The Escape Artist

2013
The Escape Artist

Seasons & Episodes

  • 1

EP1 Episode 1 Oct 29, 2013

After Will’s talents manage to help acquit Liam Foyle, his courtroom brilliance comes back to bite him. After Foyle walks free, it’s only a matter of time until he finds his next victim.

EP2 Episode 2 Nov 05, 2013

Liam Foyle is back in court and Will Burton’s courtroom nemesis, Maggie Gardner, is heading his defence. She is out to prove a point and will stop at nothing to win the case.

EP3 Episode 3 Nov 12, 2013

Maggie and Will are both determined to win the case and find themselves ever closer to the dangerous and cunning Liam Foyle.
7.5| 0h30m| TV-14| en| More Info
Released: 29 October 2013 Ended
Producted By: Endor Productions
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01jmyrk
Synopsis

A chilling and bloody legal thriller that explores the line between law and justice. Will Burton, a talented junior barrister of peerless intellect and winning charm, specialises in spiriting people out of tight legal corners. He is in high demand as he has never lost a case. But when his talents acquit the notorious prime suspect in an horrific murder trial, that brilliance comes back to bite him with unexpected and chilling results, not to mention a shocking twist.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Endor Productions

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Znoodles As noted by previous reviewers, the thread of court logic is threadbare. However, the set design, direction, casting & soundtrack are spot on. Given that the "artist" is a murderer who gets away with murder, it would have been nice to see more of his macabre character explored. Of course, Mr. F is no Alice Morgan, but he is multifaceted in ways that are only alluded to by the writers.The jealous up & coming barister also has many character opportunities that we, as the audience are left wondering. For 180 mins, prepare for slightly suspenseful courtshow antics. Be entertained & don't wait for the the frown furrow to leave your brow.
blanche-2 David Tennant is a talented barrister whose big win comes back to haunt him in "The Escape Artist," from 2013. Lots of negative comments here on IMDb.Will has to defend Liam Foyle in a horrific murder case. It seems fairly clear that he's guilty, but Will manages to get him acquitted. The next thing he knows, Foyle has filed a complaint against Will. And here's where the problems with the script begin. Motivations throughout are simply not clear, and I guess we're supposed to assume that because this guy is a sociopath, he does things for the hell of it.And for the hell of it, he's out to get his defense barrister. His next move is more heinous, and this time, Will sees him when he looks out the window. This time, though, another barrister takes his case, and Will feels what it's like on the other side.There were criticisms on this board about the way British court procedure was portrayed. Naturally we here in America don't know much about that. What we do know is how odd the U.S. courts can be, so nothing surprises us. I watch a lot of true crime and have seen innocent people sitting on death row for 16 years, an abusive husband given joint custody of his children with his wife (he winds up nearly killing her) - etc.British courts aside, this is an unbelievable story that is nevertheless engrossing and has a neat, if preposterous, twist at the end. I enjoyed the acting overall as well. The script could have used a little more work in finding stronger motivations. I would guess that the writer had an incredible idea for a denouement and filled in the rest, but not very carefully.
beeblebrocs I would not say this mini-series is awful. However, this is one of those "missed opportunities" that makes us sad because it could have been more.There is no excuse for the lazy writing displayed in The Escape Artist. Others in this review thread have covered a lot of the problems with this screenplay but here are the ones that bugged me the most:+++++SERIOUS SPOILERS BELOW +++++First we have the script outline (the "high concept"):1.) Legal Beagle gets an obvious murderer off on a technicality. 2.) Murderer kills wife of legal beagle. 3.) Murderer is tried and gets away scott-free, again through a technicality. 4.) Murderer is himself murdered. 5.) Legal beagle is arrested and tried for that murder. 6.) Legal beagle also gets off on a technicality. 