Opiniones de usuarios

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.

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

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.

... 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

...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.

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!

Oldies may miss the star wattage and lush production values of the Merchant Ivory film (not to mention Helena BC's towering curly coif), but this BBC reboot is just about perfectly cast, and the 4-ep series format gives screenwriter Kenneth Lonergan (Manchester by the Sea) lots of room to maneuver. Forster's novel was basically a snapshot of the English caste system c. 1910, the year when, according to Virginia Woolf, "human character changed," though this observation mainly seems to apply to one of his three sets of characters--the Schlegel sisters, suffragists and anti-colonialists who host woke discussion groups and eat at health food restaurants where customers say things like "I don't know whether I have an aura or not."

The representatives of the affluent merchant class, the Wilcoxes, are sporty, judgy and thoroughly conventional, though Matthew Macfayden, as the Wilcox paterfamilias, seems far more affable and approachable than Anthony Hopkins in that role. Julia Ormond is splendid as the first Mrs Wilcox, a traditionalist who thinks that women should leave the opinions to the men and who deftly heads off an interfamily crisis by shepherding everyone in to breakfast. The scenes of her brief friendship with Margaret Schlegel (played by fabulous Hayley Atwell) are especially charming; as other reviewers have pointed out, they're the only two characters that have much in the way of chemistry between them.

Forster still relied pretty heavily on old-school plot devices--chance meetings, a stolen legacy, a cast-off mistress turning up unexpectedly, a spectacular death by misadventure--and Lonergan respects his reticence and indirectness as a narrator (you won't see anyone impulsively hooking up in a rowboat, if you get my drift). This version, in keeping with current trends, does keep reminding us that London was the capital of a multicultural empire, so that, for example, Jacky Bast, a blond Cockney in the Merchant Ivory version, is a copper-skinned Cypriot played by Rosalind Eleazar (Dora in The Personal History of David Copperfield), the poster girl for non-traditional casting.

TL;DR: Recommended! Unlike its distinguished predecessor, this version's more interested in conveying Forster's observations on class and character than in recreating the opulence of Edwardian personal grooming and domestic décor.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.......