Although I felt the 1992 film was so good that it couldn't be improved on, I found this TV version surprisingly good and the four hours hardly seemed enough to contain all the strands of the story. The acting was perfect, neither overdone nor underdone. As it happens, I live in Stevenage and know the location of Howards End well. The location used was somewhere else of course but I thought it was quite like the original could have been in 1890 when the author would have known it, and perfect for the purposes of the drama. I sympathise with the points people make about black servants and so on, but whether or not these exist in the book, they are certainly quite plausible for the time. The winner for me was E.M. Forster again, as it was in 1992, but I will miss the programme and wish there could be a sequel - perhaps another Passage to India. It's indeed a pity that Forster stopped writing novels so soon, as with his understanding of social mores and change, he would have been a good person to write about the 1930s or 1940s. The last hour was for me a blissful one.
54 Reviews
BBC takes on EM Forster
TheLittleSongbird4 January 2018
Love the book, and EM Forster's other work, and the 1992 film is not only one of the best Forster adaptations it is a wonderful film in its own right. BBC have done a lot of very good to outstanding period drama adaptations and the cast are a talented lot, so a large part of me was really looking forward to their adaptation of 'Howard's End'.
Watching all four episodes, found myself finding a lot to like about 'Howard's End' (2017) but feeling also it had its short-comings that stopped me from loving it. Of this and the 1992 film, as unfair it would seem to compare, there is no question which is the better one of the two, with the 2017 adaptation lacking the nuanced depth, emotion and elegance of the film.
There is a lot to like about 'Howard's End' (2017). It is impeccably made visually, with the period detail sumptuous and evocative, stylish costumes, beautiful photography and even more beautiful scenery/locations. The direction is admirably restrained without being pedestrian.
'Howard's End' (2017) is intelligent and controlled, doing a lovely job exploring Forster's many themes and insights that still hold relevance and provoke thought today (at least to me). Appreciated the subtle, restrained approach to the storytelling, and on the most part keeps the many layers and characterisation interesting.
Casting is also strong, with the standouts being Hayley Atwell, capturing Margaret's good intentions, spirit and emotional repression with ease, and a movingly poised Julia Ormond. Matthew MacFadyen brings a suitable amount of charisma. A lot of talk has been made about the diversity, this didn't bother me at all and am sure Forster himself wouldn't have been bothered by it, it didn't seem jarring and to me it seems to be something insignificant blown out of proportion.
On the other hand, as indicated, 'Howard's End' had its shortcomings. The first episode was something of a slow starter, it needed more zest and tighter pacing for an episode that felt more like set up than anything else. Stick with it though, because the other three episodes improve on this when the story and characters become richer and deeper. Timeline changes could have been clearer, sometimes it did feel jumpy and one doesn't know how much time has passed.
For me, and quite a few others it seemed, the music was a bit too intrusive and the sound could have been toned down. While the cast were on the most part very impressive, Tracy Ullman overdoes it a bit.
In summary, good but could have been more. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Watching all four episodes, found myself finding a lot to like about 'Howard's End' (2017) but feeling also it had its short-comings that stopped me from loving it. Of this and the 1992 film, as unfair it would seem to compare, there is no question which is the better one of the two, with the 2017 adaptation lacking the nuanced depth, emotion and elegance of the film.
There is a lot to like about 'Howard's End' (2017). It is impeccably made visually, with the period detail sumptuous and evocative, stylish costumes, beautiful photography and even more beautiful scenery/locations. The direction is admirably restrained without being pedestrian.
'Howard's End' (2017) is intelligent and controlled, doing a lovely job exploring Forster's many themes and insights that still hold relevance and provoke thought today (at least to me). Appreciated the subtle, restrained approach to the storytelling, and on the most part keeps the many layers and characterisation interesting.
Casting is also strong, with the standouts being Hayley Atwell, capturing Margaret's good intentions, spirit and emotional repression with ease, and a movingly poised Julia Ormond. Matthew MacFadyen brings a suitable amount of charisma. A lot of talk has been made about the diversity, this didn't bother me at all and am sure Forster himself wouldn't have been bothered by it, it didn't seem jarring and to me it seems to be something insignificant blown out of proportion.
On the other hand, as indicated, 'Howard's End' had its shortcomings. The first episode was something of a slow starter, it needed more zest and tighter pacing for an episode that felt more like set up than anything else. Stick with it though, because the other three episodes improve on this when the story and characters become richer and deeper. Timeline changes could have been clearer, sometimes it did feel jumpy and one doesn't know how much time has passed.
For me, and quite a few others it seemed, the music was a bit too intrusive and the sound could have been toned down. While the cast were on the most part very impressive, Tracy Ullman overdoes it a bit.
In summary, good but could have been more. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Visually striking but emotionally detached
Hallelujah28926 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This tv miniseries is my first encounter with the story of Howard's End as based on the book of E. M. Forster ("Howard's End"). I like the idea of the story, how the characters and their relationships represent the marriage of Britain's rising progressive idealism and awareness of social justice with its opulent wealth based off of capitalism and the concessions that sometimes happens in between. I think this idea underlies the odd relationship between the agung and prosperous Mr. Wilcox and his second wife Margaret Schlegel, a young optimist. Though an interesting intellectual pairing, the two lovers never quite seem to belong to the same space together, let alone the same house and to the same name. The romance between Mr. Wilcox and Margaret Schlegel perhaps isn't the point of Howard's End, but I thought it was the best plot the story had and there was nothing else adequate to substitute.
The story of Howard's End is perhaps too allegorical for its own good, and also perhaps too progressive in a way that doesn't feel true. I am not referring to just the diversity of the cast to which others have had complaints, but really, overall. The two Schlegel sisters are hyper egalitarian in a way that is nice, but one-note and eventually grating because it seems out of historical context and in a way, digressing and like sermonizing. At some point you get tired of endless do-gooders, right?
I did watch the entire four episodes of the series and although shades of characters my opinions were left primarily unchanged. A conversation between Margaret and her sister Helen about the former's impending marriage with Mr. Wilcox did impress but did not substantially alter the character of the relationship between the two from inception to end. I felt there was a lack of progress overall in the series. There was enough catalyst, but not enough transformation for me to feel a connection with the story or its characters.
