Mildred Pierce (2011) User Reviews

Faithful to the novel

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 5 June 2019]

If you're one of the many people who read James M. Cain's novel Mildred Pierce and were utterly baffled by the changed made to the 1945 film adaptation, have no fear: the 2011 remake is so faithful to the book, it's as if someone's reading it aloud. Spread out in a 5-part miniseries, every detail of the long-suffering mother's journey is shown, from the dissolution of her marriage to her baby steps of adapting to the business world, to the sadness each of her daughters bring, and to her second chance at love with a young playboy. Kate Winslet takes the helm, and after her predecessor won a long-awaited Oscar for the original, Kate took quite a risk.

Since the two versions are so different, because of the story changes, Kate Winslet and Joan Crawford play two different women. Even if you love Joan Crawford, I think you'll still be able to appreciate Kate's interpretation and admit that she gives a heartfelt, exhausting performance. Kate modernizes the role, bringing her own brand of acting to Mildred's struggles, rather than trying to imitate Joan's stoic performance from the silver screen. She was rewarded, too, earning a Golden Globe for her work.

While in the original, the characters of Mildred's husband, friend, and suitor are stereotypes and rather boring, in the remake, Brian O'Byrne, Melissa Leo, and James Le Gros each bring realism into their respective roles. Mare Winningham joins the cast as a fellow waitress, and she's so realistic it's as if she's been slinging hash her entire life. Evan Rachel Wood takes on the villainous role of Mildred's oldest daughter, and while I am partial to Ann Blyth's original breakthrough performance, there are no flaws in Evan's. She does everything she's supposed to do and makes the audience hate her just as much as they're supposed to. Guy Pearce plays the handsome, spoiled playboy, and while he's always excellent in every role he takes on, if you watch this miniseries you might be too distracted to focus on his acting talents.

Since I've read the book, I thoroughly appreciated Todd Haynes' adaptation. This version is faithful from start to finish, and with several seasoned actors bringing the characters to life, it's very enjoyable to watch.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to sex scenes and nudity, as well as upsetting scenes involving children, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

A slow yet captivating mini-series, but...

[MarkoFromWreath · 8/10 · 11 April 2011]

-> continuing from the title <- But it is not for everyone.

Mildred pierce is not like other movies/series "based" on novels. This one is more like it "picturization " of the novel. If you have read the James Cain novel by the same name, you will be stunned how this movie 'sticks' to the source faithfully. So this should be great right? Ironically we learn from this that sometimes being too faithful to the novel has its drawbacks.Read on:

This is a film about a middle class divorced , single mom raising her kids , trying to be successful and riding the waves of success but making the mistake of trying to woo her 'rotten' daughter that leads to her downfall.

Here is Kate winslet as the heroine, Mildred Pierce. She is in every frame of the film and this must have been an extremely tiring performance for her. But Ms.Winslet is nothing short of spectacular. She gets every emotion right and delivers every dialogue flawlessly. Morgan Turner as the young Veda Pierce is rightly cast and builds up a neat foundation for Evan Rachel Wood to play her adult counterpart. Wood plays the role just right. Mellisa Leo and MAre Winningham as Pierce's friends Lucy and Ida, are perfectly cast. Brían F. O'Byrne as Bert is surprising good and in the final scene, he truly shines.

Now we have a good story and perfect cast so what could go wrong? Its the faithfulness! The novel is a good read, but picturizing it frame by frame into a movie would not attract many audiences. Its a film noire and is very realistic. The scenes unravel slowly and in detail. for some this may seem like a 'drag'. So if you find yourself yawing at movies like 'Revolutionary Road' or 'The English Patient' then stay away. Also the devotion Mildred shows to her, clearly sick and evil daughter is something I found hard to understand. In today's sensibility a mother wouldn't go this far I assume but this is debatable.

Other than that the film is a joyful companion to the novel. It would actual be difficult to imagine Mildred Pierce as anyone other than Kate Winslet, if you both, read and watch the movie over the same course of time. In conclusion, If you like good acting, good music, Pre-World war II era-films with a touch of realism then do not miss this.

Quite honestly--a great production.

