fourwinds4 I have to agree with many of the reviewers on IMDb here : the writing lets this production down. The storyline is just not credible and after watching the first episode and the synopsis for the second and third episodes, I am not watching further.If you look down the list of reviews, almost every single one has a "spoiler alert" - that should tell you something; namely that the plot line is so ridiculous everyone feels the need to mention it in their review. I don't usually reveal plot either, but there's no choice here.I see someone said that the full version was much better. Well it would have to be. But even a more full version cannot excuse the ridiculous plot line which as many have said here, is totally unbelievable.I was raised in the Uk but have lived in the US for 26 years. I find it completely implausible that Burton would have been able to get Foyle off such a high profile "heinous" crime with a technicality as ridiculous as credit card charges for pornography. Totally not believable.Then, the wife would have known about the case. Any Mother would have mentioned to her husband that there was a man waving at their son from the street below. And then, any woman who was in a cottage in the country who looks out the window whilst in her bath to see a strange man looking in at her would describe him (he was clearly visible) to her husband and the police and they would all deduce it was Foyle. Add to that the fact that Foyle has now complained to the Legal authorities about Burton's "Misconduct' after he actually got him off the charge.... um.. I don't think that a top Legal Barrister is stupid. So then the wife goes back at night to the cottage in the country ALONE with the son instead of waiting for her husband? And he lets her? Just a few days/weeks later? Nonsense!!!!!Then apparently, in episode 2 which I will not be watching, even though Burton sees Foyle standing outside after he finds his blood covered wife and says so, the other Barrister gets Foyle bail? Someone who has now been accused TWICE of brutal murder and torture? When the person testifying he saw him standing outside is a top legal Barrister? I'm sorry but what country is this? Simply would not happen.I watched this because I really appreciate David Tennant and from the synopsis I thought I was going to be watching a really good legal drama. How wrong I was. David's acting is as always excellent and wow! Toby Kebbell is one outstanding young actor. Without ever touching his victims on screen or any kind of weapon in his hands, he just portrayed the ultimate psycho creep to a T.So for me, it was disappointing and rather disturbing to have something portrayed in this way. I gave it 5 stars for the acting and overall production but the storyline, dreadful. To the reviewer who had not seen Tennant in anything else but Dr. Who and thus realized "oh he can really act". watch him in "Broadchurch" which unlike this, is a brilliant murder series set in the UK (Dorset) starring Tennant and - like this - a fabulous supporting cast.

SuzyCayenne I watched this show last night, and woke up feeling so annoyed about the utter contempt for the intelligence of viewers that I'm moved to write this review. As other reviews have noted, the acting and tension elements are good, which makes it all the more noticeable that the writing is so woefully deficient.Some genres don't depend on credible authenticity, but the legal thriller is not one of them. The Escape Artist asks the viewer to believe constantly in the implausible and impossible; it lacks even the semblance of internal consistency. I'm not talking about simply technical errors, but about constant gaffes on critical plot elements:1. That a murder charge in a case rife with "serial killer" implications would be completely set aside by procedural error, rather than result in a mistrial and new proceedings.2. That a high profile case would be assigned for prosecution to the same chambers where the victim's husband works?? Yes, barristers pride themselves on impartiality, but seriously, why would anyone take the chance of obvious conflict of interest (and the potential blowback on careers; there may be a press embargo during the case but I can't imagine this would be ignored by them forever). I'm a former defense attorney in the U.S., and granted we have a different system, but surely the Crown Prosecution Service pays more attention to such things than this would indicate?Even if we accept this highly unlikely allocation of the prosecution, we are then asked to believe that the firm is assigning their most incompetent junior to the case because "the others are too busy." Oh, right. Rather than reassign one of their other cases, they're going to go with this guy on the absolutely most serious and sensational crime they're ever likely to handle.3. That the young son, known to be present during the murder, would not be handled by someone experienced in child psychology, therapy etc, rather than just have his father barking at him, "Sure you didn't see anything?" Again, any legal system has errors and sloppiness, but we're asked to believe time and time again that it's happening in the most high profile kind of case? There are also less plot-driven errors: why is Tara out to get Will? If it's professional jealousy, the background has not been established. (Go watch Silk for a primer in how to do this the right way.) Is she worried about the firm's reputation? Why not tell them to be more careful?And Maggie knows she's had a home invasion, apparently on two occasions, but sees no need to involve the police? She's representing a guy with SOCIOPATH SERIAL KILLER written all over him in mile high letters, she knows he may well have killed the wife of his last attorney, and now it looks like he's broken into her house and she's basically so okay with this, she only makes a brief phone call to a colleague? Really? Even insignificant things were botched. What happens to the family dog? he's present at the cottage when Kate is killed, but unhurt (killer apparently unhampered by presence of dog, neighbors not alerted by any barking, etc.) and then he completely disappears. Let's see, the father thought it was a good idea to get rid of the last remaining continuity and comfort for the kid? Feeble, just feeble.I expect far better than this from Masterpiece. Don't waste such a good cast on such a train wreck of a script next time.

blanche-2 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.

esauboeck-1 SPOILER ALERT: this may give away some elements of the plot.Tremendously good acting wasted on a preposterous plot and limited character development. There is only vague explanation for any of the actions taken by the villain, and legally it seems highly unlikely that any of the outcomes would have been possible. I guess no one can do decent character development anymore. David Tennant was good, as was Sophie Okonedo, but the only thing that was believable was the pain felt by the victims of the gruesome crimes committed. I really expect better from these British series. I can understand that the writers felt they had a good premise--a top-notch barrister gets his obviously guilty and extremely creepy client off on a technicality, because that's his job, only to find himself then victimized by the same person. Alas, their development of that idea was vague and unconvincing.