My wife and I noticed this series showing up on Prime about 2 weeks ago. We were looking forward to seeing Gamache and the crew from Three Pines come to life.
In short, I am disappointed. While I think Molina is a decent casting choice for Gamache, lots of the rest seem poorly casted. Jean-Guy is much much too old, Clara Morrow is much too cute, and Myrna Landers…well, she’s described as being VERY heavy in the books, to the point where she has issues fitting into some chairs, and in the show she is … average weight.
I could overlook the casting if there was more soul in the show, but sadly the should of the books seems pretty lost. Because each “mystery” wraps up in 2 episodes, and they have pulled the corruption storyline into the present (corruption regarding Native people going missing), too much ground is trying to be covered and none of the characters are being well developed.
All in all, I’d say if you’re a fan of the books you should skip it.
I’m a huge fan of the books – I just discovered/started reading the series earlier this year, and am currently on #13 (of 18) – and I think the TV adaptation is good enough so far. As of today I’m caught up on Three Pines, having watched episodes 1&2, 3&4, and yesterday’s 5&6.
I agree that Molina is good casting for Gamache, and also agree that the actor playing Jean-Guy has too much gray in his hair and beard (but otherwise I think he’s well-cast). I don’t think Clara is too cute, but she’s nowhere near disheveled enough. And while Myrna is much heavier in the books, I don’t think her weight has anything to do with her character/personality – unlike Clara’s lack of awareness about her appearance – so I don’t mind that casting. It does sort of bug me that Agent Nichol has become simply overzealous/annoying but friendly and generally competent, but I can live with it and understand the limitations of the storytelling inherent in the medium. I love the casting for Ruth! The only things that really throw me off are (a) Peter’s hair (ugh) and (b) the switching of Gabri’s and Olivier’s names (which doesn’t really affect the storytelling, but seems like a simple/easy thing they could have kept faithful to the books).
I don’t agree that there isn’t enough soul in the show; however, I can’t tell whether I’d like it if I didn’t know the books (or hadn’t read them so recently). I’ve been mostly happy with the adaptation so far, and I’ll definitely watch the rest of the season.
Also, I meant to mention that I was disappointed in the portrayal of the town itself: it’s supposed to be a bunch of houses and business around a center/square, with three large pine trees. And hard to find. Seems like another thing that doesn’t really matter, but should have been easy enough to keep faithful.
I read one of the books, and was mildly pleased. Then read another couple, and am done. So, does ANYONE live in that town who ISN’T amazing? And how do they keep the population of 20 or so folk constant if every year or 2 one of them is killed and another is shown to be a murderer?
Would someone (who has a hard time finding stuff to watch) enjoy the series who has never read any of the books? IOW is it well done apart from how it may or may not match your experience of the books?
I think we’d need someone to weigh in who has seen the show but not read the books…for me, at least, it’s too hard to separate what I’m watching from what I already know.
Never read or heard of the books, but just saw the first four shows [two story lines]. As someone with no background or context in the fiction I enjoyed them. I thought:
Alfred Molina excellent as a lead - enough gravitas and conviction to carry the story through. Great on-screen persona.
Rest of main cast are good, but their characters tending a bit towards a carload of cliches, but that might be the requirements of the book.
Episode mysteries are suitably mysterious and puzzly, and you can try to get ahead of the investigation, with all the clues there on screen for you to spot. Not overly a fan of that genre but many people do like it.
The deeper thread of dispossession of indigenous people, removal and institutionalisation of children and complete failure of govt to protect those in its care and the multi-generational impacts ring familiar to me as an Australian. We talk about similar experiences as the ‘The Stolen Generation’ [as if it was only a problem for a few decades], and which forms a similar back-drop to a lot of current Aust. crime fiction. I think this theme is expressed and explored well, its impacts are drawn out and seen from eyes of victims. Not heavy-handed, but a weighty topic when its regarded. The way First Nations characters are brought in and given depth was, I thought, very good for a cop show.
Setting - snow and Canada are suitably exotic, but share other poster’s concerns about the Midsomer effect - small, quirky, murder-filled towns full of secrets do take away from the believability of the story.
In short, I’ll be happy to keep watching. Solid 2 chef’s hats.
My wife is a huge fan of the books and we have both read them all. We’re also watching the series as well and, even though there are some fidelity-to-the-books issues, we are really enjoying them. Personally I am preferring the Amazon series to the books myself as I would prefer it if the books were a bit darker and heavier seeming.
