miniseries dramas dull and predictable - as if made on a shoestring budget and as if expected to be put straight to video. The style of these programmes is frequently clichéd and lazily formed; almost made to a bad TV movie standard.
So I began to wonder, when watching this particular series, if maybe I'd had little expectation of quality. Meaning I had set the bar too low, and so I saw what I feared I might? Thus a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps? But no, I then realised, as I have seen the lead actress, Elaine Cassidy, play several well-created parts in excellent dramas, I WAS expecting an average - or even better than average - TV drama. Sadly, I saw instead a finished product that was just a plain old let-down.
It is not all bad - it doesn't have a bad storyline, for example - but I don't like all the unbelievable parts. They seem unnecessary, a case of repeated deus ex machina. These plot strategies make the story both stupidly simplified and at the same time annoyingly elongated. Surely audiences don't need pandering to the lowest denominator, that much?!
It wasn't the worst ever TV miniseries I have seen, but it wasn't good enough to have spent 5 hours of my life watching. And it took me over 3 months to plough through all 6 episodes of the drama: I found it so unlikeable, I kept putting it off.
So this WAS one of those predictably mediocre outpourings. And a disappointment.
- SceneByScene
- Nov 27, 2023
- Permalink
- How many seasons does Acceptable Risk have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime1 hour
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content