[ksdilauri · 9/10 · 18 December 2019]

Lots of us are fans of the 1945 Crawford version, which was heavily condensed and changed from the novel. But Todd Haynes' miniseries IS the whole story as James M Cain described it, so those who felt the TV production is too long probably didn't like the book either. I was glad to see everything included----it made for a long watch, but an immensely satisfying one. Haynes has a real gift for recreating period feel; for realistic tones and colors, costumes, cars and sets, music, everything down to the dust on the furniture of the decaying Beragon mansion. You feel that you're actually watching people in the 1930's and '40's. The performances of the entire cast are wonderful---but, a caveat: a couple of scenes employ some brief and unnecessary nudity, so it's not for family hour. Other than that, this is one of the best book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen.

A Television Masterpiece

[shiva-28 · 10/10 · 17 April 2011]

To really appreciate this masterpiece of television cinema, the first step is to outgrow the original starring Ms. Crawford.

Initially as I started watching the HBO version I tried to compare the scenes with the original, as I have seen it several times over the years.

It's easy to compare the HBO's Wally to the truly wonderful Jack Carson, and just for comparison sake, Carson takes the cake. No challenge.

How about Ms. Crawford's Pierce vs Winslet's? Crawford of course would win for her screen presence, and the magnitude of her personality. She would also grab the public's vote because she plays a heroine. Ms. Winslet's Mildred has a persona of a victim and comes across as too ordinary, compare with the superhuman presence of Crawford. So, I understand why a lot of us would automatically defer to the original and try to ignore the new.

And what about Veda, how would I compare Evan Rachael's to Ann Blyth's wonderful 1940's performance. In many ways I'd nod the hat to Ms. Blyth, because the movie itself is so immersing.

Judging solely based on the performances of the original characters of the 1940's version, the luscious black and white cinematography, and Ms. Crawford, it would be easy to dismiss the 2011 version.

However if you look at the 2011 version as a standalone piece of grownup film making and the viewer is indeed a grownup who appreciates subtleties, this is one of the best modern movies ever made for television.

Many complain about its pace, they whine that this new version doesn't have a bang of an ending, they complain that Winslet is not a heroine, and how is it possible for Veda to become so great as a singer in such a short time. However, the core reason for people's dissatisfaction with the HBO version is because the original was so good, and to be honest so manipulative. The original twisted the novel to maintain and in many ways revive Crawford's superstar status.

The HBO version is an ode to masterful, grownup film making. I am simply blown away that we can still make such amazingly powerful cinema in the US.

A huge thanks for those involved in this truly inspiring movie. Thanks for not cheapening it with juvenile gun fires and cheap dialog. Thanks for not catering to the lowest common denominator.

This is a heck of a grown up movie, if you can just see it for what it is and not as a remake.

The finest in dramatic art, wonderful and moving

[patrick-free · 10/10 · 10 April 2011]

I was already a Kate Winslet fan, but this performance has put her on a very short list of those who I have ever been so moved, so filled with respect and admiration.

From the moment we first meet her skillfully making pies (old school like grandma) we see a woman who inspires respect. Her troubled marriage becomes apparent right off, but it's not the unreasonable, irrational type of modern day failed marriage relationship. They come to a mutual understanding that they are not happy married to each other, recognizing their own faults and personality differences that are not making for a happy marriage. He leaves her for another woman and while shocking to her, Mildred's inner strength gives you the feeling she'll find a way to manage, although at the most challenging time imaginable - depression era California! We watch as Mildred works hard to keep her 2 daughters cared for while trying to keep herself from falling into understandable depression.

I'll leave the rest for when the series finishes, but I have never seen better acting than in this series, and a large part of that is KW. I believe her performance brings this series to a level it would not have achieved without her. Of course I must credit the directing, writing, and the story itself, for all are wonderful. I could not imagine any fan of dramatic film not liking this series.

elephantine adaptation

[mukava991 · 19 October 2011]

Although "Mildred Pierce" was originally a novel, the story is familiar to most people as a glossy 1945 film noir in which Joan Crawford suffers in furs as her ungrateful daughter (Ann Blyth) steals her boyfriend (Zachary Scott). Strangely enough, the most engaging and gripping sections of this nearly 6-hour extravaganza of middle-class yearnings are not just the more heated of the mother-daughter battles but the painful struggle of the title character to find a job in a Depression-ravaged economy and a micro-examination of the frantic and messy business of running a restaurant, including the heartening camaraderie of the kitchen and wait staff.