Our only complaint about the series is about the last episode we saw, where the police pursuit was stopped by a grizzly bear. For me it was just way too lame and contrived and grizzlies aren’t native to the area. I think that it would have had far more credibility if the pursued had simply pulled over
On another note, the CBC did their own version several years ago (one episode only) and it was abysmal.
I watched all six episodes. Mostly. (I haven’t read the books, but I think I will now…)
The first case (ep 1 & 2) was great. Second one (ep 3 & 4) also very good. Not sure if this needs a spoiler, but the ritual on the front porch of the big house brought me to tears.
I bailed on the third case (ep 5 & 6)-- only watched episode 5.
However, I hope there are more coming. On IMDB it looks like there are more episodes in the works.
Molina is great. [There’s that tiresome trope, though, where he is in conflict with his boss.] I thought that Jean-Guy was channeling Columbo a few times-- in one scene he did that hunched over/head tilted thing as he grilled a suspect. Nichol, the gung-ho gadfly provides a bit of comic relief. She’s less like Barney Fife and more like the time Andy hired Gomer to be a deputy. Isabelle is lovely, and I hope we find out (and she finds out) more about her background.
Laurence Leboeuf (a woman) who plays Julia in third case (ep 5 & 6) had a major continuing (and disturbing) role in the brilliant Canadian cop series 19-2.
I don’t know…my issue is that the interactions and character development are just so rushed…IMO each one of these mysteries, along with side stories about Clara and Peter, Ruth and the Duck, etc, could be made into an 8-episode arc. Cramming them into 2 episodes apiece, ESPECIALLY with the Franceur/Arnot plot running in present…I feel like I am watching the Cliff’s notes of the story.
Over the course of the 15 or so books I have read, Jean-Guy develops from a young, quasi-cocky, rather vain good-looking guy into a much deeper character thanks in large part to the mentoring he receives from Gamache. You don’t see much of Gamache’s mentoring and leadership here at all. You get a small glimpse of his empathy, but WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THAT STUPID BIRD? (ahem, pardon my rant there) I am talking not about the duck, but about the bird he keeps seeing. Or the other ghosts. And where are the 5 questions that lead to wisdom? Having Gamache speak those would at least connect him more to the characters from the books.
Lacoste was the one with the quasi-sprirtual connection early on. She would make promises to the spirits of the dead, telling them to be at peace (she never actually saw the spirits or anything supernatural, she was just a spiritual character).
Nichol transitions from a resentful bitch to a trusted (still bitch) ally.
Several plots hinge on the fact that the town is in the middle of nowhere with nearly zero cell service.
I’m just not into it. So I’ll bow out of this thread (that I started) and let y’all discuss the show happily from now on. I’m glad you’re enjoying it, I just wish it was better.
I can see that not having read the books is an advantage.
I fear this is almost inevitable when a beloved written series is turned into a TV show, even a multi-episode show.
But I appreciate the thread, because otherwise I might not have watched the show, and the subtleties you mentioned in your last reply really make me want to read the books. So thanks, your work here is done.
I think I saw this one. The town seemed very superficial, and the mystery was meh. Didn’t interest me in watching any more, but now I’m getting intrigued by the idea of the books.
Yep: it’s from 2013, called Still Life: A Three Pines Mystery, and it’s available on Acorn. It’s an 85-minute movie, though, not episodic TV. I thought it was mostly OK, but a little disappointing. Among other things I think Alfred Molina is a better Gamache, and I like that the Amazon show includes a lot more French. I noticed the lack of French – not even any French-tinged accents – in the CBC production.
Carrps, I think you definitely shouldn’t judge the books (or the Amazon adaptation) by that show.
I don’t know that it’s a case of needing to be “better”; I think you’re just expecting the show to be a lot more like the books. I’m able to enjoy both – the books, and the changes/omissions necessary for the stories to fit TV – but there’s nothing wrong with not being able to enjoy the adaptation!
Also, I second ThelmaLou’s appreciation of the thread.
I’d appreciate if, once you’ve read a couple, you check back in.
Like I said, I was reasonably positively impressed with the first one I read (tho the very ending resolution was a tad strained - as is often the case in such thrillers.) Liked it enough that I got 2 more - 1 short novella and another full length from much later in the series. The novella was unsatisfying, and the later book convinced me I was not going to read any more.
Sorry - don’t mean to yuck anyone’s yum. Different strokes and all.
@ThelmaLou, I would say that it’s not really necessary for the most part, though reading them in sequence would provide some context, sort of as icing on the cake.
If you were in a situation in which you happened to find the fourth (or whichever) in the series and it would be your first read you could go for it and not really lose anything.