I have neglected to mention however that Howard's End is a visually stunning miniseries. It's use of color and light surpasses many of today's films and especially other BBC productions. Howards End is an interesting of super high definition brilliant color and old world fashions and the artistic direction does work with the optimism of the story and its characters, but sometimes there is an over repetition of certain color keys that while often sumptuous becomes heavy handed and the symbolism of red, for example, becomes lost.
I did not mind the music and found it gorgeous, actually.
Howard's End is very even keel and does not tend towards the dramatic at all. In this age of the over sensationalized perhaps that is a relief, but I did wish for a greater narrative to follow and I was mildly disappointed. High marks for the visual aesthetics (previous reviews don't lie-there are many paintings here in the still shots) and the acting was pretty good but definite room for improvement in meaningful areas.
The story of Howard's End is perhaps too allegorical for its own good, and also perhaps too progressive in a way that doesn't feel true. I am not referring to just the diversity of the cast to which others have had complaints, but really, overall. The two Schlegel sisters are hyper egalitarian in a way that is nice, but one-note and eventually grating because it seems out of historical context and in a way, digressing and like sermonizing. At some point you get tired of endless do-gooders, right?
I did watch the entire four episodes of the series and although shades of characters my opinions were left primarily unchanged. A conversation between Margaret and her sister Helen about the former's impending marriage with Mr. Wilcox did impress but did not substantially alter the character of the relationship between the two from inception to end. I felt there was a lack of progress overall in the series. There was enough catalyst, but not enough transformation for me to feel a connection with the story or its characters.
I have neglected to mention however that Howard's End is a visually stunning miniseries. It's use of color and light surpasses many of today's films and especially other BBC productions. Howards End is an interesting of super high definition brilliant color and old world fashions and the artistic direction does work with the optimism of the story and its characters, but sometimes there is an over repetition of certain color keys that while often sumptuous becomes heavy handed and the symbolism of red, for example, becomes lost.
I did not mind the music and found it gorgeous, actually.
Howard's End is very even keel and does not tend towards the dramatic at all. In this age of the over sensationalized perhaps that is a relief, but I did wish for a greater narrative to follow and I was mildly disappointed. High marks for the visual aesthetics (previous reviews don't lie-there are many paintings here in the still shots) and the acting was pretty good but definite room for improvement in meaningful areas.
A mixed bag - the good outweighs the bad though
jmckinzey-2686030 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I'm of two minds on this. The parts that stuck to the book were good although the first episode was rather slow. What really kept annoying me was how they created in one particular regard a past fictional universe, where England was evidently harmoniously multi-ethnic. If they change the culture of the time, which is one of the things that makes these old English stories usually so interesting, why not just add some steampunk to it, or maybe some pets that could talk? I'm kidding, sort of. But seriously, I've never seen an alternate-universe story that was so grating . If they're going to go so radical in one aspect but then have the rest of the story stick the book, its a very jarring thing when it swings back and forth.
Every scene with Helen and Quinn was excruciatingly bad. It was just grating and made me long for them to get back to the main plot. There was one scene in particular that just went on for so damn long. It was horribly written and all but ruined the whole experience.
Every scene with Helen and Quinn was excruciatingly bad. It was just grating and made me long for them to get back to the main plot. There was one scene in particular that just went on for so damn long. It was horribly written and all but ruined the whole experience.
Excellent adaptation, well acted and presented
asastewart19 November 2017
I'm writing this review after episode 2, mainly to counter some of the other overly critical reviews of Howard's End.
I loved the movie version with Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins, but I feel this miniseries version can explore further some of the issues and topics E.M. Forster touched on in his book; class, gender, nationality etc. Also the mirrored circumstances across the class divide and how characters deal with them
As regards race and some of the casting i.e. the housemaid and Jacky Bast, I think they were interesting choices and one Forster would have approved of. He was a fierce opponent of racism (especially anti-anti-semitism) and, to answer another question a reviewer posed, yes there were black people in Edwardian London, all part of the class struggles of the period.
The cast are all excellent, especially Hayley Atwell and Philippa Coulthard. The costumes and cinematography are great. In the first episode the background music seemed rather loud and obtrusive, but this wasn't a problem for me in episode 2. I'm looking forward to episodes 3 & 4.
To those who say it's slow and nothing happens, I'm not sure what to say. Maybe watch the other channel with 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' on it, or a Transformers movie.
I loved the movie version with Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins, but I feel this miniseries version can explore further some of the issues and topics E.M. Forster touched on in his book; class, gender, nationality etc. Also the mirrored circumstances across the class divide and how characters deal with them
As regards race and some of the casting i.e. the housemaid and Jacky Bast, I think they were interesting choices and one Forster would have approved of. He was a fierce opponent of racism (especially anti-anti-semitism) and, to answer another question a reviewer posed, yes there were black people in Edwardian London, all part of the class struggles of the period.
The cast are all excellent, especially Hayley Atwell and Philippa Coulthard. The costumes and cinematography are great. In the first episode the background music seemed rather loud and obtrusive, but this wasn't a problem for me in episode 2. I'm looking forward to episodes 3 & 4.
To those who say it's slow and nothing happens, I'm not sure what to say. Maybe watch the other channel with 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' on it, or a Transformers movie.
At least it makes me want to read the book
Emberweave5 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This production made me want to read the book if only to see what they really messed up. It's not a bad production, but I was definitely ready for it to end after four episodes. There were times when events seemed too episodic and unfinished. I never felt I got to know the first Mrs. Wilcox enough to believe her friendship with Meg would lead to her wanting Meg to have Howard's End. I had the same feeling with Mr. Wilcox's children. They all seemed like bitchy, spoiled brats. Paul, who was all cowed and weak leaves for Africa in episode one and doesn't return until the final episode where he behaves like a bitchy, spoiled brat. It's never really made clear WHY the children don't want Meg to have Howard's End because none of them want it and there isn't enough of a devotion to their mother shown to indicate it's her memory or something they don't want sullied.