There is much attention to the details of craftsmanship – pianistic, vocal, culinary, architectural, managerial and sartorial. When the movie concentrates on these matters it zips by, so sure is the treatment. The musical underscoring, always a key element in the evocation of the antique past, is too shrill at first but improves as the episodes unfold. For some reason Todd Haynes and his composer Carter Burwell have chosen to hammer us over the head at the start with a very loud jazzy piece, which is a bad idea because it obstructs the establishment of our acquaintance with the Pierce family. As the series progresses the musical elements are toned down. Mildred's theme song throughout is, appropriately enough, "I'm Always Chasing Rainbows."

The accomplished Kate Winslet flattens out her melodious native Britspeak yet again to impersonate a drab American housewife. How many such roles has she played by now? I've lost count. It's a consciously colorless rendering of an intelligent, strong and very feminine woman, but not the type of woman who would stop traffic or even try to. The supporting actors are the ones with personality texture: Melissa Leo as a good-natured neighbor and business partner, Mare Winningham as a tough but sweet co-worker (speaking with a "New Yawk"-style twang like one of those sassy blondes from 30's movies), Guy Pearce as the corrupt hedonistic boyfriend, Morgan Turner and Evan Rachel Wood as child and adult versions of Mildred's warped and snobby daughter Veda. Brian F. O'Byrne as Mildred's estranged husband is just warm and tender enough to evoke some sympathy.

The production is so meticulously produced and masterfully photographed that you can get lost in the visual details but the scale is too large for the smallness of the story.

Not great but not awful

[JerzeeGerl · 6/10 · 25 July 2014]

I thought this was a decent miniseries. I thought Kate Winslet was great in her role, and most likely would have taken home the Emmy if this had been better written. My biggest complaint about the story - and perhaps this is true in the original novel, I don't know - is that it's never explained as to what happened in Veda's upbringing to make her such a manipulative spoiled bitch. She grows up in the 30s, when most people were lucky if they had regular meals let alone a place to live, yet she's vicious and hateful because her mother works in a restaurant. It's not because of her sister's death because she was like that before her sister's death. Also, I don't understand why everyone falls all over Evan Rachel Wood's performance in this. Really? I thought she was mediocre at best. She chews up the scenery in this miniseries - sooooooooo overacted. The scene where Kate Winslet's character finds her daughter with her husband naked? Evan Rachel Wood's movement and performance reminded me of a soap opera. Truthfully, my opinion is that this miniseries would have been much better with a different - and better - actress playing Veda.

Visually perfect.

[TrueFanMissy · 10/10 · 6 May 2011]

Never saw the Joan Crawford version, so I can't compare, but visually, this film is flawless. The colors, the props, the costumes, the HATS, the makeup. Evan Rachel Wood is probably a little too skinny for a woman of that era, but other than that - visually perfect.

Emotionally exhausting (in a good way). Kate Winslet must have been worn out by the end of this film. She was amazing. I can't even imagine working that hard. Beautiful and amazing.

I fast forwarded through maybe 2 moments that were a little long but not because they lacked emotion - every moment was pretty dang perfect - but because I am short on time.

What a great piece of directing, what great acting - Melissa Leo sounded like she had been lifted from the era - her phrasing was flawless - reminded me of how my grandmother used to talk.

Everyone who likes period drama should see this film.

plodding for too long

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 20 November 2016]

It's 1930's L.A. Mildred Pierce (Kate Winslet) has been abandoned by her unemployed husband Bert leaving her with their young daughters Veda and Ray. She has been trying to make ends meet by selling her home-made pies. She is forced to take a lowly waitress job in Hollywood. Veda finds out and berates her for embarrassing the family. Mildred tells her that she's preparing to open her own restaurant. Mildred is sleeping with Bert's former real-estate partner Wally Burgan who comes up with a place to start the restaurant. Due to tax reasons, the scheme requires Mildred to divorce Bert. She begins dating polo-playing playboy Monty Beragon (Guy Pearce). He does no work but he gets an income from a fading fruit import business. While secretly away with him, Ray gets sick and later dies. With her waitress friend Ida Corwin's help, her chicken-and-waffles restaurants become highly successful. Mildred doles on Veda but she turns more and more rotten.

