Sexy Beast TV series

[Kevin Cozner]

Has anyone seen this yet? Is it any good?

Going by the trailer it could either be a "A Town Called Malice" style enjoyable Friday evening watch or a horrendous disaster.

[vixen1700]

Nah, there's only one Don Logan:

[Kevin Cozner]

Don, shall we make a Sexy Beast TV series?

[CountyAFC]

Some things should be left well alone. You could try a hundred different actors as Don Logan but they won't get anywhere near Kingsley.

If I was an actor, I wouldn't even want to try. No good can come of it.

[PositronicRay]

CountyAFC said:

Some things should be left well alone. You could try a hundred different actors as Don Logan but they won't get anywhere near Kingsley.

If I was an actor, I wouldn't even want to try. No good can come of it.

He was frightening, more so by the way the cast reacted to him. Would he have been frightening if ignored?

[WY86]

Tried watching it, but the main character reminded me too much of Harry Kane.

[Don Veloci]

Actually quite enjoying it as a bit of lightweight gangster TV

But have to let it slide that the young Don Logan does not carry the presence nor menace of Ben Kingsley, a bit wet really outwith the influence of the sister.

[PF62]

Kevin Cozner said:

Has anyone seen this yet? Is it any good?]

Aside from the comments above about the actors, the issue I had with it was the time period it was supposed to be set in.

It is intended to set in the early 1990s as the prequel for the film set in 2000, but frankly it isn’t or at least most of it isn’t.

The behaviour and style of the gangster part has more resemblance to a 1970s ‘Sweeny’ style and the scenes with the porn star girlfriend have more of a 1960’s feel. Even the general London scenes don’t have that 1990’s sense to them.

Was this because the people producing it didn’t know better, or whether they wanted that 60s / 70s vibe but it didn’t fit with timeline for the film?

Anyway, if you can get over that utter dogs breakfast of a mishmash of time period styles and that the actors are nowhere close to those they are to become, then it’s ok.

[normalbloke]

Question is, should I rewatch the original film before giving the series a go?

[PF62]

normalbloke said:

Question is, should I rewatch the original film before giving the series a go?

To be honest, probably best not to and just treat it as a standalone series.

[Flumpo]

PF62 said:

Kevin Cozner said:

Has anyone seen this yet? Is it any good?]

Aside from the comments above about the actors, the issue I had with it was the time period it was supposed to be set in.

It is intended to set in the early 1990s as the prequel for the film set in 2000, but frankly it isn’t or at least most of it isn’t.

The behaviour and style of the gangster part has more resemblance to a 1970s ‘Sweeny’ style and the scenes with the porn star girlfriend have more of a 1960’s feel. Even the general London scenes don’t have that 1990’s sense to them.

Was this because the people producing it didn’t know better, or whether they wanted that 60s / 70s vibe but it didn’t fit with timeline for the film?

Anyway, if you can get over that utter dogs breakfast of a mishmash of time period styles and that the actors are nowhere close to those they are to become, then it’s ok.

Yes it does feel a bit of a mess on that front. I thought it was set early 80s until something was shoe horned in about the 90s.

It feels like someone ordered a sexy beast dvd off Ali express