With regard to the Schlegels, another reviewer compared them to the Gilmore Girls, which is hilarious and pretty accurate. The hyperactive non-stop, overlapping chatter was extremely grating. Helen, as a character, was extremely grating. Her interest in Mr. Bast came across very much like an A. D. D. Child playing with a shiny object. And any romantic chemistry between them was non-existent. Mr. Bast was pasty and bland. There was zero spark in him to justify a liaison. And it's a sad commentary on the performance that when, at the end, Mr. Bast is crushed by the bookcase, I was far more upset about the damage to all those beautiful books than I was about any injury to him. And casting a black woman as his wife, aside from the anachronism of it, added a racial element that is not in the original work. He's attracted to the rich, vivacious white woman and wants to discard his black slatternly wife. Rosalind Eleazar did a fine job in the performance, but the original intent of "colorblind casting" was not to just plonk whomever into a role regardless of historical accuracy. It was to make people think twice about casting white actors in supporting roles where race was a non-issue in modern productions: i.e. The local doctor, the businessman, the veterinarian, etc. Could be a man or woman of color. Mrs. Bast being black may seem progressive, but it denies the genuine struggles and suffering that took place in that era. I'm also annoyed that the script didn't wrap up what happened to Mrs. Bast. Or Tibby for that matter. Unnecessary loose threads after four hours.
Anyway, in spite of all these things, the actors (Mr. Bast excepted) all gave great performances, injecting their roles with energy even if the script let them down in terms of character depth. Hayley Atwell as Meg can certainly carry a show. I found her likeable, engaging and very interesting to watch. Matthew Macfadyen is always good. Alex Lawther as Tibby was also funny. The production is beautifully filmed and was gorgeous to watch. This may not be the best adaptation of Howard's End, but it's certainly not the worst. It's worth watching and enjoying, but it's not something I'd want to own and/or watch again.
With regard to the Schlegels, another reviewer compared them to the Gilmore Girls, which is hilarious and pretty accurate. The hyperactive non-stop, overlapping chatter was extremely grating. Helen, as a character, was extremely grating. Her interest in Mr. Bast came across very much like an A. D. D. Child playing with a shiny object. And any romantic chemistry between them was non-existent. Mr. Bast was pasty and bland. There was zero spark in him to justify a liaison. And it's a sad commentary on the performance that when, at the end, Mr. Bast is crushed by the bookcase, I was far more upset about the damage to all those beautiful books than I was about any injury to him. And casting a black woman as his wife, aside from the anachronism of it, added a racial element that is not in the original work. He's attracted to the rich, vivacious white woman and wants to discard his black slatternly wife. Rosalind Eleazar did a fine job in the performance, but the original intent of "colorblind casting" was not to just plonk whomever into a role regardless of historical accuracy. It was to make people think twice about casting white actors in supporting roles where race was a non-issue in modern productions: i.e. The local doctor, the businessman, the veterinarian, etc. Could be a man or woman of color. Mrs. Bast being black may seem progressive, but it denies the genuine struggles and suffering that took place in that era. I'm also annoyed that the script didn't wrap up what happened to Mrs. Bast. Or Tibby for that matter. Unnecessary loose threads after four hours.
Anyway, in spite of all these things, the actors (Mr. Bast excepted) all gave great performances, injecting their roles with energy even if the script let them down in terms of character depth. Hayley Atwell as Meg can certainly carry a show. I found her likeable, engaging and very interesting to watch. Matthew Macfadyen is always good. Alex Lawther as Tibby was also funny. The production is beautifully filmed and was gorgeous to watch. This may not be the best adaptation of Howard's End, but it's certainly not the worst. It's worth watching and enjoying, but it's not something I'd want to own and/or watch again.
Sparkling Performances
quotes-37 December 2017
Matthew McFayden and Hayley Atwell just lit up the screen... I thought perhaps the glory days of BBC Sunday night costume dramas had past, but their performances here were wonderful, the control and command of the dialogue was exquisite. A delight.
I have given 9 out of 10, so I will note that a few minor quibbles: - Some of the plot elements were a bit clunky - It wasn't always clear how much time had elapsed or how much the characters had aged - It felt a little stretched out to episodes
I have given 9 out of 10, so I will note that a few minor quibbles: - Some of the plot elements were a bit clunky - It wasn't always clear how much time had elapsed or how much the characters had aged - It felt a little stretched out to episodes
Please forgive me, but...
pd78w26 February 2020
... I much preferred the 1992 Emma Thompson/Anthony Hopkins/James Ivory movie version. Perhaps I'm too much a fan of Merchant Ivory films. It's a pleasure watching Matthew Macfadyen in anything. And I look forward to future roles for Hayley Atwell. It's not that this mini-series version is inferior. It simply didn't arouse as much of my sympathy for any of the characters as the 1992 version.
Too much chatter
daenapoole4 January 2019
The amount of characters talking over each other causes viewing the show a bit of anxiety. You can't decipher which character said what and things said and it all gets a bit lost and leaves the sense of "did I miss something?" Perhaps it was filmed this way to evoke the sense of stress/panic/discored that is going on within the scene amoungst characters? I can see it happening within with Scheigel family to show the family's own quirk but it happens within almost every scene whether or not it's the Scheigel family included. It didn't enjoy it.
One of the best adaptations I've ever seen
camille-553114 September 2018
Hayley Atwell enchants in this brilliant and faithful BBC adaptation of EM Forster's great novel. All of the actors are very convincing in their portrayal of multi-faceted characters. I didn't want the show to end. It's a thorough examination of class and social mores, and the message is not lost in time and very much relevant today in the debate between liberals and conservatives. The human spirit, compassion and love prevail. A must-watch for period drama fans like me.
The trouble with the BBC being PC...
sally-9305216 January 2020
...is that they don't put their money where their mouth is and have a lead character played by a racial minority person. Inserting people of color in some of their recent productions is just too obviously done because they have to stick a minority in there somewhere or they will feel the trendy white guilt. It is an insult to anyone with a logical and realistic brain cell in their head why they do this. And although I am sure the minority actors are very happy to have the roles and the money and the exposure, you would think they would feel somewhat put out because they are being used to be tokens of political correctness not because of their talents.
