kitellis-98121 A very watchable and well-made piece of television drama.The period detail was excellent, as was the cinematography and the acting from both lead actors. The writing was workmanlike, but lacked cohesion, and this dribbled through to the edit which was a bit choppy and uneven.Certain events (which really happened) were referred to in the dialogue but were never shown, leaving me wondering a few times if I'd accidentally skipped an episode. Also, certain aspects of the storytelling were poorly executed, leaving me unclear about the order of events; for example, in the middle of a crime-spree the bad guy was suddenly in prison with no scenes explaining why/how he came to be there. At first I thought I must have dozed-off and missed the big arrest. (Upon reading about the real-life events on Wikipedia I discovered that he'd been out on parole and then went back inside for previous crimes unrelated to the story being told).The directing was also somewhat uneven, with the interior scenes featuring small groups of people being far better directed than those on location with larger crowds. He seemed not to know where to place the camera, and the blocking was awkward. This is surprising, considering that the man credited as Director, John Strickland, is highly experienced and has produced an impressive body of work. Maybe he just wasn't inspired by the material.But overall, and despite a few niggles, it was a perfectly acceptable dramatization of events which may not otherwise have been spectacular enough to make it to the screen, and I now know about a historical serial-killer case that had previously eluded me, so it was educational too.

Myriam Nys First the good : this is fine drama, lovingly crafted and acted. The pace is unhurried, the period atmosphere is convincing and evocative and there are a number of outstanding performances, especially by protagonists Douglas Henshall and Martin Compston, who show a fine chemistry. Compston's Peter Manuel is deeply, chillingly convincing : glib, cocksure, cunning, murderous and (who knows ?) perhaps not entirely sane and/or human.Sadly there are also a number of missed opportunities. The series does not succeed in digging deep into Manuel's psyche : the viewer learns what he does, but not why he does it. (Still, this may be an unjust comment, as there is a chance that killers like Manuel may not have a recognizable inner life or may not understand their drives and obsessions themselves.) By the same token the series does not fully explore the constant enabling by Manuel's family, which provides excuses and alibi's like other families provide food or shelter. Are his family members terrified of him ? Do they benefit from his crimes ? Do they envy his daring ? Do they belong to some perverted clan which recognizes no law from God or man, save clan loyalty ? And if so, where does this perverted clan attitude come from, and how does it function ?It might also have been a good idea to include Manuel's trial, which must have been both stunning and heart-rending. It would have been a good opportunity for examining a number of crucial questions such as : are our society and our legal apparatus really suited for dealing with killers like Manuel ? Where does one draw a line between sanity and insanity, between punishment and treatment ? (But again, this may be an unjust comment, since I have an almost boundless appetite for courtroom scenes and will gobble anything, including procedural discussions about venues or cross-examinations about stolen bikes. And of course it's entirely possible that the makers of the series wisely, and kindly, refrained from re-opening old wounds or stirring up forgotten quarrels.)

Paul Evans Real life events are chillingly brought to life in this three part series from ITV. A case that spanned three years, William Muncie takes on Serial killer Peter Manuel, a clever and twisted killer who took great pleasure in taunting Muncie. Manuel, a cocky and sadistic man known as The Beast of Birkenshaw, left his calling card at the scenes of his crimes, and almost got away with murder.Almost a drama of good and evil, the case of Manuel is well known, and the drama does a good job of remaining grounded and not sensationalising the events, almost subtle.The drama was very much in sage hands, Douglas Henshall is such a talented actor, bringing Muncie to life, giving him credibility. Martin Compston on the other hand, what a turn around, so used to him in Line of Duty as the handsome good guy Steve Arnott, he shows us his skills here, he injects a venom into the character, he manages to look older and sinister. A fantastic interplay between both characters.

Tweekums This three part mini-series, based on real events, is set in Lanarkshire where police detective William Muncie spent several years trying to bring rapist, and later murderer, Peter Manuel to justice. Muncie knows just what Manuel is like but finding the evidence will be very difficult and all the time he knows that Manuel is sure to strike again. For Manuel it is almost a game as he taunts Muncie and escalates the scale of his offences.Given that this is based on events that really happened the ultimate outcome is not in much doubt but it is still a tense watch at times. Manuel's crimes are not actually shown; not to introduce an element of doubt but I suspect because the makers thought is inappropriate to dwell on details of unpleasant real crimes that took place within living memory. Douglas Henshall does a fine job as the determined policeman William Muncie but it is Martin Compston's performance as Manuel that stands out the most; he makes the character genuinely disturbing while still being plausible. The rest of the cast are pretty solid too. The production nicely captures the feel of the 1950s; a time long before DNA evidence and CCTV cameras. Overall I'd say this was a fine drama and well worth watching.