Khun Kru Mark Alternating timelines - the 'go to' plot device that the people who make TV love - and people who watch TV hate! But in this case, it works well and actually makes sense. Also - it's not too confusing for the viewer!Some well-known faces from every other TV drama are wheeled out in this above average drama. Some will find their faces reassuring - others (like me) will find them annoying... especially Juliet Stevenson who is just too overexposed to the point where I can no longer see past the face of an actress into the soul of a character.But that aside, this is still a pretty captivating addition to the library of British commercial television drama... even though the ending is pretty silly and very implausible.The story is about a documentary maker (Stevenson) who delves back half a century into the mystery of a missing child for which her step-father was hung for murder.Greg Wise who plays the stepfather is the stand out here. He's another seemingly never out of work actor who shows up several times a year on TV in something or other. But this role is a true masterclass. His expressions of initially evil and eventually fear are worth a thousand words.There are themes of family skeletons and police evidence tampering played out against a backdrop of domestic friction. The investigator is having a tough time ignoring her daughter as she seems to be a wannabe goth! But she plows on with her important work anyway. Meanwhile, in another life, a young detective on his first missing persons case, struggles with his colleagues as he is determined to hang a man for murder despite having no body. The court scenes are very intimidating and the hanging is also very dramatic.So - if you can stomach seeing the same old faces on your TV and you're willing to put up with a rather convoluted final act then it's worth your time.

svkuanyin-29386 I love Lee Ingleby who plays George. I first encountered Lee in the production of ' Inspector George Gently' . The rest of the cast is just great. My bone of contention is the photos supposedly representing a13year old girl. The photos looked like a female in her late 20's not a young vulnerable teenager.I would love to know the background of this choice. it was quite off- putting and lost some of its tension due to this. Why did they use this particular female's photos? Is she the Producer or Director's wife? There has to be a reason as it was the only glitch in an otherwise fine production.

GilBlas The story is that of a teenage girl from a rural village who went missing while walking her dog on the moors. Her body was never found but evidence that she had been kidnapped and murdered was, as was evidence that her stepfather was responsible. Based on that evidence, and despite the absence of the girl's body, her stepfather was convicted and hanged. Fast- forward forty years to the present, when filmmaker Catherine Heathcote is reexamining the crime in a documentary for TV. As the deadline for wrapping up her film nears, a key figure in the documentary, George Bennett, the then-young lead detective in the original investigation, whose career was launched by the case, reverses his decision to discuss the case on camera. Bennett is clearly troubled by the case, and he tells Heathcote vaguely "mistakes were made." Heathcote's request of her boss for more time, so she can pin down the truth, is rewarded by his pulling her from the film and replacing her with an ambitious assistant whose orders are to meet the deadline. Something was clearly amiss with the original investigation, but what? Heathcote presses ahead on her own to find out.While I had a sense of what was troubling George Bennett, and the direction the story was heading, the film was effective in keeping me guessing at the details until nearly the end. It did so, however, in large part because of the improbability of its resolution. Now, I don't wish to exaggerate this point: I have encountered stories and resolutions that I found equally, if not more, improbable in any number of episodes of highly-regarded British mystery series. (Pushing the improbability envelope seems to be the norm in mystery/police-procedural dramas these days.)In summary, the quality of the production is high, and the story will hold your interest. The acting is first-rate: Juliet Stevenson is always good, and the actors who play Bennett and his partner as young men are well matched physically to the two who play them as old men (I found this to be more effective than aging the young actors with makeup). The journey to the story's resolution is satisfying even if the resolution itself is not completely so.

brice-18 What a pity that Robert Hanks' callow review of the first episode is the only external assessment of this gripping thriller. I must confess, though, that when I saw it on TV I couldn't follow it - the simultaneous plots in past and present puzzled me, or perhaps I was 'as tired as a newt'! Anyway,I was sufficiently intrigued to get the DVD,and I'm so glad I did. Juliet Stevenson, too often under cast these days, is at her brilliant best as the dedicated TV reporter, 'crap mother' Catherine Heathcote, investigating the disappearance of 13-year old Alison Carter some 50 years ago. Elizabeth Day is so good as her troubled, overlooked daughter Saha, while Liz Moscrop as Catherine's novelist mother shows how Catherine was comparably overlooked. Catherine befriends George Bennett (the great Philip Jackson), whose eager beaver younger self is played by Lee Ingleby; Tom Maudsley and Dave Hill are both Fine as his loyal if sceptical sergeant. Then there's Greg Wise,supremely arrogant as the man you'd love to hate - but is he a murderer? There are astonishing twists at the end, yet they all make sense: wow!