A Worthy Adaptation
annlevtex28 June 2020
I fell in love with Emma Thompson's portrayal of Margaret Schlegel in the 1990s film version. I loved the film as a whole. But this version is just as worthy, and being a four-hour series, can embrace a larger picture and more importantly, a larger canvas of characters.
Leonard Bast is central to the plot, but in the film, he was a cipher, a vessel and a canvass for the sisters to paint. I read the book and while women of their class might have seen him that way, I didn't, and I liked that he was given more of a presence and personality. In the film there was no real connection between him and Helen, while in this version, there is one, however tenuous and fleeting. I felt it gave him the respect he deserved, and in doing so strengthened the underlying message.
I also preferred this version of Henry. Hopkins is brilliant, but to me, Margaret's attraction to him in the film made little sense. No, not even in Edwardian times. She was fierce and self-possessed, he was dull and rigid, and she didn't need his money or stamp of approval. I needed to buy the connection and this version made it breath so much more freely. Not even Emma Thompson can convince me of something unpalatable.
Some stories just need more time to unfold. Four hours worked well enough, whereas two and half, or even three, didn't. I still love the film version and Helena Bonham Carter is just irreplaceable, but Philippa Coulthard makes a great Helen too People who want to have an issue with Jackie Bast or a few servants or doctors being minorities can fuss away about it all they want. It might be historically unlikely, but it is by no means historically "incorrect" and it shouldn't jar anyone who is paying attention to what matters in the story. If anything it adds to it.
I loved this version. Kudos to all involved, especially Atwell, Coulthard, McFadyen, and the young actor playing Tibby. Oh, and Ullman. It can be scary to take on a classic that has supposedly been "claimed" by film deities. They did it proud.
Leonard Bast is central to the plot, but in the film, he was a cipher, a vessel and a canvass for the sisters to paint. I read the book and while women of their class might have seen him that way, I didn't, and I liked that he was given more of a presence and personality. In the film there was no real connection between him and Helen, while in this version, there is one, however tenuous and fleeting. I felt it gave him the respect he deserved, and in doing so strengthened the underlying message.
I also preferred this version of Henry. Hopkins is brilliant, but to me, Margaret's attraction to him in the film made little sense. No, not even in Edwardian times. She was fierce and self-possessed, he was dull and rigid, and she didn't need his money or stamp of approval. I needed to buy the connection and this version made it breath so much more freely. Not even Emma Thompson can convince me of something unpalatable.
Some stories just need more time to unfold. Four hours worked well enough, whereas two and half, or even three, didn't. I still love the film version and Helena Bonham Carter is just irreplaceable, but Philippa Coulthard makes a great Helen too People who want to have an issue with Jackie Bast or a few servants or doctors being minorities can fuss away about it all they want. It might be historically unlikely, but it is by no means historically "incorrect" and it shouldn't jar anyone who is paying attention to what matters in the story. If anything it adds to it.
I loved this version. Kudos to all involved, especially Atwell, Coulthard, McFadyen, and the young actor playing Tibby. Oh, and Ullman. It can be scary to take on a classic that has supposedly been "claimed" by film deities. They did it proud.
Beautiful to look at, a struggle to watch!
LiveLoveLead1 August 2020
Cinematography, sets, and costumes are gorgeous. In their effort to, I'm assuming, be politically correct, there are several historical faux pas. These inaccuracies are quite noticeable and ruin any authenticity. Most of the actors do well despite the poorly written script and direction. I found it frustrating how the characters, especially the women, talk very fast and talk over each other making it difficult to make out the dialogue. And most of the characters are ill-mannered and unlikable with very little chemistry. Although I never read the book, the story itself seems a bit silly. English people in that period talk so strangely and so formal to even their family members and never seem to clearly say what they actually mean, with a lot of "reading between the lines," but it was especially so in this film which made it harder to understand the feelings and intentions of the characters. It's all so pretentious. These sisters start out as devoted, confident, intelligent, and fiercely independent women but, as the story goes along they make many poor decisions that don't seem to fit their nature. I normally love period pieces but this one was a bit annoying and it was difficult to fully invest in these characters, In My Humble Opinion! july2020
Emotionally Unengaging
Emma-M-V27 January 2019
This series is quite beautiful in terms of scenery, score and cinematography, and though the dialogue is a bit meandering and often feels to be of little consequence I did enjoy the dynamic between the three siblings and their aunt.
The main issue I have with the series is the total lack of chemistry between any of the romantic pairs. Absolutely none of their relationships felt believable.
The only characters I felt had any potentially sexual chemistry was Mrs Wilcox and Margaret, so to see Margaret later paired with the bland, unlovable and callous Mr Wilcox was baffling. The feelings which they supposedly have for each other do not read as authentic, and so Margaret becomes a less likeable character as a consequence.
Furthermore, several pieces of the story feels disjointed - I'm thinking particularly of the space between episodes 1 and 2 and the of end; both places where large amounts of time is skipped over. This kind of skipping is of course typical of epilogues, but in this case it felt weirdly jarring. They were obviously trying to wrap the series up in a neat little bow, but if felt anything but neat.
Without spoiling the end, the events which lead to the resolution seemed extremely cheap and almost offensive in how certain characters were disposed of.
If nothing else the series did make me curious to read the book Howard's End and see whether the series fails due to going too far away from the source material, or not having the proper means to give the source material life.
The main issue I have with the series is the total lack of chemistry between any of the romantic pairs. Absolutely none of their relationships felt believable.
The only characters I felt had any potentially sexual chemistry was Mrs Wilcox and Margaret, so to see Margaret later paired with the bland, unlovable and callous Mr Wilcox was baffling. The feelings which they supposedly have for each other do not read as authentic, and so Margaret becomes a less likeable character as a consequence.
Furthermore, several pieces of the story feels disjointed - I'm thinking particularly of the space between episodes 1 and 2 and the of end; both places where large amounts of time is skipped over. This kind of skipping is of course typical of epilogues, but in this case it felt weirdly jarring. They were obviously trying to wrap the series up in a neat little bow, but if felt anything but neat.
