Disclaimer- Apple TV starts 11th October

[Netaporter]

Anyone watching?

The premise; A mysterious delivery threatens to expose a celebrated journalist’s past. Cate Blanchett and Kevin Kline star in a series written for the screen and directed by Alfonso Cuarón.

It’s utterly compelling. And I reached the end of ep 1 before realising the husband is played by Sasha Baron Cohen.

I expect all of or most of the interiors were filmed in a studio. Helen’s house also looked a bit inauthentic to me.

The views you see from the windows of the house and when Stephen opens the front door are of that street. I guess they could've added those post-production but not sure why they'd bother!

I have given up on it. The acting (apart from the brilliant Lesley Manville) is appalling.

Totally agree

I've also been watching this - I thought it started out promising but has become really farcical.. the thing I'm struggling to believe is that Nicholas would read a book that was randomly dropped off for him at his work (or any of the characters, including Catherine, would read a random book – apart from SBC who reads it because it included the photos). Also, what 23 (?) year old has that kind of conversation with a random 19 year old on Instagram?! There is just no way that is believable.

Agree with PPs that the last episode will have a twist and the flashbacks are from the POV of Nancy.

(Although for PPs saying they don't believe those houses exist in London they definitely do – just take a look at Modern House or Dwell! Quite a lot of the very architectural / design homes are hired out as filming locations too)

I was enjoying up until about episode 3. But I think it's become a bit ridiculous and unauthentic.

Firstly, I don't find Nicholas character very realistic. He is acting like a teen who has gone through serious 'A grade' childhood trauma and seems to have absolutely no normal affection for his parents at all. I know it's seemingly down to him taking drugs, but even his parents very average dysfunction didn't seem quite big enough a trauma to cause such a massive apathy in his character. Even the squalid drug den seemed like what an author wants a stereotypical drug den to look like. It's like something from the 90s.

A dysfunctional and stoned Nicholas wouldn't have sustained attention or interest in reading a whole book by a stranger. That was unbelievable. His texting a random boy, about backpacking around the world was also unbelievable, and his subsequent total emotional breakdown because he's told someone died trying to save his life as a child and his mum shagged a stranger was also overly dramatic and unrealistic imo. Someone that apathetic wouldn't give a shit imo.

Everyone suddenly turning against Catherine seemed again totally implausible. EVERYONE in her workplace taking the word of a complete stranger who has provided no proof other than his turn of events? No. And in these days of HR red tape, what manager would have confronted Catherine (considering also her status) in front of the entire staff?

Her husband actually meeting SBC in person (!) begging clemency and throwing her under the bus so easily, again, I felt, unrealistic. Throwing her out due to deep resentment, was a bit believable. Barely.

I have no idea how reflective the series is of the book, but I feel the author should have done more research or developed her ideas better. The events aren't quite making sense. But maybe everything will resolve itself with further episodes.

@DysonSphere completely agree re: Nicholas - it’s like the writer has never met a modern-day teenager before and the whole heroin scene was ridiculous

I am invested in seeing what happens through so will watch the last episode - not expecting too much though!

I've now seen the latest episode, and at least it is starting to become clear that the flashbacks we've seen so far are not to be relied on (as most of us had assumed).
But I'm still finding it a really frustrating watch. The way Catherine, her husband and Stephen are behaving just doesn't ring true to me.

I know I’m always moaning about the acting, but SBC was particularly terrible in the scene in today’s episode when he was woken up.

It finishes next week.

Damn that cliffhanger!

@KillingMeDeftIy I know!! That episode flew by and then it finished on that?!

I wonder if Jonathan slipped something into her drink and that's how he got her to pose for the photos in the bedroom? Or maybe that's what we're meant to think and it'll turn out she's the irredeemable character of Nancy's book?

It also didn't seem realistic that the hospital staff would be more concerned with the wellbeing of a man who had deceived them than a grieving mother.

It also didn't seem realistic that the hospital staff would be more concerned with the wellbeing of a man who had deceived them than a grieving mother.

///

This. While the acting generally is a bit hammy I'm getting more uncomfortable each episode with the willingness of every man and his dog to assume she's the bad guy and not be more questioning of what they are seeing/hearing. I was irritated also she didn't tell the HR lady on phone sooner in conversation why she was at the hospital. Mitigating circumstances and all that. But I guess in her head it's all gone to shit by that point and her sons what's she's focussing on now.

Also wondering if Johnathan is actually creepy and somehow spiked her drink.

I think some of the problem here might be that it is clearly an "unreliable narrator" scenario, where what we are being shown is not how things actually happened. I think this can work well in a book, because it's a much more "internal" medium, but IMO is much more difficult to carry off on TV because you are actually shown the events. It can be done well, but I don't think they've succeeded here.
And some of the acting is just terrible, which doesn't help.

The whole hospital scene was ridiculous - there is no way she would be ushered out like that and they would carefully tend to the man who was pretending to be someone else. Also why on Earth would he need to say he’s Catherine’s father when SBC has already said he can visit? (Also, why would SBC not question the man who is likely very obviously connected to his son being I hospital). Also, the old guy was crushing up the sleeping tablets for Catherine’s tea directly in her line of sight??

While the acting is certainly hammy it’s feeling more and more like it’s a problem with the original source material (ie the book) but I haven’t read it. Has anyone on here read it?

I think it’s setting up for Jonathan’s character to have been the bad one here - but then why would Catherine have not just said something - to her husband or work at least - if so.. I think we’re in for a very frustrating ending next week!

I’ve watched ep 6. My theory (I haven’t read the book) is that Jonathon is actually a sex predator and Nancy’s grief is compounded by the fact that her perfect son was not the man she thought he was or had been brought up to be. The drugging of the coffee by Stephen I think is meant to mirror what happens to Catherine in the bar at the hand of Jonathon as I think that was the allegation Sasha made against him. Nancy and Stephen never heard from Sasha again - which could be explained by the fact that why would you re contact the family of someone who had assaulted you?

I do think Catherine lets him drown because of what he did. And possibly he pushes Nicolas out to sea in the first place when she does actually go to the bathroom? Maybe Nicholas interrupts him whilst he is assaulting his mother?

The replaying of the shots to show Catherine’s viewpoint Jonathon takes on the beach was clever I thought.

I’m still enjoying it.

Yes - we know (well, from the narration and the old chaps recent comments) that Sasha came back from their travels very quickly, wanted no contact even after hearing Johnathan had died. Feels like something very serious occurred between them

I'm also enjoying it, bad acting and horrible characters aside

Also watching s1 of industry and wondering why so much tv now has characters that are just awful with no redeeming qualities. And so much sex

Re Sasha - even that scene we did see, on the train, was quite off, I thought - when she repeatedly said no. So there's clearly more there.
I still think the main sex scene in Italy was done badly, and felt exploitative. If it turns out it was actually an assault (it looks like where this heading, although I don't know for sure obviously), that makes it even worse IMO.

If he does turn out to have been abusive, the young people don't come off well in this scenario do they? Though the old people don't either.
How anyone can think that murdering the boy your son died saving was a good idea, I don't know - surely that makes his death meaningless.

@tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz oh yes! I'm on season 2 of Industry and it's non stop! Do these people never sleep

@mizu wait until you get to season 3, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I think that part of the twist is that he wasn’t saving Nicholas tho. I think I’m right in saying that only Stephen and Nancy think that was why he was in the water? I don’t recall the police actually saying that?

I think Jonathan’s unexplained cut was inflicted by Catherine when she was assaulted by him.

I thinks that's probably the case (about the drowning). Though the dad still thinks he died trying to save him, so he's still eliminating the one good thing his son died for!