User reviews

I've never thought much of Robert Pastorelli, though I am sorry for the way he ended but for me Pastorelli just didn't have any grip. He seemed at his (adequate) best in Murphy Brown but in every other role he just never seemed to be convincing, this series was no exception either.

Nevertheless, it was a great dis-service to him to cast him in an almost word for word American production of the great British series 'Cracker'. It was an insult to the original and to the poor actors doomed to the series and makes me wish that the USA would either stop doing this sort of thing or get better at adapting 'stolen ideas' to better suit the new world. The story lines, situations, attitudes and social structure didn't translate well to America and the sort of reprehensible but brilliant lead which was perfect for Robbie Coltrane needed someone with more intensity than Robert Pastorelli. Coltrane is bigger than life (even when he's not playing Hagrid) and most anybody would pale in comparison as Fitz.

This Cracker was OK, but a so-so remake of the original British TV series. Like so many US remakes of British TV, it was watered down by the US networks, who seem to treat American audiences like small children, and never let them see anything remotely "different".

The original British version starred Robbie Coltrane (Haggred in the Harry Potter movies), and his large, overweight frame helped make him a good anti-hero. It also made the romance between him and Sgt Jane Penhaligon all the more interesting (she was a slim red-head played by Geraldine Somerville). It was pretty obvious that she found him attractive because of his brains. In the US version, a slimmer actor was used. Why? Probably because US networks just won't EVER make the hero a fat guy, or perhaps because God forbid TV should suggest that looks aren't the most important thing in a relationship.

I was a huge fan of this series when it first aired. I recently stumbled onto the DVD Boxed set and just finished up with the final episode last night. I was reminded of just how much I loved this show. Granted, I haven't seen the original British version, but recently found a boxed set and I'm anxiously looking forward to viewing. Of course, I understand the desire for those who have seen both versions to make comparisons. I'm sure i'll be doing the same once I finish watching the British version. But if you just take the American version on it's own merits, it's hard to find another show comparable in quality and sheer grittiness. Pastorelli's Fitz is a deeply flawed human being. Many times his disgust and disdain for others is off-putting and makes one question why we care for him. Just as often though we see the kinks in his armor. His humanity is shielded with walls of self loathing. It's that dichotomy of his inner struggles which what make this such a great show and a breath of fresh air to watch. It's unfortunate that American TV just wasn't ready for the dark realities that this show portrayed. There's nothing better than watching a TV show that dares to be REAL with multi-layered characters. It seems there have been some on here reviewing this show with a black-and-white bias comparison to the original British version. I'm truly looking forward to watching Coltrane's Fitz with an open mind, which is what others here haven't seemed to be able to do with Pastorelli's Fitz.

This is a poor copy of a great original series. Enjoy original and move on.

It's too bad that it didn't run longer. I've not seen the original UK cracker, so I probably will have less qualms than those that have. I love this show. I own the DVD collection and while some episodes aren't great or even good most of them are excellent. Episodes like IF, Faustian Fitz and others are extremely well done. Each episode sort of has twist and some of them are expected and some aren't. I say great acting, great writing(in most cases) and overall a great show buy this on DVD if you can find it it's cheap and definitely worth every cent. This show is definitely a precursor to shows like Medium, the Closer, House and many other specialized mystery shows. I am willing to bet however the UK version is way better, but I have not yet seen it. Buy it.

Robert Pastorelli tried. The problem with this Americanized version of a great British series was the story lines didn't translate well. The story lines are so British. They would have been better off taking the characters and writing completely new scripts. It might have worked better if the series took place in New York. The LA area just didn't seem to fit with the dark feel of the show, all that sunshine just didn't work. I watched all of the episodes, waiting for an original storyline, never happened.

It was an admirable effort to bring a good show to American television. But poorly executed.

I remember it being one of the best shows of the season when it was released. Now i'm re-watching it via Netflix. The other reviews here don't make sense to me. I do want to see the Britsh version, but I'm glad i didn't see it first. The gist of reviews is that this is a pale comparison, which doesn't mean much.

I remember before it premiered, the buzz was mostly questioning whether the US was ready for such an "unpleasant" central character. I found Fitz pleasantly realistic and not nearly so obnoxious as the press indicated. The show has a great deal more depth than much of what's on, plus a large dose of simple everyday realism compared with most current dramas (where's Bochco when he's needed?)

Currently there seem to be two schools of drama; both rather irritating: In one, focus on characters is maximized but events are somehow super-heightened as to be unreal. Kind of soaps on steroids that grind you down after a while: i.e. Grey's Anatomy

The other is the gimmick show, started by ER, which focuses so heavily on it's supposedly clever concept, usually some scientific subject usually just off the radar of common folk, the characters are virtually forgotten; mere robots carrying on the activity necessary to illustrate the subject: Any of the CSI's, Criminal Minds, Numbers, Lie To Me, and a few dozen others they've spawned.

