Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

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

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

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."

inega2 I know adaptations can be different from the original stories but this... I think it some of the "improvements" (or alterations) North and South suffered in this case were not only unnecessary, but they made it more difficult to understand the story and the characters. For example: when Margaret first sees Mr. Thornton, he is brutally beating a man, one of his "hands", who is already lying defenseless on the floor. How can she get to like him at all, when she knows he is capable of doing something like this? I think the way they originally meet in the book makes much more sense and it would have been better to keep it like that. Then, Margaret and Mr. Thornton barely speak to each other in the series!! It makes it very confusing (and almost ridiculous) when he suddenly decides to propose to her. As another reviewer already said, it makes you wonder "when did they fall in love??!!". It also looks like somehow Margaret started having feelings for him almost from that day on. Why? The ending felt quite weird for me (the scene in the train station), and not credible at all. I would have preferred it if they kept it a little bit more similar to the one in the book. I think the underdeveloped relationship between Margaret and Mr. Thornton is the worst part of this adaptation. Both characters change a lot throughout the story (in the book), not only because of each other, but because the people around them and they end up completely changing their minds about many things. Thus, in the book, the feelings they have for each other are perfectly understood. As for the rest, the actors were quite good and I really liked how they recreated this small industrial town and the rest of the characters. The relationships between Margaret and Bessy and Mr. and Mrs. Thornton were particularly good.

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! :)