User reviews

I felt compelled to put pen to paper myself after watching this thoroughly enjoyable drama, I would say by far the best thing on ITV in 2011 Purefoy is at his best with a great support cast in Miles, Diveney, Parker and Dunning. Love to see more of this in the future, the writing is from Anthony Horowitz known for Foyles War, Murder in Mind, Midsommer Murders and The Gift. In the beginning you see only success from Travers lifestyle but it soon unravels into a web of intrigue, not everything is what it seems, flashbacks are used to build a powerful story of a man with a secret in his past, will it catch up with him?

James Purefoy plays William Travers, an attorney who is very disturbed by "Injustice" in this 2011 miniseries.

Travers is so disturbed by injustice that when one of clients, Spaull, is found not guilty and laughingly informs Travers that he is, Travers has a complete breakdown. We don't see it; it is alluded to during the show. The Spaull's act was responsible for the death of a small boy, who appears to Travers from time to time. So one has to wonder if he's truly back to normal.

In the meantime, Spraull is found murdered, and an evil detective D.I. Wenborn (Charlie Creed-Miles) is investigating. I have to say that Creed-Miles is either a fabulous actor or the worst human being on earth because I can't remember hating a character as much as I hated this character.

Travers is approached by an old college friend (Nathaniel Parker) who is charged with the murder of a young woman who worked in his office. Travers takes the case, which becomes very complicated.

That's all I'll say. The acting is wonderful from the entire cast, Purefoy and Creed-Miles being standouts.

Highly recommended.

Although Horowitz created this series, I swear I saw the ghost of Hitchcock pacing in the background. Eerily, his prints hoovered just off the pages of script, evident in pacing, tone and tenor and I wonder if the honourable he and Mr. Horowitz wrote the denouement in one mind.

Yes, Purefoy (Travers) was excellent as a the subdued, yet stalk-on rigorous attorney, eying both the prosecution and his client throughout the trial. Moreover, the flashbacks of life before rural Suffolk, as well as the choppy shots of the murder of Spaull, were done in a coherent, easy manner with which to keep pace. The insinuations of a 'breakdown' in Travers' past was another great possible portent of pitiful prospects that sent frissons up my spine. Was he going to fall apart and go on a spree, will it come off short, constrained by the so-called British sangfroid? And again my thoughts returned to Hitch, who could have only contributed to this series through the breath of his spirit and his lasting influence on a talented Horowitz. Hitch was admittedly afraid of many things, in fact, he once said "The only way to get rid of my fears is to make films about them."

The support actors were brilliant! Dervla Kirwan is always spot-on. Although I have never watched Charlie Creed-Miles before, I can honestly say, I just hated him in such a good way! Can't wait to see him in something else.

In conclusion, this is a great UK miniseries with 5 episodes that keep one interested and, I would say, entertained. Give it a watch, you'll have no regrets.

If I had given up because it was a tiny bit slower than the pace I was expecting up until about 3/4 of the way through the first episode, I'd have missed some fantastic entertainment. It was probably only slow to me because I'd just finished watching the movie about Cleveland mobster, Danny Greene, so my pulse was still pounding a bit. (I tend to really like biographical stories). This is a great story full of some really unexpected twists and very real and flawed characters who just pull you into the story even more. I loved it. The actors are not known to me --I'm in western Canada-- but that doesn't mean anything, because I usually forget the actors and only remember their characters if they've done a good job (plus I'm kind of ditzy with names). And they did an incredible job. If it were a regular TV show, I'd probably go and get cable again (I mostly rely on books and movies lately). Thank you to my friend, KJ, for insisting I watch it.

Anthony Horowitz (Foyle's War, etc) is one of the best tv crime and mystery writers the UK has, and despite this not being one of his better programs, it's still very much worth watching. The problems are in the plotting: it could have been a full hour less and there's too much foreshadowing of the final scenes, which are far too predicable. But still, it's a solid show and while James Purefoy is, as always, terrific, it's Charlie Creed-Miles who steals the show in a highly unsympathetic role.