This is a five parts HBO mini-series based on the 1941 novel and most well-known for the 1945 film adaptation. For me, this is a tragic mother and daughter story. The drama only gets great when Evan Rachel Wood arrives in part four. The younger actresses who play Veda in the first three parts do their very best. It's not their fault but the drama is limited to a few interesting scenes. This is a failure of adaptation. The first three parts are too plodding and fails to grab the drama by its throat. The saving grace is Kate Winslet and her never-ending humanity. Despite the slow start, she keeps the story going and there is value to a more expansive exposition than the 1945 film. It would have helped to concentrate this five parter into a two or three parter.

Wonderful!

[DionnePettit · 10/10 · 11 April 2011]

I found the remake to be quite excellent. The acting was awesome! The stars were definitely (and rightly) Kate Winslet and Evan Rachel Wood as well as the young actress who played Veda Pierce as an 11-13 year old. I could literally feel what Kate Winslet was emoting on screen. Without giving anything away (or at least too much), both actresses who played Veda brought out such strong reaction in me! Excellent job!

I had seen the original version with Joan Crawford and thought it excellent, however I think I prefer this remake now that I've seen all as it's less soapy dramatics and truer to the book. I'm probably going to watch it again!

Masterclass on acting, not so bright writing

[alexplp-50480 · 7/10 · 9 June 2021]

This is a good mini-series but has some flaws. But first I have to praise Kate Winslet and Evan Rachel Wood for their acting and chemistry (even if their characters nearly hate each other). But the thing is that the story gets sooooo stretched to fill the 5 episodes that from episode 3 on may feel a bit boring and kinda repetitive.

I get that we need to see Mildred's ups and downs but it just feels the same until the fifth episode. I haven't read the book yet but I think it wasn't structured to be adapted into a miniseries. Maybe a movie (I mean the one with Joan Crawford) but not a 5-hour series. Some dialogues are full of wit and deepness but, some feel very dull. Todd Haynes directed flawlessly but the scripts he co-wrote needed to be fixed or shortened.

Kate Winslet just nails every scene she's in and gives a powerful performance mostly in the scenes with young and adult Veda. The relationship between these feels so real even if it's a toxic one, a VERY toxic one. Kate gives us a character that has been beaten by life but, tries to go on and give her daughters a better life even if the world is falling down.

The sets and costumes are just brilliant. Anything you would expect coming from a period production.

It is a beautiful story and production, feminism at its best, but the writing needs some fixing.

I watch this often

[tonik_2000 · 8/10 · 17 August 2021]

What I like most about this series is that it is an absolute feast for the eyes if you have interest in old California. I find California in general fascinating and this is a 5 hour trip there as to what living and succeeding in a beautiful middle class life in 30-40s California would be like. The story isn't super exciting but not everything has to be a thrill ride to be good. The only part I honestly dislike is, and I'm sure this has been said often, is the part about Veda learning to sing perfect opera in 2 weeks. Whatever lol. I am attached to this story like old friends. It's an escape from my life into another and I don't have a lot of bad things to say about it.

With such a great script to work with, this re-make could not quite make it up the hill

[Ed-Shullivan · 6/10 · 16 December 2020]

Kate Winslet tried her darnedest to deliver the performance of her lifetime but when you have to follow a great actress like Joan Crawford who first originated this role in 1945 for us film buffs, the entire cast and film quality just couldn't quite make it back up this high hill to climb.

I am not saying Kate Winslet was not credible in the lead role as Mildred Pierce but accompanied by a less than stellar cast in key roles this five (5) part series waned by episode three (3) whereby Mrs. Shullivan suggested we just stop watching "and maybe" we will finish watching it another day. That day has not come yet.

I give it a passable 6 out of 10 IMD rating for this re-make attempt.

Spoiled brat!

[jupdeheer · 1/10 · 16 May 2022]

Gave up after 1 1/4 episode.

The unbearable, spoilt, snobbish daughter took away all the fun. The worst part of it is the mother giving in after an initial outburst of anger.

(..)"Don't ever give that up, the way you have of looking at things."

Seriously?? The 12 ? 13 year old girl compels the help to wear an uniform, walk her and her sister to school and carry their bags. Makes her adress her as 'Miss Vera' etcetera etccetera.

Can't remember when I saw a character that was as despicable as this Vera.