Without spoiling the end, the events which lead to the resolution seemed extremely cheap and almost offensive in how certain characters were disposed of.
If nothing else the series did make me curious to read the book Howard's End and see whether the series fails due to going too far away from the source material, or not having the proper means to give the source material life.
A Beautiful Series
partha-partha-som3 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The one thing that strikes you first about this series is how beautiful it is because of the brilliant cinematography.
The series also makes the tale complex by introducing themes of colonialism, slavery, and class oppression. Though the plot is a comedy in the sense that the ending is happy, yet this happiness seems to be forced. This is because Mr. Wilcox is an out and out hypocrite, and yet Margaret and Helen ends up seeking his protection --a tragedy reinforced by the patriarchal society. The prostitute, Jackie is exploited by Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox hides from Margaret that she is the rightful owner of Howards End, and he is instrumental in the killing of Mr. Bast.
Hayley Atwell as Margaret seemed a bit constricted, as did Joseph Quinn as Leonard Bast. I adored Philippa Coulthard's powerful acting in the role of Helen.
The series also makes the tale complex by introducing themes of colonialism, slavery, and class oppression. Though the plot is a comedy in the sense that the ending is happy, yet this happiness seems to be forced. This is because Mr. Wilcox is an out and out hypocrite, and yet Margaret and Helen ends up seeking his protection --a tragedy reinforced by the patriarchal society. The prostitute, Jackie is exploited by Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox hides from Margaret that she is the rightful owner of Howards End, and he is instrumental in the killing of Mr. Bast.
Hayley Atwell as Margaret seemed a bit constricted, as did Joseph Quinn as Leonard Bast. I adored Philippa Coulthard's powerful acting in the role of Helen.
A really nice series with some problematic casting
debdshaw604 February 2020
I really have enjoyed the series but some of the casting just is so out of place it's incredibly distracting. At first I was confused by the doctor treating an upper middle class family in Edwardian England being Asian. Then with the servant being black which would have been extremely unusual but not entirely implausible. But then with an interracial marriage that raises NO eyebrows? It stretches incredulity and pulls you directly out of the story.
Colorblind casting only works when it's not impossible in the actual story. In this case it's so improbable it's distracting. I don't understand the thought process involved in casting a classic like this. Especially where it would make massive changes to the story if the characters are not white as that was the reality of the era.
That said, the cast handled their jobs brilliantly and it was charmingly done.
Colorblind casting only works when it's not impossible in the actual story. In this case it's so improbable it's distracting. I don't understand the thought process involved in casting a classic like this. Especially where it would make massive changes to the story if the characters are not white as that was the reality of the era.
That said, the cast handled their jobs brilliantly and it was charmingly done.
Pretty good
darkdementress21 May 2020
A beautiful series! I like the female leads, they remind me of myself and my sister. Gorgeous houses and fantastic scenery. A bit too chatty sometimes and people talking over each other but it's sort of funny. I didn't understand why the whole series is about this house that is very dumpy, rotting, ugly low ceilings and needs repair when the other mansions are beautiful and would of made a much better focal point. Over all a nice series. I wish more were like this!
Loved everything about this miniseries
cathysyoung3 December 2017
The story was interesting and I could not guess the ending. I loved the characters and how they changed over the course of the series. They learned and evolved. I loved the acting, photography, music and details about live in England and the different classes of people. Thoroughly enjoyable! I am sad its over and will now need to find a new program to watch!
Not a good viewing afterthought
MovieIQTest3 February 2019
The Wilcox family = High class
The open-minded elder sister with a great heart, the annoying, naive, mindless, self-righteous younger sister, the lame, less cared geek and bookworm younger brother = Middle class
The shameless disgusting loser Leonard Bast and his pathetic wife = Lower class
The whole series is a complete waste time viewing experience. The Basts characters were absolutely unnecessary, very illogically inserted, not just disgusting, annoying and bothering. Also, the aunt of the Schlegel 3 young people was another unimportant and totally unnecessary insertion. But without them, how could this lousy drama go on? There would be nothing to tell. It's a very hollow story about the rich, the less rich and the poor classes, typical British social infrastructure. It's inheritance and entitlement of the colonial British Empire for certain privileged people like the Wilcox and the Schlegel families, same old same old like what Dickens' novels, they were either self-centered or narrow-minded people like the Wilcox members or open-minded, self-indulgent, or self-righteous or charitable-minded like the three members of the Schlegels. What made them so care-free and worry-free? Because they were either rich by making money with good investments or got the inheritance money from their dead parents. The Basts insertion was so forcibly pretentious that Foster simply copycatted from the Dickens novel, the only difference was that shameless Bast never got some remote rich relatives who suddenly died and miraculously named him as the sole receiver of their fortune, what a bad luck lamer.
The camera works were as beautiful as it should be, sceneries, gardens, flowers, sky and sea.....typical BBC stereotype and formula, but the interior of the old house in this series as "Howards End" was so UGLY!
The whole series is a complete waste time viewing experience. The Basts characters were absolutely unnecessary, very illogically inserted, not just disgusting, annoying and bothering. Also, the aunt of the Schlegel 3 young people was another unimportant and totally unnecessary insertion. But without them, how could this lousy drama go on? There would be nothing to tell. It's a very hollow story about the rich, the less rich and the poor classes, typical British social infrastructure. It's inheritance and entitlement of the colonial British Empire for certain privileged people like the Wilcox and the Schlegel families, same old same old like what Dickens' novels, they were either self-centered or narrow-minded people like the Wilcox members or open-minded, self-indulgent, or self-righteous or charitable-minded like the three members of the Schlegels. What made them so care-free and worry-free? Because they were either rich by making money with good investments or got the inheritance money from their dead parents. The Basts insertion was so forcibly pretentious that Foster simply copycatted from the Dickens novel, the only difference was that shameless Bast never got some remote rich relatives who suddenly died and miraculously named him as the sole receiver of their fortune, what a bad luck lamer.
The camera works were as beautiful as it should be, sceneries, gardens, flowers, sky and sea.....typical BBC stereotype and formula, but the interior of the old house in this series as "Howards End" was so UGLY!
