UKC

Rarely watch this sort of stuff and last episdoe tonight. Anyone got any theories?

An outside bet is a few folk involved, but centered on the artist that Tony slept with, who will turn out to be Ian Garrets daughter, who sexually abused her, and did it to frame Ian Garret. ian Garret sussed this, so orchestrated big cover up, including bribing the mayor. Vincent Bourg knows all and will spill the beans.

Any others?

In reply to mick taylor:

So you think the coin could be the link to the artist? I have been scratching my head about where the coin came from

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I rarely get so into TV as with this series, it's been excellent. Yeah, hadn't though of the artist's relevance until you point it out, but think you might be right she makes a re-appearance.

In reply to mick taylor:

I thought the coin was a sobriety coin for the hotelier? Mayor covering up for his hotelier brother? Or just way too obvious? I think the mayor is involved somehow.

In reply to mick taylor:

Think the British copper may be linked to it all. Was too convenient that he was in the town when it happened

In reply to JayPee630:

Also the Hotel owners might be involved? How I don't know...but they feature quite a lot, and the husband always appears to be doing something secretive...could be a red herring. And the liason officer....he has been involved from the beginning, has had access all the time to the investigation. Again, no idea how. But he could be an insider for the peado ring in the police force? far fetched...

guess all will be revealed tonight. Hope its not a cliff hanger for season two

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Pretty sure all is revealed tonight.

I missed the first episode, but i believe Olivers mum mistook the police liaison officers son for Oliver, plus another example of same mistaken identity later on. My kids theory involves mistaken identity of Oliver, with police liaison officer switching evidence (ie the journo didnt give him the sobriety coin at all )

TBH, I aint got a clue!

In reply to mick taylor:

Oh wow, it's so good! Not the story I was expecting, but elements of people guessing above were quite close to the mark. Such brilliant acting, especially from Nesbitt, his facial expressions of hate and rage are something else!

In reply to JayPee630:

Hhhmmm, I wasn't so pleased with the ending. The whole series we were being led down the peadophile ring route and it turns out he was simply run over by a drunk driver within a minute of going missing, then finished off by a Romanian gangster hours later. I really enjoyed the series, but the deathbed confession and loose end tie ups just felt a little bit short changed.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Yeah, I have to agree a bit. I wrote the above comment about half way through but after finishing it I liked the general twist, but thought the ending of Tony running about in Russia having lost his mind (?) was a bit rubbish. Think there were lots of loose ends, maybe to give them something for Season 2?

In reply to JayPee630:


I got the impression that season 2 was going to involve a different missing kid, although how you would work James Nesbitt in then I'm not sure since that would involve it going all Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3 on us which seems unlikely.

We still don't know the kid is dead although I thought the ending heavily implied that he was.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

It did, but also left some doubt. Even though I really enjoyed it, I think it might be a shame to do another season and string it out with ever decreasingly believable stories.

I did muse on whether the McCanns would have watched it, it made quite grim viewing for me at times, I can't comprehend how it must of been for them (or anyone in similar situation) to see it.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Quite agree. The Russian aspect left me quite bewildered. How did we get there? When? The confession/drunk driver bit was a bit 'meh' but that ending in Russia was just poor storytelling....felt a bit cheated. The trailer for the 2nd series does seem to imply a new child/new case. Will be odd without JN.

In reply to mick taylor:

I missed a whole episode and a few minutes of other episodes but watched the finale. No doubt I'll re-cap on catch up but since I know the outcome from last night can someone explain Garrett's role in all this? Was he just there to sidetrack the story? (I know Tony killed him and why).

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Yes, my take on it was Vincent got picked up as he was an obvious suspect but he had connections with ian, so ian paid for Vincents alibi as he was worried that he might blab. Hence it looked like they had something to do with it but actually it was a distraction from what actually happened.

In reply to JayPee630:
Cheers. So no massive storyline that passed me by. I know there is some internet and media chatter that the ending was a bit of a let down (not sure I'd have liked what perhaps should have been the more predictable outcome though).

Speaking of Vincent - Garrett was a truly despicable character and got what we all no doubt, think he deserved. Both Garrett's death and Vincent's suicide, I thought (and I could be massively over thinking this), were dealt with in a manner that implied almost borderline sympathy. Garrett clearly provoked Tony - was this Garret wanting to be put out of his misery?

Vincent was portrayed as a tormented and troubled soul and I realise it's only TV but I found myself almost feeling sorry for him. Can't remember if it was ever revealed if he had committed any assaults. This troubled me somewhat as he probably isn't a character that should have been warmed to.

Brilliant TV.

In reply to mick taylor:

Trying to avoid reading the comments above, I've missed the missing (!), and first 4 episodes are now off iplayer - is there another way to watch them?

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I watched it with a friend of mine who works in the field of psychology and her opinion was that almost without exception people that abuse kids have themselves been abused. So I guess feeling sympathy for Vincent isn't entirely misplaced?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


I thought the implication was he'd found his son, (drawing in the frost on the window of the flat, possibly look of recognition from the kid looking at the picture), but was labelled a nutter?

In reply to Ridge:
Yeah that was the bit that baffled me a little. Was the drawing in the snow on the windscreen on the rear window of the cop car? Or just another car near the playground? I thought maybe Tony had done it or something? I've just watched the trailer for season 2 and it says a new case so assuming it'll be different characters (at least in the main), so we might just be left speculating about Oliver!

In reply to Ridge:


I got a very different meaning from the ending and I thought it was also good ending and appropriate for a story like this.

He hadn't found his son at all, he had gone slowly mad which was the whole point. It is virtually impossible to get over something like this. The Russian police said that he had been doing this same thing for ages. Any son would do for him, he just couldn't accept that he was really gone. He wasn't labelled a nutter, he really was a nutter.

Alan