Dublin Murders
Discussion
Three kids go missing 21 years ago in the woods. Only one is found.
Twenty one years later a girl from a dis-functional family is found murdered. Two cops - one male, one female - they are friends, but not like that. It's going to be four episodes? Starting to get complicated.
A good watch. Very well done.
Twenty one years later a girl from a dis-functional family is found murdered. Two cops - one male, one female - they are friends, but not like that. It's going to be four episodes? Starting to get complicated.
A good watch. Very well done.
I'm so out of touch with modern cars that, while I usually notice significant things, I can't say any of this has jumped out at me. I did notice someone had quite a clunky old mobile phone in one shot. I have more trouble distinguishing between pony-tailed beardy bloke who is obviously a baddie, and beardy bloke who is the ex-undercover detectives secret boyfriend. I really ought to pay more attention.
I've learned to shut up. Getting called too geeky and guess I could be ruining shows if I take it too far.timmo said:
Drives me mad - meant to be set in 2006 but most of the cars in the background are post post 2010
Dublin murders, but obviously filmed in the north, with the odd scene filmed with a Dublin landmark as a backdrop, quite annoying. Killian Scott’s accent is all over the place.But despite the niggles it’s very watchable. Good to see Tom Vaughan Lawlor back on TV.
speedking31 said:
He was an Irish child raised in England, so that is excusable.
Yes, and wasn't there a mention of how he slipped up at one point? He's trying to keep up the English accent as none of his colleagues know his background (and somehow the background check when he joined the Garda didn't throw any flags up for some reason) but used a local word by mistake.Frank7 said:
The Mad Monk said:
What's going on?
Gimme a clue 
l may have closed my eyes, just for a second, you understand, while it was on. That didn't help.
There is/isn't a relationship between the two detectives investigating?
The Mad Monk said:
Well, the time keeps switching between 1985 and now. Three children missing in 1985 - never found. The detective investigating is something to do with 1985 - isn't he? "Don't call me Mark, that's not my name now".
l may have closed my eyes, just for a second, you understand, while it was on. That didn't help.
There is/isn't a relationship between the two detectives investigating?
Yes rewatch it. l may have closed my eyes, just for a second, you understand, while it was on. That didn't help.
There is/isn't a relationship between the two detectives investigating?
The Mad Monk said:
Well, the time keeps switching between 1985 and now.
Not quite now, although it looks like it, more like around ten years ago. See the comment earlier about cars being too new in the background, and all the flip-phones and old tech. The Mad Monk said:
"Don't call me Mark, that's not my name now".
That's not quite what he said, listen to it again. Though by the time we get to that scene, it's been explained quite a bit, so even if you can't quite pick out her accent, it's clear what she said. The Mad Monk said:
There is/isn't a relationship between the two detectives investigating?
That's not very clear, they obviously have some history but this latest episode suggests it is something else.You have missed a key part, but it's quite easy to do - I haven't been closing my eyes during it, I've seen all four episodes, but I hadn't realised one bit until it was made clear last night - not listening closely enough.
We watched the first two episodes last night. If the storyline does not get better (packer), I doubt that we will get to watch the last two.
Not dating, or washing the colour out of historical events, does make it difficult to follow the time changes.
Is it not a huge slight on the Gardia to suggest that he could possibly be involved with this odd investigation?
Not dating, or washing the colour out of historical events, does make it difficult to follow the time changes.
Is it not a huge slight on the Gardia to suggest that he could possibly be involved with this odd investigation?
rdjohn said:
We watched the first two episodes last night. If the storyline does not get better (packer), I doubt that we will get to watch the last two.
Not dating, or washing the colour out of historical events, does make it difficult to follow the time changes.
Is it not a huge slight on the Gardia to suggest that he could possibly be involved with this odd investigation?
We started watching it, the first two episodes were suitably enticing but as time has gone on I feel like the story has been strung out beyond any level of believability - I feel I'm only watching it now to discover who dun what as opposed to actually enjoying the story unfold in a compelling way, I also ended up feeling this way about The Capture and Marcella. As an ironic aside we recently watched Unbelievable on Netflix which we thoroughly enjoyed.Not dating, or washing the colour out of historical events, does make it difficult to follow the time changes.
Is it not a huge slight on the Gardia to suggest that he could possibly be involved with this odd investigation?
As for the time periods, there are some title slates on some scenes going back between 2006, 2003, 1985 and 1983, and think this is indicative of the overall problem, trying to be too smart for its own good.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff