Dublin Murders - BBC One & RTE One

Sardonicat

strandroad wrote: »

"Jane Doe", definitely Lexie's. She wanted a sea burial for her it seems.

And it was a termination clinic, what else with the upset young women and the ferry?

Obviously Lexie's ashes. But how would Cassie be permitted to take the cremains of an unknown person and unofficially spread them at sea? Surely they'd have to be officially laid to rest and recorded once every effort to identify her and any next of kin was exhausted?

Strazdas

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I thought it was the baby’s at first but written on the box was Jane Doe which led me to believe it was an unknown case

Jane Doe was "Lexie", the murdered mystery woman and doppelganger for Cassie.

Bredabe

strandroad wrote: »

"Jane Doe", definitely Lexie's. She wanted a sea burial for her it seems.

And it was a termination clinic, what else with the upset young women and the ferry?

Ferry is in dun laoghaire and cassie lives in blackrock, maybe 5 dart stops away.
I didnt see a sign saying it was a termination clinic, tho I may have missed that because the private clinic an ex colleague was cremated in was a bit like that.
I feel that cassie would have been smart enough to know that if she was far enough along to need a surgical abortion, she probably wouldn't be let out of the clinic unaccompanied, so telling them she was alone would have been problematic.
That said some cancers show positive pregnancy tests as part of their symptoms, I dont think it was mentioned what type her aunt had. If it was a cancer, access to treatment maybe cheaper and more available in the uk than here at the time.

iamwhoiam

Strazdas wrote: »

Jane Doe was "Lexie", the murdered mystery woman and doppelganger for Cassie.

Yes , but for the authorities she was unknown as Lexie didn’t exist

walshb

Still watching this...mother of jaysus it isn’t half convoluted, is it?

Harry Palmr

I was expecting the ambiguous otherness of what happened in the woods to be dealt with as being childhood imagination and a logical revelation to follow

but nope, there was a wolf

. Also

how did the little minx know it was Adam all along?

None of that was explained as the detective never gave much away when they spoke.

homerun_homer

This was such a bull**** show. The be and end all of it is that they had a future scene at the very start leading you into the show, which foreshadowed their despair but also how they were to fall out. Yet when they played the scene back in the end, Sarah Greene looked less dishevelled and they added dialogue that was denied before. This kind of story telling is utter trash.

“We’ll never see each other again” vs “we’ll never see each other again. I’ll miss you.” And longing glances. Feck off. This show was utter muck.

Homelander

The first few episodes were amazing, but it seriously fell off a cliff in the last two episodes, the finale in particular was just plain awful, frustrating, and not even remotely credible. Shocked at how poor it was, makes me feel like the entire 6 hours invested was a waste of time.

Livvie

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I'd assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the baby was Rob's, the clinic was definitely a termination clinic, and that the ashes were her baby's....

How or why would she have "Lexi's" ashes, and bring them to England??

Although, there was something written on the box she took the ashes from, I forgot to rewind and check what it was - was that a clue as to whose they were? I seem to be the only one not sure they were the baby's!

She wasn't very pregnant - there wouldnt have been any ashes.

I loved the whole series. Some of it far fetched but nothing I couldn't ignore. Thought the Lexi thing - both imaginary friend and imposter - was explained ok, and I assumed (wrongly perhaps) that Jamie and Peter were killed by wolves. Do wolves wander in packs in Ireland? Ruins my theory if so.

wench

Livvie wrote: »

Do wolves wander in packs in Ireland? Ruins my theory if so.

They've been extinct here for like 300 years, so no, not usually

Strazdas

Livvie wrote: »

She wasn't very pregnant - there wouldnt have been any ashes.

I loved the whole series. Some of it far fetched but nothing I couldn't ignore. Thought the Lexi thing - both imaginary friend and imposter - was explained ok, and I assumed (wrongly perhaps) that Jamie and Peter were killed by wolves. Do wolves wander in packs in Ireland? Ruins my theory if so.

I think the wolf is just meant to be a metaphor for something else, even though Rob has been having nightmares about them - there has always been a touch of the supernatural about them in movies.

Bredabe

Wolves, because of their use in fairy tails, are common in children's nightmares, they usually signify some kind of shameful secret or an unprocessed trauma(usually around death or abuse)

Ash.J.Williams

Lads can the good people of Ireland please stop talking about wolves in the physical realm they were clearly metaphorical

odyssey06

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Lads can the good people of Ireland please stop talking about wolves in the physical realm they were clearly metaphorical

But we are sure we're not in an alternative Ireland in which the supernatural can manifest physically in their imagined metaphorical forms
I'm not sure that the Ireland of Dublin Murders is actually 'our' Ireland.

