The best parts of Safe House (ITV) were at the beginning and the end. However, the episode was an hour long, meaning there was about 50 minutes of moribund drama to be endured within the two good bits.
Of course, I was charmed by the cast. 'Starring Christopher Eccleston!' yelled the publicity and I was quietly impressed. Could this new drama herald a return of the old, cherished Monday nights when the nation would gather round the telly, switch to ITV at nine, and watch a fine crime series? Maybe so, only this time we'll be swapping one Doctor Who for another, swapping paedophilia for revenge, swapping Dorset for the Lakes. But if this is the new Broadchurch then it's definitely more Series Two than One.
Relying far too much on bleak, Gothic scenery, with brooding hills and rain-streaked window panes glinting out into the night and incidental music which seems to have been stolen from Crimewatch: The Musical, the plot seemed to whimper under the weight of all this enforced tension.
Shoving all these dramatic frills aside I tried to work out what the plot was. Robert (Eccleston) is a retired cop who worked in witness protection but left the force when one of his charges was shot. Feeling himself a failure he retreats to the Lake District with his wife where they take on a beautiful old house and run it as a B+B.
Despite having dropped out of the police world, and having some clear psychological struggles, we're asked to accept that, overnight, he's back in the game, protecting the weak and the vulnerable. His old boss asks him to take a family into his isolated home, transforming the B+B into a safe house. With a snap of the fingers, it's all arranged. There was very little discussion or agonising. In fact, most of the decision-making seemed to be about getting some nifty CCTV fitted. Never mind the practical, emotional and ethical dilemmas. And certainly never mind keeping the curtains closed on those black, rainy nights, inviting all passing murderers to have a good look in.
But what are the family fleeing from? On holiday in Blackpool, a man tried to snatch their son, but this was just an act designed to lure the father, David, who came running and was soon being kicked to the ground by the attacker. The baddie managed to flee but only after stabbing to death a passerby who intervened. The cops are certain he'll return to finish the job so the family are despatched to the safe house till they can find him.
But these cops are terribly inept, not bothering to stake out the family home and never realising the baddie is very often standing in bushes observing them, and when they hand over David, newly-discharged from hospital, to Robert's protection, said baddie simply begins following them in his car. But Robert uses his expert knowledge from his police days to evade their pursuer: he indicates to turn left but then�.he doesn't! What a great tactic. Gee whiz!
Safely reunited with his family in the safe house, David is concerned for his adult son, Sam, who's refusing to answer their calls. With them in hiding, the baddie may target Sam. Indeed he does, and this creates a horrifying scene at the end of the episode, but we had to sit through a lot to get there, including the bluntly frustrating fact that we don't know exactly why David, a prison officer, is being targeted.
The opening scenes, set in Blackpool, provided colour and energy and a horrible abduction scene, and the final scene was shocking, but stuff in between slumped. Cut the juvenile attempts to create drama and tension - the scary rain, the scary music, the scary creaking doors - and get to the characters. Who are these people? What is tormenting them? Why are they running? And why should we switch on next week to find out?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article