Afouotos
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
Maidexpl
Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast
Cheryl
A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.
colleenimmg
Just finished watching this. I wanted to stop after the first episode, but the murder mystery lover in me forced me to watch all three. After reading these reviews, I'm happy to see that I'm not alone in hating the casting of Elizabeth Darcy. I'm sorry, I've seen this actress in "Bletchley Circle" and thought nothing negative of her, but as Elizabeth, OMG, she was horrible in so many ways: her plain, homely looks; her dreary/miserable expressions; her same old dress. I was not a huge fan of "Pride and Prejudice" but even I knew that this was an atrocity. I don't recall ever ever ever watching a show thinking "Yuck!!" every time a main character appeared onscreen..unless perhaps they were the villain. I'm sorry AMM. I don't blame you, I blame everyone else, from writing to casting to director to makeup to costuming.
jonhanningtonholley
I have long been an admirer of great writing, and the works of Jane Austen and PD James are among my favourites. But sadly, this series was not. Other commentators have described many of the objections to costume, plot and characters, and I can only agree. There seemed little of the 'sparkle' and panache that was evident in Austen's writing, and particularly apparent in Andrew Davies' memorable Screen Dramas. PD James is one of the best crime writers our country has ever known - and we can be proud of so many - but whilst crime is her forte, period drama in the fashion of Jane Austen is not. So, after reading Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, in which she created such vivid characters and credible dialogue, in-keeping with the period and the strata of society, we could be forgiven for expecting more of the same though, sadly, not from the late Jane Austen of course. Perhaps it was one of Austen's skills to give us so much, but leave us hungry for more....To do justice to PD James, Jane Austen is an extremely hard act to follow. And, while Ms. James has a proved track-record in her own genre, and did a splendid job on its' own merit, it seems likely that most viewers would be familiar with Jane Austen's work and, almost certainly, Andrew Davies' memorable and excellent TV dramatizations. If there be criticism of the TV version of 'Death Comes to Pemberley', then it must rest as much with the writer who, curiously, is not credited on IMDb? It is a rare skill, indeed, to take good writing on the page and translate it into the different medium of television. Many works of PD James have proved successful on television but, regrettably, this is not the best. She has taken Jane Austen's characters, and woven a skillful plot that stands well on its' own merits, but it's not Jane Austen. Unfortunately, using Austen's characters only makes us expectant of her style and her words, and sadly, they are not there. I'd happily watch it again, but maybe next time I'll do so expecting a good PD James, which it is, rather than a pastiche of Jane Austen.
mrbell-1
Had this pvr'd so didn't get to watch it until recently. The main characters were mis-cast. Rhys as Darcy just didn't work, but he would have made a great Wickham. Matthew Goode should have been cast as Darcy, and not as Wickham. And seriously, who would have thought to cast AMM as Lizzie? Her presence was paper-thin, and had difficulty carrying the role and the dialogue to make Lizzie spring to life and be the object of Darcy's adoration. And by the end of even the first episode, I was seriously tired of seeing her in the same, ugly blue dress. I was beginning to think it was the only one she owned until they came up with the same dress in episode two, but this time in green. And that little bolero jacket, and the pickle-barrel bonnet was just too much for me. For a woman of means, after 6 years of being married to a wealthy man and representing the estate, you would think she had more than two daytime dresses, that she wore everywhere. Did she get them at the church jumble sale or the bottom of the missionary barrel? And Rebecca Font as Mrs. Bennett? Really??? That was just too painful to watch.
mmsbk
First , I do have to agree with reviewers who noted anachronisms of language and highly unlikely behaviours - Georgiana falling to her knees crying in front of male servants in the public rooms being one of the most obvious. I do not believe for a moment in the central premise that Darcy and family would be cast into Outer Darkness socially because his brother-in-law was a criminal. Gossiped about undoubtedly, but bad apples among the aristocracy are hardly uncommon now or then. I feel also critical of the costuming and general appearance of Elizabeth , it become clear at the end as to why she might have looked tired but why she should be so badly dressed is beyond me . One coat-like garment resembles nothing so much as a hessian bag and she appears to only wear two plain dresses for weeks on end. Georgiana seems to have only one - though it is a nicer one . And Elizabeth's hair seem so be permanently dishevelled for no good reason. While I'm carping , I also have to say I don't understand why there appears to be almost no upper servants in the vast edifice of Pemberley. Such an establishment would have a steward and/or butler, several footmen and under-footmen and Mrs Reynolds would have many maids under her . Ah well, no matter really I guess.On the plus side, I thought all the acting was great , especially the female cast. Lydia was beautifully cast and played, as was Lady Catherine and Mrs Bennett . I wish they could have had bigger roles in fact . So, in spite of the above mentioned criticisms, I have to say it was a very watchable period drama and , actually, much more fun than the the book . I like PD James very much , but this was NOT her best work and frankly rather a tedious dry read .