A very enjoyable and rich adaptation. Much preferable to the dated 1992 film.
mickman91-128 July 2022
I don't agree with positive racism. Messing about with character's races to ingratiate to audiences. However, oppositely I can't stand when people say things like "a black person would not have been in this position at this time" blah blah blah. IT IS ACTING. An American person wouldn't have had a British accent at that time. Or so and so has blonde hair in the novel but the character is brunette. It is not difficult to see past colour for the sake of storytelling. We don't require an actor to be of the same nationality or height or hair colour or weight etc etc as the parts they are playing. I don't think colour is any different. I did not get the sense that there was positive racism going on here. I think they just happened to be right for the role.
In terms of the adpatation, this is much more engaging and enjoyable than the 1992 film, which has its legions of fans but is so dated and lifeless now in 2022. It has not stood up like other older adaptations. And frankly, the characters and the themes are just so much more richer in this version. Joseph Quinn is particularly good at playing a downtrodden and nervous and potentially volatile character. He has been immortalised this year after his appearance in Stranger Things.
In terms of the adpatation, this is much more engaging and enjoyable than the 1992 film, which has its legions of fans but is so dated and lifeless now in 2022. It has not stood up like other older adaptations. And frankly, the characters and the themes are just so much more richer in this version. Joseph Quinn is particularly good at playing a downtrodden and nervous and potentially volatile character. He has been immortalised this year after his appearance in Stranger Things.
'Don't take a sentimental attitude toward the poor. The poor are the poor. One is sorry for them, but there it is.'
gradyharp1 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
There are special series that, once purchased, remain on the 'active' shelf for frequent viewing, so fine are they in literally every aspect of production. HOWARDS END is certainly one of those rare UK series that is intelligent, richly evocative of a period of history passed, brilliantly acted and filmed, and succeeds in taking a great novel to an even higher level of appreciation.
EM Forster's fine novel was ably adapted for the four part series by Kenneth Longeran and the fine direction is by Hettie Macdonald that is a visualization of Forster's Edwardian England. The story is well known - the juxtaposition of social classes in conflict as played out by the wealthy and stuffy Wilcox family (who owns a country house called Howards End) and represents the staid, controlled mentality of the rich versus the more worldly wise and enlightened Schlegel sisters - women concerned with feminism, social causes, cultural pursuits, and the plight of the disenfranchised. Neither side of this battle is free of gray zones: the matriarch of the Wilcox family is gentle Ruth (Julia Ormond) who befriends the elder Meg Schlegel (Hayley Atwell) and shares her love for Howard's End and all that truly fine and meaningful life it represents, while husband Henry (Matthew Macfadyen) remains a cold controlling isolate. When Ruth dies Henry and Meg oddly marry in a cold relationship. Meg's sister Helen (Philippa Coulthard), the free spirit, entangles her family with a poor clerk (Joseph Quinn) and his wife (Rosalind Eleazar) out of generosity based on the arts, and allows herself to engage in the Edwardian taboo of becoming pregnant before marriage! Many characters intertwine in this match of classes with tragic consequences and struggles for rights, and always at the core of the climaxes is the existence of the meaningful controversy over money and position and title and property (Howards End). The masterful way in which Forster keeps this symbol in the foreground in the midst of the complex story of people at odds is one of the finer achievements of 20th century literature, and the director and cast and production team bring the epic to life with great dignity, beauty, and sensitivity.
There are endless reviews of the storyline of the novel and the film and repeating any of that is superfluous. To fully appreciate the story one must read the novel and see the film and series, there is that much value to be gained. The performances are all first rate in that extraordinary British acting style of understatement. There are moments of natural beauty in the gardens and grounds of Howards End that remain etched in memory as though they were paintings in a museum. Not only is this series a 'must see' for all audiences, it is a one that should be part of the cinematic library of all who love film. Highly Recommended.
EM Forster's fine novel was ably adapted for the four part series by Kenneth Longeran and the fine direction is by Hettie Macdonald that is a visualization of Forster's Edwardian England. The story is well known - the juxtaposition of social classes in conflict as played out by the wealthy and stuffy Wilcox family (who owns a country house called Howards End) and represents the staid, controlled mentality of the rich versus the more worldly wise and enlightened Schlegel sisters - women concerned with feminism, social causes, cultural pursuits, and the plight of the disenfranchised. Neither side of this battle is free of gray zones: the matriarch of the Wilcox family is gentle Ruth (Julia Ormond) who befriends the elder Meg Schlegel (Hayley Atwell) and shares her love for Howard's End and all that truly fine and meaningful life it represents, while husband Henry (Matthew Macfadyen) remains a cold controlling isolate. When Ruth dies Henry and Meg oddly marry in a cold relationship. Meg's sister Helen (Philippa Coulthard), the free spirit, entangles her family with a poor clerk (Joseph Quinn) and his wife (Rosalind Eleazar) out of generosity based on the arts, and allows herself to engage in the Edwardian taboo of becoming pregnant before marriage! Many characters intertwine in this match of classes with tragic consequences and struggles for rights, and always at the core of the climaxes is the existence of the meaningful controversy over money and position and title and property (Howards End). The masterful way in which Forster keeps this symbol in the foreground in the midst of the complex story of people at odds is one of the finer achievements of 20th century literature, and the director and cast and production team bring the epic to life with great dignity, beauty, and sensitivity.
There are endless reviews of the storyline of the novel and the film and repeating any of that is superfluous. To fully appreciate the story one must read the novel and see the film and series, there is that much value to be gained. The performances are all first rate in that extraordinary British acting style of understatement. There are moments of natural beauty in the gardens and grounds of Howards End that remain etched in memory as though they were paintings in a museum. Not only is this series a 'must see' for all audiences, it is a one that should be part of the cinematic library of all who love film. Highly Recommended.
Story doesn't hold up well
chilibeanie20 November 2021
I haven't read the book that this series was based on, but the story played out here is pretty revolting to a twenty first century girl. Margaret should have kicked this Henry slimeball to the curb soon after meeting him, being the strong, financially independent woman that she was. Other than being rich and handsome he had zero else to offer, and indeed makes life worse for those around him, even for some he can't seem to remember.