Similar to Scandinavian crime thrillers, the British ones are also the ones I try to see as soon/much as possible. Some are great, others good, but never disappointing or causing blah! feelings.

Injustice has an unusual number of episodes - 5 - and is a fair mind- twister, where events and destinies intertwine and attitudes and opinions go back into decades before. True, not all characters and scenes are of equal importance and credibility (e.g. DI Mark Wenborn), and some crucial points were revealed too far, but James Purefoy's performance in particular and skilfully captured spirit provide the series with suitable and thrilling background. Unless you are used to the model "one case per episode", you can definitely obtain good memories from the one in question.

Referring to the final episode, one could have suspected the following season, but "so far - not good".

This show was pure entertainment from the start. Good story with a twist, good acting, a few surprises and well worth watching.

I enjoyed this series but it never quite became as gripping as i felt it should have been. A little slow and dull. Maybe fewer episodes might have helped to speed things up a little. Worth watching but no more than that.

I really wish there were more seasons of this. Great premise & James Purefoy was brilliant!

Perfectly fine series, good story line and good acting EXCEPT for that one thing..the truly appalling acting of Charlie Creed-Miles.... absolute Shocker!!

This is a slow moving series that will reward the viewers if they can get past the first episode. That episode does little to draw the viewer into the story since it is mainly a series of flash backs that offer little explanation about their purpose, the characters, or the plot. It seems to represent just the perspective of the Director as to only what he thinks viewers need to know at that moment in time. It almost resulted in my discontinuing to watch half way through that episode. I'm glad I stuck with it! The first episode just has too many unknowns for viewers to engage, start to build or understand the character connections, and the nature of the plot itself. It's a bit like a slow weave that has to go through a number of rows before one sees the pattern emerge. However, it is quite clever....just not for everyone!

... though the character he plays is thoroughly unlikable, indeed repellent, perhaps to an exaggerated degree. Still, he's a fascinating creation.

Actually, the cast was almost universally superb. I was particularly impressed with Nathaniel Parker -- I've never before seen him so convincing -- as well as Kirsty Bushell, Ian Burfield, and Imogen Stubbs.

James Purefoy in the lead role is a bit of a mystery. He's adequate but, as always, pretty shallow and uninteresting, and I don't understand why others on this site praise his performance.

I was glad, incidentally, that this drama was broken up into five 45-minute installments. That was just the right length for me, and it meant that events moved along at a reasonably fast clip.

I really liked this show and don't understand the reason there's not a second season. There were definitely Italy some loose ends that were left hanging.

'Injustice ' aptly titled. Whole series revolves around a murder that takes place in a hotel room. Cctv footage around the hotel area is the core around which facts are established. Yet , at the same time cctv footage of the actual hotel lobby , elevetors , room corridors where the crime took place is conveniently kept out of the plot.

How are we supposed to gulp that blunder ? What were the makers thinking? How did they reconcile this huge plot hole ? I want know the rationale to ignore this plot hole . Even a school teacher won't accept this script unless the hole is rationally plugged .

This is not done. I want an explanation or i want 5 hours of my life back. There must be law that makes shows with such big plot holes illegal. It's injustice towards patient viewers . Will sue the makers .

When ITV showed this crime drama over five consecutive nights, my interested was piqued by the presence of James Purefoy, an actor I've been a fan of since I saw him in SOLOMON KANE. I stuck with it for Purefoy alone - he delivers an excellent turn - and am willing to forgive the drama its faults on the basis that it picked a fine actor for its central part.

Otherwise, it's a pretty predictable type of production, throwing together the ingredients so beloved of British TV crime these days: murders, shady blackmailing, adultery, CCTV footage, thugs and horrible crimes in pretty rural locales. The plot is fairly interesting, but the main problem is that there isn't enough story to justify the five hour running time.

The upshot of this is that the production is long winded in the extreme, drip-feeding the viewer flashbacks and clues at an incredibly slow pace before tying everything up in the final episode. Still, Purefoy's angst-ridden turn kept me watching, so it's not all bad.