Columnist Ian Hyland delivers his verdict on BBC's new historical drama, which stars James Norton and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau.
When I belatedly discovered that the BBC's new historical epic King & Conqueror had been made entirely on location in Iceland, I assumed that they must have filmed it in winter when daylight is always at a premium.
That would at least explain the most obvious problem with this 8-part retelling of the build-up to the Battle Of Hastings. It's really flippin' dark.
As in, so dark that at any given time it can be pretty hard to work out who's who in a scene and what the hell is going on. If you throw in BBC Drama's old problem of actors mumbling their lines, then it's the perfect recipe for a volley of "... and everyone is saying the same thing" clickbait articles dropping online at around 9.15pm tonight.
At this point, I really wish I could say that the producers don't make things even harder for themselves.
Unfortunately, the very first scene, which gives us a brief flash-forward to the famous battle to come, is filmed entirely in monochrome - so it's anyone's guess who's on Team Harold and who's on Team William. This, of course, calls to mind the great snooker commentator Ted Lowe, who once gaffed, "For those of you watching in black and white, the pink is next to the green."
Admittedly, thanks to Harold (James Norton) and William (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) yelling each other's names, we do eventually work out who is who.
Unfortunately, Coster-Waldau sounds so unnervingly like Alfred Steptoe calling out for his feckless son that the moment is kind of lost. I'm guessing that wasn't the look he was going for.
Keen observers will have noticed here that this is indeed the story of a battle between a couple of royals called Harry and Wills. This will no doubt keep a certain section of mischief makers happy on social media.
Likewise, at a time where the corporation stands accused of courting Nigel Farage and his merry Reform men, political pot stirrers on both sides will doubtless have a field day with the BBC showing countless scenes of foreigners in small boats flooding across the English Channel to invade Britain.
To be honest, I wouldn't blame any viewer for seeking alternative social media amusement while watching King & Conqueror.
As with any historical drama where the whole world already knows the ending, its job is to keep us interested in how something ended the way it did. I'm not convinced King & Conqueror pulls that off. It's less 1066 and all that, more 1066 ain't all that.
"Do you want it done fast or well?" a medic says to William, while tending to his sword wound in the opening episode. If the producers had asked me the same question with regard to this project, I would have requested a little bit of each. We ended up with neither.
With the benefit of hindsight, those same producers may accept that offering us a tantalising glimpse of the big battle at the start was not the best idea. On more than one occasion during the ensuing seven and a half episodes, I found myself tapping my imaginary wristwatch and actually shouting out loud, "Get on with the fighting!"
That was partly down to the fact that the opening scene had massively whetted my appetite thanks to its obvious visual similarities to the legendary Battle Of The Bastards from Game Of Thrones.
Sadly, when you finally reach the full battle scene in the climactic episode, you may feel that the early teaser flattered to deceive you. It doesn't help that just as it looks like the swords and shields are about to get going, there is an extra two-minute delay to enable Harold and William to make their rousing Henry V-style pre-match speeches.
Once the camera shot widens, it brings another reminder that King & Conqueror has neither the scale nor the budget of HBO's Fire and Ice saga.
In general, it could do with a few hundred more extras and/or some expensive CGI to bump up its visual power. Some scenes are so thin on numbers it's like it was filmed under COVID restrictions.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's more Horrible Histories than House Of The Dragon, but it does feel oddly low budget at times -- almost like recreating the Bayeux Tapestry on a tea towel.
Consequently, anyone who is looking for something to fill their Game Of Thrones hole may be disappointed.
True, it does feature one of GOT's star names in Coster-Waldau. Plus, alongside the aforementioned Norton, there's an impressive supporting cast including Eddie Marsan giving it his best King Lear as King Edward, Juliet Stevenson bringing some Lady Macbeth to Edward's scheming mother Lady Emma, and German character actor Oilver Masucci stealing every scene he's in as sneaky European nobleman Baldwin.
Sadly, the cast doesn't really have much to work with in terms of plot and action. Sure, there's gore and sexy time and a smattering of matricide and fratricide (not to mention whatever "tricide" relates to the murder of the French accent). It's all fairly tame compared to what we've seen elsewhere though.
All too often it feels like you're watching seven hours of hairy, pumped-up fellas in IKEA fur throws simply popping back and forth across the treacherous channel, with all the ease of your Nan nipping into town on the Hopper for a pint of milk.
Also, the script boasts far too much repetition and clunky exposition for my liking. This results in several more taps of my imaginary wristwatch. You may suggest that, as this was a co-production with CBS Studios, the script will have been made more accessible in order to cater for the American and worldwide market. I couldn't possibly comment.
What I will say, though, is I was surprised to read that when James Norton was first alerted to this project, he asked, "How has this story not been told before in TV or film?"
Eight episodes later, James, I think we may have our answer.
PS. Spoiler alert: I wouldn't get too excited at the battle when William's right hand man shouts "Archers!"