Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

qui_j Finally got around to watching the first 7 seasons on Britbox here in the US. Love the cast and hope that the channel will have all the seasons at some point as I hated to let go of the characters. My only complaint was to do with the editing, which seemed to stick scenes together in an unrelated manner that was very confusing at times. The endings of a few of the episodes were also not very defined as there did not seem to be a proper explanation given throughout each episode as how it all fitted together! Left me wondering what the point of the story was. Even with its not so positive points, it's a great series to watch, especially if you know the Yorkshire area well.

Mateja Djedovic Reginald Hill is one of the most inventive, original, and unusual crime-writers that have ever lived. In fact, he's so good he's managed to twist the genre he's operating in around so much that I hesitate to even call him a crime-writer at all. Most of his novels are actually clever exercises in genre-twisting and metatextuality with tons of references to obscure classic literature, self-parody, and real, well-developed, three-dimensional characters. It's crime-writing for people who don't like crime-writing or mystery fans with philosophy diplomas. He's a genius. This is why it was so surprising to hear that BBC were planning to mount an adaptation of his works. Yes, he's successful and his novels sold well but could his style be carried over to television? How can something so genre-bending, rule busting, and metatextual be carried over to a format whose audience demands a level of cosines not provided by an author of Hill's standing? Well, the answer is unpredictably but decidedly odd as watching the first four series of "Dalziel and Pascoe" is like listening to someone retell the plots of the novels after having skimmed them some years back. Sure, the plots are there, and so are the characters, but they have been sanitised beyond recognition so there's barely any traces left of Hill's unique style at all. Oh sure, the show WAS good. It had engaging mysteries, good humour, and the characters were still three-dimensional and likeable, but what made the novels so unique and so beloved was their originality which was now gone. Thus the first series proceeds quite by-the-book, in a manner interchangeable with some of those bland ITV crime dramas of the time (with the sole exception of "Morse" which was always and will always be singularly and unexpectedly brilliant). I enjoyed all three episodes for their humour, I played along with the mysteries, but as I type this I have trouble remembering them very well. I do know that out of all three I enjoyed "An Advancement of Learning" the most as it had a little of that Reginald Hill sparkle left somewhere in it. The second series, however, was a huge surprise as among the other three rather bland and forgettable episodes comes "Deadheads". The only episode of "Dalziel and Pascoe" that nails the feel of a Reginald Hill novel exactly. Hilarious, uncomprosing, and genre busting it must have done the author very proud as it stands head-and-shoulders (and any other extremity you can think of) above the other episodes. This is probably because it was written by Alan Plater, a genius in his own right and the author of the equally bendy "The Beiderbecke Affair". Sadly, "Dalziel and Pascoe" never reclaims the glory of "Deadheads". Series three is slightly better than the other three episodes of series two but after "Deadheads" seems curiously bland. "Child's Play" is a very fine mystery episode and it could even rank with some of the better "Morses" and "Bones and Silence" is a good adaptation coming close to but not quite achieving the greatness of "Deadheads". Then something telling happened. Halfway through series four the producers abandoned Reginald Hill's novels in favour of writing original scripts which brought about the show's failure. Up until this point it sort of hung on a thin thread as its terrific characters at least had interesting plots to work through. From series five onwards, however, all this would be gone and everything from that point on is pure, plodding procedural stuff without wit or imagination. Oh sure, a good episode would sneak in from time to time, but even those (like Glenn Chandler's "Guardian Angel") are merely formulaic stuff with a little glimmer of unusual wit (for this show at least) thrown in. The show eventually winds up trudging the mud of formulaic-procedural cliches to such an extent I can't really remember even the episodes I watched recently. I tend to get them mixed up with other dull procedurals such as "Silent Witness", later seasons of "Vera", or "Waking the Dead". And, to think that, had the BBC played their cards right, "Dalziel and Pascoe" could have been their "Midsomer Murders" only with a philosophical edge to it. Funnily enough, series four contains an episode that comes the closest to a Reginald Hill novel besides "Deadheads". It's called "The British Grenadier" and it's an involving and unusual story of a hostage situation in a pub brilliantly directed by Maurice Phillips , a TV great gone too soon. What's so funny about it is that it is an original script. It's the only "Dalziel and Pascoe" original to reach any sort of greatness. A few years down the line, another Hill adaptation would be attempted in the form of "Dialogues of the Dead", but the result was a stodgy, hopelessly boring, and plodding procedural with such an appalling lack of wit and imagination I'm sure Mr Hill would have rather had his name off it. Penultimate series' episode "Houdini's Ghost" was likewise adapted from a Hill novel but so loosly and badly that the less said of it the better. The real tragedy of "Dalziel and Pascoe", however, is the fact that it had the perfect cast. The always brilliant Warren Clarke was spot on as the vulgar, grumpy, overweigth Andy Dalziel and Colin Buchanan provided a worthy foil in the form of the wiry. politically correct DI Pascoe. Also wonderful was David Royle as DS Wield, easily one of the most interesting characters ever to show up on a procedural. Susannah Corbett was an excellent Ellie too, treading that fine line between annoying and likeable with staggering ease. Overall, "Dalziel and Pascoe" proves that old adage about producers having no balls. Its a saddening mainstream-isation of a series of enchantingly oddball books that had wit, smarts, and originality, three things to be avoided on consumerist television Still, "Dalziel and Pascoe" is fine entertainment for a rainy day if you can stomach heavily formulaic procedurals. If your into more edgier stuff (and if you like Reginald Hill) you probably are. Go watch "Deadheads" and then transition to "The Beiderbecke Affair". You'll find it to be more of your cup of tea.

b_clerkin I love Reginald Hill's novels upon which these shows were based and having read the lot, I have to agree with others in saying that the cast is less than accurate, though Warren Clarke and David Royle come closer in spirit to their book counterparts, if not physically. Colin Buchanan is too insubstantial to make Pascoe as strong as he is in the books and Susannah Corbett, while getting Ellie's smug self-satisfied know-it-allness down pat, looks and acts too hard - she fails to relay the bits of vulnerable sweetness of the book Ellie that makes it clear why Pascoe adores her. That being said, the stories remain fairly true to the novels, if far less bawdy and they retain much of the dark Northern humor that makes the books so enjoyable. With Clarke lacking the sheer bulk and crudity of the book Fat Andy, the scenes demonstrating his brilliance as a detective and perspicacity about the human condition are far less surprising than when they emerge in the novels. Even after you've read several of the stories, Hill makes Dalziel so obnoxious and primitive, you can visualize the scrapes on his knuckles from dragging them on the ground, when his genius and sensitivity lead to the truth - and that is what Dalziel is all about, getting to the truth - it still startles. However, judging the TV versions without considering the novel versions, the series is a cut above the standard fare in the UK, let alone the US, and is literate, funny, intriguing and thoroughly enjoyable. The acting, direction, pacing and scenery are completely credible and it is a treat to suspend reality to watch this - and the other UK coppers like Barnaby, Frost, Morse, et al.

Maddyclassicfilms Superintendent Andy Dalziel (Warren Clarke) and Inspector Peter Pascoe(Colin Buchanan) investigate gruesome killings,thefts and adultery all the while developing a bond of friendship despite differences in taste and temperament.Andy is very in your face and chain smokes, Peter is quieter and and is a young husband and father whereas Dalziel is single.He is in many ways like a father to Peter and reminds him of how to be a good detective the story lines are great. There's a stellar guest cast of British talent and superb stories making this a must see police series.