7.) A character finally lays out how the legal beagle MAY have committed his "perfect crime".This "high concept" has it's own problems but a skilled writer should be able to make these 7 points work right? Wrong.The set-up: The protagonist "legal beagle" (played by Tennant) gets an obvious murderer off on a technicality. I don't know enough about the English legal system to understand why this doesn't just result in a mistrial but I'm generous so I'll buy it.Now the problems with the screenplay come fast and furious. The motive for the next murder is laughable. Yet for the story to unfold, a motive is certainly needed. Unfortunately the writer (David Wolstencroft) doesn't have an idea about how to make it believable so he takes the lazy way out.Issue 1. Why does the psychopathic murderer kill the legal beagle's wife? This point is not part of the high concept so rather than come up with a plausible motive (and I can think of several that he could have used), Wolstencroft employs the ham-fisted "not shaking hands with the man who got him off" as the motive and leaves it at that. ("Hey, he's a psychopath so who knows what would motivate him?"). So the viewer is left to assume that he would commit this second murder for no real reason whatsoever. The psychopath also has to assume that his only way of getting away with this second murder is to HOPE that another grievous error will be made by the system.Sure enough, Wolstencroft provides us with this grievous error (a storage unit is searched for a key bit of evidence without a warrant) and this error gets the murderer off on a technicality once again.Point 2. Moving to the end, Wolstencroft's climactic expository scene where the competing defense attorney (Sophie Okonedo) confronts the legal beagle with her speculation of how he committed his perfect murder of the psychopath is completely implausible. Not what she lays out, but that she knows any of it in the first place.Let's be honest here; Okonedo's character would have ZERO way of knowing anything about the murder of the psychopath except - wait for it - for a chance encounter she had earlier in the story where she shows up at the tail end of a meeting between the legal beagle and a local underworld "operator". This underworld operator evidently can provide background medical information on the psychopath - information that the legal beagle ostensibly uses to kill him later in the story.Here's the problem... The legal beagle meets with this underworld operator at night on a deserted street nowhere close to where Okenedo's character would ever go at that time of night. Yet incredibly, just as this meeting finishes she just happens to walk up to the duo as they are finishing up their mysterious conversation. THE SAME FREAKIN' MOMENT!! For the viewer's benefit, she makes a point of mentioning that she recognizes this underworld dude so we have to assume that this bit of dialog is there for an important reason (otherwise, why shoe-horn this implausible situation into the story?)Wolstencroft needs to have someone (in this case, Okonedo's competing attorney character) speak key expository dialog later but realizes that this dialog can't be spoken without a catalyzing scene earlier in the story. Someone had to have asked Wolstencroft after they read the script, "wait a second, how does the competing attorney come to suspect the legal beagle in the first place in order for her to layout the exact method he used to kill his wife's murderer?" Wolstencroft's answer: "You're right, that makes no sense… wait, I've got it! What if she just happens to walk in on a key meeting between the legal beagle and his conspirator planning the murder? That would explain it right?"So of course, the climax of the story hinges on this chance meeting that would never have happened had the writer had any wits about him. This kind of maddening writing permeates this script. A script that could have been smart but ended up being the opposite.Final thought. The screenplay is about how the guilty can get away with murder through technicalities. So why not make the psychopath's motive for his murders that he knows enough about the legal system to escape prosecution by gaming it? But this is never explored. So the psychopath is just lucky that the system was incompetent twice in a row rather than pursuing the angle that a serial murderer could pervert the system if he was smart enough to do so. Wolstencroft completely misses this story element - to the viewer's frustration.I still recommend The Escape Artist for David Tennant fans as he is great as always.
craig-w As others have pointed out, there are irritating problems with logic throughout the story. But I found the show clearly worth viewing - because the dialog was great, the premise was a good one, the acting and directing were outstanding, I cared about the characters, and the ending was satisfying.The writing of a screenplay has a number of important components, and not every good writer is a master of all. David Wolstencroft was the author, and his dialog is very good, his character development excellent, the basic scenario good, his plot creativity good, his resolution of the story rather brilliant. His one fault, as I see it - and it's a big one for me - is believability. In order to advance his story, he resorts to plot twists that defy logic, and characters who act stupidly and have emotions that don't fit - and he does it over and over. A serious failing. I've often thought that every screenplay that wants to be considered as serious art should go through a logic evaluation process before screening.Still, it was a riveting series, and I couldn't wait to see how it would turn out. I worried about some of the characters, the villain was memorable, and I loved the ending; it was so clever that a little implausibility there didn't ruin it for me.