I enjoyed the production, scenery and actors, and found it engaging enough to finish the full series. I rooted for all the Schlegel kids, and particularly liked Alex Lawther as Tibby. Having seen the 1992 movie version I was not expecting to like certain characters in the story, but wow. My exposure Matthew Macfadyen suggests that he Is recently being typecast as a real scumbag (see also the series 'Succession'), and a very fine job he does at that, bless his heart.
I enjoyed the production, scenery and actors, and found it engaging enough to finish the full series. I rooted for all the Schlegel kids, and particularly liked Alex Lawther as Tibby. Having seen the 1992 movie version I was not expecting to like certain characters in the story, but wow. My exposure Matthew Macfadyen suggests that he Is recently being typecast as a real scumbag (see also the series 'Succession'), and a very fine job he does at that, bless his heart.
WOW, just wow
mathomas-2805330 April 2018
What cinematography! What costumes! What music! But above all, what a wonderful story, brought to life by masterful directing and acting. So nice to watch the story of two fascinating, strong, resourceful sisters, over a period of years. The men, of course, are useless, but I think that is the point.
Marriage and pregnancy, two key and pivotal events in the life of the Schlegel family. Watch the subtle expressions of these two brilliant actresses; the beauty is in the fine detail of a raised eyebrow, the sweeping back of a stray lock of hair.
You can't do better then to spend four hours of your life with this brilliant cast, this brilliant production.
Marriage and pregnancy, two key and pivotal events in the life of the Schlegel family. Watch the subtle expressions of these two brilliant actresses; the beauty is in the fine detail of a raised eyebrow, the sweeping back of a stray lock of hair.
You can't do better then to spend four hours of your life with this brilliant cast, this brilliant production.
An adaptation that starts to drag.
LW-0885428 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I won't go over the story in too much detail, it's pretty well known by now. Basically it all hinges on who gets to inherit Howard's End, a beautiful old house. Themes of class and gender conflict are also ever present. Obviously we've come a long way since then though some elements remain relevant. This story is not really all that romantic like A Room with a View, marriage is more a practical consideration, it's offered much like a business proposal. Leonard Bast also seems fairly unenthusiastic about his partner, regarding it more as a sort of duty. Mr Wilcox is not only revealed to have been unfaithful to his wife but also remarries soon after her death. So again not very romantic.
The central characters are two sisters and the story focusses on the different choices they make. They start off quite similar and become progressively more different. They are both young, beautiful, posh, affluent and cultured, (everything we secretly aspire to be and everything most of us are not.) This makes them sound superficial, how can a modern 21st century audience relate to them? I mean even the rich have to work to be so now, rather than just attending concerts, discussing literature and being waited on by servants. The sisters are artistic, idealistic and liberally minded. Their assumptions come into conflict though when they encounter the Wilcox family, a family with an intelligent and charming yet hard-headed and stern father at its head. In the long run there's no real chance of a happy union between the two families who are polar opposites in outlook. The eldest son Charles inherits his father's hardness and is essentially the closest thing the story has to an antagonist. To me the best aspect of the series was the unfolding dynamic between the two families, especially Margaret and Henry.
On the technical side the production values are excellent, pretty much everything is filmed practically, the wardrobe and set design are pretty flawless. The period motorcars, horse drawn carriages and steam trains also look brilliant and give the show high production values.
Though you can tell the series was filmed digitally for TV, the lighting is still really nice and natural looking without ever going all grey and shadowy like in the Crown. The overall look of the show manages to cool off things slightly in terms of colour. Flesh tones tend to be on the pale side, the camera movement is smooth and gorgeous, never drawing attention to itself and the editing is also slick and smooth. One thing I couldn't help notice is how Helen is so often wearing red, really once you notice it you can't help spotting it again each time. Red to reflect her passionate personality I suppose.
Having the two youngest siblings of both families hock up at the start and then suddenly break it all off hints that no love affair will go smoothly here.
One of the best things about this show are the performances from the 3 siblings they get Tibby right too, he's probably a fair representation of how a young spoilt, rich sheltered boy would turn out in Edwardian England.
The soundtrack again is very pleasing without doing anything too strange or unusual, it's not very memorable though, just pleasant background music.
The costumes are all very nicely done, the female characters pretty much all wear long skirts up to their ribs and then long sleeve white blouses buttoned up to their throats. The men pretty much all wear three piece suits, usually dressing in black, white, grey or brown. The sisters are usually dressed more colourfully, perhaps to help pick them out in a crowd, perhaps to reflect their bohemian nature. I've often felt that the popularity of Edwardian dramas is really a return to the nostalgic warmth of this period, sandwiched between the gritty Victorian world and WWI, this period of just 12 years has produced some of best loved children's fiction, The Wind in the Willows, Peter Rabbit, the Railway children, Peter Pan. It's remembered nostalgically now for it's elegant fashion, a time of top hats, gas lamps, coal fireplaces, telegrams, grandfather clocks, steam trains motor cars, cricket, concert halls, afternoon tea and imperial power.
When you look out your window now and see your neighbours half dressed, cigarette in one hand, smart phone in the other, tattoos all up their arms, huge bellies sticking out their t-shirts, you do just can't help thinking isn't this lost Edwardian world surely better than the present? A time before the roads became cluttered with cars, when you could open your window in London and listen to the birds sing or the odd horse clip clop past rather than the sound of lawn mowers, thumping music and the ever-present din of modern traffic. A time without the constant distraction of emails, messages, social media, etc. The appeal of a return to a simpler time with also have a strong appeal and I think it's this which really draws people to Edwardian dramas. Or perhaps it's more specifically the idea that you can longue around all day in beautiful surroundings just reading literature and eating cakes while of course staying nice and thin.
The show delivers really well in lots of ways but I do want to mention a few negatives. Some of the casting is a bit misplaced, the Basts are bland really and not all that well developed or interesting. The actor who plays Leonard just looks bored and disinterested throughout most of it. The casting of so many ethnic minorities was also a bit much really. Do the BBC really believe the Chelsea Women's Political Club would have been that racially diverse in 1910?