I haven't read the books but in the TV show there were some hints that what happened to the kids in the 1980s is Stephen King territory.

gmisk

I loved it up until the last episode or so....I don't like the supernatural thing at all.
A shame because it was really well acted.

I heard the other books have different characters so will be interested to see what they do with them if more are made

gmisk

Ac12 would have had this sorted in 2 episodes

Strazdas

gmisk wrote: »

I loved it up until the last episode or so....I don't like the supernatural thing at all.
A shame because it was really well acted.

I heard the other books have different characters so will be interested to see what they do with them if more are made

We don't actually know if the ending was supernatural though. Perhaps the two kids were murdered, maybe they died accidentally, perhaps they were abducted and taken elsewhere.....maybe they are still alive.

The ending is deliberately very ambiguous and Rob has no answers to his inner turmoil.

gmisk

Strazdas wrote: »

We don't actually know if the ending was supernatural though. Perhaps the two kids were murdered, maybe they died accidentally, perhaps they were abducted and taken elsewhere.....maybe they are still alive.

The ending is deliberately very ambiguous and Rob has no answers to his inner turmoil.

I suppose but it did show us a flash back to what might have happened..so supernatural thing was shown as what likely happened from the dad's pov....that on top of the wolves thing and I also don't think the Lexi thing was particularly well explained...her imaginary friend etc...I am just more into a straight procedural I guess

JP Liz V1

Did any of the books explain what happened to Adam's friends in the woods?

Strazdas

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Did any of the books explain what happened to Adam's friends in the woods?

No, in fact. The ending is absolutely identical : Adam standing on the edge of the forest as the workers move in to clear it and with no answers to anything.

1800_Ladladlad

I just finished episode 4 and it was absolutely dire. I can't get over how well things can go in the series but then fall flat on their faces within an instant. There are scenes and interactions between characters that didn't make any logical sense at all. It's littered with discrepancies. Scenes are predictable. I think I set my expectations too high with this series because the BBC is usually associated with good quality content.

Imo- The role of the female detective does not suite Sarah Greene. 70% of her scenes are hard to watch as I feel the acting is unconvincing and its as if it is being put on. This is not acting and it's as if she's imitating under the guise of acting. As a detective, the character is not convincing at all. I think Killian Scott's character belittles his partner with the continuous babying of her, too much touching.

It's like Fair Citys take on the first season of true detective.

Moomoomacshoe

Bellbottoms wrote: »

TVL tells Adam exactly what it is, a child eater.

I dont mean to come across as a dick here. But I am shocked by the amount of people looking for things to be explained.
Dublin Murders isnt exactly Mr Robot or The Leftovers.

Everything but the abduction of the children in 1985 was spelled out and explained. And you could argue that given the amount of talk about things supernatural. Changelings, wolfs, ancient alters, the daughters conception releasing a dark power.

The kids where taken by something supernatural, that is why no trace of them was found. Cassies twin is something supernatural aswell. We can assume brought into being by the violent death of her folks and the deer.

Presumably that is why Adam and Cassie are so close. Both have had encounters with the supernatural. I think Adam even says something to Cassie about them having something in common when they first meet and are sitting in the car.

TBF the show was sold as an Irish scandi noir police procedural. Not Rent a Ghost with cops and Nidge. So that might have something to do with it people being confused by the show.

Best sum up yet thank you!. The problem with the show was the mumbling, was so hard to hear what was being said. I never heard "child eater" and thought if you blinked you'd miss the stone part.
Had to really concentrate and rewind, was a bit of a shambles imo very incoherent.
Anyone else find it hard to understand due to mumbling?

DMcL1971

I think a better ending would have been to have the girl who was raped murder the two kids. It would have been a surprise as we might expect the tough teenagers to do it but not the girl. They could imply she was mentally unstable and killed the kids for fear they would tell people what happened to her and ruin her reputation. Ireland was only becoming a more enlightened place at that time and it would be a credible excuse.

Also that girl was the biological mother of Rosalind. Thereby helping to explain why she turned out to be a psycho.

It would mean the teenage boys were innocent and all their fears and suspicious behavior could be put down to them hiding the belief that they created a monster through the rape that they were still hiding.

Adam’s memory loss could be put down the shock of seeing the seemingly innocent rape victim suddenly going crazy and killing his friends.

Sardonicat

The girl who was raped was not the biological mother of Rosalind.

Strazdas

Sardonicat wrote: »

The girl who was raped was not the biological mother of Rosalind.

Yes, the years don't add up. I had thought this was the direction the story was going, but that would make Rosalind 20/21 in 2006 and I'm sure it was stated she is only 18.

