Series two was a dud apart from one episode, although there were individual good scenes. The applied wisdom should be that once a series is in decline, it cannot recover. How surprising then that this third series is stunning. Interesting, compelling and moving, its photography and vistas especially remind me of Tarkovsky. Unlike series two, I will be watching all these again except the Bron one (that scarf doesn't do it for me!)

The departure of Carolyn Seymour at the end of series one baffles me to this day and Survivors always suffered for it, like carrying on the James Bond series with Felix Leiter. To build up a strong female character with a truly wonderful performance from the actress and pass on it in favour of the chauvinist Charles character from a particularly creepy episode in series one called 'Corn Dolly' seems perverse. Likewise, Greg only saw himself as 'enforcement', not a leader in series one, he becomes something else again here (although admittedly for practical reasons as he only wanted to appear in two episodes.) One feels an opportunity was lost with the Abby Grant character in favour of more traditional masculine leads. It also leaves a plothole as to why after traipsing the breadth of the country, the survivors do not come across her.

Nevertheless, this series stands up as the best without her and I did not find the absent Greg arc at all annoying. The producers seamlessly used it to enhance rather than hinder the narrative, introducing some interesting sexual politics and I especially liked some of the arguments and shouting matches the characters would get into for not always rational reasons, I thought that was very true to life. I disagree that the series should have ended with 'Long Live The King'. The final episode built up a full head of steam (if perhaps too abrupt a finish.) It was a rousing, fitting ending.

Lucy Fleming comes into her own after a somewhat colourless and flatly delivered performance previously. Hubert, while not always dependable, proves his staunch loyalty and usefulness and I even warmed to Charles. There are always interesting ironies and parallels, such as Frank's guilt mirrowed by Greg's in McCulloch's self-penned 'The Last Laugh'. He is a strong writer too. Somehow you don't expect that from an actor which is uncalled for, obviously.

No Seymour, but it would be churlish to give this outstanding third series anything other than five stars.

A valiant but failed attempt to get back on course
Review date: 2006-02-05 Rating: 8 out of 10

If only Terry Nation had been able to stay with and provide direction for the series. It appears that after the second series the overall vision of where all this might be heading was lost. Even the credits now seem inappropriate as 'the plague' or 'the death', as it is referred to, becomes ancient history.
Themes like Greg and Jenny losing touch are dragged on episode after episode as the realism is abandoned for purposes of artificial suspense.
Still there are enough glimpses of originality and vision from the valiant writers and actors to make it all worthwhile ... watch as this fertile plot idea is shunted, driverless, off into a BBC siding.

Dissapointing end to a great series
Review date: 2006-01-28 Rating: 6 out of 10

I was too young to remember Survivors when it was first broadcast and thoroughly enjoyed the first two series but I was rather dissapointed with this one.

The main flaw is that the actor playing Greg had left the series and most of the plots centre around Charles, Jenny and Hubert looking for him. Whenever they reach another community, Greg has always "just left". This becomes frustrating and tedious after a couple of episodes.

He does appear in a couple of episodes(both written by him). Of these, The Last Laugh is undoubtedly the highlight of the series. It would have helped if this episode had been scheduled near the beginning of the series which would have given the writers something else to focus on.

The series is very different to the first two in that the main characters are travelling the country rather than the focus of the building a community theme of series two. The fact that Jenny seems content to leave her infant son for long periods under the circumstances is unbelievable. Stranger still is the supposed sexual chemistry inferred with Alec in the booklet and cast interviews. This isn't evident until Alec casually asks Jenny if she will stay in Scotland with him.

Charles too seems quite content leaving Whitecross behind(giving up all he believed in in series two)and leaving Pet behind with the children. This change in attitude is never mentioned and Pet is barely seen. The actress who plays Pet was understandably peeved when series 3 was mentioned when interviewed on series two DVD.

The character of Agnes seems badly thought out. The actress herself admitted she did know what she was doing and seems to undergo a personality transplant and a makeover in the penultimate episode "Long Live the King".

These flaws aside there is much to commend the series. The locations are excellent and the acting is mostly up to standard. "Mad Dog", dealing with rabies,is Survivors at it's best and there are many memorable guest appearances including Brian Blessed and Ian Cuthbertson.

If you enjoyed the other two series it is worth a look but I didn't feel as gripped with this one.

Product Details/Specifications