There's only a 7 year age gap between the actor playing Mr Wilcox and the actress playing Margaret yet they try and make out it's this big problem. Charles looks more like his brother than his son. I did like the interpretation of Margaret as very motherly towards her siblings in this one though. Also the way the series is split into 4 is a bit weird and doesn't really work, episode 1 doesn't have enough happen really. It's better to just watch it all at once without the pauses. Ruth's death was very sudden, there was no real hint of illness before. At times there was something almost plastic about Leonards face, I know they want the cooler look but his face was unnaturally smooth, white and plastic, and his eyes seemed too black, it just looked weird, I'm not sure if it was partly the camera lens they were using which probably makes the women look better and less lined, only poor Ruth Wilcox is shown with any wrinkles. On the plus though they took a few risks and did things differently, there's no point doing just a shot for shot remake of the original film. The scene where Leonard is angry but unable to leave while he waits for his hatch, being goaded by Tibby heightening Helen's anxiety for example, good writing.
The central characters are two sisters and the story focusses on the different choices they make. They start off quite similar and become progressively more different. They are both young, beautiful, posh, affluent and cultured, (everything we secretly aspire to be and everything most of us are not.) This makes them sound superficial, how can a modern 21st century audience relate to them? I mean even the rich have to work to be so now, rather than just attending concerts, discussing literature and being waited on by servants. The sisters are artistic, idealistic and liberally minded. Their assumptions come into conflict though when they encounter the Wilcox family, a family with an intelligent and charming yet hard-headed and stern father at its head. In the long run there's no real chance of a happy union between the two families who are polar opposites in outlook. The eldest son Charles inherits his father's hardness and is essentially the closest thing the story has to an antagonist. To me the best aspect of the series was the unfolding dynamic between the two families, especially Margaret and Henry.
On the technical side the production values are excellent, pretty much everything is filmed practically, the wardrobe and set design are pretty flawless. The period motorcars, horse drawn carriages and steam trains also look brilliant and give the show high production values.
Though you can tell the series was filmed digitally for TV, the lighting is still really nice and natural looking without ever going all grey and shadowy like in the Crown. The overall look of the show manages to cool off things slightly in terms of colour. Flesh tones tend to be on the pale side, the camera movement is smooth and gorgeous, never drawing attention to itself and the editing is also slick and smooth. One thing I couldn't help notice is how Helen is so often wearing red, really once you notice it you can't help spotting it again each time. Red to reflect her passionate personality I suppose.
Having the two youngest siblings of both families hock up at the start and then suddenly break it all off hints that no love affair will go smoothly here.
One of the best things about this show are the performances from the 3 siblings they get Tibby right too, he's probably a fair representation of how a young spoilt, rich sheltered boy would turn out in Edwardian England.
The soundtrack again is very pleasing without doing anything too strange or unusual, it's not very memorable though, just pleasant background music.
The costumes are all very nicely done, the female characters pretty much all wear long skirts up to their ribs and then long sleeve white blouses buttoned up to their throats. The men pretty much all wear three piece suits, usually dressing in black, white, grey or brown. The sisters are usually dressed more colourfully, perhaps to help pick them out in a crowd, perhaps to reflect their bohemian nature. I've often felt that the popularity of Edwardian dramas is really a return to the nostalgic warmth of this period, sandwiched between the gritty Victorian world and WWI, this period of just 12 years has produced some of best loved children's fiction, The Wind in the Willows, Peter Rabbit, the Railway children, Peter Pan. It's remembered nostalgically now for it's elegant fashion, a time of top hats, gas lamps, coal fireplaces, telegrams, grandfather clocks, steam trains motor cars, cricket, concert halls, afternoon tea and imperial power.
When you look out your window now and see your neighbours half dressed, cigarette in one hand, smart phone in the other, tattoos all up their arms, huge bellies sticking out their t-shirts, you do just can't help thinking isn't this lost Edwardian world surely better than the present? A time before the roads became cluttered with cars, when you could open your window in London and listen to the birds sing or the odd horse clip clop past rather than the sound of lawn mowers, thumping music and the ever-present din of modern traffic. A time without the constant distraction of emails, messages, social media, etc. The appeal of a return to a simpler time with also have a strong appeal and I think it's this which really draws people to Edwardian dramas. Or perhaps it's more specifically the idea that you can longue around all day in beautiful surroundings just reading literature and eating cakes while of course staying nice and thin.
The show delivers really well in lots of ways but I do want to mention a few negatives. Some of the casting is a bit misplaced, the Basts are bland really and not all that well developed or interesting. The actor who plays Leonard just looks bored and disinterested throughout most of it. The casting of so many ethnic minorities was also a bit much really. Do the BBC really believe the Chelsea Women's Political Club would have been that racially diverse in 1910?
There's only a 7 year age gap between the actor playing Mr Wilcox and the actress playing Margaret yet they try and make out it's this big problem. Charles looks more like his brother than his son. I did like the interpretation of Margaret as very motherly towards her siblings in this one though. Also the way the series is split into 4 is a bit weird and doesn't really work, episode 1 doesn't have enough happen really. It's better to just watch it all at once without the pauses. Ruth's death was very sudden, there was no real hint of illness before. At times there was something almost plastic about Leonards face, I know they want the cooler look but his face was unnaturally smooth, white and plastic, and his eyes seemed too black, it just looked weird, I'm not sure if it was partly the camera lens they were using which probably makes the women look better and less lined, only poor Ruth Wilcox is shown with any wrinkles. On the plus though they took a few risks and did things differently, there's no point doing just a shot for shot remake of the original film. The scene where Leonard is angry but unable to leave while he waits for his hatch, being goaded by Tibby heightening Helen's anxiety for example, good writing.
Potential but.....
skpn12313 December 2018
This series fits the picture of a period piece but the script is often rapidly spoken and most of the characters endlessly drivel on in a confusing fashion. The show jumps from different people and families and back again so one does not know who is who and why they are present at all. It is not a subtle slow burn, it is an irritating mess. Can it improve? Not sure.......
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
