Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm quite enjoying this, it's a bit better than the previous series. Thank gawd no Saskia Reeves* this time.


Enjoyable tosh, just like Spooks, which it's not surprising to learn is done by the same folks.


*I'm actually quite partial to our Saskia, but she was just awful in Luther.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/17998-luther/#findComment-447597
Share on other sites

Two out of four so far Otto.


Anyway.....Some of the writing's a bit, well you know.. improbable. How come Luther can just stare at crime scene photographs and deduce that the killer's work is all about silence and emptiness? Hmmm? Well, is he clairvoyant or an I missing something?


Also, having a six inch nail hammered through his hand how come he didn't rush off to the nearest hospital without bleeding half to death and then in the next scene he's wearing a bandage on it?


Still, it's enjoyable enough and the ladies have got a bit of eye candy to watch on an otherwise dull Tuesday night.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/17998-luther/#findComment-447628
Share on other sites

Plot holes, improbable insights, inexplicable story progression, paper thin characters, bizarre motives, ludicrous plot devices. Yep it's Spoother.


Great fun though.


*uncovers sheet over barrles* "There's enough spopholdahyde to dissolve three thousand children, he was shipping them to India, they'd have dissappeared without a trace"

*characters look at each other questioningly, shrug and down a quart of moonshine*

"Makes sense to me boss"

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/17998-luther/#findComment-447640
Share on other sites

What was that Janet Jackson / Luther Vandross song where they "improvise" a bit towards the end and she says, "Oooh, Luther"? Spot on Janet, Idris Elba is delicious.


And I think I've said this before on here somewhere (in many respects, this place is like the morning room in an old people's home, all telling each other the same stories over and over and occasionally soiling ourselves), but Cracker was just as improbable in his powers of deduction: what's that, he used the possessive with the gerund but has the hands of a labourer? He must be a monk. I blame Conan Doyle.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/17998-luther/#findComment-447984
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • That's not what I said and you know it. 
    • I disagree, it was pretty filthy back then, plus the issues that Southwark have had were the ones left by EA.  
    • I've been cycling in London for decades. The two times a vehicle knocked me off my bicycle, were in conditions that were well lit (one was daylight) and the night time one was just me and the vehicle on the road. Both the driver's fault. The point it that most drivers are perfectly capable of seeing a bicycle in most conditions, just as they are capable of seeing a child or dog run out in front of them. Who knows why a small percentage are incapable of doing that, but gaslighting the victim is not the answer. Are there wreckless cyclists? Sure. Just as there are reckless drivers and pedestrians. But it's worth remembering that millions of roads users navigate their journeys perfectly safely every day. As a driver, you are taught to check your mirrors regularly (not just when considering an manoevre), and the first rule of the Highway Code, is to always avoid an accident if you can. My attitude when using the roads it to always expect someone to do something stupid/ wreckless. I look for it. That is the best way of avoiding any accident, no matter what form of transport you use. 
    • The existing guidance is advisory. It suggests that cyclists and pedestrians might like to consider wearing brighter clothes / reflective gear etc. Doesn't say you have to. Lights is a separate matter because they're a legal requirement but helmets, hi-vis etc is all guidance. The problem is that as soon as anyone isn't wearing it, it gets used as a weapon against them. Witness the number of times on this very forum that the first question asked when a cyclist injury is reported, someone going "were they wearing a helmet?!" in an almost accusatory tone. And the common tone of these sort of threads of "I saw a cyclist wearing all black..." Generally get on with life in a considerably more sensible and less victim-blaming manner. Things are also a lot clearer legally, most countries have Presumed Liability which usually means that the bigger more powerful vehicle is to blame unless proven otherwise. And contrary to popular belief, this does not result in pedestrians leaping under the wheels of a cyclist or cyclists hurling themselves in front of trucks in order to claim compensation. To be fair, this time of year is crap all round. Most drivers haven't regularly driven in the dark since about February / March (and haven't bothered to check minor things like their own lights, screenwash levels etc), it's a manic time in the shops (Halloween / Bonfire Night / Black Friday) so there's loads more people out and about (very few of them paying any attention to anything), the weather is rubbish, there are slippery leaves everywhere... 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...