Cracker was not clichéd. It was character driven without forgetting to have interesting goings on, and didn't try to twist the viewer into knots with every plot turn.

Fitz reminds me quite a bit of Dr. House, especially now that show has lost it's sense of humor as well as the cast and formula that made it great. Cracker was never as brilliant as House began, but then there's plenty of room for both sorts. Perhaps the character of Fitz WAS before the time was right.

"Cracker" (1997), a shoddy knock-off of Jimmy McGovern's popular Brit series of the same name, is a waste of time. A simple minded, dumbed down commercial product, this TV flick fails on all levels. The characters all look like scale actors and were poorly cast. The screen play is uninspired rote. The premise is nebulous. The acting is marginal. The script is soap opera quality. The direction...well, I'm not sure there was any. Even the DVD was crap and not only had no CC's or subtitles but didn't even have a menu...just the two 45 minute episodes. Passable, forgettable junk. (C-)

Note - It's worth mentioning that I was spoiled by viewing the entire Brit "Cracker" series on DVD and consider it one of the best psychodramatic TV series ever made. Hence, my objectivity may be compromised.

This excruciating remake of the excellent British series is not worth wasting your time on.

The police in the original had skepticism coming out of their ears when it came to having a psychologist on the team, exactly as many real police officers would. The American version has them fawning after Fitz at every opportunity, which is not only unrealistic, it also set up little dramatic tension.

While the English version has quirky, interesting, believable characters, the American one has typical American pretty people. Particularly disappointing is the lack of characterisation of the police. The original has a range of people we came to know well: Penhaligon, the young officer trying to cope with an inept boss and pathetic "lad" culture. Beck, the old-fashioned copper whose unpleasant exterior barely covers his mental instability. Bilborough, a nice guy, but so soft he has to get Penhaligon to do the talking when visiting people with bad news. What do we get from the American version? A token black character whose name escapes me and a chicky-babe who looks like Pamela Anderson's cousin.

The actors who play Fitz and Penhaligon (renamed to something unmemorable) could easily be replaced by wooden blocks and no-one would have noticed the difference. There's no spark between them. You don't care about them and you aren't convinced by them. Same with the Fitz/Judith pairing - he says something soppy and she simpers "sentimentality becomes you, Fitz". The "real" Judith would have laughed or sneered.

I could go on, but it just isn't worth the bother. Take from me: if you don't want to see a great show trashed, avoid this load of drivel.

Like others, I'm spoiled by watching the brilliant original. This movie is a near line-by-line re-creation of a Cracker episode. But it is done without the scene-setting and great asides from the original. Interstingly, they took some lines Fitz says to Judith at the end of the original and has him say them to Nina.

The sexual tension between Fitz and the Panhandle character is absent and awkwardly comes into play at the end.

Might be worth seeing for an early Makiska Hargatay police work. Or Josh Hartnell. Both don't show up in the IMDb credits.

Still, pretty much a waste of time if you've seen the original. The Fitz character lacks the believability of Robbie Coltrane.

Like many remakes (Dr Who springs to mind!) this is a VERY poor American imitation of the excellent British series. Robert Pastorelli's version of Robbie Coltrane's character "Fitz" lacks the subtlety and the lovable character weaknesses (eg gambling) that Coltrane gave him: Pastorelli's Fitz is just too perfect. The whole series lacks the magic of the British one. Verdict: 1/10 for trying (but failing!).

I was a big fan of the original "Cracker" & this americanised version simply doesn't work. The actors all put in good performances, but they can only work with what writers give them, and, therein lie the problems. Strangely, I find myself blaming Jimmy McGovern. He is an EXCELLENT writer & most of us brits still remember Robert Carlyle's electrifying performance as the psychotic 'Albie'. Let's face it, McGovern helped make him a star. However, that was writing for the British market - and Jimmy is British. This dire attempt at success in the US is about as convincing as my new York accent. I can only think of one reason for watching "Fitz" and that is; just imagine Robbie Coltrane playing Robert Pastorelli playing Fitz? Now that WOULD be hilarious.

This is what you get when you try to redo an extremely good miniseries without the great actors of the original. Where the british Cracker has everything to watch each episode twice, the US version has everything to turn it off after five minutes. Maybe if one starts with this version it could be considered a good series, but knowing the original, it only hurts. That beg the question: why have they done it after all? Why not broadcast the original?