So different from the 1945 film that you should really see them both.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 7 January 2022]

The 2011 version of "Mildred Pierce" by HBO Pictures is very different from the Oscar-winning 1945 film with Joan Crawford....so different that I recommend you see them both. And, if you can, see it on HBO Max soon, as it's ALSO posted along with the original movie version. Seeing both would be well worth your time.

So why are there two very different versions? Well, parts of James M. Cain's novel simply were not acceptable for the Production Code that Hollywood was forced to adhere to in 1945. So, Mildred's various sexual affairs were completely omitted from the first movie and the ending was changed to punish evil, as the Code would not allow wrongdoers to get away scot-free! But the Cain novel did allow for this darker, less 'nice' ending...and making the film over five and a half hours long worked for me very well. Some might find it a bit slow but I certainly didn't.

As for the plot, I'll only briefly describe it. Mildred's husband was been cheating on her and she's had enough...telling him to leave. But it's during the Depression and she has two daughters to care for an no income. So, without any other options, she looks for work and finds it in a greasy spoon. This is nothing to be ashamed of...work is work. But her eldest daughter, Veda, is a snobby little jerk and so Mildred tries to hide this job from her kids...as working as a waitress was somehow a bad thing! This is foreboding, for as the story progresses, although Mildred eventually is able to create a fantastic living by opening up her own restaurants, Veda demands money and support from her mother...while also having contempt for her as well. In short, Veda is a complete narcissist and Mildred is an enabling piece of soggy toast. How all this works out in this sweeping drama is for you to find out for yourself.

The acting, direction and script were all first rate and I might have even scored this one a 10 save for one glaring plot problem late in the film. The contemptable Veda, now about age 18-20, storms out of her mother's home and after only 2-3 months, is a singing sensation as an opera star. Now, considering Veda NEVER sang before this and never trained her voice, such a rages to riches success story simply defies common sense. I know Mr. Cain was a trained opera singer, so I can see why he included this plot, but you can't go from being a non-singer to an opera star in 2-3 months....it's just not logical. Still, you can look past this and see how exquisite the film is otherwise. Well made and well worth your time.

By the way, as a trained psychotherapist, I did find the very Freudian imagery and themes in this mini-series VERY interesting...and it's something lacking in the 1945 film.

Pale Remake of a Stellar Classic

[OutsideHollywoodLand · 28 September 2011]

Todd Haynes's uber-Mommie Dearest drama, starring Kate Winslet, reminds one of a faded postcard, found in an old box of precious keepsakes – wistfully pretty to look at – for a moment anyway. The 5+ hour remake of the 1945 Warner Bros film classic, drags in all the wrong places, partly due to the cable giant's "bigger is better" miniseries mania and the miscasting of the central characters of Mildred Pierce, Veda (the elder), and Monty Beragon. In their determination to render up a carbon copy of the book, written by James M. Cain in 1941, Mildred Pierce 2011 is transformed into a tired and over-wrought tale that signifies a lot of ho-hum. Directed and co-adapted for the mini-screen by Todd Haynes, his Mildred Pierce adds all the modern clichés of incestual longings and guy-on-girl action, which does little to save this remake from tanking. If anything, suggesting that Mildred has sexual longings for Veda undercuts the tension and appears like a cheap anchovy thrown into an already over-rich stew.

Ms. Winslet struggles to deliver her usual tour-de-force performance in this psychological doppelganger study of Mildred, the mother who obsessively clings to her bitch of a daughter, Veda, while climbing her ladder of success as a restaurateur. Kate Winslet's Mildred is too polite and refined to hold our interest in this tepid soap opera. The five-part series spends the first three on Mildred and Veda's complex relationship, which is three times too long in OHLand's opinion. Morgan Turner - spellbinding as the young Veda – is a tough act to follow. It's too bad that Evan Rachel Wood had to be the one to step into the adult Veda's shoes, because she often looks silly, like a little girl caught wearing mommy's makeup. A wiser choice for this pivotal role would have been the smooth, kitty-cat Daveigh Chase, from HBO's "Big Love" mini-series. Guy Pearce, as Monty, the faded Pasadena playboy, comes off as a smarmy schoolboy with a bad haircut. Mark Strong, of "Robin Hood" fame, seems the most logical choice to bite into this juicy character. In using "name" stars like Wood and Pearce, HBO settled for the bottom-line instead of making bolder casting choices to strengthened their lengthy treatment and Ms. Winslet's dramatic efforts. Brian F. O'Byrne does what he can with the lackluster character of Bert, Mildred's tiresome husband. Melissa Leo as the straight-talking Lucy, Mildred's friend and confidant and James LeGros, as Wally, the Pierce's friendly neighborhood conman, deftly bring new life to these memorable supporting characters.