DMcL1971

Sardonicat wrote: »

The girl who was raped was not the biological mother of Rosalind.

I went back and had a look. You are probably right.

When the detectives interview the old local woman she says that Jonathan Devlin got Sandra pregnant and she went to England for an abortion but he then got Margaret pregnant and married her.

Later they ask Sandra and she doesn't answer them. I don't think it was confirmed one way or the other. But you are probably right.

odyssey06

About to air on US cable channel Acorn, get's a very good review here...
https://www.tvinsider.com/829760/dublin-murders-starz-review-matt-roush/

Strazdas

odyssey06 wrote: »

About to air on US cable channel Acorn, get's a very good review here...
https://www.tvinsider.com/829760/dublin-murders-starz-review-matt-roush/

Btw, an article in the Herald yesterday says it could well return for a second series. Apparently RTE and the BBC were very happy with the ratings and the reviews.

odyssey06

Strazdas wrote: »

Btw, an article in the Herald yesterday says it could well return for a second series. Apparently RTE and the BBC were very happy with the ratings and the reviews.

That's promising, although if is follows the books it will have different lead detectives (like True Detective).

paleoperson

I was hoping it would turn out that Adam the kid after years of torment finally flipped and killed the other two kids because he couldn't handle it anymore. That would make a lot of sense on why he was repressing the memory all these years. Maybe even he secretly liked Jaime but they went with each other and kissed and laughed in his face. Speaking with John in the car it finally comes back to him.

It would also make sense as to why he's been behaving so psychopathic - eg. being so cruel with Cassie, beating Shane senseless, confrontation with Sam, trying to pin it on Cathal, almost electrocuting himself and all the other ****. It would have been a grim twist at the end of it - the real bad guy, the real psycho of it all - Adam himself. Adam the broken boy who was so tramatized by torment finally snapped. And now he would have to live with himself, and the viewer is left on the edge with a feeling that this psycho, someone whose perspective they had taken of being the good guy the whole series, is still out there. I still think it could have been him, I just wish they had made it clear instead of pushing the ridiculous hocus pocus thing instead.

Overall I think it was a great series with strong characters, great atmosphere and dialogue, great tone and images, but in desperate need of a coherent plot. There was also too much time doing nothing or Adam just remembering something.

Immortal Starlight

I actually thought at one stage that he was going to change into a werewolf. In the scene where he falls out of the bed and starts writhing around on the floor. And then again when he fell down in the nightclub.

Scott Tenorman

I liked the Knocknaree story, they should have just had 6 episodes with this story and left out the Lexi story altogether which was out of place & generally sh*te!

odyssey06

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

I liked the Knocknaree story, they should have just had 6 episodes with this story and left out the Lexi story altogether which was out of place & generally sh*te!

I thought they were going to connect and there would be an angle to do with the student house, the motorway and someone trying to prevent the motorway as it would lead to the discovery of the bodies from the 1980s... but nope.

Bellbottoms

odyssey06 wrote: »

I thought they were going to connect and there would be an angle to do with the student house, the motorway and someone trying to prevent the motorway as it would lead to the discovery of the bodies from the 1980s... but nope.

That would of been a much better ending.

sydthebeat

paleoperson wrote: »

I was hoping it would turn out that Adam the kid after years of torment finally flipped and killed the other two kids because he couldn't handle it anymore. That would make a lot of sense on why he was repressing the memory all these years. Maybe even he secretly liked Jaime but they went with each other and kissed and laughed in his face. Speaking with John in the car it finally comes back to him.

It would also make sense as to why he's been behaving so psychopathic - eg. being so cruel with Cassie, beating Shane senseless, confrontation with Sam, trying to pin it on Cathal, almost electrocuting himself and all the other ****. It would have been a grim twist at the end of it - the real bad guy, the real psycho of it all - Adam himself. Adam the broken boy who was so tramatized by torment finally snapped. And now he would have to live with himself, and the viewer is left on the edge with a feeling that this psycho, someone whose perspective they had taken of being the good guy the whole series, is still out there. I still think it could have been him, I just wish they had made it clear instead of pushing the ridiculous hocus pocus thing instead.

Overall I think it was a great series with strong characters, great atmosphere and dialogue, great tone and images, but in desperate need of a coherent plot. There was also too much time doing nothing or Adam just remembering something.

agreed.... i was suggesting to my wife coming into the last episode that Adam must have killed the kids (possibly accidently) and the trauma was causing his memory lapse. like say pushing them off tree or into a quarry etc.
then when the story was evolding that the other two kids were not actually as good as friends as adam remembered... i thought that was going to be the big reveal.

