North and South

Excellent series although often lacks some of the atmospheric drama of the later version. Having read the book, I felt that this version captured the Victorian atmosphere with the restraints of the era very well as depicted in the book. The later version gets more in to the mood of the players and the passionate undercurrents do sweep you along. I do think that the earlier portrayal of Mr. Higgins is far superior than the later version. On the whole, this version is what one would expect after reading the book and the ending is more faithful to the story and in my opinion better than the fictitious ending in the later version. Both are great though in their own way and I would rate them equally.

I love the novel and I've seen the 2004 mini-series. I watched this one on YouTube after reading a review that said it was more faithful to the book than the more recent one. I disagree. It is more like the book than the 2004 series in some ways, but not in other ways. It lacks emotional nuance and character motivations are completely lost. I'm glad I didn't buy it.

If you are a fan of Patrick Stewart, this may be worth a watch. He is young and has hair. His acting in this is solid as always, but he is the only redeeming part. His fake "Northern" accent is a bit weird, but OK.

Most of the other actors are mediocre or just terrible. I especially didn't like the lead actress. The camera and lighting quality are low which also made it hard to watch. I was often distracted by the edges of the picture being blurry, which must be from using cheap zoom lenses.

At 4 hours long, with slow pacing, this was almost unbearable to get through, but Patrick Stewart's performance made it worth finishing. The story is also good, but I've been told the 2004 version is better.

It's sooo bad, poor acting and sadness. Thanks GOD, they made adaptations in 2004, better acting, more romance and magnificent soundtracks take you to the sky of the victori time. I believe Armitage and Daniela have more chemistry between them, dressed up and more convenient

Having previously seen the 2004 series and reading the novel, I feel I can't really judge this mini-series on its own merit.

It is true to the spirit of the novel and follows pretty closely the major plot lines. It was, naturally, missing some things that I loved in the novel. And it didn't quite have the character or plot development as the 2004 series.

However, the acting was very strong throughout. Stewart makes a great John Thornton. He seems strong even as he's clearly longing for Margaret. Shanks is pretty effective as Margaret. She's very expressive in her face although I felt her Margaret was lacking some subtle feisty-ness. The supporting cast was excellent -- I particularly liked Byron as Mrs. Thornton. (What a great character Mrs. Thornton is in both series!) The only weakness I noticed was Bessy Higgins but they hardly gave the actress anything to work with. The Bessy-Margaret relationship was particularly well-done in the 2004 series. In the 1975 series Bessy is just a caricature.

Ultimately, this series suffers most from the staging and production quality. The first part seems very claustrophobic with most scenes taking place in small drawing rooms. Most of the sets are small and much of production seemed "stagey." I understand that back then they usually didn't put much money into TV mini-series.

I was happy to see that this production had an ending closer to the novel than the 2004 series.

This series will likely only be of interest to fans of the novel and those wanting to compare it to the 2004 series.