Kudos goes to award-winning costume designer Ann Roth and the entire Mildred Pierce 2011 wardrobe department, who succeeds in recreating the faded classic feel of the period with timeless colors, simple cuts, and rich pattern work.

Perhaps we're just too used to the tough-as-nails Crawford version, with its dramatic music, noir-ish moodiness, and sensational murder – all in 111 minutes! Naw…what captivates us is the snarling dialogue between Crawford as Mildred and Ann Blyth's Veda and that ferocious slap-out on the staircase. Trying to remake something that's already a great masterpiece is really a waste of time, because as we all know, a masterpiece is a timeless creation.

Duh, HBO!

Mildred Pierce

[victoriasimon86 · 9/10 · 8 April 2013]

Mildred Pierce HBO 2011: This does have some spoilers. Kate Winslet delivers an honest performance full of anxiety, passion, heartbreak and guts. She plays a woman ahead of her time and without apology - a character full of contradictions who gets what she wants. While the miniseries is long, it shows the delicate ups and downs of a single mother effected by the Great Depression. She is forced to get a job as a waitress, fearing her daughter's disapproval. Her younger daughter dies early in the film. I cannot say that Mildred was as heartbroken by that as she is endlessly throughout the film for being a constant disappointment to her daughter Veda. Veda, played like a perfect tennis opponent by Evan Rachel Wood is a performance not to be missed. Mildred ends up owning a corporation, making the dough, thriving after a divorce and losing it all quickly just to please an ungrateful and blatantly spiteful daughter. Guy Pierce spices things up as Mildred's lover and plays his famous coward role (Count of Monte Cristo, the Kings Speech) like a charm. This one is a surprise though and you have to watch to get to that gaping reaction towards the end of the film. (like you had all throughout Memento) Like all HBO movies and shows, your cable bill every month is worth the superb casting. Also true to HBO, this miniseries is a great snap shot of how it was for how it is now and something we can learn from as we get through the last four years of tough economic times. Though Mildred is considered to be a heroine, what I praise most is the fact that I did not agree with her most of the time, rather I was curious to ride the stock market rises and slumps of her journey.

Six of one, half dozen of the other

[rgcustomer · 7/10 · 11 April 2011]

Everything that has been said about this miniseries is probably true, except for the scores. This is neither a masterpiece, nor is it a failure. It's average. I would recommend it to fans of the story. For everyone else, it's kind of a toss-up.

I think the miniseries has to be evaluated in context of the film.

The miniseries goes into much greater depth into the characters than the film did, particularly Veda, and I thought that was a wise decision. The film always made her out to be this cartoon villain, almost laugh-out-loud ridiculous, and that problem has been fixed here.

I liked the rich style of the sets and clothes, and the music. And Monty has a good butt. It's nice to see equal time given to the men who've got something to show.

I do miss the film noir aspect. Isn't someone supposed to die? That confused me a bit.

The main problem is that this miniseries drags on for over five hours, and really could have been done in 3-4. I found myself forgetting what had happened in earlier episodes.

For all the time that was spent, I still feel that I don't understand the relationship between Veda and her mother. Why was there this need to please Veda? Anyway, I think it's worth seeing, but not better than the film.

Great Movie! Great Casting! Great Acting!

[KarenSXOXO · 8/10 · 26 February 2014]

This movie, recently presented in separate airings, was highly addictive. At first you think how can a movie based around a woman who makes great pies be that good but, IT REALLY WAS! My husband was hooked as soon as he saw the first episode I had recorded. It was PERFECTLY cast and all the performances were awesome! The setting based in the 1930's was absolutely gorgeous as was the music from back then. It made you wish you could go back in time, before technology, when things were so much simpler! The main theme of the story is universal to this day. This is one of those that if you are just channel surfing and you see it on, you just keep watching it over and over again. There is some nudity; but that aside, this is a a must see!

