When I watched Part I of this two-part series (sight unseen, no peeking at the newspaper blurb), my immediate reaction was that it HAD to be an international co-production, since it suffers from that curious and embarrassing mannerism of nearly all productions made jointly by two (or three) national broadcasters, namely a perceived need to show countless clichéd images of the countries and cities concerned, presumably so that the Aussies can see "what London looks like" and the Brits can see how nine kinds of wonderful Sydney is.Hence the action was punctuated every few seconds with expensive helicopter footage of locations like the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the London Eye, the Sydney Opera House, Big Ben, the Gherkin, St. Paul's, Piccadilly Circus by night (have I left anyone out?) and we got no authentic sense of "place" at all, simply bleeding chunks of what some imagination-challenged advertising agency thinks tourists want to see, OUGHT to see. This approach actually seems a little pathetic and lacking in national self-confidence for a mini-series made in 2009 (and not a film from 1959), as though the show somehow still felt obliged to serve up eye-candy vignettes of the places to be at all "relevant". The British do not feel a similar need for these postcard shots when they are working alone and/or for a domestic audience, and I rather doubted the Australians would really be so gauche that they think their own grown-ups need to be treated to an open-top-bus sightseeing tour between snippets of violence or dialogue.Well... it turns out I was dead wrong about the co-production angle. It seems to be an OZ production plain and simple (and several people have mocked the wandering accents of the cast, too), sold on to UKTV, whose involvement was thus presumably only financial and not "artistic". I'm not sure what that says about the mindset of the makers (or perhaps after all they got seed-money from the NSW Tourism Development Office and other similar instances in the UK), but personally I found the tacky inserts immensely intrusive and annoying, and I couldn't help thinking that if they had spent less on them and more on the nuts & bolts of script and direction (and had even hired an actor with a smidgen of dramatic skills and no facial paralysis to play Ian Porter) they might instead have been able to create a thriller that held my attention.Still, they are definitely not the first to fall into this trap, and sure as hell they won't be the last. Unfortunately.

In America (aka Region 1), millions of yankees have been duped into renting this title under the impression that it is a 94-minute long MOVIE--not a tepid British TV miniseries styled after Jack Bauer's "24," without most of the budget, killing, or excitement. In fact, the climax of the 93-minute Part Two of THE DIPLOMAT (a more apt description of this story than the Brit TV title, FALSE WITNESS) shamelessly steals one of the season-ending scenes from "24." But would Americans shell out one red cent for THE DIPLOMAT if they knew in advance it was 187 minutes long, and chock full of title character Ian Porter's flashbacks about his only child's disastrous loss (and by "chock full," I mean literally EVERY FIVE MINUTES, with a really cheap sepia-toned, shaky camera technique reminiscent of director Ulli Lommel at his cheesiest!) While Dougray Scott as Porter tries to create what James Bond would be like if he was a pathetic, mostly clueless and totally graceless homely man with nothing to live for, all the other characters in THE DIPLOMAT are even stupider, incongruous caricatures. If you need three hours of only occasionally interesting tedium to prove forever that NOT EVERYTHING on Brit TV is Masterpiece Theater-quality, THE DIPLOMAT may be just the ticket for you. It shows how shrewd Alistair Cooke was in not being buried, since he has no grave to spin in!

I saw this at home on DVD, and only realized it was a TV mini-series after I checked the running time ( over 180 minutes! ). Anyway, I decided to see it in one shot, if bored I could always stop it or pause for more popcorn! I found the plot a bit of a mix of other stories' ideas, but it was well developed and ended up quite interesting. I happen to appreciate most British/Aussie movies, especially the espionage genre, where they have a way of keeping you always wondering on the next move, like a chess game. Details come and go very quickly and sometimes I was glad on having subtitles to better understand the accent...! Acting is very good as I expected from the selected cast. I guess I was tired after 3 hours, but I could hold for another half if needed!

I viewed it on NBN last night the full version. I found it very visually dynamic, and the acting and action very exciting. I suppose watching three hours of this should have tired me, but it didn't. As a female I found the male principal actors very interesting. Although being a bit unshaven was a bit - well emphasizing their masculinity a little bit too much. But that's not a spoiler just a comment. The tempo through out was to me consistent and the final solution was energetic and thrilling. One query though, can you use mobile phones to ring internationally, I thought satellite phones could be traced? The cinematography was brilliant, showed Sydney off very well. Just one comment, is there no customs for boat arrivals? Possibly not if they transferred to a local boat from some other out at sea. And after they blew up the nuke ? people were watching the flash etc. Hope the jets were not effected, that might have been a little creative. But who cares it was just a fictional movie. I don't think the plot went beyond the point of probability. From what I know there is not necessarily any collusion between secret services or police forces. Unless it suits.I found it very enjoyable and stimulating, and gave it a high rating for me. I'd like to see it again too!