Bellbottoms

sydthebeat wrote: »

agreed.... i was suggesting to my wife coming into the last episode that Adam must have killed the kids (possibly accidently) and the trauma was causing his memory lapse. like say pushing them off tree or into a quarry etc.
then when the story was evolding that the other two kids were not actually as good as friends as adam remembered... i thought that was going to be the big reveal.

That would of been much better as well.

What a shambles of an ending. After the third episode the show just went off the rails.

Scott Tenorman

odyssey06 wrote: »

I thought they were going to connect and there would be an angle to do with the student house, the motorway and someone trying to prevent the motorway as it would lead to the discovery of the bodies from the 1980s... but nope.

As someone who has never read the books i kept thinking "ok this student stuff (with the oldest group of students i've ever seen BTW!) is sh*t but lets see how it ties in with the main story" but it didn't at all

Livvie

It was a mistake - imo - to merge two books rather than concentrating on one at a time. They apparently did this just to have a male/female detective pairing.

HeidiHeidi

Livvie wrote: »

It was a mistake - imo - to merge two books rather than concentrating on one at a time. They apparently did this just to have a male/female detective pairing.

I'm halfway through the first book, and the two of them are a pair in it.....

Agree that trying to mix the two stories didn't turn out great, the student house story just seemed completely ridiculous in the end. Looking forward to reading that book to see if that's actually how the story was intended! The first book is pretty faithful to the series (well, the other way around, I suppose!)

odyssey06

Another US review, this time it's of the had potential but not worth sticking with variety ... "too much unbelievable plot":
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/dublin-murders-review-1253701

sydthebeat

odyssey06 wrote: »

Another US review, this time it's of the had potential but not worth sticking with variety ... "too much unbelievable plot":
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/dublin-murders-review-1253701

Very harsh but correct review

Strazdas

sydthebeat wrote: »

Very harsh but correct review

I wouldn't say fair. The critic basically tells viewers not to watch the show and nearly spitefully gives the ending away.

sydthebeat

Strazdas wrote: »

I wouldn't say fair. The critic basically tells viewers not to watch the show and nearly spitefully gives the ending away.

thats generally a reviewers job .... and the reason people read reviews...

i dont think the review unfair at all... it calls it out for what it is... a preposterous unbelievable mess.

and if i had had the chance to read that review 8 episodes ago i would have watched something completely different and not wasted my time with it.

it had some good points, which is generally the acting and the mood... the pace was ok... but it was let down by some seriously poor story telling

Zeek12

Zeek12 wrote: »

The businessman with the beard and ponytail.

Was the leader of the three teenagers in the woods in the 80's

He was the corrupt government minister in Red Rock as well!

odyssey06

zorro2566 wrote: »

He was the corrupt government minister in Red Rock as well!

And I think he is in the LIDL christmas ad too, in a dodgy christmas jumper...
Haven't they seen any of his previous roles before casting him!

Strazdas

Seems Dublin Murders may well return for a second series and the writer even has detailed plans for the storyline and characters. She's just waiting for the go ahead :

https://evoke.ie/2019/11/10/showbiz/dublin-murders-writer-sarah-phelps

DMcL1971

Scott Tenorman wrote: »

As someone who has never read the books i kept thinking "ok this student stuff (with the oldest group of students i've ever seen BTW!) is sh*t but lets see how it ties in with the main story" but it didn't at all

A group of students who sit around and read books together. Where’s the telly, where’s the Xbox or PlayStation. Instead of watching DVD’s they watch black and white movies with a projector. They seemed more like they were from the fifties than the 2000’s.

strandroad

DMcL1971 wrote: »

A group of students who sit around and read books together. Where’s the telly, where’s the Xbox or PlayStation. Instead of watching DVD’s they watch black and white movies with a projector. They seemed more like they were from the fifties than the 2000’s.

The book has a lot of backstory around that, also a lot more on the historical conflict between the village and the big house. They only skimmed the book for the tv adaptation.

Ipso

I haven't seen the show but I read all her books and enjoyed them. I don't know how someone thought it would be a good idea to combine books one and two (the second book isn't all that far fetched), and now the writer plans to combine books three and four which are very tenuously linked.

Strazdas

Ipso wrote: »

I haven't seen the show but I read all her books and enjoyed them. I don't know how someone thought it would be a good idea to combine books one and two (the second book isn't all that far fetched), and now the writer plans to combine books three and four which are very tenuously linked.

It's a fair point about the two books but people are giving out yards about the ending and yet it matched the ending of 'In The Woods' almost exactly.

I'd say there is no pleasing some of the critics of the show, they were never going to like it.