Hoped for better

[glyn90 · 6/10 · 9 June 2021]

This had the potential to be so much better. At times I really enjoyed the program, but the awful daughter was so annoying I could at times have turned it off!

Todd Haynes once again creates a masterpiece

[cpeznola-25-722309 · 10/10 · 11 April 2011]

Todd Haynes has established himself as a truly iconic director. From his works like Poison and Far from Heaven, Haynes is establishing a track record of remarkable period pieces, rivaling that of Kubric. His attention to detail, use of colors, and selection of music helps create the framework. Add to this exceptional performances by Kate Winslet, Guy Pierce, Mellisa Leo and Evan Rachel Wood, and you end up with a truly amazing work. Staying true to the original source material, Haynes has crafted a film that makes even the hardest soul enjoy the pain and wonderful cruelty of life. I am not sure how this story, in all its rich detail, fabric and nuance could have been compressed into a feature length film. As wonderful as Joan Crawford's performance in the original version was, this new adaptation takes James Cain's amazingly dark and deep story of depression era life to a new level that I think he would be proud to be part of.

Hayne's sense of detail, imagery, and mood reflect a deep and powerful understanding of period film making that most directors could only hope to accomplish. I hope that he continues down this path of making wonderful period pieces that touch their audience in a most profound and powerful way.

Watch this film, and then watch the Crawford original, if you haven't already seen it. You will see that each has it unique qualities, but I think you will see that Hayne's has crafted a more subtle while at the same time intense recreation.

Does not Compare..

[xcitenlady · 7/10 · 11 April 2011]

I may be partial to Joan Crawford's Mildred Pierce since I have seen it many many times and thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't find the acting nor the script is particularly great at all in the 2011 version.

Cate Winslet is stiff and out of character except for the sexual scenes which are commonplace for actors in the 21st. I do like her in The Reader but of course it was sex between a woman a boy. Mildred Pierce 2011 is not a match for her works. Young Veda was very much off target too, as her acting was very close to high school play-ish.

Guy Pearce was very good and very close to the original actor's part. The older Veda was realistic and close to the original's portrayal. Wally was close to character and Mare Willingham and Melissa Leo were also good in their parts. I think the issue here is partially the script and a lot more the casting.

It was fabulous...no matter what the other reviews say.

[slynn32 · 10/10 · 16 April 2011]

Kate Winslet is a terrific actress, of that there is no doubt. She exquisitely portrayed a struggling mother, torn between her want of independence and her desire to lavishly support her children. Every scene with Mildred and Veda was filled with such tension it vividly showed this split that plagued this mother.

The level of love, dedication, heartbreak, duplicity, forgiveness, betrayal, and reconciliation seen in this miniseries is off the charts. It is certainly one not to be missed.

For those comparing to the '45 version, all I have to say is if you liked that one so much, why watch the new one? If your ultimate standard of the depiction will never be reached, why waste your time and then turn around and complain about it?

In actuality, there is simply no denying that HBO has hit the mark once again.

OK but not great

[black-and-gold · 7/10 · 7 April 2013]

I watched this series because I quite like Kate Winslet and I usually enjoy the work she does. I knew Mildred Pierce won some awards but I never got a chance to see it on TV. I don't even know if it was shown in the UK.

The production of this series was good and it had a good cast. Kate Winslet was especially good. Nevertheless I couldn't enjoy it overall because I found the plot depressing. The first 3 parts kept me interested but it went down hill during parts 4 & 5. This is not the fault of the actors or production. Just a bad choice of script. It's worth the watch if you're a Winslet fan but don't watch it if you're looking for something uplifting.

I'm actually surprised that TV channels like HBO commission high budget miniseries like this. I watched it because of the cast but I can't imagine it's the kind of thing many TV watchers would watch. Sure enough the ratings seem to prove me right.It does make me wonder how they make their money back even if it did win so many awards. Then again I guess it's a good thing that they are supporting the art of film making and are not only rating conscious.

Overall, stinko.

[mrglenngrant · 4/10 · 5 November 2021]

As a big Kate fan I had high hopes for this and it started out really so well. Unfortunately, in the last few episodes when it became all about Veda - the stereotypical, almost pantomime brat - and Mildred became such a massive, simpering doormat and inexplicably lousy at business affairs, it turned into a tough watch.