Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

PippinInOz I have just finished watching the final episode today and - like another reviewer (jane) I did not want it to end. This has so much to recommend it. Although I am an avid appreciator of 'period drama' some of it, let's face it, is not brilliant is it? Yeah, okay it's watchable, but this, THIS is just fantastic, because:1. It has all the allusions to 18th Century 'tales' of 'fallen women in the big dirty London City' like Daniel Defoe's 'Moll Flanders' for example, but then adds something else, something new. 2. The something 'new' is an in your face representation of 1870s London. What a relief to see it how I imagined it to be. As a working class London girl who was lucky enough to study London Victorian life from a working class perspective it was exhilarating - and terrifying - to see what appears to me an accurate vision of the time and place. If you want servile happy poor folk who are 'everso grateful' to their betters, then go get a Disney version. This one goes for it. You can almost smell it - and it ain't nice, it ain't pretty. From the attempts by the prostitutes to prevent getting pregnant, the attempts to 'get rid of' unwanted pregnancies to the completely unsexy images of rich men f**cking in an alley way. 3. All of the acting is superb. Let us all thank God that the Americans never got hold of this for a film version. When Agnes thinks she sees her 'Angel' loitering in the street below the window, it is a play on the Victorian ideal of womanhood 'the angel in the house' - William Rackham's idealisation - and separation - of the two women in his life says so much that needed to be said about this often idealised time in history. The Angel in the House, particularly after Sugar moves into the home as Governess, means the Prostitute became the Angel in the House, if but briefly. 4. The one weak link for me was the character of Emmeline Fox played by Shirley Henderson. I am now reading the book and wonder why this character was made so two dimensional when her character really could have been sooooo much more. But hey......different texts, so if you haven't read the book, you won't care.5. When the body of Agnes is plucked out of the Thames, there are nods and winks to the Pre Raphaelite painting of 'Ophelia' - the woman driven mad by her lover who drowns herself. Art that was by Victorian males, judged by Victorian males and modelled by at least one prostitute. Also, a comment on the strange ideas of womanhood during this period - but by extension, the strange ideas right now. Yeah, it has changed, but has it changed as much as we like to believe? In this way it becomes a meditation on the past and the present.Highly recommended to everyone who loves a good yarn. Even more so to anyone who wants a warts and all depiction of the past. Romola Garai and Chis O'Dowd are just wonderful and should win at least a couple of awards for their efforts here. .....but everyone is good, special stars for Gillian Anderson as the collector of religious pictures who proves beyond any doubt she can play anything the director throws at her. Lovely performance. Also recommend the book upon which this is based. First rate.

markgorman I love Michel Faber's writing and it's a toss up between this and Under The Skin for his greatest work. The two could be no more different; Under the Skin is a taught contemporary sci fi horror set in Scotland and this; an 800 page monstrous take on Dickensian Victorian London.Both are really great books and consequently both run the risk of taking a good pasting when put on screen.There has been many year's of talk that TCPATW would be Hollywood-made and for a while rumour had it that Kirsten Dunst was to be the heroine, Sugar. However it fell eventually to the BBC to make this near epic adaptation. I say near epic because big and bold as it was I think it had even greater potential.The previews did not make great reading; the panel on Newsnight Review, with the honourable exception of Maureen Lipman, annihilated it so I approached fearing the worst.I needn't have worried.The, at times, over tricksy focus pulling in the camera work was a bit heavy handed but this was overcome on balance because otherwise it was excellent (moody, creepy, almost surreal in places and beautifully emphasised by a particularly odd (in a good way) score written by newcomer CristobalTapai de Veer).The set and costumes are astounding and the acting of the entire cast, but Particularly Chris O'Dowd (the IT team) and Romola Garai were of BAFTA winning standards, and had to be to pull it off.In particular O'Dowd's tortured portrayal of sappy rich boy William Rackham is magnificent. It's as if he can't decide how to play the role, but that's just how Faber wrote it. In the end he comes across as merely a weak sap who is only in it for himself. Perhaps he cannot help it as we frequently see when he is led astray by his particularly vulgar "friends".Romola Garai, by contrast, is nailed to the tracks in the conviction of her character, as the upwardly mobile Sugar; pulling herself out of the stench thanks to the interest of Rackham who gradually exalts her social profile in a London where status was everything (and boy did she have status in the underworld, starting off as the top prostitute in London). Her gritty but sometimes tender performance is the beating heart of the book and this ultimately excellent adaptation.It's still on iplayer but I'd wait for the DVD and splash out.For me it would play out better as an epic four hour movie rather than a four part TV series.Wonderful. Bring on the BAFTAs. (And the Emmys).

jane_concannon As a fan of Victorian-era drama, this 4-part adaptation of a Michel Faber book of the same name is right up my street. It is the story of a London prostitute called Sugar (played by Romola Garai) who takes the fancy of a well-to-do merchant Mr Rackham (Chris O'Dowd) and how their relationship develops. What starts of as a purely sexual thing, soon become much more than that and Sugar becomes increasingly involved in Mr Rackham's home and business life. The whole production is fantastic - from the stylistic direction right down to the set design, costumes, music and acting. Romola Garia and Chris O'Dowd particularly stand out, as does Amanda Hale as the mentally disturbed wife. I have just finished watching the 3rd episode and did not want it to end, it was that gripping. I can't wait to read the book and only hope it is half as good as this series. I will definitely buy this when it comes out on DVD and watch it again. All in all, highly recommended!

jeanwinchester I rarely write reviews. However...within two episodes, the BBC licence this year has been worth paying. And with gratitude. Quite fond of a Victorian drama, everything about this series is magnificent. The detail–underarm hair on women, the ugly charm of London in the nineteenth century, the wide open shots of the streets simply for a scene where one woman walks across the road–offering a tantalising view that the viewer could actually be there, the lighting, the makeup, the production, the acting, the direction... I did not recognise Gillian Anderson at all and had to refer to my paper. How far she has come. Chris O'Dowd I thought was an odd choice to begin with–but how he fitted in. Robert Sterne has to be congratulated. It is without a shadow of a doubt that the next two episodes will not disappoint. I must rush out and buy the book. First class.