Neverwhere: The Complete BBC Series [DVD] [1996]

I have to admit that I missed Neverwhere when it was on telly. The opening with the talking head of Gary Bakewell as Richard Mayhew and the performance of the actress who plays Jessica, his girlfriend, felt a bit painful to watch. I did pick up the novel though and enjoyed that thoroughly. And yes, i've read Good Omens and Sandman since then, although I'm not sold on Sandman being the masterpiece everyone says it is, so I thought I'd give the TV show another go.And it's not half bad. Yes, Bakewell is still only half-baked as the viewpoint character but he doesn't have much to do but act outraged and confused (except that he doesn't do confused much and the outraged side wears a bit thin). When he does reach a bit further into the acting box he's okay. And the girlfriend is still cardboard awful but the rest of the actors are great. Lovely lovely Laura Fraser plays the nicely grounded Door, Joseph Patterson is faboo as the Marquis and Peter Capaldi is a nicely serene Angel Islington.As Neil Gaiman comments in an interview extra on the DVD, it is by turns funny, adventurous, sad (although Gaiman also mentions scary, which I don't think it ever manages) and shocking at points, even to someone who knew the story going in. That said, it's not particularly deep and not really layered but it's still a good adventure/fantasy/horror story.The plot? Richard Mayhew helps an injured girl on the street. She is Door, from a contemporaneous fantastic version of London called London Below a world built on puns on London placenames, so that Earl's Court is the travelling court of an Earl, there really is an Angel called Islington, etc. Door's family has been murdered by Mr Croup and Mr Vandemar who work for a mysterious employer and they are hunting for Door. Richard finds he can no longer be seen by people in London Above (or our world) and has to follow Door to get answers.The design and effects are pretty good. The design makes me think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, although obviously this predates that (or was in production at the same time). The director is clever enough to pull away when the budget will not allow the appropriate effect so that you fill in a lot in your head, but given that most of us grew up on budget British TV you should be used to that. It is intriguing to think what they might be able to do with computers today, but it's still quite good. Unfortunately the lighting is the hard light of British TV in the old days, too, so the atmosphere is never quite as claustrophobic as you'd hope.And yet, despite the faults it's still rather good and you can see that they were hoping to continue to other series with some loose ends at the end of the story and it's rather sad they weren't able to, because I think it would have been rather cool. So if you are a fan of telefantasy or Neil Gaiman give it a shot, it's a lovely piece of work.

Thirteen years old now and I hadn't seen it in that long. Surprisingly I enjoyed it more than I remember doing when it was originally shown on BBC. Albeit with reservations.So, what's good about it? Short answer: lots.The background setting with its weird and wonderful characters. I love the literal use of names. Blackfriars are black friars. The Angel Islington is an angel named Islington. Old Bailey is an old geezer called Bailey whose home is on top of -well, you figure it out.I love the characters with their idiosyncratic dialogue, particular favourites being Croup & Vandemar and The Marquis de Carabas. The humour is dry and often deadly.The actors are terrific. Especially notable in an early role is the young Paterson Joseph as the Marquis, a ripe part which Joseph grabs with both hands and runs away with to score the matchwinner. He's closely pursued by Hywell Bennett and the marvellous Clive Russell as Croup & Vandemar, two merciless long-lived thugs, torturers & murderers with wonderfully funny dialogue. There is also a selection of well-known British character actors doing their seriously good bit in a variety of minor parts.The fact that there's constantly something interesting happening. There are none of the longeurs you often get in tv series (or another form of fiction come to that); it's a constant hustle and bustle and changing scene.It's really really great fun from start to finish. But it isn't perfect.So, what's wrong with it?Some of the characters are leadenly written and badly acted. The Hunter's dialogue is absolutely excruciating to listen to and it would have taken a very skilled actor to pull it off, but then any skilled actor would have read their lines and handed the script back to Mr Gaiman with pair of long-handled tongs, so they ended up with someone who wasn't skilled and couldn't pull it off. Gary Bakewell as the hero is crap and there's no other way of putting it. Supposed to be an everyman, he nevertheless is unable to display the remotest trace of charisma or steel when the story demands it. He fails utterly to find the required strength within the character. His climactic act of bravery should have some transforming effect but it doesn't.It was done on the cheap and often looks it. As another reviewer commented, the savage beast of under London which has been built up throughout the series looks like nothing more than a Highland cow. To be fair, the production team did wonders with what they did have but it just scrapes by.What this really needed was another draft of the script and more money put into it. Much as I enjoyed it I have to say that ultimately it's an honourable failure.This is a shame because it could have been so good and I'm inclined to think that, after 13 years, it might be time for a re-make, or a re-invention, or, perhaps, a sequel. A new threat has appeared. This time we get David Tennant as the hero (same character, better actor), Paterson Joseph returns as the Marquis; or Lenny Henry who could always do the comic side but now has proven Shakespearean chops. Given how good special effects can be done on relatively small budgets these days, it wouldn't even cost too much. Neil? Lenny?