People were extremely unkind to this American remake of the brilliant British crime drama "Cracker." Yes, the British version was superior; but I often felt that the American version didn't get the credit it deserved. It wasn't supposed to be a direct copy, it was supposed to be a distinctly American version, as "All In The Family" or "Three's Company" were. I would have liked to watch it develop. My theory is that the main problem people had was with the American Fitz - Robbie Coltrane is so flawed, but his egotism is tempered by a humor and humility that Robert Pastorelli didn't really possess. Nonetheless, I refuse to trash this show like everyone else and heartily recommend it, should you find it somewhere - it didn't last very long. And whether you find it or not, do go watch the British "Cracker" series. It's magnificent.

True, this is not Robbie Coltrane. True, the series is darker and at the same time less complex than the magnificent British series. But just because a California vintage varietal is not Château Latour does not mean it isn't potable. Taken on its on merits, without making comparisons to the original British series (in which the American series really has no chance to shine) this is a well-made and far-from-clichéd series. Playing Fitz as Pastorelli did-- as less-than-lovable, curmudgeonly without the usual saving graces of humor or humility, was actually very brave, and much truer to everyday life, truth to tell, than Coltrane's wonderful portrayal. Coltrane's characterization is in a way bigger than life, a flawed yet dazzling (and also, endearing) genius: very much in the tradition of other flawed, brilliant, larger-than-life sleuths from Sherlock Holmes to Hercule Poirot. I find Pastorelli's interpretation more in the line of, say, John Thaw's Inspector Morse (they even have similar tastes in music). Pastorelli plays Fitz as depressive, grouchy, arrogant, flippant, self-absorbed, and sometimes downright rude. That is truly going out on a limb, and would be even for British television, but for American television it is valor of the first water. So it is unfair to compare his portrayal with Coltrane's: they approach the character quite differently. Taken on their own, I think the Pastorelli episodes are fine productions. Being an American myself I was raised on happy endings and characters designed to elicit one's emotional engagement. Yet as others have rightly noted, life isn't like that. I remember an episode of a British production, one of Roy Mardsen's wonderful Adam Dalgleish tales, which ended, yes, with the criminal's apprehension-- but NOT happily (his assistant's grandmother, being held hostage, having been killed at the end when SWAT teams stormed the hideout)... and I was appalled at first--- but then I realized, that that was as possible an outcome as the happy ending would have been, perhaps more likely even. And this series has a lot of that flavor to it. So: approaching this and expecting the same thing as one got in the British production is really counterproductive. But if you watch these shows without expectations, you'll likely find them quite satisfying on their own merits.

Robert Pastorelli played one of the most horrible bad guys I have ever seen in Striking Distance. That scene where he terrorized Sarah Jessica Parker in the end gave me chills. This man is a truly fine actor and he did a very good job on this show that was unfairly cancelled. I usually like for the heroes in a film to be 100% likable, but Cracker was a sort of an anti-hero. He was a brilliant psychologist, but a troubled and flawed human being. Robbie Coltrane was awesome in the English version. Pastorelli did a excellent job filling Coltrane's shoes. I also enjoyed R. Lee Ermey in the series. He was in one of my favorite movies, Full Metal Jacket. Everyone has an opinion and I think this show was too quickly cancelled. Its a shame.

The American version may not have been the masterpiece that the British version was, but it still beat 99% of what else was on TV that season. I put it right after "Homicide: Life on the Street" on the all-time best police dramas list. Thank goodness for A&E, which reruns these at 10 p.m. EST on Friday nights.

I wanted to comment in response to the many negative reviews of this compelling show written by those who enjoyed the original British series. While I unfortunately missed that series, this American version is dynamic, penetrating and entirely undeserving of being cancelled. Robert Pastorelli gives a daring, captivating central performance as Fitz, the cynical and self-destructive anti-hero whose gambling obsession and rough persona alienate his wife (Carolyn McCormick) and son (a young Josh Hartnett!) Fitz' demented persona make him a natural for his part-time work as a police profiler, where he maintains a tenuous relationship with the equally blunt Lt. Fry (R. Lee Ermey). Fitz is an intriguing fallen hero - up to the task of catching disturbed, violent murderers but unable to command his own inner demons which tear at the very fabric of his being. Pastorelli's intensely uncompromising performance gives the show a realistic, darkly humorous edge which is ultimately touching. Fitz' character foreshadows that of Frank Black (Lance Henriksen), whose dark, telepathic gifts cost him his family on Chris Carter's equally compelling crime series 'Millennium." Both characters need the close embrace of their families - it is what they live for - but because of their disturbing professions and intense persona's alienate their loved ones, spiritually self-destructing even as they desperately seek redemption. While this Cracker may have fallen short of the original English series - I wouldn't know - it was a breath of fresh air on typically sanitized American television and ultimately proved to be too daring to continue.