Steineded How sad is this?

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

paxveritas There's no denying that Armitage is a handsome man and Denby-Ashe is a lovely woman. Let's put that on hold, because Mrs. Gaskell is turning over in her grave.Un-Gaskelly, un-Victorian scenes (smelling of Hollywood, not London, and certainly not of Manchester!) are injected out of writer's caprice to motivate the characters more blatantly, to bring sensationalism into the mix for the viewer's consumption. The "railroad scene" ending that so entrances viewers is nowhere to be found in the book. Victorians simply did not display open, public eroticism, because it wasn't that kind of culture in those days. What a disappointment for modern audiences, who like nothing better than sex with a little violence thrown in for emphasis (Armitage's beating the employee in the early part of this dismal adaptation).Other reviewers have said the Margaret/John relationship was not developed, or underdeveloped, and right they are.The 1975 version, even with the liabilities of Rosalind Shanks' uncertain acting, crooked smile and meandering eyebrows (way too many close-ups of that lady as Margaret), is far, far better a telling of what Mrs. Gaskell intended to say. Patrick Stewart makes a believable John - morally straight, forceful, and attempting (nearly succeeding) to be a gentleman, as in the book.Not that the 1975 version is perfect. Margaret, whose graduate degrees in economics are absent, presumes to know how to run a mill successfully, and pontificates frequently and ignorantly, but with sincerity, anyway. Furthermore, the 1975 version omits Leonard's recognition of Frederick at the train station and consequent legal problems for Margaret - but it is one thing to omit, and quite another to fabricate, as the 2004 version does.Norman Jones is appropriately intense and mellow, as the situation calls for, and overall much better as Higgins in 1975, although Brendan Coyle has lots more sex appeal in the 2004 version.This 2004 version is pretty. Nice locations. Mill fluff ten times the size of true mill fluff in those days, so the viewer can take it seriously. But it does not deserve more than two stars, and that's for Sinead Cusack's rowing with the script oars she was given - she does an outstanding job with a flawed script. Her dad was the great Cyril Cusack, an actor's actor, catch one of his later roles as the gunsmith in "The Day of the Jackal."

ssheikh_11 I watched this very skeptically. I was not familiar with the novel or the earlier productions, but this show was done very nicely. All actors were convincing as was the setting for the drama. The main actress did a phenomenal job, but Richard Armitage stole the show. I was completely bowled over after having seen his performance in the Hobbit series recently that this was the same actor. Overall this is a good watch especially if you are a fan of English period drama's. The music is also excellent and really sets the mood. Cinematography is always very important in period pieces and this show was great to show the early mills society in North England. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who likes history and good story.

ssra_25 Great cast, great story, great movie, the likes of which you rarely get to see nowadays. Almost 10 years after it was launched and I still couldn't stop watching it over and over again. And I'm definitely going to look for the novel now. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys a really romantic (but not unnecessarily cheesy), good-taste story, superbly interpreted by some really good actors. This could have easily been a cinema movie, although I suspect its length would have been a problem... I can't believe I didn't make the time to see it before...Anyway, enjoy the movie! :)

Lea Nataf It is with no doubt different than an ordinary American love story as there are so many already- obviously you would say since it's from BBC. It is deeper, more subtle -subtlety: that's what's missing in today's American TV shows, and more real.In many ways I think this movie can be qualified as a good one: the characters do not completely change their opinions towards the factory although they do evolve. The love they have for each other doesn't make them change what they think or how they act, but more their ways of seeing thing: they both become more and more understanding towards the other point of view without totally refuting their own and that is new and refreshing in cinema I think. Also it shows a part of the Great Britain I hadn't seen anywhere else; and the way they contrast the ways of living in the south and the north is instructive, it shows how work can really shape a region.Moreover, I think that the cameraman's work is brilliant! The compositions of the scenes are so well done! And the way there's always cotton (this death kisser) around or snow (this pure lovely thing) is very interesting.Anyways I won't expand myself any further on the subject because I don't know if I can stop but good job to the BBC its movies are always so well done (from what I've seen so far) and so fascinating (here I go again, I really am stopping now).