Neil Gaiman wrote an excellent book, Neverwhere.
Someone decided to make a TV mini-series out of it.
Unfortunately, they sucked.
The director didn't go to film school apparently. Even with the obviously very low budget, there were very, very, very basic errors that could have been easily fixed. For instance, at the end, where Richard marks out a door - the Marquis opens a door that is an entirely different shape from the one Richard marked out. Now, even though they most likely couldn't afford a special effects shot to show a dissolve from the drawing to the door opening, they could have easily made the door they built resemble the one Richard drew. Or far more easily, have had him draw a door that was the same shape as the one they built.
Really simple errors like that are rife throughout the production. The concept of 'lighting' was obviously never studied by the director - it comes off looking like a live stage play in some spots, with very, very bright spots and very, very dark spots. While that may work on a stage, it doesn't on film. Any director worth his salt would understand this. Heck, high school students in America understand this. There's no excuse for it on this level, no matter what the budget. And in other spots, it can't even be excused by the idea that perhaps the director had only done lighting for live theater before this - it's simply bad, bad, bad, bad.
The sound is incredibly hokey all throughout - it comes off as if someone scored the movie with a 1980's casio keyboard on demo mode, with very tiny electronic drums and problems that indicated time and time again, whoever did the sound had never studied sound design. Or that if they had, that they were just really, really, really bad at it. If that was true, why were they being paid to do it in the first place?
The actors are... OK. Some of them have talent, others very obviously do not. None of them do a very good job of it, though the odds are that half of it is more the fault of the director than it is their own. However, that's still half on their part that they suck at. As a previous commenter noted, they make mistakes that belong in high-school level plays. People who get paid to act shouldn't be making those sorts of mistakes.
The set design was another abortion in the making. While it's obvious they didn't have much money to work with, what they did have could have been done much better. The London Underground just looked... Bad. It's not hard to fake something that looks like a sewer city. If they had used less, they actually would have made it look better.
Good writer, good story, horrible production. If you're a big enough fan, you can sit through the thing, but... 'Sit through' is the best you'll do.
Someone decided to make a TV mini-series out of it.
Unfortunately, they sucked.
The director didn't go to film school apparently. Even with the obviously very low budget, there were very, very, very basic errors that could have been easily fixed. For instance, at the end, where Richard marks out a door - the Marquis opens a door that is an entirely different shape from the one Richard marked out. Now, even though they most likely couldn't afford a special effects shot to show a dissolve from the drawing to the door opening, they could have easily made the door they built resemble the one Richard drew. Or far more easily, have had him draw a door that was the same shape as the one they built.
Really simple errors like that are rife throughout the production. The concept of 'lighting' was obviously never studied by the director - it comes off looking like a live stage play in some spots, with very, very bright spots and very, very dark spots. While that may work on a stage, it doesn't on film. Any director worth his salt would understand this. Heck, high school students in America understand this. There's no excuse for it on this level, no matter what the budget. And in other spots, it can't even be excused by the idea that perhaps the director had only done lighting for live theater before this - it's simply bad, bad, bad, bad.
The sound is incredibly hokey all throughout - it comes off as if someone scored the movie with a 1980's casio keyboard on demo mode, with very tiny electronic drums and problems that indicated time and time again, whoever did the sound had never studied sound design. Or that if they had, that they were just really, really, really bad at it. If that was true, why were they being paid to do it in the first place?
The actors are... OK. Some of them have talent, others very obviously do not. None of them do a very good job of it, though the odds are that half of it is more the fault of the director than it is their own. However, that's still half on their part that they suck at. As a previous commenter noted, they make mistakes that belong in high-school level plays. People who get paid to act shouldn't be making those sorts of mistakes.
The set design was another abortion in the making. While it's obvious they didn't have much money to work with, what they did have could have been done much better. The London Underground just looked... Bad. It's not hard to fake something that looks like a sewer city. If they had used less, they actually would have made it look better.
Good writer, good story, horrible production. If you're a big enough fan, you can sit through the thing, but... 'Sit through' is the best you'll do.